Bolagsstyrningskoden och dess sanktioner : För bolaget och de enskilda ledamöterna
The company scandals in the late 1990s and early 21st century brought attention to the debate of corporate governance. The demand for good judgement and good behaviour by corporate executives in order to manage the money of other people, enhances the need for effective incentives in order to make the executives fulfil their obligations. As a result of these scandals, the Swedish government appointed Förtroendekommissionen, whose task was to work out measures to enhance the confidence of Swedish economy. A year later Kodgruppen was appointed, and the final result of their work is the Swed-ish code of corporate governance that now is a part of the Stockholm stock exchange rules.The reason, in the choice between legislation and self-regulation through a code, that the choice became self-regulation is the flexibility, rapidity and adaptability to the dif-ferent conditions in the Swedish economy that this regulation possesses. The Swedish code of corporate governance is also semi optional through the principle comply or ex-plain, which means that a company is allowed to choose not to observe all the rules in the Code, provided that they are able to explain the reason for each of the deviations. To differ from the Code can even, in some circumstances, be a requirement for good corpo-rate governance.When the rules of the Code fits under the natural interpretation area of the Swedish lim-ited liability company law, the Code works as a tool in the interpretation about the li-ability for the corporate executives. This is possible because the Code makes the liabil-ity of the executives real, this through their duty to take good care of the company. The unauthorized company bodies that are founded according to the rules of the Code, are being judged differently depending of their position in the company hierarchy. The un-authorized company body called election board, and its members, are in the same way as the members of the board, trustees of the company. Considering this, it is important that involved parties such as the company itself, their shareholders and third parties, have the possibility to claim liability of a member of the election board that has been neglecting his duties. To describe all of the other unauthorized company bodies, such as the audit committee and the compensation committee, as independent company bodies are partly misleading, because it is only a matter of delegation of tasks within the board, and not the founding of a new body, as it is in the case with the election board. The li-ability is therefore to be judged after the same preferences as in other delegation of tasks within the board. The fact that there is no official authority that monitors and approves the explanations given by the companies of why they do not follow the guidelines given by the Code, has the consequence that it is up to the market to decide whether the explanation has a qual-ity that can be approved. The market will also be the one that punish companies who has explanations of poor quality. The use of the principle comply or explain, or rather the lack of monitoring its explanations, has as a consequence that the Code will not be-come the sharpening tool for Swedish corporate governance that it was supposed to be in the original idea.
School:Högskolan i Jönköping
Source Type:Master's Thesis
Keywords:company law corporate governance damages comply or explain
Date of Publication:06/13/2006