In this paper we examine the long-term interests that large institutional owners (for example, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Hermes, and the Universities Superannuation Scheme) have in the development of global corporate governance standards, especially as governance standards increasingly become intertwined with other standards and regime parameters involved in the globalization debates. We argue that institutional owners have a unique perspective and voice with which to contribute to the formulation of global standards in a variety of areas on the basis of their long-term financial interests. This conclusion is supported by an analytic review of the current state of global corporate governance, including multilateral initiatives (for example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank); an analysis of significant institutional investors, the role of various rating agencies (for example, Fitch, Moody's), the International Corporate Governance Network, and the growing role of various nongovernmental organizations (for example, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economics, the Carbon Disclosure Project) in relation to corporate governance.
Australian Stock Exchange,2003, “Principles of good corporate governance and best practice recommendations”, Australian Stock Exchange, Sydney, http://www.asx.com.au/corporategovernance
CDP, 2003, Carbon Finance and the Global Equity Market, Carbon Disclosure Project, 57A Farringdon Road, London
6.
ClarkG, 2000Pension Fund Capitalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
7.
CoffeeJJr, 2002, “Racing towards the top?: The impact of cross-listings and stock market competition on international corporate governance”, WP 205, Columbia Law School, Center for Law and Economic Studies, New York
8.
CoganD, 2003, “Corporate governance and climate change: making the connection”, a CERES sustainable governance project report prepared by the Investor Responsibility Research Center, http://www.ceres.org/pub/publication.php?pid=45
ElliottG, 2003, “Corporate governance isn't a dirty word, honest”The Herald Sun Melbourne, 16 September, http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/
13.
FéroneGd'ArcimolesC-HBelloPSessenouN, 2001Le Développement Durable [Sustainable development] (Éditions d'Organisation, Paris)
14.
FremondOCapaulM, 2002, “The state of corporate governance: experience from country assessments”, World Bank Policy, WP 2858, World Bank, Washington, DC, http://econ.worldbank.org
15.
Genesis,2003, “Investibility screening in emerging markets”, report prepared for the CalPERS Investment Committee, 20 October, California Public Employee Retirement System, Lincoln Plaza, Sacramento, CA
HawleyJPWilliamsAT, 2000The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism: How Institutional Investors Can Make Corporate America More Democratic (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA)
Innovest,2002, “Value at risk: climate change and the future of governance for the Sustainable Governance Project of the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economics (CERES)”, Innovest Strategic Value Advisory, Inc., New York, http://www.ceres.org/pub/publication.php?pid=37
24.
Innovest,2003, “Innovest releases global textile report with leaders in social responsibility outperforming laggards by 23% over last three years”, Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, Inc., New York, 10 September, http://www.innovestgroup.com/pdfs/2003-09-10textiles_report.pdf
25.
ISS, 2003, “Institutional Shareholder Services—2003 post-season report: the end of the routine proxy”, Institutional Shareholder Services, 2099 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD
McBrideS, 2003, “London Stock Exchange steps up efforts to win secondary listings”The Wall Street Journal 9 October
28.
OECD, Organisation for European Co-operation and Development, Paris1999, “Principles of Corporate Governance”, http://www.oecd.org
29.
OECD, Organisation for European Co-operation and Development, Paris2000, “The OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises—Revision 2000”, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/1922428.pdf
OmanC, 2003, “Corporate governance in development—the concept, the issues, the policy implications”, in Corporate Governance in Development: The Experiences of Brazil, Chile, India and South Africa manuscript, Ed. OmanC, OECD Development Centre and the Centre for International Private Enterprise, Paris, pp 3–28
32.
SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC2003a, “Final rule: disclosure of proxy voting policies and proxy voting records by registered management investment companies”, 17 CFR parts 239, 249, 270, 274, release numbers 33-8188, 34-47304, IC-25922, file number S7-36-02, RIN 3235-AI64, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8188.htm
33.
SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC2003b, “Final rule: proxy voting by investment advisers”, 17 CFR part 275, release number IA-2106, file number S7-38-02, RIN 3235-AI65, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2106.htm
34.
SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC2003c, “Staff report: review of the proxy process regarding the nomination and election of directors”, http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/proxyrpt.htm
35.
ShinJGourevitchP, 2002, “How shareholder reforms can pay foreign policy dividends”, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Corp_Gov_paper.pdf
36.
SolomonD, 2003, “SEC may boost holder's power to nominate, elect directors”The Wall Street Journal 9 October
