英语论文网

urfindings. The paper concludes with a discussionof the results, followed by an outline ofthe limitations of the research.
VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES BY LISTED AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005Volume 13 Number 2 March 2005
Diversity in corporate governancedisclosure practicesJackson and Carter liken discretionary corporategovernance disclosure decisions to
chiaroscuro(the management of light and shadein a picture), asserting that “management ofwhat is lit and what remains in the shadowsis purposeful, and is done for effect” (1995,p. 1). Similarly Labelle asserts that corporategovernance issues have become so significantthat it is likely firms use information aboutthem for “impression management” (2002, p.12). Even where disclosure requirements exist,
there is usually substantial latitude affordedmanagers in relation to the quality and quantityof disclosure about company-specificgovernance practices (Labelle, 2002).Empirical evidence is consistent with these
claims. For example, Sauer (1996) reports the
results of a 1995 survey by the Australian
Society of Certified Practicing Accountants in
which it was found that 43 per cent of the top
100 listed Australian companies made nospecific corporate governance disclosures. Anumber of companies disclosing corporategovernance information for the first time indicatedthat the practices subject to disclosurehad been in place for some time and it wasnoted that there was considerable diversity inthe nature and extent of disclosures that werebeing made. Labelle (2002) reports the resultsof a Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants’study of corporate governance disclosureswhich concluded that large gaps exist inthe disclosures made. Bujaki and McConomy(2002) analysed the Toronto Stock Exchange(TSE) guidelines on corporate governancepractices and the disclosure practices of firmsaffected by those guidelines. They found thatvery few firms had fully adopted the guidelinesand that there was wide variation in the
extent of disclosure of corporate governance ractices between firms.
Corporate governance disclosurerequirements in Australia
The current requirements for disclosure of corporategovernance practices in Australia havedeveloped from a reform process that began inthe early 1990s. In 1990 Henry Bosch, Chairmanof the Australian National Companies
and Securities Commission (now the AustralianSecurities and Investment Commission),chaired a working group made up ofmembers of leading Australian business andprofessional organisations. This group was
formed to “discuss growing public concernabout standards of corporate behaviourrevealed in recent high profile corporatecollapses and to recommend action to promotehigher standards of corporate conduct”(Bosch, 1990, p. 4).The group produced a guide,Corporate Practicesand Conduct
, in 1991 which was revised
and reissued in 1993 and 1995. The guide was
intended to inform directors, auditors, accountants
and investors about principles of goodcorporate practice and “to spread and reinforcehigh standards of corporate conduct”(Bosch, 1991, p. 1). As such the guide wasconcerned more with what constituted goodor acceptable practice than with disclosuresabout those practices. The guide did contain a ecommendation, however, that public companies
include a statement in their annual reports indicating that they support and adhere to the governance principles s