Ritchie writes, in relation to Olympus:

The first is to note that a situation where an overly strong board of directors with weak or non-existent nonexecutive directors, none of them accountable to effective shareholder scrutiny gives rise to a situation where corruption and abuse is far too easy. We should not be complacent and think that this applies to Japan alone. This is also an accurate description of the UK quoted company environment where boards are almost entirely unaccountable, whether to non-executive directors (almost all of whom are recruited from the same small coterie of people) or to shareholders, where institutions dominate. Since, however, those institutions show no willingness to act on behalf of those whom they are supposed to represent, but do instead align their self-interest with the City of London and in turn with the companies they are supposed to be monitoring, we have no effective governance of these arrangements in the UK either, so we have no reason to take comfort from this situation by pretending it is peculiar to Japan alone

So, a case of dodgy corporate governance that took place in Japan is proof that UK corporate governance is ineffective?

No, I can't accept it, Richard. Put up balanced, objective evidence from the UK, or shut up.

People who read this post also read:

• Bad news for the audit-bashers
• The lazy anti-auditor rhetoric must stop
• Dual standards at Tax Research UK
• A very strange idea indeed
• Ritchie on the teaching of accountancy

Filed under: Corporate governance, Other blogs with tags japan, olympus, richard murphy