|
Scientific paper ID 1066 : 2014/3
![]() CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
Emil Velinov For the economies of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region, the decade preceding the financial crisis was a period marked by rapid growth. Foreign investors had been investing widely throughout the region, whilst local entrepreneurs were also growing their businesses quickly. The impetus for this growth and development came in part from the privatisation and deregulation of many areas of business, as well as EU membership, which helped to facilitate cross-border trade and open up new financing opportunities for local companies. Against this background of rapid growth, considerations of proper corporate governance often took a back seat in the race for market share and profit, particularly in the absence of co-ordinated pressure from investors, or any consistent drive by regulators and governments to prioritise this area. For anyone who is familiar with the corporate governance environments that have developed in recent years in other markets, the corporate governance picture in the CEE region looks markedly different in a number of ways. The key reasons for this are the relatively short histories of the CEE countries as market economies and the absence of powerful investor groups across the region. In the case of Romania and Bulgaria, relatively recent EU accession has also meant that these jurisdictions are still in the process of adapting themselves to take account of EU-led initiatives such as the European Action Plan on Company Law and Corporate Governance, as well as relevant legislation such as the Transparency and Prospectus Directives.
корпоративно управление строителни фирми Централна и Източна ЕвропаCorporate Governance Construction Companies Central and Eastern EuropeEmil Velinov BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Ownership and Governance’, Stanford Law Review, 52, 127-170 [2] Byrne, Jay, et al. (2005). Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics Is Undermining The Genetic Revolution in Agriculture. [3] Chang, C.Y., Chou, H.Y. and Wang, M. T. (2006) ‘Characterizing the corporate governance of UK listed construction companies’, Construction Management and Economics, 24(6), 647-656. [4] Colley, J., Doyle, J., Logan, G. and Stettinius, W. (2003) Corporate Governance, McGraw-Hill. [5] Eurofound (2002): Quality of work and employment in Europe - Issues and challenges. Foundation paper, No. 1, reference ef0212, February 2002 (retreived on 9.2.2011 at http://www.Eurofound.eu.int). [6] Ingley, C. and van der Walt, N. (2003) ‘Boards confi guration: building better boards’, Corporate Governance, 3(4), 5-17. [7] Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., (2003) Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century. Institute On Governance Policy Brief No. 15 – August 2003 Canada. [8] Kiel, G. and Nicholson, G. (2003) Boards that work, McGraw-Hill. [9] Meacham, B., Bowen, R., Traw, J., Moore, A. (2005) Performance-based building [10] Murphy, S. and McIntyre, M. (2007) ‘Board of director performance: a group dynamics perspective’, Corporate Governance, 7(2), 209-224. [11] Newton, R. and Ormerod, M. (2005) ‘Do disabled people have a place in the UK construction industry?’, Construction Management and Economics 23(10): 1071-1081. [12] van den Berghe, L. and Baelden, T. (2005) ‘The complex relation between director independence and board effectiveness’, Corporate Governance, 5(5), 58-83. [13] van Wyk, L. and Chege, L. (2004) ‘Globalisation, corporate governance and the construction industry’, in proceedings of International Symposium on Globalisation and Construction, 17,November, Bangkok. |