A group of 21 CEOs and institutional investors have released Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance 2.0:
A little more than two years ago, we published the Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance. That work represented a collaborative effort – a search for common ground – by representatives of some of America’s largest corporations and institutional investors. We said then, and it is no less true today, that the long-term prosperity of millions of American workers, retirees and investors depends on the effective governance of our public companies. We hoped that our Principles would be part of a larger dialogue about the responsibilities and need for constructive engagement of those companies, their boards and their investors. We think that has been the case. Other groups have published their own works on the subject. Among them are an investor-led effort by the Investor Stewardship Group (ISG) called the Framework for U.S. Stewardship and Governance, a business-led effort by the Business Roundtable (BRT) called Principles of Corporate Governance, and a piece by the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum called The New Paradigm. ...
Today, we endorse the ISG Framework, the BRT Principles and The New Paradigm as counterweights to unhealthy short-termism. Indeed, a number of the companies and organizations represented in those efforts were also part of ours. Moreover, in light of the work of the ISG, the BRT the World Economic Forum and others, and after further reflection on our own Commonsense Principles, we decided to re-convene and revise the Principles – we call them Commonsense Principles 2.0. Ultimately, we hope that the many sets of corporate governance principles currently in circulation can be harmonized and consolidated, and reflect the combined views of companies and investors. We do worry that dueling or competing principles could impede, rather than promote, healthy corporate governance practices.
We are also today making a commitment to apply the Commonsense Principles 2.0 in our businesses – and we hope others will do so as well.
I critiqued version 1.0 as offering "Some feel good platitudes. Some commonsense. And some pure bunkum." And defended that conclusion against attack.
On quick glance, it looks like the same critique applies to the new version. I may give it a more detailed review later.
