Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anglo-American Board Model (One-Tier) Versus European Model (Two-Tier)

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management

  • 11 Accesses

Synonyms

One-tier board model versus two-tier board model; Outsider system versus insider system; Shareholder-oriented systems versus relationship-based system; Unitary model versus dual model

Definition

One-tier and two-tier models are the typical expressions used to describe how corporate governance is structured in a company, in compliance with its country’s legislation.

In a one-tier model, corporate governance prerogatives are assigned to a single board, named the board of directors. This board is usually appointed by the shareholders’ meeting, and according to the law, it exercises both direction and control. The one-tier model is typical of the Anglo-American countries, but it can be found in other world regions too.

A two-tier model consists of two separate corporate governance boards, which are appointed in sequence. The process starts with the appointment of the supervisory board by the shareholders’ meeting; the employees can also take part in the nomination process, if it...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 2,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 3,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amindav, G., & Papaioannou, E. (2016). Corporate control around the world. NBER working paper series, working paper 23010. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23010. Accessed Jan 10, 2019.

  • Andersen, J. G., & Hoff, J. (2001). Democracy and citizenship in Scandinavia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Astori, R., & Bosetti, L. (2010). Corporate governance systems facing the economic crisis. In G. T. Papanikos (Ed.), International developments in management research (pp. 37–62). Athens: Athens Institute for Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable. (2019). Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. https://s3.amazonaws.com/brt.org/May-2022BRTStatementonthePurposeofaCorporationwithSignatures.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2022.

  • G20/OECD. (2015). Principles of corporate governance. OECD Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/g20-oecd-principles-of-corporate-governance-2015_9789264236882-en. Accessed Jan 10, 2019.

  • Gogineni, S., Linn, S. C., & Yadav, P. K. (2016). Vertical and horizontal agency costs: Evidence from public and private firms. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2024597.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hackethal, A., Schmidt, R. H., & Tyrell, M. (2005). Banks and German corporate governance: On the way to a capital market-based system? Corporate Governance. An International Review, 13(3), 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00434.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. M., & Pugliese, M. (2004). Sarbanes-Oxley and environmental disclosures. Environment and energy business law reporter (December). Environmental, energy and natural resources Committee of the Business law Section of the American Bar association (ABA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopt, K. J. (2013). Comparative corporate governance: The state of the art and international regulation. In A. M. Fleckne & K. J. Hopt (Eds.), Comparative corporate governance. A functional and international analysis. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungmann, C. (2006). The effectiveness of corporate governance in one-tier and two-tier board systems – Evidence from the UK and Germany. European Company and Financial Law Review, 3(4), 426–474. https://doi.org/10.1515/ECFR.2006.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. (2017). France. In W. J. L. Calkoen (Ed.), The corporate governance review. London: The Law Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Board practices: Incentives and governing risks. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113534-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). OECD Corporate Governance Factbook (p. 2017).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Trade unions: Trade union density. OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics (database).https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00371-en.

  • Penbera, J. J. (2009). What lead directors do. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott, R. (2009). A systemic evaluation of the German corporate governance code: The battle between inconsistency and persistence. In F. J. Lopez (Ed.), Codes of good governance around the world (pp. 187–214). UK: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvioni, D. M., & Bosetti, L. (2006). Corporate governance report and stakeholder view. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management (symphonya.Unimib.It), 1, 24–46. https://doi.org/10.4468/2006.1.03salvioni.bosetti.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvioni, D. M., Gennari, F., Bosetti, L., & Almici, A. (2015). The audit committee in the EU emerging countries. In S. Boubaker & D. K. Nguyen (Eds.), Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: Emerging markets focus (pp. 211–234). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvioni, D. M., Gennari, F., & Bosetti, L. (2016). Sustainability and convergence: The future of corporate governance systems? Sustainability, 8(11), 1203. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer Stuart. (2016). Boards around the world. International comparison.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Management, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Luisa Bosetti

Authors
  1. Luisa Bosetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luisa Bosetti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law London Metropolitan University, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

    Samuel O. Idowu

  2. BFH - Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    René Schmidpeter

  3. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Nicholas Capaldi

  4. International Training Centre of the IL, International Labor Organization, Turin, Italy

    Liangrong Zu

  5. Department of Economics, Society and Politics, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy

    Mara Del Baldo

  6. Instituto Politécnico da Guarda, Guarda, Portugal

    Rute Abreu

Section Editor information

  1. Mediterranean Research Center on Economics and Sustainable Development, Economics and Business Department, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

    Pedro Antonio Martín-Cervantes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bosetti, L. (2023). Anglo-American Board Model (One-Tier) Versus European Model (Two-Tier). In: Idowu, S.O., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_796

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation