Skip to main content

“Do as the Romans Do in Rome”?

A “Pragmatic” Corporate Governance Perspective Beyond Ethical Relativism in Asian Emerging Economies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dimensions of Teaching Business Ethics in Asia

Abstract

When doing business in Asia, one cannot escape the feeling that ethical norms and values are not “valued” that highly nor exist there obvious incentives to behave ethically in the fierce competitive Asian emerging markets. One could even question the ethical sensitivity to ethical values as they are often violated. Moreover, corruption is prevalent in the Asian emerging markets as surveys consistently reveal. However, since the debilitating Asian crisis of 1997–2001, governance structures have been dramatically improved throughout Asia. Despite the considerable improvements, Asian companies are still lacking behind in terms of transparency, accountability to all its shareholders and being responsible to affected stakeholders. This is mainly because insiders in family or state owned enterprises still rule most of the biggest Asian companies. Moreover, when ethical business principles are propagated in Asia, these theoretical ethical concepts originate more often than not from Western philosophy. Is it surprising that a Chinese culture might prefer to adhere to Confucian, Mencius or Lao Tse’s principles, or that Indonesians or Indians are likely more familiar with the ancient epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata, narratives of good and evil? In business, however, allegedly attempting to apply ethical principles – be it teleological, deontological or consequentialist in nature – have largely remained a mere public relations exercise to convince others about their presumed good ethical intentions. The reality on the ground is often quite different: powerful business elite in ‘tacit’ or even explicit collaboration with the politicians and public officials rule vast business empires. This political elite uses the “rule by law” instead of making sure their business “associates” abide by the rule of law. Relationship building is a survival mechanism in those emerging Asian markets where one faces enormous institutional voids. Unfortunately, those relationships can easily turn into nepotistic and corrupt networks. Most business executives will therefore adapt the adage to “do as the Romans do in Rome” to survive in such uncertain and fierce environments where one cannot fully rely on contractual enforcement or arm’s length governance structures.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, F. 2005. Corporate governance in emerging economies. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 21(2): 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, S.M. 2008. The new corporate governance in theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M.H., and A.H. Tenrbunsel. 2011. Ethical Breakdowns, Harvard Business Review, April: 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebchuk, L., A. Cohen, and A. Ferrell. 2004. What matters in corporate governance? Harvard Discussion Paper no. 491 as revised for publication in The Review of Financial Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bown, L.D., and M.L. Caylor. 2006. Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25: 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairnes, M. (ed.). 2003. Boards that work. Sydney: Australian Institute of Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, J. 2010. A case for global governance theory: Practitioners avoid it, academics narrow it, the world needs it. Corporate Governance: An International Review 18(2): 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charan, R. 2005. Boards that deliver. Advantages corporate governance from compliance to competitive advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charan, R. 2009. Owning up. The 14 questions every board member needs to ask. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, V.Z., J. Li, and D.M. Shapiro. 2011. Are OECD-prescribed Good Corporate Governance Practices really good in Emerging Economy? Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28: 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, D.H., and S.L. Gillan (eds.). 2009. Global corporate governance. New York: Columbia Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W. 2011. Family ownership and firm performance: Influence of family management, family control, and firm size. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28: 833–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimma, W. 2002. Excellence in the boardroom. Best practices in corporate directorship. Etobicoke: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T.L., and L.E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., and M. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26: 310–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (ed.). 2010. Stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., L. Dunham, and J. McVea. 2007. Strategic ethics – Strategy, wisdom, and stakeholder theory: A pragmatic and entrepreneurial view of stakeholder strategy. In Handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom, ed. E.H. Kessler and J.R. Bailey, 151–180. Los Angeles/London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September, 32–33, 122, 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelter, M. 2009. The dark side of shareholder influence: Managerial autonomy and stakeholder orientation in comparative corporate governance. Harvard International Law Journal 50(1): 129–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J.N. 2007. The rise of independent directors in the United States, 1950–2005: of shareholder value and stock market prices. Stanford Law Review 59: 1465–1568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. 2007. Boards, governance and value creation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. 1986. Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review 76: 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, and reprinted in Clarke, Th. ed. 2004. Theories of corporate governance. The philosophical foundations of corporate governance, 58–63. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., K. Palepu, and J. Sinha. 2005. Strategies that fit emerging markets? Harvard Business Review 83(6): 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. 1998. Firm Performance and board committee structure. Journal of Law and Economics 20: 493–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larcker, D., and B. Tayan. 2011. Corporate governance matters. A closer look at organizational choice and their consequences. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B. 2012. Winning investors over. Surprising truths about honesty, earnings, guidance, and other ways to boost your stock price. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macey, J.R. 2008. Corporate governance. Promises kept, promises broken. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, P., and J.M. Shafritz (eds.). 1990. Essentials of business ethics. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L.S. 1994. Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review 72: 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M.W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. The Academy of Management Review 28(2): 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Mike W., and Jessie Qi Zhou. 2005. How network strategies and institutional transitions evolve in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 22: 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. 1972. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 218–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., and M. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review 89(1/2): 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R.G. 2010. Fault lines. How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roubini, N. 2011. Crisis economics. A crash course in the future of finance. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozuel, C. 2011. The moral threat of compartimentalization: Self, rules and responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 102: 685–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiller, R.J. 2012. Finance and the good society. Oxford/Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (ed.). 2010. A companion to ethics. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., K. Mellahi, and G.S. Liu. 2011. Corporate governance failures and contingent political resources in transition economies: A longitudinal case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28: 853–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Broeck, H., and D. Venter. 2011. Beyonders. Transcending average leadership. Leuven: Lannoo Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P. 2008a. (Ir)relevance of integrity in organizations. Public Integrity 10(2): 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P. 2008b. Guanxi: Networks or nepotism? In Europe-Asia dialogue on business spirituality, ed. Laszlo Zsolnai, 89–106. Garant: Antwerp/Apeldoorn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P. 2009. Gifts, corruption and philanthropy. The ambiguity of gift practices in business. Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P., and P. Morse. 2009. Consensus on global governance principles? Journal of International Business Ethics 2(1): 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P., and P. Morse. 2010. Fear, regret and transparency. Corporate governance embracing disclosure and integrity. WorldBank-NACC (Thailand). Public Affairs Publishing, 27–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhezen, P., P. Notowidigdo, and E. Riyana Hardjapamekas (eds.). 2012. Improving corporate governance in Indonesia. What do Indonesian corporations gain from good corporate governance? Jakarta, University of Indonesia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshikawa, T., and P.H. Phan. 2001. Alternative corporate governance systems in Japanese firms: Implications for a shift to stockholder-centered corporate governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 18: 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M.N., D. Ahlstrom, G.D. Bruton, and E.S. Chan. 2001. The resource dependence, services and control functions of board of directors in Hong Kong and Taiwanese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 18: 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Verhezen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verhezen, P., Verhezen, P., Verhezen, P. (2013). “Do as the Romans Do in Rome”?. In: Rothlin, S., Haghirian, P. (eds) Dimensions of Teaching Business Ethics in Asia. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36022-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics