Your IndustryJun 19 2014

Governance codes too cluttered: Standard Life

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by

The global head of governance and stewardship at Standard Life Investments said: “We now have [governance] codes for remuneration consultants, audit firms and proxy advisers, to name but three. The time has come to cut the clutter.

“We are concerned that the improving trend of investor stewardship in recent years could be running out of steam.”

Mr Jubb said current corporate governance and stewardship codes should be pruned to promote accountability “in a thoughtful and considered way”.

He said Standard Life Investments wanted investors to become responsible for the long-term success of the companies they invested in.

According to Mr Jubb, the changes to the pensions market and the growth of sovereign wealth funds have contributed to increased global dispersion of ownership, leading to a dilution of customer stewardship of companies in which they invest.

He added that the UK was “swamped” with codes and needed to adapt to changing global markets, saying: “There is a threat from politicians and the regulators should shareholders fail to exercise their rights and responsibilities of governance and ownership”.

For accountability and transparency to survive in the global marketplace, Mr Jubb said advisers needed to be more effective in respect of the explanations they provided. Investment managers also needed to be more accountable to clients, he said.

Adviser view

Paul Holiday, financial adviser at Norwich-based Greensky Wealth, said: “I expect this is the result of previous poor practices, especially in the commission arena, pre-RDR. If you are confident in what you are doing, and with the processes you have in place, governance is not overbearing and, like transparency, is integral to our work.”