DOCSLIB.ORG

Download the 2017 Good Governance Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download the 2017 Good Governance Report The 2017 Good Governance Report The great governance debate continued Supported by Good Governance Report Contents Page Executive summary 4 Preface from the Institute of Directors 6 Supporting statement from the Chartered 8 Quality Institute Foreword from Cass Business School 9 Introduction to the report 10 Overview of methodology and results 11 Table 1: Full list of 2017 GGI scores by company 12 Selection of corporate governance indicators 14 Table 2: Full list of corporate governance indicators 16 and their justification Calculating the Good Governance Index 18 Appendix 1: Data sources for corporate governance 22 indicators Appendix 2: Company scores in each of the five 24 corporate governance categories Advisory panel 26 Acknowledgements 29 3 Good Governance Report Executive summary • The IoD Good Governance Index (GGI) is an • For 2017, the highest GGI scores are achieved innovative way for external stakeholders to by Diageo, Aviva, GKN, Barclays, Smiths Group, assess the overall standard of corporate Prudential, RSA Insurance Group, International governance at the largest UK-listed companies. Consolidated Airlines Group, InterContinental Launched in 2015, it is now in its third year. Hotels Group and Compass Group. We find no The GGI initiative is an important component particular correlation between the GGI score of the IoD’s Royal Charter commitment to and company size. However, the average score promote the study, research and development of companies from the energy and utilities of corporate governance. sectors is significantly higher than the overall GGI mean score. In contrast, the average score • The GGI is intended to stimulate an ongoing of the information technology sector is debate about the importance of good corporate significantly lower. governance and how it can be measured and improved. Going forward, we would like to • A unique feature of the GGI methodology is that broaden the scope of this debate beyond a stakeholder survey of governance perceptions the largest listed companies and consider is used to calculate the weights that are applied how our findings can be applied to other kinds to each governance category in the calculation of organisation. Consequently, the intended of final company scores. This contrasts with readership of this report encompasses anyone the approach used by many other corporate with an interest in the design and application governance indices, which attach equal weight of sound corporate governance. to each individual indicator. As a result, our methodology is less vulnerable to manipulation • The GGI is calculated by looking at how and attaches greater importance to those companies score across 47 governance indicators that exert the greatest impact indicators. These indicators are grouped into on external governance perceptions. five broad categories of corporate governance: Board Effectiveness; Audit and Risk/External • Among our five categories of corporate Accountability; Remuneration and Reward; governance, those indicators measuring Shareholder Relations; and Stakeholder Audit and Risk/External Accountability Relations. Specific indicators are chosen are most strongly correlated with external in order to reflect a broad conception of governance perceptions. Those indicators corporate governance which not only takes seeking to measure Board Effectiveness are into account the interests of shareholders but the least correlated. This finding may reflect also considers how governance is working for the importance placed by stakeholders on the other key stakeholders. robustness of risk governance systems at the current time. It may also suggest that we must • The indicators included in the GGI are selected continue with our efforts to identify insightful by an advisory panel of leading corporate indicators which better capture the crucial governance experts from both within and contribution to good governance provided outside the IoD. The panel is chaired by Ken by boards of directors. Olisa, the deputy chair of the IoD. In addition, the design and publication of the GGI is supported by two partner institutions: Cass Business School, who serve as academic advisors, and the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI), who bring an operational perspective to the GGI’s development. In 2017, the number of indicators included in the Index increased from 34 to 47, reflecting the advisory panel’s efforts to widen the scope of corporate behaviour captured by the GGI. 4 Good Governance Report Preface from the Institute of Directors by Ken Olisa OBE, chairman of the advisory panel and deputy chair, IoD Welcome to the Good Governance Report, the • Extending application of the UK Corporate Institute of Directors' third annual corporate Governance Code beyond listed companies governance ranking of the top UK companies. to encompass large private businesses Two years ago, the IoD launched the Great Although this activity has been welcome, it is Governance Debate with the twin objectives of: a matter of regret that the bulk of the focus has been not on the broad complexities of corporate • Fulfilling our Royal Charter obligation to promote governance, but on the narrower matter of development of the law and practice of UK compliance with societally acceptable norms of corporate governance behaviour. Just as the original Combined Code • Ensuring that the debate was led by grew out of a reaction to the Maxwell, BCCI and practitioners – directors – rather than policy Polly Peck accounting scandals, today’s policy specialists, professional advisors and legislators makers focus on tackling issues which are considered to be bad business conduct. Twenty-four months later, while we can chalk up significant success on the first objective, we still Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted have much work to do on the second. is legitimate if it prevents a stampede but it doesn’t begin to address the underlying causes Admittedly, although it is a topic which has rarely of failure which, in the case of boards, is the been out of the headlines since we first set about breakdown of the system of control and direction. creating a way to rank the UK’s top companies’ performance, the IoD can’t really claim credit for The legislators’ single-mindedness is underlined by the recent and unprecedented interest in the prime minister’s preface to the government’s corporate governance. green paper response, in which she said: Instead the minds of parliamentarians, “We have also seen worrying evidence that a shareholders, employee organisations and the small minority of our companies are falling short media have been concentrated by market events of the high standards we expect. I want to tackle such as the collapse of BHS, Sports Direct’s these problems and strengthen people’s faith in continuing battles and the mooted listing of five a well-regulated free market economy.” per cent of Saudi Aramco coupled with a rumbling While not in any way dismissing the importance of undercurrent of rebellions over boardroom pay. addressing that “worrying lack of trust”, the IoD’s One of the biggest interventions came from the approach to good governance has a higher-order Department for Business, Energy and Industrial objective. We aren’t in the business of adding to Strategy select committee which, having conducted regulation and its inevitable conclusion that one an exhaustive and detailed inquiry, published their size fits all. Rather, we have set about identifying recommendations in an April 2017 report: a set of instrumental factors which every board should seek to optimise in order to achieve “British businesses must act on corporate competitive advantage for their business. governance, executive pay including long-term incentive plans, and boardroom diversity to Our starting point is the law. The 2006 Companies maintain the country's strong international Act requires directors to act in the way they standing in corporate governance and address consider, in good faith, would be most likely to a worrying lack of trust of business among promote the success of the company for the the public.” benefit of its shareholders as a whole and, in doing so, have regard to the long-term impact In parallel, the government responded to concerns of their decisions on a wide range of stakeholders. about that “worrying lack of trust” with a green Effective governance is a prerequisite to this paper and a manifesto pledge which has resulted – not when viewed through the lens of those in proposed legislation to address three priorities: who promote box-ticking compliance but rather • Executive pay as defined in the UK’s seminal review of the • Strengthening the boardroom voice of subject, the Cadbury Report, published in 1992: stakeholders, especially that of employees “Corporate governance is the system by which 6 Good Governance Report companies are directed and controlled. The is a simplification of a complex set of interactions responsibilities of the board include setting which in aggregate will produce a result. The the company’s strategic aims, providing the same is true in the Good Governance Index. leadership to put them into effect, supervising From any board’s perspective, the GGI’s power the management of the business and reporting comes not from any intra-league comparisons, to shareholders on their stewardship.” but by a thoughtful analysis of the 47 instrumental factors and their relevance to their own What we, the practitioners, are seeking to achieve competitive position. is a better understanding of the behavioural
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parker Review
    Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership An update report from The Parker Review Sir John Parker The Parker Review Committee 5 February 2020 Principal Sponsor Members of the Steering Committee Chair: Sir John Parker GBE, FREng Co-Chair: David Tyler Contents Members: Dr Doyin Atewologun Sanjay Bhandari Helen Mahy CBE Foreword by Sir John Parker 2 Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE Foreword by the Secretary of State 6 Trevor Phillips OBE Message from EY 8 Tom Shropshire Vision and Mission Statement 10 Yvonne Thompson CBE Professor Susan Vinnicombe CBE Current Profile of FTSE 350 Boards 14 Matthew Percival FRC/Cranfield Research on Ethnic Diversity Reporting 36 Arun Batra OBE Parker Review Recommendations 58 Bilal Raja Kirstie Wright Company Success Stories 62 Closing Word from Sir Jon Thompson 65 Observers Biographies 66 Sanu de Lima, Itiola Durojaiye, Katie Leinweber Appendix — The Directors’ Resource Toolkit 72 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Thanks to our contributors during the year and to this report Oliver Cover Alex Diggins Neil Golborne Orla Pettigrew Sonam Patel Zaheer Ahmad MBE Rachel Sadka Simon Feeke Key advisors and contributors to this report: Simon Manterfield Dr Manjari Prashar Dr Fatima Tresh Latika Shah ® At the heart of our success lies the performance 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent of our many great companies, many of them listed pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. There is no doubt home and overseas markets which will influence that one reason we have been able to punch recruitment patterns for years to come above our weight as a medium-sized country is the talent and inventiveness of our business leaders Whilst we have made great strides in bringing and our skilled people.
    [Show full text]
  • Smurfit Kappa Annual Report 2009
    SMURFIT KAPPA GROUP PLC ANNUAL REPORT 2009 ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Raw materials The raw material for paper-based packaging comes from renewable sources and the end product is recycled many times making all forms of SKG’s paper-based packaging the most environmentally friendly available. SKG recovers almost 5 million tonnes of recycled paper each year in Europe where it is the European leader in recycling and 0.8 million tonnes in Latin America where it also holds a leading position. Almost all of this is sourced through our own recovery systems. Modern mills The Group produces well over 6 million tonnes of paper, primarily in the containerboard, solidboard and sackpaper grades, at its 38 mills across the world. The Group is the leading producer of containerboard in Europe and one of the largest in Latin America using wood and recovered paper to manufacture kraftliner and recycled paper grades respectively. Our containerboard production is integrated into our corrugated operations. Operating excellence The product range of our containerboard mills covers the complete spectrum of paper and board including features such as weight, colour and printability. On the packaging side, our extensive presence in 21 European and 9 Latin American countries allows us to offer customers a “one stop shop” for all their packaging needs and a differentiated quality of service. With a strong focus on innovative packaging solutions, our operations are supported by outstanding research and development facilities with a view to enhancing the customer offering. Design expertise/Innobook In SKG we have created “Innobook”, a library with over 3,000 proven design solutions, which is available to the more than 500 designers within our worldwide group and to both our sales and customer support people.
    [Show full text]
  • From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 16 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 3 Winter 2020 From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability Min Yan Daoning Zhang Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Min Yan and Daoning Zhang, From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability, 16 Hastings Bus. L.J. 43 (2020). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol16/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 - YAN _ZHANG - V9 - KC - 10.27.19.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2019 11:11 AM From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability Min Yan* and Daoning Zhang** I. INTRODUCTION The concept of corporate responsibility or corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) keeps evolving since it appeared. The emphasis was first placed on business people’s social conscience rather than on the company itself, which was well reflected by Howard Bowen’s landmark book, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.1 Then CSR was defined as responsibilities to society, which extends beyond economic and legal obligations by corporations.2 Since then, corporate responsibility is thought to begin where the law ends. 3 In other words, the concept of social responsibility largely excludes legal obedience from the concept of social responsibility. An analysis of 37 of the most used definitions of CSR also shows “voluntary” as one of the most common dimensions.4 Put differently, corporate responsibility reflects the belief that corporations have duties beyond generating profits for their shareholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Governance and Responsibility Foundations of Market Integrity
    CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Spotlight OECD principles Corporate governance and responsibility Foundations of market integrity Bill Witherell, Head, OECD Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs © Getty Images Good governance goes he recent spate of US corporate investment assessments followed by a sharp beyond common sense. It is failures and breakdowns in truthful market correction that spelt the end for a key part of the contract Taccounting has undermined people’s thousands of high-tech wannabes. Still, it is faith in financial reporting, corporate difficult to disentangle the negative effects that underpins economic leadership, and the integrity of markets the these two parallel developments have had on growth in a market economy world over. The fact that the wave of the confidence of investors. scandals has come hot on the heels of a and public faith in that collapse in the high-tech bubble has a sharp With the bursting of the high-tech bubble, system. The OECD ironic flavour. Both events have their roots in share values were written down and venture Principles of Corporate the heady days of stock market exuberance, capitalists took a bruising, as did many when anything was possible, from creating shareholders. That is the downside of Governance and Guidelines multibillion dollar companies with little committing resources to investments with a for Multinational more than an idea, an investment angel and high risk/high reward profile. But in the cases Enterprises are two a lot of faith, to believing that markets would of corporate misbehaviour, the public, buy any yarn a group of fast-talking employees and pensioners were deliberately essential instruments for executives could spin, even if to cover up misled.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Behaviour
    CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR Sustainability Focus Report 2016 As a major international company in a controversial sector, we are focused on creating shared value for our business and society, while continuing to work to address the health impacts of our products. A strategic approach to sustainability Our sustainability agenda focuses on the three key areas which have the greatest significance to our business and our stakeholders. Harm Sustainable Corporate Reduction Agriculture and Behaviour We are committed Farmer Livelihoods We are committed to researching, We are committed to operating to the developing and to working to enable highest standards of commercialising less prosperous livelihoods corporate conduct risky alternatives to for all farmers who and transparency. regular cigarettes. supply our tobacco leaf. Performance across all three areas can be found in our annual Sustainability Summary report. In addition, we periodically produce individual focus reports on each area. At the end of 2014, we published two reports covering Harm Reduction and Sustainable Agriculture and Farmer Livelihoods. This 2016 report covers Corporate Behaviour which underpins every area of our business. In this report 02 MARKETING RESPONSIBLY 03 CONTRIBUTING TO COMMUNITIES 04 STRENGTHENING OUR APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS 06 PROMOTING STANDARDS FOR VAPOUR PRODUCTS 08 SAFEGUARDING OUR PEOPLE 09 COLLABORATING TO TACKLE THE ILLEGAL TOBACCO TRADE 10 REDUCING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12 UPHOLDING HIGH STANDARDS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE www.bat.com/sustainability OPERATING TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF CORPORATE CONDUCT Sustainability is one of the key pillars of This is reflected through the many industry-leading our Group strategy and I see it as crucial practices we have in place, such as our approaches to our long-term success.
    [Show full text]
  • October 31St, 2019
    Quarter ended October 31, 2019 The New Ireland Fund Performance Data and Portfolio Composition QTR END NAV (unaudited) & MARKET PRICE PERFORMANCE as of 10/31/2019 NAV per share $11.09 10% Market Price $9.06 Discount to NAV -18.30% 5% 12 MONTH RANGE OF PRICES NAV high, 4/22/19 $11.52 0% NAV low, 12/27/18 $9.56 Market Price high, 4/18/19 $9.59 -5% 3 6 1 3 5 10 Incpt mths mths Year Year Year Year Market Price low,12/20/18 $7.76 NAV 8.53% 0.53% 5.38% 2.45% 4.88% 8.60% 7.11% Market Price 5.96% -1.71% 3.81% -0.56% 3.70% 7.99% 5.93% Benchmark^^ 6.15% 1.23% 6.40% 7.73% 7.01% 9.35% 7.06% Source: Fund’s Accounting Agent as of 10/31/19. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investment DISTRIBUTIONS returns and principal value will fluctuate and shares when sold, may be worth more or less than original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data Most recent* September 27, 2019 quoted. NAV return data includes investment management fees, custodial charges and administrative fees (such as Distribution, most recent $0.1115 Director and legal fees) and assumes the reinvestment of all distributions. The Fund is subject to investment risk, including the possible loss of principal. Returns for less than one year are Cumulative, 12 months $0.444 not annualized. Managed distribution rate 4.0% of Oct 31 NAV ^^The Benchmark is the MSCI All Ireland Capped Index.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Moral Disengagement in Supply Chain Management Research
    http://www.diva-portal.org Postprint This is the accepted version of a paper published in European Business Review. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Eriksson, D. (2016) The role of moral disengagement in supply chain management research. European Business Review, 28(3): 274-284 https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-05-2015-0047 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-34076 The Role of Moral Disengagement in Supply Chain Management Research Paper Type: Conceptual Structured abstract Purpose: To elucidate the role of moral disengagement in supply chain management (SCM) research, and challenges if the theory is to be used outside of its limitations. Design/methodology/approach: Conceptual paper based on how Bandura has developed and used moral disengagement. Findings: Moral disengagement can be used in SCM research. The theory is not to be applied to the supply chain itself, but SCM can be seen as the environment that is part of a reciprocal exchange that shapes human behavior. Research limitations/implications: The paper suggests a new theory to better understand business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability in SCM. Further, the paper outlines how the theory should be used, and some challenges that still remain. Practical implications: Originality/value: SCM researchers are given support on how to transfer a theory from psychology to SCM, which could help to progress several areas of the research field.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizational Stakeholders, Management, and Ethics
    PAR T I The Organization and Its Environment Organizational Stakeholders, CHAPTER Management, and Ethics 2 Learning Objectives Business and service organizations exist to create valued goods and services that people need or desire. Organizations may have either a profit or nonprofit orientation for the creation of these goods or services. But who decides which particular goods and services an organization should provide, and how do you divide the value that an organization creates among different groups of people such as management, employees, customers, shareholders, and other stakeholders? If people primarily behave self-interestedly, what mecha- nisms or procedures govern the way an organization uses its resources, and what is to stop the different groups within the organization from trying to maximize their own share of the value created, possibly at the detriment or expense of others? At a time when the issue of corporate ethics and management dishonesty and greed has come under intense scrutiny, these questions must be addressed before the issue of design- ing an organization to increase its effectiveness can be investigated. After studying this chapter you should be able to: 1. Identify the various stakeholder groups and their 4. Describe the agency problem that exists in all interests or claims on an organization, its activi- authority relationships and the various mecha- ties, and its created value. nisms, such as the board of directors and 2. Understand the choices and problems inherent stock options, that can be used to align man- in apportioning and distributing the value an agerial behaviour with organizational goals or organization creates. to help control illegal and unethical managerial behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1: Parker Review Survey Results As at 2 November 2020
    Annex 1: Parker Review survey results as at 2 November 2020 The data included in this table is a representation of the survey results as at 2 November 2020, which were self-declared by the FTSE 100 companies. As at March 2021, a further seven FTSE 100 companies have appointed directors from a minority ethnic group, effective in the early months of this year. These companies have been identified through an * in the table below. 3 3 4 4 2 2 Company Company 1 1 (source: BoardEx) Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did 1 Admiral Group PLC a 27 Hargreaves Lansdown PLC a 2 Anglo American PLC a 28 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC a 3 Antofagasta PLC a 29 HSBC Holdings PLC a InterContinental Hotels 30 a 4 AstraZeneca PLC a Group PLC 5 Avast PLC a 31 Intermediate Capital Group PLC a 6 Aveva PLC a 32 Intertek Group PLC a 7 B&M European Value Retail S.A. a 33 J Sainsbury PLC a 8 Barclays PLC a 34 Johnson Matthey PLC a 9 Barratt Developments PLC a 35 Kingfisher PLC a 10 Berkeley Group Holdings PLC a 36 Legal & General Group PLC a 11 BHP Group PLC a 37 Lloyds Banking Group PLC a 12 BP PLC a 38 Melrose Industries PLC a 13 British American Tobacco PLC a 39 Mondi PLC a 14 British Land Company PLC a 40 National Grid PLC a 15 BT Group PLC a 41 NatWest Group PLC a 16 Bunzl PLC a 42 Ocado Group PLC a 17 Burberry Group PLC a 43 Pearson PLC a 18 Coca-Cola HBC AG a 44 Pennon Group PLC a 19 Compass Group PLC a 45 Phoenix Group Holdings PLC a 20 Diageo PLC a 46 Polymetal International PLC a 21 Experian PLC a 47
    [Show full text]
  • Ftse4good UK 50
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE4Good UK 50 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.81 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 5.08 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.67 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 2.56 UNITED Halma 0.74 UNITED Rio Tinto 4.68 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.36 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 6.17 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 4.3 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.56 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.64 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 3.75 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 8.25 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.47 UNITED Schroders 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 1.15 UNITED Intertek Group 0.65 UNITED Segro 0.95 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Barclays 2.1 UNITED Legal & General Group 1.1 UNITED Smith & Nephew 0.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BHP Group Plc 3.2 UNITED Lloyds Banking Group 2.39 UNITED Smurfit Kappa Group 0.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BT Group 1.23 UNITED London Stock Exchange Group 2.09 UNITED Spirax-Sarco Engineering 0.72 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Burberry Group 0.6 UNITED Mondi 0.67 UNITED SSE 1.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Coca-Cola HBC AG 0.37 UNITED National Grid 2.37 UNITED Standard Chartered 0.85 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Compass Group 1.96 UNITED Natwest Group 0.77 UNITED Tesco 1.23 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM CRH 2.08 UNITED Next 0.72 UNITED Unilever 7.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Corporate Accountability?
    WHAT IS CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY? BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Since the 1990s, the world has witnessed the growing importance and visibility of a range of initiatives led by businesses, social organisations and governments, with the stated aim of pressuring companies to behave in more socially responsible and accountable ways. This is a new development for many parts of the business world. Previously, the state (or government) was assumed to lead standard setting and behavioural norms for businesses in relation to most categories of stakeholders. When community organisations and interest groups wanted to change business behaviour, they focussed on changing the law. From the 1990s the focus changed, reflected in the emergence of new alliances and regimes of influence over business norms, linking together consumers, communities, workers and producers. What is the difference between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability? Corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability are sometimes confused or seen to be synonymous. However, corporate responsibility and corporate accountability are typically distinguished from one another along several lines. Corporate responsibility in its broadest sense refers to varied practices that reflect the belief that corporations have responsibilities beyond generating profit for their shareholders. Such responsibilities include the negative duty to refrain from harm caused to the environment, individuals or communities, and sometimes also positive duties to protect society and the environment, for example protecting human rights of workers and communities affected by business activities. Such responsibilities are generally considered to extend not only to direct social and environmental impacts of business activity, but also to more indirect effects resulting from relationships with business partners, such as those involved in global production chains.
    [Show full text]
  • Constituents & Weights
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE 100 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.59 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 3.7 UNITED RELX 1.88 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Admiral Group 0.35 UNITED Glencore 1.97 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.49 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 1.86 UNITED Halma 0.54 UNITED Rightmove 0.29 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.26 UNITED Hargreaves Lansdown 0.32 UNITED Rio Tinto 3.41 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Ashtead Group 1.26 UNITED Hikma Pharmaceuticals 0.22 UNITED Rolls-Royce Holdings 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.41 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 4.5 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 3.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 6.02 UNITED Imperial Brands 0.77 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 2.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Auto Trader Group 0.32 UNITED Informa 0.4 UNITED Royal Mail 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Avast 0.14 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.46 UNITED Sage Group 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aveva Group 0.23 UNITED Intermediate Capital Group 0.31 UNITED Sainsbury (J) 0.24 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 0.84 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.34 UNITED Schroders 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM B&M European Value Retail 0.27 UNITED Intertek Group 0.47 UNITED Scottish Mortgage Inv Tst 1 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BAE Systems 0.89 UNITED ITV 0.25 UNITED Segro 0.69 UNITED KINGDOM
    [Show full text]