Editorial

Citation

Kirkbride, J. and Howells, G. (2009), "Editorial", International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 51 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma.2009.01051baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Law and Management, Volume 51, Issue 2.

From a market perspective, one of the challenges for regulators is the need to achieve a balance between regulatory interference and individual freedoms. Too great an interference and the regulators harm the market and drive away the intended actors and behaviours. To differing degrees all the articles in this Issue illustrate the challenges of this balance. In the first article, Sprotzer and Goldberg consider the impact of mandatory check-off payments and taxes imposed on industries in the USA where generic advertisement and promotions of products takes place but excludes the identification and promotion of brands. The suggestion is that this removes from the market and consumers the opportunity to consider product and brand differentiation, and removes the freedom of choice from producers as to how they could and would spend the monies taken by the Government. The existence of such “check-off” taxes distorts both consumer and producer choice and might even fall as an infringement of rights to speak under the First Amendment.

In the second article, Howells et al., return to the issues of identifying and regulating unfair commercial practices. In an excellent analysis the paper draws upon the European Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and pre-existing laws of the member states, in particular the British, German and Nordic understandings of “unfairness”. In an interesting exposition the paper acknowledges that the primary task of consumer law is the promotion of rational decision-making by consumers in the market place. The concept of “unfairness” is considered in recognition of that primary purpose and the extent to which the challenged conduct is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of consumers by causing consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not have otherwise taken. The analysis focuses on unfairness in the domains of information disclosure; aggressive practices and taste and decency.

In the third article, Simeon engages with the convergence–divergence debate on corporate governance regulation through a consideration of the some subtle but significant changes in attitudes and practices in Japan. Through a skilfull and persuasive analysis, Professor Simeon examines the changes in career management attitudes of over 400 employees in Japanese companies and suggests that changes indicate a decline in a stakeholder dominance. It is suggested that the context of a ten-year recession and mounting globalisation pressures have put a strain on many aspects of Japan's view of employee relations and corporate governance: many Japanese companies have been forced to become more market oriented and this has pushed some Japanese employees to adopt a more personal career success orientation.

In the final article in this issue, Tom Hemphill provides a study of the growing dissatisfaction of the level of CEO rewards and the lack of control of the Board of Directors on agreeing and controlling levels of reward, even for poor performance. The role of shareholder activism in the USA is highlighted with the growing development of “say-on-pay” resolutions whereby the body of shareholders secure a role of advising the Board on such matters. The move toward “say-on-pay” legislation, particularly in Europe, is considered and its relationship to the original principal-agency model of interests and governance. Whether that legislation and approach is far enough is uncertain, and Hemphill suggests a research agenda to inform future developments and possible interference in the agency relationships.

We hope you find these international studies and contributions of interest and worthy of engagement.

James Kirkbride and Geraint Howells