Property and non-property risks in the Russian corporate governance system

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Corporations today are the basis of any state’s economy, and within the framework of corporate governance, key strategic decisions are made that determine the fate of corporations. Accordingly, the problem of corporate governance risk management is one of the key economic problems, as it affects the interests of not only the participants of corporate relations, but also a huge number of economic agents. Theoretical analysis. The article presents the views of Russian scientists on the characteristics and classification of corporate governance risks, defines the property and non-property risks of corporate governance, considers the causes of their occurrence, as well as the mechanisms of influence on the corporation, its participants, creditors, public law entities. Also, a distinction is made between the objectively existing normal business risk and the predominantly subjective risks of corporate governance. Empirical analysis. Based on statistical data on bringing controlling persons to subsidiary liability, it is shown that the number of bankruptcies of Russian companies due to the manifestation of corporate governance risks is steadily growing. Results. The author’s typology of corporate governance risks, characterized by their relationship and interdependence is developed. Property and non-property risks of corporate governance are identified, the impact of which on the activities of Russian corporations is currently the most significant. Among them are those to which it is possible to adapt in the modern conditions of doing business. It is concluded that in the process of managing corporate risks based on the use of corporate law institutions existing in Russia and their combinations, it is impossible to nullify completely the occurrence and manifestation of the risks in question. Nevertheless, to ensure the necessary mutual control of the corporate relations subjects, limiting their ability to act in bad faith and unreasonably to the detriment of the company, is quite an achievable task.

About the authors

Elena V. Volkodavova

Samara State Economic University

141, Sovetskoy Armii Str., Samara, 443090, Russia

Vasily Vladimirovich Zhalnin

Samara State Economic University

ORCID iD: 0000-0004-3087-905X
141, Sovetskoy Armii Str., Samara, 443090, Russia

References

  1. Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая) от 26 января 1996 г. № 14-ФЗ (ред. от 31 июля 2022 г.). Доступ из справ.-правовой системы «КонсультантПлюс».
  2. Горячева Т. В. Инновационная направленность промышленной политики государства // Инновационная деятельность. 2009. № 1 (6). С. 14–20. EDN: KPUDKB
  3. Багрянцев А. Н. Организационно-экономический механизм управления рисками корпоративных отношений : автореф. дис. ... канд. экон. наук. Самара, 2010. 23 с.
  4. Жданов А. Ю. Риски в системе корпоративного управления // Вестник Финансовой академии. 2008. № 3 (47). С. 50–61.
  5. Красильникова Е. О. Риски в системе корпоративного управления // Бизнес-образование в экономике знаний. 2018. № 3. С. 66–70.
  6. Манян Н. М. Стратегические риски в корпоративном управлении // Бизнес-образование в экономике знаний. 2018. № 1. С. 59–61. EDN: YNSAST
  7. Дубовицкая Е. А. Риски корпоративного управления в контексте реструктуризации : автореф. дис. … канд. экон. наук. М., 2008. 26 с.
  8. Юхнин А. В. Кредиторы переходят на личности. Практика привлечения к субсидиарной ответственности в делах о банкротстве бьет рекорды // Экономика и жизнь. 2022. 25 февр.
  9. Гутников О. В. Корпоративная ответственность в гражданском праве. М. : Ин-т законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве РФ, 2019. 488 c.
  10. Долгопятова Т. Г. Собственность и корпоративный контроль в российских компаниях в условиях активизации интеграционных процессов // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2004. Т. 2, № 2. С. 3–26.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies