We are already fast approaching the anniversary of the first investor disclosures in response to the UK Stewardship Code: the raft of reviews and evaluations as to its impact is sure to begin soon, especially with the notion of a European Stewardship Code and the introduction of other similar Codes fresh in our minds as we approach the autumn conference season.

This raises the question of how do we measure the impact of an initiative which is essentially voluntary and deliberately un-prescriptive through its ‘comply or explain’ nature? We must avoid it becoming the apocryphal economics exercise whereby the answer becomes whatever you want it to be.

An obvious though relatively uninformative first step might be to very simply look at take-up of the Code. But this wouldn’t take into account the effect of those who were required to adhere to the code bys FSA rules, or those who are silently upholding the tenets of the Code. Signatories potentially benefit from the reputational prize of being seen to be compliant, but may not in practice be undertaking the productive activity that other non-signatories may be delivering.

St Paulonce wrote on the same principle to the Church in the Greek city ofCorinth, whose obsession with the winning of prizes in the ancient Olympic Games contests led him to use a sporting analogy: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize” (1 Corinthians 9:24). It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part that counts.

The principles of the code are supported by suggested activities and policies which could be followed to achieve the aim of the underlying principle. There has always been a danger that the importance of the principle gets lost in ensuring all the supporting activities are undertaken.

Five years ago, institutional investors were discussing the question of meaningful disclosure on the part of issuers, and whether transparency and broadening of disclosure requirements actually contributed to better understanding of how governance works. The boot is now on the other foot; investors may now find themselves challenged as to whether disclosures which are to demonstrate compliance actually deliver the intended outcomes of more effective owner-issuer relationships.

Statistics on the number of meetings voted at, the number of votes cast and citing the different service providers used may all sound impressive, but they actually give little impression of the relationship between such activity and investment returns. The audience must be more discerning than to be bamboozled by empty reports.

Evaluation of the impact of the Stewardship Code must uphold the qualitative above the quantitative: if it does, then we will be running a race worth taking part in. This responsibility rests not just on the asset owners on whose behalf other institutional investors act, but also on the commentators and the regulators.

In the coming year when we will see the final run-up to London hosting the modern equivalent of the very Olympic Games to which St Paul referred, bringing with it all the potential for economic growth and prosperity, as an industry we must also ensure we run the stewardship race not to receive the prize, but to make the race worth winning.