Shareholder Primacy vs. Stakeholder Theory: The Law as Constraint and Potential Enabler of Stakeholder Concerns

David Ronnegard, N. Smith
{"title":"Shareholder Primacy vs. Stakeholder Theory: The Law as Constraint and Potential Enabler of Stakeholder Concerns","authors":"David Ronnegard, N. Smith","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3165992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the Shareholder Primacy Norm (SPN) as a widely acknowledged impediment to corporate social responsibility (CSR), including how this relates to Stakeholder Theory. We start by explaining the SPN and then review its status under US and UK law and show that it is not a legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing CSR issues if doing so would be inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders. Nonetheless, while the SPN might be muted as a legal norm, we show that it is certainly evident as a powerful social norm among managers and in business schools— reflective, in part, of the sole voting rights of shareholders on corporate boards and of the dominance of Shareholder Theory. We argue that this view of CSR is misguided, not least when associated with claims of a purported legally enforceable requirement to maximize shareholder value. We propose two ways by which the influence of the SPN among managers might be attenuated: extending voting rights to non-shareholder stakeholders or extending fiduciary duties of executives to non-shareholder stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":433763,"journal":{"name":"INSEAD: INSEAD Social Innovation Centre (Topic)","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INSEAD: INSEAD Social Innovation Centre (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3165992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

This chapter examines the Shareholder Primacy Norm (SPN) as a widely acknowledged impediment to corporate social responsibility (CSR), including how this relates to Stakeholder Theory. We start by explaining the SPN and then review its status under US and UK law and show that it is not a legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing CSR issues if doing so would be inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders. Nonetheless, while the SPN might be muted as a legal norm, we show that it is certainly evident as a powerful social norm among managers and in business schools— reflective, in part, of the sole voting rights of shareholders on corporate boards and of the dominance of Shareholder Theory. We argue that this view of CSR is misguided, not least when associated with claims of a purported legally enforceable requirement to maximize shareholder value. We propose two ways by which the influence of the SPN among managers might be attenuated: extending voting rights to non-shareholder stakeholders or extending fiduciary duties of executives to non-shareholder stakeholders.
股东至上与利益相关者理论:法律作为利益相关者关注的约束和潜在推动者
本章考察了股东至上规范(SPN)作为公认的企业社会责任(CSR)障碍,包括它与利益相关者理论的关系。我们首先解释SPN,然后回顾其在美国和英国法律下的地位,并表明它不是一项法律要求,至少在股东价值最大化的幌子下是这样。这与通常的主张相反,即如果管理者解决企业社会责任问题与股东的经济利益不一致,则在法律上受到限制。然而,尽管SPN作为一种法律规范可能会被淡化,但我们表明,它作为一种强有力的社会规范,在管理者和商学院中无疑是显而易见的——在一定程度上反映了股东在公司董事会中的唯一投票权,以及股东理论的主导地位。我们认为,这种对企业社会责任的看法是错误的,尤其是当与所谓的法律强制要求相关联时,以最大化股东价值。我们提出了两种方法,通过这种方法可以减弱SPN对管理人员的影响:将投票权扩大到非股东利益相关者或将高管的信托义务扩大到非股东利益相关者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信