公司法生产的新地理

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
D. Katelouzou, Peer C. Zumbansen
{"title":"公司法生产的新地理","authors":"D. Katelouzou, Peer C. Zumbansen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3575009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article starts from the understanding of corporate governance as a transnational regulatory field of law production, contestation and policy conflict. It advances three arguments, a historical one, a sociological one and a legal doctrinal/legal theoretical one. Historically, we argue that the evolution of corporate governance norms must be seen against the background of ongoing and continuing transformations in the relationships between states and markets in the provision of a growing range of formerly “public” services and functions. As the societal role of corporations expands beyond an essentially financial role, corporate governance norm production mirrors the diversification of regulatory concerns associated with the firm’s place in society. From a sociological perspective, we argue that the transnationalization of present-day corporate governance regimes constitutes not so much a categorically different state of corporate law in an age of “globalization”, but a continuation of the corporate law’s inherent legal pluralism in terms of co-existing public and private, hard and soft, formal and informal norms. Finally, our legal doctrinal and legal theoretical argument posits that the emerging constellations of corporate governance are mirrored in changing understandings of rules applied to corporate responsibility, director liability or a company’s reporting standards.\r\n\r\nIn order to further explicate the particular dynamics that characterize the new geographies of corporate governance norms today, we take the evolving law of shareholder stewardship as a case-in-point. Our analysis intervenes at the intersection of what is, normatively, a political challenge to the corporate governance understanding of the past twenty years – the latter being confined to a triple fallacy of a vain competition between shareholder versus stakeholder oriented concepts of the firm, a polarization between monolithic national models of corporate governance, and a binary distinction between state-made/hard/binding law and non-state/soft/non-binding law – and, institutionally, the dramatic de-nationalization of market regulation through governmental fiat. We argue that this plurality of corporate governance political economies today can only be scrutinized through a more differentiated, analytical lens which focuses on the emerging actors, norms and processes that constitute the intersecting and overlapping transnational regimes of corporate governance today. Transnational corporate governance is thereby rendered as a methodological laboratory to inquire into emerging forms of authority and legitimacy, scrutinizing competing claims of effectiveness and testing the “real world” impact that emerging regulatory forms, such as stewardship codes, have on a wider set of stakeholders and “affected” populations. In that vein, a critical project of transnational corporate governance prompts a reconceptualization of the “transnationally embedded” corporation and its key actors as a counter model to today’s financialized economic governance framework and has broader implications for corporate law production.\r\n\r\nForthcoming in 42 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law (2020)","PeriodicalId":43790,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The New Geographies of Corporate Law Production\",\"authors\":\"D. Katelouzou, Peer C. Zumbansen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3575009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article starts from the understanding of corporate governance as a transnational regulatory field of law production, contestation and policy conflict. It advances three arguments, a historical one, a sociological one and a legal doctrinal/legal theoretical one. Historically, we argue that the evolution of corporate governance norms must be seen against the background of ongoing and continuing transformations in the relationships between states and markets in the provision of a growing range of formerly “public” services and functions. As the societal role of corporations expands beyond an essentially financial role, corporate governance norm production mirrors the diversification of regulatory concerns associated with the firm’s place in society. From a sociological perspective, we argue that the transnationalization of present-day corporate governance regimes constitutes not so much a categorically different state of corporate law in an age of “globalization”, but a continuation of the corporate law’s inherent legal pluralism in terms of co-existing public and private, hard and soft, formal and informal norms. Finally, our legal doctrinal and legal theoretical argument posits that the emerging constellations of corporate governance are mirrored in changing understandings of rules applied to corporate responsibility, director liability or a company’s reporting standards.\\r\\n\\r\\nIn order to further explicate the particular dynamics that characterize the new geographies of corporate governance norms today, we take the evolving law of shareholder stewardship as a case-in-point. Our analysis intervenes at the intersection of what is, normatively, a political challenge to the corporate governance understanding of the past twenty years – the latter being confined to a triple fallacy of a vain competition between shareholder versus stakeholder oriented concepts of the firm, a polarization between monolithic national models of corporate governance, and a binary distinction between state-made/hard/binding law and non-state/soft/non-binding law – and, institutionally, the dramatic de-nationalization of market regulation through governmental fiat. We argue that this plurality of corporate governance political economies today can only be scrutinized through a more differentiated, analytical lens which focuses on the emerging actors, norms and processes that constitute the intersecting and overlapping transnational regimes of corporate governance today. Transnational corporate governance is thereby rendered as a methodological laboratory to inquire into emerging forms of authority and legitimacy, scrutinizing competing claims of effectiveness and testing the “real world” impact that emerging regulatory forms, such as stewardship codes, have on a wider set of stakeholders and “affected” populations. In that vein, a critical project of transnational corporate governance prompts a reconceptualization of the “transnationally embedded” corporation and its key actors as a counter model to today’s financialized economic governance framework and has broader implications for corporate law production.\\r\\n\\r\\nForthcoming in 42 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law (2020)\",\"PeriodicalId\":43790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3575009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3575009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文从理解公司治理作为跨国规制领域的法律产生、争论和政策冲突入手。它提出了三个论点,一个是历史的,一个是社会学的,一个是法律理论的。从历史上看,我们认为,公司治理规范的演变必须放在国家与市场之间的关系正在发生和持续转变的背景下看待,这些关系正在提供越来越多的以前的“公共”服务和功能。随着公司的社会角色超越了本质上的金融角色,公司治理规范的产生反映了与公司在社会中的地位相关的监管关注点的多样化。从社会学的角度来看,我们认为当今公司治理制度的跨国化并不构成“全球化”时代公司法的一种绝对不同的状态,而是公司法固有的法律多元主义在公共与私人、硬与软、正式与非正式规范共存方面的延续。最后,我们的法律理论和法律理论论证认为,公司治理的新兴星座反映在对适用于公司责任、董事责任或公司报告标准的规则的不断变化的理解上。为了进一步阐明当今公司治理规范的新地理特征的特定动态,我们以不断发展的股东管理法律为例。从规范上讲,我们的分析介入了过去二十年来对公司治理理解的政治挑战的交叉点——后者被局限于三重谬误,即股东导向与利益相关者导向的公司概念之间的徒劳竞争,单一的国家公司治理模式之间的两极分化,以及国家制定/硬/有约束力的法律与非国家/软/无约束力的法律之间的二元区分——以及,从制度上讲,通过政府法令戏剧性地去国有化市场监管。我们认为,今天的公司治理政治经济学的多元性只能通过一种更加差异化的分析视角来审视,这种视角将重点放在新兴的参与者、规范和过程上,这些参与者、规范和过程构成了今天交叉和重叠的跨国公司治理制度。因此,跨国公司治理被视为一个方法实验室,用于调查新出现的权威和合法性形式,仔细审查相互竞争的有效性主张,并测试新出现的监管形式(如管理守则)对更广泛的利益相关者和“受影响”人群的“现实世界”影响。在这种情况下,跨国公司治理的一个重要项目促使“跨国嵌入”公司及其关键行动者重新概念化,作为当今金融化经济治理框架的反模式,并对公司法的制定具有更广泛的影响。即将出版于42宾夕法尼亚大学国际法杂志(2020)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The New Geographies of Corporate Law Production
This article starts from the understanding of corporate governance as a transnational regulatory field of law production, contestation and policy conflict. It advances three arguments, a historical one, a sociological one and a legal doctrinal/legal theoretical one. Historically, we argue that the evolution of corporate governance norms must be seen against the background of ongoing and continuing transformations in the relationships between states and markets in the provision of a growing range of formerly “public” services and functions. As the societal role of corporations expands beyond an essentially financial role, corporate governance norm production mirrors the diversification of regulatory concerns associated with the firm’s place in society. From a sociological perspective, we argue that the transnationalization of present-day corporate governance regimes constitutes not so much a categorically different state of corporate law in an age of “globalization”, but a continuation of the corporate law’s inherent legal pluralism in terms of co-existing public and private, hard and soft, formal and informal norms. Finally, our legal doctrinal and legal theoretical argument posits that the emerging constellations of corporate governance are mirrored in changing understandings of rules applied to corporate responsibility, director liability or a company’s reporting standards. In order to further explicate the particular dynamics that characterize the new geographies of corporate governance norms today, we take the evolving law of shareholder stewardship as a case-in-point. Our analysis intervenes at the intersection of what is, normatively, a political challenge to the corporate governance understanding of the past twenty years – the latter being confined to a triple fallacy of a vain competition between shareholder versus stakeholder oriented concepts of the firm, a polarization between monolithic national models of corporate governance, and a binary distinction between state-made/hard/binding law and non-state/soft/non-binding law – and, institutionally, the dramatic de-nationalization of market regulation through governmental fiat. We argue that this plurality of corporate governance political economies today can only be scrutinized through a more differentiated, analytical lens which focuses on the emerging actors, norms and processes that constitute the intersecting and overlapping transnational regimes of corporate governance today. Transnational corporate governance is thereby rendered as a methodological laboratory to inquire into emerging forms of authority and legitimacy, scrutinizing competing claims of effectiveness and testing the “real world” impact that emerging regulatory forms, such as stewardship codes, have on a wider set of stakeholders and “affected” populations. In that vein, a critical project of transnational corporate governance prompts a reconceptualization of the “transnationally embedded” corporation and its key actors as a counter model to today’s financialized economic governance framework and has broader implications for corporate law production. Forthcoming in 42 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law (2020)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信