Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 102, Supplement 1, pp 5–20 | Cite as

Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law

Article

Abstract

Henry Hansmann has claimed we have reached the “end of history” in corporate law, organized around the “widespread normative consensus that corporate managers should act exclusively in the economic interests of shareholders.” In this paper, I examine Hansmann’s own argument in support of this view, in order to draw out its implications for some of the traditional concerns of business ethicists about corporate social responsibility. The centerpiece of Hansmann’s argument is the claim that ownership of the firm is most naturally exercised by the group able to achieve the lowest agency costs, and that homogeneity of interest within the ownership group is the most important factor in achieving lower costs. He defends this claim through a study of cooperatives, attempting to show that homogeneity is the source of the competitive advantage most often enjoyed by shareholders over other constituency groups, such as workers, suppliers and customers, when it comes to exercising control over the firm. Some business ethicists, impressed by this argument, have taken it to be a vindication of Milton Friedman’s claim that profit-maximization is the only “social responsibility” of management. I would like to suggest that this conclusion does not follow, and that the “Hansmann argument” lends itself to a less minimalist view, what I refer to as a “market failures” approach to business ethics.

Keywords

Shareholder primacy Cooperatives Ownership Henry Hansmann Efficiency 

References

  1. Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. Toronto: Penguin.Google Scholar
  2. Berle, A. A., & Means G. C. (1991) [1932]. The modern corporation and private property. London: Transaction.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, M. M. (1999). Firm-specific human capital and theories of the firm. In M. M. Blair & M. J. Roe (Eds.), Employees and corporate governance. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85, 248–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boatright, J. R. (1994). Fiduciary duties and the shareholder–management relation: Or, what’s so special about shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boatright, J. R. (1999). Ethics in finance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Boatright, J. R. (2002). Ethics and corporate governance: justifying the role of the stakeholder. In N. Bowie (Ed.), Blackwell companion to business ethics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Boatright, J. R. (2006). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with stakeholder management. Journal of Private Enterprise, 21, 106–120.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, R. C. (1985). Agency costs versus fiduciary duties. In J. W. Pratt & R. J. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dahl, R. (1985). A preface to economic democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1991). The economic structure of corporate law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gates, J. (1998). The ownership solution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Goodpaster, K. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenfield, K. (2006). The failure of corporate law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hansmann, H. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. H. (2000). Abstract of “The end of history for corporate law”. http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=204528.
  19. Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. H. (2003). The end of history for corporate law. In J. Gordon & M. Roe (Eds.), Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, O. (1995). Firms, contracts and financial structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath, J. (2001). The efficient society. Toronto: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, J. (2006a). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 533–557.Google Scholar
  23. Heath, J. (2006b). An adversarial ethic for business: Or, when Sun-Tzu met the stakeholder. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heath, J., & Norman, W. (2004). Stakeholder theory, corporate governance, and public management. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honoré, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudnece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraakman, R., Davies, P., Hansmann, H., Hertig, G., Hopt, K. J., Kanda, H., et al. (2004). The anatomy of corporate law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, I. B. (2006). Corporate law and the role of corporations in society: Monism, pluralism, markets and politics. Canadian Bar Review, 85, 1–28.Google Scholar
  31. Maitland, I. (1994). The morality of the corporation: An empirical or normative disagreement? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcoux, A. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
  33. Marens, R., & Wicks, A. (1999). Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, D. (1981). Market neutrality and the failure of cooperatives. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, G. (1999). Tinged shareholder theory: Or what’s so special about stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norman, W., & Macdonald, C. (2003). Getting to the bottom of the triple bottom line. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 243–262.Google Scholar
  37. Orts, E. (1998). Shirking and sharking: A legal theory of the firm. Yale Law and Policy Review, 16, 265–329.Google Scholar
  38. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Philips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 479–502.Google Scholar
  40. Robé, J.-P. (2011). The legal structure of the firm. Accounting, Economics and Law, 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stout, L. A. (2008). Why we should stop teaching Dodge v. Ford. Virginia Law and Business Review, 3, 163–176.Google Scholar
  42. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and School of Public Policy and GovernanceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations