Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 145, Issue 4, pp 711–724 | Cite as

What Corporate Governance Can Learn from Catholic Social Teaching

  • Martijn CremersEmail author


This reflection focuses on what insights Catholic Social Teaching (CST) can provide for corporate governance. I argue that the ‘standard’ agency theory is overly reductionist and insufficiently incorporates important economic limitations (such as asymmetric information, incomplete contracts, and the need for coordination) as well as human frailty. As a result, such agency theory insufficiently distinguishes firms from markets, which can easily relativize how we treat others and facilitate rationalization of unethical behavior. I then explore how three pillars of CST—human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity—can help overcome these limitations. CST proposes a vision of the business corporation as a community of persons, working together in cooperative business relationships toward the shared purpose of contributing to human flourishing.


Corporate governance Catholic Social Teaching Human flourishing Solidarity Subsidiarity 



I am indebted to many people for insightful conversations, feedback, and helpful reading recommendations, especially to two anonymous reviewers, David Lutz, Domènec Mele (the editor), Lloyd Sandelands, Martin Schlag, and seminar participants at IESE Business School, the University of Notre Dame, Ave Maria University, Arizona State, Villanova, and Northwestern University School of Law. I remain solely responsible for any errors.


  1. Abela, A. V. (2001). Profit and more: Catholic Social Teaching and the purpose of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 489–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 699–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility (Coase lecture). Economica, 77, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals and taboos: Beliefs as assets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benedictus, XVI. (2009). Encyclical letter ‘Caritas in Veritate’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  7. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortright, S. A., & Naughton, M. J. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking the purpose of business—Interdisciplinary Essays from the Catholic Social Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cremers, M., Litov, L., & Sepe, S. (2015). Staggered boards and firm value, revisited. Working Paper, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  11. Cremers, M., Masconale, S., & Sepe, S. (2016). Commitment and Entrenchment in Corporate Governance? Northwestern Law Review, 110 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. Cremers, M., Nair, V., & Peyer, U. (2008). Takeover defenses and competition: The role of stakeholders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(4), 791–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cremers, M., & Sepe, S. (2016). The shareholder value of empowered boards. Stanford Law Review, 68(1), 67–148.Google Scholar
  14. Dierksmeier, C., & Celano, A. (2012). Thomas Aquinas on justice as a global virtue in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobson, J. (1999). Is shareholder wealth maximization immoral? Financial Analyst Journal, 55(5), 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1991). Voting in corporate law. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Follett, M. P. (1942). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (Henry C. Metcalf & L. Urwick, eds.), New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  20. Garvey, G. E. (2003). The theory of the fir, managerial responsibility, and catholic social teaching. Journal of Markets and Morality, 6(2), 525–540.Google Scholar
  21. Glendon, M. A. (2011). The bearable lightness of dignity. First Things, 213, 41–45.Google Scholar
  22. Guitián, G. (2015). Service as a bridge between ethical principles and business practice: A Catholic Social Teaching perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. John Paul II. (1981). Encyclical letter ‘Laborem Exercens’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  25. John Paul II. (1987). Encyclical letter ‘Sollicitudo Rei Socialis’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  26. John Paul II. (1991). Encyclical letter ‘Centesimus Annus’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, W. C., Karpoff, J. M., & Yi, S. (2015). The bonding hypothesis of takeover defenses: Evidence from IPO firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(2), 307–332.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, A., & Zur, E. (2011). The impact of hedge fund activism on the target firm’s existing bondholders. Review of Financial Studies, 24(5), 1735–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leo XIII. (1891). Encyclical letter ‘Rerum Novarum’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  30. Macey, J. R. (1991). An economic analysis of the various rationales for making shareholders the exclusive beneficiairies of corporate fiduciary duties. Stenson Law Review, 21, 57–90.Google Scholar
  31. Malinvaud, E., & Glendon, M. A. (Eds.) (2006). Conceptualization of the person in social sciences. The proceedings of the eleventh plenary session of the pontifical academy of social sciences. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  32. Mayer, C. (2013). Firm commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust in it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Melé, D. (2011). The firm as a ‘community of persons’: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Melé, D., & Dierksmeier, C. (Eds.). (2012). Human development in business. Values and Humanistic management in the in the encyclical ‘‘caritas in veritate’’. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
  35. Melé, D., & Naughton, M. (2011). The encyclical-letter ‘Caritas in Veritate’: Ethical challenges for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naughton, M. (1995). Participation in the organization: An ethical analysis from The Papal Social Tradition. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 923–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pieper, J. (1966). The four cardinal virtues. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pieper, J. (1997). Faith, hope, love. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pius XI. (1931). Encyclical letter ‘Quadragesimo Anno’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  40. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. (available at
  41. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2014). Vocation of the Business Leader—A reflection. (available at
  42. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February) Creating shared value—How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  43. Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (1998, May). Power in a theory of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 387–432.Google Scholar
  44. Ross, S. (1987). The interrelations of finance and economics: Theoretical perspectives. American Economic Review, 77, 29–34.Google Scholar
  45. Rossouw, G. (1994). Business ethics: Where have all the Christians gone? Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandelands, L. E. (2009). The business of business is the human person: Lessons from the Catholic Social Tradition. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandelands, L. E. (2010). Why the center holds: On the nuptial foundations of the corporation. Catholic Social Science Review, 15, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlag, M., & Mercado, J. (Eds.). (2012). Free markets and the culture of the common good. Berlin: Springer-Heildeger.Google Scholar
  49. Sison, A. J. G., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tirole, J. (2009). Cognition and incomplete contracts. American Economic Review, 99(1), 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williamson, O. (1988). Corporate finance and corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 43(3), 567–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson, O. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38–3, 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zingales, L. (2000). In search of new foundations. Journal of Finance, 55, 1623–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zingales, L. (2015a). The ‘cultural revolution’ in finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zingales, L. (2015b). Does finance benefit society? Journal of Finance, 70(4), 1327–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.264 Mendoza College of BusinessUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations