Shareholder Primacy, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Role of Business Schools
- 2.6k Downloads
This paper examines the shareholder primacy norm (SPN) as a widely acknowledged impediment to corporate social responsibility and explores the role of business schools in promoting the SPN but also potentially as an avenue for change by addressing misconceptions about shareholder primacy and the purpose of business. We start by explaining the SPN and then review its status under US and UK laws and show that it is not a likely 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 is 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 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—and justifiably so in the view of many managers and business academics. We argue that this view 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 fiduciary duties of executives to non-shareholder stakeholders and changes in business school teaching such that it covers a plurality of conceptions of the purpose of the corporation.
KeywordsCorporate social responsibility Shareholder primacy Shareholder value maximization Business schools Corporate law Fiduciary duties Benefit corporations
Research support for this project from Dreyfus Sons & Co. Ltd., Banquiers is gratefully acknowledged.
- Agle, B. R., & Mitchell, R. K. (2008). Introduction: Recent research and new questions. In Dialogue: Towards superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 153–159.Google Scholar
- American Law Institute. (1994). Principles of corporate governance: Analysis and recommendations. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
- Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.Google Scholar
- Berle, A. A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Blume, M. E., & Keim, D. B. (2012). Institutional investors and market liquidity: Trends and relationships. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
- Chilosi, A., & Damiani, M. (2007). Stakeholders vs. shareholders in corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(4), 7–45.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Clark, R. (1985). Agency costs versus fiduciary duties. In J. W. Pratt & R. J. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents: The Structure of business: 55–79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, W. H, Jr, & Babson, E. K. (2012). How benefit corporations are redefining the purpose of business corporations. William Mitchell Law Review, 38(2), 817–851.Google Scholar
- Cloninger, D. O. (1997). Share price maximization, asymmetric information, and ethical behavior: A comment. Financial Practice & Education, 7(2), 82–84.Google Scholar
- Cohn, S. R. (1983). Demise of the director’s duty of care: Judicial avoidance of standards of sanctions through the business judgment rule. Texas Law Review, 62(4), 591–613.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T. (1989). The ethics of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
- Economist. (2005). The union of concerned executives. The Economist, January 20. http://www.economist.com/node/3555194. Accessed 9 June 2013.
- Economist. (2012). Fail! The Economist, November 20. http://www.economist.com/whichmba/fail/print. Accessed 29 April 2013.
- Eisenberg, M. A. (2000). Corporations and other business organizations. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
- Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Financial Times. (2009). Shareholder value re-evaluated. Editorial. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4229dcc4-11ca-11de-87b1-0000779fd2ac.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3IaEYhOyV.
- Fisch, J. E. (2006). Measuring efficiency in corporate law: The role of shareholder primacy. The Journal of Corporation Law, 31, 637–674.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (2001). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Gardiner, B. (2009). B-schools rethink curricula amid crisis. The Wall Street Journal Europe, 10.Google Scholar
- Gentile, M. C. (2004). Corporate governance and accountability: What do we know and what do we teach future business leaders? Paper presented at the 3rd Colloquium of the European Academy of Business in Society (EABIS), Ghent, Belgium, 27–28 September 2014. The challenges of sustainable growth: Integrating societal expectations in business. New york: The Aspen Institute Business & Society Program.Google Scholar
- Greenspan, A. (2009). We need a better cushion against risk. Financial Times.Google Scholar
- Harvard Business Review. (2009). Are business schools to blame? Harvard Business Review, 106.Google Scholar
- Heracleous, L. & Lan, L. L. (2010). The myth of shareholder capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 88, 24.Google Scholar
- Hinkley, R. (2002). How corporate law inhibits social responsibility. The Humanist, 62(2), 26–28.Google Scholar
- Holland, K. (2009). Is it time to retrain B-schools? The New York Times.Google Scholar
- Ignatius, A. (2012). Captain planet. Harvard Business Review, 90, 112–118.Google Scholar
- Jones, T. M. (2010). The future of business ethics research: Reflections on the twentieth anniversary of Business Ethics Quarterly. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 746–747.Google Scholar
- Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(October), 70–77.Google Scholar
- Kraakman, R. R., Davies, P., Hansmann, H., Hertig, G., Hopt, K. J., Kanda, H., et al. (2004). The anatomy of corporate law: A comparative and functional approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- McDonnell, B. H. (2004). Corporate constituency statutes and employee governance. William Mitchell Law Review, 30(4), 1227–1259.Google Scholar
- McKinsey, (2006). Global survey of business executives: Business and society. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 33–39.Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
- Millon, D. (1991). Redefining corporate law. Indiana Law Review, 24, 223–277.Google Scholar
- Mintzberg, H. (2005b). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Murray, S. (2013). MBA teaching urged to move away from focus on shareholder primacy model. Financial Times.Google Scholar
- New Scientist. (2010). Editorial: Time for another green revolution; A fog of unreliable information and confusion is hampering efforts to weigh up eco-credibility. New Scientist, 3.Google Scholar
- Orts, E. W. (1992). Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statutes. George Washington Law Review, 61, 14–135.Google Scholar
- Orts, E. W. (2013). Business persons: A legal theory of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Paine, L. S. (2006). The fiduciary relationship: A legal perspective. Note prepared for class discussion. Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
- Podolny, J. M. (2009). The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, 87, 62–67.Google Scholar
- Polaris Institute. (2007). Coca-Cola Company wins corporate greenwashing award. Polaris Institute. http://www.polarisinstitute.org/coca_cola_company_wins_corporate_greenwashing_award. Accessed April 29 2013.
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: Redefining capitalism and the role of the corporation in society. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.Google Scholar
- Rock, E. (2012). Shareholder eugenics in the public corporation. Cornell Law Review, 97, 849–906.Google Scholar
- Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- Schrenk, L. P. (2006). Equity versus stakeholder and corporate governance: Developing a market for morality. The Business Renaissance Quarterly, 1(3), 81–90.Google Scholar
- Skadden. (2011), Air products & chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc. Skadden Newsletter, February 16. http://www.skadden.com/newsletters/Air_Products_Chemicals_Inc_v_Airgas_Inc.pdf. Accessed May 14 2013.
- Skapinker, M. (2009). Dangers in a world of disillusionment. Financial Times.Google Scholar
- Smith, D. G. (1998). The shareholder primacy norm. The Journal of Corporation Law, 23, 277–323.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. J. (2003). The shareholders versus stakeholders debate. Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 85–90.Google Scholar
- Smith, N. C., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2010). How business schools lost their way. BusinessWeek, January 11. http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jan2010/bs20100111_383186.htm. Accessed April 29 2013.
- Social Investment Forum Foundation. (2010). Report on socially responsible investment trends in the United States. http://www.ussif.org/pubs. Accessed June 17 2013.
- Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations and the public. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Testy, K. (2002). Linking progressive corporate law with progressive social movements. Tulane Law Review, 76, 1227–1252.Google Scholar
- Vermaelen, T. (2009). Maximizing shareholder value: An ethical responsibility? In N. C. Smith & G. Lenssen (Eds.), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Vermaelen, T. (2011). Putting a price tag on corporate social responsibility. CSR Wire, 9 March. http://csrwiretalkback.tumblr.com/post/3750265973/putting-a-price-tag-on-corporate-social-responsibility. Accessed April 29 2013.
- West, D. M. (2011). The purpose of corporations in business and law school curricula. Governance Studies at Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/19-corporation-west.