Skip to main content

Shareholder Primacy, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Role of Business Schools

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Occupy Wall Street is a diffuse group of activists who say they stand against corporate greed, social inequality and the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process” (see New York Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/occupy_wall_street/index.html and http://occupywallst.org/about/ (accessed 29 April 2013).

  2. 2.

    This was further reinforced in 1993 by a congressional change to the US tax code that capped the tax deductibility of top management compensation not qualified as “performance based” (primarily interpreted as profitability). The purpose was to limit executive compensation perceived as being “excessive,” although research suggests that the law has had little effect on executive compensation in practice (Rose and Wolfram 2002).

  3. 3.

    That managers believe that the SPN is legally enforceable might be interpreted as something more than a social norm. Although legal action against corporate management for breaching the SPN is unlikely to be successful, the threat of such action might act as a reinforcement of the SPN. This does not make the SPN a legal norm as such a managerial belief is based on a misinterpretation of the law. However, this misinterpretation reinforces the SPN as a social norm because managers believe that they are legally required to follow the SPN.

  4. 4.

    Long ago, Berle and Means (1932) argued that shareholders of public corporations with dispersed shareholdings had lost their de facto control to corporate managers because of diluted voting power. More recent times have seen a return of more concentrated voting power of shareholders based primarily on three developments: (1) Since the days of Berle and Means, the composition of ownership on the stock market has shifted from a majority ownership by individual shareholders to a majority ownership of institutional shareholders (Davis 2008; Blume and Keim 2012), which has led to more effective voting power when a greater concentration of a corporation’s shares are held by an institution. (2) The rise of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which is a proxy advisory firm for institutional investors advising how they should vote with their shares as well as often voting on their behalf. ISS dominates the market for such services, and its rise has led to a greater concentration of shareholder voting power. (3) In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced a “proxy access” rule designed to make it easier for shareholders to get their own nominees onto corporate boards (although a Federal Appeals Court has since blocked the rule, the SEC has yet to revive it).

  5. 5.

    This suggestion does not so much solve the problem as avoid it. For example, it implies that employees, who have a stake in the corporation qua employees, should become shareholders so that they can have their interests as employees considered qua shareholders. Also, there is no reason why employees’ ability to obtain stock stands in any proportion to their stake qua employees.

  6. 6.

    German corporate law provides employees with board representation for corporations above a certain size (number of employees). This is made possible because employees are easily identifiable individuals, while other stakeholder groups with more transactional relationships with the corporations do not lend themselves to such easy and relevant identification.

  7. 7.

    Clark has drafted all of the benefit corporation legislations enacted or introduced, at least till the publication of this article.

  8. 8.

    Clark and Babson (2012, pp. 839–840) provide the California legislation by way of illustration, observing thus: “The directors of benefit corporations, in considering the best interests of the corporation, [S]hall consider the effects of any action or decision not to act on: (1) The stockholders of the benefit corporation; (2) The employees and workforce of the benefit corporation and the subsidiaries and suppliers of the benefit corporation; (3) The interests of customers as beneficiaries of the general or specific public benefit purposes of the benefit corporation; (4) Community and societal considerations, including those of any community in which offices or facilities of the benefit corporation or the subsidiaries or suppliers of the benefit corporation are located; and (5) The local and global environment….”

  9. 9.

    However, under current legislation, benefit corporations are not required to have their benefit report certified or audited by a third party (Clark and Babson 2012).

  10. 10.

    Source is the B-Lab website: http://www.benefitcorp.net/find-a-benefit-corp (accessed 6 October 2014).

  11. 11.

    Patagonia is privately held. Its founders chose B-corp status to protect its commitment to a social mission, recognizing that this could not be assured as the business passed to future generations even with constituency statutes. Alterrus Systems Inc., an urban farming company, claimed in March 2013 to be the first publicly listed company to earn B-corp certification; see: http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/35379-Alterrus-Becomes-First-Publicly-Listed-Company-To-Earn-B-Corp-Certification-Indicating-Its-Commitment-To-A-Better-Way-Of-Growing (accessed 6 October 2014).

  12. 12.

    See: http://mbaoath.org/ (accessed 10 June 2013).

  13. 13.

    A Harvard Business Review debate site on the role of business schools in the crisis attracted over 30,000 visitors with 67 % of respondents to its (unscientific) survey claiming that business schools were at least partly responsible for the ethical and strategic lapses of their graduates (Harvard Business Review 2009).

  14. 14.

    Removing the voting rights for shareholders would remove the SPN, as it would put shareholders on an equal footing with other stakeholders who likewise lack the right to vote. Under such circumstances, all stakeholders are equal as the only avenue for any stakeholder to make enforceable demands on the board would be through the courts. However, such a system may be unfeasible due to practical difficulties and undesirable consequences. First, it may be slow and expensive to use the courts as a central system of corporate governance. Second, without any voters, it is unclear how any board would be elected. Third, it is likely that the corporate legal form would fall out of favor with investors if the act of incorporation meant that they thereby lost a measure of control over the corporation.

  15. 15.

    Passive influence primarily involves abstaining from investing in certain stock based on ethical criteria, while active influence involves engaging corporations to change their behavior.

  16. 16.

    Some corporate leaders may not wish to wait for the evolution of mindful shareholders in order to get a clear mandate to address stakeholder concerns. To this end, it is possible for corporations to influence the composition of its shareholders. For example, as we have mentioned, in order to be able to take a long-term view of its business, Unilever has informed Hedge Funds that they are not welcome as shareholders. But there are many other strategies. Edward Rock (2012) discusses at length “recruitment” and “shaping” strategies that corporations can employ to recruit desirable shareholders and shape existing shareholders to become more desirable. Examples of recruitment strategies include the issuing of preferred stock to desirable shareholders as well as active investment relations management. Shaping strategies include the choice of corporate domicile (because different jurisdictions attract different types of shareholders), as well as providing a system of Tenured Voting whereby shares that are held longer receive greater voting power.

References

  1. 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.

  2. American Law Institute. (1994). Principles of corporate governance: Analysis and recommendations. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, E. (2000). Beyond homo economics: New developments in theories of social norms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(2), 170–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Corporate governance: What can we learn from public governance? Academy of Management Review, 32, 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berle, A. A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers of trust. Harvard Law Review, 44, 1049–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berle, A. A. (1932). For whom are corporate mangers trustees: A note. Harvard Law Review, 45(7), 1365–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blume, M. E., & Keim, D. B. (2012). Institutional investors and market liquidity: Trends and relationships. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA.

  10. Boatright, J. R. (1994). Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: Or, what’s so special about shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonnafous-Boucher, M. (2005). Some philosophical issues in corporate governance: The role of property in stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chilosi, A., & Damiani, M. (2007). Stakeholders vs. shareholders in corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(4), 7–45.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. 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 

  17. Cloninger, D. O. (1997). Share price maximization, asymmetric information, and ethical behavior: A comment. Financial Practice & Education, 7(2), 82–84.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Davis, G. F. (2008). A new finance capitalism? Mutual funds and ownership re-concentration in the United States. European Management Review, 5, 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dobson, J. (1999). Is shareholder wealth maximization immoral? Financial Analysts Journal, 55(5), 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dodd, M. E. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Donaldson, T. (1989). The ethics of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Economist. (2005). The union of concerned executives. The Economist, January 20. http://www.economist.com/node/3555194. Accessed 9 June 2013.

  26. Economist. (2012). Fail! The Economist, November 20. http://www.economist.com/whichmba/fail/print. Accessed 29 April 2013.

  27. Eisenberg, M. A. (2000). Corporations and other business organizations. New York: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. 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.

  30. Fisch, J. E. (2006). Measuring efficiency in corporate law: The role of shareholder primacy. The Journal of Corporation Law, 31, 637–674.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Floyd, L. A., Feng, X., Atkins, R., & Caldwell, C. (2013). Ethical outcomes and business ethics: Toward improving business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 753–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder approach. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Galai, D., & Wiener, Z. (2008). Stakeholders and the composition of the voting rights of the board of directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(2), 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gapper, John. (2005). Comment on Sumantra Ghoshal’s “bad management theories are destroying good management practices”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gardiner, B. (2009). B-schools rethink curricula amid crisis. The Wall Street Journal Europe, 10.

  40. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

  42. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Greenspan, A. (2009). We need a better cushion against risk. Financial Times.

  44. Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Just how bad are our theories? A response to Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 104–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Harvard Business Review. (2009). Are business schools to blame? Harvard Business Review, 106.

  46. Heracleous, L. & Lan, L. L. (2010). The myth of shareholder capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 88, 24.

  47. Hinkley, R. (2002). How corporate law inhibits social responsibility. The Humanist, 62(2), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Holland, K. (2009). Is it time to retrain B-schools? The New York Times.

  49. Ignatius, A. (2012). Captain planet. Harvard Business Review, 90, 112–118.

  50. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. Kanter, R. M. (2005). What theories do audiences want? Exploring the demand side. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 93–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(October), 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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 

  56. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Marcoux, A. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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(2), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. McDonnell, B. H. (2004). Corporate constituency statutes and employee governance. William Mitchell Law Review, 30(4), 1227–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  61. McKinsey, (2006). Global survey of business executives: Business and society. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  62. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Millon, D. (1991). Redefining corporate law. Indiana Law Review, 24, 223–277.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mintzberg, H. (2005a). How inspiring. How sad. Comment on Sumantra Ghoshal’s paper. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mintzberg, H. (2005b). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Murray, S. (2013). MBA teaching urged to move away from focus on shareholder primacy model. Financial Times.

  67. 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.

  68. Nord, W. (2005). Treats and some treatments: Responses by Kanter, Pfeffer, Gapper, Hambrick, Mintzberg, and Donaldson to Ghoshal’s “bad management theories are destroying good management practices”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Orts, E. W. (1992). Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statutes. George Washington Law Review, 61, 14–135.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Orts, E. W. (2013). Business persons: A legal theory of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (forthcoming).

  71. Paine, L. S. (2006). The fiduciary relationship: A legal perspective. Note prepared for class discussion. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 96–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools: Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Phillips, R., Freeman, E. R., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pickering, M. A. (1968). Company as a separate legal entity. Modern Law Review, 31, 481–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Podolny, J. M. (2009). The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, 87, 62–67.

  78. 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.

  79. 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 

  80. 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 

  81. Rock, E. (2012). Shareholder eugenics in the public corporation. Cornell Law Review, 97, 849–906.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Rönnegard, D. (2013). How autonomy alone debunks corporate moral agency. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 32(1–2), 77–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rose, J. M. (2007). Corporate directors and social responsibility: Ethics versus shareholder value. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rose, N. L., & Wolfram, C. (2002). Regulating executive pay: Using the tax code to influence chief executive compensation. Journal of Labour Economics, 20(2), 138–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Rubin, R. R., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2013). Building a better MBA: From a decade of critique toward a decennium of creation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  87. 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 

  88. 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.

  89. Skapinker, M. (2009). Dangers in a world of disillusionment. Financial Times.

  90. Smith, D. G. (1998). The shareholder primacy norm. The Journal of Corporation Law, 23, 277–323.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Smith, H. J. (2003). The shareholders versus stakeholders debate. Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 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.

  93. Social Investment Forum Foundation. (2010). Report on socially responsible investment trends in the United States. http://www.ussif.org/pubs. Accessed June 17 2013.

  94. 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 

  95. Swanson, D. L., & Frederick, W. C. (2003). Are business schools silent partners in corporate crime? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9(Spring), 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Testy, K. (2002). Linking progressive corporate law with progressive social movements. Tulane Law Review, 76, 1227–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Vermaelen, T. (2009). Maximizing shareholder value: An ethical responsibility? In N. C. Smith & G. Lenssen (Eds.), Mainstreaming corporate responsibility. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  99. 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.

  100. Walsh, J. P. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research support for this project from Dreyfus Sons & Co. Ltd., Banquiers is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Craig Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, N.C., Rönnegard, D. Shareholder Primacy, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Role of Business Schools. J Bus Ethics 134, 463–478 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2427-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Shareholder primacy
  • Shareholder value maximization
  • Business schools
  • Corporate law
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Benefit corporations