Enlightened Shareholder Value: Is It the New Modus Operandi for Modern Companies?

  • Stelios Andreadakis


The present financial crisis has led to more and more calls for changes in the way modern companies operate. The need for increased scrutiny of corporate governance, greater corporate accountability and monitoring has been repeatedly highlighted. As a result, a new trend has been developed the last few years, according to which business success and shareholder value cannot be achieved solely through maximizing short-term profits, but instead through market-oriented yet responsible behavior. Failure to effectively manage both the financial and non-financial aspects of corporate responsibility places shareholder value at risk. However, it is extremely difficult to achieve total transformation of the objectives of the company or the market system, thus the right approach is not to shift the focus away from shareholder value, but to reaffirm shareholder value as the central focus of corporate responsibility. The rules of the corporate game have changed and corporate boards are required to change the existing corporate mentality, in order to create companies, which are sustainable and economically, ethically and socially responsible. The enlightened shareholder value theory represents an attempt to strike a balance between shareholders’ primacy and corporate stakeholders’ interests. Effective corporate social responsibility management is not incompatible with shareholder value and having wider interests can be the key to long-term financial performance. Companies should not be seen only as vehicles for profit maximization, but as having a wider social role. The companies, which are willing to change their mentality and adopt a long-term perspective, will be rewarded with sustainability and efficiency.


Corporate Governance Stakeholder Group Modern Company Stakeholder Theory Profit Maximization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agle, B. R., et al. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 153–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcock, A., Birds, J., & Gale, S. (2007). Companies Act 2006: The new law. Bristol: Jordans.Google Scholar
  4. Ansoff, H. (1984). Strategic management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Aoki, M. (1984). The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  6. Attas, D. (2004). A moral stakeholder theory of the firm. Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 312–318.Google Scholar
  7. Beauchamp, T., & Bowie, N. (Eds.). (2004). Ethical theory and business. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Benson, B. W., & Davidson, W. N., III. (2009). The relation between stakeholder management, firm value, and CEO compensation: A test of enlightened value maximization. Financial Management, 39(3), 929–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berle, A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berle, A. (1932). For whom corporate managers are trustees: A note. Harvard Law Review, 45(8), 1365–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Bevan, D. (2008). Philosophy: A grounded theory approach and the emergence of convenient and inconvenient ethics. In M. Painter-Morland & P. Werhane (Eds.), Cutting edge issues in business ethics (pp. 131–152). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black, B., & Kraakman, R. (1996). A self-enforcing model of corporate law. Harvard Law Review, 109(8), 1911–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blair, M., & Stout, L. (2006). Specific investments and corporate law. European Business Organisation Law Review, 7(2), 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2007). Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  16. Branson, D. M. (2001). Corporate governance ‘reform’ and the new corporate social responsibility. University of Pittsburg Law Review, 62, 605–647.Google Scholar
  17. Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W., Jr., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2002). Designing organizations to create value: From strategy to structure. New York: McGraw Hill Book Professional.Google Scholar
  18. Carr, A. Z. (1968). Is business bluffing ethical. Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 143–153.Google Scholar
  19. Carroll, A. B. (2000). Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate social responsibility and models of management morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, R. C. (1986). Corporate law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Copeland, T., Koller, T., & Murrin, J. (1995). Valuation, measuring and managing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Deakin, S. (2005). The coming transformation of shareholder value. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(1), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deakin, S., & Konzelmann, S. (2003). After Enron: An age of enlightenment? Organisation, 10(3), 583–587.Google Scholar
  24. Deakin, S., & Konzelmann, S. (2004). Learning from Enron. Corporate Governance, 12(2), 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dill, W. R. (1975). Public participation in corporate planning: Strategic management in a Kibitzer’s world. Long Range Planning, 8(1), 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45(7), 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1935). Is effective enforcement of the fiduciary duties of corporate managers practicable? University Chicago Law Review, 2, 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contract theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.Google Scholar
  29. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  30. Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. (1989). The corporate contract. Columbia Law Review, 89(7), 1416–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. (1991). The economic structure of company law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fisher, D. (2009). The enlightened shareholder-leaving stakeholders in the dark: Will Section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 make directors consider the impact of their decisions on third parties? International Company and Commercial Law Review, 20(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
  34. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  35. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Freeman, R. E. (2003). Lecture – Stakeholder management revisited: What’s the state of the art? Leuven, 20 Nov 2003.Google Scholar
  37. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 Sept 1970.Google Scholar
  40. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(102), 191–205.Google Scholar
  42. Gamble, A., & Kelly, G. (2001). Shareholder value and the stakeholder debate in the UK. Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance, 9(2), 110–117.Google Scholar
  43. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2001). The end of history for corporate law. Georgetown Law Journal, 89(2), 439–468.Google Scholar
  45. Harper Ho, V. (2010). Enlightened shareholder value: Corporate governance beyond the shareholder-stakeholder divide. Journal of Corporation Law, 36(1), 59–112.Google Scholar
  46. Harrison, J., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hurst, T. & McGuiness, L. (1991). The corporation, the bondholder and fiduciary duties. 10 Journal of Law and Commerce 187, 197–218.Google Scholar
  48. Jensen, M. C. (2001a). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jensen, M. C. (2001b). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. In J. Andriof et al. (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 65–84). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Jones, T., & Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  51. Kay, J. (1996). The Business of Economics, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kay, J. (2002). Stakeholding misconceived. Financial Times, 12 Feb 2002. Available at:
  53. Kay, J. & Silberston, A. (1996). Corporate governance. Perspectives on Company Law, vol 2. Available in the website:
  54. Keay, A. (2005). Formulating a framework for directors’ duties to creditors: An entity maximisation approach. Cambridge Law Journal, 64(3), 614–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Keay, A. (2007). Tackling the issue of the corporate objective: An analysis of the United Kingdom’s ‘enlightened shareholder value approach. Sydney Law Review, 29(4), 577–612.Google Scholar
  56. Keay, A. (2008). Ascertaining the corporate objective: An entity maximization and sustainability model. Modern Law Review, 71(5), 663–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Keay, A. (2010). Stakeholder theory in corporate law: Has it got what it takes? Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 9(3), 249–300.Google Scholar
  58. Keay, A. (2011). Moving towards stakeholderism? Constituency statutes, enlightened shareholder value and all that: Much Ado about little? European Business Law Review, 22(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  59. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder ‘theory’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kiarie, S. (2006). At crossroads: Shareholder value, stakeholder value and the enlightened shareholder value: Which road should the United Kingdom take. International Company and Commercial Law Review, 17(11), 329–343.Google Scholar
  61. Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lepineux, F. (2005). Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Letza, S., Sun, X., & Kirkbride, J. (2004). Shareholding versus stakeholding: A critical review of corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 12(3), 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 33(5), 41–50.Google Scholar
  66. Lian Yap, J. (2010). Considering the enlightened shareholder value principle. Company Lawyer, 31(2), 35–38.Google Scholar
  67. Likierman, A. (2006). Stakeholder dreams and shareholders reality. Financial Times, 19 June 2006. Available at:
  68. Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  69. Lovins, A. B., Lovins, H. L., & Hawken, P. (1999). A road map for natural capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 145–158.Google Scholar
  70. Macey, J. (1991). An economic analysis of the various rationales for making shareholders the exclusive beneficiaries of corporate fiduciary duties. Stetson Law Review, 21, 23–44.Google Scholar
  71. Mayer, C. (1997). Corporate governance, competition and performance. Journal of Law and Society, 24(1), 152–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller, R. (1988). Ethical challenges in corporate- shareholder and investor relations: Using the value exchange model to analyze and respond. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(1–2), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parkinson, J. (2003). Models of the company and the employment relationship. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(3), 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pfeffer, J. (2009). Shareholders first? Not so fast. Harvard Business Review, 87(7–8), 87–95.Google Scholar
  76. Pichet, E. (2011). Enlightened shareholder theory: Whose interests should be served by the supporters of corporate governance. Corporate Ownership and Control, 8(2–3), 353–362.Google Scholar
  77. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Richardson, B. J. (2007). Do the fiduciary duties of pension funds hinder socially responsible investment? Banking and Finance Law Review, 22(2), 145–201.Google Scholar
  79. Roach, L. (2005). The legal model of the company the Company Law Review. Company Lawyer, 26(4), 98–103.Google Scholar
  80. Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility: From corporate social responsibility toward a comprehensive and dynamic view of corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scholes, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (1998). Communication with stakeholders: An integrated approach. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Siems, M. (2002). Shareholders, stakeholders and the ‘Ordoliberalism’. European Business Law Review, 13(3), 139–151.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, A. (1974). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Random House/Modern Library.Google Scholar
  84. Solomon, J. (2010). Corporate governance and accountability. Essex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  85. Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 5(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 353–363.Google Scholar
  87. Tricker, B. (2008). Corporate governance, principles, policies and practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Van Marrewijk, M., & Verre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weaver, G., & Trevino, L. (1994). Normative and empirical business ethics: Separation, marriage of convenience, or marriage of necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Business ethics: the state of the art. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations