Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Significant Shifts in Operating Environments: The Role of Corporate Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Governance for Climate Transition

  • 281 Accesses

Abstract

Corporations possess unique legal attributes that provide shareholders with asymmetric advantages and protections in the marketplace. Created and sanctioned by the state, corporations remain abstractions until they are populated by people—shareholders, managers, and directors—and commence their activities. Those who populate the corporation, and those who engage with it, construct their own understandings of what corporations are and how they should behave. Of key importance in this chapter are those who understand corporations in three different ways: legal, economic, or political entities. These mental constructions and meanings shape the activities, behaviors, and operational goals of the corporation as it engages with its external environment. One persistent characteristic of that external environment is change, which sometimes can be slight and incremental and sometimes significant and disruptive. This chapter suggests that the recognitions and perceptions of long-term environmental change are viewed differently by those who understand the corporation as either an economic or a political entity. It recommends that successfully recognizing and confronting long-term change requires corporate governance that is future-orientated, strategically flexible, and diverse in terms of understanding the nature and purpose of the corporation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. (2003). Changing the nature of goverance to create value. Commentary—C.D. Howe Institute, 189, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. M., McCormick, R. E., & Tollison, R. D. (1983). The economic organization of the English East India Company. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 4(2–3), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, S. D. (2016, July 15). Kodak’s downfall wasn’t about technology. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D. (1995). The Scottish vision of empire: Intellectual origins of the Darien Venture. In J. Robertson (Ed.), A union for empire: Political thought and the British Union of 1707 (pp. 97–120). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, W. W., Jr. (1989). Nexus of contracts corporations: A critical appraisal. Cornell Law Review, 74(3), 407–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, M., Podoynitsyna, K., & Langerak, F. (2018). Sustainable business models as boundary-spanning systems of value transfers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4514–4531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, C. M. (2018). Corporate governance reform in post-crisis financial firms: Two fundamental tensions. Arizona Law Review, 60(4), 959–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, H. (1896). Pollock and Maitland’s history of English Law. Political Science Quarterly, 11(3), 534–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, H. N. (1989). The contractual theory of the corporation. George Mason University Law Review, 11(4), 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni, D., & Yuchtman, N. (2014). Medieval universities, legal institutions, and the commercial revolution. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(2), 823–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CED [Committee for Economic Development]. (1971). Social responsibilities of business corporations. Committee for Economic Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciepley, D. (2013). Beyond public and private: Toward a political theory of the corporation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. (1991). The nature of the firm: Influence. In O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development (pp. 61–74). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research (pp. 11–20). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Costanzo, L. A. (2004). Strategic foresight in a high-speed environment. Futures, 36(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, V., Ding, S., Liu, M., & Wu, Z. (2018). Revisiting the effect of family involvement on corporate social responsibility: A behavioral agency perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S. (2017). Tony Lawson’s theory of the corporation: Towards a social ontology of law. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(5), 1505–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., Fatima, T., & Jahanzeb, S. (2021). Gossiping about an arrogant leader: Sparked by inconsistent leadership, mitigated by employee resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(3), 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Kluyver, C. A. (2013). A primer on corporate governance (2nd ed.). Business Expert Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, A. L. (2013). Evolutions in corporate governance: Towards an ethical framework for business conduct. Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, M. (2020). Adam Smith and the Honourable East India Company. History of Economics Review, 77(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. (2020). The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Business Research, 13, 387–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., & Matos, P. (2012). Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions worldwide. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(2), 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, D. R. (1982). The corporate governance movement. Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1259–1292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontrodona, J., & Sison, A. J. G. (2006). The nature of the firm, agency theory and shareholder theory: A Critique from philosophical anthropology. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine—The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, Section SM, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, A. S. (2017). Purposive loyalty. Washington & Lee Law Revue, 74, 881–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, A. V., Ramic, M., Rohrbeck, R., & Spaniol, M. J. (2020). 50 years of corporate and organizational foresight: Looking back and going forward. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 154, Article 119966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, R., Kakabadse, N., & Kakabadse, A. (2019). Improving corporate governance with functional diversity on FTSE 350 boards: Directors’ perspective. Journal of Capital Markets Studies, 3(2), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D. J. (2017). Neofederalism: The surprising foundations of corporate constitutional rights. University of Illinois Law Review, 2017(1), 163–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, G. (2017). Overseeing the unseeable: The conflict between managers and shareholders. In G. Guthrie (Ed.), The firm divided: Manager-shareholder conflict and the fight for control of the modern corporation (Chapter 3). Oxford Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H., Kraakman, R., & Squire, R. (2006). Law and the rise of the firm. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1333–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., & Zingales, L. (2017). Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 2(2), 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., & Painter, R. W. (2011). Compromised fiduciaries: Conflicts of interest in government and business. Minnesota Law Review, 95, 1637–1691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I. (2002). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, P. (2010). Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(5), 837–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, P., & Pillay, R. G. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in a neoliberal age. In P. Utting & J. C. Marques (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and regulatory governance (pp. 77–104). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. (2012). Law and legal theory in the history of corporate responsibility: Corporate personhood. Seattle University Law Review, 35(4), 1135–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A., Amaeshi, K., Adegbite, E., & Osuji, O. (2021). Corporate social responsibility as obligated iternalisation of social costs. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2013). Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, G. (2009). The corporate governance lessons from the financial crisis. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2009(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakidou, O. (2011). Relational perspectives on the construction of meaning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(5), 572–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: Modeling the impact of variability in members’ problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38(3), 413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (2016). Comparing conceptions of social ontology: Emergent social entities and/or institutional facts? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46(4), 359–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (2017). The nature of the firm and peculiarities of the corporation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. L. (1976). The public image of Henry Ford: An American folk hero and his company. Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurdes, P., & Franco, M. (2022). A systematic literature review about team diversity and team performance: Future lines of investigation. Administrative Sciences, 12, Article 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maines, D. R. (2000). The social construction of meaning. Contemporary Sociology, 29(4), 577–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado-Erazo, C. P., Álvarez-García, J., de la Cruz Del Río-Rama, M., & Correa-Quezada, R. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and performance in SMEs: Scientific coverage. Sustainability, 12(6), 2332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika, J., Birshan, B., Smit, S., Woetzel, J., Russell, K., Lindsay Purcell, C., & Ramaswamy, S. (2021). A new look at how corporations impact the economy and households (Discussion Paper). McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinković, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., Khan, Z., & Wu, J. (2022). Corporate foresight: A systematic literature review and future research trajectories. Journal of Business Research, 144, 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markley, O. W., & Harman, W. W. (Eds.). (1982). Changing images of man: Prepared by the Center for the Study of Social Policy/SRI International. Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffers or bridges? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five P for strategy. The Californian Business Review, 30(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morden, T. (1993). Business strategy and planning. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, M. (2018). On tartan tides: The failure and legacy of the Darien Scheme. Political Analysis, 19, Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2003). Models of the company and the employment relationship. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(3), 481–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pies, I., Hielscher, S., & Beckmann, M. (2009). Moral commitments and the societal role of business: An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, F., & Maitland, F. W. (1898). The history of English law: Before the time of Edward I (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R. G. (2012). Presidential address: The corporation in finance. Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1173–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, R., Battistella, C., & Huizingh, E. (2015). Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabeti, H. (2011, November). The for-benefit enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seth, V. K. (2012). The East India Company—A case study in corporate governance. Global Business Review, 13(2), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaanan, J. (2010). Large corporations and economic power. In J. Shaanan (Ed.), Economic freedom and the American dream (pp. 75–90). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smallman, C. (2004). Exploring theoretical paradigms in corporate governance. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 1(1), 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr-Glass, D. (2018). The boundaries of corporate social responsibility: A managerial perspective. In C. F. Machado & J. P. Davim (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in management and engineering (pp. 1–30). River Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steger, U., & Amann, W. (2008). Corporate governance: How to add value. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, S., Zhu, F., & Zhou, H. (2022). A systematic literature review on ownership and corporate social responsibility in family firms. Sustainability, 14(13), 7817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toscano, R., Price, G., & Scheepers, C. (2018). The impact of CEO arrogance on top management team attitudes. European Business Review, 30(6), 630–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldman, J., & Willmott, H. (2013). What is the corporation and why does it matter? Management, 16(5), 605–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2010). Concepts in strategic management and business policy. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Education, SUNY Empire State College, Prague, Czech Republic

    David Starr-Glass

Authors
  1. David Starr-Glass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Starr-Glass .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Carolina Machado

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    João Paulo Davim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Starr-Glass, D. (2023). Identifying Significant Shifts in Operating Environments: The Role of Corporate Governance. In: Machado, C., Paulo Davim, J. (eds) Corporate Governance for Climate Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26277-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation