THE DRAMATIC SHIFT IN EMPHASIS FROM A SHAREHOLDER-DOMINATED APPROACH TO A STAKEHOLDER-ORIENTED CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MODEL

ATM Adnan, Hilda Tandigalla

Abstract


Corporate governance (CG) has emerged as one of the most recognized areas for researchers, academics, practitioner, and regulators over the last few decades. This paper will initially present an epigrammatic overview on key developments in corporate governance along with the intellectual foundations of the ‘shareholder versus stakeholder’ argument. Additionally, this study tries to analyze the contemporary shift in the perception of corporations from the shareholders wealth maximization to stakeholder’s valuation. It has been noticed that investigating cross country and firm based variances in wealth distribution between diverse interest groups is likely to continue as major focus for CG study. It has been experienced that the nature of the corporation is changing around the globe, Big multinationals have been splitting into smaller liberated corporation, access to capital market is become easier and physical resources are easily replaceable and less exclusive to business strategy therefore the human resources turn into significantly important means to a corporation’s existence and growth. In addition to that firm’s relationships with community and goodwill are becoming equally crucial. In line with that, the implementation of corporate governance principle in every country can be vary because of their different cultural, existing legal system, environmental condition, social and historical values. In addition to the principle differences regarding the interests of the parties served, the two orientations of corporate governance also differ in terms of purpose. This means that the corporate governance evolution will be progressive and different according to individual countries. Furthermore, from a systems-based viewpoint, recent progresses are often viewed as a “mixture” of domestic CG framework. Fundamental features from stakeholder leaned system are reframed with latest aspects of equity-holder leaned models, such as comprehensibility and precision. Shareholder and stakeholder focused CG, might help to create an equilibrium or complement each other such as happening in Germany and Japan. Global standards are also playing a major role in the recent convergence of CG.


Keywords


Stakeholder, Shareholder, Corporate Governance, Agency Theory. Stewardship theory, Accountability

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdullah, H., & Valentine, B. (2009). Fundamental and Ethics Theories of Corporate Governance. Middle Eastern Finance and Economics(4), 88-96.

Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of Good Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 376-387.

Aguilera, R., & Jackson, G. (2003). The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447–465.

Aguilera, R., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and International Corporate Governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485–556.

Allen, J. (2000). Code Convergence in Asia: Smoke or Fire? Corporate Governance International, 3, 1,, 3(1), 23-37.

Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M. (2014). Maximizing Stakeholders’ Interests: An Empirical Analysis of the Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance. Business & Society, 53(3), 414–439.

Bottenberg, K., Tuschke, A., & Flickinger, M. (2017). Corporate Governance Between Shareholder and Stakeholder Orientation: Lessons From Germany. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 165–180.

Boyd, C. (1996). Ethics and Corporate Governance: The Issues Raised by the Cadbury Report in the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 167-182.

Brandt, F., & Georgiou, K. (2016). Shareholders vs Stakeholders Capitalism. Comparative Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. Paper 10.

Cadbury, A. (1992). The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London, UK: The Committee on the Financial Aspect of Corporate Governance (The Cadbury Committee) and Gee and Co, Ltd.

Clarke, T. (2016). The continuing diversity of corporate governance: Theories of convergence and variety. ephemera: theory & politics in organization, 16(1), 19-52.

Coffee, J. (2001). The Rise of Dispersed Ownership: The Roles of Law and the State in the Separation of Ownership and Control. The Yale Law Journal, 111(1), 1-82.

Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. (1991). Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management , 16(1), 49-65.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of The Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Forbes, W., Hodgkinson, L., & Solomon, J. (2013). Corporate Governance: A Review of The Literature. Working Paper.

Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gugler, K., Mueller, D. C., & Yurtoglu, B. B. (2004). Corporate Governance and Globalization. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(1), 129-156.

Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2000). The End of History for Corporate Law. Harvard Law School John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business Discussion Paper Series. Paper 280.

Haxhi, I., & Aguilera, R. (2012). Are codes fostering convergence in corporate governance? An institutional perspective. In The Convergence of Corporate Governance (pp. 234-248). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

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

Jeffers, E. (2005). Corporate governance: Toward converging models? Global Finance Journal, 16, 221 – 232.

Jensen, M. (2001). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21.

Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics,, 3(4), 305-360.

Keasey, K., Thompson, S., & Wright, M. (1997). Corporate Governance: Economic, Management, and Financial Issues (First ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of political economy, 106(6), 1113-1155.

Lazonick, W., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29(1), 13–35.

Letza, S., Sun, X., & Kirkbride, J. (2004). Shareholding Versus Stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3), 242-262.

Maher, M., & Andersson, T. (1999). Corporate Governance: Effects On Firm Performance And Economic Growth. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publications.

Mallin, C. (2016). Corporate Governance (Fifth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monks, R., & Minow, N. (2004). Corporate Governance (Third ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Monks, R., & Minow, N. (2011). Corporate Governance (Fifth ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

OECD. (1999). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: Organisation for Economics Co-operation and Development.

OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2017). OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2017. OECD.

O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Corporate Governance and Globalization. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570(1), 153-172.

Palmer, C. (2011). Has the Worldwide Convergence on the Anglo-American Style Shareholder Model of Corporate Law Yet been Assured? Opticon1826, 11, 1-12.

Pfarrer, M. (2010). What is the Purpose of the Firm?: Shareholder and Stakeholder Theories. In Good Business: Exercising Effective and Ethical Leadership (pp. 86-93). New York: Routledge.

Salvioni, D., Franzoni, S., & Gennari, F. (2017). Social Responsibility as a Factor of Convergence in Corporate Governance. In G. Gal, O. Akisik, & W. Wooldridge (Eds.), Sustainability and Social Responsibility: Regulation and Reporting (pp. 29-53). Singapore: Springer.

Salvioni, D., Gennari, F., & Bosetti, L. (2016). Sustainability and Convergence: The Future of Corporate Governance Systems? Sustainability, 8(11), 1203.

Schmidt, R., & Spindler, G. (2002). Path Dependence, Corporate Governance and Complementarity. International Finance, 5(3), 311-333.

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The journal of finance, 52(2), 737-783.

Smith, H. (2003). The Shareholders vs. Stakeholders Debate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 85-91.

Solomon, J. (2013). Corporate Governance and Accountability (Fourth ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Stout, L. (2013). The Shareholder Value Myth. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 771.

Taylor, P. N. (2010). Enlightened Shareholder Value and The Companies Act 2006. London: PhD Thesis: Birkbeck College.

UN Global Compact. (2015). Guide to Corporate Sustainability;. New York: UN Global Compact.

Vinten, G. (2001). Shareholder versus Stakeholder - is there a governance dilemma? Corporate Governance, 9(1), 36-47.

Vitols, S. (2004). Negotiated Shareholder Value: the German Variant of an Anglo-American Practice. Competition & Change, 8(4), 357–374.

Waldkirch, R. (2008). The Shareholder vs. Stakeholder Debate reconsidered. Wittenberg Centre for Global Ethics, Diskussionspapier, 2.

Witt, P. ( 2004). The Competition of International Corporate Governance Systems- A German Perspective. Management International Review, 44 , 309-333.

Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. (2001). Alternative corporate governance systems in Japanese firms: Implications for a shift to stockholder-centered corporate governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), 183-205.

Yoshikawa, T., & Rasheed, A. (2009). Convergence of Corporate Governance: Critical Review and Future Directions. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 388–404.

Young, M., Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. (2004). The Globalization of Corporate Governance in East Asia: The "Transnational" Solution. Management International Review, 44(2), 31-50.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12955/ejbe.v12i2.1115

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Online ISSN 1804-9699

(c) 2017 Central Bohemia University