IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v134y2016i3d10.1007_s10551-014-2427-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • N. Craig Smith

    (INSEAD)

  • David Rönnegard

    (INSEAD)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Craig Smith & David Rönnegard, 2016. "Shareholder Primacy, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Role of Business Schools," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 463-478, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:134:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-014-2427-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2427-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-014-2427-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-014-2427-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chilosi, Alberto & Damiani, Mirella, 2007. "Stakeholders vs. shareholders in corporate governance," MPRA Paper 2334, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    3. Matthias Benz & Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Corporate Governance: What can we Learn from Public Governance?," IEW - Working Papers 166, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Marcoux, Alexei M., 2003. "A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. Marens, Richard & Wicks, Andrew, 1999. "Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 273-293, April.
    7. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    8. Jacob Rose, 2007. "Corporate Directors and Social Responsibility: Ethics versus Shareholder Value," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 319-331, July.
    9. Galai, Dan & Wiener, Zvi, 2008. "Stakeholders and the composition of the voting rights of the board of directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 107-117, April.
    10. Boatright, John R., 1994. "Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: or, What's so Special About Shareholders?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 393-407, October.
    11. Larry Floyd & Feng Xu & Ryan Atkins & Cam Caldwell, 2013. "Ethical Outcomes and Business Ethics: Toward Improving Business Ethics Education," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 753-776, November.
    12. Orts, Eric W., 2013. "Business Persons: A Legal Theory of the Firm," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199670918.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giorgio Mion, 2020. "Organizations with Impact? A Study on Italian Benefit Corporations Reporting Practices and Reporting Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2020. "Understanding the purpose of benefit corporations: an empirical study on the Italian case," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. John Gerard Ruggie, 2018. "Multinationals as global institution: Power, authority and relative autonomy," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 317-333, September.
    4. Yassin Denis Bouzzine & Rainer Lueg, 2020. "The contagion effect of environmental violations: The case of Dieselgate in Germany," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3187-3202, December.
    5. Flavio Pinheiro Martins & Luciana Oranges Cezarino & Lara Bartocci Liboni & Amilton Barbosa Botelho Junior & Trevor Hunter, 2022. "Interdisciplinarity-Based Sustainability Framework for Management Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Gunnar Friede, 2019. "Why don't we see more action? A metasynthesis of the investor impediments to integrate environmental, social, and governance factors," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1260-1282, September.
    7. Qianwen Lu & Shouming Chen & Peien Chen, 2020. "The Relationship between Female Top Managers and Corporate Social Responsibility in China: The Moderating Role of the Marketization Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.
    8. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2021. "When the Law Distinguishes Between the Enterprise and the Corporation: The Case of the New French Law on Corporate Purpose," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-13, June.
    9. Alexander Guerrero-Avendaño & Wilson Nieto Bernal & Carmenza Luna Amaya, 2023. "Governance and Corporate Management System Supported by Innovation, Technology, and Digital Transformation as a Driver of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-18, September.
    10. Jasmin Joecks & Kerstin Pull & Katrin Scharfenkamp, 2023. "Women directors and firm innovation: The role of women directors' representative function," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(2), pages 1203-1214, March.
    11. Francesca Collevecchio & Gianluca Gionfriddo, 2023. "Adopting a social purpose in for-profit firms: the role of the board of directors," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1467-1499, September.
    12. Gro Kvåle & Zuzana Murdoch, 2022. "Making Sense of Stigmatized Organizations: Labelling Contests and Power Dynamics in Social Evaluation Processes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 675-693, July.
    13. Patrizia Gazzola & Daniele Grechi & Paola Ossola & Enrica Pavione, 2019. "Certified Benefit Corporations as a new way to make sustainable business: The Italian example," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1435-1445, November.
    14. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    15. Oriol Iglesias & Nicholas Ind, 2020. "Towards a theory of conscientious corporate brand co-creation: the next key challenge in brand management," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(6), pages 710-720, November.
    16. Silvia Blasi & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2019. "Mapping the emergence of a new research field: an exploration of the intellectual structure of the B Corp research," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0236, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    17. Malu Villela & Sergio Bulgacov & Glenn Morgan, 2021. "B Corp Certification and Its Impact on Organizations Over Time," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 343-357, May.
    18. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2020. "When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: the case of the new French law on corporate purpose," Post-Print hal-02441287, HAL.
    19. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2021. "When the Law Distinguishes Between the Enterprise and the Corporation: The Case of the New French Law on Corporate Purpose," Post-Print hal-02465609, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    2. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    3. Christopher, Joe, 2010. "Corporate governance—A multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider influencing forces impacting on organizations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 683-695.
    4. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    5. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    6. Jocelyn D. Evans & Elise Perrault & Timothy A. Jones, 2017. "Managers’ Moral Obligation of Fairness to (All) Shareholders: Does Information Asymmetry Benefit Privileged Investors at Other Shareholders’ Expense?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 81-96, January.
    7. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    8. Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2013. "Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting," Post-Print hal-01002936, HAL.
    9. Ghulam Abid & Binish Khan & Zeeshan Rafiq & Alia Ahmed, 2014. "Theoretical Perspectives of Corporate Governance," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 3(4), pages 166-175, December.
    10. Andrew West, 2016. "Applying Metaethical and Normative Claims of Moral Relativism to (Shareholder and Stakeholder) Models of Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 199-215, May.
    11. Jose-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2015. "Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 439-452, October.
    12. Ni, Xiaoran & Song, Wei & Yao, Jiaquan, 2020. "Stakeholder orientation and corporate payout policy: Insights from state legal shocks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    13. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    14. Alexander Brink, 2010. "Enlightened Corporate Governance: Specific Investments by Employees as Legitimation for Residual Claims," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 641-651, June.
    15. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2013. "The economics of corporate social responsibility," Chapters, in: Luigino Bruni & Stefano Zamagni (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Reciprocity and Social Enterprise, chapter 38, pages 372-399, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Magali Fia & Lorenzo Sacconi, 2019. "Justice and Corporate Governance: New Insights from Rawlsian Social Contract and Sen’s Capabilities Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 937-960, December.
    17. John R. Boatright, 2006. "What's Wrong—and What's Right— with Stakeholder Management," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 22(Spring 20), pages 106-130.
    18. Blanche Segrestin & Kevin Levillain & Armand Hatchuel, 2016. "Purpose-driven corporations: how corporate law reorders the field of corporate governance," Post-Print hal-01323118, HAL.
    19. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    20. Li, Chengcheng & Wang, Xiaoqiong, 2022. "Local peer effects of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:134:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-014-2427-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.