IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v9y1999i02p273-293_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders

Author

Listed:
  • Marens, Richard
  • Wicks, Andrew

Abstract

Stakeholder theorists have generally misunderstood the nature and ramifications of the fiduciary responsibilities that corporate directors owe their stockholders. This fiduciary duty requires the exercise of care, loyalty, and honesty with regard to the financial interests of stockholders. Such obligations do not conflict with the normative goals of stakeholder theory, nor, after a century of case law that includes Dodge Bros. v. Ford, do fiduciary responsibilities owed shareholders prevent managerial policies that are generous or sensitive to other corporate stakeholders. The common law recognizes a multitude of legal relationships between various corporate constituents, and fiduciary duties are only a subset of the obligations that arise from these relationships. This article argues that statute and case law can bring comparable legal protection to constituents other than stockholders, and suggests ways that these protections might be further strengthened. Implications for management education are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:9:y:1999:i:02:p:273-293_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00004401/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Blanche Segrestin & Kevin Levillain & Armand Hatchuel, 2016. "Purpose-driven corporations: how corporate law reorders the field of corporate governance," Post-Print hal-01323118, HAL.
    2. Helen J. Mussell, 2023. "Theorising the Fiduciary: Ontology and Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(2), pages 293-307, August.
    3. J. Robert Mitchell & Ronald K. Mitchell & Richard A. Hunt & David M. Townsend & Jae H. Lee, 2022. "Stakeholder Engagement, Knowledge Problems and Ethical Challenges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 75-94, January.
    4. Holtbrügge, Dirk & Berg, Nicola & Puck, Jonas F., 2007. "To bribe or to convince? Political stakeholders and political activities in German multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 47-67, February.
    5. Ninghua Zhong & Shujing Wang & Rudai Yang, 2017. "Does Corporate Governance Enhance Common Interests of Shareholders and Primary Stakeholders?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 411-431, March.
    6. Neamtu Florentina, 2013. "Stakeholders, The Determinant Factors In Development And Operationalization Of E-Governance In Romania," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 595-604, December.
    7. Eric Brown, 2013. "Vulnerability and the Basis of Business Ethics: From Fiduciary Duties to Professionalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 489-504, March.
    8. Anna Lamin & Srilata Zaheer, 2012. "Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 47-66, February.
    9. Clement, Ronald W., 2005. "The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. business leaders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 255-264.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. McSweeney, Brendan, 2009. "The roles of financial asset market failure denial and the economic crisis: Reflections on accounting and financial theories and practices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 835-848, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Silvana Signori & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2009. "Ethical Thinking in Traditional Italian Economia Aziendale and the Stakeholder Management Theory: The Search for Possible Interactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 303-318, November.
    15. Giovanni Ferri & Angelo Leogrande, 2015. "Was the Crisis due to a shift from stakeholder to shareholder finance? Surveying the debate," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 108, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    16. Daniela M. Salvioni & Alex Almici, 2020. "Transitioning Toward a Circular Economy: The Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on Sustainability Culture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-30, October.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    21. Simone de Colle & Adrian Henriques & Saras Sarasvathy, 2014. "The Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 177-191, December.
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:buetqu:v:9:y:1999:i:02:p:273-293_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    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.