IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v37y2019i5p637-647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues

Author

Listed:
  • Levillain, Kevin
  • Segrestin, Blanche

Abstract

This paper aims at contributing to corporate governance theory by developing a model of governance that takes into account a recent legal innovation: the introduction of purpose-driven legal business forms in the corporate law of several countries. Current debates in such theory oppose models that grant “primacy” (i.e., ultimate control rights) to different constituencies. The resulting uncertainty proves problematic in the face of new, urgent social and environmental stakes that are difficult to represent in traditional governance bodies. Newly adopted profit-with-purpose corporate forms' introduction of a “purpose” in corporate contracts renews these debates. We show that through the “purpose commitment” model it enables, the distribution of control rights in the governance system is decoupled from the objectives assigned to the corporation. This new approach renews the formal role of management, and corporations’ accountability to society. We explore the theoretical, practical, and political consequences of this new model.

Suggested Citation

  • Levillain, Kevin & Segrestin, Blanche, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 637-647.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:37:y:2019:i:5:p:637-647
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237319300908
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2019.07.002?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. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    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. Joakim Sandberg, 2011. "Socially Responsible Investment and Fiduciary Duty: Putting the Freshfields Report into Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 143-162, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    6. Janine Hiller, 2013. "The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 287-301, December.
    7. John Kay & Aubrey Silberston, 1995. "Corporate Governance," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 153(1), pages 84-107, August.
    8. Aleksandra Kacperczyk, 2009. "With greater power comes greater responsibility? takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 261-285, March.
    9. Kevin Levillain & Simon C Parker & Rory Ridley-Duff & Blanche Segrestin & Jeroen Veldman & Hugh Willmott, 2018. "Protecting Long-Term Commitment: Legal and Organizational Means," Post-Print halshs-01845513, HAL.
    10. Susan Mac Cormac & Heather Haney, 2012. "New Corporate Forms: One Viable Solution to Advancing Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 24(2), pages 49-56, June.
    11. Jeffery S. McMullen & Benjamin J. Warnick, 2016. "Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 630-662, June.
    12. Kurland, Nancy B., 2017. "Accountability and the public benefit corporation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 519-528.
    13. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "Power in a Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 387-432.
    14. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel, 2011. "Beyond Agency Theory, a Post-crisis View of Corporate Law," Post-Print hal-00637286, HAL.
    15. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    16. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    17. Ciepley, David, 2013. "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 139-158, February.
    18. Shann Turnbull, 1997. "Stakeholder Governance: A Cybernetic and Property Rights Analysis," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 11-23, January.
    19. Hart, Oliver & Zingales, Luigi, 2017. "Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare Not Market Value," Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 247-275, November.
    20. O'Sullivan, Mary, 2000. "The Innovative Enterprise and Corporate Governance," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(4), pages 393-416, July.
    21. Charles W. L. Hill & Thomas M. Jones, 1992. "Stakeholder‐Agency Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 131-154, March.
    22. Engel, Ellen & Hayes, Rachel M. & Wang, Xue, 2007. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and firms' going-private decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 116-145, September.
    23. Pitelis, Christos & Teece, David, 2009. "The (new) nature and essence of the firm," MPRA Paper 24317, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Coral Ingley & Jens Mueller & Graeme Cocks, 2011. "The financial crisis, investor activists and corporate strategy: will this mean shareholders in the boardroom?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(4), pages 557-587, November.
    25. Coffee, Jr., John C. & Palia, Darius, 2016. "The Wolf at the Door: The Impact of Hedge Fund Activism on Corporate Governance," Annals of Corporate Governance, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 1-94, February.
    26. Thomas Ahrens & Igor Filatotchev & Steen Thomsen, 2011. "The research frontier in corporate governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 311-325, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.
    2. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2018. "From Primacy to Commitment: Revising corporate governance theories to account for recent legal innovations in the US," Post-Print hal-01777788, HAL.
    3. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2018. "From Primacy to Commitment: Revising corporate governance theories to account for recent legal innovations in the US," Working Papers hal-01777788, HAL.
    4. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "Commitment in the unknown: An innovative use of the Profit-with-Purpose corporate framework to ensure responsible innovation," Post-Print hal-02171252, HAL.
    5. 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.
    6. Maria Goranova & Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2022. "The Corporate Objective Revisited: The Shareholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 526-554, March.
    7. Blanche Segrestin & Kevin Levillain & Armand Hatchuel, 2016. "Purpose-driven corporations: how corporate law reorders the field of corporate governance," Post-Print hal-01323118, HAL.
    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," Post-Print hal-02465609, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Thomas J. Chemmanur & Dimitrios Gounopoulos & Panagiotis Koutroumpis & Yu Zhang, 2022. "CSR and Firm Survival: Evidence from the Climate and Pandemic Crises," Working Papers 935, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    11. Mahoney, Joseph T., 2012. "Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management," Working Papers 12-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    12. J. W. Stoelhorst, 2023. "Value, rent, and profit: A stakeholder resource‐based theory," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1488-1513, June.
    13. Kevin Levillain & Dana Brakman Reiser & Blanche Segrestin & Günter K. Stahl & Christian Voegtlin, 2019. "The Purpose-Driven Corporate Forms: Tackling Grand Societal Challenges with Innovations in Governance and Corporate Responsibility," Post-Print halshs-02296447, HAL.
    14. 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.
    15. Simon Learmount, 2002. "Theorizing Corporate Governance: New Organizational Alternatives," Working Papers wp237, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    16. Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili, 2022. "Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 145-163, September.
    17. Christos Pitelis, 2013. "Towards a More ‘Ethically Correct’ Governance for Economic Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 655-665, December.
    18. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    19. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    20. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, March.

    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:eee:eurman:v:37:y:2019:i:5:p:637-647. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    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.