IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v33y2024i3p241-250.html

Market reactions to the Business Roundtable August 19, 2019 announcement on the Purpose of a Corporation

Author

Listed:
  • Jay Janney
  • Malika Chaudhuri

Abstract

The Business Roundtable's “Purpose of a Corporation” letter announced a shift from stockholder primacy to stakeholder primacy. Interestingly, we contend the letter's language employed a technical efficiency emphasis, suggesting a firm's executives chose to make this shift because they believed doing so would improve the firm's financial performance, via improved corporate governance. We examine whether investors actually accepted the technical efficiency arguments at face value, or in contrast believed the announcements were merely a “rational myth,” what management thought investors would want to hear. We employ a 2‐day cumulative abnormal return (CAR) event study for 140 publicly‐held firms. Overall, we find investor support for the announcement. In addition, we found how returns to firms with prior similar announcements were negative at the time of the announcement. Also, the returns for firms having multiple signatories were positive and significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Jay Janney & Malika Chaudhuri, 2024. "Market reactions to the Business Roundtable August 19, 2019 announcement on the Purpose of a Corporation," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 241-250, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:241-250
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12594
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12594
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12594?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Goodpaster, 2011. "Goods That are Truly Good and Services that Truly Serve: Reflections on “Caritas in Veritate”," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(1), pages 9-16, March.
    2. Dodd, Peter & Warner, Jerold B., 1983. "On corporate governance : A study of proxy contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 401-438, April.
    3. William F. Sharpe, 1963. "A Simplified Model for Portfolio Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 277-293, January.
    4. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 2008. "Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 48(2), April.
    5. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    6. Jay Janney & Greg Dess & Victor Forlani, 2009. "Glass Houses? Market Reactions to Firms Joining the UN Global Compact," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 407-423, December.
    7. Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips & Jeffrey S. Harrison, 2009. "Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 447-456, April.
    8. Jay B. Barney, 2018. "Why resource‐based theory's model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(13), pages 3305-3325, December.
    9. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Goodstein, Jerry D. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2007. "Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility: Making Business Ethics A Two-Way Conversation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 375-398, July.
    12. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    13. Xia, Han, 2014. "Can investor-paid credit rating agencies improve the information quality of issuer-paid rating agencies?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 450-468.
    14. Jay J. Janney & Steve Gove, 2011. "Reputation and Corporate Social Responsibility Aberrations, Trends, and Hypocrisy: Reactions to Firm Choices in the Stock Option Backdating Scandal," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(7), pages 1562-1585, November.
    15. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    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. Lucrezia Fattobene & Marco Caiffa, 2016. "Sitting on the Board or Sitting on the Throne? Evidence of Boards' Overconfidence from the Italian Market," Economic Notes, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, vol. 45(2), pages 235-269, July.
    2. Marco Caiffa & Vincenzo Farina & Lucrezia Fattobene, 2021. "CEO Duality: Newspapers and Stock Market Reactions," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Emiliano Di Carlo & Silvia Cervi, 2025. "Redefining Firms in a Crisis Era: A Conceptual Framework for a Humanistic Approach Post-COVID-19," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 273-297, August.
    5. Axel v. Werder, 2011. "Corporate Governance and Stakeholder Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1345-1358, October.
    6. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2025. "Stakeholder theory: A radical institutionalist view," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 1001-1015.
    7. Daniel G. Arce, 2007. "Is Agency Theory Self‐Activating?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 708-720, October.
    8. Cumming, Douglas & Lu, Fanyu & Xu, Limin & Yu, Chia-Feng (Jeffrey), 2025. "Does stakeholder orientation mitigate shareholder-employee conflicts? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Anaclet ANANGA ONANA, 2024. "Board Characteristics and Firm Performance in State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Academic Finance, RED research unit, university of Gabes, Tunisia, vol. 15(2), pages 119-133, December.
    11. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    12. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    13. Nont Dhiensiri & Akin Sayrak, 2010. "The value impact of analyst coverage," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(3), pages 306-331, August.
    14. Bajzík, Josef & Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Novak, Jiri, 2023. "Does Shareholder Activism Create Value? A Meta-Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 18233, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    15. Ryan Krause & Michael C. Withers, 2022. "Propulsions Toward What Capes? Testing Normative Theory Through a Panorama of Consequences," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 317-333, November.
    16. Mahoney, Joseph T., 2012. "Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management," Working Papers 12-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    17. John Buchanan & Dominic H. Chai & Simon Deakin, 2018. "Unexpected Corporate Outcomes from Hedge Find Activism in Japan," Working Papers wp494, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    18. Maretno A. Harjoto & Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Marcus A. Nilsson, 2022. "Bondholders’ returns and stakeholders’ interests," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1271-1301, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Taekjin Shin & Jihae You, 2017. "Pay for Talk: How the Use of Shareholder-Value Language Affects CEO Compensation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 88-117, January.

    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:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:241-250. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    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.