IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One share-One vote, le nouveau Saint Graal




More than one third of companies listed in the FTSE EUROFIRST 300 index are governed accordingly to principles differing from the One share – One vote standards. These exceptions could be illustrated by several practices such as Scandinavian multiple voting shares, non voting shares as seen in some State members as authorised by European Directives, French double voting shares, “golden shares” concerning recently privatized firms, or even preference shares as observed in Holland. Such variety can be explained by the fact that “control rights” and “cash-flow rights”, understood as essential to the company's activities, are distinctly considered in the shareholder practices. The question at stake is to know if the application of the One share – One vote as a European standard would be justified with regard to European Law, including its underlying principles, and to economic efficiency in general. Indeed, One share – One vote enthusiast affirm that this rule participates to corporate democracy and contributes to increases firms' performance. The aim of our study is to determine whether these principles are reached or not. As a preliminary remark, we can notice that the European Commission intervention is questionable. First, its competence, and therefore the legality of a potential action, is not obvious. Indeed, owing to the subsidiarity principle and the article 48.2: (“co-ordinating to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies or firms, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community”.) and the European Parliament position concerning the Takeover Directive, the legitimacy of the European Commission in this case is undoubtedly compromised. Then, the application of One share - One vote, by the cancellation of certain rights attached to a share, would violate a democratic principle, founder of the European Union, and dedicated by Member States Constitutions, known as private property. It would have, as a result, an unjustified, not compensable and therefore, illegal expropriation. We also have to question ourselves concerning the concept of corporate democracy and its consequences on Europeans companies. Unquestionable at first glance, is the notion of democracy transposable it in corporate Law? Is it only referring to a strict equality between shareholders or rather intents to limit unequal situations and therefore, prevent dominant shareholders from unilaterally capturing the company's performance? The respect of principles such as equity, shareholders general interest and company's interest, combined with transparency rules and protection of minority shareholders leads us to favour the second supposition. Finally, we underline that the ultimate argument relating to efficiency as a result from the strict application of the One share – One vote rule, is tempered by economical studies and by the practice observed in several State members. The One share - One vote rule could definitely be necessary for market readability purposes. But, some exception to this rule might be justified with regard to the company's interest. Therefore, some flexibility principles should remain. A dogmatic approach focused on shareholders, or certain type of shareholders, would disadvantage the development of the internal market and could not be justifiable on a legal ground. We believe that promoting corporate democracy requests an enhancement of transparency with a better bordering of existing practices and a strengthening of minority shareholders (by improving an “upper standard” harmonization).

Suggested Citation

  • de Beaufort, Viviane, 2006. "One share-One vote, le nouveau Saint Graal," ESSEC Working Papers DR 06019, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebg:essewp:dr-06019

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    Corporate Governance; One share-One vote; Shareholder Democracy;

    JEL classification:

    • H00 - Public Economics - - General - - - General
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ebg:essewp:dr-06019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sophie Magnanou). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.