Download pdf
Is Stakeholder Value a Barrier for Shareholder Value?
- 1 University of Leeds
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Shareholder primacy is the foundational principle of one company generating the biggest interest for shareholders. As the separation of ownership and control, the protection of shareholders has been placed under spotlight and attracted more attention. Honestly, it is quite rational for companies to consider the interest of shareholders as priority, after all, shareholders as investors must undertake the risks of business. Yet, with companies are evolving into large-scale and complex entities, they need to balance multiple constituents of value such as employee’s benefits, social obligation, and consumers. Where the shareholder value may generate some conflicts with stakeholder value inevitably, leaving the managers one knotty issue. However, potential conflicts stem from wrong strategies rather than intrinsic features to a large degree. This article will dialectically treat different value orientations in terms of theoretical structure and legislations to prove that proper distribution ratio of interest is the solution.
Keywords
shareholder primacy, stakeholder theory, the duty of directors, enlighten shareholder value, shareholder protection
[1]. Armour J. (2003) Shareholder Primacy and the Trajectory of UK Corporate Governance. BJIR 531.
[2]. Greenfield K. (2005) New Principles for Corporate Law Hastings. Bus LJ, 1, 87-89.
[3]. Hillman A.J., Keim G.D. (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?. Strategic M J, 22, 125.
[4]. Harris J.S., Wicks A.C. (2013) Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance. Bus E Q, 23, 97-101.
[5]. Williams K. (2000) From shareholder value to present-day capitalism. ES, 29, 1.
[6]. Kiarie S. (2006) At crossroads: shareholder value, stakeholder value and enlightened shareholder value: Which road should the United Kingdom take?. Int’l. Company & Com. L. Rev, 17, 329-331.
[7]. Easterbrook, Frank H., Daniel R. Fischel (1996) The Economic Structure of Company Law. Harvard University Press 1996, 36-39.
[8]. Gamble A., Kelly G. (2001) Shareholder value and the stakeholder debate in the UK. C. G., 9, 110.
[9]. New York Times (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. Am.L.T., Sec 6, 32-33.
[10]. Keay A, Opoulou R.A. (2013) Shareholder Value and UK Companies: A Positivist Inquiry. EBOR, 13, 1-7.
[11]. Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. The free Press, 304-305.
[12]. Charles Hansen C. (1990) Other Constituency Statutes: Potential for Confusion. Bus. Law., 45, 2253-2269.
[13]. Mark E., Weide V.D. (1996) Against Fiduciary Duties to Corporate Stakeholders. Del J Corp L, 21, 73.
[14]. Company Act 2006, s 171.
[15]. Company Act 2006, s 172.
[16]. Hogg v Cramphorn Ch 254 (CD).
[17]. Melvin A Eisenberg M.A. (1999) The Conception That the Corporation Is a Nexus of Contracts, and the Dual Nature of the Firm J. Corp. L., 24, 825-26.
[18]. Dignam A., Lowry J. (2020) Company Law.11th edn Oxford, 370.
[19]. James Wallace J. (2003) Value maximisation and stakeholder theory: Compatible or not?. JACF, 15, 120-121.
[20]. Phillips R. (2003) What stakeholder theory is not. Bus E. Q., 13, 479-480.
[21]. Millstein I.M. (1997) The responsible board. Bus. Law., 52, 407-409.
[22]. Berman S.L. (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. AMJ, 42, 491-92.
[23]. Maria Goranova M. (2014) Shareholder Activism: A Multidisciplinary Review. J. M., 40, 1230-1231.
[24]. Adams R.B. (2011) Shareholders and stakeholders: How do directors decide?. Strat. Mgmt. J., 32, 1333-1336.
[25]. Capon N., Farley J.U., Scott Hoenig S. (1990) Determinants of financial performance: A meta-analysis. M. S., 36, 1143-1150.
[26]. Gail Robinson G., Kathleen Dechant K. (1997) Building a business case for diversity. AME, 11, 21-24.
[27]. Simon Deakin S. (2005) The Coming Transformation of Shareholder Value. C.G., 13, 11-12.
[28]. Williams C.A., Conley J.M. (2005) An Emerging Third Way - The Erosion of the Anglo-American Shareholder Value Construct. Cornell Int’l LJ, 38, 493-500.
[29]. House of Lords (2005) Company Law Reform Bill. HL, part 10.
[30]. Companies House (2018) Our commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR). <www.csr.gov.uk> accessed 20 August 2018.
[31]. Great Britain G. (1999) Modern company law for a competitive economy: the strategic framework. London Press, paras 5.1.8.
[32]. Council Regulation (EC) 2157/2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE) art 48.
[33]. Parkinson J. (2002) Inclusive Company Law. Cavendish Publishing London, 55.
Cite this article
Jin,D. (2023). Is Stakeholder Value a Barrier for Shareholder Value?. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,28,246-251.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).