Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Where Are the Shareholders’ Mansions? CEOs’ Home Purchases, Stock Sales, and Subsequent Company Performance Read chapter Read first chapter

2012 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Enlightened Shareholder Value: Is It the New Modus Operandi for Modern Companies?

Author : Dr. Stelios Andreadakis

Published in: Corporate Governance

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The present financial crisis has led to more and more calls for changes in the way modern companies operate. The need for increased scrutiny of corporate governance, greater corporate accountability and monitoring has been repeatedly highlighted. As a result, a new trend has been developed the last few years, according to which business success and shareholder value cannot be achieved solely through maximizing short-term profits, but instead through market-oriented yet responsible behavior. Failure to effectively manage both the financial and non-financial aspects of corporate responsibility places shareholder value at risk. However, it is extremely difficult to achieve total transformation of the objectives of the company or the market system, thus the right approach is not to shift the focus away from shareholder value, but to reaffirm shareholder value as the central focus of corporate responsibility. The rules of the corporate game have changed and corporate boards are required to change the existing corporate mentality, in order to create companies, which are sustainable and economically, ethically and socially responsible. The enlightened shareholder value theory represents an attempt to strike a balance between shareholders’ primacy and corporate stakeholders’ interests. Effective corporate social responsibility management is not incompatible with shareholder value and having wider interests can be the key to long-term financial performance. Companies should not be seen only as vehicles for profit maximization, but as having a wider social role. The companies, which are willing to change their mentality and adopt a long-term perspective, will be rewarded with sustainability and efficiency.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Effective Governance in the Family Owned Business
Footnotes
1
For Berle, shareholders are the legitimate and only claimants to corporate profits, not necessarily because they are the owners in the traditional property sense, but because they represented to some extent the welfare of the general public.
 
2
On contrary, Freeman views profit maximization as the end result of effective stakeholder management, which he considers the fundamental purpose of the firm, rather than a means to an end. On this issue, see Agle et al. (2008).
 
Literature
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.CrossRef
Agle, B. R., et al. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 153–190.CrossRef
Alcock, A., Birds, J., & Gale, S. (2007). Companies Act 2006: The new law. Bristol: Jordans.
Ansoff, H. (1984). Strategic management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Aoki, M. (1984). The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford: Clarendon.
Attas, D. (2004). A moral stakeholder theory of the firm. Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 312–318.
Beauchamp, T., & Bowie, N. (Eds.). (2004). Ethical theory and business. New York: Pearson Education.
Benson, B. W., & Davidson, W. N., III. (2009). The relation between stakeholder management, firm value, and CEO compensation: A test of enlightened value maximization. Financial Management, 39(3), 929–963.CrossRef
Berle, A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.CrossRef
Berle, A. (1932). For whom corporate managers are trustees: A note. Harvard Law Review, 45(8), 1365–1372.CrossRef
Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
Bevan, D. (2008). Philosophy: A grounded theory approach and the emergence of convenient and inconvenient ethics. In M. Painter-Morland & P. Werhane (Eds.), Cutting edge issues in business ethics (pp. 131–152). Boston: Springer.CrossRef
Black, B., & Kraakman, R. (1996). A self-enforcing model of corporate law. Harvard Law Review, 109(8), 1911–1982.CrossRef
Blair, M., & Stout, L. (2006). Specific investments and corporate law. European Business Organisation Law Review, 7(2), 473–500.CrossRef
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2007). Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 5–15.
Branson, D. M. (2001). Corporate governance ‘reform’ and the new corporate social responsibility. University of Pittsburg Law Review, 62, 605–647.
Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W., Jr., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2002). Designing organizations to create value: From strategy to structure. New York: McGraw Hill Book Professional.
Carr, A. Z. (1968). Is business bluffing ethical. Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 143–153.
Carroll, A. B. (2000). Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate social responsibility and models of management morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 33–42.CrossRef
Clark, R. C. (1986). Corporate law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Copeland, T., Koller, T., & Murrin, J. (1995). Valuation, measuring and managing. New York: Wiley.
Deakin, S. (2005). The coming transformation of shareholder value. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(1), 11–18.CrossRef
Deakin, S., & Konzelmann, S. (2003). After Enron: An age of enlightenment? Organisation, 10(3), 583–587.
Deakin, S., & Konzelmann, S. (2004). Learning from Enron. Corporate Governance, 12(2), 134–142.CrossRef
Dill, W. R. (1975). Public participation in corporate planning: Strategic management in a Kibitzer’s world. Long Range Planning, 8(1), 57–63.CrossRef
Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45(7), 1145–1163.CrossRef
Dodd, E. M., Jr. (1935). Is effective enforcement of the fiduciary duties of corporate managers practicable? University Chicago Law Review, 2, 194–207.CrossRef
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contract theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. (1989). The corporate contract. Columbia Law Review, 89(7), 1416–1448.CrossRef
Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. (1991). The economic structure of company law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.CrossRef
Fisher, D. (2009). The enlightened shareholder-leaving stakeholders in the dark: Will Section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 make directors consider the impact of their decisions on third parties? International Company and Commercial Law Review, 20(1), 10–16.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (2003). Lecture – Stakeholder management revisited: What’s the state of the art? Leuven, 20 Nov 2003.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 Sept 1970.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(102), 191–205.
Gamble, A., & Kelly, G. (2001). Shareholder value and the stakeholder debate in the UK. Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance, 9(2), 110–117.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRef
Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2001). The end of history for corporate law. Georgetown Law Journal, 89(2), 439–468.
Harper Ho, V. (2010). Enlightened shareholder value: Corporate governance beyond the shareholder-stakeholder divide. Journal of Corporation Law, 36(1), 59–112.
Harrison, J., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.CrossRef
Hurst, T. & McGuiness, L. (1991). The corporation, the bondholder and fiduciary duties. 10 Journal of Law and Commerce 187, 197–218.
Jensen, M. C. (2001a). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.CrossRef
Jensen, M. C. (2001b). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. In J. Andriof et al. (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 65–84). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Jones, T., & Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.
Kay, J. (1996). The Business of Economics, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.
Keay, A. (2005). Formulating a framework for directors’ duties to creditors: An entity maximisation approach. Cambridge Law Journal, 64(3), 614–646.CrossRef
Keay, A. (2007). Tackling the issue of the corporate objective: An analysis of the United Kingdom’s ‘enlightened shareholder value approach. Sydney Law Review, 29(4), 577–612.
Keay, A. (2008). Ascertaining the corporate objective: An entity maximization and sustainability model. Modern Law Review, 71(5), 663–698.CrossRef
Keay, A. (2010). Stakeholder theory in corporate law: Has it got what it takes? Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 9(3), 249–300.
Keay, A. (2011). Moving towards stakeholderism? Constituency statutes, enlightened shareholder value and all that: Much Ado about little? European Business Law Review, 22(1), 1–49.
Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder ‘theory’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRef
Kiarie, S. (2006). At crossroads: Shareholder value, stakeholder value and the enlightened shareholder value: Which road should the United Kingdom take. International Company and Commercial Law Review, 17(11), 329–343.
Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 431.CrossRef
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRef
Lepineux, F. (2005). Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 99–110.CrossRef
Letza, S., Sun, X., & Kirkbride, J. (2004). Shareholding versus stakeholding: A critical review of corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 12(3), 242–262.CrossRef
Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 33(5), 41–50.
Lian Yap, J. (2010). Considering the enlightened shareholder value principle. Company Lawyer, 31(2), 35–38.
Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lovins, A. B., Lovins, H. L., & Hawken, P. (1999). A road map for natural capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 145–158.
Macey, J. (1991). An economic analysis of the various rationales for making shareholders the exclusive beneficiaries of corporate fiduciary duties. Stetson Law Review, 21, 23–44.
Mayer, C. (1997). Corporate governance, competition and performance. Journal of Law and Society, 24(1), 152–176.CrossRef
Miller, R. (1988). Ethical challenges in corporate- shareholder and investor relations: Using the value exchange model to analyze and respond. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(1–2), 117–132.CrossRef
Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.CrossRef
Parkinson, J. (2003). Models of the company and the employment relationship. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(3), 481–509.CrossRef
Pfeffer, J. (2009). Shareholders first? Not so fast. Harvard Business Review, 87(7–8), 87–95.
Pichet, E. (2011). Enlightened shareholder theory: Whose interests should be served by the supporters of corporate governance. Corporate Ownership and Control, 8(2–3), 353–362.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.CrossRef
Richardson, B. J. (2007). Do the fiduciary duties of pension funds hinder socially responsible investment? Banking and Finance Law Review, 22(2), 145–201.
Roach, L. (2005). The legal model of the company the Company Law Review. Company Lawyer, 26(4), 98–103.
Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility: From corporate social responsibility toward a comprehensive and dynamic view of corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 535–544.CrossRef
Scholes, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (1998). Communication with stakeholders: An integrated approach. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 227–238.CrossRef
Siems, M. (2002). Shareholders, stakeholders and the ‘Ordoliberalism’. European Business Law Review, 13(3), 139–151.
Smith, A. (1974). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Random House/Modern Library.
Solomon, J. (2010). Corporate governance and accountability. Essex: Wiley.
Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 5(1), 3–10.CrossRef
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 353–363.
Tricker, B. (2008). Corporate governance, principles, policies and practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Marrewijk, M., & Verre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107–110.CrossRef
Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12, 239–249.CrossRef
Weaver, G., & Trevino, L. (1994). Normative and empirical business ethics: Separation, marriage of convenience, or marriage of necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 129–143.CrossRef
Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Business ethics: the state of the art. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(1), 1–16.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Enlightened Shareholder Value: Is It the New Modus Operandi for Modern Companies?
Author
Dr. Stelios Andreadakis
Copyright Year
2012
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Book
Corporate Governance

Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31578-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-642-31579-4

Copyright Year: 2012

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31579-4_18