利益相关者公司治理研究综述

随着传统的"股东至上"的公司治理模式的缺陷日益突出,"利益相关者"公司治理的模式受到越多越多的青睐,国内外相关的研究成果丰硕。为此,总结了利益相关者公司治理的理论基础,并总结了利益相关者的界定和分类方法,对目前利益相关者公司治理模式进行分析,为国内外研究的进一步开展提供借鉴。     

水资源利益相关者识别分类实证研究

在水资源治理方面,研究者倾向于建立水资源利益相关者共同治理机制。通过文献研究和问卷调查分析,对流域水资源利益相关者进行了识别和分类,界定了12类利益相关者。在此基础上,从主动性、紧迫性、权力性三个维度对利益相关者进行了排序和方差检验。研究结果发现:一是水资源利益相关者在不同维度上存在着差异性;二是中央政府是核心型利益相关者,城市居民和排污企业是外围型利益相关者,其他群体属于战略型利益相关者。由于水资源的特殊性和我国国情,中央政府在流域水资源的管理上,需要通过制度形式来协调不同利益相关者之间的需求,让不同利益者通过不同方式参与到水资源的治理中来,形成政府主导的利益相关者共同治理局面。     

利益相关者共同治理理论探

该文介绍、分析利益相关者共同治理理论及其理论基础,介绍目前“利益相关者共同治理符合现代市场经济内在要求”的几个方面,并对这几个方面提出自己的看法。     

利益相关者理论的系统特征诠释

利益相关者理论是近年来企业理论和公司治理研究热点领域之一,对传统的资本雇佣劳动提出了强有力的挑战,引起了学术界的广泛关注。本文运用系统科学有关原理对利益相关者理论的系统特征进行了研究,从系统科学的视角诠释了该理论产生的渊源、演进,利益相关者拥有企业所有权的正当性基础及其发展趋势。     

利益相关者理论下公司治理主体的确定

利益相关者理论主张寻求一种利益的均衡,要求公司的治理主体扩大到包括股东在内的各利益相关者,这与传统的“股东至上”理论产生了冲突。利益相关者理论强调利益均衡有可能会导致效率的损失,其还面临着实际运作中的各种问题。作为公司治理主体必须具备相应的动机和能力,本文认为利益相关者理论下治理主体应包括以股东为主的各核心利益相关者。     

公司利益相关者分类研究

以利益相关者理论为基础,通过分析和总结国内外学者对利益相关者分类的研究成果,提出用层次分析法对企业利益相关者进行划分,将多维分析与评分分析相结合,为利益相关者分类问题的实证研究提供借鉴意义。     

国有商业银行公司治理结构研究——基于利益相关者理论

在当前面临外资银行激烈竞争的新形势下,根据我国国有商业银行改革与发展的特殊性,从利益相关者理论出发,提出构建和完善我国国有商业银行公司治理结构应充分考虑各利益相关群体的利益,实施利益相关者治理。     

论利益相关者财务治理

现代企业是利益相关者合约的集合体,财务治理是对企业财权的合理配置,是企业治理的核心。本文在利益相关者逻辑下, 讨论了企业财权的分层治理管理结构,以及建立利益相关者共同治理和相机治理相结合的财务治理机制。     

论利益相关者财务治理

现代企业是利益相关者合约的集合体,财务治理是对企业财权的合理配置,是企业治理的核心.本文在利益相关者逻辑下,讨论了企业财权的分层治理管理结构,以及建立利益相关者共同治理和相机治理相结合的财务治理机制.     

国内利益相关者理论应用研究回顾

利益相关者理论可以应用于企业管理实践。国内学者对利益相关者理论在企业管理中的应用研究,主要表现在公司治理、企业财务管理、企业绩效评估、企业伦理管理、企业价值链经营战略五个方面,但目前研究成果还不多。     

对利益相关者理论的再认识

利益相关者理论是现代企业理论、契约理论研究的核心问题之一.通过对利益相关者理论的界定、起源,发展、内涵、理论基础及其应用进行综述,期望对利益相关者理论形成一个清晰的框架.     

Evaluating Stakeholder Theory

This paper is the third in a series of four that is directed at understanding and assessing stakeholder theory for the purposes of business ethics. It addresses the suitability and viability of the theory, rejecting objections of a moral and efficiency sort based (respectively) on claims about property rights and the economic superiority of the alternative stockholder approach, but accepting that implementation problems require limiting both the number of groupings admitted to stakeholder status and the degree of responsibility towards them. The conclusion looks forward to the construction of a suitably limited version of the stakeholder approach in a fourth paper drawing upon this one and the previous two.John Kaler teachers at the University of Plymonth Business School. He is the co-author of An Introduction to Business Ethics (Chapman and Hall, 1993; ITP, 1996) and Essentials of Business Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1996), and co-editor of the ‘Teaching Business Ethics’ website hosted by the Institute of Business Ethics.     

Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decision-Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests

Stakeholder theory is widely recognized as a management theory, yet very little research has considered its implications for individual managerial decision-making. In the two studies reported here, we used stakeholder theory to examine managerial decisions about balancing stakeholder interests. Results of Study 1 suggest that indivisible resources and unequal levels of stakeholder saliency constrain managers’ efforts to balance stakeholder interests. Resource divisibility also influenced whether managers used a within-decision or an across-decision approach to balance stakeholder interests. In Study 2 we examined instrumental and normative implications of these two approaches. We conclude by considering the contributions of this research.     

From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability

Confronted with mounting pressure to ensure accountability vis-à-vis customers, citizens and beneficiaries, organizational leaders need to decide how to choose and implement so-called accountability standards. Yet while looking for an appropriate standard, they often base their decisions on cost-benefit calculations, thus neglecting other important spheres of influence pertaining to more broadly defined stakeholder interests. We argue in this paper that, as a part of the strategic decision for a certain standard, management needs to identify and act according to the needs of all stakeholders. We contend that the creation of a dialogical understanding among affected stakeholders cannot be a mere outcome of applying certain accountability standards, but rather must be a necessary precondition for their use. This requires a stakeholder dialogue prior to making a choice. We outline such a discursive decision framework for accountability standards based on the Habermasian concept of communicative action and, in the final section, apply our conceptual framework to one of the most prominent accountability tools (AA 1000). Andreas Rasche is currently working at the chair for Business Administration at the Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany and is finishing his PhD in strategic management at EUROPEAN BUSINESS SCHOOL, Germany where he is also teaching business ethics. His research interests include the institutionalization of ethics initiatives in multinational corporations (see also www.ethics-in-pratice.org) and reflections about the theory of strategic management. Daniel Esser until recently was a Tutorial Fellow in Development Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is now working for the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific where he is involved in the design and management of urban governance programmes and service schemes supporting the poverty reduction agenda for the region.     

基于利益相关者理论的废旧家电回收管理体系

电子产品带给人们方便的同时也带来了大量的废旧电器,如何回收并有效处理是各国面临的新问题之一。所以只有将利益相关者理论与废旧家电回收管理结合起来,从利益相关者的角度对发达国家废旧家电回收管理体系进行剖析,才能为我国建立可持续的废旧家电回收管理体系提供参考。     

God as a Managerial Stakeholder?

Can or should God be considered a managerial stakeholder? While at first glance such a proposition might seem beyond the norms of stakeholder management theory or traditional management practice, further investigation suggests that there might be both theoretical and practical support for such a notion. This paper will make the argument that God both is and should be considered a managerial stakeholder for those businesspeople and business firms that accept that God exists and can affect the world. In doing so, part one of the paper first discusses the growth of religion and spirituality within the business and academic communities. Part two raises several arguments based on stakeholder theory and business reality to support the notion of God as a managerial stakeholder. Part three addresses the arguments against God as a managerial stakeholder. Part four discusses the managerial implications of considering God as a managerial stakeholder. The paper concludes with its limitations.     

Stakeholder Perspectives and Business Risk Perception

Stakeholder theory calls for decision makers to balance stakeholder interests, but before this can happen, management must understand how other parties view its decisions. Effective stakeholder dialogues convened to reach this understanding require management to appreciate how others perceive the risks posed by their decision. Although understanding others’ risk perception is crucial for effective communications, we do not have a clear idea of how viewing a situation from multiple stakeholder perspectives affects risk perception. Based on a technique derived from risk perception studies of health and environmental issues, an experiment with 224 business students examined how an individual’s risk perception can account for both managerial and customer perspectives. Factors described as customer participation, extent of the effect, and management input, together with the respondent’s self-assessed understanding of the decision process, help categorize overall risk perceptions and are shown to be associated with behaviors based on the decision’s riskiness. Discussion includes implications for designs of business communications, including their content and transparency, and for understanding the audience for these communications.     

An Optimally Viable Version of Stakeholder Theory

This article is the final one in a series of four papers investigating the stakeholder approach to running businesses. It argues that the optimally viable version of that approach is one in which employees have a co-equal status as stakeholders with shareholders (the maximum allowed for under stakeholder theory) while other groupings only have a minimal status as stakeholders and are generally restricted to just customers, suppliers, and lenders. This version is argued for on the grounds that it both overcomes the implementation problems attendant upon having to serve the interests of a range of groupings and is justified in terms of stakeholder membership being confined to those groupings with a claim on the services of a business in virtue of directly contributing to its economic functioning. The ranking of non-shareholder stakeholders in the recommended version and, in particular, the maximal ranking granted to employees is argued to reflect the scale of the various contributions as measured by the degree to which making it exposes those stakeholders to both financial risk and a non-financial “work-related” risk peculiar to employees. It is concluded that although this is the best available version of the stakeholder approach it may not be the best of all possible ways of running a business. John Kaler is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Plymouth Business School. He is the co-author of the books An Introduction to Business Ethics and Essentials of Business Ethics, and was co-editor for Teaching Business Ethics, a website hosted by the Institute of Business Ethics. He is an ex-member of the Executive Committee of the European Business Ethics, U.K., and has published on a wide range of business ethics topics.