Shareholder Primacy,Corporate Social Responsibility,and the Role of Business Schools

This paper examines the shareholder primacy norm (SPN) as a widely acknowledged impediment to corporate social responsibility and explores the role of business schools in promoting the SPN but also potentially as an avenue for change by addressing misconceptions about shareholder primacy and the purpose of business. We start by explaining the SPN and then review its status under US and UK laws and show that it is not a likely legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing CSR issues if doing so is inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders. Nonetheless, while the SPN might be muted as a legal norm, we show that it is certainly evident as a social norm among managers and in business schools—reflective, in part, of the sole voting rights of shareholders on corporate boards and of the dominance of shareholder theory—and justifiably so in the view of many managers and business academics. We argue that this view is misguided, not least when associated with claims of a purported legally enforceable requirement to maximize shareholder value. We propose two ways by which the influence of the SPN among managers might be attenuated: extending fiduciary duties of executives to non-shareholder stakeholders and changes in business school teaching such that it covers a plurality of conceptions of the purpose of the corporation.     

Effect of Business Education on Women and Men Students’ Attitudes on Corporate Responsibility in Society

This article describes a survey among Finnish business students to find answers to the following questions: How do business students define a well-run company? What are their attitudes on the responsibilities of business in society? Do the attitudes of women students differ from those of men? What is the influence of business education on these attitudes? Our sample comprised 217 students pursuing a master’s degree in business studies at two Finnish universities. The results show that, as a whole, students valued the stakeholder model of the company more than the shareholder model. However, attitudes differed according to gender: women students were more in favor of the stakeholder model and placed more weight on corporate ethical, environmental, and societal responsibilities than their men counterparts – both at the beginning and at the end of their studies. Thus, no gender socialization effect of business school education could be observed in this sense. Business school education was found to shape women and men students’ attitudes in two ways. Firstly, valuation of the shareholder model increased and, secondly, the importance of equal-opportunity employment decreased in the course of education. This raises the question whether the educational context is creating an undesirable tendency among future business professionals. The results further suggest that the sociocultural context can make a difference in how corporate social responsibility is perceived. The article also discusses possible ways to influence the attitudes of business students.     

Board Members in the Service Industry: An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation and Directorial Type

One area of business performance of particular interest to both scholars and practitioners is corporate social responsibility. The notion that organizations should be attentive to the needs of constituents other than shareholders has been investigated and vigorously debated for over two decades. This has provoked an especially rich and diverse literature investigating the relationship between business and society. As a result, researchers have urged the study of the profiles and backgrounds of corporate upper echelons in order to better understand this relationship.There is ample evidence that corporations have in recent years increased the proportion of outside directors on their boards. This has been partly in reaction to increased interest in the corporate social responsiveness of business organizations and suggestions that the board of directors could play a unique role in this area. The expectation on the part of practitioners, researchers, and governmental regulators is that outside directors will advocate greater corporate responsiveness to society's needs by playing a more active role in overseeing managerial decisions.The purpose of this study is to partially fill a void in the literature by determining whether or not these expectations are justified, particularly in the service industry. Data were collected as part of a larger cross-national study of corporate social responsibility. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the results of a survey of 307 board members (198 outside and 109 inside directors) indicates that outside directors exhibit greater concern about the discretionary component of corporate responsibility and a weaker orientation toward economic performance. No significant differences between the two groups were observed with respect to the legal and ethical dimensions of corporate social responsibility. Some explanations as well as limited generalizations and implications are developed.     

Leadership and Business Ethics: Does It Matter? Implications for Management

This paper reviews the relationship between organisational leadership, corporate governance and business ethics, and considers the implications for management. Business ethics is defined, and the causes and consequences of unethical behavior are discussed. Issues pertaining to leadership, subordinate and organisation responsibility for business ethics are considered. The changing role of business leaders and the new concept of 'corporate governance' are examined, with an increasing importance being placed on ethical and socially responsible attitudes towards business. Organisational effectiveness and organisational efficiency, formerly central issues for practising managers, with directors thinking in terms of goal achievement for their respective organisations, have now been augmented by an awareness of issues in business ethics, and a requirement for members of the corporate governance to behave in more socially responsible ways. A secondary aim of the paper is to introduce an approach which illustrates how corporate governance and management could deal with some of the moral dilemmas that they may have to face.     

The responsible shareholder: a case study

Shareholders are sometimes considered to be, in moral terms, the owners of a company, they are after all the carriers of the residual liabilities and bear a higher proportion of the financial risk. However, in company law, the shareholders' responsibility is limited, and in financial terms shareholders are only liable up to the fully paid value of the share certificate. Moreover, when the shares are sold, the responsibility and risk are transferred completely to the new bearer of the shares. Whether this gap in moral and legal perceptions can be judged to be satisfactory in business ethics terms is a moot point and will be partly explored in this case study which seeks to analyse the shareholder's responsibility towards a firm in which they own shares. The case study company chosen as a vehicle to explore these issues is that of Turner & Newall; a company that subjected its employees, communities and customers to a major health hazard – asbestosis. This paper will use the Turner & Newall archive materials to illustrate the moral hazards that can arise for shareholders. In particular it will examine the ethical responsibilities of shareholders towards those stakeholders who were exposed to the dangers of asbestos. This case is a significant test of the veracity of the legal system of company control, and exposes the ineffectiveness of that system in accountability terms. The case study also deals with specific issues that arose in the asbestos crisis, as well as with more general issues in our present system of corporate governance and shareholder responsibilities.     

Doing right,investing right: Socially responsible investing and shareholder activism in the financial sector

In this article, we present an overview of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the financial sector. We focus on how socially responsible investment and shareholder activism have been integral parts of corporate social responsibility in the financial sector. We examine how the financial sector and its firms are evaluated and rated via a sustainability index, the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, and show that even leading financial institutions do not employ proactive practices regarding socially responsible investment and shareholder activism. Finally, we provide examples of two companies, UBS AG and the Co-operative Banking Group, that do utilize proactive practices.     

大股东侵占、公司声誉与公司绩效——基于中国上市公司的经验证据

外部大股东一方面具有减少管理者机会主义行为的积极效果,另一方面又会利用控制权侵占小股东和其他利益相关者的利益影响公司绩效;约束大股东行为、保护中小投资者利益成为公司治理的核心问题。在诸多约束大股东侵占的机制中,公司声誉机制被认为是约束大股东利益侵占的有效机制。本文采用2004年1261家上市公司为研究对象,对大股东侵占度和公司声誉制约机制对上市公司绩效的影响进行了实证分析,结果表明,大股东侵占度对公司绩效的影响不显著,公司声誉对公司绩效产生了显著的正面效应。此外,我们还发现法律环境对公司绩效产生积极影响。     

Corporate Directors and Social Responsibility: Ethics versus Shareholder Value

This paper reports on the results of an experiment conducted with experienced corporate directors. The study findings indicate that directors employ prospective rationality cognition, and they sometimes make decisions that emphasize legal defensibility at the expense of personal ethics and social responsibility. Directors recognize the ethical and social implications of their decisions, but they believe that current corporate law requires them to pursue legal courses of action that maximize shareholder value. The results suggest that additional ethics education will have little influence on the decisions of many business leaders because their decisions are driven by corporate law, rather than personal ethics. Jacob Rose is Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. His research emphasizes judgment and decision making in accounting and governance contexts.     

More shareholders,higher liquidity? Evidence from an emerging stock market

Using data assembled from all non-financial firms traded on the Malaysian stock exchange, we provide evidence of a nonlinear relationship between the number of shareholders and liquidity. While more shareholders are associated with higher liquidity, the negative effect of wider spreads kicks in when shareholder base exceeds a threshold level due to higher volatility induced by noise trading. However, the threshold level is considerably higher than the number of shareholders of most Malaysian public listed firms, suggesting much room for shareholder expansion in the local market. Our findings call for corporate managers to actively manage and expand their shareholder bases.     

Ideology and the Balanced Scorecard: An Empirical Exploration of the Tension Between Shareholder Value Maximization and Corporate Social Responsibility

In a society where the ideology of shareholder value maximization (SVM) prevails, how do evaluators make appraisal and bonus decisions when corporate social responsibility (CSR) measures and financial measures in the balanced scorecard (BSC) point in different directions? To explore this question, we conducted two studies to develop and test a conceptual framework. Participants were asked to evaluate the performance of two managers, using a case we wrote about a commercial bank. We found that (1) evaluators are more willing to drop CSR performance measures than financial measures from the evaluations; (2) perceived CSR relevance is influenced by where evaluators stand in regard to CSR (“stakeholder view” in the “Perceptions of the Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility” or PRESOR scale) and also by where evaluators believe shareholders stand (shareholder support); and (3) there is a financial bias in appraisal and bonus decisions when CSR measures are used in the BSC, consistent with SVM ideology. We conclude by discussing the implications of the influence of SVM ideology on the use of CSR measures in terms of business research, practice, and education.     

Are Organisation Researchers too Obsessed with the Economic Responsibility of the Firm?

The original intent of business education in America focused on the development of professional managers who would look after the interests of society. As economic and shareholder theories influenced business education, firm performance became the manager’s top – if not only – priority. The economic responsibility of the firm also appears to be dominating scholarly interest in organisations as well. However, business firms constitute part of the fabric of society and closer attention should be paid by organisation researchers to the social responsibilities of the firm. In doing so, a more balanced research approach can be achieved. In this article, we give evidence that research within the study of the organisation, specifically in the field of management, has predominately turned its attention to the economic responsibility of the firm. We close by demonstrating that other fields within organisation research also appear to be favouring the study of performance and we offer suggestions as to how scholars might better address the firm’s role in society beyond its economic responsibility. Jeremy Galbreath is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Curtin University of Technology where he is studying corporate social responsibility (CSR). He has published extensively, with over 50 articles in print and 3 book chapters. Dr. Galbreath's research and teaching focuses on strategic management, the resource-based view of the firm, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder management, the ethicality of profit making strategies, intellectual capital and information technology.     

Making the Shift: Moving from "Ethics Pays" to an Inter-Systems Model of Business

For several decades, business has operated according to the tenets of neoclassical economic theory, where the primary obligation of corporations is to maximize profit for shareholders. However, the larger social mandate for business has changed, represented by the rise of language such as "sustainable development", "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) and "stakeholder groups." Nevertheless, the theoretical shift implied by the use of such language has not occurred. Issues of sustainable development and CSR continue to be justified in the terms of neoclassical economic theory through the rationalization of "doing well by doing good".Within this economic paradigm, CSR cannot move beyond enlightened self-interest (acting in socially responsible ways in order to further one's own ends) because all behavior must be justified economically. This implies that corporate socially responsible behavior will simply cease when it becomes uneconomic, regardless of the impact on interrelated systems which in turn will re-impact the business realm.Faced with bitter realities arising from complex interactions among social, political, cultural, eco-nomic and natural environments, we may better comprehend and negotiate these problems by moving out of a neoclassical economic justification of the stakeholder model of the corporation to an inter-systems model, shifting from a narrow comprehension of a single economic independent system analyzed apart from its larger context to a fuller understanding of business as one of a number of interrelated systems.Operational differences between the old and new mandates are described, and two ways to practically shift towards the new mandate are identified as a modified version of scenario planning and the introduction of the voice of the critic.     

The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility

This paper reviews the development of socially responsible investment (SRI) over recent years and highlights the prospects for an increasingly strong connection with the practice of corporate social responsibility. The paper argues that not only has SRI grown significantly, it has also matured. In particular, it has become an investment philosophy adopted by a growing proportion of large investment institutions. This shift in SRI from margin to mainstream and the position in which institutional investors find themselves is leading to a new form of SRI shareholder pressure. Although this bears some resemblance to lobbying campaigns which might take advantage of shareholder rights, we seek to distinguish it as an important phenomenon in its own right — one to which corporate executives are likely to be paying increasing attention in the years to come. We further argue that this approach potentially meets some of the earlier ethical criticisms of certain forms of SRI but, ironically, probably owes its existence to those pioneering approaches. We conclude with some suggestions for further research to inform discussion of the issues highlighted in the paper.     

Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Governance and Public Management: What can the History of State-Run Enterprises Teach us in the Post-Enron era?

This paper raises a challenge for those who assume that corporate social responsibility and good corporate governance naturally go hand-in-hand. The recent spate of corporate scandals in the United States and elsewhere has dramatized, once again, the severity of the agency problems that may arise between managers and shareholders. These scandals remind us that even if we adopt an extremely narrow concept of managerial responsibility – such that we recognize no social responsibility beyond the obligation to maximize shareholder value – there may still be very serious difficulties associated with the effective institutionalization of this obligation. It also suggests that if we broaden managerial responsibility, in order to include extensive responsibilities to various other stakeholder groups, we may seriously exacerbate these agency problems, making it even more difficult to impose effective discipline upon managers. Hence, our central question: is a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility institutionally feasible? In searching for an answer, we revisit the history of public management, and in particular, the experience of social-democratic governments during the 1960s and 1970s, and their attempts to impose social responsibility upon the managers of nationalized industries. The results of this inquiry are less than encouraging for proponents of corporate social responsibility. In fact, the history of public-sector management presents a number of stark warnings, which we would do well to heed if we wish to reconcile robust social responsibility with effective corporate governance.     

Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

There is growing recognition that good ethics can have a positive economic impact on the performance of firms. Many statistics support the premise that ethics, values, integrity and responsibility are required in the modern workplace. For consumer groups and society at large, research has shown that good ethics is good business. This study defines and traces the emergence and evolution within the business literature of the concepts of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility to illustrate the increased emphasis that has been placed on these issues over time. Two organizations that have successfully dealt with these issues were analyzed to identify the links among values, ethics, and corporate social responsibility as they are incorporated into the culture and management of a firm. This study identified the presence and implementation of values, business ethics, and CSR actions within the two organizations studied.     

Institutional Impediments to Voluntary Ethics Measurement Systems

In this paper, we argue that calls for widespread implementation of ethics measurement systems would be better informed by institutional economic analysis. Specifically, we assert that proponents of such systems must first recognize and understand the institutions that potentially impede such efforts. We identify two potential institutional impediments to measuring ethics and social responsibility. First, we suggest that neoclassical economics, supported by traditional business education and legal precedent, serves to reinforce the notion that shareholders are the primary corporate constituency group. Such an emphasis on the needs of shareholders severely hinders implementation of measurement systems that address the needs of multiple stakeholder groups. Second, we argue that the threat of litigation may constrain corporate managers from measuring and considering ethics and corporate social responsibility matters. In particular, managers may be reluctant to quantify various ethical concerns if the resulting measurements could be used as evidence against the corporation in a lawsuit.     

Business ethics and social responsibility in finance instruction: An abdication of responsibility

The shareholder wealth maximization objective for corporate management can be a very effective tool for decision making. However, it can also be used to rationalize the commission of unethical or socially irresponsible actions. Overemphasis on the SWM objective by some companies can lead to dangerous or disastrous consequences for consumers, employees, or the general population. Even so, issues of business ethics and social responsibility (BE-SR) are almost totally ignored in corporate finance textbooks. If the typical coverage of corporate finance courses is represented by these textbooks, then financial educators are abdicating their responsibility to help prepare future corporate managers to recognize and deal with BE-SR issues effectively.Delvin D. Hawley earned his Ph.D and MBA in Finance and B.S. in Psychology at Michigan State University. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Finance at The University of Mississippi in Oxford. Teaching areas include Corporate Finance and Investments. Research interests include bond market efficiency and artificial neural network applications in finance.     

Construction of owner–manager identity in corporate social responsibility discourse

This article examines the different discursive resources on which small business owner–managers draw when understanding their sense of self in relation to corporate social responsibility. In the small business context, identity provides a justifiable framework to study corporate social responsibility, as decisions regarding socially responsible activities are mainly taken by managers and stem from their sense of who they are in the world. On the basis of 25 thematic interviews with owner–managers, two broad discursive resources were found that describe how they actively seek to create and legitimise their sense of self within the discussion on corporate social responsibility. These discursive resources are called being altruistic and being instrumental. The findings emphasise that the essential and also the most challenging feature in small business owner–managers' identity work is the process of reconciling economic values with the social and ethical aspects of business life.     

Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review

The impact of smaller firm size on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is ambiguous. Some contend that small businesses are socially responsible by nature, while others argue that a smaller firm size imposes barriers on small firms that constrain their ability to take responsible action. This paper critically analyses recent theoretical and empirical contributions on the size–social responsibility relationship among small businesses. More specifically, it reviews the impact of firm size on four antecedents of business behaviour: issue characteristics, personal characteristics, organizational characteristics and context characteristics. It concludes that the small business context does impose barriers on social responsibility taking, but that the impact of the smaller firm size on social responsibility should be nuanced depending on a number of conditions. From a critical analysis of these conditions, opportunities for small businesses and their constituents to overcome the constraining barriers are suggested.Jan Lepoutre is a PhD candidate in Applied Economics at Ghent University, Belgium. His dissertation focuses on the competences associated with small business social responsibility.Aimé Heene is a professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at Ghent University, Belgium. He teaches strategic management for private and for public organizations and currently focuses his research on (competence-based) management in public and social profit organizations.