Rules of the game: whose value is served when the board fires the owners?

Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 21 (3):298-309 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How does a board of directors decide what is right? The contest over this question is frequently framed as a debate between shareholder value and stakeholder rights, between a utilitarian view of the ethics of corporate governance and a deontological one. This paper uses a case study with special circumstances that allows us to examine in an unusually clear way the conflict between shareholder value and other bases on which a board can act. In the autumn of 2010, the board of Liverpool Football Club sold the company to another investing group against the explicit wishes of the owners. The peculiar circumstances of this case provide insight into the conflict between ethical approaches to board decisions, allowing us to see certain issues more clearly than we can in listed corporations with many shareholders. What the analysis suggests is that the board saw more than one type of utility on which to base its ethical decision, and that one version resonated with perceived duties to stakeholders. This alignment of outcomes of strategic value with duties contrasted with the utility of shareholder value. While there are reasons to be cautious in generalizing, the case further suggests reasons why boards may reject shareholder value, in opposition to mainstream notions of corporate governance, without rejecting utility as a base of their decisions. Further, the partial alignment of duty and utility facilitates a pragmatic decision rather than one based on a priori claims

Other Versions

reprint Nordberg, Donald (2012) "Rules of the game: whose value is served when the board fires the owners?". Business Ethics: A European Review 21(3):298-309

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,462

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Company growth and Board attitudes to corporate social responsibility.Coral B. Ingley - 2008 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4 (1):17.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-05-29

Downloads
22 (#847,716)

6 months
3 (#1,427,535)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.Richard Rorty - 1989 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.Jeremy Bentham - 1780 - New York: Dover Publications. Edited by J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart.
Ethics.William K. Frankena - 1973 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.
Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.Richard Rorty - 1989 - The Personalist Forum 5 (2):149-152.
Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective.Norman E. Bowie - 1982 - New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

View all 18 references / Add more references