Journal of Business Ethics 134 (3):463-478 (2016)

Abstract
This paper examines the shareholder primacy norm 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2427-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,248
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Corporations and Morality.Thomas Donaldson - 1982 - Journal of Business Ethics 1 (3):251-253.
What Stakeholder Theory is Not.Andrew C. Wicks - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):479-502.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility.Janine S. Hiller - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2):287-301.
Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship.Ronald Jeurissen - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):87-96.
The Ownership Model of Business Ethics.David Rodin - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (1‐2):163-181.
An Examination of Corporate and Regulatory Responses to Socially Oriented Investor Activism.Michael Hadani, Jonathan Doh & Marguerite Schneider - 2013 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 24:178-187.
Justice and Large Corporations.Jeanne Logsdon - 2008 - Business and Society 47 (4):523-548.
Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe.Dirk Matten & Jeremy Moon - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 54 (4):323 - 337.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-03

Total views
36 ( #318,030 of 2,518,503 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #271,901 of 2,518,503 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes