Stakeholder versus shareholder capitalism: The great debate

2 men

Professor A. Lucian Bebchukof the Harvard Law School joinedProfessor Colin Mayer, CBEof Saïd Business School, Oxford in a debate of one of the great controversies in business today – should it be governed and run for shareholder or stakeholder interests?

Following the Business Roundtable declaration on the purpose of the corporation in August of last year, the shareholder primacy view of the firm has been thrown into question around the world. Should it be or should it remain as the dominant concept of the firm?

Professors Bebchuk and Mayer have written extensively on this topic from different perspectives.Professor Renee B AdamsSaïd商学院主持了这场辩论。

概括

Should corporate leaders manage their business for all their stakeholders, or should shareholders’ interests come first? Two leading academics took opposing views – but both agreed that it is important to protect stakeholders.

Lucian Bebchuk argued that “stakeholderism” should not be benefit stakeholders and in fact would be counterproductive, making corporate leaders less accountable and chilling real stakeholder-protecting reforms.

科林·梅耶(Colin Mayer)支持了一种促进公司目的的模型,该模型为人和星球的问题提供了有利可图的解决方案,并且不会因为任何一个问题而产生问题而获利。

据贝布丘克(Bebchuk)称,经理应专注于为长期股东价值服务,但要受到“非常实质性的限制和法规,这将使他们内在化外部性”。他说,就气候变化的风险而言,依靠企业领导人利用自己的酌处权来实现拯救地球的贡献会破坏而不是提出有意义的努力来做到这一点。

Bebchuk said that 'stakeholderism' brings real perils - "empowering corporate leaders and making them less accountable, dressed up in more appealing clothing."

Stakeholderism also insulates executives from poor performance, encourages managerial slack, could have a 'chilling effect' on governmental reforms to protect stakeholders, and gives 'false hope' that executives would protect stakeholder interests. Holding such hope is inconsistent with his own research, which showed that in 100 US acquisitions of companies governed by constituency statutes authorizing managers to protect stakeholder interests, corporate leaders selling their companies to private equity firms used their bargaining power to the benefit of themselves and their shareholders but not to provide stakeholders with any material benefits. In addition, he said that the recent pact announced by the US Business Roundtable statement pacts to tackle stakeholder issues "represent a public relations move, rather than a commitment to bring about meaningful changes."

Opposing, Mayer said that companies which promote the interests of stakeholders deliver superior performance - through, for example, motivating employees - in a way in whch shareholder driven companies do not.

According to Mayer, purpose-focused businesses can solve problems profitably and sustainably, while improving the lives of both stakeholders and shareholders. This approach, when supported by clear metrics, also enables directors to manage 'trade-offs' between shareholder and stakeholder interests in a form that purely shareholder motivated firms fail to do.

梅耶说,仅法规就无法确定将回报优先于股东和“严重”执行薪酬的企业文化。他说,尽管监管加强了监管,但银行业的行为持续不良,因为其目的,文化和价值观并没有改变。

He proposed an approach where profits are measured so that companies do not benefit from producing problems for people or the planet, and pay for remedying any damages they cause. Now is the time for companies to account for potential negative outcomes created by, for example, environmental detriments, he said.

Further reading: Bebchuk's analysis of stakeholderism,The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance,with co-author Roberto Tallarita, and Colin Mayer’s critique of Bebchuk and Tallarita’s article –Shareholderism Versus Stakeholderism – A Misconceived Contradiction,ECGI Working Paper 522/2020.

Most popular