The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-4179.htm
Shareholder and stakeholder theory: after the ﬁnancial crisis Terence Tse
ESCP Europe, London, UK
Purpose – The recent ﬁnancial crisis has restarted the debate of the value of both shareholder and stakeholder theories. This paper aims to continue this discussion. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews existing literature and examines the beneﬁts and problems associated with these frameworks through the lens of the recent events which have taken place during the ﬁnancial crisis. Findings – The main assertion of this paper is that shareholder theory is in itself a sound theory. Yet, some executives following this theory could have brought disrepute to it. In contrast, the stakeholder theoretical framework has yet to assert its inﬂuence because the concept is not yet unambiguously deﬁned, which makes it difﬁcult for the framework to become operational in practical business settings. Research limitations/implications – Future research should seek consensus on the scope and deﬁnition of the stakeholder model, as well as who the stakeholders should include. It should also focus on developing the tools and techniques necessary for the incorporation of stakeholder theory into business operations. Social implications – Policy makers could work with industry bodies and business leaders to encourage them to place greater emphasis on the interests of non-shareholders and encourage collaboration between various groups of stakeholders to achieve corporate goals. Originality/value – The paper continues the shareholder and stakeholder theory debate in light of the recent economic crisis. Keywords Shareholder value analysis, Stakeholder analysis, Financial services, Economic theory Paper type Research paper
Shareholder and stakeholder theory 51
1. Introduction In June 2009, more than 1,000 MBA students from several top business schools signed an oath that declared the rejection of the shareholder-oriented business approach and vowed to give equal importance to “shareholders, co-workers, customers and the society in which we operate” (Skapinker, 2009). Whether this is a knee-jerk reaction of MBA students to mitigate the blame of the latest economic crisis on senior executives or the pursuit of a new ideal is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is clear that these students, among many corporate executives, are opting for the main contending alternative to shareholder- stakeholder theory. The debate between these two theories is not unprecedented. The scandals at Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco International and WorldCom sparked ﬁerce debate as to which of these two theories is superior to the other (Smith, 2003). The decline of many seemingly successful UK banks before the latest ﬁnancial crisis such as Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) reminded us that this debate is far from over. Indeed, in view of the various characteristics of the crisis, there is an urgency to continue this discussion. This paper aims to serve this purpose by reviewing some of the existing literature of both shareholder and stakeholder theories and discussing the beneﬁts and problems associated with these frameworks through the lens of the recent ﬁnancial crisis.
Qualitative Research in Financial Markets Vol. 3 No. 1, 2011 pp. 51-63 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1755-4179 DOI 10.1108/17554171111124612
It concerns particularly the UK banking and ﬁnancial services sector because this industry is considered to be one of the primary catalysts of this crisis. Perhaps, more importantly, the problems that plague this sector seemingly epitomise the misguided use of shareholder theory. The main assertion of this paper is that shareholder theory is in itself a sound theory and it is likely that some executives following this theory, rightly or wrongly, have...
References: Aldrick, P. (2008), “HBOS model was too dependent on wholesale funding, says Andy Hornby”, The Telegraph, September 18. Armitstead, L. (2009), “HBOS: how it ran out of road”, The Telegraph, February 14. Bank of England (2008), Financial Stability Report, Bank of England, London, October. Basu, S., Mahendra, R. and Hovig, T. (2008), “A comprehensive study of behavioral ﬁnance”, Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 51-62. Beinhocker, E. (2006), The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics, Random House, London. Choi, J. and Wang, H. (2009), “Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate ﬁnancial performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 895-907. Clarkson, M. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117. Danielson, M.G., Jean, L.H. and David, R.S. (2008), “Shareholder theory – how opponents and proponents both get it wrong”, Journal of Applied Finance, Fall/Winter, pp. 62-6. De Bondt, W., Gulnur, M., Hersh, S. and Sotiris, K.S. (2008), “Behavioural ﬁnance: Quo Vadis?”, Journal of Applied Finance, Fall/Winter, pp. 7-21. DesJardins, J.R. and McCall, J.J. (2004), Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91. Doukas, J.A. and Petmezas, D. (2007), “Acquisitions, overconﬁdent managers and self-attribution bias”, European Financial Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 531-77. Financial Times (2009), “Shareholder value re-evaluated”, Financial Times, March 15, available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/293fc3c4-1196-11de-87b1-0000779fd2ac.html Freeman, R.E. (1994), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Frooman, J. (1999), “Stakeholder inﬂuence strategies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 191-205. Gioia, D.A. (1995), “Practicability, paradigms and problems in stakeholder theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 228-32. Gombola, M. and Marciukaityte, D. (2007), “Managerial overoptimism and the choice between debt and equity ﬁnancing”, The Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 225-35. Grant, R. (2009), “Shareholder value maximisation must be used appropriately”, Financial Times, March 18, available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ede1ee8-135f-11de-a170-0000779fd2ac.html Heaton, J.B. (2002), “Managerial optimism and corporate ﬁnance”, Financial Management, Vol. 31, pp. 33-45. Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G.D. (2001), “Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 125-39.
Shareholder and stakeholder theory 61
House of Commons Treasury Committee (2009), Banking Crisis: Dealing with the Failure of the UK Banks, House of Commons Treasury Committee, London. Huang, R. and Ratnovski, L. (2008), “The dark side of bank wholesale funding”, Working Paper No. 09-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, November. Jensen, M.C. (2002), “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 235-56. Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the ﬁrm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-60. Kaler, J. (2006), “Differentiating stakeholder theories”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46, pp. 71-83. Kochan, T.A. and Rubenstein, S.A. (2000), “Toward a stakeholder theory of the ﬁrm: the Saturn partnership”, Organizational Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 367-86. Laplume, A., Sonpar, K. and Reginald, A.L. (2008), “Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1152-89. Larsen, P.T. (2007), “RBS aims to repeat NatWest trick”, Financial Times, October 17. Larsen, P.T. (2009), “Goodwin’s undoing”, Financial Times, February 24. Lo, A. (2005), “Reconciling efﬁcient markets with behavioral ﬁnance: the adaptive markets hypothesis”, Journal of Investment Consulting, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 21-44. Low, A. (2008), “Managerial risk-taking behavior and equity-based compensation”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 470-90. Malmendier, U. and Tate, G.A. (2008), “Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconﬁdence and the market’s reaction”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 20-43. Malmendier, U., Tate, G.A. and Yan, J. (2006), “Corporate ﬁnancial policies with overconﬁdent managers”, AFA 2006 Boston Meetings Paper, AFA, Boston, MA. Martin, R. (2008), “Undermining staying power”, University of Toronto Magazine, Summer, available at: www.magazine.utoronto.ca/summer-2009/unhelpful-management-theoriesshareholder-value-roger-martin/ Maubossin, M. (2009), “Taking head: managing for shareholder is still key”, Financial Times, August 2. Phillips, R.A., Freeman, R.E. and Wicks, A. (2003), “What stakeholder theory is not”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 51-66. Rajgopal, S. and Shevlin, T. (2002), “Empirical evidence on the relation between stock option compensation and risk taking”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 33, pp. 145-71. Rappaport, A. (1997), Creating Shareholder Value, The Free Press, New York, NY. Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J. and Paul, K. (2001), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and ﬁnancial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 143-56. Russo, J.E. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1992), “Managing overconﬁdence”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33, pp. 7-17. Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A. (1997), “A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and proﬁtability”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 534-59. Sanders, W.M.G. and Hambrick, D.C. (2007), “Swinging for the fences: the effects of CEO stock options on company risk taking and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1055-78. Schwartz, M.S. (2006), “God as a managerial stakeholder?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, pp. 291-306.
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005), “Stakeholder inﬂuences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest services industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 159-80. Shefrin, H. (2007), Behavioral Corporate Finance: Decisions that Create Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Shin, H.S. (2009), “Reﬂections on Northern Rock: the bank run that heralded the global ﬁnancial crisis”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 101-19. Skapinker, M. (2009), “The students who swear by a business school”, Financial Times, June 22. Smith, H.J. (2003), “The shareholders vs. stakeholders debate”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 85-90. Starik, M. (2005), “Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14, pp. 207-17. Stern, S. (2010), “Unilever chief backs criticism of shareholder primacy”, The Financial Times, April 5, available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91ec7d20-404a-11df-8d23-00144feabdc0.html Streuer, R. (2006), “Mapping stakeholder theory anew: from the ‘stakeholder theory of the ﬁrm’ to three perspectives on business-society relations”, Business, Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15, pp. 55-69. Streuer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), “Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61, pp. 263-81. Sundaram, A.K. and Inkpen, A.C. (2004), “The corporate objective revisited”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 350-63. Taylor, S.E. and Brown, J.D. (1988), “Illusion and well-being: a social psychology perspective on mental health”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 193-210. Weinstein, N.D. (1980), “Unrealistic optimism about future life events”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 806-20. Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718. Corresponding author Terence Tse can be contacted at: email@example.com
Shareholder and stakeholder theory 63
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document