Some philosophical issues in corporate governance: the role of property in stakeholder theory

Abstract

Focuses on what can be referred to as the “fundamental philosophical issues of corporate governance”. Outlines the interdependence of various kinds of governance. Demonstrates that corporate governance is part of a bundle of governances and that, in this respect, it occupies a leading place to the degree that its principles are becoming consolidated. Then discusses in a more detailed manner what is meant by the term “dominant functionalism”. Then deals with the question of the equilibrium between sovereignty and legitimacy from the point of view of corporate governance. In effect, rules of governance (considered as the designation of a sovereign power) are searching for a legitimizing instance originating outside the framework of those rules. Finally, covers the proprietarialist origins of stakeholder theory, origins which correspond to a moderate liberal tradition.

Impact of board size on the accounting returns and the asset quality of Indian banks

“…CG enables the firms in mobilizing financial and non-financial resources from the external environment (Pfeffer, 1972; Useem, 1980; Palmer, 1983; Ornstein, 1984; Hillman and Dalziel, 2003; Bernardi et al , 2005). CG harmonizes the interrelationships existing between the stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Bonnafous-Boucher, 2005; Cooper and Owen, 2007). According to multi-governance theory of CG, the role of CG is to provide a holistic idea through integration of various aspects of the other CG theories (Hill and Jones, 1992; Hung, 1998; Laing and Weir, 1999).…”

What does “corporate governance” actually mean?

“…Stakeholder theorists trace their origins back to management theory, politics and law and within the corporate governance literature tends to focus on the coordinating role of the governing board (Hung, 1998) in the pursuit of stakeholder interests (Clarke, 1998;Cooper and Owen, 2007;Heath and Norman, 2004). The term "stakeholder" refers to individuals and groups of constituents who have a legitimate claim on the firm (Bonnafous-Boucher, 2005;Donaldson and Preston, 1995;Heath and Norman, 2004;Pearce, 1982). Stakeholder theorists conceptualise a corporation as "a constellation of cooperative and competitive interests possessing intrinsic value" (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, p. 67).…”

Past Legitimacy and Legitimacy Under Construction

“…Even if Mitchell et al (1997) managed to render this identification more intelligible by applying the set theory instead of a mechanical listing of internal and external stakeholders, of primary and secondary rank, the fact of hierarchizing the importance of their aspirations and their demands only goes to show to what a large extent the question of recognition of the composition of these stakeholders is an issue in its own right. Depending on the viewpoint one adopts, stakeholders are, respectively, a set of players who don't represent the State, according to the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Commission; they can equally be considered as a set of individual playersthe civil society in the Hegelian sense of the termas they are treated by the multinationals (Bonnafous-Boucher 2004, 2006, 2011, or the nonprofit sector, as they are viewed by public authorities. In this respect, the growing inclusion of stakeholders' agendas in the strategy of certain multinational corporations or likewise in that of public authorities has enabled them to embrace a prodemocratic rhetoric which enhances the legitimacy of their strategies without fundamentally undermining their stances.…”