Search results

The purpose of the paper is to clarify the relationship between stakeholder interests and the ownership of a company, and to specify the distinctions between three types of maximization: shareholder‐, stakeholder‐owner‐ and total stakeholder maximization.

This conceptual paper first analyzes how company‐related rents are connected to different stakeholder groups. These rents are defined as the monetary and non‐monetary returns from stakeholder involvement in a company, in excess of what stakeholders could achieve from their best alternatives. The paper distinguishes between general stakeholder benefits and the additional owner benefits a stakeholder secures by having controlling ownership. The stakeholder having the highest net benefits (benefits minus costs), and thus paying the highest price for ownership, will be the controlling owner. The controlling stakeholder‐owners' benefits are those which are maximized by the company. This leads to the second part of the paper, which analyzes different types of maximization.

The general type of maximization that companies pursue is stakeholder‐owner maximization. Maximization of shareholder value is a special case of stakeholder‐owner maximization. Only under quite restrictive assumptions is shareholder maximization larger or equal to stakeholder‐owner maximization. Total stakeholder maximization is calculated on the sum of the returns to all stakeholders including shareholders. Because of problems of measurement and practical application, total stakeholder maximization is difficult or impossible to achieve. Firms generally approximate to total stakeholder maximization by implementing stakeholder‐owner maximization under constraints defined by other stakeholder interests. With stronger regulation, pressure from different stakeholder groups, and more emphasis on corporate social responsibility, the decision area where the company can simultaneously maximize stakeholder‐owners' returns and stakeholder interests will be increased.

This paper breaks new ground by linking controlling ownership and stakeholder interests/rents. This is used to give precise definitions on three types of maximization: shareholder‐, stakeholder‐owner, and total stakeholder maximization.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between corporate governance structures and stakeholder and shareholder value maximization perspectives in 267 African banks from 2006 to 2011.

The authors used the Prais–Winsten ordinary least squares and random effect regression models to explore this relationship to ensure consistency and efficiency in results. The data for this study were collected from Bankscope.

The results of this study show that corporate governance structures such as CEO duality, nonexecutive members and extreme large board size lead to a reduction in both shareholder and stakeholder value maximization. However, audit independence and board size also promote both shareholder and stakeholder value maximization. Although gender diversity promotes profit maximization, it was not significant in any of the models estimated. The results further suggest that the same corporate governance structures promote and detract shareholder and stakeholder value maximization in Africa although the effect of corporate governance structures was weightier on shareholder value maximization confirming the agency theory.

From these findings, bank management must pursue the institution of good corporate governance structures and avoid weak corporate governance structures to promote shareholder and stakeholder value maximization. Also equity holders may have to pay particular attention to corporate governance structures because they benefit the most from the institution of good corporate governance structures.

This study explores and compares how corporate governance structures promote shareholder and stakeholder value maximization separately in African banks. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first of such studies.

This paper aims to examine two important issues in corporate social responsibility (CSR) scholarship. First, the study problematises CSR as a form of self-regulation. Second, the research explores how CSR strategies can enable firms to recognise and internalise their externalities while preserving shareholder value.

This study uses a tinged shareholder model to understand the interactions between an organisation’s CSR approach and the effect of relevant externalities on its CSR outcomes. In doing this, the case study qualitative methodology is adopted, relying on data from one Fidelity Bank, Nigeria.

By articulating a tripodal thematic model – governance of externalities in the economy, governance of externalities in the social system and governance of externalities in the environment, this paper demonstrates how an effective combination of these themes triggers the emergence of a robust CSR culture in an organisation.

This research advances the understanding of the implication of internalising externalities in the CSR literature in a relatively under-researched context – Nigeria.

The data of this study allows to present a governance model that will enable managers to focus on their overarching objective of shareholder value without the challenges of pursuing multiple and sometimes conflicting goals that typically create negative impacts to non-shareholding stakeholders.

This paper aims to provide a new conceptual approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR), termed enlightened shared value (ESV), by applying the social dilemma paradigm and long-term value maximization.

In this conceptual paper, the author analyzes CSR as an organizational social dilemma, where the conflicts among stakeholders and between short- and long-term outcomes are inevitable. To minimize these conflicts, firms need to aim at long-term value maximization to provide the maximum outcome to the firm and satisfy all relevant stakeholders. Adopting these perspectives, the author introduces ESV and compares ESV with major CSR approaches.

ESV provides a clear metric and the method for CSR, which is lacking in existing CSR approaches. Consequently, ESV is superior to and has better applicability than existing CSR approaches. The author suggests that shifting focus to long-term outcomes can reduce the conflicts in CSR and make CSR a win-win game.

As an alternative to existing CSR approaches, ESV can provide the best outcome to the firm and all relevant stakeholders. ESV adds the understanding of CSR’s theoretical discussions and provides a practical guideline to practitioners.

To illustrate and discuss how different types of responsibility values are mobilised in a Swedish international company.

The paper is informed by a constructivist pragmatism framework. The part of the study related to the case site was inspired by an ethnographic research approach and involved intensive face‐to‐face observations over a period of two years. Data was collected at four main levels: external and internal documents, observation of project meetings, interviews with project members, and informal talks with organisation members.

Possible conflicts of interest between human and business perspectives are exposed. Awareness of these interest‐conflicts, however, facilitates a potential bridging of the two perspectives. Our findings suggest possible explanations as to why management control (MC) models work in practice. Although values pertaining to shareholder maximisation are given prominence in external communication, the internal MC model also emphasises the values considered necessary and desirable by professionals, such as confidence, commitment and respect. The study reveals that the way values are handled affects the responsibility taken by employees in everyday situations. By using the constructivist pragmatism framework, it becomes clear that values cause people to act, and not MC systems.

Although many studies have described the shortcoming of MC models, few studies platform from the concept of responsibility. In this paper it is shown how accounting communicates values underpinning responsibility, and contributes towards explaining why certain types of MC models can be more successful than others.

This purpose of this paper is to examine four separate though interconnected questions concerning corporations operating, in Anglo American jurisdictions.

The paper first examines the nature of the limited liability corporation as an entity dedicated to maximizing shareholder value, and how far this role is consistent with the pursuit of wider policies of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Second, it reviews the ownership arrangements of the corporation, the fiduciary duties of board directors and how this is translated into the task of maximizing shareholder value through the pursuit of profits. Third, it investigates how directors position themselves commercially in maximizing shareholder value and whether shareholders express views on how shareholder value can best be maximized. Finally conclusions are drawn on how best corporations and their directors can address the challenge of meeting shareholder value and how far this implies realignment in terms of wider societal expectations. The method of research used includes an examination of statute law governing the corporation, judge's law, regulatory law, other soft law in the context of outsider controlled capital markets. Relevant published research material is also declared in the bibliography.

Conclusions drawn suggest that the premise of maximization of shareholder value may very well entail the pursuit by directors of wider social and economic objectives consistent with CSR, if this is consistent with the enhancement of shareholder value. They also point to a lack of clarity on the question of what is expected of directors in meeting their fiduciary and broader director's duties as expressed in the objective of maximizing shareholder value. Evidence suggests that there is little effective communication between shareholders and directors on how best shareholder value can be maximized. Specifically the analysis focuses on how best to overhaul the mechanisms of governance and accountability if directors and the shareholders they represent are to develop and execute rational commercial policies aimed at maximizing shareholder value.

The paper breaks new ground in linking CSR to the enhancement of shareholder value and in suggesting that directors may be negligent in their duty to promote shareholder value if they fail do so. The paper should be of interest to company directors, company legal advisors; other corporate lawyers involved in litigation against directors, and policy makers in government.

This paper looks at state-owned enterprises (SOEs) from the angle of the market for corporate control and analyzes in detail the reported rationales of a sample of 355 mergers and acquisition (M&A) deals performed by SOEs as acquirers over the period 2002-2012. The purpose of this paper, after having created a taxonomy of deal motivations, is to empirically test two alternative hypotheses: deviation vs convergence of M&A deal rationales between state-owned and private enterprises.

The data set is obtained by combining firm-level information from two sources, Zephyr and Orbis (Bureau Van Dijk). A recursive algorithm is developed to infer the ownership nature of the enterprises at the time the deal took place and then the authors double-checked the identity of the global ultimate owner by visual inspection of all the available information. Motivations are analyzed through a case-by-case analysis and classified into several categories, thereby providing a taxonomy of rationales behind SOE M&As and discussing their differences and similarities relative to private firms.

More than 60 percent of the deals performed by SOEs as acquirers are driven by “shareholder value maximization” motives, similarly to private enterprise acquirers. The other 40 percent of deals are almost equally spread among three rationales that specifically relate to the role of modern state capitalism in the economy. “Financial distress” motivation, which is the only one clearly deviating from the objectives of profit maximization typical of private ownership, is far less important than the others.

The paper does not analyze the case studies in detail. Neither does it correlate the evidence with the quality of corporate governance or the quality of institutions in the country. This would be interesting in order to discover whether the alignment of objectives between public and private enterprises is enhanced by certain features of public sector management, as suggested by the OECD (2015) Guidelines.

The paper suggests some policy implications in terms of reforms of the corporate governance of the SOEs and accountability of their management against clearly stated public missions. It also calls for the need for citizens to be informed in a transparent way about the rationales of major M&A deals when a SOE is on the acquirer side, and the consistency of such rationales with the mission assigned by governments to the enterprises they own. Finally, it underlines that regulatory concerns raised in many countries by the rise of cross-border SOE M&As are in most of the cases unfounded.

Existing literature has mainly focused on private corporate M&A deals or has just disregarded the ownership status of the acquiring firm. This paper focuses on the motivations for SOE deals in order to elaborate a taxonomy of SOE deal rationales and to identify the differences and similarities between private corporate firms.

This paper tests the mimicking propositions from signalling theory as they relate to stated firm objectives and firm performance. We classify the corporate objectives of a large sample of firms and evaluate firm performance relative to these objectives. We find that poorly performing firms more frequently cite shareholder wealth maximization as their primary objective than do better performing firms. There is no evidence that firms citing a shareholder wealth maximization objective perform any better than firms with alternative objectives. Similar evidence is found for other common corporate objectives. Overall, our results are consistent with signalling theory in that non‐enforceable signals, such as proclamations of corporate objectives, are not credible signals for investors.

The 2008 Crash (the Crash) has been attributed to the dominance of financialized corporate governance, particularly an increased shareholder value rhetoric. Following the Crash, this extreme narrative is understood to have become less financialized through increasingly favouring stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to investigate this often-accepted view using field theory, wherein managers' biases in the value-creating process result from an interconnected, dynamic, multi-actor discourse.

Various domains across the UK’s corporate governance environment, from the perspective of field theory, generate the complex discourse: corporate and regulatory domains, stakeholder organizations such as the press and think tanks. Domain-specific corpora, representative of this multi-actor field, were constructed, with financialization analysed by assessing managers’ altering biases concerning the relative importance of shareholders and stakeholders (amongst other factors like time horizon) to value creation.

Highlights of the multiple findings include the following: corporate narrative about value creation became less financialized following the Crash, yet favouring shareholders, while the multi-actor discourse for the UK economy as a whole became slightly more financialized.

Analysing a multi-actor discourse is complex. And this, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first study of its kind, and only made possible with the original methodology of narrative staining. The approach, while having particular relevance to field theory, is applicable to many other narrative-based research scenarios.

This study Investigates Shareholders' value adjustment in response to financial institutions (FIs) merger announcements in the immediate event window and in the extended event window. This study also investigates accounting measures performance, comparison of post-merger to pre-merger, including several cash flow measures and not just profitability measures, as the empirical literature review suggests. Finally, the authors examine FIs mergers orientations of diversification and focus create more value for shareholders (in the immediate announcement window and several months afterward) and/or generates better cash flows, profitability and less credit risk.

This study examines FIs merger effect on bidders’ shareholder’s value and on their observed performance. This examination deploys three techniques simultaneously: a) an event study analysis, to estimate and calculate abnormal returns (ARs) and cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) in the narrow windows of the merger announcement, b) buy and hold event study analysis, to estimate ARs in the wider window of the event, +50 to +230 days after the merger announcement and c) an observed performance analysis, of financial and capital efficiency measures before and after the merger announcement; return on equity, liquidity, cost to income ratio, capital to total assets ratio, net loans to total loans, credit risk, loans to deposits ratio, other expenses and total assets, economic value addition, weighted average cost of capital and return on invested capital. Deal criteria of value, mega-deals, strategic orientation (as in Ansoff (1980) growth strategies), acquiring bank size and payment method are set as individually as control variables.

Results show that FIs mergers destroy share value for the bidding firms pursuing a market penetration strategy. Market development and product development strategies enable shareholders’ value creation in short and long horizons. Diversification strategies do not influence bidding shareholders’ value. Local bank to bank mergers create shareholders’ value and enhance liquidity and economic value in the short run. Bank to bank cross border mergers create value for bidders’ in the long term but are associated with high costs and higher risks.

A significant advancement over the current literature is in assessing mergers, not only for bank bidders but also for the three pillars FIs of the financial sector; banks, real-estate companies and investment companies mergers. It is an improvement over current finance literature because it deploys two different strategies in the analysis. At a univariate level, shareholder value creation and market reaction to merger announcements are examined over short (−5 or +5 days) and long (+230 days) windows of the event. Followed by regressing, the resultant CARs and BHARs over financial performance variables at the multivariate level.