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.

The purpose of this paper is to assess how investment, financing and dividend policies may affect firm value.

The paper develops a system dynamics‐based model by using “financial management approach,” “capital structure approach,” “resource‐based approach,” and “sustainable growth approach” to identify investment, financing and dividend policies that may help maximize the firm value.

Adequate investment in productive assets is the first step to achieve value maximization objective. Low debt capital structure plays a dominant role to maximize the firm value, contrary to the suggestions generally found in corporate finance literature. Rather insignificant role of firm's short‐term financing policy is observed. A consistently stable dividend policy is also a prerequisite of firm value maximization.

The limitations of this study include: the competitors' actions are not modeled; human resources and other intangible resources are not modeled; instead of market debt, debt is assumed to be bank debt. Future studies may bring in the competitors' actions, intangible assets including human resources, and may also consider to model debt as market debt.

The firms operating in favorable product market conditions should keep their operating and financial risks low which will also maximize their firm value. On the other hand, the firms facing unfavorable product market conditions have to make a trade‐off to minimize operating risk vs financial risk.

Usually the studies test one policy in isolation. However, this may probably be the first study that simultaneously tests various combinations of investment, financing and dividend policies that may help maximize the firm value.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

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 aims to present a vital strand that is part and parcel of an informed discussion towards the adoption of labour-friendly practices (LFP). This study is intended to examine the influence of LFP on five dimensions: job performance (JP), employee satisfaction (ES), corporate governance (CG), customer satisfaction (CS) and organizational performance (OP).

The study was conducted on top and middle-level management personnel in several companies across the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A total of 1,000 questionnaires was distributed personally and via email of which 366 usable responses were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM).

The results reinforce the premise that LFP positively and significantly influences value maximization.

This paper affirmed that what is good for the employees (or other stakeholders) is also good for shareholders, but within the constraints of an ideal context, where the shareholders subscribe to strict ethical principles and the stakeholders act with their moral agency intact. Thus, the discussion of LFP comprises not just about what is satisfying for the employees but also what is conducive for optimal value creation. The empirical findings were, however, more compatible within the agency theory framework because of the non-instrumentality that was observed too ideal and philosophical for the stakeholder theory of value creation.

In this study, I explore the link between workforce downsizing and the predominance of a corporate governance model that espouses a shareholder value maximization principle. Specifically, I examine how top managers’ shareholder value orientation affects the adoption of a downsizing strategy among large, publicly traded corporations in the United States. An analysis of CEOs’ letters to shareholders indicates that firms with CEOs who use language that espouses the shareholder value principle tend to have a higher rate of layoffs, after controlling for various indicators of the firm’s adherence to the shareholder value principle. The finding suggests that corporate governance models, particularly those advocated by powerful organizational elites, have a significant impact on workers by shaping corporate strategies toward the workforce. The key actors in this process were top managers who embraced the new management ideology and implemented corporate strategy to pursue shareholder value maximization.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine listed companies, grouped by sector, that for decades have shown a dividend growth. Referring to the food and beverage (F&B) industry, the authors have investigated the adoption of an open innovation model in order to fill a gap in the existing literature.

This paper uses a multi-method design linking qualitative and quantitative approaches. The quantitative study was planned in order to identify some US-listed companies, called Dividend Champions that have distributed consistently growing dividends for over 50 years and have beaten the markets. The qualitative study was designed to provide insight into the adoption or not of an open innovation model by the listed companies in the F&B industry in the US market that were selected by the quantitative analysis.

The research is based on an empirical analysis undertaken with 816 listed companies in US markets. In particular, the authors underline 20 companies that over the past 50 years have systematically increased dividend paid, and at the same time, have beaten the market (Standard & Poor’s 500). In all, 30 per cent of the selected companies belong to the consumer goods sector, and F&B companies represent 50 per cent of them. All of these companies (The Coca-Coca Company, Hormel Foods Corporation, and Lancaster Colony Corporation) implement an open innovation model.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first exploratory study based on value maximisation and open innovation. An open innovation model increases competitiveness and the durability of competitive advantage, which are main sources of value creation. The paper highlights evidence from the F&B industry, referred to as Dividend Champions, and the adoption of an open innovation model.

This chapter outlines the nascent history of the Benefit Movement, discusses the theoretical implications that predict the long-term success of movement goals, and provides recommendations for firms who seek to safeguard practices of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The chapter provides an overview of Benefit forms and describes the indicators of Movement success. For the Benefit Movement to achieve success, it must establish legal options in all 50 states for Benefit incorporation, pave the way for both publicly and privately held organizations to incorporate, and mobilize diverse organizational actors with high levels of commitment to sustain contention for Movement goals. The chapter provides a framework to understand how the Movement can achieve its goal of safeguarding the effective practice of CSR within firms and across the planet.