Valeur actionnariale vs. sociétale

Article intéressant publié sur SSRN par Dorothy Lund : « Toward a Dynamic View of Corporate Purpose » (21 décembre 2023).

La proposition de l’auteure est simple : « It suggests that the welfare-maximizing purpose for corporations could change depending on external economic conditions ».

Résumé :

Scholars debating the corporation’s role in society generally advance the view that there is only one desirable orientation for corporations and their management. Specifically, proponents of a stakeholder governance model contend that focusing management on a broad set of corporate constituents maximizes overall welfare, while advocates of a shareholder-centric directive counter that prioritizing shareholders creates social welfare by rendering the firm most profitable. This Article offers another view: It suggests that the welfare-maximizing purpose for corporations could change depending on external economic conditions, which both of these positions assume away. Specifically, shareholder primacy is likely to promote welfare in a first-best world, where the government regulates corporate externalities, ensures competitive markets, and responds to inequality. Once these assumptions are relaxed, however, the case for stakeholder governance improves.

The Article supports this theoretical insight with a detailed analysis of two historical periods in which the dominant view of corporate purpose in society changed dramatically. Specifically, it describes two corporate purpose “moments” of flux in the U.S.—one that occurred after the great stock market crash of 1929, and another following a period of economic stagflation in the 1970s —in which the pendulum swung from one governance model to the other, impacting scholarship, business practice, and law. These historical snapshots reveal that departures from a shareholder-oriented model have been preceded by extreme external economic conditions, consistent with the theoretical insight offered here. This analysis also sheds light on the present moment, in which inequality, corporate concentration, and environmental degradation have generated heated debates about the corporation’s role in society once again.

À la prochaine…

Merci à la professeure Anne-Christin Mittwoch de nous offrir une très belle synthèse sur la notion d’intérêt social en droit allemand pour montrer que la notion de raison d’être doit être comprise en lien avec elle. Un billet à lire de toute urgence !

• « The interest of the company as key to the corporate purpose discussion. Historic concepts in German company law revisited », Blogging for sustainability, 15 avril 2021

Extrait :

Lessons learnt from legal history: the company’s role in society as a whole

The company interest has a tradition of almost a hundred years, its roots dating even further back. The intersection between private and public interests has its origin in ancient Roman law that had been absorbed by German legal scholars since the 12^th century. This tradition has made it difficult to align private and public interests explicitly within the definition of the corporate purpose – until today, public and private law are considered separate. Thus, the early phase of German stock corporation regulation in the 19^th century was characterized by a sharp dichotomy of public and private interests (rather than shareholder and stakeholder interests). They seemed so incompatible with each other that the German octroi and concession system sought to interweave them in regulatory terms in order to provide protection for society against the unbridled pursuit of private interests of corporate managers and to deal with the threat this posed to the public good. As a result, it was not possible to incorporate in Germany between 1794 and 1843 if not for the purpose of the common or public good.

The common benefit as a condition for incorporation

This strict precondition was abandoned in 1870, but in the 20^th century, the discourse on the common good in company law gained ground again with the debate on the concept of the ‘company per se’. This discussion was initiated by Rathenau’s writings and aimed at a practical independence of the company from its governing bodies and their individual interests. Due to their considerable macroeconomic importance, Rathenau considered stock corporations no longer the sole objects of the private interests of shareholders but demanded that they should be detached from the purely private sector and linked to the interests of the state and civil society. Consequentially, the Stock Corporation Act of 1937 stipulated: ‘The Management Board shall, under its own responsibility, manage the company in such a way as […] the common benefit of the people and the state demand’.

The 1965 amendment to the Stock Corporation Act erased this statement from the wording of the law, because of its Nazi connotations and because it was deemed unnecessary to spell out the obvious. The continued validity of the common benefit as an unwritten principle of stock corporation law has since then been discussed and the development of codetermination in the 1970s intensified this discussion.

Where is the concept of company interest today?

In the following decades, various understandings of the interest of the company were put forward by academics and shaped this concept that until today is considered the major guideline for board members’ actions. Since the 1990s, the debate has opened up to the Anglo-American shareholder-stakeholder dichotomy and its influences can be seen in today’s foreword of the GCGC. However, binding standards of conduct for corporate bodies as well as for an associated liability were not developed. Does this render the concept of the company interest useless? No. It offers a framework, an overarching normative idea, in which different legal obligations for board members can be placed and interpreted. And its dynamic offers flexibility: it constantly poses the questions of the ‘right’ relationship between company and society and between public regulation and private interests. But currently, flexibility is accompanied by legal uncertainty.

Towards a better framework for the corporate purpose?

Without an explicit definition, the concept of the company interest seems to be at a crossroads. Thus, a legal clarification of its relevance is much needed. This clarification should connect to its historical core: the relation between public and private interests that have to be continuously balanced within corporate decision-making. And the responsibility of the company for the common good as its background. Yet a conclusive definition of its scope will not be possible: History has shown that none of the above-mentioned interest groups dominates over another on an abstract level. And what is in the company interest depends also on the object and the articles of association of the respective enterprise together with the individual situation. Nevertheless, the law can and should make explicitly clear that corporate boards are committed to the company interest. This clarification is not only needed in order to reject the shareholder-stakeholder dichotomy. It can also serve as a reference point for further obligations of the board to foster corporate sustainability. Because ultimately, it is in the enterprise’s best interests, that boards ensure a sustainable value creation within the planetary boundaries.

À la prochaine…

Ma collègue Beate Sjåfjell nous gâte encore avec un très bel article (accessible en ligne !) : « Sustainable Value Creation Within Planetary Boundaries—Reforming Corporate Purpose and Duties of the Corporate Board » (Sustainibility, 2020, Vol. 12, Issue 15). Je vous conseille vivement la lecture de cet article…

Résumé :

Business, and the dominant legal form of business, that is, the corporation, must be involved in the transition to sustainability, if we are to succeed in securing a safe and just space for humanity. The corporate board has a crucial role in determining the strategy and the direction of the corporation. However, currently, the function of the corporate board is constrained through the social norm of shareholder primacy, reinforced through the intermediary structures of capital markets. This article argues that an EU law reform is key to integrating sustainability into mainstream corporate governance, into the corporate purpose and the core duties of the corporate board, to change corporations from within. While previous attempts at harmonizing core corporate law at the EU level have failed, there are now several drivers for reform that may facilitate a change, including the EU Commission’s increased emphasis on sustainability. Drawing on this momentum, this article presents a proposal to reform corporate purpose and duties of the board, based on the results of the EU-funded research project, Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade (SMART, 2016–2020).

À la prochaine…

Bonsoir à toutes et à tous, Larry Fink se fait encore entendre : « Le plus gros actionnaire au monde appelle les entreprises à définir leur « raison d’être » » (Les Echos, janvier 2019)…. pour le plus grand bien de la RSE. Cette fois, c’est la raison d’être que le PDG de BlackRock souhaite pousser !

Extrait :

Depuis des années, Larry Fink, le patron de BlackRock, le plus gros actionnaire de la planète, demande aux entreprises de penser à long terme. En 2018, il avait déjà appelé les patrons à oeuvrer pour le bien commun. Une révolution. Cette année, ce financier, soutien fidèle du parti démocrate, va plus loin. Il exhorte les entreprises dans lesquelles il investit à définir leur « raison d’être » .

À la prochaine…