Year 2018, Volume 9, Issue 16, Pages 2480 - 2510 2018-12-30

A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?
Kurumsal Yönetişim Teorilerine Deontolojik Bir Eleştiri: Şirketlerin Amacı Çalışanların Çıkarlarıyla Bütünleşebilir mi?

Mehmet Özyürek [1]

28 74

What should the corporate objective be? How should the interests of employees feature in said objective? Do employees have intrinsic value other than instrumental value? There are, of course, a number of different arguments that have been advanced in response to these questions; the majority of which have been built upon a range of different theoretical positions. In order to answer such questions, this study critically analyses the most prominent corporate governance approaches, which mostly see employees as only means in the corporation’s and/or shareholders’ ends. The study argues that employees should not merely be treated as instruments to the ends of the corporation or corporate shareholders. It argues that a normative approach to realise the corporate objective can be found within a non-consequential stakeholder theory. Thus according to this paper, employees can be respected genuinely only if the objective of the corporation is redefined from an intrinsic perspective. 

Bir işletmenin amacı ne olmalı? Bu amacın içinde işletmenin çalışanlarının çıkarları ne ölçüde rol oynamalı? Çalışanlar işletmeye sağladıkları faydanın ötesinde bir değere sahip mi? Elbette bu sorulara şimdiye kadar bir çok teori farklı açılardan yanıtlar aradı. Aşağıda okuyacağınız çalışma bu sorulara cevap ararken işletme çalışanlarını kar maksimizasyonu doğrultusunda araç olarak gören kurumsal yönetişim teorilerinin eleştirel bir analizini sunuyor ve bu teorileri görev ahlakı açısından yeniden değerlendiriyor. Bu değerlendirme işletmenin amacını ve işletme çalışanlarının çıkarlarını araçsal/sonuçsal olmayan normatif bir teori üzerinde yeniden tanımlıyor. Kant’ın görev ahlakını temel alan bu teori, işletme çalışanlarını, yarattığı ekonomik faydanın ötesinde değerlendiriyor. Bu çalışma aynı zamanda çalışanları sadece araçsal değeri üzerinden değerlendiren kurumsal yönetişim modellerinin de bir eleştirisini sunuyor. Yapılan eleştiride yaygın kurumsal yönetişim modellerinin, çalışanlara sadece işletmeye ve hissedarlara sağladıkları fayda üzerinden yaklaştığı üzerinde duruluyor. Bu nitel ve normatif eleştirinin ardından çalışanların içsel değerlerine saygı gösterebilmenin ancak deontolojik bir paydaş teorisi ile mümkün olabileceği savını öne sürüyor. 

  • Aglietta, M., & Rebérioux, A. (2005). Corporate governance adrift: A critique of shareholder value. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American economic review, 62(5), 777-795.
  • Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 221-242.
  • Bainbridge, S. (2008). The new corporate governance in theory and practice. Oxford University Press.
  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management journal, 42(5), 488-506.
  • Blair, M. M. (2003). Value, corporate governance and corporate performance: A post-Enron reassessment of the conventional wisdom. In Cornelius, P. K. and Kogut, B. (Eds.), Corporate governance and capital flows in a global economy. Oxford University Press.
  • Blair, M. M. (2012). Corporate law and the team production problem. Research Handbook on the Economics of Corporate Law, 33.
  • Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247-328.
  • Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  • Brink, A. (2010). Enlightened corporate governance: Specific investments by employees as legitimation for residual claims. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 641-651.
  • Charles, H. (2002, December). What’s a business for? Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility, 49-55.
  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117.
  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
  • Coates, J. C. (1998). Measuring the domain of mediating hierarchy: how contestable are US public corporations. The Journal of Corporation Law, 24, 837, 838.
  • Company Law Review Steering Group. (1999). Modern company law for a competitive economy: The strategic framework: a consultative document. Department of Trade and Industry.
  • Cooper, S. (2017). Corporate social performance: A stakeholder approach. Routledge.
  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
  • Davies, P. L., & Worthington, S. (2012). Gower and Davies' principles of modern company law. Sweet & Maxwell Publishing.
  • Deakin, S. (2005), The coming transformation of shareholder value. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 11-18.
  • Dent Jr, G. W. (2005). Corporate Governance: Still Broke, No Fix in Sight. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(1), 39.
  • Dent, G. W. (2007). Academics in wonderland: the team production and director primacy models of corporate governance. Houston Law Review,44, 1213-1274.
  • Dodd, E. M. (1932). For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145-1163.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  • Drucker, P. (2012). Post-capitalist society. Routledge.
  • Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1985). Limited liability and the corporation. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 89-117.
  • Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1989). The Corporate Contract. Columbia Law Review, 89(7), 1416-1448
  • Egels-Zandén, N., & Sandberg, J. (2009). Distinctions in Descriptive and Instrumental Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 35-49.
  • Evan, W. M. & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Chryssides, G. D. & Kaler, J. H. (Eds.), An introduction to business ethics. South-Western Cengage Learning.
  • Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228-254
  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of behavioral economics, 19(4), 337-359.
  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.
  • Graham, D., & Woods, N. (2006). Making corporate self-regulation effective in developing countries. World Development, 34(5), 868-883.
  • Greenfield, K. (1998). The Place of Workers in Corporate Law. Boston College Law Review, 39(2), 283-327.
  • Hart, O. (1988). Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 4(1), 119-139.
  • Hart, O. (1995). Corporate governance: some theory and implictions. The economic journal, 105(430), 678-689
  • Hart, O. (1996). An economist's view of authority. Rationality and Society, 8(4), 371-386.
  • Henderson, G. (2009). The possible impacts of ‘enlightened shareholder value on corporations’ environmental performance. LLM thesis. University of Toronto.
  • Ho, V. H. (2010). " Enlightened Shareholder Value": corporate goverance beyond the shareholder-stakeholder divide. Journal of Corporation Law, 36(1), 59-112.
  • Honoré, A.M. (1999). 'Ownership' in Coleman. In J. L. (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of law. Garland Publishing.
  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
  • Keay, A. (2008). Ascertaining the corporate objective: An entity maximisation and sustainability model. The Modern Law Review, 71(5), 663-698.
  • Keay, A. (2010). Shareholder primacy in corporate law: can it survive? Should it survive? European Company and Financial Law Review, 7(3), 369-413.
  • Keay, A. (2012). The enlightened shareholder value principle and corporate governance. Routledge.
  • Kiarie, S. (2006). At crossroads: shareholder value, stakeholder value and enlightened shareholder value: which road should the United Kingdom take? International Company and Commercial Law Review, 17(11), 329-339.
  • Kraakman, R., & Armour, J. (2017). The anatomy of corporate law: A comparative and functional approach. Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, I. B. (2006). Efficiency and ethics in the debate about shareholder primacy. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 31, 533-587.
  • Letza, S., Sun, X., & Kirkbride, J. (2004). Shareholding versus stakeholding: A critical review of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3), 242-262.
  • Lewis, A. (2001). A focus group study of the motivation to invest:‘ethical/green’and ‘ordinary’investors compared. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(4), 331-341.
  • Osterloh, M., Frey, B. S. & Zeitoun, H. (2011) Corporate governance as an institution to overcome social dilemmas. In Brink, A. (Ed.), Corporate Governance and Business Ethics. Springer. Mallin, C.A. (2010). Corporate Governance. Oxford University Press.
  • McSweeney, B. (2008). Maximizing shareholder-value: a panacea for economic growth or a recipe for economic and social disintegration?. Critical perspectives on international business, 4(1), 55-74.
  • Meese, A. J. (2001). The team production theory of corporate law: A critical assessment. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 43, 1629-1702
  • Millon, D. (2011). Enlightened shareholder value, social responsibility and the Redefinition of Corporate Purpose Without Law. In Vasudev, P. M. and Watson, S. (Eds.), Corporate governance after the financial crisis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Mitchell, L. E. (1998). Trust and team production in post-capitalist society. J. Corp. L., 24(4), 869-912.
  • Mitchell, L. E. (2001). Corporate irresponsibility: America's newest export. Yale University Press.
  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Shareholders should welcome knowledge workers as directors. Journal of Management & Governance, 10(3), 325-345.
  • Parker, M., Jones, C., & Ten Bos, R. (2005). For business ethics. Routledge.
  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. The academy of management annals, 4(1), 403-445.
  • Pejovich, S. (1990). The economics of property rights: towards a theory of comparative systems (Vol. 22). Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  • Riley, C. A. (1995). Understanding and regulating the corporation. The Modern Law Review, 58, 595-612.
  • Riley, P. (2006). The social contract and it’s critics. In Goldie, M. and Wokler, R. (Eds.), The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century political thought. Cambridge University Press.
  • Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22-42.
  • Stuart, R. (1979, December 16). Making the Case for the Pinto New York Times, p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/16-/archives/making-the-case-for-the-pinto.html
  • Smith, H. J. (2003). The shareholders vs. stakeholders debate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 85-91.
  • Smith, H. J., & Hasnas, J. (1999). Ethics and information systems: the corporate domain. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 109-127.
  • Stiles, P., & Taylor, B. (2001). Boards at work: How directors view their roles and responsibilities: How directors view their roles and responsibilities. OUP Oxford.
  • Stout, L. A. (2001). Bad and not-so-bad arguments for shareholder primacy. S. Cal. L. Rev., 75, 1189-1210.
  • Stout, L. A. (2012). The problem of corporate purpose. Issues in Governance Studies, 48(1), 1-14.
  • Van Staveren, I. (2007). Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics. Review of Political Economy, 19(1), 21-35
  • Williams, C. A., & Conley, J. M. (2005). An Emerging Third Way-The Erosion of the Anglo-American Shareholder Value Construct. Cornell International Law Journal, 38(2), 493-551.
  • Williamson, O. E. (1984). Corporate Governance. Yale Law Journal, 93, 1197-1210.
Primary Language en
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-7980-4655
Author: Mehmet Özyürek (Primary Author)
Institution: YALOVA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF LAW
Country: Turkey


Bibtex @review { opus493876, journal = {OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi}, issn = {2528-9527}, eissn = {2528-9535}, address = {ADAMOR Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi}, year = {2018}, volume = {9}, pages = {2480 - 2510}, doi = {10.26466/opus.493876}, title = {A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?}, key = {cite}, author = {Özyürek, Mehmet} }
APA Özyürek, M . (2018). A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9 (16), 2480-2510. DOI: 10.26466/opus.493876
MLA Özyürek, M . "A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?". OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 9 (2018): 2480-2510 <http://dergipark.org.tr/opus/issue/39179/493876>
Chicago Özyürek, M . "A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?". OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 9 (2018): 2480-2510
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees? AU - Mehmet Özyürek Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.26466/opus.493876 DO - 10.26466/opus.493876 T2 - OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 2480 EP - 2510 VL - 9 IS - 16 SN - 2528-9527-2528-9535 M3 - doi: 10.26466/opus.493876 UR - https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.493876 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 OPUS International Journal of Society Researches A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees? %A Mehmet Özyürek %T A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees? %D 2018 %J OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi %P 2528-9527-2528-9535 %V 9 %N 16 %R doi: 10.26466/opus.493876 %U 10.26466/opus.493876
ISNAD Özyürek, Mehmet . "A Critique of the Corporate Governance Approaches from a Deontological Perspective: Can the Corporate Objective Embrace the Interests of Employees?". OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 9 / 16 (December 2019): 2480-2510. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.493876