Shareholders and Stakeholders Theories: Balancing the Conflicting Terms under OHADA and English Corporate Law
Keywords:
Corporate governance, shareholders, stakeholders, protection, CameroonAbstract
In the past, corporate governance was a term demoted to the shadows of legal and academic texts and a subject far beyond the sphere of public interest. At that time, governance was related to the view of companies which held that they were entities to be managed by managers acting under the supervision of boards; the directors which in turn were responsible for providing the checks and balances necessary for the orderly conduct of the business. For years now, debates over the proper scope and content of corporate behavior and corporate law have exhibited one regularity; they always involve a clash between corporate shareholders and stakeholders. Countries based on the Anglo-Saxon business model like the UK, are in favor of a “shareholder primacy theory” based system setting as their optimal goal for the maximization of shareholder’s value. On the other hand, countries under civil law systems from which OHADA draws its inspiration seems to have a stronger preference for a stakeholder based system. Thus, a comparison between OHADA and English law on shareholders and stakeholder’s interest will enable corporate participants to know the legal system which best protect commercial companies respectively. To achieve the said objective, we employed a content analysis approach. In this vein, this paper seeks to discuss the views of various authors on shareholders and stakeholders theory, brings out the possible balance between these conflicting terms and recommends some salient proposals to enhance these conflicting theories thus, protects corporate bodies.
References
1. Peter Neil Taylor, (2010), “ Enlightened Shareholder Value and The Companies Act 2006” , Thesis Submitted for The Degree of PhD, Birmingham University, 12.
2. Rachel C. Tate, Section 172 CA 2006: the ticket to stakeholder value or simply tokenism? found at https//www .abdn. ac.uk. Retrieved on the 01/09/2020.
3. Zachée Pouga Tinhaga, Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors: a Comparativ e Study of the US Corporate Law and the Organization for Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA), found at https//www.law.umich,edu, P.6.
4. Kenneth B. Davis, ( 1988), “ Discretion of Corporate Management to Do Good at the Expense of Shareholder Gain -A Survey of and Commentary on, the US. Corporate Law”, CAN.-U.S. L. J., Vol.13, pp. 7–8.
5. Robert J. Rhee, (2018), “A Legal Theory of Shareholder Primacy”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol.102, issue 122, PP.1951–52. Shareholders and Stakeholders Theories: Balancing the Conflicting Nchofua Anita Nyitioseh JCMSL (2020) 11–21 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 20
6. Jean Jacques du Plessis., (2016), “shareholder primacy and other stakeholder’s interest”, C&SLJ, Vol.34, PP. 238–242.
7. Lenore M. Palladino, (2019), Ending Shareholder Primacy in Cor porate Governance, Roosevelt, Institute Working Paper.
8. D. Gordon Smit, (1998), “The Shareholder Primacy Norm”, The Journal of Corporation Law, Vol.23, PP.277–32.
9. See Article 125 of the UACCEIG
10. Sarah Mehta Alexander, (2012), “Directors Duties under the CBCA: Shareholder Theory Versus Stakeholder Theory Consideration of Stakeholder Theory’s Legal and Moral Supremacy”, A Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Laws University of Toronto.
11. A Berle “For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees” , Harv Law Review, PP.1367–1372.
12. AA Berle , (1931) “ Corporate Powers as Power in Trust”, Harv Law Review , Vol. 44, PP.1049–1074.
13. David Millon, (1993), “ Communitarians, Contractarians, and the Crisis in Corporate Law”, WASH. &LEE L.REV ., Vol. 50, PP.1373–1374.
14. Michael C. Jensen and Kevin J. Murphy, (1990), “CEO Incentives: It’s Not How Much You Pay, But How ,” Harvard Business Review, PP. 235–245.
15. Milton Friedman, (1970) “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits” New York Times.
16. M Schwartz & D Salia, (2011), “Should Firm’s Go Beyond Profits? Milton Friedman Versus Broad CSR” Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 327, Vol.22, P. 7.
17. Puri, Poonam, and Tuvia Borok, (2002),"Employees as Corporate Stakeholders." Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol.8, P.51.
18. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc506 A.2d 173, 182 (Del. 1986)
19. Lee Roach ., ( 2003), Corporate Governance: the Traditional Legal Model of the Company and the Extension of its Theoretical Foundations in Support of Expanding the Scope of Current Governance Protection, A dissertation submitted in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Law, University of Bristol.
20. Susan R. Holmberg., (2018), who are shareholders, The Roosevelt Institute, reimagine the rules.
21. Companies Act, 2006, section. 46, section 16, 112–113 (Eng.).
22. See, section 77 Ibid.
23. See article 125 of the unifo rm act on commercial companies and economic interest groups
24. Clay Odari., (2015), Directors Duties: Balancing Shareholder and Stakeholder Interests Under the Companies Act of Kenya Cap 486 , LLB degree Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.
25. Mark, E.V. D.W., (1996), Against Fiduciary Duties to Corporate Stakeholders, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Vol. 21, PP. 28–77.
26. Sulette Lombard, (2007), “ Directors’ Duties to Creditors”, A thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The PhD Degree, University of Pretoria.
27. Stout, D.E., & West, R.N., (2004), “Using a stakeholder -based process to develop and implement an innovative graduate - level course in management accounting”, issue 2, PP. 95–118.
28. Lenore M. Palladino, (2019), Ending Shareholder Primacy in Corporate Governance, Roosevelt, Institute Working Paper.
29. Irene F. S., Lang Abel Z.N., (2016), The stakeholder theory of corporate control and the place of ethics in OHADA: The case of Cameroon, African Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 1, P. 98.
30. See article 465 of the UACCEIGs
31. Article 498 Ibid.
32. E.M. Dodd, (1932), “For Whom are the corporate managers trustees? Harv Law Review , Vol. 45, PP.1145–63.
33. Greenfield, Kent, Corporate Ethics in a Devish System , online :). Boston College Law School Faculty Papers. Paper 234 JCMSL (2020) 11–21 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 21 http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/234 > retrieve on the 20/06/2020.
34. Westpac Banking Corporation —Vthe Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2012] Wasca 157 Cacv 52 of 2009.
35. Ed Waitzer & Johnny Jaswal, (2009), “Peoples, BCE, and the Good Corporate Citizen” OHLJ. Vol. 47, P.429–457.
36. Williamlazonick, (2014), “Innovative enterprise: a prosperous economy needs it, but ‘maximizing shareholder value’ undermines it,” in “Beyond the Shareholder Value”, The reasons and choices for corporate governance reform”, TUC Congress House London.
37. Valentine TebiMbel, (2017), “ Collective Bargaining as A Corporate Governance Tool for Industrial Democracy: The Nigerian Experience”, Kampala International University Law Journal , Vol. 1, Issue 1, PP.1–16.
38. Dr Roger Barker, (2014), “Finding a place for shareholders and stakeholders in the modern corporation, in Beyond the Shareholder Value, The reasons and choices for corporate governance reform”, TUC Congress House London.
39. Lilian Miles , (2003), “Company stakeholders: their position under the new framework”, Amicus Curiae Issue 45, P P. PP.-13.
40. Frances, O’Grady, (2014), “Workers Voice in Corporate Governance”, in Beyond the Shareholder Value, The reasons and choices for corporate governance reform”, TUC Congress House London.
41. Lenore, M. Palladino, (2019), Ending Shareholder Primacy in Corporate Governance, Roosevelt, Institute Working Paper.
42. B Sjåfjell, A. Johnston, L Anker-Sørensen and D Millon, (2016) “Shareholder Primacy: The Main Barrier to Sustainable Companies” in B Sjåfjell and BJ Richardson (eds), Company Law and Sustainability: Legal Barriers and Opportunities, Cambridge Uni versity Press, (forthcoming) 79–147. Cite this Article Nchofua Anita Nyitioseh. Shareholders and Stakeholders Theories: Balancing the Conflicting Terms under OHADA and English Corporate Law. Journal of Capital Market and Securities Law . 2020; 3(2 ): 11–21p.
