Skip to main content
Log in

The Collapse of a European Bank in the Financial Crisis: An Analysis from Stakeholder and Ethical Perspectives

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fortis, the leading Benelux financial group, had been a success story of successive mergers of bank and insurance companies, with leadership in corporate social responsibility (CSR). One year after the acquisition of the major Dutch financial conglomerate ABN AMRO, the global financial crisis caused the collapse of the Fortis group. The purpose of this article is to use the case study of Fortis’s recent fall as a basis for reflective considerations on the financial crisis, from stakeholder and ethical perspectives. A selected number of key events of the history of the dramatic crisis at Fortis will be analysed from different ethical frameworks. Special consideration will be given to fairness of communication, shareholder activism and conflicts of interests of CEO’s mergers opportunities. A confrontation between the CSR policy and the reality raises the fundamental questions why the powerful CSR guidelines and ethical principles did not help in the assessment of the risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpaslan, C. M., Green, S. & Mitroff, I. 2009. ‘Corporate Governance in the Context of Crises: Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Crisis Management.’ Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management, 17:1, 38-49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armour, E. 2002. How boards can improve the odds of M&A success. Strategy & Leadership, 30(2), 13-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, R. and N. Tait: 2009, January 22. ‘Pressure to Adopt the Least-Worst Option’, Financial Times, 5.

  • Ayotte, K., & Skeel, D. (2010). Bankruptcy or Bailouts? Journal of Corporation Law, 35(3), 469-498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation, The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, P.: 2008, October 16, ‘Small Investors Learn the Lessons of Fortis Carve-up’, Financial Times, 27.

  • Bodolica & Spraggon, 2009. The implementation of special attributes of CEO compensation contracts around M&A transactions. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (9), 985-1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W. 1992. ‘Power and Managerial Dismissal: Scapegoating at the Top.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:3, 400-21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D.: 1958, Perception and Communication (Pergamon Press, London)

  • Buchholz, R. & Rosenthal, S. 1998. Business Ethics: The pragmatic path beyond principles to process. Upper Saddle River (N.J.): Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condijts, J., Gérard, P., & Thomas, P., 2009. La chute de la maison Fortis. Editions Lattès, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosimano, T. 2004. Financial Institutions and Trustworthy Behaviour in Business Transactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2): 179-188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. & Matten, D. 2004. Business Ethics: A European Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. & Kesner, I. F. 1993. ‘Top Managerial Prestige, Power and Tender Offer Response: A Study of Elite Social Networks and Target Firm Cooperation during Takeovers.’ Organization Science, 4:2, 123-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R. & Daily, C. M. 2001. ‘Director stock compensation: an invitation to a conspicuous conflict of interests?’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 11:1, 89-108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. & Thompson, T. 1994. ‘Social Movement Perspective on Corporate Control.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:1, 141-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debels, T. 2009. De Ondergang van Fortis. Houtekiet. Antwerpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depuydt, P., 2010. De Kloof- Hoe de breuk tussen Belgen en Nederlanders Fortis fataal werd. Prometheus, - HRC Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. 2008. ‘Hedge Funds Ethics,.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 18:3, 405-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Agency Theory - An Assessment and Review’, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57–74

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and M. Graebner: 2007, ‘Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges’, Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. 2005. ‘The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in business and entrepreneurship.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 60:3, 265-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. 2008. ‘Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 80:4, 879-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fendt, J. 2005. The CEO in Post-Merger Situations. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. & Fraedrich, J. 1994. Business Ethics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. 1994. ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 4:4, 409-21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. 1999. ‘Stakeholder influence strategies.’ Academy of Management Review, 24:102, 191-205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. 2009. The sub-prime crisis, the credit crunch and bank “failure”: An assessment of the UK authorities’ response. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 17(4), 427-452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haspeslagh, P. and Jamison, D., 1991. Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value through Corporate Renewal. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. 1994. How much is that organization worth? Interorganizational relationships, uncertainty and acquisition premiums. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 391-411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M., and Hambrick, D. 1997. Explaining Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 103-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4): 800-837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, E. 2005. ‘The Stakeholder Model: The Influence of Ownership and Governance Structure.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 56:1, 1-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. C. 1983. ‘Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.’ Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 527-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. & George, J. 1998. ‘The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork.’ Academy of Management Review, 23:3, 531-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpi, J., 1998. The Ethics of Bankruptcy, London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B. & March, J. 1988. ‘Organizational Learning.’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C. 2007. ‘Boards, Incentives and Corporate Social Responsibility: the case for a change of emphasis.’ Corporate Governance An International Review, 17:5, 935-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maelschalck, M., Lambrechts, M., Sephiha M. & Michielsen, S., 2009. Banqueroute, comment Fortis a ébranlé la Belgique. Editions Racine, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux, A. 2003. ‘A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 13:1, 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Carthy, J. & Zald, M. 1997. ‘Resource Mobilization and Social Movement Theory.’ American Journal of Sociology, 82:6, 1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Dow, S. & Argheyd, K. 2003. ‘CEO Incentives and Corporate Social Performance’ Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michielsen, S. & Sephiha, M. 2009. Bankroet. Tielt (Belgium): Uitgeverij Lannoo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B. & Wood, D. 1997. ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.’ Academy of Management Review, 22:4, 853-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modrikamen, M. 2009. Fortis, jusqu’au bout. Brussels: Editions Luc Pire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L.: 1997, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd Edition (Allyn and Bacon, Boston)

  • Pearson, C. M. and J. A. Clair: 1998, ‘Reframing Crisis Management’, Academy of Management Review 23(1), 59–76

  • Pesqueux, Y. & Damak-Ayadi, S. 2005. ‘Stakeholder Theory in Perspective.’ Corporate Governance, 5:2, 5-21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J., Preston, L. & Sachs, S. 2002. ‘Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View.’ California Management Review, 45:1, 6-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll, R.,1986. The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59(2): 197-216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglin, J.: 1998a. Would You Lie to Save Your Company? Inc. July 1st.

  • Seglin, J., 1998b. True Lies. Inc. October 20, pp. 136–139.

  • J. Smit (2009) De Prooi. Prometeus, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. 1997. It’s Good Business. Ethics and Free Enterprise for the New Millennium. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield D. Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A. (1981) The Learning Curve and Competition. The Bell Journal of Economics 12(1): 49–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Bos, R. & Willmott, H. 2001. ‘Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reason and emotion in working life.’ Journal of Management Studies, 38:6, 769-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R., Schrage, M., Bellin, J., & Marcotte, G. 2009. How Boards Can Be Better - a Manifesto. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 69-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Caloen, A. & Van de Woestyne, F., 2009. Fortis, Dexia, le séisme. Editions Luc Pire & La Libre Belgique, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan. D., 1999. The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1): 271-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K. & Cochran, P. L. 1999. ‘Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices.’ Academy of Management Journal, 42:5, 539-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetlaufer, G. 1989. The Ethics of Lying in Negotiations, Iowa Law Review, 75: 1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. 2002. ‘Holes at the Top: Why CEO firings backfire.’ Harvard Business Review, 80:12, 70-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. C. & Ryan, L. V. 2007. ‘Courting Shareholders: The Ethical Implications of Altering Corporate Ownership Structures.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 17:4, 669-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. 2001. ‘Building Stakeholder Theory With a Decision Modeling Methodology.’ Business & Society, 40:2, 133-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.: 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition (Stage, Newbury Park)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Fassin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fassin, Y., Gosselin, D. The Collapse of a European Bank in the Financial Crisis: An Analysis from Stakeholder and Ethical Perspectives. J Bus Ethics 102, 169–191 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0812-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0812-2

Keywords

Navigation