Journal of Business Ethics 103 (2):255-274 (2011)

Abstract
A number of companies allocate ownership rights to stakeholders different from shareholders, despite the fact that the law attributes these rights to the equity holders. This article contributes to an understanding of this evidence by developing a contingency model for the allocation of ownership rights. The model sheds light on why companies, despite pressures from the law, vary in their allocation of ownership rights. The model is based on the assumption that corporations increase their chance to survive and prosper if the stakeholders supplying “critical contributions” receive the ownership rights. According to the model, “critical” contributions involve (1) contractual problems due to specific investments, long-term relationships, and low measurability; (2) the assumption of the uncertainty resting on the company; and (3) the supply of scarce and valuable resources. The model is dynamic because it also provides a basis for understanding why the allocation of ownership rights changes with time. Finally, the article presents the strategies companies can use to realize an efficient distribution of ownership rights among their stakeholders
Keywords corporate governance  ownership rights  shareholder theory  stakeholder theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0864-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,178
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.Kenneth E. Goodpaster - 1991 - Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1):53-73.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Self-Ownership.Peter Vallentyne - 2001 - In Laurence Becker & Charlotte Becker (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2nd edition. Garland Publishing.
A Lockean Argument for Basic Income.Daniel Moseley - 2011 - Basic Income Studies 6 (2):11.
Mergers, Takeovers, and a Property Ethic.Vincent Norcia - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1-2):109 - 116.
Intrinsic Limitations of Property Rights.J. M. Elegido - 1995 - Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5):411 - 416.
Locke and Libertarian Property Rights: Reply to Weinberg.Am Feallsanach - 1998 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 12 (3):319-323.
On Global Justice.Mathias Risse - 2012 - Princeton University Press.
Employee Governance and the Ownership of the Firm.John R. Boatright - 2004 - Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (1):1-21.
Ownership, Co-Ownership, and the Justification of Property Rights.J. E. Penner - 2006 - In J. W. Harris, Timothy Andrew Orville Endicott, Joshua Getzler & Edwin Peel (eds.), Properties of Law: Essays in Honour of Jim Harris. Oxford University Press.
Who Owns My Avatar? -Rights in Virtual Property.Anders Eriksson & Kalle Grill - 2005 - Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play.
A Dilemma for Libertarianism.Karl Widerquist - 2009 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):43-72.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-09-07

Total views
46 ( #234,399 of 2,454,925 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #303,322 of 2,454,925 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes