Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 102, Issue 3, pp 421–438 | Cite as

Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory

  • Allen Kaufman
  • Ernie Englander


Stakeholder theorists distinguish between normative stakeholders, those who gain moral standing by making contributions to the firm, and derivative stakeholders, those who can constrain the corporate association even though they make no contribution. The board of directors has the legal authority to distinguish among these stakeholder groups and to distribute rights and obligations among these stakeholder groups. To be sure, this stakeholder formulation appropriately seizes on the firm’s voluntary, associative character. Yet, the firm’s constituents contribute assets and incur risks to participate in market, economic activities. And, as such, the firm’s “stakeholders” must share an imperfect language to assist in making two key economic decisions: (1) who are the legitimate and who are the derivative stakeholders; and (2) who should sit on the board? Still, stakeholder theorists have good reason to be skeptical of neoclassical economics. Its assumptions that all act opportunistically and that all can calculate rationally and fully hardly correspond to studies on the managerial experience of corporate coordination. However, advances in behavioral law and economics now provide a cogent economic logic that readily fits into a stakeholder mode. In brief, we argue that (1) the firm’s economic purpose designates legitimacy to core stakeholders, to those who add value, assume unique risk, and can incur harm; (2) the board serves as the principal who coordinates these core stakeholders to sustain competitive advantage and new wealth creation; and (3) state incorporation law, Delaware in particular, reinforces the board’s function. These, in turn, supply selection criteria for board membership. We aim to synchronize concepts from behavioral law and economics with stakeholder theory.


behavioral economics stakeholder theory corporate governance board of directors team production 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alchian A A, Demsetz H. 1972. Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econ Rev. 62(5): 777-95.Google Scholar
  2. Alchian, A, A., H. Demsetz, 1973. The property rights paradigm. Jrnl. of. Econ. Hist. 33:16-27.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, G. S. 1997. Commodity and propriety: Competing visions of property in American legal though, 1776-1970. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Amit, R., P.J. Schoemaker. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 14: 33-46.Google Scholar
  5. Aoki, M. 1984. The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K.J., G. Debreu. 1954. Existence of equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22: 265-290.Google Scholar
  7. Atiyah, P.S. 1995 An Introduction to the law of contract, 6th ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Bainbridge, S. M. 2002a. Why a board? Group decision making in corporate governance. Vanderbilt Law Review 55:1-55.Google Scholar
  9. Bainbridge, S. M. 2002b. Corporation law and economics. The Foundation Press, Mineola.Google Scholar
  10. Barnard, C.I. 1938. The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.Google Scholar
  12. Barney, J.B. 2001. Is the resource-base ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academic of Management Review 26:41-56.Google Scholar
  13. Barry, B., 1989. Theories of justice. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Barry, B., 1995. Justice as impartiality. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Baumol, W. J., A.S. Blinder, A. S., E.N. Wolff. 2003. Downsizing in America: Reality, causes, and consequences. Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Bebchuk, L. A. 1989. Limiting contractual freedom in corporate law: The desirable constraints on charter amendments. Harvard Law Review 102: 1820-1860.Google Scholar
  17. Bebchuk, L., A. Cohen. 2003. Firms’ decisions where to incorporate. Journal of Law and Economics 46: 383-425. Google Scholar
  18. Berman, S. L., A.C. Wicks, S. Kotha, T.M. Jones. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 488-506.Google Scholar
  19. Bhattacharya, R., T. M. Devinney, M. M. Pillutla (1998) A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes. Academy of Management Review 23: 459-472Google Scholar
  20. Blair, M.M., L.A. Stout. 1999. A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review 85:248-328.Google Scholar
  21. Blair, M.M, L.A. Stout. 2001. Trust, trustworthiness, and behavioral foundations of corporate law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149:1735-1810.Google Scholar
  22. Bolton, G.E., A. Ockenfels. 2000. ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review. 90: 166-193.Google Scholar
  23. Bowles, S. 2004. Microeconomics: Behavior, institutions and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  24. Bratton, W. W., J.A. McCahery. 2006. The equilibrium content of corporate federalism. Wake Forest Law Review 41: 619-696.Google Scholar
  25. Brudney, V. 1997. Contract and fiduciary duty in corporate law. Boston College Law Review. 38:595-665.Google Scholar
  26. Cary, W. L.: 1974, `Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections Upon Delaware', The Yale Law Journal 83, 663–705Google Scholar
  27. Cheung, S. N. S.: 1983, `The Contractual Nature of the Firm', Journal of Law and Economics 26, 1–26Google Scholar
  28. Child, J. W., A.M. and Marcoux. 1999. Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder theory in the original position. Business Ethics Quarterly 9: 207-223.Google Scholar
  29. Clark, R.C. 1985. Agency costs versus fiduciary duties. Pratt, J., R. Zeckhauser eds. Principals and agents: The structure of business. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Econometrica 4: 386-405.Google Scholar
  31. Conner, K., D.K. Prahalad. 1996. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization science 7: 477-501.Google Scholar
  32. Cook, K. S., R. Hardin, M. Levi. 2005. Cooperation without trust? Russell Sage Foundation Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Cyert, R. M., J. G. March (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2nd edn. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Dent, G.W., Jr. 1981. The revolution in corporate governance, the monitoring board, and the director’s duty of care. Boston University Law Review 61: 623-682.Google Scholar
  35. Dodd, E. M. 1932. For whom are the corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review 45: 1145-1163.Google Scholar
  36. Donaldson, T., T.W. Dunfee. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  37. Easterbrook, F. H., D.R. Fischel. 1991. The economic structure of corporate law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Eisenberg, M. A. 1989. The structure of corporate law. Columbia Law Review , 89: 1461-1525.Google Scholar
  39. Eisenberg, M. A., 1999. The conception that the corporation is a nexus of contracts and the dual nature of the firm. Iowa Journal of Corporate Law 24: 819-836.Google Scholar
  40. Elster, J., 1992. Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Englander, E.J. 1986. Technology and Oliver Williamson’s transaction cost economics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 10:339-353.Google Scholar
  42. Englander, E., A. Kaufman. 2004. The end of managerial ideology: From corporate social responsibility to corporate social indifference. Enterprise and Society 5:404-450.Google Scholar
  43. Fama, E.F. 1970. Efficient capital markets: A review of empirical work. Journal of Finance 25: 383-417.Google Scholar
  44. Fama, E. F. and K. R. French: 2004, Disagreement, Tastes and Asset Prices. Working Paper. Available at SSRN
  45. Fehr, E., S. Gachter. 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 159-81.Google Scholar
  46. Fehr, E., K.M. Schmidt. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817-68.Google Scholar
  47. Frankel, T. 1995. Fiduciary duties as default rules. Univ. of Oregon Law Review 74:1209-1277.Google Scholar
  48. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston.Google Scholar
  49. Freeman, R. E. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409-421.Google Scholar
  50. Freeman, R E., W.M. Evan. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder approach. The journal of behavioral economics 19: 337-359.Google Scholar
  51. Freeman, R. E., R.A. Phillips. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12: 331-349.Google Scholar
  52. Freeman, R. E., A.C. Wicks, B. Parmar. 2004. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited.” A reply. Organization Science 15: 364-369.Google Scholar
  53. Gauthier, D. 1986. Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Ghoshal, S., P. Moran. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review 21:13-47.Google Scholar
  55. Grant, R. M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109-122.Google Scholar
  56. Greenfield, K., P. Kostant. 2003. An experimental test of fairness under agency and profit constraints. George Washington Law Review 71: 983-1024.Google Scholar
  57. Grossman, S., O.D. Hart. 1986. The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy 94: 691-719.Google Scholar
  58. Gulati, R., 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 38: 85-112.Google Scholar
  59. Hardin, Russell 1982. Collective action. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  60. Hardin, R., 1995. Efficiency. R.E. Goodin, P. Pettit, eds. A companion to contemporary political philosophy. Blackwell, Oxford, 462-470.Google Scholar
  61. Hardin, R., 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  62. Hardin, R. 2003. Liberalism, constitutionalism, and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Hardin, R., 2006. Indeterminacy and society. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  64. Harrison, J. S., R.E. Freeman. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 42: 479-485.Google Scholar
  65. Hart, O., 1990. Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1119-1158.Google Scholar
  66. Hendry, J.: 2001, `Missing the Target: Normative Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance Debate', Business Ethics Quarterly 11, 159–176Google Scholar
  67. Herman, E. S., 1981. Corporate control, corporate power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  68. Hoffman, E., K. McCabe, K. Shachat, V.L. Smith 1994. Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior 7:3 346-80.Google Scholar
  69. Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics 13: 324-340.Google Scholar
  70. Horsey, H.R. 1994. The duty of care component of the Delaware business judgment rule. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 19:971-998.Google Scholar
  71. Jensen, M. C., 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12: 235-256.Google Scholar
  72. Jensen, M. C., K. J. Murphy and E. Wruck: 2004, Remuneration: Where We Have Been, How We Got to Here, What Are the Problems, and How to Fix Them. Harvard Business School NOM Research Paper No. 04-28.
  73. Johnson, L., D. Millon. 2005. Recalling why corporate officers are fiduciaries. William and Mary Law Review 46:1597-1653.Google Scholar
  74. Jolls, C., C.R. Sunstein, R. Thaler. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review 50:1471-1550.Google Scholar
  75. Jones, T., A.C. Wicks. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory in management research. Academy of Management Review 24:206-221.Google Scholar
  76. Kahneman D, J. Knetsch, R. Thaler. 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review 76: 728-741.Google Scholar
  77. Kaufman, A., 2002. Managers’ dual fiduciary duty: To stakeholders and to freedom, Business Ethics Quarterly 89: 189-214.Google Scholar
  78. Kaufman, A., E. Englander, E. 1993. Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts and Co. and the restructuring of American capitalism. Business History Review 67: 52-97.Google Scholar
  79. Kaufman, A., E. Englander. 2005. A team production model of corporate governance. Academy of Management Executive 19:9-22.Google Scholar
  80. Kaufman, A., C.H. Wood, G. Theyel. G. 2000. Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic supplier typology. Strategic Management Journal 21: 649-663.Google Scholar
  81. Kaufman, A., L. Zacharias.1992. From trust to contract: The legal language of managerial ideology, 1920-1980. Business History Review 66: 523-572.Google Scholar
  82. Kaufman, A., L. Zacharias, M. Karson. 1995. Managers vs. owners: The struggle for corporate control in American democracy. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  83. Kay, N. M. 1997. Pattern in corporate evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  84. Khurana, R., 2002. Searching for a corporate savior: The irrational quest for charismatic corporate CEOs. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  85. Klein, W. A., J.C. Coffee, Jr. 2004. Business organization and finance, 9 th edition. The Foundation Press, Mineola.Google Scholar
  86. Knight, F., 1947. Freedom and economics: Essays on economics and social philosophy. Harper and Brothers, New York.Google Scholar
  87. Langbein, J. H., 1995. The contractarian basis of the law of trusts. Yale L. J. 105: 625-675.Google Scholar
  88. Langevoort, D.C. 2003. Agency law inside the corporation: Problems of candor and knowledge. University of Cincinnati Law Review 71:1187-1231.Google Scholar
  89. Lewicki, R. J., B. and Bunker. 1995. Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. B. Bunker, J. Rubin, eds. Conflict, cooperation and justice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 133-173.Google Scholar
  90. Luo, Y. 2005. How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances? Academy of Management Journal 48: 695-709.Google Scholar
  91. Macey, J.R., G.P. Miller. 1987. Toward of interest group theory of Delaware corporate law. Texas Law Review 65:469-524.Google Scholar
  92. Macneil, I.R. 1980. The new social contract: An inquiry into modern contractual relations. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  93. Maitland, F. W., 1981. Trust and corporation. H.A.L. Fisher, ed., The collective papers of Frederic William Maitland, volume III. Williams, Hein and Company, Buffalo, 321-403.Google Scholar
  94. Marens, R., A. Wicks. 1999. Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Bus. Ethics Q. 9: 273-293.Google Scholar
  95. McKnight, D. H., L. L. Cummings, N. L. Chervany (1998) Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 23: 473-490.Google Scholar
  96. Meckling, W.H., M.C. Jensen. 1976. The theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3:305-360. Google Scholar
  97. Mitchell, L. E., 2001a. The importance of being trusted. Boston U. Law Rev. 81: 591-617.Google Scholar
  98. Mitchell, L. E. 2001b. Corporate irresponsibility: America’s newest export. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  99. Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, D.J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Rev. , 22: 853-886.Google Scholar
  100. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen. S. G. and. Mohrman, Jr., A. M., 1995. Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  101. Morrison, E.W., S.L. Robinson. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review 22:226-256.Google Scholar
  102. Nelson, R.R., S.G. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  103. Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state and utopia. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  104. Olson, M. 2000. Power and prosperity: Outgrowing communist and capitalist dictatorships. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  105. Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  106. Phillips, R.A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7:51-67.Google Scholar
  107. Phillips, R. A., 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 25-41.Google Scholar
  108. Phillips, R. A., R.E. Freeman, R. E., A.C. Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 479-502.Google Scholar
  109. Posner, R. A., 1981. Economics of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  110. Post, J. E., L.E. Preston, S. Sachs. 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  111. Prahalad, C. K. 1993. The role of core competencies in the corporation. Research/Technology Management. 36: 40-47.Google Scholar
  112. Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review 83:1281-1302.Google Scholar
  113. Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  114. Rajan, R., L. Zingales. 1998. Power in a theory of the firm. Q. J. of Economics 113: 387-432.Google Scholar
  115. Rawls, J.: 1999, The Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  116. Rock, Edward B 1997. “Saints and sinners: How does Delaware corporate law work.” UCLA Law Review 44: 1009-1106.Google Scholar
  117. Rock, E. B., 2000. Fiduciary duty, limited liability, and the law of Delaware: Corporate law as a facilitator of self governance. Georgia Law Review 34: 529-545.Google Scholar
  118. Rock, E., M.L. Wachter. 2001. Islands of conscious power: Law, norms, and the self-governing corporation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149:1619-1700.Google Scholar
  119. Rock, E., M.L. Wachter. 2002. Dangerous liaisons: Corporate law, trust law, and interdoctrinal legal transplants. Northwestern University Law Review 96: 651-673.Google Scholar
  120. Romano, R. 1993. Competition for corporate charters and the lesson of takeover statutes. Fordham Law Review 61:843-864.Google Scholar
  121. Sen, A. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  122. Simon, H. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99-118Google Scholar
  123. Simon, H. 1976. Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, 3d edition. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  124. Sitkoff, R. H.: 2004, `An Agency Costs Theory of Trust Law', Cornell Law Review 89, 621–684Google Scholar
  125. Smith, D. G.: 2002, `The Critical Resource Theory of Fiduciary Duty', Vanderbilt Law Review 55, 1399–1497Google Scholar
  126. Springer, J. D.: 1999, `Corporate Constituency Statutes: Hollow Hopes and False Starts', 1999 Annual Survey of American Law, pp. 85–128Google Scholar
  127. Stout, L.: 2001, `Other-Regarding Preferences and Social Norms', Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper Available at
  128. Stout, L. 2003. On the proper motives of corporate directors (Or, why you don’t want to invite homo economicus to join your board). Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 28: 1-25.Google Scholar
  129. Sundaram, A. K., A.C. Inkpen. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization science, 15: 350-363.Google Scholar
  130. Sundaram, A. K., A.C. Inkpen. 2004a. Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”: A reply. Organization science 15: 370-371.Google Scholar
  131. Thaler, R. 2000. From homo economicus to homo sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14:133-141.Google Scholar
  132. Tversky, A., D. Kahneman. 1974 Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124-1130.Google Scholar
  133. Veasey, E. N., 2001. Should corporation law inform aspirations for good corporate governance practices – or vice versa? University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149: 2179-2191.Google Scholar
  134. Veasey, E. N., 2003. Policy and legal overview of best corporate governance principles. Southern Methodist Law Review 56: 2135-2147.Google Scholar
  135. Hayek, F. A., von, 1944. The road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  136. Hayek, F. A., von, 1960. The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  137. Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5:171-180.Google Scholar
  138. Wernerfelt, B. 1995. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal 16:171-174.Google Scholar
  139. Westphal, J.D. 1999. Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal 42:7-24.Google Scholar
  140. Westphal, J.D., E.J. Zajac. 1995. Who shall govern? CEO/Board power, demographic similarity and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:60-83.Google Scholar
  141. Westphal, J.D., E, J. Zajac. 1997. Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board independence in U. S. corporations. Admin..Sci. Quart. 42:161-183.Google Scholar
  142. Westphal, J.D., E,J. Zajac. 1998. The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reform and shareholder reactions. Admin. Sci. Quar. 43:127-153.Google Scholar
  143. Whitener, E.M., S.E. Brodt, M.A. Korsgaard, J.M. Werner. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review 23: 513-530.Google Scholar
  144. Williamson, O.E. 1970. Corporate control and business behavior; an inquiry into the effects of organization form on enterprise behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  145. Williamson, O. E., 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  146. Winter, R.K. Jr. 1977. State law, shareholder protection, and the theory of the corporation. Journal of Legal Studies 6: 251-292.Google Scholar
  147. Yergin, D., J. Stanislaw. 1998. The commanding heights: The battle for the world economy. Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New HampshireDurhamU.S.A.
  2. 2. School of Business, George Washington University,WashingtonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations