이해관계자 자본주의 기업이론 고찰: 개념, 역사, 법률적 배경과 핵심 쟁점

이수열(Su-Yol Lee) 한국경영학회 2022 經營學硏究 Vol.51 No.5

Discourses on stakeholder capitalism have been invigorated in recent years. However, stakeholder capitalism is still new to academia and practices. A theory of the corporation has explored stakeholder capitalism in superficial and fragmented ways. Several concepts that seem similar but with subtle differences, such as the stakeholder model, stakeholder theory, and stakeholder approach, are used by various scholars in very different ways; however, this diversity and its implications are rarely discussed. This study aims to theoretically investigate stakeholder capitalism based on the theory of the corporation. It points out some of the more critical distinctions, issues, and implications associated with the stakeholder capitalism theory of the corporation in the contexts of historical, legal, and institutional backgrounds. This study clarifies and justifies the theorys essential content and significance by providing comparisons with those of the shareholder capitalism theory. This study provides a discourse basis for stakeholder capitalism by providing its descriptive, instrumental, and normative justifications. This study pays homage to the justifications presented by Donaldson and Preston in 1995. Their justifications for the stakeholder theory are still relevant to addressing stakeholder capitalism today. This study contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive understanding of the stakeholder capitalism of the corporation.

이해관계자의 기업 경영참여는 정당한가? - 기업경영에 이해관계자 참여의 규범적 정당성 확보를 위한 노력 : 롤즈 『정의론』을 중심으로 -

장운혁 범한철학회 2015 汎韓哲學 Vol.78 No.3

The purpose of this paper is to enter a discussion about stakeholder participation in management through Theory of Justice by John Rawls. I differentiate between stakeholder theory and shareholder theory and describe how and why shareholder theory is connected to exclusive corporate governance. I outline a number of ethical, legal, and economic issues, which I argue give rise to the current exclusive corporate governance derived from shareholder theory. These practices prevent people from having freedom and rights by being tied to another autocracy. In order to address these issues, I contend that each stakeholder group should be entitled to control the corporation based on the principle of justice. I define control of the corporation as the ability to participate in election of the board since all stakeholder groups have a stake in the firm. I draw on Rawls’ principles to assert that business management should not violate human rights and freedom for any reason, but enhance it. Specifically, I will show a firm belongs to the basic structure of society, so corporate governance should also be applied to the principle of fairness. When stakeholder participation is justified by the principle of justice, it ensures not only all stakeholders’ profit but also their civil liberty and rights. 이 논문의 목적은 기업경영의 의사결정에 이해관계자의 참여에 대한 규범적 정당성을 확보하는 것이다. 기업경영의 목적을 주주이익 극대화로 하는 ‘주주중심주의’의 심각한 단점들을 극복하려는 ‘이해관계자 이론’으로부터 시작된다. 그러나 단지 경영자에게 이해관계자의 의견을 전달하는 수준이 아니라, 의사결정 주체인 이사회에 대한 선임권을 주주를 포함한 모든 이해관계자들에게 정당한 참여권리를 부여하는 것이다. 필자는 그 과정에서 기업의 법적, 경제적, 그리고 윤리적으로 제기되는 모든 문제의 원인은 비정상적인 기업지배구조에 있다고 지적할 것이다. 그리고 극소수의 지배주주들이 가지고 있는 소유의 법적, 철학적 개념을 분석하여 이들은 기업에 대한 소유권을 가질 수 없으며, 따라서 경영에 대한 통제권한이 없다는 것을 지적할 것이다. 마지막으로 왜 이해관계자들이 기업의 경영에 참여할 정당한 권리를 가지는지를 롤즈의 『정의론』에 근거하여 논증할 것이다. 그 어떤 이유로도 시민의 자유와 권리는 훼손 될 수 없으며, 모든 사회제도는 시민들에 의해 정당한 절차를 거쳐 그들의 권리와 자유를 향상시키도록 구성되어야 한다는 점에서 필자는 기업도 롤즈의 정의 이론의 대상, 즉 사회제도에 속하며, 따라서 기업지배구조도 공정성의 원리에 적용되어야 한다는 논지를 전개할 것이다. 롤즈의 『정의론』에 의해 확보된 이해관계자 민주제는 정치적 시민으로서 이해관계자의 자유와 권리를 근로 현장에서 확보하게 하는 규범적 정당성을 제공할 것이다.

이해관계자 경영 이론의 역사적 전개 과정 고찰 - 주주 중심 경영의 대안으로 등장한 배경과 이론적 전개 과정 중심으로

하상균,박용승 한국경영사학회 2023 經營史學 Vol.107 No.-

The purpose of this study is to examine the transformation of stakeholder management, which is a landmark management phenomenon, and to explore how stakeholder-oriented management, distinct from shareholder-centric management, has evolved into a management theory influenced by various theories. In doing so, this study is to analyze the process using Freeman’s theory. By undertaking this examination, it is possible to comprehend the internal principles and guiding values of stakeholder management theory. Furthermore, it contributes to the theoretical significance by promoting discussions on a new corporate theory that distinguishes itself from existing macro-organizational theories such as transaction cost theory and agency theory, which are theories of the firm. Moreover, it will allow us to understand the background behind the emergence of corporate social responsibility, sustainable management, corporate citizenship, and ESG management, which have garnered significant attention from academia and practitioners in recent years. Ultimately, this understanding can lead to the discovery of valuable insights for successful implementation in the field of management. This is because stakeholder management theory has been utilized as a theoretical foundation for corporate social responsibility, sustainable management, corporate citizenship, and ESG management. 본 연구의 목적은 이해관계자 경영으로의 전환이라는 기념비적 경영 현상이 발생하게된 경영사적 배경과 주주 중심의 경영과 구별되는 이해관계자 경영이론이 어떤 이론들에의해서 영향을 받으면서 경영이론으로 발전하였는지 그 과정을 Freeman의 이론으로 고찰하는 것이다. 이런 고찰을 통해 이해관계자 경영이론의 내적 원리와 지향 가치를 이해할 수 있으며, 기존의 거시조직이론이면서 기업이론인 거래비용 이론 그리고 주인 대리인이론 등과 구별되는 새로운 기업이론에 대한 논의를 촉진한다는 측면에서 이론적 의의를찾을 수 있다. 그리고 최근 학계와 실무로부터 큰 관심을 받는 기업의 사회적 책임, 지속가능경영, 기업 시민, ESG 경영의 등장 배경을 이해하게 될 것이며, 궁극적으로는 성공적으로 경영 현장에서 적용하기 위한 실마리를 발견할 수 있을 것이다. 왜냐하면, 이해관계자 경영 이론은 기업의 사회적 책임, 지속가능경영, 기업 시민, ESG 경영의 이론적 기초로 활용되었기 때문이다.

이해관계자 이론의 비판적 검토

이웅희 한국경영학회 2023 經營學硏究 Vol.52 No.2

Although there exists a significant body of research that criticizes stakeholder theory overseas, it has not been actively discussed in Korea. Five major problems of stakeholder theory are identifed through extensive literature review. First, Freeman’s definition of stakeholder, which is still widely used, is simply too ambiguous. Stakeholder theorists not only include competitors, government and media as stakeholders, but they also include animals and terrorists as stakeholders. Second, imposing multiple fiduciary duties to stakeholders is unethical by itself and may result in manager’s moral hazard. Third, since the interests of stakeholders are well protected by contract law and regulation, additional protection may be redundant. Fourth, stakeholder theorists have been insisting on stakeholder participation on the board (especially labor). But evidence from Germany suggests that it is not working well. Fifth, so-called ‘stakeholder management’ is even more ambiguous and simply re-state existing managerial principles. In addition, three misunderstandings about shareholder primacy model are discussed. First, the purpose of shareholder primacy model is to protect shareholders because shareholders, who are residual claimants, are the most vulnerable stakeholder among all other stakeholders. Second, the current shareholder primacy model does not assume that shareholders ‘own’ the corporation. Third, it was the managers who harmed the company and shareholders in financial scandals such as Enron and Worldcom, not the other way around. Finally, it is suggested that long-term shareholder view can also protect stakeholders’ interests as much as stakeholder theory promises.

企業의 社會的 責任 -會社本質論을 中心으로-

장덕조 한국상사법학회 2010 商事法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

The major legal debate on corporate social responsibility is whether corporate managers should consider not only shareholders in making their decisions but also other stakeholders affected by those decisions. Over the past few decades, controversies about the corporate nature have led to a fundamental tension in the United States corporate law. The dominant thesis for the corporate nature in the United States has been shareholder primacy theory. With this view, corporate managers should make business decisions only for the maximization of the shareholders’ wealth because a corporation is funded and owned by its shareholders who invest their money for the purpose of making profits. On the other side of the debate, the norm of corporate social responsibility has been emerged through stakeholder theory to rebut the shareholder primacy thesis. Namely, underlying legal analysis on corporate social responsibility is a major debate about the nature of the corporation. It would be noticeable that stakeholder theory has become increasingly popular in the United States. We are now in a period of transition toward new corporate norm. With this in mind, this article seeks to address two questions. First, is shareholder primacy flawless and substantial enough to provide comprehensive and integrated fundamentals for issues around a corporation?Second, does shareholder primacy guide a corporate law into the right pass?This article addresses those questions by analysing the arguments supporting shareholder primacy theory and by assessing whether these arguments are strong enough and provide sufficient justification for the theory. The analysis is undertaken not only from a current legal interpretation perspective, but also from a legislative proposal as normative needs and axiology underneath perspectives. First, by interpretation of the current Korean corporate law, directors do not have to serve to maximize shareholders’ wealth. Even more, unlike the United States law, the Korean law does not require directors to owe fiduciary duties to shareholders. Rather, shareholder primacy thesis seems to be contradictory to the concept of corporate entity and its limited liability. Overall, we cannot conclude that shareholder primacy thesis overrules stakeholder primacy by relying on a legal interpretation itself. Second, by the normative approach, either shareholder primacy or stakeholder primacy, which one should we choose as a governance model to guide a corporation? On the one side, shareholder primacy thesis contends that managers should serve only for maximization of shareholders’wealth. On the other side, stakeholder primacy thesis argues that corporate managers should serve not only for their shareholders but also their stakeholders including society. Third, by the axiology approach, a debate between shareholder primacy and stakeholder primacy is basically relied on the fundamental values over market economy. Shareholder primacy theory primarily bases on the free-market economy. The Korean economic system, however, is not a pure free-market system under the constitution. If a pure free-market economy system is merely a utopia, shareholder primacy thesis and it’s bases might hamper a positive development of a corporate law. We cannot embody all the right things in law. Law should evolve just as society does. Though a corporation produces profits to it's shareholders, it also creates jobs for employees including managers. Furthermore, it provides goods and services to a society, as well.

이해관계자 이론의 자본구조 예측가능성에 관한 실증적 연구

정기식 대한경영학회 2004 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.17 No.1

This paper positively investigates that the Cornell·Shapiro's stakeholder theory can predict capital structure of korean firms. To test this idea, 245 firms in the KSE are categorized into 2 different strategic group with related ratio(RR) and specialization ratio(SR), : related and unrelated diversified firm. Cross-sectional multiple regressions with dummy variables show that capital structure is significantly related to the strategic variable. But the sign of strategic variable coefficient is opposite to Barton et al's results. Presumably, the reasons of that due to the differences in management surroundings between Korea and America, namely, manager's perception in the cost of capital, the degrees of informational asymmetries under the owner's management system. According to these results, the stakeholder theory can predict the capital structure of korean firms, but they lie in management surroundings which different from American firms. This paper positively investigates that the Cornell․Shapiro's stakeholder theory can predict capital structure of korean firms. To test this idea, 245 firms in the KSE are categorized into 2 different strategic group with related ratio(RR) and specialization ratio(SR), : related and unrelated diversified firm. Cross-sectional multiple regressions with dummy variables show that capital structure is significantly related to the strategic variable. But the sign of strategic variable coefficient is opposite to Barton et al's results. Presumably, the reasons of that due to the differences in management surroundings between Korea and America, namely, manager's perception in the cost of capital, the degrees of informational asymmetries under the owner's management system. According to these results, the stakeholder theory can predict the capital structure of korean firms, but they lie in management surroundings which different from American firms.

Stakeholders in Natural Disaster Management of China : A Case of Wenchuan Earthquake

En Fang Qiang 위기관리 이론과 실천 2009 Crisisonomy Vol.5 No.2

Natural disaster management is one of the important contents of public emergency management system of Chinese government. The whole society must be involved in the process to response the natural disaster efficiently, effectively, and economically. This paper employs the stakeholder theory, and divides the stakeholders in natural disasters into primary stakeholder and secondary stakeholder. Taking the Wenchuan Earthquake for example, the primary stakeholders in natural disaster management in China are classified into central government, local government, army and armed police, NGO, community, private sector, victims, media, and environment, and the roles of them are discussed. This paper also gives political suggestions on study of strengthening the stakeholders system, focusing the primary stakeholder, and expanding the spectrum of stakeholders.

Sources of Innovation Stakeholder Theory Perspective

Lee, Joo-Heon,Bae, Byung-Yoon The Korean Society of Business Venturing 2008 벤처창업연구 Vol.3 No.3

Innovation has become a key distinct feature of modern industrial society. It is generally recognized that new knowledge and technology are one of the most important sources of innovation. However, because of their limited resources, firms can not pursue all the promising new knowledge and technology that have possibilities to be developed into critical innovation. In this article, using the stakeholder theory, we try to establish a new conceptual model that can be used for understanding knowledge creation and innovation in society. In a society, there exist diverse socio-economic groups that have conflicting values and interests. Our stakeholder theory perspective on innovation claims that innovation can occur only when new solutions can satisfy their idiosyncratic stakeholder' values and interests better than current existing solutions. From the viewpoint of stakeholder innovation theory, there could be three different types of innovation: value improvement innovation, non-traditional value Innovation, and innovation for non-traditional stakeholder.

Sources of Innovation : Stakeholder Theory Perspective

이주헌,배병윤 한국벤처창업학회 2008 벤처창업연구 Vol.3 No.3

Innovation has become a key distinct feature of modern industrial society. It is generally recognized that new knowledge and technology are one of the most important sources of innovation. However, because of their limited resources, firms can not pursue all the promising new knowledge and technology that have possibilities to be developed into critical innovation. In this article, using the stakeholder theory, we try to establish a new conceptual model that can be used for understanding knowledge creation and innovation in society. In a society, there exist diverse socio-economic groups that have conflicting values and interests. Our stakeholder theory perspective on innovation claims that innovation can occur only when new solutions can satisfy their idiosyncratic stakeholder’ values and interests better than current existing solutions. From the viewpoint of stakeholder innovation theory, there could be three different types of innovation: value improvement innovation, non-traditional value Innovation, and innovation for non-traditional stakeholder.

기업의 사회적 책임 - 자유 시장 이론에 대한 비판

윤혜진 한국교양교육학회 2017 교양교육연구 Vol.11 No.2

The major aim of this paper is to explain the ethical debate points of corporate social responsibility. Accordingly, this paper is to resolve following questions. That is, What is the proper role of business managerial practice in social environment? Do business managers have an overriding social responsibility to serve the interests of stockholders before corporate social responsibility? Do business manager serve social interests by serving the interests of stakeholder relating business managerial practice? This paper is to explain such questions by examining the ethical debate points of corporate social responsibility. First, this paper is to examine that we call the utilitarian defense. What we shall call the utilitarian defense has its reason in free market economic theory of corporate social responsibility. And then, this paper is to examine that we call the private property defense. What we shall call the private property defense has its reason in individual rights to property theory of corporate social responsibility. And this paper is to try significant challenges to this two defense of utilitarianism and defense of private property theory. And then, finally, this paper is to examine an ethical justification of business managerial social responsibility. This ethical justification of corporate social responsibility will try by examining what we call ‘the stakeholder theory’. This stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility begins with the recognition that every business affects a wide variety of people benefiting and costing, that is, every consumers, every competitors, every employees, and the natural environment around this people besides stockholders. Therefore now, under the stakeholder theory, business managers should have the duty to recognize the corporate social responsibility. 이 논문은 가습기 살균제 판매 회사처럼 일반 시민들은 어찌 됐건 오직 이익 추구에만 혈안이 되어 있는 기업들이 아직도 많다는 생각을 하며 기업의 사회적 책임을 재정비하는 기회를 갖는 게 좋겠다는 의도에서 마련되었다. 즉, 이 논문은 다음과 같이 기업의 사회적 책임이라는 기업윤리의 근본적 질문을 다시 한 번 제기함으로서 기업이 가져야 할 사회적 책임의 중요성을 윤리적으로 재고하는 일에 관심을 두고 있다. 기업 경영자는 사회적 이익을 배제한 채 기업의 이익 증진만을 위한 이윤 추구 활동에 전념해야 하는가? 아니면, 기업의 이익 증진 말고도 그 이상의 다른 무언가에 대한 사회적 책임을 지는 기업 활동을 해야만 하는가? 이에 따라 이 논문은 기업이 기업 활동을 하면서 이윤 추구 이외에 특별한 사회적 책임을 지지 않아도 된다는 전통적 견해, 즉 자유 시장 이론을 체계적으로 비판하는 일에 집중하고 있다. 그리고 이런 논의의 기초 속에 공리주의적 근거와 사적 소유권 근거가 결정적 영향력을 행사한다고 보고, 그에 대한 설명과 함께 이에 대한 비판적 음미를 시도하는 일에 주력하고 있다. 자유 시장 이론에 입각한 공리주의적 견해와 관련하여, 이 논문은 자유 시장 자체에 대한 낙관적 견해를 비판함과 동시에, 자유 시장을 통한 공리주의적 목표 달성이라는 것 역시 윤리적으로 과연 적합한 것인지에 대한 문제점을 제기하고 있다. 그리고 사적 소유권 견해와 관련하여, 사적 소유권의 본성 자체에 문제가 있다는 점과, 현대 자본주의 사회에서 기업의 대표적 소유주로 알려진 주주들의 본성을 재고해야 한다는 점을 들어 유의미한 도전을 시도하고 있다. 이 논문은 이러한 비판적 음미들을 통해 기업의 사회적 책임에 대한 윤리적 정당화가 충분히 이루어질 수 있다는 점, 따라서 기업이 기업 활동과 관련하여 사회적 책임을 결코 간과할 수 없다는 점을 다시 한 번 조명하는 일에 초점을 맞추고 있다.