Who is in charge? A property rights perspective on stakeholder governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fields of strategy and organization are dominated by the stylized idea that the purpose of the firm is to maximize returns on investment for equity shareholders. This idea is based on simplifying assumptions about externalities, contractual ties, investments, and the nature of competition. As a result, the dominant conceptualization of the firm’s purpose as shareholder value maximization may lead to serious misunderstandings regarding the firm’s contractual obligations. Furthermore, the idea of shareholder value maximization may lead to problematic and inaccurate representations of organization, innovation, and other aspects of value creation and capture. Creating and capturing value in the presence of spillovers, relationship-specific investments, and complex contractual ties is difficult in ways that are obscured by a relentless focus on shareholder value. In this essay, we develop these claims and point to the consequences for the canonical business school curriculum, which does not deal sufficiently with the challenges of value creation and capture under more realistic assumptions. We compare the shareholder view with a stakeholder view and seek to advance a synthetic agenda that puts limits on stakeholder claims without problematic, stylized assumptions. 453108 SOQ10310.1177/1476127012453108Klein et al.Strategic Organization 2012
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".