The Danger of Shareholder Primacy: Harm to Stakeholders, Shareholders, and the Well-Being of the Corporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shareholder primacy model has been increasingly used to manage corporations, even though U.S. and Canadian corporate law does not require it. This paper analyzes three major arguments for using this model. The first relies upon contract law, the second appeals to concerns regarding agency costs, and the third focuses on property. In spite of these pervasive arguments, the adverse consequences of shareholder primacy are much greater than its benefits. Three adverse consequences include clashing interests between shareholders and creditors; the inadequacy of this model to address the interests of different shareholders; and the model’s inefficient and inequitable effects on stakeholders and the corporation. Instead of pitting the interests of stakeholders against each other, we should be developing a model whereby the value of each stakeholder to the corporation is calculated according to each corporation’s unique financial and social situation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".