Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of EU Sustainable Finance
- The Cambridge Handbook of EU Sustainable Finance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Ethics and Sustainability in Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Conduct
- 3 Firm Value versus Social Value
- 4 The Hardening of Corporate ESG
- 5 Stakeholder Engagement
- 6 Bank Governance and Sustainability
- 7 Risk Culture and Sustainability
- 8 Conduct Risk as a Possible Approach for Enhancing Awareness and Management of ESG-Related Risks
- 9 Sustainability and Executive Compensation
- Part III Integrating Sustainability in Financial Markets Regulation
- Part IV Ensuring Financial Stability and Sustainability
- Part V Financial Innovation and Sustainability
- Index
- References
3 - Firm Value versus Social Value
Dealing with the Trade-Offs
from Part II - Ethics and Sustainability in Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Conduct
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2025
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of EU Sustainable Finance
- The Cambridge Handbook of EU Sustainable Finance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Ethics and Sustainability in Corporate Law, Corporate Governance and Conduct
- 3 Firm Value versus Social Value
- 4 The Hardening of Corporate ESG
- 5 Stakeholder Engagement
- 6 Bank Governance and Sustainability
- 7 Risk Culture and Sustainability
- 8 Conduct Risk as a Possible Approach for Enhancing Awareness and Management of ESG-Related Risks
- 9 Sustainability and Executive Compensation
- Part III Integrating Sustainability in Financial Markets Regulation
- Part IV Ensuring Financial Stability and Sustainability
- Part V Financial Innovation and Sustainability
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, I analyse the main trade-offs between the economic value of the firm and its social value, exploring how they are solved through corporate governance and regulatory constraints. To begin with, I show how firms generate social value while also increasing their long-term value under the enlightened shareholder value approach. Thanks to organizational and technological innovation, firms are led to change their business models and organization to enhance environmental and social sustainability and increase long-term profitability. In addition, managers promote their firms’ sustainability in compliance with ethical standards which are part of corporate culture. In similar situations, generating social value may determine pure costs to the enterprise. I argue therefore that the perspective of instrumental stakeholderism appears too narrow, for situations exist where non-economic values are also relevant to the firm. The importance of ethics is especially underlined by CSR and stakeholder theory. Moreover, management studies emphasize the role of corporate governance and organizational theory in the promotion of social value. The board of directors should identify the ethical and cultural values of the firm and monitor their application at all levels. In addition, organizational purpose plays a fundamental role for the ‘intrinsic’ motivation of people in corporations. The international soft law on corporate due diligence further contributes to the design of corporate purpose and to the motivation of managers and employees. Once corporate due diligence is recognized by European hard law through the proposed Directive, specific obligations will arise for companies which will impact their governance and could become a source of civil liability. As a result, the corporate purpose orientation to sustainability will be reinforced by the regulation of environmental and human rights externalities and by the due diligence obligations deriving from it.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of EU Sustainable FinanceRegulation, Supervision and Governance, pp. 51 - 79Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Alvaro, S., Maugeri, M., and Strampelli, G. (2019), ‘Institutional investors, corporate governance and stewardship codes: Problems and perspectives’ CONSOB Legal Research Papers (Quaderni Giuridici), 19.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L. and Tallarita, R. (2020), ‘The illusory promise of stakeholder governance’, 107 Cornell Law Review, 93.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L., Kastiel, K., and Tallarita, R. (2022), ‘Does enlightened shareholder value add value?’, 77 The Business Lawyer, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2010), ‘Individual and corporate social responsibility’, 77 Econometrica, 1.Google Scholar
Blair, M. (2015), ‘Boards of directors and corporate performance under a team production model’, in Hill, J. and Randall, T. (eds.), Research Handbook on Shareholder Power (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 249.Google Scholar
Blair, M. and Stout, L. (1999), ‘A team production theory of corporate law’, 85 Vanderbilt Law Review, 247.Google Scholar
Blinder, A. (2013), After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead (London: Penguin).Google Scholar
Cheffins, B. (2020), ‘Stop blaming Milton Friedman!’, March, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper N. 9/2020, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3552950.Google Scholar
Coffee, J. (2005), ‘A theory of corporate scandals: Why the USA and Europe differ’, 21 Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L. (2008), ‘Corporate social responsibility in a global context’, in Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L. (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context (London: Routledge), 3.Google Scholar
Crew, A. and Matten, D. (2016), Business Ethics, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: HarperCollins).Google Scholar
Davies, P. (2020), Introduction to Company Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. (2009), Managed by the Markets, How Finance Reshaped America (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Edmans, A. (2020), Grow the Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurosif (2018), ‘2018 SRI Study for an overview of trends related to SRI strategies in Europe’, available at: https://bit.ly/48hryqI.Google Scholar
Ferrarini, G. (2021), ‘Redefining corporate purpose: Sustainability as a game changer’, in Busch, D., Ferrarini, G., and Grünewald, S. (eds.), Sustainable Finance in Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 85–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarini, G. (2022), ‘Corporate sustainability due diligence and the shifting balance between soft law and hard law in the EU’, 22 April, ECGI Blog, available at: https://bit.ly/4bAiHmX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarini, G. and Giudici, P. (2006), ‘Financial scandals and the role of private enforcement: The Parmalat case’, in Armour, J. and McCahery, J. (eds.), After Enron (Oxford: Hart Publisher), 159.Google Scholar
Ferrarini, G. and Zhu, S. (2019), ‘Culture of financial institutions’, in Busch, D., Ferrarini, G. and van Solingen, G. (eds.), Governance of Financial Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 381.Google Scholar
Ferrell, A., Liang, H., and Renneboog, L. (2016), ‘Socially responsible firms’, 122 Journal of Financial Economics, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Indiana University: Pitman).Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., and De Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1970), ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, 13 September, 32.Google Scholar
Gadinis, S. and Miazad, A. (2020), ‘Corporate law and social risk’, 73 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1401.Google Scholar
Gatti, M. and Ondersma, C. (2020), ‘Can a broader corporate purpose redress inequality? The stakeholder approach chimera’, 46 The Journal of Corporation Law, 2.Google Scholar
Gelter, M. and Helleringer, G. (2015), ‘Lift not the Painted Veil! To whom are directors’ duties really owned?’, 3 University of Illinois Law Review, 1070.Google Scholar
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (2021), ‘The double-materiality concept. Application and Issues’, invited contribution by Adams C. et al., available at: https://bit.ly/3SY5blE.Google Scholar
Hamel, G. (2007), The Future of Management (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. and Kraakman, R. (2001), ‘The end of history for corporate law’, 89 Georgetown Law Journal, 439.Google Scholar
Hart, O. and Zingales, L. (2017), ‘Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value’, 2 Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. (2020), Reimagining Capitalism: How Business Can Save the World (London: Penguin Business).Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. and Kaplan, S. (2003), ‘The state of U.S. corporate governance: What’s right and what’s wrong?’, 15 Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 3, 10.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. (2002), ‘Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function’, 22 Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 32, and 12 Business Ethics Quarterly, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. and Yoon, A. (2020), ‘Analyzing active managers’ commitment to ESG: Evidence from United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment’, 17 March, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3555984 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3555984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, P. (2015), ‘Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth’, 115 Journal of Financial Economics, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, D. and Pollman, E. (2021), ‘The corporate governance machine’, 121 Columbia Law Review, 2563.Google Scholar
Mayer, C. (2018), Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Mayer, C. (2022), ‘The research background to the final report of the Future of the Corporation programme on Policy & Practice for Purposeful Business’, 10(s5), Journal of the British Academy, 1, available at: https://bit.ly/49y67md.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2016a), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, 3rd ed. (Paris: OECD Publishing), available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en.Google Scholar
OECD (2016b), Recommendation of the Council on the Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector (Paris: OECD Publishing).Google Scholar
OECD (2017), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector (Paris: OECD Publishing).Google Scholar
OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (Paris: OECD Publishing).Google Scholar
OECD (2022), ‘Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains’, OECD/LEGAL/0428, available at: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/342/342.en.pdf.Google Scholar
Pacces, A. (2022), ‘Supply Chain Liability in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Proposal’, 12 April, ECGI Blog, available at: https://bit.ly/4bArZiT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. (2009), ‘Corporate responsibility in strategy’, in Smith, N. and Lenssen, G. (eds.), Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility (Hoboken, NJ: Polity), 12.Google Scholar
Pietrancosta, A. (2022), ‘Codification in company law of general CSR requirements: Pioneering recent French reforms and EU perspectives’, ECGI – Law Working Paper No. 639/2022, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4083398.Google Scholar
Pink, D. H. (2009), Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us (Edinburgh: Canongate).Google Scholar
Pollman, E. (2022), ‘The making and meaning of ESG’, ECGI Working Paper N° 659/2022, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4219857.Google Scholar
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011), ‘Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth’, January–February Harvard Business Review, 3.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. (2012), What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (New York: Penguin).Google Scholar
Smith, N. and Lenssen, G. (2009), ‘Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: An introduction’, in Smith, N. and Lenssen, G. (eds.), Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility (Hoboken, NJ: Polity), 2.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (1991), ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, 16 Academy of Management Review, 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. (2016), On Environmental Governance: Sustainability, Efficiency, and Equity (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar