An antitakeover amendment for stakeholders?

Journal of Business Ethics 16 (15):1651-1659 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The non-financial effects (NFE) antitakeover amendment addresses the duties of company directors and management when faced with a possible takeover bid. The NFE amendment either permits or requires managers to consider the interests of the company's stakeholders during takeover bids. Other types of antitakeover devices have been viewed as protecting either stockholder or management interests. The NFE amendment would appear to protect a broad spectrum of interests including those of company employees, creditors, and the community in which the company operates. Positive market returns to the adoption of NFE amendments provide some evidence that investors approve. The percent of both management and institutional ownership are positively related to the market reaction to the NFE amendment adoption. To the extent that institutional ownership proxies for the broad spectrum of stakeholder interest, NFE devices, unlike some other amendments that have been studied, appear to be in the interests of more than a single interest group.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Quel avenir pour la gestion des parties prenantes?John Boatright - 2006 - Les Ateliers de L’Ethique 1 (1):42-57.
The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?John Hardwig - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 91 (3):329-341.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
139 (#314,984)

6 months
20 (#533,870)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Ethical Theory and Business.T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (11):846-880.
Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation.Jia Wang & H. Dudley Dewhirst - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):115 - 123.

Add more references