Stakeholder Activism, Managerial Entrenchment, and the Congruence of Interests between Shareholders and Stakeholders



she can invest xc at cost Kxc , and learn with probability xc how to implement stakeholder-
friendly projects yielding a private benefit B to stakeholders (e.g., projects requiring coop-
eration from the local community, pollution-free projects, etc.); in this case the private cost
of implementing such projects is reduced to zero. Investing in the relationship with stake-
holders and local communities requires time; hence, this investment is
not feasible to outside
managers. We assume that K = c, which implies that the investment is never profitable
unless it is part of an entrenchment strategy. We also assume:

Assumption 1

ατR < c.

This assumption implies that when an investment xc is undertaken, with probability xc
the incumbent manager’s preferences are congruent with stakeholders’: the manager picks
the stakeholders’ favorite project even at the expense of monetary profits. With probability
(1
-xc), the manager gains no expertise and her preferences are congruent with shareholders’;
hence, she only picks the stakeholders’ favorite project with probability λ. This directly
implies the following lemma:

Lemma 1 The degree of congruence between the incumbent manager’s and the stakehold-
ers’ objectives is measured by
λ+(1-λ)xc; it increases from λ to 1 as the “stakeholder-specific
investment”
xc is raised from 0 to 1.

xc thus measures the amount of managerial concessions to stakeholders. At t = 1,
stakeholders are willing to support the incumbent CEO provided x
c satisfies the following
constraint:

θI(1 - xr)(1 - λ)Bxc R - θI) [λ + (1 - λ)xr] B

that is, the concessions to be expected under the incumbent management outweigh the cost
for stakeholders of bearing a less efficient manager. This constraint implies that managerial
concessions must lie above a threshold
xc(xr). Notice that xc(xr) is increasing in xr: if
stakeholders’ interests are protected by regulation or by an explicit contractual agreement
between the stakeholders and the firm, then stakeholders are more hardly convinced to back
an inefficient CEO.

A self-entrenchment strategy whereby the CEO invests xc xc(xr) in stakeholder rela-
tionships is profitable if and only if:

12



More intriguing information

1. Synchronisation and Differentiation: Two Stages of Coordinative Structure
2. The use of formal education in Denmark 1980-1992
3. The name is absent
4. Automatic Dream Sentiment Analysis
5. Linking Indigenous Social Capital to a Global Economy
6. A methodological approach in order to support decision-makers when defining Mobility and Transportation Politics
7. 5th and 8th grade pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the relationships between teaching methods, classroom ethos, and positive affective attitudes towards learning mathematics in Japan
8. Female Empowerment: Impact of a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines
9. Moffett and rhetoric
10. Convergence in TFP among Italian Regions - Panel Unit Roots with Heterogeneity and Cross Sectional Dependence