Abstract:In this article, we identify a fundamental contradiction in the law of fiduciary duty of corporate directors across jurisdictions, namely the tension between the uniformity of directors’ duties and the heterogeneity of directors themselves. American scholars tend to think of the board as a group of individuals elected by shareholders, even though it is widely acknowledged (and criticized) that the board is often a largely self-perpetuating body whose inside members dominate the selection of their future colleagues and eventual successors. However, this characterization is far from universally true internationally, and it tends to be increasingly less true even in the United States. Directors are often formally or informally selected by specific shareholders (such as a venture capitalist or an important shareholder) or other stakeholders of the corporation (such as creditors or employees), or they are elected to represent specific types of shareholders (e.g. minority investors). The law thus sometimes facilitates the nomination of what has been called “constituency” directors. Once in office, legal rules tend nevertheless to treat directors as a homogeneous group that is expected to pursue a uniform goal. We explore this tension and suggest that it almost seems to rise to the level of hypocrisy: Why do some jurisdictions require employee representatives that are then seemingly not allowed to strongly advocate employee interests? Why can a director representing a specific shareholder not advance this shareholder’s interests on the board?Behavioral research indicates that directors are likely beholden to those who appointed them and will seek to pursue their interests in order to maintain their position in office. We argue that for many decision-making processes, it does not matter all that much what specific interest directors are expected to pursue by the law, given that across jurisdictions, enforcement of the corporate purpose is highly curtailed.

Board-Level Codetermination in Germany - The Importance and Economic Impact of Fiduciary Duties

Board Gender Diversity and Cost of Equity: Evidence from Mandatory Female Board Representation

Volkswagen's Bad Decisions & Harmful Emissions: How Poor Process Corrupted Codetermination in Germany's Dual Board Structure

The publication landscape of German corporate governance research: A bibliometric analysis

Works Councils as Gatekeepers: Codetermination, Management Practices, and Job Satisfaction

Minimum wage non-compliance: the role of co-determination

Executive Compensation, Supervisory Board, and China'S Governance Reform: A Legal Approach Perspective

People and Processes Around the Board Room: A Contingency Approach from the Italian Listed Companies

Does Board Gender Diversity Benefit for Corporate ESG Performance: Evidence from Germany

Female Representation on Corporate Boards in Europe: The Interplay of Organizational Social Consciousness and Institutions

Opening the black box of works council–management team interaction: Germany and the Netherlands compared

CEO duality and asymmetric behavior of operating costs

Introduction: Board-level employee representation in Europe: State of play

GENDER QUOTA ON BOARDS IN GERMANY

Labor Representation in Governance as an Insurance Mechanism

Between Competition and Cooperation: Financial Incumbents and Challengers in German Pension Politics

Lift Not the Painted Veil! To Whom Are Directors’ Duties Really Owed?

Understanding the Board of Directors after the Financial Crisis: Some Lessons for Europe

An Exploratory Study of the Effects of the European Union 8th Directive on Company Law on Audit Committees: Evidence from EU Companies Listed on the US Stock Exchanges

DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION. WHAT REALLY MATTERS?

Corporate Governance of Banks and Financial Institutions: Economic Theory, Supervisory Practice, Evidence and Policy