This paper is the first part of a two parts essay aimed at giving a contractarian foundation to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) meant as an extended model of corporate governance of the firm. I fist present the heuristics of the scientific program meant to theorizing over an institution like a system of corporate governance, which is partitioned in two domains, the justification domain and the compliance domain. Bargaining theory, reputation game and reciprocity theories, as distinct pieces of game theory, are the main theoretical tools employed in developing the answer to the relevant questions in the two domains respectively. The first part focuses over justification according to the contractarian point of view. At start, a definition of CSR as an extended model of corporate governance, based on the fiduciary duties owed to all the firm's stakeholders, is given. Then, by setting the basic context of incompleteness of contracts and abuse of authority, I analyze how the extended view of corporate governance directly arises form within the criticism of contemporary neo-institutional economic theory of the firm. Hence, from an application of the theory of bargaining games, the structure of a multi-stakeholder firm based on the constitutional contract theory is deduced, which satisfies the basic requirements of a justification in the contractarian approach. This is a sequential model of constitutional choice, where at the first step a constitution is chosen and then a post-constitutional coalition game is played. Both the games are solved in terms of the proper cooperative bargaining and coalition game solution concept, and results are interpreted not only according to the perspective of the theory of rational bargaining, but also as an impartial solution, starting form a fair status quo and corresponding to reasonable intuitions on distributive justice. On these basis the inquiry for a prescriptive theory of governance and strategic management - able to overcome the criticism raised against the lack of determination and unicity of a multi-stakeholder model of corporate governance and strategy - is answered, so that I am able to define an objective function for the firm consistent with the idea of CSR as a model of governance. At last, the paper tells the contractarian story, which can be taken as a potential explanation of the firm, of how the multi-fiduciary corporation may emerge from the first and the second social contract, as a firm endowed with the typical structure of control, but constrained by CSR obligations that those who in the firm hold a position of authority owe to all the non controlling stakeholders.
[1]
J. Nash.
THE BARGAINING PROBLEM
,
1950,
Classics in Game Theory.
[2]
E. McClennen.
Rationality, constitutions, and the ethics of rules
,
1993
.
[3]
B. Jones.
BOUNDED RATIONALITY
,
1999
.
[4]
Ken Binmore,et al.
Game theory and the social contract
,
1984
.
[5]
W. Evan,et al.
Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation
,
1990
.
[6]
L. Shapley.
A Value for n-person Games
,
1988
.
[7]
H. Brock.
A game theoretic account of social justice
,
1979
.
[8]
E. Kalai,et al.
OTHER SOLUTIONS TO NASH'S BARGAINING PROBLEM
,
1975
.
[9]
H. Demsetz,et al.
Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization
,
1975,
IEEE Engineering Management Review.
[10]
Margaret M. Blair,et al.
A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law
,
1999
.
[11]
A. Rubinstein.
A BARGAINING MODEL WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT TIME PREFERENCES
,
1985
.
[12]
E. McClennen.
Foundational explorations for a normative theory of political economy
,
1990
.
[13]
B. Chapman.
Trust, Economic Rationality, and the Corporate Fiduciary Obligation
,
1993
.
[14]
O. Hart,et al.
Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm
,
1988,
Journal of Political Economy.
[15]
R. Daniels.
Stakeholders and Takeovers: Can Contractarianism be Compassionate?
,
1993
.
[16]
Luigi Zingales,et al.
The Governance of the New Enterprise
,
2000
.
[17]
K. Binmore.
Social contract I: Harsanyi and Rawls
,
1989
.
[18]
H. Raiffa.
21. Arbitration Schemes for Generalized Two-person Games
,
1953
.
[19]
John Hendry,et al.
Missing the Target: Normative Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance Debate
,
2001,
Business Ethics Quarterly.
[20]
Luigi Zingales,et al.
Power in a Theory of the Firm
,
1996
.
[21]
Sanford J. Grossman,et al.
The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration
,
1986
.
[22]
Edward J. Conry.
A Critique of Social Contracts for Business
,
1995,
Business Ethics Quarterly.
[23]
L. Preston,et al.
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
,
1995
.
[24]
A. Kaufman.
Managers’ Double Fiduciary Duty: to Stakeholders and to Freedom
,
2002,
Business Ethics Quarterly.