IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01509999.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New Time Perspective and Banking Communication
[Une nouvelle perspective temporelle induite par la pratique de communication des banques]

Author

Listed:
  • Jérémy Jm Morvan

    (Fluid Dynamics, Power Generation and Environment - EDF - EDF)

  • Yann Régnard

    (UBO - Université de Brest)

  • Christian Cadiou

    (ICMR - Institut de Chimie Moléculaire de Reims - UMR 7312 - URCA - Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne - INC-CNRS - Institut de Chimie - CNRS Chimie - SFR CAP Santé (Champagne-Ardenne Picardie Santé) - URCA - Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - SFR Condorcet - URCA - Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Patrick Gabriel

    (LMV - Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Versailles - UVSQ - Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The object of this article is to present the three time levels of a corporate governance model. Shareholders look for a quantitative time in the short term. Primaey stakeholders contract rather in medium term. Secondary stakeholders act according to a long social time. Integrated corporate governance enables to increase his legitimacy. Through stakeholders' reports on sustainability from French banks, our empirical study shows how these three times are linked. Mutualist banks seem have a longer rythm than commercial banks. However, the gap between theory and realities may be significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Jérémy Jm Morvan & Yann Régnard & Christian Cadiou & Patrick Gabriel, 2005. "New Time Perspective and Banking Communication [Une nouvelle perspective temporelle induite par la pratique de communication des banques]," Post-Print hal-01509999, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01509999
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01509999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01509999/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    2. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    2. Ali, Tanweer, 2015. "Beyond shareholders versus stakeholders: Towards a Rawlsian concept of the firm," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 126-141.
    3. Mihret, Dessalegn Getie, 2014. "How can we explain internal auditing? The inadequacy of agency theory and a labor process alternative," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 771-782.
    4. Nuno Guimaraes Costa & Gerard Farias & David Wasieleski & Anthony Annett, 2021. "Seven Principles for Seven Generations: Moral Boundaries for Transformational Change," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 313-328, December.
    5. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    6. E. Günter Schumacher & David Wasieleski, 2013. "Institutionalizing Ethical Innovation in Organizations: An Integrated Causal Model of Moral Innovation Decision Processes," Post-Print hal-01514547, HAL.
    7. Andrew West, 2006. "Theorising South Africa’s Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 433-448, November.
    8. Wang, Wei & Liu, Wenbin & Mingers, John, 2015. "A systemic method for organisational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 562-574.
    9. Ninghua Zhong & Shujing Wang & Rudai Yang, 2017. "Does Corporate Governance Enhance Common Interests of Shareholders and Primary Stakeholders?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 411-431, March.
    10. Giovanni Ferri & Angelo Leogrande, 2015. "Was the Crisis due to a shift from stakeholder to shareholder finance? Surveying the debate," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 108, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    11. David Carassus & Khaled Albouaini & Marie Caussimont, 2013. "Une analyse de l'Audit Expectation Gap dans le contexte français," Post-Print hal-02432110, HAL.
    12. Anadi S. Pande & Ranjan Kumar, 2020. "Implications of Indian Philosophy and Mind Management for Agency Conflicts and Leadership: A Conceptual Framework," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 9(1), pages 34-44, January.
    13. Cristina Gianfelici & Andrea Casadei & Federica Cembali, 2018. "The Relevance of Nationality and Industry for Stakeholder Salience: An Investigation Through Integrated Reports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 541-558, June.
    14. Jose-Luis Retolaza & Leire San-Jose & Maite Ruiz-Roqueñi, 2014. "Ontological Stakeholder View: An Innovative Proposition," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 15(1), pages 25-36, March.
    15. Hsing-Chau Tseng & Chi-Hsiang Duan & Hui-Lien Tung & Hsiang-Jui Kung, 2010. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Modern Business Ethics Research: Concepts, Theories, and Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(4), pages 587-597, February.
    16. Velamuri, Rama & Venkataraman, Sankaran, 2005. "Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A knightian insight," IESE Research Papers D/591, IESE Business School.
    17. Johannes Jahn & Rolf Brühl, 2018. "How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 41-52, November.
    18. Yeon‐Koo Che & Kathryn E. Spier, 2008. "Strategic judgment proofing," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 926-948, December.
    19. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    20. Fabbri, Daniela & Menichini, Anna Maria C., 2016. "The commitment problem of secured lending," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 561-584.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01509999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.