Celebrity board director

Last updated

A celebrity board director is an officer with significant influence in the company's governance decision-making process and who possesses one or more celebrity traits including credibility, goodwill, rights, image, influence, liability, and standard of value. [1] A director's leadership and decision-making affects the governance and wealth maximization of shareholders’ wealth.

Contents

A question remains whether the perception of a celebrity board director is a universal phenomenon or specific to boards within the United States. A definition for celebrity is a famous person or a person who is widely known in society and business who commands a degree of public and media attention. [2] The phenomenon of celebrity that indicates celebrity requires not only fame but also fame with an evident monetary value. [3]

In the case of a celebrity board director and corporate governance practice, the shareholders’ wealth potential is at stake. Effective corporate governance requires leadership in addition to influence. Many U.S. companies have long stocked the company’s board with a number of influential directors (see Table 1). [4] A company’s leadership expects the celebrity component of a celebrity director to bring perceived value, press, and investor interest. [5]

Celebrity board director criteria

A number of important board member considerations relevant to considering whether or not a board director holds celebrity status, are celebrity, credibility, goodwill, rights, standard of value, directorship, image, influence, as well as celebrity liability.
A celebrity is a famous person or a person who is widely known both in society and in the business community who commands a degree of public and media attention. A celebrity possesses one or more traits of the following traits: credibility, goodwill, rights, image, influence, liabilities, and standard of value. [6]
Celebrity credibility represents a situation in which an individual has been elevated to the level of a celebrity due to his or her degree of recognition and distinctive qualities. [7]
Celebrity goodwill reflects a number of factors including age, health, past earning power, reputation, skill, comparative success, and length of time in business. [8]
Celebrity rights represent a person with celebrity status and associated rights where specific, identifiable, and tangible assets or items of intellectual property relate to a person’s celebrity status. [9]
Celebrity standard of value represents a measure of celebrity goodwill. Celebrity goodwill can be associated with a celebrity’s image and influence can be expressed through a celebrity’s endorsement, a celebrity’s credibility, or a celebrity’s goodwill. [10]
Board Director is an officer with significant influence in a company’s governance decision-making who is charged with impeccable credentials as an agent on behalf of the shareholders. [11]
Celebrity Image, Celebrity Influence, and Celebrity Liability
A celebrity is an individual who represents symbolic icons popular in a culture and transfers his or her symbolic meaning to the product endorsements and services offered by a person with celebrity goodwill. A person with celebrity goodwill casts images that influence product images when the celebrity is associated with the product through product endorsements. [10]
Likewise, a person with celebrity goodwill has been known both to possess the ability and to communicate distinctive bundles of various meanings or images, kinds of images or meanings. However, the root cause for the underlying causal effect of celebrity is unknown. A liability can be attributed to celebrity status to specific identifiable tangible assets or items of intellectual property. Celebrity liability takes the form of intrusion into personal affairs from publicity. For example, celebrity liability might occur if a celebrity director dines at a restaurant with his or her family and is overheard making comments about leadership problems at the company where he or she holds a board position.
Clearly defined in U.S. business law, a board is a corporation’s ultimate authority. [12] A director is an officer with significant influence in the company’s governance decision-making and who is charged with impeccable credentials as an agent on behalf of the shareholders.

Leadership

A person’s leadership skills associated with a directorship are essential for holding a governance position at a company. Leadership is the ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness of the organizations of which they are members. [13] Leadership and management are both stressful during times of economic downturns yet an opportunity for optimizing operations, and it is not necessary to be in a formal leadership position to exert leadership behavior. A director as leader must (a) involve the right people in the decision, at the right time, in the right way; (b) use a process that keeps people engaged and on track; (c) recognize the power of shared decision-making; and (d) ask a series of key questions to avoid ineffective decision-making. [14]

Other celebrity board director characteristics

Other characteristics of a celebrity board director include ethical, solid business judgement, reliable agent, informed stakeholder, and effective stewardship. First, business ethics is important not only to the overall effectiveness of corporate governance in place at a company but also to the person who holds the director’s position because business ethics reflects the director’s judgment and decision-making abilities. Corporate failures such as Enron’s as well as economic conditions have resulted in increased regulation and legislation. [15] Each member of the board must take his or her position on the board seriously and apply due diligence during the decision-making process. A lack of ethical judgment in the decision-making process can erode the governance and also possibly lead to poor stewardship on behalf of the stakeholder. The virtue ethics model supports corporate governance with the idea of creating the greatest good for the overall stakeholder collective [16] Each board member must demonstrate trustworthiness and virtue as well as act in good faith as an agent on behalf of all company stakeholders.
Second, effective corporate governance ability and legal compliance are intertwined, and each board member must be familiar with the legal consequence of his or her decision-making as part of the company’s governance body. Two primary legal aspects of governance that a director must pay attention are the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and business judgment rule. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 addresses financial stewardship concerns by shareholders with a company’s leadership [17] Like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, the business judgment rule is useful when members of the board come under scrutiny from upset shareholders. The business judgment rule is a good faith effort to obtain information to avoid class-action lawsuits by shareholders. [18]
Third, each member of the board must be familiar with the consequences of not acting in the best interest of the shareholders. [19] Agency theory provides the framework for a board member’s behavior that aligns with effective corporate governance. In agency theory and corporate governance, self-interested directors appropriate value to themselves. The traditional perspective on corporate governance includes agency and stakeholder theories. [16] When a leader is considering what constitutes shareholder value; the leader should also consider that in practice the value proposition might not hold up given the gap between the stakeholder expectation and the realities of fulfilling that expectation(p. 140). [20]
Fourth, the stakeholder theory is as important as agency theory. Each member of the board must be familiar with the consequences of his or her actions given the competing interest of both internal and external stakeholders with interests in the company. Without familiarity of stakeholder theory, the board member is less than prepared to contribute to an effective governance body. With stakeholder theory the existence of a complex bargaining process involves multiple interests. [21] The multiple competing interests can be found at each level of management within a company, starting at the top with the board of directors. A stakeholder board may be less efficient at generating total benefits. [22] The stakeholder theory defines different groups of interest represented by stakeholders where stakeholders have competing interests yet the desire for the same end, which is to receive some type of benefit. [23]
Lastly, stewardship theory is another building block that provides a foundation for an effective governance body. In stewardship theory and corporate governance, directors maximize value for the company where the allocation of the board is by shareholders in agency theory and by managers in stewardship theory. [24] According to stewardship theory applied to corporate governance, a director is an agent on behalf of the stakeholder. The director’s motivation essentially is to do a good job with managing corporate assets as a good steward.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of directors</span> Type of governing body for an organisation

A board of directors is an executive committee that supervises the activities of a business, a nonprofit organization, or a government agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sarbanes–Oxley Act</span> 2002 U.S. law regarding corporate accounting

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that mandates certain practices in financial record keeping and reporting for corporations. The act, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  107–204 (text)(PDF), 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002, also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act" and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, SOX or Sarbox, contains eleven sections that place requirements on all U.S. public company boards of directors and management and public accounting firms. A number of provisions of the Act also apply to privately held companies, such as the willful destruction of evidence to impede a federal investigation.

A shareholder of corporate stock refers to an individual or legal entity that is registered by the corporation as the legal owner of shares of the share capital of a public or private corporation. Shareholders may be referred to as members of a corporation. A person or legal entity becomes a shareholder in a corporation when their name and other details are entered in the corporation's register of shareholders or members, and unless required by law the corporation is not required or permitted to enquire as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. A corporation generally cannot own shares of itself.

Corporate governance are mechanisms, processes and relations by which corporations are controlled and operated ("governed").

Investor relations (IR) is a "strategic management responsibility that is capable of integrating finance, communication, marketing and securities law compliance to enable the most effective two-way communication between a company, the financial community, and other constituencies, which ultimately contributes to a company's securities achieving fair valuation." as defined by National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI). IR is also function to assess the impact of a company actions on the company's position in the capital markets.

In a corporation, a stakeholder is a member of "groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist", as defined in the first usage of the word in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The definition of corporate responsibilities through a classification of stakeholders to consider has been criticized as creating a false dichotomy between the "shareholder model" and the "stakeholder model", or a false analogy of the obligations towards shareholders and other interested parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law</span> Body of law that governs businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

Shareholder value is a business term, sometimes phrased as shareholder value maximization. The term expresses the idea that the primary goal for a business is to increase the wealth of its shareholders (owners) by paying dividends and/or causing the company's stock price to increase. It became a prominent idea during the 1980s and 1990s, along with the management principle value-based management or "managing for value".

Corporate responsibility is a term which has come to characterize a family of professional disciplines intended to help a corporation stay competitive by maintaining accountability to its four main stakeholder groups: customers, employees, shareholders, and communities.

The chief risk officer (CRO), chief risk management officer (CRMO), or chief risk and compliance officer (CRCO) of a firm or corporation is the executive accountable for enabling the efficient and effective governance of significant risks, and related opportunities, to a business and its various segments. Risks are commonly categorized as strategic, reputational, operational, financial, or compliance-related. CROs are accountable to the Executive Committee and The Board for enabling the business to balance risk and reward. In more complex organizations, they are generally responsible for coordinating the organization's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) approach. The CRO is responsible for assessing and mitigating significant competitive, regulatory, and technological threats to a firm's capital and earnings. The CRO roles and responsibilities vary depending on the size of the organization and industry. The CRO works to ensure that the firm is compliant with government regulations, such as Sarbanes–Oxley, and reviews factors that could negatively affect investments. Typically, the CRO is responsible for the firm's risk management operations, including managing, identifying, evaluating, reporting and overseeing the firm's risks externally and internally to the organization and works diligently with senior management such as chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

In corporate governance, a governance board also known as council of delegates are chosen by the stockholders of a company to promote their interests through the governance of the company and to hire and fire the board of directors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internal audit</span> Independent, objective assurance and consulting activity

Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes. Internal auditing might achieve this goal by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes. With commitment to integrity and accountability, internal auditing provides value to governing bodies and senior management as an objective source of independent advice. Professionals called internal auditors are employed by organizations to perform the internal auditing activity.

An independent director is a member of a board of directors who does not have a material or pecuniary relationship with company or related persons, except sitting fees. In the United States, independent outsiders make up 66% of all boards and 72% of S&P 500 company boards, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Thomas Donaldson is The Mark O. Winkelman Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is an expert in the areas of business ethics, corporate compliance, corporate governance, and leadership. He is Associate Editor for the Business Ethics Quarterly (2015-). He is a supporter of stakeholder theory in relation to business management, arguing in 1995 that "the most prominent alternative to the stakeholder theory is morally untenable".

Internal control, as defined by accounting and auditing, is a process for assuring of an organization's objectives in operational effectiveness and efficiency, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with laws, regulations and policies. A broad concept, internal control involves everything that controls risks to an organization.

UK corporate governance has influenced corporate governance regulation in the European Union and United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States corporate law</span> Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">German company law</span>

German company law (Gesellschaftsrecht) is an influential legal regime for companies in Germany. The primary form of company is the public company or Aktiengesellschaft (AG). A private company with limited liability is known as a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH). A partnership is called a Kommanditgesellschaft (KG).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law in Vietnam</span> Vietnamese Corporate Law

Corporate law in Vietnam was originally based on the French commercial law system. However, since Vietnam's independence in 1945, it has largely been influenced by the ruling Communist Party. Currently, the main sources of corporate law are the Law on Enterprises, the Law on Securities and the Law on Investment.

<i>Shlensky v. Wrigley</i>

Shlensky v Wrigley, 237 NE 2d 776 is a leading US corporate law case concerning the board's discretion to determine how to balance stakeholders' interests. The case embraces the application of the business judgment rule to directors' good-faith judgments about long-term shareholder value. Some believe it represents the shift in most states away from the idea that corporations should only pursue shareholder value, as seen in the older Michigan decision of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co..

References

  1. ↑ Yocam, E., Choi, A. (2008). Corporate Governance: A Board Director's Pocket Guide-Leadership, Diligence, and Wisdom. Lincoln, Nebraska:iUniverse.
  2. ↑ InsFishman, J. E., Feder, R., Waltrich, C., & Fishman, J. (2003). Celebrity as a business and its role in matrimonial cases. American Journal of Family Law, 17(4), 203-211.
  3. ↑ Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Stoller, M. (2005). High visibility: The making and marketing of professionals into celebrities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  4. ↑ Buffett blames boardroom apathy. (2003). Investor Relations Business, 8(6), 7-8.
  5. ↑ Marshall, D. (2006). Celebrity and power: Fame in contemporary culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
  6. ↑ Rindova, V., Pollock, T., & Hayward, M. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31, 50-71.
  7. ↑ Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B. and Newell, S. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands, Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43-55.
  8. ↑ Rounick, J., & Riggs, R. (2001). What’s Perk-olating? How courts are handling perks, fringe, and other employment benefits. Family Advocacy, 23(3), 12-17.
  9. ↑ Rosenthal, L., Donoho, C., Eskew, R., & Diamond, P. (2007). Celebrity rights of publicity: For sale, but not necessarily available for creditors. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 19(3), 7-10.
  10. 1 2 Langmeyer, L., & Walker, M. (1991). Assessing the effects of celebrity endorsers: Preliminary findings. In R. R. Holman (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 32-42).
  11. ↑ Arjoon, S. (2006). Striking a balance between rules and principles-based approaches for effective governance: A risks-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 53-82.
  12. ↑ Phan, P. (2007). Taking back the boardroom: Thriving as a 21st century director (2nd ed.). London: Imperial College Press.
  13. ↑ Shriberg, A., Shriberg, D. L., & Kumari, R. (2005). Practicing leadership, principles and application (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  14. ↑ Schwarber, P. (2005). Leaders and the decision-making process, Management Decision, 42, 1086-1092.
  15. ↑ Rothschild, W. (2002). Where are the leaders? Financial Executive, 18(5), 26-32.
  16. 1 2 Caldwell, C., & Ranjan, K. (2005). Organizational governance and ethical systems: A covenantal approach to building trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 249-259.
  17. ↑ Creech, D. (2006). Sarbanes-Oxley and cost engineering. Cost Engineering, 48(7), 8-12.
  18. ↑ Hall, B., & Liebman, J. (1998), Are CEOs really paid like bureaucrats? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 653-80.
  19. ↑ Dobson, J. (2005). Method to their madness: Justifying managers’ pursuit of growth, even at the expense of shareholder value. Treasury Affairs, 1(3), 26-32.
  20. ↑ Chowdhury, S. (2003). Organization 21C: Someday all organizations will lead this way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  21. ↑ Morgan, T. (1994). Untying the knot of war: A bargaining theory of international crises. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  22. ↑ Williamson, O., & Bercovitz, J. (1997). The modern corporation as an efficiency instrument: The comparative contracting perspective. In C. Kaysen (Ed.), The American corporation today. New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. ↑ Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1-21.
  24. ↑ Turnbull, S. (1997). Stakeholder governance. Corporate Governance, 5, 11-23.

Related Articles on Celebrity Board Directors:

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.