Being the FT, the article is written from a UK perspective but not entirely. Does not look like you read it, and I am only using it as an example of my rationale.
I will post here some partial quotes and you can read the rest if you are interested.
"...Shareholders own the corporation, and the duty of the directors to maximise shareholder value follows from that. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told “that is the law”. But it is not the law. Certainly not in America, as Lynn Stout, a professor at Cornell University Law School, has pointed out..."
"...Shareholders in England have more rights — but even there, the obligation
of a company director is to promote the success of the company for the benefit
of the members. The company comes first, the benefit to the members
follows from its success. And English shareholders are definitely not owners.
The Court of Appeal declared in 1948 that “shareholders are not,
in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”. In 2003,
the House of Lords reaffirmed that ruling, in unequivocal terms..."
"...Ownership is not a simple concept..."
"...But shares give their holders no right of possession and no
right of use. If shareholders go to the company premises, they will
more likely than not be turned away..."
"...Shareholders do not have the right to manage the company in which they
hold an interest, and even their right to appoint the people who do is
largely theoretical. They are entitled only to such part of the income
as the directors declare as dividends, and have no right to the proceeds
of the sale of corporate assets — except in the event of the liquidation
of the entire company, in which case they will get what is left;
not much, as a rule..."
I will post here some partial quotes and you can read the rest if you are interested.
"...Shareholders own the corporation, and the duty of the directors to maximise shareholder value follows from that. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told “that is the law”. But it is not the law. Certainly not in America, as Lynn Stout, a professor at Cornell University Law School, has pointed out..."
"...Shareholders in England have more rights — but even there, the obligation of a company director is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members. The company comes first, the benefit to the members follows from its success. And English shareholders are definitely not owners. The Court of Appeal declared in 1948 that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”. In 2003, the House of Lords reaffirmed that ruling, in unequivocal terms..."
"...Ownership is not a simple concept..."
"...But shares give their holders no right of possession and no right of use. If shareholders go to the company premises, they will more likely than not be turned away..."
"...Shareholders do not have the right to manage the company in which they hold an interest, and even their right to appoint the people who do is largely theoretical. They are entitled only to such part of the income as the directors declare as dividends, and have no right to the proceeds of the sale of corporate assets — except in the event of the liquidation of the entire company, in which case they will get what is left; not much, as a rule..."