This thesis examines the legal duties of directors of UK public companies in the light of the 'stakeholder' approach to the firm. It considers the theory that directors are not simply agents of shareholders, but have a duty to take into consideration and, where appropriate, to balance the interests of several constituencies. Examples of suggested stakeholders include employees, customers, suppliers and creditors, as well as the local community and the natural environment. If this broad view of public company responsibility is warranted, the role of the law in securing a 'stakeholder' style of management needs to be examined, and this study attempts that task. To this end, empirical research was conducted via interviews with public company directors and secretaries from a range of public companies of different sizes operating in many business sectors to investigate: • the extent to which at present they view their role as requiring assessment and inclusion of the interests of stakeholders • the manner in which such assessment and inclusion is actually carried out • the impact which a statutory formulation of duties to incorporate stakeholder interests would or might have on decisionmaking in practice • the effect of board structure on corporate decisionmaking. The effect of 'stakeholder orientation' of company directors on the economic performance and social impact of UK public companies was considered. The DTI's Company Law Review Steering Group has referred to the distinction between 'Enlightened Shareholder Value' and the 'Pluralist' approach. This thesis further reviews those arguments and seeks to set them in their commercial context. It is highly probable that there will be a new UK Companies Act following the next General Election. This thesis suggests a new statutory statement of directors' duties and considers the impact which such statutory wording might have. If directors' legal duties were to be reformulated, that change would needs to buttressed by a mechanism to protect stakeholder expectations, in court as a last resort. This thesis argues that the most promising form for such stakeholder remedies is that of the current 'unfair prejudice' action. If the UK is to avoid being left behind internationally in its system of corporate regulation, it needs to take its European Union obligations and the laws of other Member States into account. It is argued that the UK can find much to learn from the continental European traditions. The conclusion of the thesis focuses on the Company Law Review and its potential economic impact. It is argued that UK company law should address the rights of all stakeholders if it is to be ‘modern’ and ‘competitive’.

The gas leak disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984 illustrates a situation of catastrophe and mass torts resulting in loss of life and health as well as environmental degradation. The Indian company Union Carbide India Limited, who owned and operated the chemical plant that caused the disaster, did not have sufficient assets to compensate the victims in contrast to its financially well-equipped US parent company Union Carbide Corporation. The courts never reached a decision regarding parent company liability for the subsidiary’s debts arising from tort claims against the subsidiary. However, where the subsidiary cannot satisfy its tort creditors, as in the Bhopal case, questions regarding parent company liability become highly relevant in relation to both foreign and domestic subsidiaries. Therefore, parent company liability for subsidiaries’ torts is discussed in this thesis with reference to Swedish and UK company law and with a focus on the tort creditors’ situation and the business and human rights debate. From limited liability for shareholders and each company being a separate legal entity follows that a parent company is not liable for its subsidiaries’ debts in neither Swedish nor UK company law. These concepts serve the important function of facilitating risk-taking and entrepreneurial activities. However, they also contribute to the problem of uncompensated tort victims arising where a subsidiary is involved in liability- producing activities but lacks assets to compensate the tort victims. Where limited liability and each company being a separate legal entity leads to particularly inappropriate results, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in both Sweden and the UK allows the court to disregard the separate legal personalities and hold the parent company liable for its subsidiary’s acts or omissions. The doctrine is characterised by uncertainty and is seemingly only available under exceptional circumstances. The doctrine does little to mitigate the problems for subsidiaries’ tort creditors at large. The business and human rights debate calls for access to judicial remedies for victims of businesses’ human rights violations. As some human rights violations can form the basis of a tort claim, it is relevant to discuss parent company liability according to company law in relation to human rights violations. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasise the need to ensure that corporate law does not prevent access to judicial remedies. However, the company law regulation of liability in company groups seems in practice to function as an obstacle for access to judicial remedies for human rights victims, particularly when also considering the inadequate legal regimes in some host states and the hurdles of jurisdiction and applicable law in multinational company groups. It is concluded in this thesis that the company law regulation of liability in company groups is seemingly not equipped to meet the challenges arising with the development of company groups, the global reach of the private business sector, the risks of mass torts and the influence of the business sector on human rights.