راهكارهاي حقوقي كاهش هزينه نمايندگي در شركت هاي تجاري

Legal Strategies for Agency Cost Reduction in Corporations

چنانچه هدف نهايي شركت هاي تجاري را افزايش سود و هدف حقوق آن ها را صيانت از منافع گروه هاي ذي نفع شركت بدانيم، بايد به عللي كه موجب خلل به اين اهداف مي گردد، توجه نمود. مسئله هزينه نمايندگي به عنوان يكي از چالش هاي عمده در عصر توسعه جايگاه شركت هاي تجاري، نگاه اقتصاددانان، فعالان اين شركت ها و حقوقدانان را به خويش معطوف ساخته است. مفهوم هزينه نمايندگي در قالب شركت تجاري سبب آشكار شدن مسائل عمده در روابط داخلي و خارجي بازيگران فعال در آن حوزه مي گردد. ازآنجاكه منافع سهامداران يا ذي نفعان (اصيلان) در گروي اعمال نمايندگان است، امكان سوءاستفاده ايشان از موقعيت خويش و ايجاد هزينه هاي گزاف بر دوش اصيلان بوده كه با هدف بنياني شركت ها تعارض خواهد داشت. در بعد هنجارين از كاركردهاي اصلي هر نظام حقوقي، ايجاد كارآمدي يا به تعبيري بيشينه ساختن ثروت در جامعه است؛ بدين صورت علم حقوق، با ارائه راهكارهاي گوناگون از تمام ظرفيت هاي موجود در نظام حقوقي بهره برداري و قواعد حقوقي را در راستاي كنترل هزينه هاي نمايندگي تدوين نموده است. از چشم انداز اقتصادي كاهش سطح هزينه هاي مترتب بر استراتژي هاي مقابله با هزينه هاي نمايندگي از اولويت هاي نظام هاي حقوقي است. ازاين رو در فرض وجود هزينه هاي قابل توجه براي ايجاد هماهنگي ميان اصيلان، قانون گذار با تجويز راهكارهاي مقررات گذارانه، در مقام كاهش هزينه هاي نمايندگي گام برمي دارد؛ درحالي كه در وضعيت هايي كه بستر ايجاد هماهنگي ميان اصيلان با هزينه اي نازل فراهم است، مي توان از مكانيسم هاي دروني شركت هاي تجاري در قالب استراتژي هاي حكمراني و مديريتي در راستاي مهار هزينه هاي نمايندگي مدد جست.

In the present study، an attempt has been made to gain insight into the status of law in relation to agency costs using an analytical-descriptive method. The issue of agency costs and the urge to present regulations for the agents involved in the commercial ties between companies have been always of research value for lawyers. Such costs، if appropriate measures not taken، can create formidable barriers to the potential interests of stakeholders which eventually puts businesses and investments at jeopardy and may lead to the loss of opportunities to attract dispersed capital of the community. Since the interests of the stakeholders are based on the actions of the agents، it is possible for them to abuse their position، which would be in conflict with the fundamental purpose of the companies. Accordingly، high agency costs can generally place undue burden on the stakeholders of companies، leading to unproductivity of their institutions. The concept of agency costs was first introduced by economists، and for this matter، the realization of such costs in its very economic essence is beyond the scope of law. A number factors took agency costs into consideration such as asymmetric information phenomenon among corporate activists، opportunist measures، lack of competitive market، and the conflict between stakeholders and agents، to mention but a few. In normative sense، one of the main functions of any legal system is to create efficiency، or in other words، maximizing wealth in society. Thus، the science of law، by providing various solutions، including ex-ante and ex-post approaches، has used all the capacities defined in the legal system of exploitation and legal rules in order to manage the agency costs. Categorizing legal solutions into the dichotomy of regulatory and governance solutions is due to the differences existing between business and corporate activists. Considering the significant costs for establishing collaboration among stakeholders، implementing governance strategies by stakeholders in monitoring the agents has not been met with much success. Therefore، the legislator attempts to lower the agency costs by prescribing regulatory strategies. Because in such situations، regulatory strategies، which have mandatory character، have proven to work more efficiently thanks to their restricting role، and by doing so، the interests of the stakeholders will be respected. By assigning stakeholders in charge of electing and dismissing the managers as a regulatory tool، in the one hand، it is possible to avoid such costs by choosing the competent agents; and in the other hand، when the agency cost is imposed on the stakeholders due to the measures taken by agents، they can prevent the costs by resorting to the right to dismiss them.