Abstract

The current debate on corporate governance has been "polarised" between, on the one hand, the shareholding paradigm and, on the other hand, the stakeholding paradigm. However, underpinning the main theories are hidden paradoxical assumptions that lead to concerns over the credibility and validity of this dichotomised approach. Both camps of the debate rely on a homeostatic and entitative conception of the corporation and its governance structures. Both camps suffer from an inadequate attention to the underlying philosophical presuppositions in which the static approach is rooted. To avoid the traditional trap in theorising, an alternative processual approach is proposed for a better understanding of the inherent overflow and heterogeneity of corporate governance practice.