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”.

股东是公司的所有者，在此基础上，董事的义务是让股东价值最大化。我已经数不清有多少次被人告知“这是法律”了。

But it is not the law. Certainly not in America, as Lynn Stout, a professor at Cornell University Law School, has pointed out.

但这不是法律。在美国肯定不是，就像康奈尔大学法学院(Cornell University Law School)教授林恩斯托特(Lynn Stout)指出的那样。

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.

在英格兰，股东拥有更多权利，但即便是在那里，公司董事的责任也是为股东利益推动公司的成功。公司排在首位，公司繁荣后才是股东的利益。

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 terms.

英格兰股东肯定不是所有者。上诉法院(Court of Appeal)在1948年宣告：“根据法律，股东不是公司的部分所有者”。2003年，英国上议院(House of Lords)明确重申了这项裁决。

Ownership is not a simple concept. The classic account of its meaning was given 50 years ago by another legal scholar, Tony Honor .

所有权并非一个简单的概念。另一位法律学者托尼攠诺尔(Tony Honor)在50年前就所有权给出了经典解释。

Ownership, like friendship, has many characteristics and if a relationship has enough of them we can describe it as ownership.

与友谊一样，所有权也有很多特点，如果一种关系具有足够多的特色，我们就能将其称为所有权。

If I own an object I can use it, or not use it, sell it, rent it, give it to others, throw it away and appeal to the police if a thief misappropriates it. And I must accept responsibility for its misuse and admit the right of my creditors to take a lien on it.

如果我拥有一个物件，我可以使用它或者不使用它、出售它、出租它、把它赠予其他人、扔掉它，如果有贼盗用了它，我还能报警。我必须承担误用它的责任，并承认我的债权人有权扣押它。

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.

但股票没有给予股东占有权或使用权。如果股东前往公司的经营场所，他们更有可能被挡在门外。

They have no more right than other customers to the services of the business they “own”. The company’s actions are not their responsibility, and corporate assets cannot be used to satisfy their debts.

对于他们所“拥有”的企业，他们拥有的权利不比企业服务的其他客户多。公司行为并非他们的责任，公司资产也不能用来为他们偿债。

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.

股东无权管理他们持有部分权益的公司，就连他们任命管理人的权利也基本上停留在理论层面。他们只有权获得董事们宣布为股息的这部分利润，而且无权分享出售公司资产所得——除了整个公司被清盘。在清盘的情况下，他们将获得清盘剩下的资产；一般而言数额并不多。

Of 11 tests of ownership Mr Honor put forward, the relationship between a company and its shareholders satisfies only two, and these rather minor. Three are satisfied in part; six are not met at all.

在奥诺尔提出的所有权的11个特点中，公司与股东之间的关系仅具备其中两个特点，而且都相当次要。有3个特点部分符合；有6个特点完全不符合。

There is a stronger case for asserting that a company is “owned” by its directors than there is for its shareholders. There is little doubt that if you explained to a Martian what earthlings mean by ownership and asked who owned a corporation, the Martian would point to the C-suite.

与声称公司由股东所有的说法相比，声称公司由董事所有的理由更有说服力。几乎毫无疑问的是，如果你向一个火星人解释地球人对所有权的定义然后问他们谁是公司的所有者，这个火星人将指向公司高层。