shareholder responsibilityとは 意味・読み方・使い方

Generally speaking, SRI is classified into: (i) the "social screen," under which investment targets are selected in a comprehensive manner by not only evaluating companies from financial indicators and other economic dimensions but also taking into consideration their responses to the environment and social responsibility; (ii) "shareholder activism/shareholder engagement," where investors seek companies' dialogue with shareholders on their responses regarding the environment and social responsibility, exercise voting rights and put forward shareholder proposals; (iii) "social investment/finance," where low-rate lending programs or investment are offered to support the development of districts where minority and/or low-income people live, and thus is often interpreted as movements to contribute to society and the environment through investment.例文帳に追加

SRIは一般的には、①企業を財務指標等の経済的な側面から評価するだけではなく環境や社会的責任への対応を考慮して総合的に投資先を選定する「ソーシャル・スクリーン」、②企業の環境や社会的責任への対応に関して、株主との対話を求めたり、議決権の行使や株主提案を行ったりする「株主アクティビズム（Shareholder Activism / Shareholder Engagement）」、③マイノリティや低所得者居住地域の発展を支援するために低利の融資プログラムの提供や投資を行う等の「ソーシャル・インベストメント／ファイナンス」の３つに分類され、このように、投資を通じて社会や環境に貢献する動きであるととらえられることも多い。 - 経済産業省

(2) The provisions of Article 120, paragraphs (2) to (5) inclusive (Giving Benefits on Exercise of Shareholder's Right) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case set forth in the preceding paragraph; and the provisions of Part VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (excluding Article 847, paragraph (2), Article 849, paragraph (5), and Article 851, paragraph (1), item (i) and paragraph (2)) (Lawsuit for Responsibility, etc. in Stock Company) of that Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit for the return of benefits under Article 120, paragraph (3) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to this paragraph, respectively. In this case, the term "paragraph (1)" in Article 120, paragraphs (3) and (4) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 33-2, paragraph (1) of the Insurance Business Act"; the term "all shareholders" in Article 120, paragraph (5) shall be deemed to be replaced with "all members"; the term "shareholder who has been holding shares (other than a holder of share less than one unit who may not exercise his/her rights pursuant to the provision of the articles of incorporation under Article 189, paragraph (2))" in Article 847, paragraph (1) (Lawsuit for Responsibility, etc.) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "person who has been a member"; and the term "shareholder" in Article 847, paragraphs (3) to (5) inclusive and (7) shall be deemed to be replaced with "member"; and any other necessary technical change in interpretation shall be specified by a Cabinet Order.発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

２　会社法第百二十条第二項から第五項まで（株主の権利の行使に関する利益の供与）の規定は前項の場合について、同法第七編第二章第二節（第八百四十七条第二項、第八百四十九条第五項並びに第八百五十一条第一項第一号及び第二項を除く。）（株式会社における責任追及等の訴え）の規定はこの項において準用する同法第百二十条第三項の利益の返還を求める訴えについて、それぞれ準用する。この場合において、同法第百二十条第三項及び第四項中「第一項」とあるのは「保険業法第三十三条の二第一項」と、同条第五項中「総株主」とあるのは「総社員」と、同法第八百四十七条第一項（責任追及等の訴え）中「株式を有する株主（第百八十九条第二項の定款の定めによりその権利を行使することができない単元未満株主を除く。）」とあるのは「社員である者」と、同条第三項から第五項まで及び第七項中「株主」とあるのは「社員」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム

I am Namikawa from Toyo Keizai. From your position as Minister in charge of the supervisory authority for moneylenders, please explain that in the event of the bankruptcy of a moneylender, whether it would be desirable for some members of the top management to remain in office under the Corporate Reorganization Act in the form of debtor-in-possession (DIP). Given that there are various problems such as shareholders being pursued for shareholder responsibility and borrowers who are entitled to claim reimbursement of overpayments not being able to have the interest refunded, would it be desirable for DIP-style reorganization in which the existing management executives remain in office as a way of holding them responsible for management?発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

東洋経済の浪川ですけれども、金融貸金業者を監督する官庁の担当大臣というお立場から、貸金業が倒産した場合、経営者が一部残る形の会社更生法形態、つまりＤＩＰ型というものは好ましいことなのかどうかということについて、お話を伺いたいのですが。つまり、株主は株主責任を問われるし、過払い権者は請求しても利息返還を非常に得られなくなるという、そういうような色々な問題がある中で、経営責任の問われ方として既存の経営者が残るＤＩＰ型というのが好ましいかどうかということについてのお考えをお聞きしたいと思います。 - 金融庁