董事勤勉义务的规范展开与司法适用
Doctrinal Elaboration and Judicial Application of Directors’ Duty of Diligence
DOI: 10.16538/j.cnki.jsufe.2026.05.010
[1]郭远.董事勤勉义务的规范展开与司法适用[J/OL].上海财经大学学报,2026,28(05):139-152[2026-11-11].https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.jsufe.2026.05.010.
摘要
新《公司法》虽仅在第180条直接规定了董事勤勉义务,但其对该义务的规范内容并未局限于此单一法条。通过体系化解读第19条、第67条、第179条、第180条等条文可得,新《公司法》中董事勤勉义务规则至少能拓展出以下内容:一是将守法义务作为基本规范要求;二是强调董事在内部监督中须履行两项核心职责,即落实对董事会决议异常情况的调查,以及构建有效运行的公司内部控制机制;三是根据公司规模大小、是否为国家出资公司以及董事在公司内部的职权分工,对不同类型的董事设置差异化的勤勉义务内容。要在司法实践中落实新《公司法》的董事勤勉义务规则,关键在于明确该义务的司法审查标准。我国可以考虑引入司法谦抑性较强的商业判断规则,将其作为董事勤勉义务的司法审查标准,从而为司法实践提供初步的裁判框架与价值指引。
Although the new Corporate Law directly stipulates directors’ duty of diligence only in Article 180, its normative content regarding this duty is not confined to that single provision. A systematic interpretation of Articles 19, 67, 179, and 180 reveals that the rules on directors’ duty of diligence under the new Corporate Law can be expanded into at least three major dimensions. Firstly, at the level of basic norms, the duty to comply with the “requirements of laws, administrative regulations, and the corporation’s articles of association” should be regarded as the fundamental normative requirement of directors’ duty of diligence. Secondly, in terms of internal oversight, directors’ duty of diligence is manifested in two core responsibilities: One is to investigate abnormal circumstances in board resolutions; the other is to establish an effectively functioning internal control mechanism within the corporation. Thirdly, at the level of duty configuration, directors’ duty of diligence entails typified normative requirements. Under the new Corporate Law, this is reflected in the need to impose differentiated content of the duty of diligence on different types of directors, based on the size of the corporation, whether it is a state-invested corporation, and the division of powers and functions among directors within the corporation. To implement the rules on directors’ duty of diligence under the new Corporate Law in judicial practice, the key lies in clarifying the judicial review standards for this duty. China may consider introducing the business judgment rule, thereby providing a preliminary adjudicative framework and value guidance for relevant judicial practice. Of course, given the typified normative requirements of directors’ duty of diligence under the new Corporate Law, relying solely on the business judgment rule can hardly address the diverse and complex case scenarios in judicial practice. Therefore, introducing this rule is only the first step in remedying the current lack of judicial review standards for directors’ duty of diligence in China. In the future, a multi-layered system of review standards must be gradually established in judicial practice to fully respond to the complexities of corporate governance in China.
关键词: 注意义务,守法义务,监督义务,内部控制,商业判断规则