The DOI matches its Crossref record.
VALUE MAXIMIZATION, STAKEHOLDER THEORY, AND THE CORPORATE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
Abstract
This paper examines the role of the corporate objective function in corporate productivity and efficiency, social welfare, and the accountability of managers and directors. The author argues that because it is logically impossible to maximize in more than one dimension, purposeful behavior requires a single‐valued objective function. Two hundred years of work in economics and finance implies that, in the absence of externalities and monopoly, social welfare is maximized when each firm in an economy maximizes its total market value. The main contender to value maximization as the corporate objective is stakeholder theory, which argues that managers should make decisions so as to take account of the interests of all stakeholders in a firm, including not only financial claimants, but also employees, customers, communities, and governmental officials. Because the advocates of stakeholder theory refuse to specify how to make the necessary tradeoffs among these competing interests, they leave managers with a theory that makes it impossible for them to make purposeful decisions. With no clear way to keep score, stakeholder theory effectively makes managers unaccountable for their actions (which helps explain the theory's popularity among many managers). But if value creation is the overarching corporate goal, the process of creating value involves much more than simply holding up value maximization as the organizational objective. As a statement of corporate purpose or vision, value maximization is not likely to tap into the energy and enthusiasm of employees and managers. Thus, in addition to setting up value maximization as the corporate scorecard, top management must provide a corporate vision, strategy, and tactics that will unite all the firm's constituencies in its efforts to compete and add value for investors. In clarifying the proper relation between value maximization and stakeholder theory, the author introduces a somewhat new corporate objective called “enlightened value maximization.” Enlightened value maximization uses much of the structure of stakeholder theory—notably the need to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders—while continuing to posit maximization of long‐run firm value as the criterion for making the necessary tradeoffs among stakeholders. The paper comes to similar conclusions about the Balanced Scorecard, which is described as the managerial equivalent of stakeholder theory. Although the Balanced Scorecard can add value by helping managers better understand the drivers of shareholder value, it should not be used as a performance measurement and incentive compensation system because it fails to provide a single valued score, a clear way of distinguishing superior from substandard performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Corporate social responsibility and access to finance
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2131 · Cited by 3,896
Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth
Krüger, P. (2015) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008 · Cited by 1,901
Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1063-y · Cited by 796
Business sustainability performance and cost of equity capital
Ng, A. C., & Rezaee, Z. (2015) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.08.003 · Cited by 650
Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management
Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.091 · Cited by 521
Do long-term institutional investors promote corporate social responsibility activities?
Kim, H.-D., Kim, T., Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2019) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.11.015 · Cited by 281
Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. D. C. S. R., & Lima, F. G. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.110 · Cited by 162
Shareholder Activism on Sustainability Issues
Grewal, J., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2805512 · Cited by 136
Ethics and value in customer co-production
Arvidsson, A. (2011) · Marketing Theory · doi:10.1177/1470593111408176 · Cited by 86
Schultz, F. C., Valentinov, V., Kirchherr, J., Reinhardt, R. J., & Pies, I. (2024) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3592 · Cited by 82
Managing Tensions and Divergent Institutional Logics in Firm–NPO Partnerships
Ahmadsimab, A., & Chowdhury, I. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04265-x · Cited by 63
Impact of stakeholder groups on development of a regional entrepreneurial ecosystem
Erina, I., Shatrevich, V., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1282077 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Jensen, M. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Corporate Finance
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 8-21
- ISSN
- 1078-1196 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6622
- OpenAlex
- W1994451842
- Cited by
- 1,854
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.