The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function
Abstract
In this article, I offer a proposal to clarify what I believe is the proper relation between value maximization and stakeholder theory, which I call enlightened value maximization. Enlightened value maximization utilizes much of the structure of stakeholder theory but accepts maximization of the long-run value of the firm as the criterion for making the requisite tradeoffs among its stakeholders, and specifies long-term value maximization or value seeking as the firm’s objective. This proposal therefore solves the problems that arise from the multiple objectives that accompany traditional stakeholder theory. I also discuss the Balanced Scorecard, which is the managerial equivalent of stakeholder theory, explaining how this theory is flawed because it presents managers with a scorecard that gives no score—that is, no single-valued measure of how they have performed. Thus managers evaluated with such a system (which can easily have two dozen measures and provides no information on the tradeoffs between them) have no way to make principled or purposeful decisions. The solution is to define a true (single dimensional) score for measuring performance for the organization or division (and it must be consistent with the organization’s strategy), and as long as their score is defined properly, (and for lower levels in the organization it will generally not be value) this will enhance their contribution to the firm.
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
Cites
Coase, R. H. (1960) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466560 · Cited by 18,255
Cited by
Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556659 · Cited by 5,130
Campbell, J. L. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275684 · Cited by 4,906
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
Godfrey, P. C. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.18378878 · Cited by 2,839
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x · Cited by 2,131
Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-51383 · Cited by 1,959
ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure
Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018) · Global Finance Journal · doi:10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001 · Cited by 1,611
Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility
Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.50.1.51 · Cited by 1,116
Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2180 · Cited by 546
Voegtlin, C., & Greenwood, M. (2016) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.12.003 · Cited by 385
de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.4.626 · Cited by 340
Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory
Crilly, D. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.57 · Cited by 331
Labor-Friendly Corporate Practices: Is What is Good for Employees Good for Shareholders?
Faleye, O., & Trahan, E. A. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0705-9 · Cited by 251
The Impact of Voluntary Sustainability Reporting on Firm Value: Insights from Signaling Theory
Friske, W., Hoelscher, S. A., & Nikolov, A. N. (2023) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00879-2 · Cited by 249
CSR ‘sustainability’ practices and firm performance in an emerging economy
Sardana, D., Gupta, N., Kumar, V., & Terziovski, M. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120766 · Cited by 238
Theory Assessment and Agenda Setting in Political CSR: A Critical Theory Perspective
Scherer, A. G. (2018) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12137 · Cited by 149
Shareholder Activism on Sustainability Issues
Grewal, J., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2805512 · Cited by 136
Beyond primacy: a stakeholder theory of corporate governance
Stoelhorst, J. W., & Vishwanathan, P. (2024) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0268 · Cited by 117
Embedding environment and sustainability into corporate financial decision‐making
Siegrist, M., Bowman, G., Mervine, E., & Southam, C. (2020) · Accounting & Finance · doi:10.1111/acfi.12533 · Cited by 87
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Content and process: Organizational conflict and decision making
Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Jensen, M. C.
- Venue
- Business Ethics Quarterly
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-256
- ISSN
- 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
- 2153-3326
- OpenAlex
- W2333049154
- Cited by
- 1,974
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 51.46
- 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.