Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function*

  • Michael C. Jensen
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1964. “The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk Bearing.” Review of Economic Studies 31(86): 9196.
Beer, Michael and Nohria, Nithin, eds. 2000. Breaking the Code of Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Business Roundtable. 1990. Corporate Governance and American Competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: Business Roundtable, March.
Coase, Ronald H. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics 3 (October): 144.
Cools, Kees and van Praag, Mirjam. 2000. “The Value Relevance of a Single-Valued Corporate Target: An Empirical Analysis.” Available from the Social Science Research Network eLibrary at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=244788.
Debreu, Gerard. 1959. Theory of Value. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Donaldson, Thomas and Preston, Lee E. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 20(1): 6591.
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pittman Books Limited.
Hanks, James L. 1994. “From the Hustings: The Role of States with Takeover Control Laws.” Mergers & Acquisitions 29(2) September-October.
Hayek, F. A. 1988. The Fatal Conceit. Edited by Bartley, W. W. The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ittner, Cristopher, Larcker, David F., and Meyer, Marshal W. 1997. “Performance, Compensation, and the Balanced Scorecard.” Unpublished. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Jensen, Michael C. 2001. “Paying People to Lie: The Truth About the Budgeting Process.” January. Available from the Social Science Research Network at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper=267651. (A shorter version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Manager’s Journal Column, 1/8/2001 under the title “Why Pay People to Lie?” and an executive summary version appears in the Harvard Business Review, November, 2001 under the title “Corporate Budgeting Is Broken: Let’s Fix It”).
Jensen, Michael C. and Meckling, William H. 1992. “Specific and General Knowledge, and Organization Structure,” in Contract Economics. Werin, Lars and Wijkander, Hans, eds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 251274. Reprinted in Michael Jensen, C., Foundations of Organizational Strategy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998, and Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Fall 1995: 418.
Jensen, Michael C, Karen, H. Wruck, and Brian, Barry. 1991. “Fighton, Inc. (A) and (B).” Harvard Business School Case #9-391-056, March 20.
Kaplan, Robert S. and Norton, David P. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Lovins, Amory B., Lovins, L. Hunter, and Hawken, Paul. 1999. “A Road Map for Natural Capitalism.” Harvard Business Review, May-June.
Perrin, Towers. 1996. “Inside ‘the Balanced Scorecard.’” Compuscan Report, January: 15.
Principles of Stakeholder Management. 1999. Principles of Stakeholder Management: The Clarkson Principles. The Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, U. of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Rose, David C. 1999. “Teams, Firms, and the Evolution of Profit Seeking Behavior.” Dept. of Economics, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo. Unpublished manuscript, available from the Social Science Research Network eLibrary at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=224438.
Senge, Peter. 2000. “The Puzzles and Paradoxes of How Living Companies Create Wealth: Why Single-Valued Objective Functions Are Not Quite Enough,” in Breaking the Code of Change. Beer, Michael and Nohria, Nithin, eds. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Sternberg, Elaine. 1994. Just Business: Business Ethics in Action. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Sternberg, Elaine. 1996. “Stakeholder Theory Exposed.” The Corporate Governance Quarterly 2(1): 418.
Sternberg, Elaine. 1999. The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine. London: Foundation for Business Responsibilities. Issue Paper no. 4, November.
Sternberg, Elaine. 2000. Just Business: Business Ethics in Action. Oxford University Press.
Wruck, Karen H., Michael, C. Jensen, and Brian, Barry. 1991. Fighton, Inc., (A) and (B) Teaching Note. Case #5-491-111. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business Ethics Quarterly
  • ISSN: 1052-150X
  • EISSN: 2153-3326
  • URL: /core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed