Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T18:42:40.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximization, Incomparability, and Managerial Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Nien-hê Hsieh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to one prominent view of rationality, for the choice of alternative to be justified, it must be at least as good as other alternatives. Michael Jensen has recently invoked this view to argue that managers should act exclusively to maximize the long-run market value of economic enterprises. According to Jensen, alternative accounts of managerial responsibility, such as stakeholder theory, are to be rejected because they lack a single measure to compare alternatives as better or worse. Against Jensen's account, this paper argues that choosing the alternative that is at least as good as other alternatives need not preclude managers from respecting considerations in addition to long-run market value. The paper argues that such considerations may be incorporated into managerial decision-making by introducing constraints and priorities into the process of maximizing long-run market value and by allowing for “clumpy” values.

Type
Special Section on Accountability
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 497 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Business Ethics Quarterly 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. G. 2004. Libertarian theories of the corporation and global capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 48: 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byron, M. (Ed.). 2004. Satisficing and maximizing: Moral theorists on practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 1997. Introduction. In Chang, R. (Ed.), Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason: 1–34. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 1998. Comparison and the justification of choice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146: 1569–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2002. The possibility of parity. Ethics, 112: 659–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunfee, T. 2006. Do firms with unique competencies for rescuing victims of human catastrophes have special obligations? Corporate responsibility and the AIDS catastrophe in sub-Saharan Africa. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16: 185–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K., & Freeman, R. 2003. Can labor standards improve under globalization? Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1982. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1987. The social responsibility of business. In Leube, K. (Ed.), The essence of Friedman. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, N. 2005a. Equality, clumpiness, and incomparability. Utilitas, 17: 180–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, N. 2005b. Property rights in crisis: Managers and rescue. In Santoro, M. & Gorrie, T. (Eds.), Ethics and the pharmaceutical industry in the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, N. 2007. Is incomparability a problem for anyone? Economics and Philosophy, 23: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Harvard Business School Working Paper #00–058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12: 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machan, T. 1999. Business ethics in a free society. In Frederick, R. (Ed.), A companion to business ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mamic, I. 2004. Implementing codes of conduct: How businesses manage social performance in global social supply chains. Geneva: International Labor Office.Google Scholar
Margolis, J. 2001. Responsibility in organizational context. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11: 431–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1987. Reasons and persons, corrected ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perrini, F. 2005. Italian small and medium-sized multinational enterprises and foreign direct investment in developing countries: The impacts of corporate social responsibility policies and practices. ILO-Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy Working Paper.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Ber-rett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Philips, R., & Margolis, J. 1999. Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 619–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SABAF. 2003a. Charter of values. Available at http://www.sabaf.it/english/Company/Stock_Exchange/Download/download.html.Google Scholar
SABAF. 2003b. Social report. Available at http://www.sabaf.it/english/Company/Stock_Exchange/Download/download.html.Google Scholar
SABAF. 2005. Company website. 21 September. http://www.sabaf.it/english/Company/The_Vision/the_vision.html.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1997. Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65: 745–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2000. Consequential evaluation and practical reason. Journal of Philosophy, 98: 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, S. P. 2003. Setting global standards: Guidelines for creating codes of conduct in multinational corporations. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Seung, T. K., & Bonevac, D. 1992. Plural values and indeterminate rankings. Ethics, 102: 799–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. 1997. Administrative behavior, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1972. Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1: 229–43.Google Scholar
Sternberg, E. 2000. Just business: Business ethics in action, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stocker, M. 1990. Plural and conflicting values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar