IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v59y2022i2p518-525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introduction to the Point‐Counterpoint: The Corporate Objective as a Contingency

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Doh

Abstract

In this introduction to the Point‐Counterpoint on the corporate objective, I briefly review and reflect on three views of the corporate objective presented in the exchange. I argue that each perspective – the shareholder value model, the stakeholder management perspective, and the strategic corporate governance framework – has merit in its own right, but that their relevance is contingent on the theoretical and practical contexts in which they are applied, assessed and evaluated. From a theoretical perspective, the choice of which model best fits depends upon whether one is looking through a normative, instrumental, or descriptive lens. From a practical vantage, the relevance and applicability of each of these corporate objectives is contingent on the national institutional context as well as the individual corporation’s relevant sector and industry, its strategy, and its leaders’ vision. In fact, there is no one corporate objective; rather the objective is variable based on a range of conceptual lenses and contextual factors and influences.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Doh, 2022. "Introduction to the Point‐Counterpoint: The Corporate Objective as a Contingency," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 518-525, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:59:y:2022:i:2:p:518-525
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12713
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cyrille Sardais & Martin Blom & Josée Lortie, 2021. "Exit, voice, loyalty, and … disobedience: When a CEO opposes his principal," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 188-207, March.
    2. Christian Voegtlin & Moritz Patzer & Andreas Scherer, 2012. "Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Whitley, Richard, 2007. "Business Systems and Organizational Capabilities: The Institutional Structuring of Competitive Competences," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199205189.
    4. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    5. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    6. Donald S. Siegel & Donald F. Vitaliano, 2007. "An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 773-792, September.
    7. Nelson, Philip, 1974. "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 729-754, July/Aug..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adams, Dawda & Adams, Kweku & Ullah, Subhan & Ullah, Farid, 2019. "Globalisation, governance, accountability and the natural resource ‘curse’: Implications for socio-economic growth of oil-rich developing countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 128-140.
    2. Daniel G. Arce, 2007. "Is Agency Theory Self‐Activating?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 708-720, October.
    3. Venuste Ngendahimana & Mike A. Iravo & Gregory Namusonge & Rwigema Pierre Celestin, 2024. "Leadership Practices on Performance of Micro Finance Institutions in Rwanda," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(14), pages 5-17, October.
    4. Andrew C. Inkpen & Anant K. Sundaram, 2022. "The Endurance of Shareholder Value Maximization as the Preferred Corporate Objective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 555-568, March.
    5. Lee Siew Tee & Ismail Nizam, 2020. "The Influence of Corporate Governance on Financial Performance Mediated by Gender Diversity," Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 61-79, January.
    6. Pies, Ingo & Beckmann, Markus & Hielscher, Stefan, 2012. "The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristoleian idea of individual citizenship," Discussion Papers 2012-1, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    7. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    8. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    9. Midtgård, Kenneth & Selart, Marcus, 2024. "The cognitive perspective in strategic choice," SocArXiv 4xpza, Center for Open Science.
    10. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    11. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    12. Suchanek Andreas, 2012. "Unternehmensverantwortung als Vermeidung relevanter Inkonsistenzen / Corporate Responsibility: The Avoidance of Relevant Inconsistencies," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 241-260, January.
    13. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    14. Wang, Hu & Shen, Hong, 2024. "Self-restraint or external supervision: Green bond issuance and greenwashing," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    15. John Buchanan & Dominic H. Chai & Simon Deakin, 2018. "Unexpected Corporate Outcomes from Hedge Find Activism in Japan," Working Papers wp494, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    16. Christopher, Joe, 2010. "Corporate governance—A multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider influencing forces impacting on organizations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 683-695.
    17. Liliana Hawrysz & Jolanta Maj, 2017. "Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    18. Kull, Alexander J. & Mena, Jeannette A. & Korschun, Daniel, 2016. "A resource-based view of stakeholder marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5553-5560.
    19. Taekjin Shin & Jihae You, 2017. "Pay for Talk: How the Use of Shareholder-Value Language Affects CEO Compensation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 88-117, January.
    20. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:59:y:2022:i:2:p:518-525. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.