IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v23y2013i03p349-379_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Happiness Enhancement: A Neo-Utilitarian Objective for the Modern Corporation

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Thomas M.
  • Felps, Will

Abstract

Employing utilitarian criteria, Jones and Felps, in “Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Social Welfare: A Utilitarian Critique” (Business Ethics Quarterly 23[2]: 207–38), examined the sequential logic leading from shareholder wealth maximization to maximal social welfare and uncovered several serious empirical and conceptual shortcomings. After rendering shareholder wealth maximization seriously compromised as an objective for corporate operations, they provided a set of criteria regarding what a replacement corporate objective would look like, but do not offer a specific alternative. In this article, we draw on neo-utilitarian thought to advance a refined version of normative stakeholder theory that we believe addresses a major remaining criticism of extant versions, their lack of specificity. More particularly, we provide a single-valued objective function for the corporation—stakeholder happiness enhancement—that would allow managers to make principled choices between/among policy options when stakeholder interests conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Thomas M. & Felps, Will, 2013. "Stakeholder Happiness Enhancement: A Neo-Utilitarian Objective for the Modern Corporation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 349-379, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:23:y:2013:i:03:p:349-379_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00006345/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pamala J. Dillon, 2021. "Virtuous Social Responsiveness: Flourishing with Dignity," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 169-185, July.
    2. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    3. Wolfgang Breuer & Jannis Bischof & Christian Hofmann & Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Hans-Ulrich Küpper & Marko Sarstedt & Philipp Schreck & Tim Weitzel & Peter Witt, 2023. "Recent developments in Business Economics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(6), pages 989-1013, August.
    4. Thomas Schneider & Sybille Sachs, 2017. "The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 41-57, August.
    5. Tanja Schwarzmüller & Prisca Brosi & Vera Stelkens & Matthias Spörrle & Isabell M. Welpe, 2017. "Investors’ reactions to companies’ stakeholder management: the crucial role of assumed costs and perceived sustainability," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 10(1), pages 79-96, June.
    6. Elena Candelo & Cecilia Casalegno & Chiara Civera & Fabrizio Mosca, 2018. "Turning Farmers into Business Partners through Value Co-Creation Projects. Insights from the Coffee Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    8. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2023. "Stakeholder theory: Toward a classical institutional economics perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88.
    9. Ishrat Ali & Griffin W. Cottle, 2021. "Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial Performance: The Creation and Destruction of Value from a Stakeholder Capabilities Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 781-796, May.
    10. Rafael Barreiros Porto & Gordon Robert Foxall, 2022. "The marketing‐finance interface and national well‐being: An operant behavioral economics analysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(7), pages 2941-2954, October.
    11. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    12. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Andrew C. Wicks, 2021. "Harmful Stakeholder Strategies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 405-419, March.
    13. Alejandro Agafonow & Marybel Perez, 2023. "How A Social Enterprise Wanes: The Transaction Costs of Credible Commitments at Etsy.com," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 35(1), pages 83-107, January.
    14. Pasi Heikkurinen & Jukka Mäkinen, 2018. "Synthesising Corporate Responsibility on Organisational and Societal Levels of Analysis: An Integrative Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 589-607, May.
    15. Vladislav Valentinov, 2023. "Stakeholder Theory: Toward a Classical Institutional Economics Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88, November.
    16. Gastón Reyes, 2023. "The All-Stakeholders-Considered Case for Corporate Beneficence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 37-55, November.
    17. Julian Friedland & Benjamin M. Cole, 2019. "From Homo-economicus to Homo-virtus: A System-Theoretic Model for Raising Moral Self-Awareness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 191-205, March.

    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:cup:buetqu:v:23:y:2013:i:03:p:349-379_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    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.