IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mje/mjejnl/v16y2020i417-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Change in Stakeholder Utility Function During Crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Vasilisa Makarova
  • Adel Dalal

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine firm theory through the lenses of stakeholder utility function. Stakeholders are reluctant to leave a company when it faces financial distress. However, they maximize their utility function by seeking other alternatives. The observed behavior may be a result of biased assessment of firm’s prospects and available market options. The study provides empirical evidence that stakeholders are risk averse. We defined the utility function of stakeholders as the second moment of economic value added (EVA). The results show that stakeholders' perception of risk is conservative: the distribution of the function is exponential. The higher the return, the higher the expected utility function with declining marginal utility of return. The application of this function to various sets of options revealed that risk attitude of stakeholders depends on the firm’s profitability

Suggested Citation

  • Vasilisa Makarova & Adel Dalal, 2020. "Change in Stakeholder Utility Function During Crisis," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 16(4), pages 17-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:mje:mjejnl:v:16:y:2020:i:4:17-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.mnje.com/mje/2020/v16-n04/mje_2020_v16-n04-a12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    2. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Even (Mixed) Risk Lovers Are Prudent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1529-1535, June.
    3. Bergman, Nittai K. & Jenter, Dirk, 2007. "Employee sentiment and stock option compensation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 667-712, June.
    4. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips, 2010. "Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    5. Ian Larkin & Stephen Leider, 2012. "Incentive Schemes, Sorting, and Behavioral Biases of Employees: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 184-214, May.
    6. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2001. "Are CEOs Rewarded for Luck? The Ones Without Principals Are," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 901-932.
    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. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    2. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2011. "Personnel Economics: Hiring and Incentives," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 20, pages 1769-1823, Elsevier.
    3. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Personnel Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121883, April.
    4. Carola Frydman & Dirk Jenter, 2010. "CEO Compensation," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 75-102, December.
    5. Gollier, Christian, 2021. "A general theory of risk apportionment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    6. Xu, Guo & Wing-Keung, Wong & Lixing, Zhu, 2013. "Almost Stochastic Dominance for Risk-Averse and Risk-Seeking Investors," MPRA Paper 51744, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    8. Wang, Hongxia & Wang, Jianli & Li, Jingyuan & Xia, Xinping, 2015. "Precautionary paying for stochastic improvements under background risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 180-185.
    9. Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2014. "Consistency of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1913-1943, September.
    10. Antonio Falato, 2006. "Paying to Make a Difference: Executive Compensation and Product Dynamics," 2006 Meeting Papers 690, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Loubergé, Henri & Malevergne, Yannick & Rey, Béatrice, 2020. "New Results for additive and multiplicative risk apportionment," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 140-151.
    12. van Bruggen, Paul & Laeven, Roger J. A. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2024. "Higher-Order Risk Attitudes for Non-Expected Utility," Other publications TiSEM c566934e-eb60-4b4b-a972-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Mario Menegatti, 2019. "Some implications of common consequences in lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 185-202, October.
    14. Huang, James & Stapleton, Richard, 2015. "The utility premium of Friedman and Savage, comparative risk aversion, and comparative prudence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 34-36.
    15. Heinzel Christoph & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers SMART 21-09, INRAE UMR SMART.
    16. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Harris Schlesinger & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2018. "Measuring higher order ambiguity preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 233-256, June.
    18. Patrick Bolton & José Scheinkman & Wei Xiong, 2006. "Executive Compensation and Short-Termist Behaviour in Speculative Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 577-610.
    19. Heinzel, Christoph & Peter, Richard, 2023. "Precaution with multiple instruments: The importance of substitution effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 392-412.
    20. Fulghieri, Paolo & Dicks, David, 2021. "Uncertainty, Contracting, and Beliefs in Organizations," CEPR Discussion Papers 15378, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:mje:mjejnl:v:16:y:2020:i:4:17-27. 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: Nikola Draskovic Jelcic (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.mnje.com .

    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.