The Corporate Objective Revisited

By Anant K. Sundaram, Andrew C. Inkpen. Organ. Sci., 2004

913 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ec19b1e8effe1b7cc7ec743d7e58b2aa5cf1c8e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Stakeholder Theory and "The Corporate Objective Revisited" (2004, background): “In our view, Sundaram and Inkpen (2004) exhibit their commitment to such a narrow interpretation of the shareholder ideology in their paper “The Corporate Objective Revisited.” They begin, “Governing the corporation requires purposeful activity.”
Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Social Welfare: A Utilitarian Critique (2013, background): “…(Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1973; Freeman et al., 2010; Ghoshal et al., 1999; Jones, 1980; Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008; Leavitt, 1958; Marcoux, 2000; Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002; Quinn & Jones, 1995; Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004)—thus providing ample testimony to their moral and pragmatic importance.”
Resource security: Competition for global resources, strategic intent, and governments as owners (2014, background): “NSOEs often focus on short-term profitability and return on investment for non-state shareholders (Gaille, 2010; Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004).”
Do Investors Value a Firm’s Commitment to Social Activities? (2013, neutral): “Much has been discussed in terms of whether firms should orient themselves toward a shareholder or stakeholder perspective (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004).”
Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability (2014, background): “The essence of this logic is the assumption that the sole ultimate goal for business firms is the maximization of profit (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004).”
Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution: How Firms Contribute to Societal Economic Inequality (2018, background): “As business firms are driven by the principle of shareholder wealth maximization (Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004), stock options and performance-based compensation to resolve principal–agent problems have become the norm (Boyd, 1994; Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 1996).”
The effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility initiatives (2017, background): “Thus, CSR is a conflicted evaluation field (reflected in the shareholder vs. non-shareholder stakeholder tension; Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004).”
The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top (2009, background): “They now recognize that “the excessive use (and inadequate policing) of such compensation schemes helped fuel the corporate crisis of 2001 and 2002, and must be reined in” ( Sundaram and Inkpen, 2004: 358).”
Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World (2013, positive): “latory framework that safeguards the social good (Sundaram and Inkpen, 2004).”
Institutional legitimacy and norms-based CSR marketing practices: Insights from MNCs operating in a developing economy (2015, background): “social norms may come into conflict with the economic-based view of CSR (e.g. Friedman, 1970; Henderson, 2001; Husted and Allen, 2006; Sundaram and Inkpen, 2004).”
Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance (2006, neutral): “Hendersen, 2001; Jensen, 2002; Sundaram and Inkpen, 2004 ), referring to Milton”