The Corporate Objective Revisited

References

• Agle B. R., Mitchell R. K., Sonnenfeld J. A. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Acad. Management J. (1999) 42:507–525Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alchian A. A., Demsetz H. Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1972) 62:777–795Google Scholar
• Alexander J. C. Do the merits matter? A study of settlements in securities class actions. Stanford Law Rev. (1991) 43:497–525Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen W. T. Our schizophrenic conception of the business corporation. Cardozo Law Rev. (1992) 14:259–281Google Scholar
• Allen W. T. Contracts and communities in corporation law. Washington Lee Law Rev. (1993) 50:1395–1407Google Scholar
• Altman B. W. Corporate community relations in the 1990s: A study in transformation. Bus. Soc. (1998) 37:221–227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommedations (1994) (Philadelphia, PA) . American Law Institute.Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J. Political Econom. (1950) 58:328–346Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bainbridge S. M. The bishops and the stakeholder debate. (2002) (Los Angeles, CA). UCLA School of Law Research Paper 02-10Google Scholar
• Barnard C.The Functions of the Executive (1938) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L. A., Fried J. M., Walker D. I. Managerial power and rent extraction in the design of executive compensation. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. (2002) 69:751–846Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennett R. Corporate philanthropy in France, Germany, and the U.K.: International comparisons of commercial orientation towards company giving in European nations. Internat. Marketing Rev. (1998) 15:458–475Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berle A. A. Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Rev. (1931) 44:1049–1074Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berle A. A., Means G. C.The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) (Macmillan, New York) Google Scholar
• Berman S. L., Wicks A. C., Kotha S., Jones T. M. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad. Management J. (1999) 42:488–506Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhagat S., Romano R. Event studies and the law: Empirical studies of corporate law. Amer. Law Econom. Rev. (2002) 4:380–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhagat S., Bizjak J., Coles J. The shareholder wealth implications of corporate lawsuits. Financial Management (1998) 27:5–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blair M. M. Post-Enron reflections on comparative corporate governance. (2002) . Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper 316663 Georgetown University, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
• Blair M. M., Stout L. A. A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Rev. (1999) 85:247–306Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blasi J. R., Kruse D., Bernstein A.In the Company of Owners: The Truth About Stock Options (and Why Every Employee Should Have Them) (2003) (Basic Books, New York) Google Scholar
• Bodie Z., Merton R. C.Finance (2000) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bradley M., Schipani C. A., Sundaram A. K., Walsh J. P. The purposes and accountability of the corporation in contemporary society: Corporate governance at a crossroads. Law Contemporary Problems (1999) 62(3):9–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bratton W. W. The “nexus of contracts” corporation: A critical appraisal. Cornell Law Rev. (1989a) 74:407–465Google Scholar
• Bratton W. W. The new economic theory of the firm: Critical perspectives from history. Stanford Law Rev. (1989b) 41:1471–1515Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bratton W. W. Berle and Means reconsidered at the century's turn. J. Corporation Law (2001) 26:737–770Google Scholar
• Bratton W. W. Enron and the dark side of shareholder value. Tulane Law Rev. (2002) 76:1275–1361Google Scholar
• Brealey R. A., Myers S. C.Principles of Corporate Finance (2001) (Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Clark R.Corporate Law (1986) (Aspen Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Clarkson M. B. E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20:92–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coase R. H. The nature of the firm. Economica (1937) 4:386–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coff R. W. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10:119–133Link, Google Scholar
• Coffee J. C. The unfaithful champion: The plaintiff as monitor in shareholder litigation. Law Contemporary Problems (1985) 48:5–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis G. F., Diekmann K. A., Tinsley C. H. The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. Amer. Sociological Rev. (1994) 59:547–570Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dodd M. E. For whom are corporate managers trustees. Harvard Law Rev. (1932) 45:1145–1163Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donaldson T., Preston L. F. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20:65–91Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drucker P. Business objectives and survival needs: Notes on a discipline of the business enterprise. J. Bus. (1958) 31:81–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drucker P. The next society: A survey of the near future. The Economist (2001) November 3):1–20Google Scholar
• Easterbrook F. H., Fischel D. R. Voting in corporate law. J. Law Econom. (1983) 26:395–427Crossref, Google Scholar
• Easterbrook F. H., Fischel D. R.The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (1991) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Eisenberg M. A. Corporate legitimacy, conduct, and governance—Two models of the corporation. Creighton Law Rev. (1983) 17:1–19Google Scholar
• Etzioni A.The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (1988) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Etzioni A.The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda (1993) (Crown Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Fama E. F., Jensen M. C. Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econom. (1983) 26:325–344Google Scholar
• Fischel D. R., Bradley M. The role of liability rules and derivative suit in corporate law: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Cornell Law Rev. (1986) 71:261–290Google Scholar
• Freeman R. E.Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984) (Pitman, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Freeman R. E., McVea J., Hitt M., Freeman E., Harrison J. A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Handbook of Strategic Management (2001) (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, U.K) 189–207Google Scholar
• Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (1970) 33(September 13):122–126Google Scholar
• Griffin J. J., Mahon J. F. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Bus. Soc. (1997) 36:5–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansmann H., Kraakman R. The end of history for corporate law. (2000) . Discussion Paper 280, The Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Harvard Law School Mimeo, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Harrison J. S., Freeman R. E. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Acad. Management J. (1999) 42:479–487Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hazen T. L. The corporate persona contract (and market) failure, and moral values. North Carolina Law Rev. (1991) 69(273):318Google Scholar
• Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? Strategic Management J. (2001) 22:125–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B., Kaplan S. M. Corporate governance and merger activity in the United States: Making sense of the 1980s and 1990s. J. Econom. Perspectives (2001) 15(2):121–144Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurst J.The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (1970) (University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA) Google Scholar
• Jawahar I. M., McLaughlin G. L. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Acad. Management Rev. (2001) 26:397–414Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. J. Appl. Corporate Finance (2001) 14:8–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. (1976) 3:305–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones T. M. Shareholder suits: Good news and bad news for corporate executives. California Management Rev. (1981) 23:77–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones T. M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20:404–437Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones T. M., Wicks A. C. Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Management Rev. (1999) 24:191–205Google Scholar
• Krugman P. A. For richer. The Sunday New York Times Magazine (2002) October 20):62–77Google Scholar
• Langlois C. C., Schlegelmich B. B. Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. (1990) 21:519–539Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis M. In defense of the boom. The Sunday New York Times Magazine (2002) October 27Google Scholar
• Macey J. R. Externalities, firm-specific capital investments, and the legal treatment of fundamental corporate changes. Duke Law J. (1989) 1989:173–201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macey J. R. An economic analysis of the various rationales for making shareholders the exclusive beneficiaries of corporate fiduciary duties. Stetson Law Rev. (1991) 21:57–90Google Scholar
• Macey J. R., Miller G. P. The plaintiffs' attorney's role in class action and derivative litigation: Economic analysis and recommendations for reform. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. (1991) 58:1–54Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maignan I., Ralston D. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. (2002) 33:497–514Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P.People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company's Social and Financial Performance (2001) (Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin D. N., Juneja V. M., Foster T. S., Dunbar F. C. What explains filings and settlements in shareholder class action suits? Stanford J. Law, Bus. Finance (1999) 5:122–174Google Scholar
• Matheson J. H., Olson B. A. Corporate law and the longterm shareholder model of corporate governance. Minnesota Law Rev. (1992) 76:1313–1391Google Scholar
• McDaniel M. W. Stockholders and stakeholders. Stetson Law Rev. (1991) 21:121–162Google Scholar
• Miller M., Rock K. Dividend policy under asymmetric information. J. Finance (1985) 40:1031–1051Crossref, Google Scholar
• Millon D. Theories of the corporation. Duke Law J. (1990) 1990:201–262Crossref, Google Scholar
• Millon D. Redefining corporate law. Indiana Law Rev. (1991) 24:223–277Google Scholar
• Millon D., Mitchell L. E. Communitarianism in corporate law: Foundations and law reform strategies. Progressive Corporate Law (1995) (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Google Scholar
• Millon D. New game plan or business as usual? A critique of the team production model of corporate law. Virginia Law Rev. (2000) 86:1001–1044Crossref, Google Scholar
• Millstein I., MacAvoy P. The active board of directors and improved performance of the large publicly traded corporation. Columbia Law Rev. (1998) 98:1283–1345Crossref, Google Scholar
• Minow N. Shareholders, stakeholders, and boards of directors. Stetson Law Rev. (1991) 21:197–243Google Scholar
• Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., Wood D. J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and influence: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Management Rev. (1997) 22:853–886Google Scholar
• Munson K. J. Standing to appeal: Should objecting shareholders be allowed to appeal acceptance of a settlement? Indiana Law Rev. (2001) 34:455–479Google Scholar
• O'Connor M. A. Organized labor as a shareholder activist: Building coalitions to promote worker capitalism. Univ. Richmond Law Rev. (1997) 31:1345–1398Google Scholar
• Orts E. W. Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statutes. George Washington Law Rev. (1992) 61:14–37Google Scholar
• Parsons T.Structure and Process in Modern Societies (1960) (Free Press, Glencoe, IL) Google Scholar
• Quinn J. B.Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (1980) (Richard D. Irwin Inc., Homewood, IL) Google Scholar
• Ramseyer J. M. Corporate law. Peter Newman. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and Law (1998) (Stockton Press, New York) 503–511Google Scholar
• Rappaport A.Creating Shareholder Value: The New standard for Business Performance (1986) (The Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Roe M. J. Can culture ever constrain the economic model of corporate law? (2002) . Harvard Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Paper 36, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Romano R. The shareholder suit: Litigation without foundation? J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1991) 55:58–74Google Scholar
• Ross S. A., Westerfield R. W., Jaffe J. F.Corporate Finance (2002) 6th ed.(McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York) Google Scholar
• Rotemberg J. J., Scharfstein D. S. Shareholder value maximization and product-market competition. Rev. Financial Stud. (1990) 3:367–391Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruder D. S. Public obligations of private corporations. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. (1965) 114:209–229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwab S. J., Thomas R. S. Realigning corporate governance: Shareholder activism by labor unions? Univ. Michigan Law Rev. (1996) 96:1018–1094Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shiller R.Irrational Exuberance (2000) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Simon H.Models of Man: Social and Rational Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting (1957) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Simon H. A. On the concept of organizational goals. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1964) 9(June):1–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singer J. W. Jobs and justice: Rethinking the stakeholder debate. Univ. Toronto Law J. (1993) 43:475–505Crossref, Google Scholar
• Springer J. D. Corporate law and constituency statutes: Hollow hopes and false fears. New York Univ. Annual Survey Amer. Law (1999) 1999:85–123Google Scholar
• Stein J. C. Efficient capital markets, inefficient firms: A model of myopic corporate behavior. Quart. J. Econom. (1989) 104:655–670Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomas R. S., Martin K. J. Should labor be allowed to make shareholder proposals? Washington Law Rev. (1998) 73:41–62Google Scholar
• Thompson R. B., Thomas R. S. The new look of shareholder litigation: Acquisition-oriented class actions. (2003) . Vanderbilt University Law School Working Paper, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
• Weiner J. L. The Berle-Dodd dialogue on the concept of the corporation. Columbia Law Rev. (1964) 64:1458–1483Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. The modern corporation: Origins, evolution, and attributes. J. Econom. Literature (1981) 19:1537–1568Google Scholar