Abstract
Our article contributes to the recurring debate on whether and how firms in competitive markets should pursue objectives other than purely financial ones. Two competing approaches dominate this debate: one favors profit maximization as a single objective;the other favors multiple, partly social objectives. This debate has been going on for decades without approaching consensus. Our article offers an explanation for this intellectual stalemate and proposes a constitutional perspective that reconciles and improves the two seemingly antagonistic approaches. At the core of our proposed solution lies the distinction between the sub-constitutional level of action (choices within constraints) and the constitutional level of rules (choices among constraints). Using this distinction, we argue that both single-objective and multi-objective theories of the firm play equally important, but categorically different roles.
| Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
|---|---|
| Fakultät: | Philosophie, Wissenschaftstheorie und Religionswissenschaft |
| Themengebiete: | 100 Philosophie und Psychologie > 100 Philosophie |
| ISSN: | 1863-6683 |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Dokumenten ID: | 81752 |
| Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 15. Dez. 2021 14:59 |
| Letzte Änderungen: | 15. Dez. 2021 14:59 |
