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.
Item Type: | Journal article |
---|---|
Faculties: | Philosophy, Philosophy of Science and Religious Science |
Subjects: | 100 Philosophy and Psychology > 100 Philosophy |
ISSN: | 1863-6683 |
Language: | English |
Item ID: | 81752 |
Date Deposited: | 15. Dec 2021, 14:59 |
Last Modified: | 15. Dec 2021, 14:59 |