Drawing on Luhmannian social systems theory, this article revisits the single- versus multiple-objective debate on the theory of the firm. Firms are conceptualized as complexity reducing systems structurally coupled with potentially risky environments, and profit maximization is considered as a complexity reduction strategy for making sense of these environments. Whereas single-objective approaches reflect cases when environmental risks do not materialize into corporate sustainability problems, multiple-objective approaches address these problems by increasing the corporation’s environmental responsiveness beyond the profit maximization function. Our systems-theoretic framework therefore identifies the common ground between the two approaches and draws attention to the circumstances under which they can claim validity.
BansalP.SongH.-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149.
2.
BarnardC. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
3.
BoatrightJ. R. (1999). Does business ethics rest on a mistake?Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 583–591.
4.
BowenH. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. Harper & Row.
5.
BromleyP.MeyerJ. W. (2017). “They are all organizations”: The cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration & Society, 49(7), 939–966.
6.
BuhmannK. (2019). Business, human rights, and reflexive regulation: Multi-stakeholder development of standards for responsible business conduct. In RendtorffJ. D. (Ed.), Handbook of business legitimacy: Responsibility, ethics and society. Springer.
7.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
8.
CampbellJ. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.
9.
CarrollA. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
10.
ClarkJ. M. (2009). The changing basis of economic responsibility. In AbramovitzM.GinzbergE. (Eds.), Preface to social economics: Economic theory and social problems (pp. 66–69). Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1916)
11.
CoaseR. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.
12.
CoorenF.SeidlD. (2020). Niklas Luhmann’s radical communication approach and its implications for research on organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0176
13.
CrozierM. P. (2015). Governing codes: Information dynamics and contemporary coordination challenges. Administration & Society, 47(2), 151–170.
14.
de los ReyesG.Jr.ScholzM.SmithN. C. (2017). Beyond the “win-win”: Creating shared value requires ethical frameworks. California Management Review, 59(2), 142–167.
15.
DonaldsonT.PrestonL. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
16.
DonaldsonT.WalshJ. P. (2015). Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207.
17.
DunsireA. (1996). Tipping the balance: Autopoiesis and governance. Administration & Society, 28(3), 299–334.
18.
EdwardsM. G.AlcarazJ. M.CornellS. E. (2018). Management education and earth system science: Transformation as if planetary boundaries mattered. Business & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816513
19.
FrederickW. C. (1995). Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation. Oxford University Press.
20.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
21.
FreemanR. E.HarrisonJ. S.WicksA. C.ParmarB.de ColleS. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
22.
FriedmanM. (1970, September13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, p. 33.
23.
FuchsS. (2001). Against essentialism: A theory of society and culture. Harvard University Press.
24.
GarstJ.BlokV.BranzeiO.JansenL.OmtaO. S. (2019). Toward a value-sensitive absorptive capacity framework: Navigating intervalue and intravalue conflicts to answer the societal call for health. Business & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319876108
25.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
26.
HahnT.FiggeF.PinkseJ.PreussL. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.
27.
HallM.MilloY.BarmanE. (2015). Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 907–934.
28.
HeathJ. (2014). Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. Oxford University Press.
29.
HendryJ. (2004). Between enterprise and ethics: Business and management in a bimoral society. Oxford University Press.
30.
HernesT.BakkenT. (Eds.). (2003). Autopoietic organization theory. Copenhagen Business School Press.
31.
HillC. W. L.JonesT. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
32.
HolmströmS. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 497–504.
33.
HolmströmS. (2007). Niklas Luhmann: Contingency, risk, trust and reflection. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 255–262.
34.
JensenM. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.
35.
JonesT. M.FelpsW. (2013a). Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 207–238.
36.
JonesT. M.FelpsW. (2013b). Stakeholder happiness enhancement: A neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 349–379.
37.
KitzmuellerM.ShimshackJ. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51–84.
38.
KnightF. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin.
39.
KnudsenM. (2017). Conditions for critical performativity in a polycontextural society. M@n@gement, 20(1), 9–27.
40.
KokA. M.de BakkerF. G. A.GroenewegenP. (2019). Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business & Society, 58(8), 1496–1532.
41.
la CourA.AndersenN. A. (2016). Metagovernance as strategic supervision. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(4), 905–925.
42.
LeeJ. (2018). Contracts and hierarchies: A moral examination of economic theories of the firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(2), 153–173.
43.
LuhmannN. (1977). Differentiation of society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2(1), 29–53.
44.
LuhmannN. (1989). Ecological communication. University of Chicago Press.
45.
LuhmannN. (1994). Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft [The economy as social system]. Suhrkamp.
46.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
47.
LuhmannN. (1999). Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität [On the function of purpose in social systems]. Suhrkamp.
48.
LuhmannN. (2004). Law as a social system. Oxford University Press.
49.
LuhmannN. (2012). Theory of society. Stanford University Press.
50.
LuhmannN. (2013). Introduction to systems theory. Polity Press.
51.
LuhmannN. (2018). Organization and decision. Cambridge University Press.
52.
LyonT. P.MaxwellJ. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the environment: A theoretical perspective. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 240–260.
53.
MarcouxA. M. (2000). Balancing act. In DesJardinsJ. R.McCallJ. J. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in business ethics (pp. 92–98). Thomson Wadsworth.
54.
MarentB.ForsterR.NowakP. (2015). Conceptualizing lay participation in professional health care organizations. Administration & Society, 47(7), 827–850.
55.
MaturanaH. R.VarelaF. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel Publishing Company.
56.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
57.
MitchellR. K.WeaverG. R.AgleB. R.BaileyA. D.CarlsonJ. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275.
58.
NeisigM. (2017). Transition in complex polycentric contexts: Trusting and multifunctional semantics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(2), 163–181.
59.
PiesI.BeckmannM.HielscherS. (2014). The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristotelian idea of individual citizenship. Business & Society, 53(2), 226–259.
60.
PiesI.SchreckP.HomannK. (2019). Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: Using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate. Review of Managerial Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00376-x
61.
RamusT.La CaraB.VaccaroA.BrusoniS. (2018). Social or commercial? Innovation strategies in social enterprises at times of turbulence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(4), 463–492.
62.
RascheA.SeidlD. (2017). A Luhmannian perspective on strategy: Strategy as paradox and meta-communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.03.004
63.
ReayT.HiningsC. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
64.
RothS. (2019). The open theory and its enemy: Implicit moralisation as epistemological obstacle for general systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(3), 281–288.
65.
RothS.SantonenT.HeimstädtM.ClarkC.TrofimovN.Kaivo-ojaJ.AtanesyanA.LakiB.SalesA. (2019). Government.com? Multifunctional cabinet portfolio analysis of 201 national governments. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32, 621–639.
66.
RothS.SchwedeP.ValentinovV.Pérez-VallsM.Kaivo-OjaJ. (2020). Harnessing big data for a multifunctional theory of the firm. European Management Journal, 38(1), 54–61.
67.
RothS.ValentinovV.HeidingsfelderM.Pérez-VallsM. (2018). CSR beyond economy and society: A post-capitalist approach. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4068-y
68.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.
69.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.
70.
SchneiderA.WickertC.MartiE. (2017). Reducing complexity by creating complexity: A systems theory perspective on how organizations respond to their environments. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 182–208.
71.
SchreckP.van AakenD.DonaldsonT. (2013). Positive economics and the normativistic fallacy: Bridging the two sides of CSR. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 297–329.
72.
SchwartzM. S.CarrollA. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.
73.
SiegelD. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 5–16.
74.
SmithA. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan and Cadell.
75.
SmithJ. (2019). Navigating our way between market and state. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(1), 127–141.
76.
SongM.MeierK. J.AmirkhanyanA. (2020). Goal ambiguity, management, and performance in US nursing homes. Administration & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720901343
77.
SouderD.BromileyP. (2012). Explaining temporal orientation: Evidence from the durability of firms’ capital investments. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 550–569.
78.
SundaramA. K.InkpenA. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363.
79.
ThompsonS.ValentinovV. (2017). The neglect of society in the theory of the firm: A systems-theory perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(4), 1061–1085.
80.
ValentinovV. (2014). The complexity–sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 14–22.
81.
ValentinovV. (2019). The ethics of functional differentiation: Reclaiming morality in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 105–114.
82.
ValentinovV.HajduA. (2019). Integrating instrumental and normative stakeholder theories: A systems theory approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2019-0219
83.
ValentinovV.RothS.WillM. G. (2019). Stakeholder theory: A Luhmannian perspective. Administration and Society, 51(5), 826–849.
84.
van AsscheK.BeunenR.DuineveldM. (2014). Formal/informal dialectics and the self-transformation of spatial planning systems: An exploration. Administration & Society, 46(6), 654–683.
85.
van der LindenB.FreemanR. E. (2017). Profit and other values: Thick evaluation in decision making. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(3), 353–379.
86.
von HayekF. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.
87.
WillM. G.RothS.ValentinovV. (2018). From nonprofit diversity to organizational multifunctionality: A systems–theoretical proposal. Administration & Society, 50(7), 1015–1036.
88.
WilliamsonO. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press.
89.
WillkeH. (1995). Systemtheorie III: Steuerungstheorie [Systems theory III: control theory]. Fischer.
90.
WoodD. J.MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.BryanL. M. (2018). Stakeholder identification and salience after 20 years: Progress, problems, and prospects. Business & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816522
91.
YekiniK. C.OmotesoK.AdegbiteE. (2019). CSR communication research: A theoretical-cum-methodological perspective from semiotics. Business & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319843623
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
