{"title":"Alignment exposed: How CEOs are paid, and what their shareholders get for it","authors":"Marc Hodak","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12693","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 4","pages":"44-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145772645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Message from the Editors","authors":"Don Chew, John McCormack","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12692","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 3","pages":"2-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145436152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The end of cost allocations as we know them","authors":"Marc Hodak","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12694","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 4","pages":"52-57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145772729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A fundamental principle in economics (and finance) is that a proposed investment should be greenlighted if its return on investment exceeds the opportunity cost of capital. The economic view says that the greenlighted investment is expected to be a justified use of resources and therefore socially beneficial.
An economic return has a precise description. For an investment with known cash outlays and cash receipts over its investment life, the economic return is the internal rate of return (IRR). However, an accounting return is a snapshot in time, derived from accounting statements that average ongoing investments initiated over previous years, each with differing economic returns over time.
The challenge of mathematically describing differences between accounting returns and economic returns has a long history.1 Such work provides mathematical insights, typically using highly simplified models of the firm. Note that the increasing importance of intangible assets further obfuscates the measurement of economic returns.2 This paper bridges the gap by introducing a practical Translator simulation software that enables users of accounting data to get hands-on experience with the complex differences between accounting and economic returns.
The paper describes how the Translator simulates a firm whose specified economic returns generate accounting statements, which then enable accounting returns to be calculated. The Translator facilitates experiential learning by using adjustments to accounting data, such as the capitalization and amortization of outlays for intangible assets, which in turn bridge the gap between accounting returns and economic returns. This improves the measurement of life-cycle performance variables—economic returns approximated by accounting returns (vs. the cost of capital) and reinvestment rates over time.3
The section, Accounting Returns versus Economic Returns, briefly discusses the research on accounting returns versus economic returns. Also highlighted is an inflation-adjusted accounting return—CFROI (cash-flow-return-on-investment).4 The section, The Design and Operation of the Translator, explains how the Translator incorporates inflationary environments plus a wide range of variables, including the characteristics of new investments, for example, an uneven pattern of cash receipts over the investment life. The section Concluding Thoughts summarizes the main conclusions and the benefits to users from a simulation tool for learning that leads to more accurate accounting returns. The Appendix provides a comprehensive roadmap explaining the equations used to construct the Translator.
The pessimism of the above researchers permeates Richard Brief's 1986 book, a compilation of the most influential articles on accounting returns versus economic returns.7 One such article by Thomas Stauffer documented, for a wide variety of conditions, the magnitude and sign of deviations from
{"title":"Bridging the gap between accounting returns and economic returns","authors":"Bartley J. Madden, Donn DeMuro","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12686","url":null,"abstract":"<p>A fundamental principle in economics (and finance) is that a proposed investment should be greenlighted if its return on investment exceeds the opportunity cost of capital. The economic view says that the greenlighted investment is expected to be a justified use of resources and therefore socially beneficial.</p><p>An economic return has a precise description. For an investment with known cash outlays and cash receipts over its investment life, the economic return is the internal rate of return (IRR). However, an accounting return is a snapshot in time, derived from accounting statements that average ongoing investments initiated over previous years, each with differing economic returns over time.</p><p>The challenge of mathematically describing differences between accounting returns and economic returns has a long history.1 Such work provides mathematical insights, typically using highly simplified models of the firm. Note that the increasing importance of intangible assets further obfuscates the measurement of economic returns.2 This paper bridges the gap by introducing a practical Translator simulation software that enables users of accounting data to get hands-on experience with the complex differences between accounting and economic returns.</p><p>The paper describes how the Translator simulates a firm whose specified economic returns generate accounting statements, which then enable accounting returns to be calculated. The Translator facilitates experiential learning by using adjustments to accounting data, such as the capitalization and amortization of outlays for intangible assets, which in turn bridge the gap between accounting returns and economic returns. This improves the measurement of life-cycle performance variables—economic returns approximated by accounting returns (vs. the cost of capital) and reinvestment rates over time.3</p><p>The section, <i>Accounting Returns versus Economic Returns</i>, briefly discusses the research on accounting returns versus economic returns. Also highlighted is an inflation-adjusted accounting return—CFROI (cash-flow-return-on-investment).4 The section, <i>The Design and Operation of the Translator</i>, explains how the Translator incorporates inflationary environments plus a wide range of variables, including the characteristics of new investments, for example, an uneven pattern of cash receipts over the investment life. The section <i>Concluding Thoughts</i> summarizes the main conclusions and the benefits to users from a simulation tool for learning that leads to more accurate accounting returns. The Appendix provides a comprehensive roadmap explaining the equations used to construct the Translator.</p><p>The pessimism of the above researchers permeates Richard Brief's 1986 book, a compilation of the most influential articles on accounting returns versus economic returns.7 One such article by Thomas Stauffer documented, for a wide variety of conditions, the magnitude and sign of deviations from ","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 3","pages":"79-88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jacf.12686","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145436490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In 1987, the United Nations defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the needs of future generations. Today, the top priority for sustainability is the transition to Net Zero—that is, net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon dioxide, a GHG, is a major contributor to global warming.</p><p>In the pages that follow, I provide three different perspectives on how companies are most likely to help get us to Net Zero. The first is the widespread, conventional perspective that Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics will lead the way to a successful transition to Net Zero. The second uses systems thinking to better describe the complexity of navigating a path to Net Zero and highlights the critical role of innovation. The third promotes systems thinking for corporate boards with the aim of improving decision-making and accelerating innovation and adaptation in a fast-changing Net Zero world.</p><p>Facing pressure from institutional asset managers, companies today must begin navigating a path to Net Zero.1 As metrics keyed to the “E” of ESG and specifically related to GHG emissions proliferate, investors are increasingly using ESG scorecards as part of their decision-making. At the beginning of 2022, the capital devoted to exchange-traded, ESG-focused funds exceeded $2.7 trillion. Moreover, regulatory bodies continue to make this kind of data mandatory in corporate reports. As a consequence, managements and boards of directors are motivated to take actions that can make their companies look good at least in terms of ESG metrics.</p><p>But the objective of such companies ought, of course, to be to reduce their GHG emissions. The current default reporting methodology is the GHG Protocol, in accord with which Scope 1 emissions are those directly produced by a firm's operations—for example, from driving owned and leased vehicles. Scope 2 missions are those produced by facilities that generate electricity bought and consumed by the company. Scope 3 emissions originate from upstream operations in a company's supply chain and from downstream use by both its “wholesale” and end-use consumers. The GHG Protocol methodology has been criticized as lacking accuracy and verifiability (primarily in terms of Scope 3), in significant part for requiring that the same emissions reported multiple times by different companies.</p><p>To address this and other limitations of the Protocol, Robert Kaplan and Karthik Ramanna have proposed an innovative solution that recognizes the integrated nature of pollution activities across the economy. A company's existing accounting system and cost-accounting infrastructure would record the GHG units emitted during operations as an <i>E-liability</i>.2 All along the supply chain, companies would transfer the E-liability associated with goods delivered and record their end-of-period E-liability. This method eliminates multiple counting of emissions in the conceptua
1987年，联合国将可持续发展定义为满足当代人的需要而不损害后代人的需要。今天，可持续发展的首要任务是向净零过渡，即净零温室气体（GHG）排放。二氧化碳是一种温室气体，是全球变暖的主要原因。在接下来的几页中，我将提供三种不同的观点，说明企业最有可能如何帮助我们实现净零排放。第一个是普遍的传统观点，即环境、社会和治理（ESG）指标将引领向净零的成功过渡。第二个使用系统思维来更好地描述导航到净零之路的复杂性，并强调创新的关键作用。第三，促进企业董事会进行系统思考，以期在快速变化的“净零”世界中改善决策，加速创新和适应。面对来自机构资产管理公司的压力，今天的公司必须开始寻找一条通往净零的道路。随着与ESG“E”相关的指标，特别是与温室气体排放相关的指标的增加，投资者越来越多地将ESG计分卡作为决策的一部分。2022年初，专注于esg的交易所交易基金的资金超过了2.7万亿美元。此外，监管机构继续强制要求在公司报告中提供此类数据。因此，管理层和董事会有动力采取行动，使公司至少在ESG指标方面表现良好。但这些公司的目标当然应该是减少温室气体排放。目前的默认报告方法是温室气体议定书，根据该议定书，范围1是指公司运营直接产生的排放，例如，驾驶自有和租赁车辆。范围2任务是由公司购买和消耗的发电设施产生的任务。范围3的排放来自公司供应链的上游操作，以及其“批发”和最终用户的下游使用。温室气体议定书的方法被批评为缺乏准确性和可验证性（主要是在范围3方面），很大程度上是因为要求不同公司多次报告相同的排放量。为了解决这个问题和议定书的其他局限性，罗伯特·卡普兰和卡蒂克·拉曼纳提出了一个创新的解决方案，该方案认识到整个经济中污染活动的综合性质。公司现有的会计系统和成本会计基础设施将在运营期间排放的温室气体单位记录为e -负债在整个供应链中，公司将转移与交付货物相关的电子负债，并记录其期末电子负债。这种方法消除了在概念上有缺陷的第三阶段方法中对排放量的多次计算，同时也限制了绿色游戏的机会。强调ESG指标的传统观点代表了线性因果思维。也就是说，从实施ESG指标到“激励”公司采取行动提高其ESG分数，最终实现成功的净零转型，在逻辑上存在一条紧密的路径。有趣的是，那些持这种观点的人总是会意识到气候变化问题的复杂性和混乱性，这反映在政治、经济、生态和社会问题的相互关系中，这些问题往往在时间和空间上分离，多种原因产生多种影响。线性因果思维常常导致采用过于简单的方法来实现目标。为什么?主要是因为当关键点以逻辑严密的线性方式呈现时，书面和口头交流被认为是有说服力的。今天的领导人往往更喜欢自信的结论，而不是系统思想家所表现出的试探和认识论上的谦卑。为什么不把系统思维放在最前面和最中心的位置，因为它有助于使用其他的方式来看待世界，可以克服通常由僵化和僵化的假设驱动的更狭隘的感知过程？采用系统思维是不断质疑关键假设，组织反馈（尤其是来自实验的反馈），欣赏并积极寻求不同的观点；以及对绘制复杂系统中错综复杂的相互关系的持续好奇心这样的替代视角可以揭示错误的假设，并导致加速学习，从而帮助确定关键约束和杠杆点，以改进系统性能。说起来容易做起来难。 线性因果选择对许多人来说似乎是明智的，因为促进纯粹的系统思考方法意味着一个充满惊喜的旅程，需要适应和处理不可预见的问题，同时在学习系统复杂性的过程中犯错误是必要的一部分。但有些人可能会认为这是一次攀登无峰山的旅程，也就是说，对气候系统及其与其他系统的相互关系的综合、全面的理解。因此，人们倾向于将未来的意外降到最低，并采取ESG指标列出的更容易的路线。随着俄罗斯从2022年2月开始入侵乌克兰，再加上许多欧洲国家依赖从俄罗斯进口石油、天然气和煤炭，温室气体排放与地缘政治风险之间的相互关系变得显而易见。担心能源安全的欧洲决策者开始重新评估他们增加的非俄罗斯来源的化石燃料使用，包括来自美国的液化天然气。与此相关的地缘政治风险是中国对台湾的控制。以锂为例，它是电池的关键组成部分。在内华达州的萨克山口发现了世界上最大的锂矿床之一。经过与美国环保主义者的长期斗争，采矿许可证于2022年2月颁发，尽管他们支持绿色能源，但他们坚决反对在美国进行这种开采。他们还提起了额外的诉讼，以阻止这种采矿作业。请记住，电动汽车的电池含有一种混合金属——锂、镍、钴、铜和稀土金属，如钕和镝。目前的采矿过程导致了严重的环境退化，由于需求的加速，这种情况只会变得更糟。然而，美国对这些金属的开采——这意味着取代美国以外开采的部分——将需要高度监管的过程，从全球系统的角度来看，这将产生净环境改善，并减少美国电动汽车制造商供应中断的风险。太阳能电池板、风力涡轮机、电池驱动的电动汽车，以及燃煤电厂的退役，是公众对脱碳的看法。然而，问题在于，这些举措远远达不到实现净零排放的要求。复杂性比比皆是。太阳能和风能是间歇性的电力来源，需要通过陈旧低效的电网输送。此外，它们的间歇性需要排放二氧化碳的天然气发电厂（假设核电站和退役的煤电厂正在减少）来平衡供需。此外，间歇性可再生能源无法解决钢铁、水泥和航空旅行等难以实现电气化的行业。复杂系统是建立在一个具有极大不确定性的世界的前提之上的，在这个世界中，几乎可以预料到一些可能未知的变量会出现（“我们知道一些重要的事情将要改变，我们只是不知道它将是什么”），因此打乱了那些根据今天已知的东西推断未来的人的计划在这样一个世界中运营时，管理层和董事会应优先关注创新发展，并确保他们为“净零”之旅制定了适应性计划。14让我们快速看一下三家大型老牌公司的一些“净零排放”活动，它们在很大程度上没有受到ESG评级机构的关注，即使不是真的遭到了蔑视，也没有得到宣传。一家是霍尼韦尔（Honeywell），目前在As You so的温室气体披露/目标/减排方面的总体评级为“F”。另一家是惠好（Weyerhaeuser），它已成为一家木材房地产投资信托基金，通常不被视为重大创新的来源。第三家是西方石油公司（Occidental Petroleum），这家大型石油生产商当然不受环保人士的尊敬。霍尼韦尔的业务重点是航空航天、建筑技术、高性能材料和技术以及安全和生产力解决方案。鉴于该公司对客户需求的深刻了解，再加上它的创新技能，你可能会认为，管理层决定将60%的研发预算用于改善客户的esg，会产生显著的效果。你是对的。以下是霍尼韦尔推进净零排放的一些重要创新亮点。迄今为止，霍尼韦尔Solstice系列低全球变暖制冷剂、推进剂和溶剂的使用，相当于减少了4200万辆汽车一年的排放量。该公司还在开发一种绿色航空燃料，以取代石油航空燃料。 霍尼韦尔的绿色柴油减少了80%的温室气体排放，其独特的液流电池技术正在实现大规模可再生能源存储，其建筑和工厂运营控制和自动化的核心业务继续使其客户获得更高的可持续性绩效。120年来，惠好一直在不断地种植、采伐和再种植森林。惠好一直是可持续发展的领导者，由于树木对二氧化碳的吸收，它是负碳的。该公司使用可再生生物质满足其70%的能源需求。惠好公司也很好地定位于推广和抓住工程“大量木材”的巨大机遇——将木片粘合在一起——以取代新建筑中的混凝土和钢材。随着较低的建筑成本和美观的建筑，温室气体排放与现状相比大大减少。惠好公司还
{"title":"Bet on innovation, not ESG metrics, to lead the net zero transition","authors":"Bartley J. Madden","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12683","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1987, the United Nations defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the needs of future generations. Today, the top priority for sustainability is the transition to Net Zero—that is, net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon dioxide, a GHG, is a major contributor to global warming.</p><p>In the pages that follow, I provide three different perspectives on how companies are most likely to help get us to Net Zero. The first is the widespread, conventional perspective that Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics will lead the way to a successful transition to Net Zero. The second uses systems thinking to better describe the complexity of navigating a path to Net Zero and highlights the critical role of innovation. The third promotes systems thinking for corporate boards with the aim of improving decision-making and accelerating innovation and adaptation in a fast-changing Net Zero world.</p><p>Facing pressure from institutional asset managers, companies today must begin navigating a path to Net Zero.1 As metrics keyed to the “E” of ESG and specifically related to GHG emissions proliferate, investors are increasingly using ESG scorecards as part of their decision-making. At the beginning of 2022, the capital devoted to exchange-traded, ESG-focused funds exceeded $2.7 trillion. Moreover, regulatory bodies continue to make this kind of data mandatory in corporate reports. As a consequence, managements and boards of directors are motivated to take actions that can make their companies look good at least in terms of ESG metrics.</p><p>But the objective of such companies ought, of course, to be to reduce their GHG emissions. The current default reporting methodology is the GHG Protocol, in accord with which Scope 1 emissions are those directly produced by a firm's operations—for example, from driving owned and leased vehicles. Scope 2 missions are those produced by facilities that generate electricity bought and consumed by the company. Scope 3 emissions originate from upstream operations in a company's supply chain and from downstream use by both its “wholesale” and end-use consumers. The GHG Protocol methodology has been criticized as lacking accuracy and verifiability (primarily in terms of Scope 3), in significant part for requiring that the same emissions reported multiple times by different companies.</p><p>To address this and other limitations of the Protocol, Robert Kaplan and Karthik Ramanna have proposed an innovative solution that recognizes the integrated nature of pollution activities across the economy. A company's existing accounting system and cost-accounting infrastructure would record the GHG units emitted during operations as an <i>E-liability</i>.2 All along the supply chain, companies would transfer the E-liability associated with goods delivered and record their end-of-period E-liability. This method eliminates multiple counting of emissions in the conceptua","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 3","pages":"60-69"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jacf.12683","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145436241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A value creation strategy (VCS) framework: Archetypes for achieving top quartile total shareholder returns","authors":"Marwaan R. Karame","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12689","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 4","pages":"69-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145772484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Michael Jensen's contributions to the theory of the firm: A tribute in three acts","authors":"Bartley J. Madden, Douglas E. Stevens","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12684","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 3","pages":"70-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145436442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In the new economy, corporate finance is faced with complex environmental, social, and political challenges, including a loss of trust in public corporations to address the wider problems of people and planet. Attempts to address the environmental and social responsibilities of business emerged during the 1960s, which motivated Milton Friedman to write his classic article in 1970: “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.”1 Nevertheless, the globalization of business and the rise of large multinationals increased environmental and social concerns over the next two decades. Corporate finance responded by incorporating corporate social responsibility as an important management control. In April 2006, the UN launched the Principles for Responsible Investment at the New York Stock Exchange, which included a non-exhaustive list of objectives related to material Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risks. In response, corporate finance incorporated ESG goals in their management controls, as did corporate boards, shareholder groups, and world governments. Almost two decades later, however, market and political forces have led many firms to curtail their ESG goals and focus on “sustainability.”</p><p>The Pragmatic Theory of the Firm was developed to enable managers, boards of directors, investors, and policy makers to make better decisions to benefit the firm, its stakeholders, and society at large. The theory provides important intuition missing from other economic theories by modeling the firm as a value-creating system and making explicit the connection between the firm's life-cycle financial performance and its market valuation.2 In this paper, we demonstrate how incorporating shared values and social norms increases the descriptive power of the Pragmatic Theory of the Firm. This approach not only improves the ability of the theory to describe value creation (and destruction) in the new economy, but it also supports the corporation's responsibility to people, planet, and profit. Importantly, this approach helps resolve recent debates over shareholder capitalism versus stakeholder capitalism, as well as disagreements about whether corporations need to sacrifice their profit-making obligation to investors to serve the broader needs of society and the environment. Further, this approach helps settle recent debates about the purpose of the corporation and its role in spreading the benefits of capitalism to all of society. Finally, this approach avoids political polarization by focusing on shared values and social norms that maximize value creation and societal flourishing across multiple cultures, populations, and times.</p><p>Our approach mirrors prior efforts to expand the usefulness of the economic theory of the firm. In his 1937 article, “The Nature of the Firm,” Ronald Coase asked a fundamental question: Why do firms exist? His main theoretical innovation was to introduce the concept of transaction costs to explain
在新经济中，企业融资面临着复杂的环境、社会和政治挑战，包括对公共企业解决人类和地球更广泛问题的信任丧失。解决企业的环境和社会责任的尝试出现在20世纪60年代，这促使米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）在1970年撰写了他的经典文章：“企业的社会责任是增加利润。”然而，在接下来的二十年里，商业全球化和大型跨国公司的崛起增加了人们对环境和社会的关注。为此，企业财务将企业社会责任作为一项重要的管理控制。2006年4月，联合国在纽约证券交易所推出了《负责任投资原则》，其中包括一份与重大环境、社会和治理（ESG）风险相关的目标清单。作为回应，公司财务部门将ESG目标纳入其管理控制，公司董事会、股东团体和世界各国政府也是如此。然而，近二十年后，市场和政治力量导致许多公司缩减了ESG目标，转而关注“可持续性”。企业实用主义理论的发展是为了使管理者、董事会、投资者和政策制定者能够做出更好的决策，从而使企业、利益相关者和整个社会受益。该理论通过将企业建模为一个价值创造系统，并明确了企业生命周期财务绩效与其市场估值之间的联系，提供了其他经济理论所缺失的重要直觉在本文中，我们展示了将共同价值观和社会规范结合起来如何增强企业语用理论的描述能力。这种方法不仅提高了理论描述新经济中价值创造（和破坏）的能力，而且还支持公司对人类、地球和利润的责任。重要的是，这种方法有助于解决最近关于股东资本主义与利益相关者资本主义的争论，以及关于公司是否需要牺牲对投资者的盈利义务以服务于更广泛的社会和环境需求的分歧。此外，这种方法有助于解决最近关于公司的目的及其在向全社会传播资本主义利益方面的作用的争论。最后，这种方法通过关注共同的价值观和社会规范来避免政治两极分化，这些价值观和社会规范可以最大限度地创造价值，并在不同文化、人口和时代实现社会繁荣。我们的方法反映了先前扩大企业经济理论有用性的努力。罗纳德·科斯（Ronald Coase）在他1937年的文章《企业的性质》（The Nature of The Firm）中提出了一个基本问题：企业为什么存在？他的主要理论创新是引入了交易成本的概念来解释企业为什么存在，它们从事什么活动，以及如何更有效地管理这些活动。这为新古典经济学中的企业理论的研究提供了一个快速的开端Oliver Williamson通过将事务作为分析的基本单位和将治理结构作为管理这些事务的方法，扩展了这条研究线科斯和威廉姆森都因将交易成本纳入企业理论的研究而获得诺贝尔经济学奖。然而，与芝加哥学派有关的新古典主义经济学家在很大程度上忽视了他们理论贡献的重要性例如，科斯将“与之打交道的人”列入企业面临的交易成本清单。因此，他留下了共享价值观和社会规范提高企业和市场经济效率的可能性。在他对社会成本的开创性研究中，科斯发现，在交易成本为零的简化世界中，法律、政治和经济制度的重要性消失了因此，由于专注于这个简化的世界，新古典主义经济学家无法解决有关公司的目的及其在资本主义经济中创造价值的能力的基本问题。在塑造公司金融中的企业理论时，迈克尔·詹森关注的是自利的委托人和企业代理人之间的冲突，以及通过正式合同管理这种冲突的可能性他的经济理论被称为“代理理论”，成为经济学、会计学和金融学中关于企业的主导理论。道格•史蒂文斯（Doug Stevens）将代理理论称为“无规范、无文化的企业理论”，并展示了该理论如何通过纳入社会规范来扩展。 特别是，史密斯对共同价值观和社会规范的强调，为实现环境、社会和治理（ESG）目标提供了一条合理的途径，同时避免了过度限制和政治上有争议的监管带来的沉重负担。与PTF一致，Madden将当前的全球主义ESG方法描述为过于简单化的“线性因果思维”，并呼吁在解决ESG问题时纳入“系统思维”他特别指出，对温室气体排放和推动净零排放过于简单化的思考，导致公共政策几乎没有直接效益，反而产生了许多次要影响。相反，马登呼吁企业进行自下而上的创新，以解决客户的需求，同时最大限度地减少浪费和有害排放，他认为这是经济繁荣的强大驱动力，对环境的危害最小。与马登对自下而上创新的呼吁一致，会计研究人员已经开始开发新的会计系统来追踪温室气体排放的成本。例如，罗伯特·卡普兰（Robert Kaplan）和卡蒂克·拉曼纳（Karthik Ramanna）提出了一种会计和控制系统，将运营过程中排放的温室气体（GHG）单位记录为电子负债这种新的会计制度与平衡计分卡相联系，其重点是无形资产和非财务措施，这些是非财务绩效的主要指标。公司金融领域的主要学者呼吁扩展公司的经济理论，以解决现代公司不断扩大的责任问题。牛津大学金融经济学家科林·梅尔认为，该公司“提供了一种使我们摆脱贫困、不平等和环境破坏的机会。”在梅耶尔看来，上市公司的奇迹“源于它能够将传统的激励、所有权和控制权观点与义务、责任和承诺等另类观点结合起来，并加以平衡。”56以梅耶尔为学术带头人的英国研究院未来公司研究小组已经宣布，公司的现代目的是为人类和地球的问题提供有利可图的解决方案，并避免从制造问题中获利。我们已经展示了如何将共同的价值观和社会规范纳入企业的实用主义理论，为解决人类和地球的问题提供了一个全面而有用的理论框架。因此，我们的新理论框架支持梅耶尔的努力，即在不威胁现代公司作为资本主义经济中主要价值创造者的角色的情况下，解决现代公司面临的新挑战。 艾莉森·泰勒在她关于新经济中的可持续发展和商业道德的有影响力的书中指出：“组织现在必须设定和建立明确的价值观和文化规范，同时对人们的期望做出反应，使他们能够适应个人的需要和要求。”9然而，泰勒强调，对企业价值观的新强调也有其自身的风险，因为价值观往往具有争议性、政治性和意识形态性。最近，由于有争议的品牌活动（例如，安海斯-布希、Cracker Barrel、迪士尼、捷豹、耐克和塔吉特），市场价值遭到了大规模破坏，这强调了建立和促进所有利益相关者广泛共享的价值观的重要性。要解决文化、价值观和规范日益重要的问题，就需要企业金融领域的研究人员拓展“无规范、无文化的企业理论”。企业管理理论关注的是企业的资源以及企业如何创造价值和获得竞争优势。例如，杰伊·巴尼（Jay Barney）提出了一种基于资源的企业理论，该理论关注的是独特的、难以复制的有形和无形资产；罗伯特·格兰特（Robert Grant）提出了一种基于知识的企业理论，关注的是知识创造的过程大卫·提斯提出了一种企业理论，关注企业如何在快速变化的环境中创造、扩展和调整其资源，以感知、塑造和抓住机遇缺少的是一种企业理论，它将这些管理理论中的直觉与詹森企业理论中丰富的经济直觉结合起来。《企业的实用主义理论》是本着科斯对实用价值经济理论的呼吁精神而创立的。“实用主义”的标签描述了该理论的目标，即促进系统思考，以分析与经理、董事会、投资者和决策者有关的实际问题。因此，公司的语用学理论既代表了一个全面的理论框架，又代表了一种强调不断寻求新知识和新见解的独特方法。在本文中，我们将企业的语用理论扩展到共享价值观和社会规范。我们首先讨论新古典经济学家对企业理论的实际扩展的抵制。历史反映出，古典和新古典经济学家倾向于延续既定理论，即使这些理论不能描述现实世界的现象。亚当·斯密之后的古典经济
{"title":"Extending the pragmatic theory of the firm with shared values and social norms","authors":"Bartley J. Madden, Douglas E. Stevens","doi":"10.1111/jacf.12687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12687","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the new economy, corporate finance is faced with complex environmental, social, and political challenges, including a loss of trust in public corporations to address the wider problems of people and planet. Attempts to address the environmental and social responsibilities of business emerged during the 1960s, which motivated Milton Friedman to write his classic article in 1970: “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.”1 Nevertheless, the globalization of business and the rise of large multinationals increased environmental and social concerns over the next two decades. Corporate finance responded by incorporating corporate social responsibility as an important management control. In April 2006, the UN launched the Principles for Responsible Investment at the New York Stock Exchange, which included a non-exhaustive list of objectives related to material Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risks. In response, corporate finance incorporated ESG goals in their management controls, as did corporate boards, shareholder groups, and world governments. Almost two decades later, however, market and political forces have led many firms to curtail their ESG goals and focus on “sustainability.”</p><p>The Pragmatic Theory of the Firm was developed to enable managers, boards of directors, investors, and policy makers to make better decisions to benefit the firm, its stakeholders, and society at large. The theory provides important intuition missing from other economic theories by modeling the firm as a value-creating system and making explicit the connection between the firm's life-cycle financial performance and its market valuation.2 In this paper, we demonstrate how incorporating shared values and social norms increases the descriptive power of the Pragmatic Theory of the Firm. This approach not only improves the ability of the theory to describe value creation (and destruction) in the new economy, but it also supports the corporation's responsibility to people, planet, and profit. Importantly, this approach helps resolve recent debates over shareholder capitalism versus stakeholder capitalism, as well as disagreements about whether corporations need to sacrifice their profit-making obligation to investors to serve the broader needs of society and the environment. Further, this approach helps settle recent debates about the purpose of the corporation and its role in spreading the benefits of capitalism to all of society. Finally, this approach avoids political polarization by focusing on shared values and social norms that maximize value creation and societal flourishing across multiple cultures, populations, and times.</p><p>Our approach mirrors prior efforts to expand the usefulness of the economic theory of the firm. In his 1937 article, “The Nature of the Firm,” Ronald Coase asked a fundamental question: Why do firms exist? His main theoretical innovation was to introduce the concept of transaction costs to explain","PeriodicalId":46789,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Corporate Finance","volume":"37 3","pages":"98-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jacf.12687","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145436034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号