Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 1129–1144

A Balanced Concept of the Firm and the Measurement of Its Long-term Planning and Performance

  • Georges Enderle
  • Lee A. Tavis


This paper offers a new concept of the firm that aims at balancing the corporate economic, social, and environmental responsibilities and goes beyond the stakeholder approach. It intends to provide a conceptual and operationalizable basis to fairly assess corporate conduct from both inside and outside the companies. To a large extent these different responsibilities may overlap and reinforce each other. However, if they conflict, they should be clearly evaluated for their own sake and in terms of wealth creation. Only then can a balanced approach be realized. Section 1 briefly discusses some general aspects of the relationship between concepts and measurement. In Section 2, a concept of the firm is developed that is based on the notion of responsibility and balances economic, social and environmental responsibilities. According to these concepts, different ways of measuring corporate planning and performance are examined in Section 3, followed up by a summary and conclusions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ciba: 1993, Corporate Environmental Report 1992 (Ciba, Basel).Google Scholar
  2. Ciba: 1994a, Corporate Environmental Report 1993 (Ciba, Basel).Google Scholar
  3. Ciba: 1994b, Berichte zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung: Arbeit bei Ciba - Frauen bei Ciba (Ciba, Basel).Google Scholar
  4. Ciba: 1995, Corporate Environmental Report 1994 (Ciba, Basel).Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, The Academy of Management Review 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
  6. De George, R. T.: 1993, Competing with Integrity in International Business (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  7. Donaldson, G.: 1984, Managing Corporate Wealth: The Operation of a Comprehensive Financial Goals System (Praeger, New York).Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, The Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91.Google Scholar
  9. Enderle, G.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics and Market Failure’, in B. Harvey, H. van Luijk, G. Corbetta, (eds.), Market Morality and Company Size (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London), pp. 67–85.Google Scholar
  10. Enderle, G.: 1993, ‘What is Business Ethics?’ in T. W. Dunfee and Y. Nagayasu (eds.), Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London), pp. 133–150.Google Scholar
  11. Enderle, G.: 1993a, ‘Verteilung’, in G. Enderle, K. Homann, M. Honecker, W. Kerber, H. Steinmann (Hg.), Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik (Herder, Freiburg), pp. 1227–1236.Google Scholar
  12. Enderle, G.: 1995, ‘What Is “International”? - A Typology of International Spheres and Its Relevance for Business Ethics’, Manuscript.Google Scholar
  13. Enderle, G.: 1996, ‘A Comparison of Business Ethics in North America and Continental Europe’, Business Ethics - A European Review 5(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  14. Enderle, G.: 1996a, ‘Towards Business Ethics as an Academic Discipline’, Business Ethics Quarterly 6(1) ( January), 43–65.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, J. M. (ed.): 1986, Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY).Google Scholar
  16. Goodpaster, K. E.: 1992, ‘Business Ethics’, in L. C. Becker (ed.) and C. B. Becker (ntassociate ed.), Encyclopedia of Ethics (Garland, New York), pp. 111–115.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton: 1992, ‘The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance’, Harvard Business Review 69(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton: 1993, ‘Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work’, Harvard Business Review 71(5), 134–147.Google Scholar
  19. Näsi, J. (ed.): 1995, Understanding Stakeholder Thinking (LSR-Publications, Helsinki).Google Scholar
  20. Nunner-Winkler, G.: 1993, ‘Verantwortung’, in G. Enderle, K. Homann, M. Honecker, W. Kerber, H. Steinmann, (Hg.), Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik. (Herder, Freiburg), pp. 1186–1192.Google Scholar
  21. Principles for Business: 1994, The Hague, The Netherlands: Caux Round Table Secretariat.Google Scholar
  22. Rendtorff, T.: 1993, ‘Vom ethischen Sinn der Verantwortung’, in A. Hertz, W. Korff, T. Rendtorff, H. Ringeling, (Hg.), Handbuch der christlichen Ethik. Aktualisierte Neuausgabe (Herder, Freiburg), pp. 117–129.Google Scholar
  23. Sen, A.: 1987, On Ethics and Economics (Blackwell, Oxford).Google Scholar
  24. Tavis, L. A.: forthcoming, Power and Responsibility. Multinational Managers and Developing Country Concerns (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana).Google Scholar
  25. Tavis, L. A. and R. L. Crum: 1984, ‘Performance-Based Strategies for MNC Portfolio Balancing’, Columbia Journal of World Business 19(2), 2–6.Google Scholar
  26. World Commission on Environment and Development: 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  27. Zimmerman, M. J.: 1992, ‘Responsibility’, in L. C. Becker (ed.) and C. B. Becker (ntassociated ed.), Encyclopedia of Ethics (Garland, New York), pp. 1089–1095.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georges Enderle
  • Lee A. Tavis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations