There are tons of "theoretical" arguments for why functional programming is a Good idea (too many for that to have stayed as an open question, and correctly so).
However, most of them are arguments either made from theory ("elegance", etc...), or, aimed at developers.
The problem is, most of them are entirely useless when one's goal is to present the idea to senior management of a large company, some of whom aren't even developers, and all of whom mostly care about business arguments: cost, human capital management, product delivery, client service and revenue; as well as quantitative facts over theoretical points that can't quite be backed up with facts.
Are there any compelling arguments to present to address those business concerns as far as considering adoption of functional programming as a concept (not any specific language), vs. the typical mix of procedural/OOP, e.g. Java/C++/(Perl|Python).
Preferably, I am looking for arguments that are quantitative and/or based on research or case studies. E.g. "according to this reference, the bug rate of multithreaded systems in Lisp/F# is 10% that of Java" or "80% of top graduates expressing preferences of desired technology named functional programing as on of top 3 interests".
I know that Graham presented use cases of functional programming for a starup and would be open to some of his arguments assuming they can be valid for a larger established company.
p.s.I'm perfectly aware that you can do something close to functional programming in Perl, likely Python, and (possibly) even Java 8 or C++ 14. But that doesn't mean that an organization using Perl, C++ or Java would endorse functional vs OOP/procedural approaches even in those languages
For the purposes of this language, "large" is defined as large enough to have dedicated development engineering/tools group, which dictates what all the developers are allowed to use/do; and at least hundreds of developers on low end.