So there are ways or modes that people seem to gravitate towards as to justify objective meaning in the world. Here is a list:

1) One way is through the (speculative) realism way. In this view, there is a strong correspondence theory of truth whereby through the investigations of science we are seeing the objective world as it is. Value comes from the information we are accessing through our scientific investigations (which is validated by tests, observations, predictions, and technological usefulness). The truths of the matter might be shrouded in the correlation of the human mind's interaction with the (objective) world, but there are indeed indications of the Other or Objective "out there" that we are translating via the empirical observations and mathematical formulas that are derived from our investigations.

Inherent/Objective meaning seems to be the information derived from our translation of the Objective.

2) Another way is through the human-centered approach. This is highly anthropocentric in the way that this camp views meaning as coming from the human capacity to reason about the world and create aesthetic products. This approach sees inherent value in the fact that humans are imbued (in their very nature even) with the capacity to create technology, problem-solve very complex problems, understand scientific concepts with what appears to be some amount of accuracy, etc. Also included in this is the human's ability to produce all sorts of products with great skill (art, etc.). Unlike the first example, this one is based on the human's capabilities more than the translation of the objective universe.

Inherent/Objective meaning seems to be the ability to participate in or witness other people's innate capacities to reason and produce works of art.