Abstract
There are two opposing views on the nature of corporations in contemporary debates on corporate social responsibility. Opponents of corporate personhood hold that a corporation is nothing but a group of individuals coming together to achieve certain goals. On the other hand, the advocates of corporate personhood believe that corporations are persons in their own right existing over and above the individuals who comprise them. They talk of corporate decision-making structures that help translate individual decisions and actions into corporate decisions and actions. Importantly both the advocates and the opponents of corporate personhood rely on a contractual model of corporate–social interaction to explain corporate social responsibilty. However, this contractual model misses crucial aspects of the relationship between corporations and societies. Economic history reveals that the relationship between corporations and societies is essentially dynamic and heterogeneous and so extremely difficult to characterise in terms of a contract. The economic and the political aspects of this relationship are so finely intertwined with each other and it is impossible to extricate the one from the other. We need to be more conscious of the actual nature of corporate–social interaction in order to deal more comprehensively with issues of corporate social responsibility.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alborn T. L. (1998). Conceiving Companies: Joint Stock Politics in Victorian England. Routledge, London, pp. 53–170
French P. A. (1995). Corporate Ethics. Harcourt Brace, NJ, pp. 1–90
Danley J. R. (1995). Corporate Moral Agency: The Case for Anthropological Bigotry. In: Hoffman W.M., Frederick R.E. (eds). Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality. McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, pp. 183–188
French P. A., Nesturuk J., Risser D., Abbarno J. (1992). Corporations in the Moral Community. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth
Friedman, M.: 1995. ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, in W. M. Hoffman, R. E. Frederick (eds.), Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (McGraw-Hill Inc., NY) Ibid, pp. 137–141
Evan W. M., Freeman E. R. (1995). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism. In: Hoffman W. M., Frederick R. E. (eds). Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality. McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, pp. 145–153
Stone, C.: 1995, ‘Why Shouldn’t Corporations Be Socially Responsible’, in W. M. Hoffman and R. E. Frederick (eds.), Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (McGraw-Hill Inc., NY) Ibid., pp.␣141–145
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Kevin Gibson for helping me develop my insights into this article. I am also grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Iyer, A.A. The Missing Dynamic: Corporations, Individuals and Contracts. J Bus Ethics 67, 393–406 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9032-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9032-6