Skip to main content
Log in

The Missing Dynamic: Corporations, Individuals and Contracts

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alborn T. L. (1998). Conceiving Companies: Joint Stock Politics in Victorian England. Routledge, London, pp. 53–170

    Google Scholar 

  • French P. A. (1995). Corporate Ethics. Harcourt Brace, NJ, pp. 1–90

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • French P. A., Nesturuk J., Risser D., Abbarno J. (1992). Corporations in the Moral Community. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun A. Iyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9032-6

Keywords

Navigation