A once proud family of Australian corporate life. Would you want your name there?

The consciousness that made such a decision is beyond ignorant in a world that is more aware than they.

Watch the others follow as ’survivng-well’ ICONs struggle to know what they cannot see.

In this diminished capacity state, we as moral, kind and thoughtful human beings are capable of great atrocity. In failing to recognizing that human nature is not fixed and consciousness is stratified we will continue to amaze ourselves at what we can allow ourselves to do, and not understand how movies like The Corporation cannot reach those who it is about, but can only hope to inspire action from those who already understand.

The only question is will the action by those who can see be conscious, moral and respectful of emergence or will it be equally pathological and fearful out of a failure to understand the bigger picture, inspired by preceived crisis.

There are at least two paths we can go down - I am sure the collective ‘We’ will attempt to choose both.

Which asks the question - ‘What happens when the protectors of our morals and laws are ‘non-people’ with no personal ethical responsibility?’

While the legal practitioners themselves will still under the same duty of ethics, it is like asking your legs to be responsible for what your mind does. Moral people do not necessarily make moral corporations.

History repeats…

I’ve heard it’s well worth seeing. As part of a research project on the future role of the corporation in society, I found some interesting material on the macro-history of corporations -did you know the proximate cause for today’s corporation may well be the fact that Henry VIII couldn’t have a son by his first wife? As a result we had ‘the reformation’, then the charter system, ‘royalties’ etc. In those times business charters were only granted to companies who operated in the public interest (as interpreted by royalty and parliament which could mean anything from building a road to colonising another country…..).

In response to your comment “no-one asked the question” my research indicates that they did ask but were outvoted – at least in the case of limited liability. It seems to me there were two bifurcation points in the 18th and 19th century that contributed to corporations being the entities they are now: the formation of the American Corporation which took rights away from royalty and nobility and handed over the management of companies to Boards of Directors and management teams; and the introduction of the Companies Act and Limited Liability in the UK, as you say about 150 years ago. The latter primarily to attract funding for a large public works project (the building of the public railways).

The Mercantile Law Commission was established to consider whether or not limited liability should be introduced and the Commissioners were apparently divided on the issue. Hot debate ensued! Whereas many were supportive, others were already concerned at what they saw as the potential for increases in moral hazard and the risk of fraud. Ultimately the supporters won the day.

As Simms says:

It is a lasting historical irony that legislation designed to facilitate public service began a long chain of events that would eventually enable corporations to shrink from public social responsibility.

I guess it’s easy to be wise in hindsight – let’s hope more companies (and governments) choose to be wise in foresight.