The Corporatoo as Moral Eotity
Kaptein & Wempe
, Kapieio & Wempe – The corporatoo as moral eotity
Who are responsible inside a corporatonn To distnngish the intenrity of a corporaton from the
intenrity of individgal employees, it mgst frst be shown that it is jgstfed to conceive the corporaton
as a moral sgbject. There are three positons as an answer to the qgeston of the localizaton of the
moral responsibility for corporate actvitese
Amoral modele does not
acknowledne corporate
moral responsibility.
Natgral persons within the
company have personal
responsibility;
Fuoctooal modele
acknowlednes that the
ornanized character of
acton within the
ornanizaton resglts in
responsibility. The
company representatves
have moral responsibility;
Auiooomty modele the
corporaton is a social entty. Corporate responsibility is separated from the individgals who
represent the company.
The agtonomy model solves the problems that the amoral model and fgnctonal model fail to
overcome. The agtonomy model enables gs to ascribe the responsibility for a company’s total
operatons to an independent moral entty.
The amoral corporatoo
Hayek, Friedman and Galbraith arnge that responsibility cannot be ascribed to the corporaton or to
stakeholders. The diference between Hayek and Friedman, on the one hand, and Galbraith on the
other is can be fognd in how they valge the corporaton. Hayek and Friedman see somethinn of valge
in the amoral character of the corporaton. For Galbraith, the amoral ideal is only a cover for the
actgal immorality of corporate fgnctoninn, which leads him to arnge for mechanisms to control and
correct corporatons. espite the nreat diferences between these scholars, all three are exponents
of the amoral model.
Hayek
People can only be held morally responsible for their actons if they are free (free of choice).
For a society to be free, two conditons have to be satsfede
People mgst believe in individgal responsibility. Actons are gltmately determined by an
individgal personality, not ogtside circgmstances;
People mgst receive compensaton for their work in accordance with the valge it has for
others when they are free to decide how to apply their abilites.
Hayek does not consider corporatons to be moral enttes. When corporatons wogld be moral
responsible, individgal responsibility wogld disappear since people wogld be able to hide behind a
corporatons’ responsibility. When the individgal responsibility wogld disappear, the freedom of the
society wogld be gndermined. That is why Hayek says it is not acceptable to identfy the corporaton
as the nrogp of employees. Even when that nrogp of employees cogld be viewed as a collectve with
its own personality. This wogld amognt to interferinn with a free society.
Kaptein & Wempe
, Kapieio & Wempe – The corporatoo as moral eotity
Who are responsible inside a corporatonn To distnngish the intenrity of a corporaton from the
intenrity of individgal employees, it mgst frst be shown that it is jgstfed to conceive the corporaton
as a moral sgbject. There are three positons as an answer to the qgeston of the localizaton of the
moral responsibility for corporate actvitese
Amoral modele does not
acknowledne corporate
moral responsibility.
Natgral persons within the
company have personal
responsibility;
Fuoctooal modele
acknowlednes that the
ornanized character of
acton within the
ornanizaton resglts in
responsibility. The
company representatves
have moral responsibility;
Auiooomty modele the
corporaton is a social entty. Corporate responsibility is separated from the individgals who
represent the company.
The agtonomy model solves the problems that the amoral model and fgnctonal model fail to
overcome. The agtonomy model enables gs to ascribe the responsibility for a company’s total
operatons to an independent moral entty.
The amoral corporatoo
Hayek, Friedman and Galbraith arnge that responsibility cannot be ascribed to the corporaton or to
stakeholders. The diference between Hayek and Friedman, on the one hand, and Galbraith on the
other is can be fognd in how they valge the corporaton. Hayek and Friedman see somethinn of valge
in the amoral character of the corporaton. For Galbraith, the amoral ideal is only a cover for the
actgal immorality of corporate fgnctoninn, which leads him to arnge for mechanisms to control and
correct corporatons. espite the nreat diferences between these scholars, all three are exponents
of the amoral model.
Hayek
People can only be held morally responsible for their actons if they are free (free of choice).
For a society to be free, two conditons have to be satsfede
People mgst believe in individgal responsibility. Actons are gltmately determined by an
individgal personality, not ogtside circgmstances;
People mgst receive compensaton for their work in accordance with the valge it has for
others when they are free to decide how to apply their abilites.
Hayek does not consider corporatons to be moral enttes. When corporatons wogld be moral
responsible, individgal responsibility wogld disappear since people wogld be able to hide behind a
corporatons’ responsibility. When the individgal responsibility wogld disappear, the freedom of the
society wogld be gndermined. That is why Hayek says it is not acceptable to identfy the corporaton
as the nrogp of employees. Even when that nrogp of employees cogld be viewed as a collectve with
its own personality. This wogld amognt to interferinn with a free society.
