Two crucial questions for good management and corporate governance are why companies exist and what determines and legitimates the existence of business companies. Many have offered their own versions of the answer, and, as in other chapters, we will begin with a critical analysis of the major positions that have sought to respond to the question of why companies exist. We will take from them whatever elements are compatible with a company centered on the person, with an integral vision, avoiding limiting ourselves to explanations that are strictly economical, sociological, or psychological.
The view of business has much to do with the conception of society (6.1). Radical individualism, with its atomistic view of society, understands the company as an aggregate of individuals joined by exclusively contractual bonds, or else groups of stakeholders linked by their respective interests. At the other extreme, there are political philosophies that see the business as a homogenous whole, into which persons all but disappear. Classical liberalism sees the firm simply as a property which contracts and demands fiduciary duties from its managers, ignoring it as a social entity in which conscious, free, and sociable beings associate with one another, joined not merely by contracts or self-interest, but also by their relationality and social nature. They are persons capable of cooperating and creating communities for the sake of some common end, the realization of which redounds to the good of all the persons involved in the company, not only the “property owners.”
Returning to the question of why a business exists in the first place, it is argued that one of the most complete accounts of why any reality exists is Aristotle’s theory of the four causes, or “explanations,” called by him the material, formal, efficient, and final causes. However, this method has been largely neglected; here we seek to recover it to interpret the company from a humanist person-centered perspective.
In the Aristotelian approach, the material cause refers to the basic elements that constitute the business: these include persons and resources. From here we derive related practical demands: on the one hand, with the dignity and human development of persons for work in the business, and, on the other, of the right to property and its social function.
The formal cause structures the material cause. It is argued that the formal cause of the company is the existing cooperative relationships, which transforms persons in a social unity, endowed with resources, under an authority, pursuing the business primary purpose related to the production and/or distribution of products and value creation. This unity of people with resources is an organization, a social institution, and a community of persons. In the formal cause must be included several groups of people (sometimes a single person) interacting with the company and with a relevant role in the company activity. The significance of these groups of people depends on each situation but generally includes employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, local communities where the company operates or broader communities, government and regulatory bodies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These groups can be called “relationholders,” rather than the usual term of “stakeholders,” because they do not only have a “stake,” but a relationship, which often is much more than a stake.
The efficient cause of the company refers to the activity of those agents who, in an immediate way, make the existence of the company possible. This cause may be identified, in the first place, with people who are working in the company, including operative, managerial, and governance work, along with the activity of people (stockholders, family owners, investors) who provide material means (capital) for the work.
The final cause is the company’s purpose, which expresses that which gives meaning to the business company as something distinct from other social institutions or communities – that which pinpoints the business’s specific contribution to the common good. This purpose is specified through a double mission: an external, regarding direct impacts of the company on society and internal one, which includes effect inside of the company.
The chapter concludes emphasizing the necessity of further humanistic person-centered research on management, governance, and leadership and for a deeper understanding the company’s role in society and within the economic system.