Corporation: Reification of the Corporate Form

Abstract

I will problematize the corporate form as a reified social construct. To do this, I will ask two types of questions with regard to the corporate form. The first is a question about its ontological status: what is the corporation? The second is a question about its epistemological status: how can we establish criteria ‘by which we can know what does and does not constitute warranted, or scientific, knowledge’ in relation to the corporate form? To answer these questions I will first show that currently dominant accounts of the corporation and of corporate governance (the theory of how corporation should be governed) assumes that corporations share the same ontological status as all other types of organizations, i.e. that all organizations essentially exist as aggregations of individuals. I will then show how the corporate form provides a construct that in theory and in practice operates on very different ontological assumptions. Finally, this will lead me to a critical analysis of the reified nature of the corporate form and to a number of suggestions about how we can start to demystify this social construct.

Full text

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2731566

The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015
!"#$%&'()*+,#-(
."#+"#*/"&-(0,%12*/"&("3(45,(2"#+"#*4,(3"#6(
.5*+4,#(+789%:5,;(%&(<#,,&="";>(?@>(?%#>(0@>(!%996"A>(B@(CD;:@E>(0"749,;',(."6+*&%"&(4"(
)5%9":"+5F(%&(G#'*&%H*/"&(I47;%,:@(0"749,;',>(J,=(K"#$@(
Working Paper Series
The Modern Corporation Project
Jeroen Veldman, Cass Business School, City University
jeroen.Veldman@cass.city.ac.uk
Hugh Willmott, Cass Business School, City University
hugh.willmott.1@city.ac.uk

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2731566

The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015
Corporation: Reification!of!the!corporate!form
This working paper version: August 22, 2015
Published as
Veldman, J., 2016. Corporation: Reification of
the corporate form, in Greenwood, M., Mir, R.,
Willmott, H. (Eds.), Routledge Companion to
Philosophy in Organization Studies.
Routledge, New York.
The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Cass Business School
City University, London, UK

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2731566

The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Corporation
Reification!of!the!corporate!form
Jeroen!!Veldman
Introduction
The!!corporation!!is!!commonly!!perceived!!as!!a!!self-evident!!way!!of!!understanding!!what!!a!!business
is!!and!!how!!it!!operates.!!And!!yet,!!almost!!all!!of!!the!!specific!!properties!!that!!make!!up!!the!!modern
corporation!!would!!have!!been!!unthinkable!!less!!than!!two!!centuries!!ago.!!Until!!the!!start!!of!!the
nineteenth!!century,!!the!!partnership!!form!!remained!!dominant!!for!!private!!ventures!!and!!the!!law
of!!partnerships!!ruled!!the!!ventures!!that!!did!!receive!!a!!corporate!!charter!!(Ireland,!!2010;!!Mclean,
2004).!!Most!!of!!the!!ideas!!that!!define!!the!!modern!!corporation,!!including!!incorporation!!and
perpetuity!!for!!private!!ventures;!!limited!!liability;!!the!!separate!!legal!!entity;!!attributions!!of
ownership;!!attributions!!of!!(citizenship)!!rights!!and!!(contractual)!!agency!!to!!a!!separate!!legal!!‘entity’;
the!!capacity!!for!!a!!corporate!!entity!!to!!‘own’!!another!!corporate!!entity;!!and!!the!!capacity!!for!!groups
of!!such!!entities!!to!!operate!!over!!jurisdictional!!borders!!are!!concepts!!that!!have!!been!!developed
mostly!!during!!the!!nineteenth!!century.
Arguably,!!the!!development!!and!!application!!of!!these!!ideas!!has!!turned!!the!!corporate!!form!!into
a!!very!!successful!!and!!highly!!dominant!!type!!of!!business!!representation,!!which!!during!!the
twentieth!!century!!replaced!!the!!partnership!!form!!as!!the!!most!!prevalent!!legal!!form!!for!!private
ventures!!in!!the!!US!!(Guinnane!!et!!al.,!!2007).!!However,!!the!!fact!!that!!the!!overall!!success!!of!!the
corporation!!may!!well!!rely!!on!!a!!set!!of!!very!!specific!!concepts!!is!!often!!forgotten.!!In!!a!!remarkable
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
article!!Berger!!and!!Pullberg!!argued!!that!!reification!!can!!make!!us!!take!!a!!social!!construct!!for!!granted
(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!206).!!The!!problem!!with!!reification,!!they!!argued,!!is!!that!!we!!bestow
an!!‘ontological!!status!!on!!social!!roles!!and!!institutions’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!206),!!but!!that
we!!then!!perceive!!of!!such!!a!!social!!role!!or!!institution!!unconnected!!from!!‘the!!human!!activity!!by
which!!it!!has!!been!!produced’(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!199).!!If!!this!!happens,!!we!!end!!up!!with
institutions!!that!!‘are!!reified!!by!!mystifying!!their!!true!!character!!as!!human!!objectivations!!and!!by
defining!!them,!!again,!!as!!supra-human!!facticities!!analogous!!to!!the!!facticities!!of!!nature’!!(Berger
and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!207).!!Such!!reification,!!they!!argue,!!leads!!to!!‘a!!narrow!!empiricism!!oblivious
of!!its!!own!!theoretical!!foundations!!or!!to!!build!!highly!!abstract!!theoretical!!systems!!emptied!!of
empirical!!content’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!211)!!and!!‘minimizes!!the!!range!!of!!reflection!!and
choice,!!automatizes!!conduct!!in!!the!!socially!!prescribed!!channels!!and!!fixates!!the!!taken-for-granted
perception!!of!!the!!world’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!208).
Following!!Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!I!!will!!problematize!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!reified!!social
construct.!!To!!do!!this,!!I!!will!!ask!!two!!types!!of!!questions!!with!!regard!!to!!the!!corporate!!form.!!The
first!!is!!a!!question!!about!!its!!ontological!!status!!(see!!also!!Al-Amoudi!!and!!O’Mahoney,!!Chapter!!1,
this!!volume):!!what!!is!!the!!corporation?!!The!!second!!is!!a!!question!!about!!its!!epistemological!!status
(see!!also!!Duberley!!and!!Johnson,!!Chapter!!4!!this!!volume;!!Scherer!!et!!al.,!!Chapter!!2!!this!!volume):
how!!can!!we!!establish!!criteria!!‘by!!which!!we!!can!!know!!what!!does!!and!!does!!not!!constitute
warranted,!!or!!scientific,!!knowledge’!!(Duberley!!and!!Johnson,!!Chapter!!4!!this!!volume)!!in!!relation
to!!the!!corporate!!form?!!To!!answer!!these!!questions!!I!!will!!first!!show!!that!!currently!!dominant
accounts!!of!!the!!corporation!!and!!of!!corporate!!governance!!(the!!theory!!of!!how!!corporation!!should
be!!governed)!!assumes!!that!!corporations!!share!!the!!same!!ontological!!status!!as!!all!!other!!types!!of
organizations,!!i.e.!!that!!all!!organizations!!essentially!!exist!!as!!aggregations!!of!!individuals.!!I!!will!!then
show!!how!!the!!corporate!!form!!provides!!a!!construct!!that!!in!!theory!!and!!in!!practice!!operates!!on
very!!different!!ontological!!assumptions.!!Finally,!!this!!will!!lead!!me!!to!!a!!critical!!analysis!!of!!the!!reified
nature!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!and!!to!!a!!number!!of!!suggestions!!about!!how!!we!!can!!start!!to!!demystify
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
this!!social!!construct.
The((corporate((form((as((an((aggregation((of((individuals
In!!the!!2011!!presidential!!campaign,!!Mitt!!Romney!!responded!!to!!a!!heckler!!by!!making!!a!!strong
statement:!!‘Corporations!!are!!people,!!my!!friend!’1!!(www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/us/politics/
12romney.html?_r=1&).!!Equating!!a!!corporation!!to!!a!!(legal)!!person!!connects!!to!!the!!history!!of
the!!corporate!!form,!!in!!which!!the!!corporation!!was!!increasingly!!projected!!as!!a!!personified!!social
construct!!(see!!next!!section).!!Such!!personified!!approaches!!to!!the!!status!!of!!the!!corporation!!have
been!!countered!!in!!legal!!and!!economic!!scholarship!!by!!those!!who!!argue!!that!!in!!essence,!!the
corporation!!is!!no!!more!!than!!a!!collection!!of!!individuals.!!Lord!!Hoffman!!argued!!in!!the!!Meridian
case!!that!!there!!is!!no!!such!!thing!!as!!a!!company!!‘of!!which!!one!!can!!meaningfully!!say!!that!!it!!can
or!!cannot!!do!!something.!!There!!is!!in!!fact!!no!!such!!thing!!as!!a!!company!!as!!such’!!(Meridian!!Global
Funds!!Management!!Asia!!Ltd!!v.!!Securities!!Commission!![1995]!!2!!AC!!500!!at!!507).!!From!!this
perspective,!!it!!can!!be!!said!!that!!‘Corporations,!!whatever!!they!!are,!!are!!not!!individuals!!and!!do!!not
act!!as!!unitary!!individuals’!!(Wells,!!2005:!!147)!!and!!we!!can!!arrive!!at!!the!!conclusion!!that!!‘despite
its!!long!!history!!of!!entity,!!a!!corporation!!is!!at!!bottom!!but!!an!!association!!of!!individuals!!united!!for
a!!common!!purpose!!and!!permitted!!by!!law!!to!!use!!a!!common!!name’!!(Berle,!!1954:!!352).!!Such
approaches!!that!!focus!!on!!the!!individuals!!that!!constitute!!the!!corporation!!to!!understand!!its
ontological!!status!!as!!a!!social!!and!!legal!!construct!!fit!!well!!with!!wider!!pragmatic,!!political!!(Bowman,
1996)!!and!!epistemological!!(Elster,!!2007)!!arguments!!that!!would!!urge!!us!!to!!‘bracket’!!any
imputation!!of!!agency,!!ownership,!!and!!rights!!to!!social!!constructs,!!whether!!organizations,
corporations,!!or!!states.
From!!the!!1950s!!onwards!!the!!Chicago!!schools!!of!!law!!and!!economics!!turned!!this!!view!!into
a!!strong!!ontological!!argument.!!Rather!!than!!‘bracketing’!!the!!ontological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate
form!!for!!the!!sake!!of!!convenience,!!they!!reduced!!the!!status!!of!!the!!corporation!!to!!an!!aggregation
of!!individuals:!!‘It!!finds!!the!!firm’s!!separate!!characteristics!!to!!be!!insignificant!!and!!attaches
determinant!!significance!!to!!the!!relationship’s!!aggregate!!parts’!!(Bratton,!!1989:!!423).!!As!!a!!result,
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
it!!could!!be!!argued!!that!!‘Individuals!!are!!ontologically!!prior!!to!!corporations,!!which,!!as!!fictions,
have!!significance!!only!!because!!of!!the!!freely!!contracted!!arrangements!!of!!their!!human!!constituents’
(Scruton!!and!!Finnis,!!1989:!!254).!!With!!such!!strong!!ontological!!assumptions!!in!!place!!all!!types!!of
social!!constructs!!–!!whether!!corporations,!!organizations,!!or!!states,!!were!!in!!essence!!merely
aggregations!!of!!‘individuals’!!(Jensen!!and!!Meckling,!!1976:!!310–11),!!while!!the!!ontological!!status
of!!the!!corporation!!as!!a!!specific!!kind!!of!!social!!or!!legal!!representation!!was!!reduced!!to!!that!!of!!a
mere!!‘legal!!fiction’!!(Friedman,!!1970).!!Any!!imputation!!of!!consciousness!!(Lederman!!in!!Fisse!!and
Braithwaite,!!1993:!!488),!!intent!!(Cressey!!in!!Fisse!!and!!Braithwaite,!!1993:!!490;!!Jensen!!and
Meckling,!!1976:!!310–11),!!agency!!(Fisse!!and!!Braithwaite,!!1993:!!475),!!responsibility!!(Friedman,
1970:!!1),!!or!!liability!!to!!a!!social!!construct!!such!!as!!the!!corporation!!was,!!therefore,!!squarely!!redirected
toward!!the!!individuals!!making!!up!!that!!social!!construct.!!Since!!the!!1970s,!!the!!ontological!!and
epistemological!!assumptions!!of!!this!!seductively!!simple!!theory!!have!!become!!dominant!!in
company!!law,!!economics,!!and!!in!!corporate!!governance!!and!!have!!had!!a!!strong!!influence!!on
court!!decisions!!and!!regulatory!!changes!!(Becker,!!1974;!!Bratton,!!1989;!!Daily!!et!!al.,!!2003;
Foucault,!!2008[1979];!!Ghoshal,!!2005:!!81;!!Perrow,!!1986:!!15).
Singular((and((multiple
The!!ontological!!approach!!developed!!in!!the!!Chicago!!School!!of!!law!!and!!economics!!seemed!!to
connect!!well!!to!!a!!methodological!!approach!!based!!on!!methodological!!individualism!!(Hodgson,
2007;!!Schrader!!1993:!!159).!!However,!!the!!reduction!!all!!organizational!!forms!!to!!an!!aggregation
of!!individuals!!went!!well!!beyond!!the!!‘bracketing’!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!social!!construct.!!In
practice,!!this!!approach!!denied!!the!!conceptual!!possibility!!for!!an!!ontological!!status!!for!!the
corporate!!form!!as!!a!!construct!!in!!the!!legal,!!economic,!!and!!political!!imaginaries!!(Veldman!!and
Willmott,!!2013).!!The!!denial!!of!!the!!possibility!!for!!an!!explanation!!of!!this!!separate!!status!!is
problematic!!when!!we!!take!!a!!closer!!look!!at!!the!!historical!!development!!of!!this!!construct.
Until!!the!!end!!of!!the!!eighteenth!!century,!!corporations,!!even!!when!!used!!for!!private!!purposes,
were!!conceptualized!!in!!a!!way!!similar!!to!!other!!business!!ventures:!!corporate!!charters!!were
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
conditional,!!and!!limited!!liability!!was!!a!!feature!!that!!was!!only!!sparingly!!attributed!!(Djelic,!!2013;
McLean,!!2004;!!Handlin!!and!!Handlin,!!1945)!!and!!they!!were!!ruled!!by!!the!!partnership!!law!!(Ireland,
2010;!!Perrow,!!2002).!!In!!this!!setting,!!the!!legal!!representation!!produced!!by!!incorporation!!did
not!!convey!!a!!strong!!conception!!of!!an!!‘entity’,!!separate!!from!!the!!aggregation!!of!!individuals.
Without!!a!!strong!!ontological!!status!!for!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!the!!legal!!imaginary,!!attributions
of!!agency,!!ownership!!or!!rights,!!and,!!by!!extension,!!attributions!!of!!responsibility!!and!!liability,
were!!mostly!!attributed!!directly!!to!!the!!individuals!!within!!the!!corporation!!(see!!Post,!!1934).
This!!perception!!started!!to!!shift!!during!!the!!nineteenth!!century!!when!!the!!pooling!!of!!capital
by!!increasing!!numbers!!of!!shareholders!!created!!a!!growing!!separation!!between!!shareholders!!and
‘the!!company’!!(Veldman!!and!!Willmott,!!2013).!!To!!accommodate!!the!!increasing!!distance!!of
shareholder!!from!!ownership!!functions,!!shareholders!!were!!separated!!from!!the!!assets,!!operations,
and!!risks!!of!!the!!corporation!!by!!shifting!!these!!onto!!the!!separate!!legal!!entity.!!This!!conceptual
shift!!allowed!!for!!the!!protection!!of!!the!!rights!!of!!minority!!shareholders;!!the!!general!!grant!!of!!limited
liability;!!and!!the!!development!!of!!liquid!!shareholding!!and!!thus!!the!!trading!!of!!shares!!in!!a!!share
market.!!However,!!this!!move!!also!!meant!!that!!the!!separate!!legal!!entity!!increasingly!!came!!to
represent!!‘the!!corporation’!!as!!a!!conceptual!!construct!!that!!could!!be!!attributed!!with!!ownership
over!!the!!assets!!and!!liabilities!!of!!the!!corporation!!in!!the!!legal!!and!!economic!!domain.!!The!!exact
status!!of!!this!!‘entity’!!was!!never!!really!!settled!!in!!legal!!scholarship!!(Avi-Yonah!!and!!Sivan,!!2007;
Dewey,!!1926;!!Hallis,!!1978;!!Harris,!!2006).
By!!the!!end!!of!!the!!nineteenth!!century,!!Freund!!related!!to!!the!!idea!!of!!a!!‘corporate!!personality’
as!!a!!convenient!!shortcut!!–!!‘in!!most!!cases!!in!!which!!we!!speak!!of!!an!!act!!or!!an!!attribute!!as!!corporate,
it!!is!!not!!corporate!!in!!the!!psychologically!!collective!!sense,!!but!!merely!!representative,!!and
imputed!!to!!the!!corporation!!for!!reasons!!of!!policy!!and!!convenience’!!(Freund,!!1897:!!39).!!Others
however,!!argued!!that!!the!!separate!!legal!!entity!!creates!!‘a!!body,!!which!!by!!no!!fiction!!of!!law,!!but
by!!the!!very!!nature!!of!!things,!!differs!!from!!the!!individuals!!of!!whom!!it!!is!!constituted’!!(Dicey,
1894–95!!in!!Maitland,!!2003:!!63).!!Fully!!separate!!from!!the!!aggregation!!of!!individuals,!!this!!‘body’
could!!be!!inserted!!into!!the!!slot!!of!!the!!legal!!‘subject’:!!‘As!!legal!!subjects!!they!!are!!distinct!!and!!in
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
kind!!different!!from!!the!!visible!!aggregate!!of!!their!!individual!!members.!!These!!individuals!!do!!not
constitute!!the!!substance!!of!!that!!entity!!to!!which!!the!!law!!ascribes!!personality!!when!!it!!recognizes
a!!corporation!!aggregate!!as!!a!!legal!!subject’!!(Hallis,!!1978:!!xliii).
The!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!legal!!construct!!thus!!slipped!!to!!that!!of!!singularized!!‘entity’,
existing!!as!!a!!separate!!‘body’,!!apart!!from!!the!!aggregation!!of!!individuals.!!Inserted!!as!!a!!construct
into!!the!!slot!!of!!the!!legal!!‘subject’,!!it!!could!!then!!be!!understood!!as!!a!!‘body!!corporate’,!!‘legal
person’,!!‘legal!!personality’!!or!!‘legal!!subject’!!(Freund,!!1897;!!Horwitz,!!1985;!!Nace,!!2003).
Subsequently,!!the!!use!!of!!all!!kinds!!of!!anthropomorphic!!imagery!!(Nace,!!2003)!!resulted!!in!!a!!rapid
increase!!in!!the!!attribution!!of!!agency,!!ownership,!!and!!rights!!(Bowman,!!1996;!!Harris,!!2006;!!Ireland,
1999;!!McLean,!!2004)!!to!!this!!construct!!that!!was!!increasingly!!depicted!!as!!singular!!legal!!‘subject’
in!!and!!by!!itself.!!By!!the!!end!!of!!the!!nineteenth!!century,!!this!!process!!had!!progressed!!to!!the!!extent
that!!the!!corporate!!form!!allowed!!for!!one!!‘entity’!!holding!!ownership!!over!!another!!‘entity’,!!which
enabled!!the!!holding!!company!!and!!operations!!across!!jurisdictional!!borders!!(Veldman,!!2013).!!As
a!!result!!of!!such!!singularization!!and!!objectification,!!it!!became!!possible!!to!!imagine!!that!!the!!corporate
form!!would!!also!!be!!attributable!!with!!contracting!!agency,!!and!!would!!contract!!as!!a!!‘legal!!subject’,
not!!just!!outside!!the!!corporation!!or!!on!!behalf!!of!!the!!corporation,!!but!!also!!with!!the!!individuals
inside!!the!!corporation!!(Maitland,!!2003).
To!!shift!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!legal!!construct!!from!!the!!status!!of!!a!!technical!!and!!passive
construct!!that!!would!!‘hold’!!ownership!!in!!lieu!!of!!the!!shareholders,!!to!!a!!legal!!construct!!that!!could
be!!attributed!!with!!agency,!!ownership!!and!!rights!!as!!an!!‘entity’!!that!!would!!exist!!in!!the!!form!!of
a!!singular!!‘legal!!subject’!!apart!!from!!the!!aggregation!!of!!individuals,!!legal!!scholars!!had!!to!!introduce
multiple!!inconsistent!!assumptions!!about!!the!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form.!!To!!justify!!the!!wide
variety!!of!!attributions!!made!!to!!this!!construct,!!both!!in!!its!!perceived!!capacity!!as!!an!!‘entity’!!and
in!!its!!perceived!!capacity!!as!!an!!aggregation!!of!!individuals,!!multiple!!assumptions!!about!!the
ontological!!status!!of!!this!!construct!!had!!to!!be!!kept!!in!!play!!at!!the!!same!!time!!(Veldman,!!2010).
By!!the!!1920s,!!it!!was!!generally!!accepted!!in!!US!!and!!British!!legal!!scholarship!!that!!in!!order!!to
maintain!!all!!properties!!and!!functions!!attributed!!to!!the!!corporate!!form,!!it!!was!!necessary!!to
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
understand!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!both!!an!!aggregate!!construct!!(an!!‘aggregation!!of!!individuals’,!!a
‘nexus!!of!!contracts’)!!and!!as!!a!!singular!!construct!!(an!!‘entity’,!!‘subject’,!!‘person’,!!or!!‘agent’)!!(Dewey,
1926;!!Harris,!!2006).!!This!!inherent!!multiplicity!!of!!ontological!!assumptions!!and!!referents!!would
have!!wide!!consequences.
Corporations((and((organizations
Generally!!speaking,!!we!!can!!argue!!that!!the!!corporate!!form!!rests!!on!!multiple,!!mutually!!exclusive,
philosophical!!conceptions!!in!!the!!domains!!of!!law!!and!!economics!!and!!that,!!for!!this!!reason,!!it
functions!!as!!a!!social!!construct!!with!!an!!extremely!!weak!!theoretical!!foundation!!(Berle!!and!!Means,
2007[1932];!!Freund,!!1897;!!Gamble!!et!!al.,!!2000;!!Ireland,!!2003;!!Laufer,!!2006;!!Wel l s ,!!2005).!!Some
have!!argued!!that!!this!!is!!not!!a!!real!!issue,!!because!!we!!can!!develop!!pragmatic!!ways!!of!!dealing!!with
the!!corporate!!form!!(see!!Dan-Cohen,!!1986;!!French,!!1984).!!Others!!have!!argued!!that!!it!!is!!imperative
that!!this!!weak!!theoretical!!status!!is!!treated!!with!!pragmatism,!!because!!of!!the!!perceived!!economic
benefits!!the!!corporate!!form!!provides!!(Hessen,!!1979;!!Osborne,!!2007).
There!!are!!three!!main!!reasons!!to!!question!!such!!calls!!for!!pragmatism.
First,!!it!!is!!important!!to!!recognize!!that!!at!!the!!most!!basic!!level,!!the!!contemporary!!corporate
form!!is!!structurally!!built!!on!!two!!competing!!ontological!!assumptions.!!The!!simultaneous!!use!!of
these!!ontological!!assumptions!!means!!that!!the!!corporate!!form!!acquires!!two!!referents!!for!!theorizing
in!!the!!legal!!and!!economic!!domains:!!it!!can!!be!!understood!!as!!a!!reduced!!aggregation!!of!!individuals,
and!!it!!can!!be!!understood!!as!!a!!fully!!reified!!‘entity’.2!!The!!effect!!of!!this!!double!!referent!!is!!that!!the
corporate!!form!!can!!relate!!to!!a!!wide!!set!!of!!possible!!ontological!!positions.!!The!!corporate!!form
can,!!for!!instance,!!be!!understood!!as!!a!!legal!!‘subject’,!!attributable!!with!!citizenship!!rights!!and!!liability
for!!manslaughter;!!as!!an!!ideal-typical!!economic!!‘agent’!!contracting!!with!!employees!!and!!operating
in!!a!!broader!!market;!!as!!an!!object!!of!!property!!that!!can!!be!!bought!!and!!sold!!at!!will;!!or!!as!!a!!‘nexus
of!!contracts’.!!As!!such,!!the!!corporate!!form!!presents!!a!!highly!!problematic!!social!!construct,!!which
escapes!!a!!clear!!and!!defined!!relation!!to!!ontological!!reasoning.!!With!!no!!possibility!!to!!exclude
one!!or!!the!!other!!position,!!it!!becomes!!very!!hard!!to!!establish!!the!!epistemological!!basis!!that!!establishes
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
the!!‘criteria!!by!!which!!we!!can!!know!!what!!does!!and!!does!!not!!constitute!!warranted,!!or!!scientific,
knowledge’!!(Duberley!!and!!Johnson,!!Chapter!!4!!this!!volume)!!in!!relation!!to!!the!!corporate!!form.
Second,!!the!!weak!!theoretical!!foundation!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!and!!the!!resulting!!multiplicity
of!!referents!!are!!quite!!relevant!!beyond!!academic!!theorizing.!!In!!both!!the!!legal!!and!!the!!economic
imaginaries!!(Veldman!!and!!Willmott,!!2013)!!the!!corporate!!form!!constitutes!!a!!reified!!singular
construct!!with!!attributions!!of!!agency,!!ownership,!!and!!rights.!!At!!the!!same!!time,!!we!!find!!that
the!!dominant!!perception!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!contemporary!!law!!and!!economics!!and!!in
corporate!!governance!!theory!!strongly!!denies!!the!!ontological!!status!!of!!this!!construct.!!This!!is!!highly
problematic,!!because!!it!!denies!!and!!makes!!invisible!!many!!of!!the!!functions!!and!!outcomes!!of!!the
reified!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!law!!and!!in!!economics.!!I!!will!!give!!two!!examples,!!relating
to!!liability!!and!!to!!the!!attribution!!of!!contractual!!agency.
The!!first!!example!!focuses!!on!!the!!attribution!!of!!liability!!to!!the!!corporation!!in!!the!!legal!!sphere.
Given!!the!!reified!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!company!!law,!!not!!just!!the!!employees!!or!!‘the
company’,!!but!!the!!corporate!!itself!!can!!be!!used!!for!!direct!!attributions!!of!!civil!!and!!criminal!!agency
and!!liability!!(Fisse!!and!!Braithwaite,!!1993;!!Laufer,!!2006)!!for!!any!!valid!!legal!!or!!economic!!actions
(Guinnane!!et!!al.,!!2007).!!At!!the!!same!!time,!!the!!dominant!!ontological!!understanding!!of!!the
corporate!!form!!in!!contemporary!!corporate!!governance!!requires!!that!!all!!attributions!!of!!agency,
responsibility,!!and!!liability!!are!!explicitly!!redirected!!toward!!individual!!members!!of!!the!!corporation
(Clarkson,!!1996;!!Jensen!!and!!Meckling,!!1976:!!310;!!Wells, !!2005).!!The!!combination!!of!!mutually
exclusive!!ontological!!assumptions!!thus!!produces!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!very!!slippery!!construct,
with!!the!!abilities!!of!!a!!schizophrenic!!(Allen,!!1992)!!Cheshire!!Cat3!!(Naffine,!!2003),!!which!!is
‘notoriously!!nimble’!!(Dewey,!!1926:!!669)!!and!!confers!!a!!theoretical!!‘elasticity’!!that!!gives
‘considerable!!room!!in!!which!!to!!manoeuvre’!!(Dewey!!1926:!!667–8)!!and!!to!!produce!!a!!‘corporate
vanishing!!trick’!!(Ireland,!!1999:!!56)!!in!!relation!!to!!the!!attribution!!of!!responsibility!!and!!liability
(Bratton,!!1989;!!Fisse!!and!!Braithwaite,!!1993;!!Law!!Reform!!Commission!!(Ireland),!!2002;
Lederman,!!2000;!!Wells, !!2005).
The!!second!!example!!concerns!!the!!attribution!!of!!contractual!!agency!!in!!the!!economic!!domain.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Notwithstanding!!the!!emphatic!!rejection!!of!!an!!ontological!!status!!for!!the!!corporate!!form!!in
contemporary!!law!!and!!economics,!!the!!corporate!!form!!contracts!!with!!individuals!!and!!groups
inside!!and!!outside!!the!!corporation!!as!!a!!separate!!legal!!entity.!!By!!presenting!!a!!separate!!legal!!entity
that!!can!!be!!attributed!!with!!its!!own!!contractual!!agency!!as!!an!!economic!!‘agent’!!in!!the!!economic
domain,!!the!!corporate!!form!!negates!!the!!strong!!ontological!!program!!by!!which!!it!!was!!qualified
as!!a!!‘purely!!conceptual!!artifact’!!(Jensen!!and!!Meckling,!!1994:!!24),!!a!!simple!!technical!!necessity
or!!a!!‘legal!!fiction’!!(Friedman,!!1970)!!and!!is!!reconstructed!!in!!the!!economic!!domain!!as!!a!!full-
blown!!‘entity’!!with!!contracting!!agency.!!In!!this!!conceptual!!model!!it!!becomes!!acceptable!!to!!argue
that!!‘the!!corporation’!!can!!be!!afforded!!with!!contractual!!agency!!in!!the!!economic!!domain,!!but
the!!same!!multiplicity!!of!!ontological!!assumptions!!that!!applies!!to!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!the!!legal
imaginary!!obscures!!the!!answer!!to!!the!!question!!what!!is!!the!!exact!!status!!of!!this!!construct!!that!!is
attributed!!with!!contractual!!agency!!in!!the!!economic!!domain.
Apart!!from!!problems!!with!!the!!identification!!of!!the!!exact!!point!!of!!attribution!!for!!contractual
and!!wider!!agency!!attributed!!to!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!the!!legal!!and!!economic!!imaginary,!!the
unclear!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!affects!!the!!category!!of!!the!!‘subject’!!and!!the!!‘agent’!!more
generally!!(see!!also!!Veldman,!!forthcoming).!!Remember!!that!!in!!law!!and!!economics,!!a!!strong
ontological!!program!!restricted!!all!!attributions!!of!!agency!!to!!social!!constructs!!with!!a!!singular!!status,
such!!as!!‘individuals’,!!‘persons’,!!and!!‘agents’!!(see!!Friedman,!!1970;!!Jensen!!and!!Meckling,!!1994).
With!!a!!theory!!of!!organizations!!in!!which!!the!!individual!!agent!!is!!‘the!!elementary!!unit!!of!!analysis’
(Jensen,!!1983:!!15),!!the!!contractual!!agency!!attributed!!to!!the!!corporate!!form!!by!!necessity!!is!!also
attributed!!to!!such!!an!!‘individual’!!or!!‘agent’.!!Projecting!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!an!!‘individual’!!in
the!!economic!!domain!!for!!purposes!!of!!attributing!!contractual!!agency,!!therefore,!!provides!!a!!concrete
ontology,!!in!!which!!the!!corporate!!form!!engages!!as!!a!!singular!!economic!!‘individual’!!or!!‘agent’
in!!contractual!!relations,!!both!!within!!the!!corporation!!and!!in!!the!!wider!!marketplace!!(Maitland,
2003).!!In!!so!!far!!as!!this!!construct!!is!!attributed!!with!!contractual!!‘agency’!!it!!doesn’t!!contract!!as!!an
ordinary!!‘individual’,!!but!!typically!!answers!!to!!ideal-type!!behavioural!!attributions!!coming!!from
neoclassical!!economics,!!e.g.!!the!!corporate!!form!!projects!!the!!idea!!of!!an!!ideal-type!!‘individual’
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
‘agent’!!in!!the!!possession!!of!!full!!knowledge!!and!!an!!indefinite!!time!!horizon!!(Bratton,!!1989).
The!!denial!!of!!a!!clear!!ontological!!status!!for!!the!!corporate!!form!!thus!!means!!that,!!a!!s!!construct,
it!!is!!projected!!into!!the!!slot!!of!!the!!singular!!economic!!‘agent’!!as!!an!!‘agent’!!with!!ideal-type!!ontological
properties,!!while!!retaining!!both!!its!!singular!!and!!aggregate!!referents!!and!!the!!attributions!!of!!agency,
ownership,!!and!!rights!!that!!have!!been!!granted!!on!!the!!basis!!of!!the!!use!!of!!this!!duplicitous!!status
(Veldman!!and!!Parker,!!2012).!!This!!is!!a!!problematic!!situation,!!because!!it!!creates!!a!!highly!!elusive
construct!!in!!the!!legal!!and!!economic!!domains;!!because!!it!!restructures!!the!!notion!!of!!contract!!in
such!!a!!way!!that!!ideal-type!!ontology!!and!!ideal-type!!agency!!come!!to!!govern!!that!!relation!!in!!the
economic!!and!!in!!the!!legal!!imaginary!!(Aglietta!!and!!Rebérioux,!!2005;!!Bratton,!!1989;!!Ghoshal,
2005;!!Schrader,!!1993;!!Sen,!!1977;!!Williamson!!and!!Winter,!!1991);!!and!!because!!it!!makes!!the
ontological!!and!!behavioural!!assumptions!!pertaining!!to!!such!!an!!ideal-type!!economic!!‘agent’!!the
default!!for!!the!!ontological!!status!!of!!other!!constructs!!in!!the!!category!!of!!the!!legal!!‘subject’!!and
the!!economic!!‘agent’!!(Veldman,!!forthcoming).
Conclusions:((the((political((economy((of((reification
In!!this!!chapter,!!I!!have!!showed!!how!!an!!engagement!!with!!philosophy!!can!!be!!instructive!!for
interrogating!!the!!ontological!!and!!epistemological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!and!!showed!!some
outcomes!!in!!the!!domains!!of!!law!!and!!economics.!!To!!provide!!the!!means!!for!!further!!critical!!inquiry,
I!!will!!connect!!this!!status!!and!!these!!outcomes!!to!!the!!critique!!of!!reification!!provided!!by!!Berger
and!!Pullberg!!in!!this!!section.
Berger!!and!!Pullberg!!argue!!that!!by!!reifying!!a!!social!!construct!!we!!run!!the!!risk!!of!!developing
conceptual!!systems!!in!!which!!we!!end!!up!!with!!‘a!!narrow!!empiricism!!oblivious!!of!!its!!own!!theoretical
foundations!!or!!to!!build!!highly!!abstract!!theoretical!!systems!!emptied!!of!!empirical!!content’!!(Berger
and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!211).!!We!!saw!!how!!a!!specific!!‘ontological!!status’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:
206)!!has!!been!!devised!!for!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!social!!institution!!in!!law!!and!!in!!economics,
which!!allowed!!to!!endow!!this!!social!!construct!!with!!a!!large!!set!!of!!specific!!properties,!!including
ownership,!!agency,!!and!!rights.!!We!!also!!saw!!how!!the!!contemporary!!idea!!of!!the!!corporate!!form
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
in!!law!!and!!economics!!essentially!!negated!!the!!specificity!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!and!!its!!status.!!As
a!!result,!!we!!have!!an!!ontological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!that!!refers!!to!!multiple!!referents
and!!a!!set!!of!!hegemonic!!assumptions!!in!!law!!and!!economics!!that!!negates!!the!!specificity!!of!!the
corporate!!form!!as!!a!!social!!construct.
As!!shown,!!the!!structurally!!inconsistent!!basis!!this!!creates!!for!!theorizing!!about!!the!!corporate
form!!is!!highly!!problematic,!!both!!in!!terms!!of!!the!!development!!of!!a!!coherent!!understanding!!of
the!!corporate!!form!!in!!the!!domains!!of!!law!!and!!economics,!!and!!in!!terms!!of!!coming!!to!!grips!!with
its!!outcomes.!!What’s!!more,!!the!!strong!!ontological!!program!!in!!law!!and!!economics!!as!!well!!as
the!!unclear!!ontological!!and!!epistemological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!spill!!over!!into!!adjacent
academic!!domains,!!such!!as!!accounting,!!management,!!and!!politics,!!most!!particularly!!by!!informing
the!!way!!other!!social!!constructs,!!such!!as!!individuals,!!organizations,!!and!!states!!are!!imagined,!!both
by!!themselves,!!and!!in!!relation!!to!!each!!other!!(Bowman,!!1996;!!Naffine,!!2003;!!Lederman,!!2000;
Schrader,!!1993;!!Veldman,!!2013;!!Wilks,!!2013).!!The!!epistemological!!outcome!!of!!the!!reified!!status
of!!the!!corporate!!form!!is,!!therefore,!!that!!it!!‘minimizes!!the!!range!!of!!reflection!!and!!choice,
automatizes!!conduct!!in!!the!!socially!!prescribed!!channels!!and!!fixates!!the!!taken-for-granted
perception!!of!!the!!world’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!208).
To!!address!!these!!problems,!!I!!argue!!that!!we!!need!!to!!become!!aware!!again!!that!!the!!corporate
form!!is!!a!!social!!construct!!that!!is!!produced!!by!!human!!beings!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!200,
204).!!From!!this!!perspective,!!it!!becomes!!clear!!that!!the!!strong!!ontological!!assumptions!!underlying
the!!treatment!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!in!!contemporary!!law!!and!!economics!!and!!in!!corporate
governance!!theory!!obscure!!the!!fact!!that!!the!!corporate!!form!!presents!!a!!social!!construct,!!which
is!!based!!on!!multiple!!referents.!!To!!understand!!the!!status!!of!!this!!corporate!!form,!!we!!need!!to
return!!to!!an!!approach,!!in!!which!!we!!do!!not!!simply!!deny!!and!!obscure!!the!!de!!facto!!status!!of!!the
corporate!!form,!!but!!rather!!‘bracket’!!our!!assumptions!!with!!regard!!to!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a
social!!construct.!!By!!bracketing!!our!!assumptions,!!we!!find!!that!!the!!corporate!!form!!presents!!a!!de
facto!!singularized!!social!!construct!!in!!law!!and!!economics,!!and!!that!!historical!!attributions!!of!!agency,
ownership,!!and!!rights!!to!!this!!social!!construct!!have!!established!!it!!firmly!!as!!a!!construct!!with!!a!!de
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
facto!!ontological!!status.!!Acknowledging!!the!!reality!!of!!this!!de!!facto!!social!!construct!!is!!important,
because!!the!!de!!facto!!existence!!of!!this!!construct,!!as!!well!!as!!its!!weak!!theoretical!!underpinnings,
has!!broad!!effects!!in!!relation!!to!!other!!(social)!!constructs,!!such!!as!!individuals,!!organizations,!!and
states.!!In!!this!!sense,!!this!!chapter!!on!!the!!corporate!!form!!presents!!an!!example!!of!!‘ontological
theorizing’,!!which!!‘has!!the!!power!!to!!emancipate!!organization!!studies!!from!!conventional
restrictions!!relative!!to!!the!!research!!questions;!!the!!scope!!of!!analysis;!!the!!methods!!of!!study;!!the
objects!!of!!study!!posited!!and!!the!!doubts!!raised’!!(see!!Chapter!!1,!!this!!volume).
Beyond!!ontological!!theorizing,!!bracketing!!our!!assumptions!!and!!finding!!the!!problematic!!status
of!!the!!corporate!!form!!provides!!the!!basis!!for!!a!!critical!!perspective.!!It!!has!!become!!clear!!in!!this
chapter!!that!!a!!long!!history!!of!!conceptual!!slippages!!in!!law!!and!!economics!!created!!the!!corporate
form!!became!!as!!a!!highly!!specific!!social!!construct.!!I!!showed!!how!!inserting!!the!!corporate!!form
as!!an!!ideal-type!!construct!!in!!contractual!!relations!!has!!turned!!the!!corporate!!form!!into!!a!!central
organizing!!concept!!for!!the!!construction!!of!!an!!economic!!‘grid’!!in!!which!!all!!kinds!!of!!constructs,
including!!individuals,!!organizations,!!and!!states,!!are!!re-conceptualized!!as!!nominally!!equivalent
‘entities’!!with!!nominally!!equivalent!!‘agency’!!(Veldman,!!forthcoming;!!see!!also!!the!!‘individualistic
approaches’!!in!!Chapter!!1,!!this!!volume).!!In!!this!!sense,!!the!!corporate!!form!!has!!been!!central!!to
the!!construction!!of!!an!!overarching!!economic!!‘grid’!!that!!legitimates!!a!!fetishized!!kind!!of
knowledge!!of!!ourselves!!and!!our!!social!!and!!economic!!relations!!with!!other!!social!!constructs!!(see
Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!199).!!More!!to!!the!!point,!!this!!‘grid’!!allows!!for!!a!!broad!!reinterpretation
of!!the!!relative!!ontological!!status!!of!!individuals,!!corporations,!!organizations,!!and!!states,!!which
has!!empowered!!corporations!!vis!!a!!vis!!individuals!!and!!states!!(Veldman,!!forthcoming).!!Also,!!within
this!!grid,!!the!!ontological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!remains!!uncontested!!and!!continues!!to!!provide
ample!!possibilities!!to!!enhance!!attributions!!of!!agency,!!ownership!!and!!rights,!!while!!at!!the!!same
time!!obscuring!!possibilities!!for!!the!!attribution!!of!!responsibility!!and!!liability!!in!!the!!legal,
economic,!!and!!political!!domains!!(Veldman!!and!!Parker,!!2012).
This!!analysis!!informs!!a!!critical!!perspective,!!in!!which!!we!!focus!!on!!‘the!!inherent!!connection
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
between!!power,!!politics,!!values!!and!!knowledge!!and!!thereby!!provokes!!a!!deeper!!consideration
of!!the!!politics!!and!!values!!which!!underpin!!and!!legitimise!!the!!authority!!of!!scientific!!knowledge’
(Alvesson!!et!!al.,!!2009).!!Taking!!into!!account!!that!!knowledge!!always!!serves!!certain!!purposes!!and
groups!!(Alvesson!!and!!Willmott,!!1992),!!we!!may!!reimagine!!the!!construction!!of!!the!!corporate
form!!as!!a!!set!!of!!discursive!!operations!!(see!!Chapters!!1,!!2!!and!!5,!!this!!volume),!!primarily!!in!!the
domains!!of!!law!!and!!economics,!!that!!create!!‘artificial!!social!!constructs!!that!!are!!formulated!!in!!the
context!!of!!social!!relations!!of!!power’!!(Al-Amoudi!!and!!O’Mahoney,!!Chapter!!1!!this!!volume).
From!!this!!perspective,!!it!!becomes!!clear!!that!!further!!reification!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!will
make!!sure!!that!!it!!will!!remain!!unconnected!!from!!‘the!!human!!activity!!by!!which!!it!!has!!been
produced’!!(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!199)!!and!!will,!!therefore,!!remain!!being!!taken!!for!!granted
(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!206)!!as!!a!!construct!!that!!is!!‘analogous!!to!!the!!facticities!!of!!nature’
(Berger!!and!!Pullberg,!!1965:!!207).!!From!!this!!perspective,!!it!!also!!becomes!!clear!!that!!it!!is!!this
reified!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!as!!a!!social!!construct!!that!!allows!!it!!to!!continue!!to!!function
as!!a!!highly!!evasive!!kind!!of!!social!!construct!!at!!the!!heart!!of!!the!!global!!legal,!!economic,!!and!!political
system,!!which!!shields!!individuals!!with!!managerial!!positions!!and!!(controlling)!!shareholders;!!allows
for!!the!!further!!concentration!!of!!economic!!(Perrow,!!2002),!!legal!!(Buxbaum,!!1984:!!518–19;!!Robé,
1997:!!59)!!and!!political!!power!!(Barley,!!2007:!!201;!!Wilks,!!2013);!!and!!to!!a!!large!!extent!!supports
(Aglietta!!and!!Rebérioux,!!2005)!!the!!current!!worldwide!!division!!of!!wealth!!(Piketty,!!2014)!!on
behalf!!of!!small!!subsets!!of!!individuals!!(Ireland,!!2010).
Combining!!the!!reified!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!with!!its!!convenience!!for!!the!!perpetuation
of!!a!!particular!!kind!!of!!political!!economy,!!it!!can!!be!!argued!!that!!the!!highly!!problematic!!ontological
and!!epistemological!!status!!of!!the!!corporate!!form!!may!!very!!well!!not!!be!!the!!result!!of!!simple
theoretical!!and!!methodological!!aberration,!!and!!will!!probably!!not!!be!!solved!!by!!better!!theory
formation.!!Instead,!!what!!is!!needed!!is!!a!!more!!critical!!approach,!!in!!which!!the!!ongoing!!reification
of!!the!!corporate!!form!!is!!related!!to!!its!!effects!!for!!global!!political!!economy.
Notes
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
1 See!also!www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A.
2 Please note that in the dominant contemporary perspective on corporate governance, such a dualistic notion
of supra-individual ontology is explicitly denied for other types of supra-individual
representation, such as the state (see Veldman, 2013).
3 The!Cheshire!Cat!is!a!figure!from!Lewis!Carroll’s!Alice’s!Adventures!in!Wonderland.!It!can!appear!and
disappear!at!will.!In!the!story,!the!cat!disappears!at!some!point,!leaving!nothing!but!its!grin.!Alice!then
remarks!she!has!seen!a!cat!without!a!grin!before,!but!never!a!grin!without!a!cat.
References((
Aglietta,!M.!and!Rebérioux,!A.!(2005).!Corporate!Governance!Adrift:!a!critique!of!shareholder
value.!Cheltenham,!UK:!Edward!Elgar.
Allen,!W.T.!(1992).!Our!schizophrenic!conception!of!the!business!corporation.!Cardozo!Law!Review,!14(2):
261–81.
Alvesson,!M.!and!Willmott,!H.!(1992).!Critical!theory!and!management!studies:!an!introduction,!in!Alvesson,
M.!and!Willmott,!H.!(eds),!Critical!Management!Studies.!London:!Sage,!pp.!1–20.
Alvesson,!M.,!Bridgman,!T.!and!Willmott,!H.!(2009).!Introduction,!in!Alvesson,!M.,!Bridgman,!T.!and
Willmott,!H.!(eds),!The!Oxford!Handbook!of!Critical!Management!Studies.!Oxford:!Oxford!University
Press,!pp.!1–28.
Avi-Yonah,!R.S.!and!Sivan,!D.!(2007).!Corporate!form!and!real!entity,!in!Biondi,!Y. !and!Canziani,!T.
(eds),!The!Firm!as!an!Entity:!implications!for!economics,!accounting!and!the!law.!London:!Routledge,
pp.!153–85.
Barley,!S.R.!(2007).!Corporations,!democracy,!and!the!public!good.!Journal!of!Management!Inquiry,!16(3):
201–15.
Becker,!G.S.!(1974).!Crime!and!punishment:!an!economic!approach!in!Becker,!G.!and!Lander,!W.M.
(eds),!Essays!in!the!Economics!of!Crime!and!Punishment.!Ann!Arbor,!MI:!UMI,!pp.!1–54.
Berger,!P.!and!Pullberg,!S.!(1965).!Reification!and!the!sociological!critique!of!consciousness.!History!and
Theory,!4(2):!196–211.
Berle,!A.A.!(1954).!The!20th!Century!Capitalist!Revolution.!Harcourt,!Brace,!New!York.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Berle,!A.A.!and!Means,!G.C.!(2007[1932]).!The!Modern!Corporation!and!Private!Property!(revised!edn).!Ne
w Brunswick,!NJ;!London:!Transaction!Publishers.
Bowman,!!!!!S.R.!!!!!(1996).!!!!!The!!!!!Modern!!!!!Corporation!!!!!and!!!!!American!!!!!Political!!!!!Thought:!!!!!law,
power,!and!ideology.!Pennsylvania:!Pennsylvania!State!University!Press.
Bratton!Jr,!W.W.!(1989).!Nexus!of!contracts!corporation:!a!critical!appraisal.!Cornell!Law Review,!74:!407–
65.
Buxbaum,!R.M.!(1984).!Corporate!legitimacy,!economic!theory,!and!legal!doctrine.!Ohio!State!Law!Journal,
45:!515–43.
Clarkson,!C.M.V.!(1996).!Kicking!corporate!bodies!and!damning!their!souls.!The!Modern!Law!Review,
59(4):!557–72.
Daily,!C.M.,!Dalton,!D.R.!and!Cannella,!A.A.!(2003).!Corporate!governance:!decades!of!dialogue!and
data.!Academy!of!Management!Review,!28(3):!371–82.
Dan-Cohen,!M.!(1986).!Rights,!Persons,!and!Organizations.!Berkeley,!CA:!University!of!California Press.
Dewey,!J.!(1926).!The!historic!background!of!corporate!legal!personality.!Yale!Law!Journal,!35(6):!655–73.
Djelic,!M.!(2013).!When!limited!liability!was!(still)!an!issue:!mobilization!and!politics!of!signification!in 19th-
century!England.!Organization!Studies,!34(5–6):!595–621.
Elster,!J.!(2007).!Explaining!Social!Behavior:!more!nuts!and!bolts!for!the!social!sciences.!Cambridge:!Cambri
dge University!Press.
Fisse,!B.!and!Braithwaite,!J.!(1993).!Corporations,!Crime,!and!Accountability.!Cambridge:!Cambridge
University!Press.
Foucault,!M.!(2008[1979]).!The!Birth!of!Biopolitics:!lectures!at!the!College!De!France,!1978–
1979.!New!York: Picador.
French,!P.A.!(1984).!Collective!and!Corporate!Responsibility.!New!York;!Guildford:!Columbia!University
Press.
Freund,!E.!(1897).!The!Legal!Nature!of!Corporations.!Columbia:!Columbia!University!Press.
Friedman,!M.!(1970).!The!social!responsibility!of!business!is!to!increase!its!profits.!New!York!Times!Magazine
, 13(1970):!32–3.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Gamble,!A.,!Kelly,!G.!and!Parkinson,!J.!(2000).!Introduction:!the!political!economy!of!the!company!in
Parkinson,!J.E.,!Gamble,!A.!and!Kelly,!G.!(eds),!The!Political!Economy!of!the!Company.!Oxford:!Hart
Publishing,!pp.!1–20.
Ghoshal,!S.!(2005).!Bad!management!theories!are!destroying!good!management!practices.!Academy!of
Management!Learning!and!Education,!4(1):!75–91.
Guinnane,!T.,!Harris,!R.,!Lamoreaux,!N.R.!and!Rosenthal,!J.L.!(2007).!Putting!the!corporation!in!its
place.!Enterprise!and!Society,!8(3):!687–729.
Hallis,!F.!(1978).!Corporate!Personality:!a!study!in!jurisprudence.!Aalen:!Scientia!Verlag.
Handlin,!O.!and!Handlin,!M.F.!(1945).!Origins!of!the!American!business!corporation.!The!Journal!of!Economi
c History,!5(1):!1–23.
Harris,!R.!(2006).!The!transplantation!of!the!legal!discourse!on!corporate!personality!theories:
from!!!!!German!!!!!codification!!!!!to!!!!!British!!!!!political!!!!!pluralism!!!!!and!!!!!American!!!!!big!!!!!business.
Washington!and!Lee!Law!Review,!63:!1421–78.
Hessen,!R.!(1979):!In!defense!of!the!Corporation.!Stanford,!CA:!Hoover!Institution!Press.
Hodgson,!G.M.!(2007).!Meanings!of!methodological!individualism.!Journal!of!Economic!Methodology,!14(2)
; 211–26.
Horwitz,!M.J.!(1985).!Santa!Clara!revisited:!the!development!of!corporate!theory.!Wes t !Virginia!Law!Review,
88:!173–224.
Ireland,!P.!(2003).!Property!and!contract!in!contemporary!corporate!theory.!Legal!Studies,!23(3):!453–509.
Ireland,!P.!(1999).!company!law!and!the!myth!of!shareholder!ownership.!Modern!Law!Review,!62(1):!32–57.
Ireland,!!!!!P.!!!!!(2010).!!!!!Limited!!!!!liability,!!!!!shareholder!!!!!rights!!!!!and!!!!!the!!!!!problem!!!!!of!!!!!corporate
irresponsibility.!Cambridge!Journal!of!Economics,34(5):!837–56.
Jensen,!M.C.!(1983).!Organization!theory!and!methodology.!The!Accounting!Review,!58(2):!319–39.
Jensen,!M.C.!and!Meckling,!W.H.!(1976).!Theory!of!the!firm:!managerial!behavior,!agency!costs!and
ownership!structure.!Journal!of!Financial!Economics,!3(4):!305–60.
Jensen,!M.!and!Meckling,!W.!(1983).!Reflections!on!the!corporation!as!a!social!invention.!Midland!Corporate
Finance!Journal,!1:!6–15.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Jensen,!M.C.!and!Meckling,!W.H.!(1994).!The!nature!of!man.!Journal!of!Applied!Corporate!Finance,!7(2): 4–
19.
Laufer,!W.S.!(2006).!Corporate!Bodies!and!Guilty!Minds:!the!failure!of!corporate!criminal!liability.!Chicago,!
IL: University!of!Chicago!Press.
Law!Reform!Commission!(Ireland)!(2002).!Consultation!paper!on!corporate!killing,!Law!Reform!Commissio
n, Dublin.
Lederman,!E.!(2000).!Models!for!imposing!corporate!criminal!liability:!from!adaptation!and!imitation!toward
aggregation!and!the!search!for!self-identity.!Buffalo!Criminal!Law!Review,!4(1):!641–708.
Maitland,!F.W.!(2003).!State,!Trust!and!Corporation.!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.
McLean,!J.!(2004).!Transnational!corporation!in!history:!lessons!for!today.!Indiana!Law!Journal,!79(2):!363-7
7.
Nace,!T.!(2003).!Gangs!of!America.!San!Francisco,!CA:!Berrett-Koehler.
Naffine,!N.!(2003).!Who!are!law’s!persons?!From!Cheshire!Cats!to!responsible!subjects.!The!Modern!Law
Review,!66(3):!346–67.
Osborne,!E.!(2007).!The!Rise!of!the!Anticorporate!Movement:!corporations!and!the!people!who!hate!them.!We
stport, CT:!Praeger!Publishers.
Perrow,!C.!(1986).!Economic!theories!of!organization.!Theory!and!Society,!15(1):!11–45.
Perrow,!C.!(2002).!Organizing!America:!wealth,!power,!and!the!origins!of!corporate!capitalism.!Princeton,!NJ
: Princeton!University!Press.
Piketty,!T.!(2014).!Capital!in!the!Twenty-first!Century.!Cambridge,!MA:!Harvard!University!Press.
Post,!G.!(1934).!Parisian!masters!as!a!corporation,!1200–1246.!Speculum,!9(4):!421–45.
Robé,!J.P.!(1997).!Multinational!enterprises:!the!constitution!of!a!pluralistic!legal!order,!in!Teubner,!G.
(ed.),!Global!Law!Without!a!State.!Aldershot,!UK:!Dartmouth!Publishing,!pp.!45–78.
Schrader,!D.E.!(1993).!The!Corporation!as!Anomaly.!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.
Scruton,!R.!and!Finnis,!J.!(1989).!Corporate!persons.!Proceedings!of!the!Aristotelian!Society,!Supplementary
Volumes,!63:!239–74.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015


The Modern Corporation Project
www.themoderncorporation.com
Sen,!A.K.!(1977).!Rational!fools:!a!critique!of!the!behavioral!foundations!of!economic!theory.!Philosophy
&!Public!Affairs,!6(4):!317–44.
Veldman,!J.!(2010).!The!Corporate!Condition.!Leicester:!University!of!Leicester.
Veldman,!J.!(2013).!Politics!of!the!corporation.!British!Journal!of!Management,!24(1):!18–30.
Veldman,!J.!(forthcoming).!Embodiment,!in!Walgenbach,!P.!and!Weik,!E.!(eds),!Institutions!Inc.!London:
Palgrave!Macmillan.
Veldman,!J.!and!Parker,!M.!(2012).!Specters,!Inc.:!the!elusive!basis!of!the!corporation.!Business!and!Society
Review,!117(4):!413–41.
Veldman,!J.!and!Willmott,!H.!(2013).!What!is!the!corporation!and!why!does!it!matter?,!M@n@gement,
16(5):!605–20.
Wells, !C.!(2005).!Corporations!and!Criminal!Responsibility.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.
Wilks,!S.!(2013).!The!Political!Power!of!the!Business!Corporation.!Cheltenham,!UK:!Edward!Elgar.
Williamson,!O.E.!and!Winter,!S.G.!(1991).!The!Nature!of!the!Firm:!origins,!evolution,!and!development.!Oxfo
rd: Oxford!University!Press.
Working Paper Version ‘Corporation: Reification"of"the"corporate"form’ 22-8-2015