Talk:Corporate behaviour

Balanced View
I've rated this article top importance in hopes that supporters of the Business and Economics Project will take time to add business references to this article to balance the perspective offered by previous contributors. --SueHay 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion
Hi BEB: Before we get on to the key characteristics I thought it best to start to edit some of what what we have in the article so far. I edited from the top down with the intention of clarification and brevity. I have not removed any ideas, just added to them where I could. I stopped at the section on key characteristics and made a note that it is an area that needs development. Any thoughts.

For the sake of consistency I have removed the word company and replaced it with corporation. Company/companies are now mentioed in the definition section. I also replaced profit-driven with for-profit. The use of the word capitalism is left in brackets and not use liberaly. This is becasue it is apparent from history that for-profit companies existed before the termed capitalism was coined and widely used. Furthermore, capitalism is a bit of an over used word to the point where many do not know what it really means. It also has a lot of baggage attached of various kinds. For-profit corporation (or company) is simpler.

I have read at your exploitation text. It's good. There are also other aspects to exploitation that should be explored. Some may be perceived negative, but nonetheless they should be mentioned although in a balanced manner. One example might be how certain corporations exploited their knowledge of the addictive qualities of tobbaco. This is not a contentious example.

Perhaps we should try and structure the text on each characteristic. This would avoid rambling on certain topics and having too many examples when one might do.

Regards,

SJ 19/1/06

Hi SJ,

You make good points well. So lets give it a go.

What about something like this on exploitation:

"There are different views on whether companies exploit their employees. One view is that the more that they can keep wages down (exploiting their workers), the more they make in profits.  A second view is that this is true, but if companies depress wages too far, they demotivate workers and lose good staff to competitors.  A third view is that companies always prefer lower costs to higher, including wage costs, but if costs fall, more product is sold and employment increases in a company.  On top of that, workers can push for higher wages when companies are profitable.  This third view sees the relationship of employer and employee not as exploitative but mutually beneficial.  Whatever view is taken of the level of altruism which corporations show towards their employees, it is true that they generally prefer wages to be lower than higher, other things like motivation or skill retention, being equal."

BaraEvansBread Edit (195.93)
Hi BEB:

You are right, the article has a particular stance, but that is for you, me and others to alter. The ultimate goal, as I said before, is an article with a objective and neutral viewpoint. This may be difficult for this subject, but for the key characteristics of corporations/companies, large and small, this should not be too hard as their activity is observable and documented. The list and text derived from Mr. Mander's book, the one with the web link, is only one interpretation and that should be stated in the text. That was the original intention.

As for the use of the word and heading Exploitation, this should be changed as a characteristic if an equivalent characteristic or word can be found and the evidence suggests this. The trouble is what word and characteristic can take its place and should you exclude the use of the word exploitation in the text because you don't think it is correct for various reasons. Are you being objective if you edit out that word entirely? Perhaps others think it is correct to use the word exploitation, as did the author of the book that word was taken from. Perhaps there is evidence that some, not all, corporations really do exploit certain resources or groups of people. Perhaps a great many corporations, large and small, actively avoid exploitation. All these views and information should be drive what is expressed in the article and be placed within it in if judged appropriate. That would be more balanced.

Where Growth is concerned you are right to point out that companies may for various reasons stagnate, decline, merge, or as you say, break up. I would also add that companies vary in size and their tendency to grow. All this does not mean though that Growth is not a key characterisitic of profit-seeking companies. After all it is the growth phase that the key shareholders can potentially make a lot of money (realized or otherwise), perhaps the main aim of those who started business. I take advantage of this growth phase when I trade shares.

Your idea about motivation of individuals in corporations is valid, and complex. Their 'corporate behaviour' is of interest and should be part of this article, but I think of lesser importance to the overall behaviour of a corporation. The latter was original stimulus behind this article. How do corporations behave? That is what I want to know. When we have this information we can make our own judgements about them.

So, what do you think are the characteristics of corporate behaviour? Let's work on this contentious area. Muppet317, what are your ideas?

Regards, S.J.Davis 10/1/06

Again, apologies for my newness and stumbles on the learning curve. I still feel that the origianl article and much of the current one is not neutral information but from a highly personal viewpoint - and from a very identifiable political position that has little general currency any more. Take the use of the word "exploitation" in the reasoning below. To say "some corporations continue to exploit differences in wages and environmental legislation around the world. These are observable and published facts, not Marxist viewpoints" is true in only a limited sense: I exploit differences in prices if I go to Wal-Mart rather than the corner store but that's not the usual use of the word "exploitation" in discussions of companies or capitalism - it's a term usually used by quasi marxists and anti-globalisation anti-corporate campaigners who, it seems to me represent a very limited viewpoint. I repeat my point that the original and current article takes an obvious anti-company stand-point and all the evidence is that this is not a general viewpoint. Similarly with assertions about corporate growth. If companies as a rule like to grow, why do some companies like Andersen break themselves up? Divisions between the interests of the managers who run companies (from CEOs down) and the interests of share-holders make motivation complex.

My own view is that capitalism is a flawed system that nonetheless has been of huge benefit to the world and that should be reflected. At the moment, the article is an anti-capitalist treatise.

BaraEvansBread

bint9== 195.93.21.10 Edit == This edit removed most of the original sourced material and is not particularly well written, would anyone mind if i reverted this back to the previous edit? Would people prefer if I attempted to include the new info into the (largely deleted) original charecterisitics? Muppet317 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Muppet317:

I say revert back. It is not right for 195.93 to edit in that manner.

A small change I would put forward would be to exchange the word rules for characteristics on that one line with the link to the external website where the rules and reference are found. You could also make it more explicit that the characteristics listed are based on a published list. Perhaps give the name of the author.

Clearly 195.93 does not fully understand what Wikipedia is about. When some one states that Wiki is to "provide non-contentious information" and wrote what they wrote that person has missed its goal. What is required is a balanced and objective, some might say neutral, article and one that includes all relevant information and views. We don't want some one-sided durge. And we really don't want an article that avoids truths or facts. Just because an individual or group does not agree with a portion of the text (etc.) does that make the text contentious. If it is objective in the round then it should stay.

At present, the article might be out of balance due to its embryonic nature, but that does not mean a person or persons should edit out text they personally disagree with at this stage. If a person(s) doesn't agree with a characteristic, for example exploitation, then they should provide evidence for that viewpoint under that heading or for now state that some people may find this characteristic contentious. There is certainly evidence that certain corporations have been involved in exploitation, for example, some corporations continue to exploit differences in wages and environmental legislation around the world. These are observable and published facts, not Marxist viewpoints. Of course there are differences between some corporations, say small and large ones, but these should be stated in the text at some point.

As for other edits, such as the removal of the Growth heading and text, this is very odd. 195.93 mentions it in the text below but seems not to think it a characteristic of corporate behaviour. Is not Growth imperative different from Profit imperative? Do not profit-seeking corporations, especially those floated on stock exchanges, go for growth? All the companies I have invested in are doing this. It is a characteristic. There is massive amounts of evidence to prove this.

Lastly, I think it would be good to add that just because there are proposed characteristics from a published source that can be dissected, this does not stop  an individual bringing in information from other sources. Has there been another set of characteristics of corporate behaviour published elsewhere? I think there are lots of books on the history of corporations and companies. Let's have this info in this article. S.J.Davis 9/1/06

I'm new to this but edited the first paragraph and intend to edit the rest of the entry, ideally with everybody else's help and agreement to get an entry which we can all accept. At the moment, the entry seems to me to be written from some sort of marxist, companies-are-evil stand-point and so is highly contentious. My own stand-point is that capitalism is not a noble or beautiful system but it's the least bad system on offer - and it does produce growth. I realise others think differently, but the aim of Wikipedia is to provide non-contentious information. For example, the assertion is made that corporations are amoral because they aren't individuals but legal entities - the same could be said about any organisation, including the Anglican Church, Oxfam or the ACLU. Organisations are run by individuals operating in more or less complex structures, and they are run within a framework of law, morality, custom and practice, habit, human psychology etc. It is simply naive marxism to assert that because a company isn't a person it doesn't have a morality. There is this kind of tendentious assertion throughout the entry.

NPOV Dispute
Someone put on an NPOV dispute on the page but didnt say why, although many may not agree with the rules of corporate behaviour as outlined they are are described as 'proposed' not actual, and thus (in my view) does not contravene NPOV. Does anyone have a specific dispute? Muppet317 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Muppet: As the person who put the dispute on this article did not sign in, or give reasons for the NVOP, it is probably right to seek the NVOP removed and revert to your text. Your are right to assert that they are only proposed rules. Perhaps you should capitalize the word proposed. S.J.Davis (9/1/06)

Article Re-write
A few questions that need resolving regarding this article

1) Why the inclusion of the actions of individuals? Surely the point of corporate behaviour is that it is the action of a corporation in itself, although these actions may not always be the intended ourcome of any individuals involved. Furthermore whilst the effects of corporate behaviour on individuals may be a useful sociological side effect I do not see this as central to the issue of corporate behaviour.

2) I think an explicit division needs to be made between business/capitalist corporations and noncapitalist corporations (NGOs, charities etc) as I think the proposed rules of corporate behaviour can only be seen to apply to capitalist corporations.

If no-one disagrees with this would people like me to attempt these changes (removal of references to indiviudals, creation of distinction between business and non-business coporations)? Muppet317 12/12/05

Muppet317: Go ahead and edit the page. Your points are well made. Divisions make sense and perhaps more divisions than you mentioned are required, for I feel there is are great difference between the circumstances, opportunites and and behaviour of the largest corporations and the smallest. I would, however, like you to please include a paragraph or sentence that indicates that it is possible for an individual or group to exhibit corporate behaviour (captialist form or otherwise), that is, think/behave like a corporation. This is justified under the title of corporate behaviour, but perhaps needs to be placed under a subtitle such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on society'. What do you think?

(Other titles also come to mind such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the environment', 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the media' and 'The influence of corporate behaviour on politics and government'.)

By the way, my aim was not to post a anti-corporation or controversial article. I just wanted to start an article about something that is not often written/read about in this format and that people may need more information about. Clearly my first attempt contained information that may have made capitalist corporations seem a negative. This was not my whole intention. I hope the page can be developed in a more even way, but we should not avoid valid and factual information that makes certain corporations, people or groups feel uncomfortable. Regards, '''Stuart J. Davis 14/12/05

Stuart Cheers, Will do my best! Muppet317 14/12/05

The 81.179.253.7 edit (addition to 11 rules of corporate behaviour) was me, forgot to login Muppet317 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite done, please edit away, i took off the NPOV disputation as the article is now totally different, and I changed the word rules for characteristeritcs as although this word has wekaer connotations it is less likely to offend so hopefully this article can avoid any NPOV problems for a while! Muppet317 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Muppet317 Looks good. I will give it a read and make some notes. If I make anything other than very minor edits, e.g., spelling mistakes or wording, I will not edit the text directly. I will instead place it on this discussion board. I think that will be best. Regards, SJD 15/12/05

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

POV issues
Well, I didn't add the new POV flag in December, but I have some issues: The phrase
 * "The fact that individuals may not agree with the outcomes of corporate behaviour is central to the concept in itself, the characteristics of capitalist corporations do not reflect the characteristics of any individual or group of individuals but are the characteristics required for the survival of capitalist corporations due to the nature of the system within which corporations operate."

seems to imply to me that corporate behavior is always the behavior necessary for the survival of a corporation, as if there was no choice but to act in a given way. This would basically be carte blanche for any kind of conduct, no matter how harmful. Not to mention, it precludes a company acting in a fashion not beneficial to its survival -which may very well happen e.g. due to mismanagement. I think this should be rephrased a bit. --84.46.9.11 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate inclusion
Including the corporations to the constitution of the United States is piffle. Including diversity and inclusion is in corporations is private and accepted to the corporate culture but going forward with the plan of the United States of America is unfair and corrupt and the United States must remove Corporations from the Country if they have not left already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjeromep (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)