Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Principle of corporate personality
Corporate social responsibility viewpoint
Ethics in the corporate world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Principle of corporate personality
1. Corporate personhood refers to a legal action in United States, which states that a corporation is considered as a separate legal entity in comparison to their owners, managers or employees having privilege of some legal rights, duties and responsibilities as enjoyed by the persons. The corporations have a right to sign a contract with other parties and also have a right to sue or to be sued by the court as in case of natural persons. A debate is still going on in U.S context regarding to the extent of legal rights given associated with the corporations as compared to natural persons. In case of Kasky v. Nike held at the U.S. Supreme Court, involving Nike Corporation appealed in California Supreme Court. ("Kasky v. Nike — Do Corporations …show more content…
The corporations can be regarded as persons but only for some purposes such as the corporations have a privilege of First amendment right to free speech along with a fourth amendment and fifth amendment protection against search and seizures and right to protection against double jeopardy. In addition, privileges are provided to corporations for protection against excessive fines.
Theory of justice- Libertarianism covered this week such as libertarianism, which refers to a political philosophy affirming the right of a person to liberty, to acquire, keeping and exchanging holdings along with the protection of individual rights. This can be referred as moral or a derivative principle. It will focus on libertarianism as a doctrine for natural rights in context of Locke (1690) and Nozick (1974). (Vallentyne & Vossen, 2014) Each individual has an equal right to basic liberties such as right to vote, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and right to hold
…show more content…
The ethical and corporate governance theories related to agency theory, stakeholder theory, transaction and political theory are associated with the corporations. The corporations while operating in the market should follow theory on business ethics where the rights and wrongs are addressed by the courts along with the concern of the business corporations towards the society.
3. The corporations should place more emphasis on the issues related to corporate social responsibility where issues need to be addressed related to fairness, justice and equality. The following provisions should be made for the members of the corporations for ensuring prevalence of justice, equality and fairness.
• The distribution of wealth among the corporate persons should be done on equitable and fair
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
Nike: A Strange and Terrible Saga. Image is vital to the success of the giant international sports footwear and apparel corporation Nike. Endorsements by sports superstars like basketballer Michael Jordan, soccer maestro Eric Cantona and sprinting ace Cathy Freeman -- to name just a few -- have made the company's "Swoosh" logo synonymous with "cool" for millions of young people worldwide. That image would be badly tarnished if it became widely known that the Nike empire is built on cheap Third World labour (including child labour), denial of trade union rights and collaboration with repressive regimes, most notably the Suharto regime in Indonesia. Nike Australia's public relations spokesperson, Megan Ryan, was coy about how much the company spends on marketing and sponsorship when Green Left Weekly spoke to her recently.
According to John Locke everyone has natural rights. John Locke came up with natural rights, by thinking about what they could be for a long and vigorous time. Locke said that natural rights are “life, health, liberty, and possessions” (9). Life is something that no one can take away from anyone. Locke said, “no ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession” (9). Life is not an absolute right. An example of this is if there was a train full of ten thousand people about to hit a rock, and you are by the switch that could save the ten thousand people, but if you use the switch you are killing a twelve-year-old girl on the other track. Liberty is doing what ever someone wants to do, and they can’t be punished for
The doctrine of separate legal personality is central to corporate law and the functioning of companies in the modern world. This doctrine allows for a company, separate from its shareholders and members, to own its own property, have its own rights and responsibilities, and sue and be sued as its own entity. This means that the rights enjoyed by the company are not necessarily enjoyed by its members, and that members of a company are not necessarily liable for the actions of the company. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel, the doctrine of separate legal personality and the instances in which a court may pierce the corporate veil were discussed. Piercing the corporate veil refers to putting aside the separate personality of the company to hold a person who owns and controls a company as responsible for the actions of the company as if it were their own. In the case of Prest this concept is discussed in detail, to reflect the instances in which courts have pierced the corporate veil, and the extent of applicability of this doctrine. As reflected in Prest, the separate legal personality doctrine is a strong doctrine in corporate law that is only pierced in exceptional circumstances. However, it is also clear that the principle of piercing the corporate veil is an important one, as it allows for the court to hold responsible those in control of a company in instances where it is necessary to achieve an equitable and logi...
Dignam and Lowry (2016) state that in order to understand the legal personality we need to keep the human being and legal persons separate as humanity is a state of nature while the legal personality is an artificial creation. They further state that legal personality can be given to non humans since humanity is not a requisite for legal personality. Kraakman, Armour, Hansmann state that corporate law allows a company to serve as a single contracting entity different from its owners and managers i.e. the company can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued in its own name. Davies and Worthington (2012) sum up by saying that the company is a distinct legal entity
The ‘unyielding rock’ of corporation law, as established and relied upon in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd, is the concept of the separate juristic personality of a corporation. Out of this century-old principle, the legal structure of modern business was born. The foundation of corporation law thus rests on the concept that a company has a separate legal personality which is recognised in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act’).
Phil Knight started his shoe company by selling shoes from the back of his car. As he became more successful in 1972 he branded the name Nike. In the 1980’s Nike Corporation quickly grew and established itself as a world leader in manufacturing and distributing athletic footwear and sports' attire. The Nike manufacturing model has followed is to outsource its manufacturing to developing nations in the Asia Pacific, Africa, South and Latin Americas; where labor is inexpensive. It quickly became known for its iconic “swoosh” and “Just do it” advertisements and products. Its highly successful advertising campaigns and brand developed its strong market share and consumer base. But, the road has not always been easy for Nike; in the late 1990’s they went through some challenging times when their brand become synonymous with slave wages and child labor abuses. During this period, Nike learned that it paramount that the company understands its stakeholders’ opinions and ensures their values are congruent with their stakeholders. Nike learned that their stakeholders were concerned with more than buying low cost products; their customers were also concerned with ethical and fair treatment of their workers. Because Nike was unwilling to face the ethical treatment of its employees, the company lost its loyal customers and damaged its reputation. Nike has bounced back since the late 1990’s and revived its reputation by focusing on its internal shortfalls and attacking its issues head on. Nike nearly collapsed from its missteps in the late 1990’s. They have learned from their mistakes and taken steps to quickly identify ethical issues before they become a crisis through ethics audits. This paper is based on the case study of Nike: From Sweatsh...
In order to understand Nike’s success one needs a brief history of the company. Two entrepreneur spirited men, Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight, established Nike, Inc. They met in 1950, where Bowerman was a track and field coach for the University of Oregon, and continually sought ways to “give his athletes a more competitive advantage.” There he met Knight while he attended the University of Oregon. Knight however obtained an MBA in finance later at Stanford. Knight persuaded the Onitsuka Co. in Japan, the manufacturer of Tiger shoes to make him a distributor of Tiger shoes in the United States. Knight sent Bowerman several pairs out of his first shipment in the hope Bowerman would buy some, instead, Bowerman offered to make Knight his partner and provided him with his footwear design ideas. (Nike, Inc. History)
Hannah Jones of Nike serves as the Vice President of Sustainable Business and Innovation. She has been influential in stewarding the company’s labor rights strategies, global sustainability, and future innovation. Jones has been named one of the top 10 most creative people of 2010, according to Fast Company Magazine and the World Economic Forum named her a Young Global Leader in 2008. (2012)
Nike is the number one innovator in the world in athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessories. This worldwide company operates in an extremely different organizational structure than other companies, such as Reebok and Adidas. Nike operates tremendous marketing strategies and develops inventive designs to inspire athletes around the world. This company is one of the largest suppliers in the world in athletic footwear and apparel, main producer of sports equipment, and making Nike the most valuable brand among sports companies. The task for Nike is to join diversity and inclusion to encourage ideas and innovation. Around the world, this company is a popular brand.
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
Everybody has heard of the brand Nike. Since Nike’s founding in 1972, the company has been able to build a strong foundation and generate a large amount of revenue through its ingenious strategies. Nike is a very popular brand for athletic apparel, sportswear and footwear as well. Through its infamous popularity, Nike now poses amongst some of the most successful companies today. The success that Nike has attained throughout the years comes from the characteristics within the cultural markets, meaning: Nike tends to pay its undivided attention to its product and for whom that specific product will be marketed towards.
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.
People have human rights that cannot be denied them, legally, by governments. Do corporations have similar rights? Or do corporations simply have privileges, which can be revoked? Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation, as a group of people, may be recognized as having some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual.
Various philosophers like savigny have also expressly opined that the companies are only fictitious legal person and the reason they have rights and duties is because law has given them such rights and duties and there whole status as legal person is a result of fiction, thi theory is often referred to as fiction theory and it was propounded by Savigny. Another prominent theory is the realist theory which says that legal personality is a reality and not a fiction, it was given by German philosopher Gieke, according to this theory anything which has its own free will is a legal person and since corporations too have the same characteristic they too are legal persons and there legal identity is a reality. This legal theory attained popularity in England because of the support rendered by influential jurists like Maitland and Pollock. in this paper I would like to draw a line of difference between fiction theory and realist theory In real world we have to face situations where