Dictionary Definition
corporation
Noun
1 a business firm whose articles of incorporation
have been approved in some state [syn: corp]
User Contributed Dictionary
English
Etymology
From Latin corporatioPronunciation
- Rhymes: -eɪʃǝn
- /'kɔːpoˈreɪʃn/
Noun
- A group of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
- In Fascist Italy, a joint association of employers' and workers' representatives.
- A protruding belly; a paunch.
Quotations
*1918, Katherine Mansfield, Prelude, Selected Stories, Oxford World's Classics paperback 2002, page 91-
- 'You'd be surprised,' said Stanley, as though this were intensely interesting, 'at the number of chaps at the club who have got a corporation.
Derived terms
Translations
company
- Chinese: 公司 (gōngsī)
- Czech: společnost
- Dutch: bedrijf , vennootschap
- Finnish: konserni (contains many companies), osakeyhtiö for a sole incorporated company
- French: corporation , société
- German: Unternehmen , Kapitalgesellschaft , Körperschaft (juristische Person), Innung , Gilde , Gemeindevertretung , -rat
- Greek: εταιρία (etaipía)
- Hebrew: תאגיד (taagyd)
- Italian: società , corporazione
- Japanese: 法人 (ほうじん, hōjin) for corporations generally; 株式会社 (かぶしきがいしゃ, kabushiki-gaisha) for business corporations specifically
- Korean: 기업 (gieop)
- Latin: (Modern Latin) corporatio nominative, corporationis genitive; (Classical Latin) collegium
- Romanian: corporaţie
- Russian: корпорация (korporátsija)
- Swedish: konsern (contains many companies), aktiebolag for a sole incorporated company
- Spanish: corporación
Italian association
Extensive Definition
A corporation is a legal
personality, usually used to conduct business. Corporations
exist as a product of corporate
law, and their rules balance the interests of the shareholders that invest
their capital and the
employees who contribute their labour. People work together in
corporations to produce. In modern times, corporations have become
an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on
corporations for employment, for their goods
and services, for the value of the pensions, for economic
growth and social development.
The defining feature of a corporation is its
legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation
goes bust, shareholders will lose their money, and employees will
lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts that remain
owing to the corporation's creditors. This rule is called limited
liability, and it is why corporations end with "Ltd." (or some variant
like "Inc."
and "plc"). In the words of
British judge, Walton J, a company is...
"...only a juristic figment of the imagination, lacking both a
body to be kicked and a soul to be damned."
But despite this, corporations are recognised by
the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people.
Corporations can exercise human rights
against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible
for human rights violations. Just as they are "born" into existence
through its members obtaining a
certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose
money into insolvency. Corporations can
even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter. Five common
characteristics of the modern corporation, according to Harvard
University Professors Hansmann and Kraakman are...
- separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)
- limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)
- transferrable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)
- delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors
- investor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.
Ownership of a corporation is complicated by
increasing social and economic interdependence, as different
stakeholders compete
to have a say in corporate affairs. In most developed countries
excluding the English speaking world, company boards have
representatives of both shareholders and employees to "codetermine"
company strategy. Calls for increasing
corporate social responsibility are made by consumer,
environmental and human rights activists, and this has led to
larger corporations drawing up codes of conduct. In Australia,
Canada, the
United
Kingdom and the United
States, corporate
law has not yet stepped into that field, and its building
blocks remain the study of corporate
governance and corporate
finance.
Corporations' history
The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people". Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, ancient India and the Maurya Empire. In mediaeval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.During the period of colonial expansion, in the
seventeenth century, the true progenitors of the modern Corporation
emerged as the "chartered company". Acting under a charter
sanctioned by the Dutch monarch, the
Vereenidge Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC), or the Dutch
East India Company, defeated Portuguese forces
and established itself in the Moluccan
Islands in order to profit off the European demand for
spices. Investors in the
VOC were issues paper certificates as proof of share ownership, and
were able to trade their shares on the original Amsterdam stock
exchange. Shareholders are also explicitly granted limited
liability in the company's royal charter. In the late
seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd,
the author of the first treatise on corporate
law in English, defined a corporation as,
"a collection of many individuals united into one
body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession
under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with
the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual,
particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting
obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges
and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political
rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its
institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of
its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."
Mercantilism
Labelled by both contemporaries and historians as "the grandest society of merchants in the universe", the British East India Company would come to symbolize the dazzingly rich potential of the corporation, as well as new methods of business that could be both brutal and exploitive. On December 31, 1600, the English monarchy granted the company a fifteen-year monopoly on trade to and from the East Indies and Africa. By 1611 shareholders in the East India Company were earning an almost 150% return on their investment. Subsequent stock offerings demonstrated just how lucrative the Company had become. Its first stock offering in 1613-1616 raised ₤418,000, and its second offering in 1617-1622 raised ₤1.6 million.In the United
States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the
mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of
the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate
shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the
states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of
legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in
corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with
the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the
19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons
(Andrew
Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited
partnership, and John D.
Rockefeller set up Standard Oil
as a trust).
Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater
corporate registration revenues available by providing more
permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was
the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal
of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed,
and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the
country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving
them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was
realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major
public corporations are set up under Delaware law.
By the beginning of the nineteenth century,
government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change,
reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that
corporations were riding the economic wave of the future. In 1819,
the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights
they had not previously recognized or enjoyed. Corporate charters
were deemed "inviolable," and not subject to arbitrary amendment or
abolition by state governments. The Corporation as a whole was
labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and
immortality.
At around the same time as the above events were
occurring in the United States, British legislation was similarly
freeing the corporation from the shackles of historical
restrictions. In 1844 British
Parliament passed the Joint Stock Companies Act, which allowed
companies to incorporate without a royal charter or an additional
act of Parliament. Ten years later, England enshrined into law the
preeminent hallmark of modern corporate law - the concept of
limited
liability. Acting in response to increasing pressure from newly
emerging capital interests, Parliament passed the Limited Liability
Act of 1855, which established the principle that any corporation
could enjoy limited legal liability on both contract and tort
claims simply by registering as a "limited" company with the
appropriate government agency.
This revolutionary switch from unlimited to
limited liability prompted a writer for the English periodical
Economist to write in 1855 that "never, perhaps, was a change so
vehemently and generally demanded, of which the importance was so
much overrated." The glaring inaccuracy of the second part of this
judgment was recognized by the same magazine more than seventy-five
years later, when it claimed that, "[t]he economic historian of the
future . . . may be inclined to assign to the nameless inventor of
the principle of limited liability, as applied to trading
corporations, a place of honour with Watt and Stephenson, and
other pioneers of the Industrial
Revolution."
Modern corporations
By the end of the nineteenth century the forces of limited liability, state and national deregulation, and vastly increasing capital markets had come together to give birth to the corporation in its modern-day form. In the well-known Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, the then-Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court declared that corporations were recognized legal persons, protected by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Beginning with New Jersey and Delaware, U.S. States engaged in a race to the bottom in their attempts to create more and more liberal and therefore, lucrative incorporation regulations. The decline of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions encouraged a wave of corporate consolidation: from 1898 to 1904, 1,800 U.S. corporations were consolidated into 157. The modern corporate era had begun.The 20th century saw a proliferation of enabling
law across the world, which some argue helped to drive economic
booms in many countries before and after World War I. Starting in
the 1980s, many countries with large state-owned corporations moved
toward privatization, the selling
of publicly owned services and enterprises to corporations.
Deregulation
-- reducing the public-interest regulation of corporate activity --
often accompanied privatization as part of an ideologically
laissez-faire
policy. Another major postwar shift was toward the development of
conglomerates,
in which large corporations purchased smaller corporations to
expand their industrial base. Japanese firms developed a horizontal
conglomeration model, the keiretsu, which was later
duplicated in other countries as well. While corporate efficiency
(and profitability) skyrocketed, small shareholder control was
diminished and directors
of corporations assumed greater control over business, contributing
in part to the hostile
takeover movement of the 1980s and the accounting scandals that
brought down Enron and WorldCom following
the turn of the century.
Corporate law
The existence of a corporation requires a special legal framework and body of law that specifically grants the corporation legal personality, and typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person). As such, corporate statutes typically give corporations the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes in a capacity that is separate from that of its shareholders (who are sometimes referred to as "members". According to Lord Chancellor Haldane,"...a corporation is an abstraction. It has no
mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active
and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of
somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the
corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the
corporation."
The legal personality has two economic
implications. First it grants creditors priority over the corporate
assets upon liquidation. Second, corporate assets cannot be
withdrawn by its shareholders, nor can the assets of the firm be
taken by personal creditors of its shareholders. The second feature
requires special legislation and a special legal framework, as it
cannot be reproduced via standard contract law.
The regulations most favorable to incorporation
include: ; Perpetual lifetime: Another favorable regulation, the
assets and structure of
the corporation exist beyond the lifetime of any of its
shareholders, bondholders, or employees. This allows for stability
and accumulation of capital, which thus becomes available for
investment in projects of a larger size and over a longer term than
if the corporate assets remained subject to dissolution
and distribution.
This feature also had great importance in the medieval period, when land
donated to the Church (a corporation) would not generate the feudal
fees that a lord could claim upon a landholder's death. In this
regard, see Statute
of Mortmain. It is important to note that the "perpetual
lifetime" feature is an indication of the unbounded potential
duration of the corporation's existence, and its accumulation of
wealth and thus power. (In theory, a corporation can have its
charter revoked at any time, putting an end to its existence as a
legal entity. However, in practice, dissolution only occurs for
corporations that request it or fail to meet annual filing
requirements.)
Ownership and control
Persons and other legal entities composed of persons (such as trusts and other corporations) can have the right to vote or share in the profit of corporations. In the case of for-profit corporations, these voters hold shares of stock and are thus called shareholders or stockholders. When no stockholders exist, a corporation may exist as a non-stock corporation, and instead of having stockholders, the corporation has members who have the right to vote on its operations. If the non-stock corporation is not operated for profit, it is called a not-for-profit corporation. In either category, the corporation comprises a collective of individuals with a distinct legal status and with special privileges not provided to ordinary unincorporated businesses, to voluntary associations, or to groups of individuals.For the purposes of the next few paragraphs, the
term "members" will be used to refer to stockholders of a stock
corporation and members of a non-stock corporation.
There are two broad classes of corporate
governance forms in the world. In most of the world, control of the
corporation is determined by a board of
directors which is elected by the shareholders. In some
jurisdictions, such as Germany, the control of the corporation is
divided into two tiers with a supervisory
board which elects a managing
board. Germany is also unique in having a system known as
co-determination
in which half of the supervisory board consists of representatives
of the employees. The CEO, president,
treasurer, and other titled officers are usually chosen by the
board to manage the affairs of the corporation.
In addition to the influence of shareholders,
corporations can be controlled (in part) by creditors such as
banks. In return for lending money to the corporation, creditors
can demand a controlling interest analogous to that of a member,
including one or more seats on the board of directors. In some
jurisdictions, such as Germany and Japan, it is standard for banks
to own shares in corporations whereas in other jurisdictions such
as the United States and the United Kingdom banks are prohibited
from owning shares in external corporation.
Members of a corporation (except for non-profit
corporations) are said to have a "residual interest." Should the
corporation end its existence, the members are the last to receive
its assets, following creditors and others with interests in the
corporation. This can make investment in a corporation risky;
however, a diverse investment portfolio minimizes this risk. In
addition, shareholders receive the benefit of limited liability
regulations, making shareholders liable for only the amount they
contributed. This only applies in the case of for-profit
corporations; non-profits are not allowed to have residual benefits
available to the members.
Formation
Historically, corporations were created by special charter of governments. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and become regulated by the laws enacted by that government. Registration is the main prerequisite to the corporation's assumption of limited liability. As part of this registration, it must in many cases be required to designate the principal address of the corporation as well as a registered agent (a person or company that is designated to receive legal service of process). As part of the registration, it may also be required to designate an agent or other legal representative of the corporation depending on the filing jurisdiction.Generally, a corporation files articles
of incorporation with the government, laying out the general
nature of the corporation, the amount of stock it is authorized to
issue, and the names and addresses of directors. Once the articles
are approved, the corporation's directors meet to create bylaws that govern the internal
functions of the corporation, such as meeting procedures and
officer positions.
The law of the jurisdiction in which a
corporation operates will regulate most of its internal activities,
as well as its finances. If a corporation operates outside its home
state, it is often required to register with other governments as a
foreign
corporation, and is almost always subject to laws of its host
state pertaining to employment, crimes, contracts, civil
actions, and the like.
Naming
Corporations generally have a distinct name. Historically, some corporations were named after their membership: for instance, "The President and Fellows of Harvard College." Nowadays, corporations in most jurisdictions have a distinct name that does not need to make reference to their membership. In Canada, this possibility is taken to its logical extreme: many smaller Canadian corporations have no names at all, merely numbers based on their Provincial Sales Tax registration number (e.g., "12345678 Ontario Limited").In most countries, corporate names include the
term "Corporation", or an abbreviation that denotes the corporate
status of the entity. These terms vary by jurisdiction and
language. In some jurisdictions they are mandatory, and in others
they are not. Their use puts all persons on constructive
notice that they have to deal with an entity whose liability remains limited, in
the sense that it does not reach back to the persons who constitute
the entity; one can only collect from whatever assets the entity
still controls at the time one obtains a judgment against it.
Certain jurisdictions do not allow the use of the
word "company" alone to denote corporate status, since the word
"company" may refer to a partnership or to a sole
proprietorship, or even, archaically, to a group of not
necessarily related people (for example, those staying in a
tavern).
Unresolved issues
The nature of the corporation continues to evolve in response to new situations as existing corporations promote new ideas and structures, the courts respond, and governments issue new regulations. A question of long standing is that of diffused responsibility. For example, if a corporation is found liable for a death, how should culpability and punishment for it be allocated among shareholders, directors, management and staff, and the corporation itself? See corporate liability, and specifically, corporate manslaughter.The law differs among jurisdictions, and is in a
state of flux. Some argue that shareholders should be ultimately
responsible in such circumstances, forcing them to consider issues
other than profit when investing, but a corporation may have
millions of small shareholders who know nothing about its business
activities. Moreover, traders — especially hedge funds
— may turn over shares in corporations many times a
day.The issue of corporate repeat offenders (see H. Glasbeak,
"Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law, and the
Perversion of Democracy" (Between the Lines Press: Toronto 2002)
raises the question of the so-called "death penalty for
corporations."
Types of corporations
- For a list of types of corporation and other business types by country, see Types of business entity.
Most corporations are registered with the local
jurisdiction as either a stock corporation or a non-stock
corporation. Stock corporations sell stock to generate capital. A
stock corporation is generally a for-profit corporation. A non-stock
corporation does not have stockholders, but may have members
who have voting rights in the corporation.
Some jurisdictions (Washington,
D.C., for example) separate corporations into for-profit and
non-profit, as opposed to dividing into stock and non-stock.
For-profit and non-profit
In modern economic systems, conventions of corporate governance commonly appear in a wide variety of business and non-profit activities. Though the laws governing these creatures of statute often differ, the courts often interpret provisions of the law that apply to profit-making enterprises in the same manner (or in a similar manner) when applying principles to non-profit organizations — as the underlying structures of these two types of entity often resemble each other.Closely held and public
The institution most often referenced by the word "corporation" is a public or publicly traded corporation, the shares of which are traded on a public stock exchange (e.g., the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq in the United States) where shares of stock of corporations are bought and sold by and to the general public. Most of the largest businesses in the world are publicly traded corporations. However, the majority of corporations are said to be closely held, privately held or close corporations, meaning that no ready market exists for the trading of shares. Many such corporations are owned and managed by a small group of businesspeople or companies, although the size of such a corporation can be as vast as the largest public corporations.Closely held corporations do have some advantages
over publicly traded corporations. A small, closely held company
can often make company-changing decisions much more rapidly than a
publicly traded company. A publicly traded company is also at the
mercy of the market, having capital flow in and out based not only
on what the company is doing but the market and even what the
competitors are doing. Publicly traded companies also have
advantages over their closely held counterparts. Publicly traded
companies often have more working
capital and can delegate debt throughout all shareholders. This
means that people invested in a publicly traded company will each
take a much smaller hit to their own capital as opposed to those
involved with a closely held corporation. Publicly traded companies
though suffer from this exact advantage. A closely held corporation
can often voluntarily take a hit to profit with little to no
repercussions (as long as it is not a sustained loss). A publicly
traded company though often comes under extreme scrutiny if profit
and growth are not evident to stock holders, thus stock holders may
sell, further damaging the company. Often this blow is enough to
make a small public company fail.
Often communities benefit from a closely held
company more so than from a public company. A closely held company
is far more likely to stay in a single place that has treated them
well, even if going through hard times. The shareholders can incur
some of the damage the company may receive from a bad year or slow
period in the company profits. Workers benefit in that closely held
companies often have a better relationship with workers. In larger,
publicly traded companies, often when a year has gone badly the
first area to feel the effects are the work force with lay offs or
worker hours, wages or benefits being cut. Again, in a closely held
business the shareholders can incur this profit damage rather than
passing it to the workers. Closely held businesses are also often
known to be more socially
responsible than publicly traded companies.
The affairs of publicly traded and closely held
corporations are similar in many respects. The main difference in
most countries is that publicly traded corporations have the burden
of complying with additional securities laws, which (especially in
the U.S.) may require additional periodic disclosure (with more
stringent requirements), stricter corporate governance standards,
and additional procedural obligations in connection with major
corporate transactions (e.g. mergers) or events (e.g. elections of
directors).
A closely held corporation may be a subsidiary of another
corporation (its parent
company), which may itself be either a closely held or a public
corporation.
Mutual benefit corporations
A mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is a corporation formed in the United States solely for the benefit of its members. An example of a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is a golf club. Individuals pay to join the club, memberships may be bought and sold, and any property owned by the club is distributed to its members if the club dissolves. The club can decide, in its corporate bylaws, how many members to have, and who can be a member. Generally, while it is a nonprofit corporation, a mutual benefit corporation is not a charity. Because it is not a charity, a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation cannot obtain 501(c)(3) status. If there is a dispute as to how a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is being operated, it is up to the members to resolve the dispute since the corporation exists to solely serve the needs of its membership and not the general public.Corporations globally
Following on the success of the corporate model at a national level, many corporations have become transnational or multinational corporations: growing beyond national boundaries to attain sometimes remarkable positions of power and influence in the process of globalizing.The typical "transnational" or "multinational"
may fit into a web of overlapping shareholders and directorships,
with multiple branches and lines in different regions, many such
sub-groupings comprising corporations in their own right. Growth by
expansion may favor national or regional branches; growth by
acquisition or
merger can result in a
plethora of groupings scattered around and/or spanning the globe,
with structures and names which do not always make clear the
structures of shareholder ownership and interaction.
In the spread of corporations across multiple
continents, the importance of corporate
culture has grown as a unifying factor and a counterweight to
local national sensibilities and cultural awareness.
Australia
In Australia corporations are registered and regulated by the Commonwealth Government through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Corporations law has been largely codified in the Corporations Act 2001.Brazil
In Brazil there are many different types of corporations ("sociedades"), but the two most common ones commercially speaking are: (i) "sociedade limitada", identified by "Ltda." after the company's name, equivalent to the British limited company, and (ii) "sociedade anônima" or "companhia", identified by "SA" or "Companhia" in the company's name, equivalent to the British public limited company. The "Ltda." is mainly governed by the new Civil Code, enacted in 2002, and the "SA" by the Law 6.404 dated 15 December 1976.Canada
In Canada both the federal government and the provinces have corporate statutes, and thus a corporation may have a provincial or a federal charter. Many older corporations in Canada stem from Acts of Parliament passed before the introduction of general corporation law. The oldest corporation in Canada is the Hudson's Bay Company; though its business has always been based in Canada, its Royal Charter was issued in England by King Charles II in 1670, and became a Canadian charter by amendment in 1970 when it moved its corporate headquarters from London to Canada. Federally recognized corporations are regulated by the Canada Business Corporations Act.German-speaking countries
Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein recognize two forms of corporation: the Aktiengesellschaft (AG), analogous to public corporations in the English-speaking world, and the Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), similar to (and an inspiration for) the modern limited liability company.Italy
Italy recognises two forms of companies with limited liability: "S.r.l", or "Società a Responsabilità Limitata" (similar to Limited liability company) and "S.p.A" or "Società Per Azioni" (similar to American stock corporation).United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, 'corporation' most commonly refers to a body corporate formed by Royal Charter or by statute, of which few now remain. The BBC is the oldest and best known corporation still in existence. Others, such as the British Steel Corporation, were privatized in the 1980s.In the private sector, corporations are referred
to in law as companies, and are regulated by the Companies
Act 2006 (or the Northern
Ireland equivalent). The most common type of company is the
private limited
company ("Limited" or "Ltd."). Private limited companies can
either be limited by shares or by guarantee. Other corporate forms
include the public
limited company ("PLC") and the unlimited
company.
United States
Several types of corporations exist in the United States. Generically, any business entity that is recognized as distinct from the people who own it (i.e., is not a sole proprietorship or a partnership) is a corporation. This generic label includes entities that are known by such legal labels as ‘association’, ‘organization’ and ‘limited liability company’, as well as corporations proper. Only a company that has been formally incorporated according to the laws of a particular state is called ‘corporation’. American corporations can be either profit-making companies or non-profit entities. Tax-exempt non-profit corporations are often called “501(c)3 corporation”, after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that addresses their tax exemption.Corporations are created by filing the requisite
documents with a particular state government. The process is called
“incorporation,” referring to the abstract concept of clothing the
entity with a "veil" of artificial personhood (embodying, or
“corporating” it, ‘corpus’ being the Latin word for ‘body’). Only
certain corporations, including banks, are chartered. Others simply
file their articles of incorporation with the state government as
part of a registration process.
The
federal government can only create corporate entities pursuant
to relevant powers in the U.S.
Constitution. For example, Congress has constitutional power to
regulate banking, so it has power to charter federal banks.
Additionally, Congress has power to create and own corporations
that serve a purpose of the federal government, such as Amtrak or the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Once incorporated, the corporation has artificial
personhood everywhere it may operate, until such time as the
corporation may be dissolved. A corporation that operates in one
state while being incorporated in another is a “foreign
corporation.” This label also applies to corporations incorporated
outside of the United States. Foreign corporations must usually
register with the secretary of state’s office in each state to
lawfully conduct business in that state.
A corporation is legally a citizen of the state
(or other jurisdiction) in which it is incorporated (except when
circumstances direct the corporation be classified as a citizen of
the state in which it has its head office, or the state in which it
does the majority of its business). Corporate business law differs
from state to state, and many prospective corporations choose to
incorporate in a state whose laws are most favorable to its
business interests. Many large corporations are incorporated in
Delaware,
for example, without being physically located there because that
state has very favorable corporate tax and disclosure laws.
Companies set up for privacy or asset protection
often incorporate in Nevada, which does
not require disclosure of share ownership. Many states,
particularly smaller ones, have modeled their corporate statutes
after the
Model Business Corporation Act, one of many model sets of law
prepared and published by the American
Bar Association.
As juristic
persons, corporations have certain rights that attach to
natural purposes. The vast majority of them attach to corporations
under state law, especially the law of the state in which the
company is incorporated – since the corporations very existence is
predicated on the laws of that state. A few rights also attach by
federal constitutional and statutory law, but they are few and far
between compared to the rights of natural persons. For example, a
corporation has the personal right to bring a lawsuit (as well as
the capacity to be sued) and, like a natural person, a corporation
can be libeled.
But a corporation has no constitutional right to
freely exercise its religion because religious exercise is
something that only "natural" persons can do. That is, only human
beings, not business entities, have the necessary faculties of
belief and spirituality that enable them to possess and exercise
religious beliefs.
Harvard
College (a component of Harvard
University), formally the
President and Fellows of Harvard College (also known as the
Harvard Corporation), is the oldest corporation in the western
hemisphere. Founded in 1636, the second of Harvard’s two governing
boards was incorporated by the
Great and General Court of Massachusetts in 1650.
Significantly, Massachusetts itself was a corporate colony at that
time – owned and operated by the Massachusetts Bay Company (until
it lost its charter in 1684) - so Harvard College is a corporation
created by a corporation.
Many nations have modeled their own corporate
laws on American business law. Corporate law in Saudi
Arabia, for example, follows the model of New York State
corporate law. In addition to typical corporations in the United
States, the federal government, in 1971 passed the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which authorized
the creation of 12 regional native corporations for Alaska
Natives and over 200 village corporations that were entitled to
a settlement of land and cash. In addition to the 12 regional
corporations, the legislation permitted a thirteenth regional
corporation without a land settlement for those Alaska Natives
living out of the State of
Alaska at the time of passage of ANCSA.
Corporate taxation
In many countries corporate profits are taxed at a corporate tax rate, and dividends paid to shareholders are taxed at a separate rate. Such a system is sometimes referred to as "double taxation", because any profits distributed to shareholders will eventually be taxed twice. One solution to this (as in the case of the Australian and UK tax systems) is for the recipient of the dividend to be entitled to a tax credit which addresses the fact that the profits represented by the dividend have already been taxed. The company profit being passed on is therefore effectively only taxed at the rate of tax paid by the eventual recipient of the dividend. In other systems, dividends are taxed at a lower rate than other income (e.g. in the US) or shareholders are taxed directly on the corporation's profits and dividends are not taxed (e.g. S corporations in the US).Corporations' criticism
Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations criticized the joint-stock company corporate form because of the separation of ownership and management.The directors of such [joint-stock] companies,
however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of
their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over
it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a
private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence
and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the
management of the affairs of such a company.
The context for Adam Smith’s term for “companies”
in the Wealth of
Nations was the joint-stock company. In the 18th century, the
joint-stock company was a distinct entity created by the King of
Great Britain as Royal Charter trading companies. These entities
were awarded legal monopoly in designated regions
of the world, such as the
British East India Company.
Furthermore the context of the quote points to
the complications inherent in chartered joint-stock companies. Each
company had a Courts of Governors and day-to-day duties were
overseen by local managers. Governor supervision of day-to-day
operations was minimal and was exacerbated by the geography of the 18th
century.
The sailing time from India to Great Britain was
many months and round trip routes often took a year or longer. It
was during the interim time period that local managers took
advantage of the time delay by plundering the local population at
the expense of the interests of shareholders. Bribery and
corruption were inherent in this type of corporate model as the
local managers sought to avoid close supervision by the Courts of
Governors, politicians, and Prime Ministers. In these
circumstances, Smith did not consider joint-stock company
governance to be honest. More importantly, the East India Company
demonstrated inherent flaws in the corporate form. The division
between owners and managers in a joint-stock company, and the
limited legal liability this division was based on guaranteed that
stockholders would be apathetic about a company's activities as
long as the company continued to be profitable. Just as
problematic, the laws of
agency upon which the corporate form was based allowed for
boards of directors to be so autonomous from and unconstrained by
stockholder wishes that directors became negligent and ultimately
self-interested in the management of the corporation.
Legal Scholar and Professor of Law at the
University of British Columbia Joel Bakan
describes the modern corporate entity as 'an institutional
psychopath' and a 'psychopathic creature.' In the documentary
The
Corporation, Bakan claims that corporations, when considered as
natural living persons, exhibit the traits of
antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. Also in the
film, Robert Monks, a former
Republican Party candidate for Senate from Maine, claims
that:
"The corporation is an externalizing machine
(moving its operating costs to external organizations and people),
in the same way that a shark is a killing machine."
Noam Chomsky
has criticized the legal decisions that led to the creation of the
modern corporation:
Corporations, which previously had been
considered artificial entities with no rights, were accorded all
the rights of persons, and far more, since they are "immortal
persons", and "persons" of extraordinary wealth and power.
Furthermore, they were no longer bound to the specific purposes
designated by State charter, but could act as they choose, with few
constraints.
Recent events in corporate America may suggest
that exploitive behavior common during the time of Adam Smith may
not be a mere historical curiosity.
Influential scholars Frank
Easterbrook and Daniel
Fischel, as an aside to their primary thesis, limitedly argue
that if wealth-maximization is a normative priority of societal
policy, then corporate law serves the general welfare by mimicking,
without the heavy cost of negotiation, the contractual agreements
that would be reached by shareholders, managers and employees. For
example:
"Limited liability decreases the need to monitor
agents. To protect themselves [in its absence], investors could
monitor their agents more closely. The more risk they bear, the
more they will monitor. But beyond a point extra monitoring is not
worth the cost. Moreover, specialized risk bearing implies that
many investors will have diversified holdings. Only a portion of
their wealth will be invested in one firm. These diversified
investors have neither the expertise nor the incentive to monitor
the actions of more specialized agents. Limited liability makes
diversification and passivity a more rational strategy and so
potentially reduces the cost of operating the corporation."
Other business entities
Almost every recognized type of organization carries out some economic activities (e.g. the family). Other organizations that may carry out activities that are generally considered to be business exist under the laws of various countries. These include:See also
- Alaska Native Corporation
- Blocker corporation
- Bylaw
- Commercial law
- Community interest company
- Company (law)
- Conglomerate (company)
- Cooperative
- Corporate Darwinism
- Corporate governance
- Corporate haven
- Corporate Watch
- Corporatism
- Delaware corporation
- Finance capitalism
- Anti-corporate activism
- Guild
- Incorporation (business)
- Limited company
- Limited liability company (LLC)
- Megacorporation (fictional)
- Organizational culture
- Preferred stock
- Professional corporation (PC or P.C.)
- Public limited company (PLC)
- Registered Agent
- Shelf Corporation
- Stock certificates
- The Corporation − a documentary focusing on surge of corporate power in our society over the last two centuries
- Unlimited liability corporation
Footnotes
References
- A Comparative Bibliography: Regulatory Competition on Corporate Law
- Sobel, Robert. The Age of Giant Corporations: a Microeconomic History of American Business. (1984)
- Klein and Coffee. Business Organization and Finance: Legal and Economic Principles. Foundation. 2002. ISBN -X
- Hessen, Robert. In Defense of the Corporation. Hoover Institute. 1979. ISBN -X
- Bromberg, Alan R. Crane and Bromberg on Partnership. 1968.
- Conard, Alfred F. Corporations in Perspective. 1976.
- Dignam, A and Lowry, J (2006) Company Law, Oxford University Press ISBN-13: 978-0-19-928936-3
- John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. The Company: a Short History of a Revolutionary Idea. New York: Modern Library. 2003.
- Blumberg, Phillip I., The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality, (1993)
- John William Cadman, The Corporation in New Jersey: Business and Politics, , (1949)
- C. A. Cooke, Corporation, Trust and Company: A Legal History, (1950)
- John P. Davis, Corporations (1904)
- Joseph S. Davis, Essays in the Earlier History of American Corporations (1917)
- A.B. DuBois, The English Business Company after the Bubble Act, , (1938)
- Edwin Merrick Dodd, American Business Corporations until 1860, With Special Reference to Massachusetts, (1954)
- Charles Freedman, Joint-stock Enterprise in France, : From Privileged Company to Modern Corporation (1979)
- Ernst Freund, The Legal Nature of the Corporation, (1897)
- Frederick Hallis, Corporate Personality: A Study in Jurisprudence (1930)
- Bishop Hunt, The Development of the Business Corporation in England (1936)
- Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, (1920)
- Robert Charles Means, Underdevelopment and the Development of Law: Corporations and Corporation Law in Nineteenth-century Colombia, (1980)
- Thomas Owen, The Corporation under Russian Law, : A Study in Tsarist Economic Policy (1991)
- Radhe Shyam Rungta, The Rise of the Business Corporation in India, 1851–1900, (1970)
- W. R. Scott, Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720 (1912)
- Bruce Brown, The History of the Corporation (2003)
Further reading
- Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporation
External links
- US Corporate Law at Wikibooks
corporation in Breton: Embregerezh
corporation in Czech: Obchodní společnost
corporation in German: Körperschaft
corporation in Estonian: Ettevõte
corporation in Spanish: Corporación
corporation in Esperanto: Entrepreno
corporation in French: corporation
corporation in Korean: 주식회사
corporation in Croatian: Korporacija
corporation in Indonesian: Perusahaan
corporation in Italian: Società (diritto)
corporation in Hebrew: תאגיד
corporation in Latvian: Uzņēmums
corporation in Luxembourgish: Entreprise
corporation in Hungarian: Vállalat
corporation in Dutch: Bedrijf
corporation in Japanese: 株式会社
corporation in Norwegian: Aksjeselskap
corporation in Norwegian Nynorsk:
Aksjeselskap
corporation in Polish: Spółka kapitałowa
corporation in Portuguese: Corporação
corporation in Romanian: Corporaţie
corporation in Russian: Корпорация
corporation in Simple English: Corporation
corporation in Slovenian: Podjetje
corporation in Serbian: Корпорација
corporation in Turkish: Şirket
corporation in Yiddish: קארפארעישאן
corporation in Chinese: 股份有限公司
Synonyms, Antonyms and Related Words
Aktiengesellschaft,
agency, aktiebolag, atelier, barbershop, bay window,
beauty parlor, beauty shop, bench, body corporate, business, business
establishment, butcher shop, cartel, chamber of commerce,
combine, commercial
enterprise, compagnie,
company, concern, conglomerate, conglomerate
corporation, consolidating company, consortium, copartnership, corporate
body, desk, diversified
corporation, enterprise, establishment, facility, firm, holding company, house, industry, installation, institution, joint-stock
association, joint-stock company, loft, operating company, organization, parlor, partnership, paunch, plunderbund, pod, pool, pot, public utility, shop, stock company, studio, sweatshop, syndicate, trade association,
trust, utility, work site, work space,
workbench, workhouse, working space,
workplace, workroom, workshop, worktable