1. This depicts the fiction/concession ‘theory’. The corporation/firm is a legal creation (invention) that satisfies a technical legal requirement. It simplifies the nexus of contracts and makes it manageable. If we refer to ‘them’ (i.e. all the elements) without invoking the notion of a set, we are left with a “mere association of individuals’ (who are normally) ‘united for a common purpose”. This “association” is (assumed within the traditional relevant MP-context to be) a weak, non-contractual, non transformational relationship. associated persons contracts legal-fiction or math-set contracts

2. 1.The background (liberal economic and respectful) assumption is that each “person in their corporate aspect” is an autonomous contractor with a stable P&I 2.However, immersion in a (business-like) nexus of pure exchange- relationships and the implied “MP-differentiated role” might have an effect on the P&I. The effect might be corrupting or civilizing, depending on the S&C. 3. This weak effect is carried over into “non-corporate aspects” of the person, other roles, projects & programs 1. The implicit assumption is that each person is substantially open to influence by the group (its or their ethos & actions). 2. The membership-relation and internal-relations are engaging and transformational (e.g. ‘transformational’ leadership). 3. The strong “transformation” of P&I is likely to be substantially carried over into the non-corporate aspects of the person. P&I = Personality, Identity, Beliefs, Cognitive structures, Motivations, Attitudes, Character MP= Moral-philosophical S&C=Situation & circumstances Latest

3. 1.The background (liberal economic and respectful) assumption is that each “person in their corporate aspect” is an autonomous contractor with a stable P&I 2.However, immersion in a (business-like) nexus of pure exchange- relationships and the implied “MP-differentiated role” might have an effect on the P&I. The effect might be corrupting or civilizing, depending on the S&C. 3. This weak effect is carried over into “non-corporate aspects” of the person, other roles, projects & programs 4.This implies that some blame for actions of the affected person should be assigned to the group (i.e. it or them or both), but more for actions of the person in their corporate role or aspect. 1. The implicit assumption is that each person is substantially open to influence by the group (its or their ethos & actions). 2. The membership-relation and internal-relations are engaging and transformational (e.g. ‘transformational’ leadership). 3. The strong “transformation” of P&I is likely to be substantially carried over into the non-corporate aspects of the person. 4. This implies that much of the blame for any actions of the affected person should be assigned to the group (i.e. it or them or both). P&I = Personality, Identity, Beliefs, Cognitive structures, Motivations, Attitudes, Character This conflicts with the “extraordinarily important” legal principle that “a person is answerable for his own actions (or choices of action), and not for the actions of others”. This principle places the onus on the person to reflect upon the “influences” on himself of the group’s ethos & actions and try to compensate for these so his actions and choices reflect and express his authentic self. This where the self-perceived “locus of control” becomes relevant. “Externals” would have difficulty with this reflective-compensatory process Latest

4. Purely contractual relationships Latest Senior layer External stakeholder group(s) & corporations Internal stakeholder group(s) Why not just have a nexus of contracts between all the individual persons? Econ-legal: Would be too complicated, transaction-costs* would be too high. (more efficient to use incomplete employment contracts). Social-psych-moral : no sense of belonging, no transformative effects (civilizing or corrupting), leaves people on their own but emphasizes complete autonomy (which is the liberal economic assumption and way of thinking; in part as an MP-preference, but mainly to see where it leads; which, in turn, is why the above question was even thought of). *i.e. costs of search, information, bargaining, loss of trade-secrets A good example of a civilizing transformation is the 1990s Levi-Strauss Business Partner Terms of Engagement (exactly like the K-Pan Global Profits case) Stakeholder-engagement & transformation