What is this question asking me?

[Carradona]

I don't really understand what this means:

 

"Critically evaluate the view that a corporation is, by definition, pathological?"

 

Can somebody else make sense of it?

 

What is a pathological corporation?

 

I'm not looking for anyone to answer this for me, just a bit of help on what the question is asking or what it means by a pathological corporation?

 

I can't find it in my text book or on Google.

[Unrighteous]

I think they are talking about viewing a corporation as a living entity with personality traits. There is a good case for classing a corporation as being mentally disturbed. Think of their immoral activities.

[Section_31]

The Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

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. ”

— Robert Monks, corporate governance advisor and former Republican candidate for Senate from Maine

 

Quality

[Carradona]

Cheers. Just that I have a shitty Corporate Social Responsibility (pile of wank) exam on Wednesday and that appeared on one of the past papers and I didn't understand what it meant by the word "pathological".

[Guest The Chimp]

By "critically evaluate" it would seem that they're looking for you to put forward the different theoretical analyses of what a "corporation" is. I'm guessing here there will be diametrically opposed views; your job is to find the most appropriate definition from whats presented to help ascertain whether it (a corporation) is indeed pathological (ie. the definition will show that from the literature available the majority of evidence points towards it being pathological or not). Quite simply, what you view a corporation to be(your own favoured definition) will go a long way to answering the question.

 

I've no idea of the subject matter but it would seem the question should be broken down into two main parts, the first of which helps inform what the answer for the second will be. I'd also guess they'll be looking for a definitive answer: yes or no. Hope this helps?

 

Edit. Not that it's right, but it also helps if you know the viewpoint the person marking it has and can fit it in around that.

[Guest The Chimp]

I think they are talking about viewing a corporation as a living entity with personality traits. There is a good case for classing a corporation as being mentally disturbed. Think of their immoral activities.

 

Again, I'm no expert but that was exactly what I thought when I initially read the question.

[Catch22]

Pathologically what?

 

A human can be a pathological liar or a pathological truth-teller.

 

As it hasn't defined precisely what trait the corporation is meant to have, i guess it means any.

 

So essentially it is asking whether any corporation has to have extreme or abnormal qualities in a specific direction in order to differentiate itself & prosper.

 

So it can be pathologically devoted to cost-cutting, or to customer service or to design or to innovation or to whatever.

(It can even be applied to structure: A firm can be a niche-player or it can be large but it struggles in the middle as it loses out to competitors who are both big or small)

 

Having a clearly defined trait or goal gives everyone a strategic direction as well as providing consumers with a clear brand: Apple sells itself very differently from Tesco but both make money.

 

 

So in that sense a company must have some "extreme" or pathological trait to survive.

 

I don't think it is a very good question though & my explanation may be bullshit but pathological doesn't really make sense without another descriptive word after it.

[Guest The Chimp]

Pathologically what?

 

I get what you're saying, but it's asking for one's position on "the view". Given this, I'd assume that this must be a clearly defined theory (and if it's being used in an exam, fairly well known) in the particular academic field. Again, my PhD is not in this area at all, but questions tend to be fairly similar in the way they're composed no matter the subject matter.

[Catch22]

I get what you're saying, but it's asking for one's position on "the view". Given this, I'd assume that this must be clearly defined (and if it's being used in an exam, fairly well known) theory in the particular academic field. Again, my PhD is not on this area at all, but questions tend to be fairly similar in the way they're composed no matter the subject matter.

 

Yes you are probably right & I also have no real experience in that field so it may well have a specific definition.

[Sinos]

Goldman Sachs would be an good example for you to use.

[Carradona]

Cheers guys.

[Stu Monty]

I get what you're saying, but it's asking for one's position on "the view". Given this, I'd assume that this must be a clearly defined theory (and if it's being used in an exam, fairly well known) in the particular academic field. Again, my PhD is not in this area at all, but questions tend to be fairly similar in the way they're composed no matter the subject matter.

 

Unless it's something that's emerged very recently it isn't a clearly defined theory or a well known term. It's a really shit question if you ask me. Catch has summed up the problems with the term pathalogical; it can have many meanings when applied differently.

 

This is a handy little quote for any Corporate Responsibility essay though, Cain:

 

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

—Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.

[Carradona]

That's weird, I actualy just read that quote on the internet and thought it would be pretty useful too.

 

And I also agree that the question is shit and probably would have just chosen a different one in the exam.

[Victor Ganges]

An interesting article but probably nothing to do with what you asked.

[Stu Monty]

That's weird, I actualy just read that quote on the internet and thought it would be pretty useful too.

 

And I also agree that the question is shit and probably would have just chosen a different one in the exam.

 

It's propably also worth writing something about lobbying, Cain. When talking about corporate responsibility it's worthwhile to note that due to well paid lobbyists and the corporations funding the campaigns of elected members the law is now up for sale. Therefore the law can no longer be a guide for corporate responsibility. Something being legal and something being responsible are very different things.

 

There's a good case in Equador with Chevron pouring oil into the rainforest to keep costs down that's going on at the moment, might be something worth referencing to be seen to be current.

[Catch22]

It's propably also worth writing something about lobbying, Cain. When talking about corporate responsibility it's worthwhile to note that due to well paid lobbyists and the corporations funding the campaigns of elected members the law is now up for sale. Therefore the law can no longer be a guide for corporate responsibility. Something being legal and something being responsible are very different things.

 

There's a good case in Equador with Chevron pouring oil into the rainforest to keep costs down that's going on at the moment, might be something worth referencing to be seen to be current.

 

That is a problem of the modern democratic process.

Every single organization be it corporation, trade unions, the Gurkhas, anti/pro abortionists, etc,etc or the cricket board engages in lobbying.

 

ALL of these issues-groups improve the lot of the group doing the lobbying at the cost of the rights of everybody else

 

It is an issue/problem but isn't relevant to the role of the corporation.

 

Ultimately corporate behaviour is determined by what its customers want as if they don't like it, the company is strategically vulbnerable

 

Which is why homogenous commodity producers have a whole different set of behavioural norms to hi-tech phone manufacturers as that is what the same set of consumers wants at different times: Most people don't buy petrol because the brand is cool anymore than they buy phones purely on price.

 

Moreover it changes dramatically over time which is why adverts for energy companies look a lot different to how they did 35 years ago

[danhaddad]

For a legal perspective see the P&O ferry disaster, and the law of corporate manslaughter

[Spy Bee]

Pathological is dealing with disease. So basically, does corporation have aids?

 

Yes is the answer by the way.

[Guest The Chimp]

Unless it's something that's emerged very recently it isn't a clearly defined theory or a well known term. It's a really shit question if you ask me. Catch has summed up the problems with the term pathalogical; it can have many meanings when applied differently.

 

This is a handy little quote for any Corporate Responsibility essay though, Cain:

 

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

—Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.

 

As I said, not my area but perhaps prescribed reading for the course the year the exam was set was Joel Bakan's (a law professor at U.B.C.) “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power”? That perhaps would make it less of a shit question.

 

Edit. Just done a bit of quick research and this might be useful Cain? https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/julio/www/CSR_1.pdf

[Stu Monty]

That is a problem of the modern democratic process.

Every single organization be it corporation, trade unions, the Gurkhas, anti/pro abortionists, etc,etc or the cricket board engages in lobbying.

 

ALL of these issues-groups improve the lot of the group doing the lobbying at the cost of the rights of everybody else

 

It is an issue/problem but isn't relevant to the role of the corporation.

 

Ultimately corporate behaviour is determined by what its customers want as if they don't like it, the company is strategically vulbnerable

 

Which is why homogenous commodity producers have a whole different set of behavioural norms to hi-tech phone manufacturers as that is what the same set of consumers wants at different times: Most people don't buy petrol because the brand is cool anymore than they buy phones purely on price.

 

Moreover it changes dramatically over time which is why adverts for energy companies look a lot different to how they did 35 years ago

 

How is it not relevant if the money chooses the leaders? The Corporation now controls the democracy, and through that, the law, so of course it's relevant.

 

And by controlling the democracy it controls the education of the customer and the behavioural conditioning of the society.

[Catch22]

How is it not relevant if the money chooses the leaders? The Corporation now controls the democracy, and through that, the law, so of course it's relevant.

 

And by controlling the democracy it controls the education of the customer and the behavioural conditioning of the society.

 

 

It is one of many different lobbying groups.

 

The last 10+years in Britain have seen very anti-enterprise & anti-companies government so it hasn't exactly been successful in its lobbying.

[melons]

haha, *gloats*

 

My 'family and today's society' seems blissful after reading that.

 

Good luck Cain. x

[Stu Monty]

It is one of many different lobbying groups.

 

The last 10+years in Britain have seen very anti-enterprise & anti-companies government so it hasn't exactly been successful in its lobbying.

 

Mate, you're missing the point. It might be a less powerful force over here but it's still the case: the money is the government. The government is hired by the money, the corporation. Often the government is actually on the staff of the corporation. So that's making laws, handing out contracts and cashing in on a salary and stock price too! If you can't see that's the current sitaution then I don't know how to proceed. It's as clear as day.

 

How do you think a senator gets elected? Not on IOUs. Have you seen the puppets dance to the heathcare dollars recently? There's not even any pretence of a distinction anymore.

 

The fact that you think a government that just gave away billions of taxpayer money to the banking corporations has been anti-corporation is mental. A government so anti-enterprise that they just didn't bother to regulate the financial industry (and let them all pay no tax). Jeez.

 

You can never be pro-business enough. "I go forward, you go backward, somewhere we will meet".

Edited January 25, 2010 by Stu Monty

[Malarkey]

The question is thus, Cain;

 

"If a tree falls in a secluded forest, what sound does it make?"

 

The answer is thus;

 

"How does a tree make a sound when there is nobody around to hear it?"

 

End scene.

[Stu Monty]

The question is thus, Cain;

 

"If a tree falls in a secluded forest, what sound does it make?"

 

The answer is thus;

 

"How does a tree make a sound when there is nobody around to hear it?"

 

End scene.

 

If only you could take the exam for him. It would be a guaranteed first.