Some in here consider corporations as one of the great evils of our society. That is simplistic. As a method of accumulating capital and organizing and dividing labor, the corporate structure is not only the logical fulfillment of our economic system but its crowning glory in terms of efficiency and productive capacity, and thus a crucial economic engine.
The downside to corporations is their dehumanizing tendencies, against which managers must be forever vigilant. Beyond that, in the two main aspects of corporate existence that I will criticize here, the very ethic of the corporation can (maybe) be tweaked, thereby introducing "public good" beyond profits as an animating goal, and the revolting excesses of executive salaries can be reined in to reflect value in realistic human terms, with the byproduct that corporate culture itself will become more responsive to the very reason for its creation: serving the people who comprise it and whom it affects.
The concept of "shareholder value," a cornerstone of every body of corporate law in the country, mandates that the board of directors and executives MUST make decisions and pursue policies and programs that will reap the largest monetary reward for shareholders -- or risk potentially devastating lawsuits by disaffected shareholders. I have always questioned this ethic, maybe because of socialist sympathies, but clearly because it marginalizes -- crowds out -- other considerations such as the "public good." To remedy that, tilting at windmills, I suggest a move to alter state corporate codes or to pass pre-empting legislation at the federal level establishing the "public good" (good luck defining it) as not only an acceptable but preferred method of corporate decision-making. This would remove the threat of shareholder suit against boards and executives who deem, in the context of a changing corporate culture, certain corporate initiatives to be followed simply because they're good for the community or the country and not necessarily for the shareholder's bottom line.
The other questionable practice of corporations (are there only a few?) is the exorbitant compensation they pay their executives. No one is worth that much. The best idea would be to tie executive compensation to a multiple of the lowest wage-earner's pay in the organization, and keep it that way. Not only would fat cats get lean, but due to their insatiable appetite for "adequate compensation," the powers that be would visit a benefit on the lowly when they deem it fit to give themselves a raise. Unfortunately, I surmise, this can't be addressed by legislation because the Contract Clause would render unconstitutional any attempt to limit the ability (within limits) to freely form contract terms, especially including the right to bargain for compensation. Nevertheless, as a matter of corporate governance itself -- shareholder politics -- it has a chance of being emblazoned into the private, contractual corporate charter and bylaws. This has a chance of catching on, by the way, because such a policy could actually enhance "shareholder value" (less expense), if the myth of the great man could be disspelled from the corporate mindset as to who is qualified to lead the band.
