• Home
  • Business


  • Category:
  • Document type:
    Case Study
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:



Since corporations just like human beings are moral agents, they should, therefore, have the same moral right. Just as human beings the corporations are expected and are supposed to make moral decisions. Just like human beings, the corporations have the right to own properties, they also have they can enter into contracts, and they can also be entitled into decision making. The corporations are to be held responsible for their decisions and their actions, just like individual human being. This justifies that; corporations should have the same moral right as human beings. For instance, Nike Company was sued in court for exploitation of false facts to consumers in order to win their loyalty and as a result, it would enjoy huge profits (Jamali, Safieddine, & Rabbath, 2008).

Corporations are beneficiaries of suitable economic policies that will enable them to expand their market share. The corporations will be affected by poor government policies implemented in the economy. Political instability, poor infrastructures, among other factors can contribute to the failure of corporations. For this reason, therefore, the corporations are entitled to same political rights (Jo, & Harjoto, 2011). They should also have the freedom to address political issues just like individual human beings can. Denying corporations same political rights as human beings would lead to negative impacts on the business, for instance, market failures, government imposing high taxes on them and lack of market information which is very important for any given business.

It is permissible to limit the speech of corporations at times; this is because corporations are well informed on business issues. They mostly focus on how they would acquire huge profits in their financial years and how they are to compete with their rivals i.e. they are benefit oriented. They may, therefore, fail to address issues that favor them but affect the entire society provided they can maximize their profits and minimize inputs. The corporations are likely to give misleading information to the customers in order to make huge economic returns. The corporations are not in a position to deal with social problems; they are equipped to respond to economic problems they may arise within the economy. Corporations are owned by shareholders, the shareholders have less interest with the surrounding community but their main idea is to share profits (Stuebs, & Sun, 2015). For instance, Nike Company was sued in court by San Francisco who was an activist, claiming that the company’s advertisement was misleading. The company was trying to defend itself that it had favorable working conditions and that it upheld human labor standards, which according to San was not the case.

Limiting speech of corporations at times is a good public policy. This is because consumers are rational beings. They will consider a bucket that is cost friendly but with the highest level of utility, corporations, therefore, are likely to give misleading information to potential consumers with their main aim is to make huge profits. Thus the corporations if not closely monitored are likely to deliver substandard goods and services. The corporations are also likely to ignore their corporate social responsibilities. The corporations should be well monitored since they may ignore considering environmental factors. Limiting corporations will help protect the consumers from corporate deceit.


Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review16(5), 443-459.

Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics103(3), 351-383.

Stuebs, M., & Sun, L. (2015). Corporate governance and social responsibility. International Journal of Law and Management57(1), 38-52.