ABSTRACT
Charles Handy’s view that the main role of the corporations is to be of service to society (Handy, 1998) probably sounds rather idealistic. Some would even regard it as an impossible dream. However, logically speaking, it is a reasonable point that is hard to refute (cf. Arthur, 1996; Moore, 1997). One might want to push it further by arguing that a profoundly effective business culture would have little choice but to embrace symbiotic and altruistic principles within its primary agenda. Where once this might have sounded hopelessly idealistic it now makes more sense, largely because altruism and symbiosis are now seen as integral to how the biosphere works. Until recently popular mythology had it that the self-seeking and predatory behaviour of large corporations was a sign of their ultimate efficiency. The economic establishment has asked citizens to believe that ruthlessness in business was a ‘natural’ practice that needs to be tolerated, humoured, or even handsomely rewarded. This largely stemmed from Adam Smith’s extraordinarily influential idea of 1776, namely that self-interest leads to collective benefit (Smith, 1904). This idea influenced Darwin’s theory of evolution, which, in turn, gave credibility to the economics of the far right. The received Darwinian model emphasises the importance of violent struggle in nature’s selection of the ‘fittest’ genes in a given species. However, what this model overlooked is the important role of interdependency within ecosystems. This interdependency means that the majority of organisms are able to work together to conserve precious (calorific) energy within a given region.
