The European Commission has sought some degree of commonality across the EU and has usefully created the concept of a Public Interest Entity, spelling out the principle that the conduct of large businesses is properly a matter of public interest. But the application of that idea is in the hands of member states, with the consequence that nothing much has happened. A European corporation can now register as a Societas Europaea, and Airbus SE is the archetype of the modern European company, but the fact that it was necessary to resort to Latin for the title is indicative of the difficulty of securing continent-wide solutions, an observation equally true of the United States.

For Penrose, the firm was defined not by the assets it owned or the contracts it made but by its capabilities and its ability to deploy those capabilities in productive services: ‘All the evidence we have indicates that the growth of firms is connected with the attempts of a particular group of people to do something.’ Perhaps that seems obvious. But her emphasis

on ‘the group’ recognises the centrally cooperative nature of business activity, and her identification of purpose – ‘to do something’ – establishes its problem-related focus.

I believe it is appropriate – indeed necessary – to view the business organisation in the same way. The proper goal of corporate activity is the flourishing of the multiple stakeholders of the corporation: employees, investors, suppliers and customers, the communities in which it operates and the corporation itself. For the corporation to flourish, it must contribute to the flourishing of the society in which it operates. And ‘the doctrine of the mean’ is as relevant to the business organisation as it is to the individual. The directors and executives of a flourishing company operate within a mediating hierarchy, which meets the needs of all its stakeholders, gives them an opportunity for voice and protects the business from the adverse consequences of stakeholder exit.

In writing this book, I have been repeatedly struck by the frequency with which discussion is clouded, not illuminated, by the imposition of false binaries where no clear-cut distinction actually exists. Just as there is no usefully sharp distinction between heap and not heap, between dry and wet, so there is no sharp distinction between market and hierarchy, between public and private sectors, between profit and not-for-profit organisations, even – and critically – no sharp distinction between capital and labour. The concept of ownership is often complicated, and the ‘badges of ownership’ may be divided among several agents so that the ‘owner’ is hard to identify. Binaries are the natural currency of both lawyers and economists because, for different but related reasons, both law and mathematics demand precision.

The focus on the firm as a collection of capabilities gives a different and more illuminating perspective for understanding the extraordinary diversity of business organisations and of businesspeople over geographies and over time. The core ideas in this book – collective intelligence, radical uncertainty, disciplined pluralism, relational contracts and the mediating hierarchy – have been extensively developed and discussed by earlier writers, though much of that work has been outside the context of business organisation. The relevance of each to the argument of this book arises from a belief that in the modern world successful commercial relationships are not simply instrumental and transactional; they are social and are embedded in a wider framework of communities and teams. That transactional view was both incorrect and unattractive. This book is written in the hope that a better account of how business and its stakeholders flourish will point the way not just to a better understanding of business but to the better conduct of business itself. In a successor volume I will try to explain some of the implications of that understanding for both business policy and public

Policy.