81

Theory of the firm is an interdisciplinary effort in which the social sciences must consider the constitutive role of law. Many of the existing shortcomings in the theory of the firm can be addressed with a more disciplined use of language. In general language, the words corporation, firm, and enterprise, inter alia, are used as synonyms. But using them as synonyms in social sciences analyses, in particular in economics, leads to erroneous assumptions and conclusions. Among the most significant errors are the assumption that shareholders own firms, that corporate officers are the shareholders’ agents, and that firm managers must manage solely in the shareholders’ interests. This is inaccurate and does not correspond to the real-life structuring of large business enterprises. To understand this, it is essential to make the distinction between the “corporation” as a legal concept and the “corporation” as a business enterprise. To avoid any confusion, scientific analyses should use the word corporation in its legal sense only. This would prevent damaging confusions. The enterprise, or firm, as an economic organization, does not have legal personality as such. To operate in the legal system, it must make use of the legal personality granted by the legal system to legal persons, i.e., individuals, partnerships, or corporations. Not being a legal person, the firm needs to make use of legal persons to operate in the legal system. But the legal persons used do not encompass the whole of the enterprise’s organization. The corporate structure of the enterprise is merely the legal backbone used to organize the use of property rights via contracts. One must then differentiate corporate governance from firm management to move toward more sustainable governance structures, rules of accountability, and accounting rules. There is an ongoing debate about these wording issues and the present article is a contribution to it.