And they are the product of a fluke of legal-economic history.
Please reconsider whether continuing to do the same (simple and easy) thing we've always done, that we've already seen does not work.
Take a step back, re-evaluate the problem in a new context, even if you don't end up agreeing with my perspective, attempting to think about the situation in a new light might be helpful.
It might be that something in the way corps grow up, maybe their environment (regulations, lack of same, incentives, consumerism, trade, markets) may influence them to grow into the immoral unethical monsters they often become.
Maybe we should consider them too dangerous and harmful, and simply destroy them, I'm not convinced that's better, but maybe there's a way to understand them at a different level, that allows us to "write articles" they understand well enough to actually adjust their behavior (and not just try and circumvent whatever "obstacle" has been put in their path).
I will counter this with: The argument that the humans that make up a corp are in control over it, and that the corp behaviour simply results from their flawed and greedy characters, is just a convenient way to blame someone because the real problem of understanding what kind of entities corps are, and how to influence and control them is too hard.
When dealing with people, we tend to view them as as distinct entities from their individual cells and neurons when we argue about their behavior. We don't talk about this or that individual neuron causing a human to take an action, if anything, we may discuss a group of neurons, but often, we argue about the entire "brain chemistry", even if it's strictly true that some group of distinct neurons are "responsible" for the action the human takes, then so is the bones in their hands, the fibres in their muscles, because they didn't refuse (to refuse, is to no longer be part of that body). Maybe it's the moral thing to do, for a cell to refuse to be part of the immoral human, but it does not absolve the human from responsibility, and it does not put all the responsibility on the indvidual cells that make it up, humans are complex organism, corps are made out of humans, they are even more complex. Treating them as a collection of humans is what we have done so far, and while we've gained some satisfaction seeing a (too few) very disgusting people getting what they deserved, it's not changed the overall behaviour of the companies, because, killing or changing one neuron won't change a brain, replace neuron with human and brain with corp.
On a higher level of abstraction, the corp as a form of life, maybe a cancer, maybe a rat, or something that could potentially be a positive thing, we may start a new way of reasoning about and with them.
After all, I can talk to you, I know how to do that, but I can't talk to your neurons directly, I don't understand their modes of communication, it's on a different level from me.. This is why psychiatry is behind, we don't know how brains work well enough, we can give medications to take the worst out of them, like treatments for adhd, or schizophrenia, but they don't work on the brain in a coherent way, they work on the individual neurons in a very crude way, and so, the effects are nowhere near perfect, and the side effects can be almost as bad, or in some cases worse than the decease.
What I’m saying is that culture isn’t its own uncontrollable entity independent of influence from the people that run the corporation. A company’s culture is dictated by the people who lead and make decisions for that corporation. A culture is driven from the top down.
The problem isn’t understanding what type of entity a corporation is, it’s fining people who are both motivated to make the change but also has the power to make any changes.
The real hard part is working against the rigged system. People who can enact change won’t because it’s not profitable. Whether you’re the MP bribed, sorry I mean “lobbied”, by corporations, or you’re the corporate director that had to navigate the cutthroat ranks to reach your position, there’s literally no personal interest to do the right thing. Literally everyone who can control these beasts suffer from massive conflicts of interest.
So the problem isn’t understanding the problem. We already know what the problem is. We just don’t care enough to change it.
At the very leaset everyone inside the coporation can choose to quit. Yes that may not be an easy choice but that doesn't mean there isn't a choice. More often than not the choice is not nearly as costly as people want to pretend. And yes we should hold individuals accountable for making immoral choices just like "I was just following orders" should never be a valid excuse.
As society keeps forcing them into pretend empathy they know every detail about it. They can exploit it and imitate it but they cant hide how precious their ego is to them. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Corporate creatures are similar, they simply don't share our emotions. That doesn't mean they don't understand or wont cater to them.
I agree, in many ways corps exhibit the same behavior as psychopaths, after all, people is the thing they subside on.
I think their way of cognition is even more alien to a normal human than that of a psychopath is to a normal human.
They may share a fundamental, that we can't make them truly understand why something is wrong, but we may be able to come up with consequences that deter them from undesired behavior.
One difference though, is that we can't make it illegal to be a psychopath, only make some of the actions that only a psychopath would perform illegal.. We could make it illegal to be a corp (I'm not saying this is going to be a better idea.. But we could make it legal to kill corps, if only we can find out how to kill them so they actually die of it [1]).
There is nothing to understand. Our ancestors, over billions of years, experienced quite a few things. The most important parts transferred from generation to generation by various means. Some parts even got hard coded into our brains firmware. Empathy for example is a fantastic idea. We know that if everyone would live up to those expectations we could create a truly wonderful society. It's not something we've learned or even understand. We just trust our feelings.
It's in err to expect others wired differently to mimic our emotions. The psychopaths developed over billions of years too! When our civilization of abundance fails, like so many before, they will step over the corpses and enjoy robbing some prepper while we won't even be able to string a thought together.
Until that time they will be this weird out of place artifact trying to fit in in a world stacked against them. It's much easier to just learn their logic and apply it only to them. Give them places to fit in. Fewer carrots, more stick.
We keep putting them in charge of the nursery, cry wolf when they ate all the babies and then we kill them. Who's fault is it really?
So, as far as a corp can understand anything, it can't understand this human article. I don't know if one can write articles that a corp can understand, maybe it cannot understand medium in the same way we can.. It seems to act based on information it sees in "markets" and "consumer behaviour", and we don't yet know how to write an article with those (even if "vote with your money" was once believed to be it, until we discovered that mankind as a whole is not an individual that can make a decision)