VW and Shell try to block EU push for electric cars

The determining factor is the interplay between relevant people. A corporation is a framework within which people interact, and the key people who do most to define the wider direction of the company will interact in certain ways. Executives and shareholders, by and large. It can be both the people and their own views, in combination with how the framework allows them to interact, that defines the output. Ie. what the company ends up doing.

What I mean is that structure can prevent the full views of people, even in important positions, from being represented in company actions. They also tend to have an averaging effect across relevant parties, and so shared priorities are emphasises whilst more personal ones are often de-emphasised. Again the degree to which this is true is defined by the structure of the organisation itself, but this is far from an outlandish idea in practice. And yes, these structures were implemented by people, but once implemented they can affect situations in a way which is more independent of the person who implemented them than direct action on their part would be. And people can also change structures, but that doesn't fully undermine their role as an influence on output because doing so is a larger proposition that often has its own obstacles.

My point is that the idea of companies being "just a collection of people" is true, but doesn't really speak to the discussion. It is the very nature of this "collection" element which defines how things work vs just a person, and the structure of a corporation as a group model is more specific than even just "a collection of people," meaning we see observable trends and practices that emerge for reasons other than 'people suck.'

/r/worldpolitics Thread Parent Link - theguardian.com