Corporations have existed under a legal mandate to earn more money for their owners now and into the future. As such they have been existing on the power of taking more than they provide and therefore a source of pollution, mediocrity, waste and dependency. That does not mean that in the future, we must get rid of the corporate idea.
The ideas expressed in this article are very dependent on the cooperative efforts of the high-end issuers of credit or money. As I understand it, these ideas are congruent with those that have been and are still connected to the global economic funds. I understand that they are adaquate for humanities future needs.
In the spirit of competition, corporations have managed to do immensely powerful yet destructive effects on humanity. In the spirit of vitality, they have the potential to do immensely powerful constructive things that provide the basis for vitality. Corporations get things done that one person cannot do alone. It's that simple. There are a number of modifications that can be done to any corporation that will transform that into an instrument of creating lasting value.
First of all any corporation will have to be re-purposed to harmonize with the collective goal. The owners economic or time/effort investment into the corporation will be rewarded by realizing increasing levels of vitality among others and the environment. When we re-purpose humanity, we re-purpose everything that humanity creates. That means that we provide a system of rewards that are measured by the value that they provide.
As long as humanity is addicted to money, and it will be until there is enough global abundance that money becomes obsolete, there will be a need for corporations to be created. They will need to become sustainable and they need to grow to meet their optimal capacity to provide and adapt to changing circumstances without the fear of economic collapse.
It is quite clear that future corporate investors will be investing money into creating more value, and not more money.
The relationship between the corporation and its "employees"
In the paradigm of competition, human labor was seen as a way to keep people busy and out of trouble. In the spirit of vitality, human labor will be seen as one of two things, the mastery of desirable skills or contribution. When "work" becomes drudgery, human innovation will always find a way to eliminate that struggle out of their lives. We want to be engaged in activities that serve our own self interests and those of others at the same time, if we have the opportunity of doing so. This allows for the free flow of passion into any project. Everything is done for self and others. It makes life more interesting and gives ample room for other activities like "play" and "rest".
This means that the corporate work force will be local, and it may have different degrees of stability. As the level of individual self-sustainability and empowerment increases, so will the level of freedom from tasks that we consider "work".
In the competition paradigm, worker loyalty was demanded by the work provider. In the vitality paradigm, loyalty will be toward the paradigm and not the corporation. If both are in alignment, than there should be no bothersome issues with loyalty and where it should lie.
The relationship between the corporation and the beneficiaries
In the competition paradigm, the end user was thought of as a consumer. As such the idea was to make the consumer as dependent on the producer as possible, thus creating sustainability. In the spirit of vitality, the end idea is to think of the end user as the beneficiary. The end goal is to provide a product, or service or infrastructure that provides an increase in long-term value, dependability, usability, quality. You will want your products, services and infrastructures to be extraordinarily valuable. The future of the corporate idea, will continue out into the future, especially for organized research. I do expect its extent to be much less dominating well out into the future.
When the life-time of a corporation has come to an end, it is always easier to contemplate any transition as a transition to something more meaningful or valuable. As our mental and emotional capacities reach higher evolutionary levels of synergistic cooperation, the need for technology in a physical state will fall away. Today, we have huge infrastructures with microwave antennas connected to mobile phones, pads and computers. Dependency on these infrastructures falls away when the mind becomes psychically and telepathically connected to the universal network. The idea that man is infinitely inferior to technology is an illusion. It is a choice to become dependent on these physical technologies. It is also a choice to become independent of them. It's a matter of principle.
The idea of Ownership
In the competition paradigm, ownership is an important thing, also concerning ideas. This is the reason for patents and copyrights. If you look into the serious negative effects that these systems have had on the innovative abilities of humanity, you will realize that the idea of ownership needs to be serious re-considered.
In the paradigm of vitality, ownership is more of a relative issue. Consider the idea of what infrastructures mean to any individual. We have "personal" infrastructures that we find necessary for us to function at the level we choose to operate. As such they are very "necessary". They are also changable over time. Personal infrastructures are important to have individual control over and therefore ownership of.
Then we have social infrastructures. These might be research facilities, schools, production, transportation, mass communication, centers for playtime, rest or study. Personal ownership is not an issue here, but access is. As the need for access increases, so does the need for influence over that access to meed personal needs.
If corporations were to think more as a living structure, they would be considering what they need to make them complete. As such, a corporation could easily link up with pre existing systems in such a way that they connect to a common goal. It would be a very temproary arrangement and it would provide flexibility along with stability.
What should it cost?
The struggle for corporativ sustainability has always depended on the idea of profit - more and more. Going in the opposite direction can be just as self-defeating as corporate profit greed. There needs to be some sort of balance. That balance should be found not by subsidizing but by finding better ways of doing things. Sharing knowledge does wonders for solving - so called unsolvable problems. When humanity is more freely connected to all of their resources - every corporation will have its own creative think-tank - not to dream up profit but to dream up value and expanded ability.
Parameters for any choices need to land in that zone that satisfies all the needs of the systems involved. That includes the environment. The value that environmental corporations could provide cannot be recognized by indiidual benefit, but by collective benefit. These need to be funded externally for them to become useful.
The cost of any product or service needs a clear reality check as corporations begin to share resources. They should drop. Remember that the idea is to get rid of the idea of having to use money. Nothing should cost more than it needs to cost to maintain, or reinforce the ability to continue providing value. At some point your "market" will be satisfied. You will move on to something new.