An Open-System Model of the Corporation

  • William E. Halal
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)


Traditionally, the large business corporation has been conceptually regarded as a relatively closed system. Although such organizations—like all living systems—must conduct various exchanges with their environment to survive [l], the prevailing form of corporate behavior is based upon a financial accounting model which excludes the many “social” transactions that are implicitly involved in corporate activities. The following two prominent examples are cited for illustration.


Undesirable Output Corporate Behavior Corporate System Constituent Group Needed Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.G. Miller, “The Nature of Living Systems,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, No. 5, September 1976, pp. 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Banner and G. Baker, “Human Resource Accounting: A Critical View.” MSU Business Topics, August 1973, pp. 45–52.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. Basic Books, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Kapp, The Social Costs of Private Enterprise. Harvard Press, Cambridge, 1950.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For instance see the classic by J. K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1967,Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    Also see more recent works such as A.S. Miller, The Modern Corporate State, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1976Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    M. L. Weidenbaum, Business, Government, and the Public. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    K. Davis, “The Arguments For and Against Corporate Social Responsibility,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    L. Harris and Associates, Inc., Harris Survey Yearbook of Public Opinion, Louis Harris and Associates, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    J.G. Maurer, Readings in Organization Theory: Open-System Approaches. Random House, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    R.L. Ackoff, Redesigning the Future. John Wiley, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    W.E. Halal, “A Return-On-Resources Model of Corporate Performance.” California Management Review, (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    L.J. Seidler and L.L. Seidler, Social Accounting. Melville, Los Angeles, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    D. Bell, op. cit,Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    H.E. Simon, “On the Concept of Organizational Goal.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol, 9, June 1964, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    For instance see the H.E.W. Report Work in America. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    S.P. Sethi, The Unstable Ground: Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society. Melville, Los Angeles, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    W.R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics. Wiley, New York, 1952.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    R.A. Dahl, “A Prelude to Corporate Reform.” Business and Society Review, No, 1, Spring 1972, pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
  20. 18a.
    Also see C.D. Stone, Where The Law Ends. Harper & Row, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    A.R. Negandhi, InterOrganization Theory. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Social Indicators, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1974Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Halal
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationThe American UniversityWashington, D.C.USA

Personalised recommendations