Enterprise as an Instrument of Civilization

Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 4)


Instrumental aspects of enterprises are discussed in this chapter, based on Tadao Umesao’s definition of civilization, namely, “human device/institution system.” Though enterprises are often considered to be cross-culturally functional, actual enterprises do not always function similarly. Even if the same system is employed, variations will occur in operation and actions taken by members in the system. Anthropology of business administration analyzes outside-the-box business administrations deemed to be institutionally similar.

Taking civilization as a system, stock corporations are analyzed as civilization elements. Stock corporation system usually exhibits four features: joint investment, legal personality, limited liability, and general incorporation. This system was first developed in Europe and spread gradually to the rest of the world. However, there are subtle disparities between civilizations and the view of societies through responses taken by enterprises, respectively.

Mass production, for example, took place in the twentieth century, that is, one century after the invention of steam engine. Mass production also changed labor practices. It made monotonous labor inevitable. The solution to recover cooperation of labor in the USA was to redesign labor (QWL), while in Europe, it was the sociotechnical theory. In Japan, it was a QC (quality control) circle. The anthropology of labor, which is adjacent to the anthropology of business administration, was proposed to discuss these matters.

Lastly, it must be pointed out that we need to study redesigning systems in connection with how to control corporations as a system.


Conveyor Belt Legal Personality Business Administration Civilization Element Islamic Bank 


  1. Bataille G (1967) La part maudite; précéde de La notion de dépense. Minuit, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman JS (1990) Foundation of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Crozier M (1964) The bureaucratic phenomenon. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferguson C (2013) Predator nation: corporate criminals, political corruption, and the hijacking of America. Crown Business, New York. Japanese edition: Ferguson C (2014) Gōyoku no Teikoku (Empire of Greed) (trans: Fujii K). Hayakawa Shobō, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  5. Hofstede G (1991) Culture and organization; software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Lammers CJ, Hickson DJ (eds) (1979) Organizations alike and unlike: international and interinstitutional studies in the sociology of organizations. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Merton RK (1949) Social theory and social structure: toward the codification of theory and research. Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  8. Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A (2003) The company. Modern Library, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Polanyi K (1944) The great transformation. Rinehart & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Pugh DS, Hickson DJ (1976) Organizational structure in its context: the Aston programme I. Saxon House, Farnborough/HantsGoogle Scholar
  11. Umesao T; Befu H, Kreiner J, Nakamaki H (eds) (2013) Japanese civilization in the modern world: an introduction to the comparative study of civilizations. Bier’sche Verlagsanstalt, BonnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationTottori University of Environmental StudiesTottoriJapan

Personalised recommendations