It's Smeagol vs Gollum (just saw the Lord of the Rings cycle on Channel 4 these last 3 weeks - bloody brilliant)

On the one hand is Smeagol -the raison d'etre of the enterprise itself. eg Boeing  came into existence to build good aircraft that airlines wanted.

Then there is Gollum, the Shareholders, driven by the Ring of Power.

The former is what the stakeholders identify with, but the shareholders (driven by the imperative of the Ring = Deficit-based Money) enforce - through their Nine Riders (the Directors) - a drive for short-term profit at the expense of all else.

The problem lies in the nature of the Corporation itself.

It is only if we can set up Corporations without a Rentier Monkey on the shoulder that the Brand dichotomy can be transcended. Businesses like John Lewis (owned by the Staff) achieve this, as can Coops, but businesses owned by "absentee landlord" shareholders are always going to be in trouble.

As you know, I believe that the "Open" Corporate (of which the LLP is the first example) enables us to achieve the participative outcome you describe.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson