[Richard Wallace]

For a little more that four centuries now, governments (beginning with the Dutch) have been granting some companies the same legal status previously reserved for favored individuals -- and the significant extra benefit that the company's legal liability is limited to the sum of the investments its owners; i.e., its capital. Governments created this new kind of legal entity to encourage large scale risk-taking, initially in ocean voyages. The limitation on liability is sometimes called the "corporate veil". Under certain extreme circumstances the veil can be "pierced", making the company's owners liable (without limit) for damage to others arising from the company's activities; however, such piercing generally requires proof that the company was established for purpose of defauding those who have dealings with it.

In 1602 the world only contained one of these limited-liability creatures. Now there are millions of them. In almost all cases they have proved worthy of their special liability status, because their risk-taking activities provide access to goods and services that would not exist otherwise. However, special status leads to power and that can have a corrupting influence.

Which view you take of any particular limited-liability company may depend on your relationship with it -- customer, supplier, employee, or simply where you live. Residents of St. Louis might feel differently toward Anheuser-Busch than residents of Manchester, or Munich, or Mumbai, when asked whether that company's activities are a net benefit to the world.

So how to decide which limited-liability companies are worthy to help us change the culture? I won't claim to have the answer, but I will say that understanding FIRST's goal and willingness to help move the world in that direction ought to count heavily in any potential sponsor's favor.