This essay proposes a transformative reimagining of corporate responsibility by recognizing the environment as an unacknowledged shareholder within corporate law. Drawing on the ecological devastation of the Klamath region—marked by broken treaties, dam construction, and subsequent removals that obliterated salmon populations and disrupted ecosystems—the article critiques the failure to acknowledge humanity’s embeddedness in dynamic ecological systems and the environment’s natural capital. Drawing on Bruno Latour’s concept of terrestrial governance, it argues for a shift from external environmental regulations to internal corporate accountability. By leveraging legal precedents like Lynch v. Patterson (1987), In re Tri-Star Pictures (1990) and Salt Dome Oil Corp. v. Schenck (1947), the environment is framed as a shareholder entitled to standing, recognition, voice and compensation for its capital contributions and risks borne from corporate activities. This legal fiction integrates ecological considerations into fiduciary duties, addressing the growth dilemma—humanity’s dependence on economic progress amidst planetary limits and our species’ need for this progress—through legislative, judicial and market-driven innovation. The proposal offers a novel framework to harmonize economic and ecological imperatives, fostering adaptive governance and accountability while redefining corporate purpose to acknowledge nature’s capital investments.
AllreadW. T. (2023). The specter of Indian removal: The persistence of state supremacy arguments in federal Indian law. Columbia Law Review, 123(6), 1533–1610.
2.
Associated Press. (2005, June20). Treaty with native Americans was broken. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7962826
3.
Associated Press. (2020, July31). To save salmon, Gov. Newsom asks Warren Buffet to back Klamath dam removal. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-07-31/to-save-salmon-gov-newsom-asks-warren-buffett-to-back-klamath-river-dam-removal
4.
BazermanM. H. (2022). Complicit: How we enable the unethical and how to stop. Princeton University Press.
5.
BermanH. J. (1983). Law and revolution: The formation of the western legal tradition. Harvard University Press.
6.
BirksP. (2005). Unjust enrichment. Oxford University Press.
7.
BrooksF. J. (2012). Nixon and the environment. University of New Mexico Press.
8.
BrougherC. (2011). Indian reserved water rights under the Winters doctrine: An overview (RL32198 7-5700). Congressional Research Service.
9.
BrunerC. M. (2008). The enduring ambivalence of corporate law. Alabama Law Review, 59(5), 1385–1449.
10.
BüscherB., & FletcherR. (2020). The conservation revolution: Radical ideas for saving nature. Verso.
11.
ChenJ., & BurgessP. (2019). The boundaries of legal personhood: How spontaneous intelligence can problematise differences between humans, artificial intelligence, companies, and animals. Artificial Intelligence and the Law, 27(1), 73–92.
12.
ChristiansenM. R., & MaceyJ. C. (2021). Long live the federal power act’s bright line. Harvard Law Review, 134(4), 1360–1422.
13.
CrichtonM. (1990). Jurassic Park. Alfred A. Knopf.
14.
DalrympleW. (2019). The anarchy: The East India Company, corporate violence, and the pillage of an empire. Bloomsbury Publishing.
15.
DasguptaP. (2021). The economics of biodiversity. The Dasgupta review. HM Treasury.
16.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2018). A green future: Our Twenty-Five Year Plan to improve the environment.
17.
de VriesJ. (2008). The industrial revolution. Oxford University Press.
18.
DorffM. B. (2024). Becoming a public benefit corporation: Express your values, energize stakeholders, make the world a better place. Stanford Business Books; Stanford University Press.
19.
DuvernoyR. J. (2023). How not to talk about environmental personhood: Thinking transitional concepts. Law and Critique, 34, 287–307.
20.
DwyreD., & KolodnyR. (2024). The fundamentals of campaign finance in the U.S. University of Michigan Press.
21.
FarrellJ. A. (2017). Richard Nixon: The life. Vintage Books.
22.
FeatherstoneL. (2023, April20). Nixon was the weirdest environmentalist. The New Republic.
23.
GarrisonT. A. (2002). The legal ideology of removal: The southern judiciary and the sovereignty of native American nations. University of Georgia Press.
24.
GindisD., & SingerA. A. (2023). The corporate baby in the bathwater: Why proposals to abolish corporate personhood are misguided. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(4), 983–997.
25.
GrableJ. (2024, February3). Residents saddened by loss of Copco Lake amid Klamath dam removal. Oregon Public Broadcasting (Jefferson Public Radio). https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/03/klamath-dam-removal-residents-saddened/?outputType=amp
26.
GraeberD., & WengrowD. (2021). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
27.
GroffB., & GaryS. N. (2023). Patagonia, purpose trusts, and stewardship trusts—Business with a purpose. Probate & Property, 37(1), 29–35.
28.
GrusonM. (1977). The new co-determination law in Germany. The Business Lawyer, 32(2), 571–589.
29.
GvozdenA. (2022). Fetal protection laws and the ‘personhood’ problem: Toward a relational theory of fetal life and reproductive responsibility. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 112(2), 407–438.
30.
HaramL. E., CarltonJ. T., CenturioniL., CrowleyM., HafnerJ., MaximenkoN., MurrayC. C., ShcherbinaA. Y., HormannV., WrightC., & RuizG. M. (2021). Emergence of a neopelagic community through the establishment of coastal species on the high seas. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–13.
31.
HM Government. (2018). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65fd713d65ca2f00117da89e/CD1.H_HM_Government_A_Green_Future_Our_25_Year_Plan_to_Improve_the_Environment.pdf (Accessed: 23October2025).
32.
HolmesO. W. (1923). The common law. Little, Brown and Company.
33.
HughesC. (2025). Marketcrafters: The 100 year struggle to shape the American economy. Avid Reader Press.
34.
HurstJ. W. (1970). The legitimacy of the business corporation in the law of the United States 1780–1970. University of Virginia Press.
35.
JacobF. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science, 196(4295), 1161–1166.
36.
KurkiV. A. J. (2017). Animals, slaves, and corporations: Analyzing legal thinghood. German Law Journal, 18(05), 1070–1090.
37.
KurkiV. A. J. (2019). A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press.
38.
KutzC. (2007). Complicity: Ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge University Press.
39.
LangloisR. N. (2023). The corporation and the twentieth century: The history of American business enterprise. Princeton University Press.
40.
LatourB. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime (trans. PorterC.). Polity Press.
41.
LatourB. (2018). Down to earth: Politics in the new climatic regime. Polity Press.
42.
LazarusR. J. (2023). The making of environmental law (2nd ed., p. 13). University of Chicago Press.
43.
LevinS. A. (2000). Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Basic Books.
44.
LevinS. A. (Ed.). (2012). The Princeton guide to ecology. Princeton University Press.
45.
LinowesD. F. (1992). The corporation as citizen. In HowardA. E. Dick (Ed.), The United States constitution: Roots, rights, and responsibilities. Smithsonian Institution Press.
46.
MackesyC. (2019). The boy, the mole, the fox, and the horse (p. 33). HarperOne.
47.
MagnusonW. (2022). For profit: A history of corporations. Basic Books.
48.
McLaughlinM. R. (1997). The Dawes Act, or Indian General Allotment Act of 1887: The Continuing burden of allotment. A selective annotated bibliography. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 20(2), 59–195.
49.
MendenhallA. (2016). Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., pragmatism, and the jurisprudence of Agon: Aesthetic dissent and the common law. Bucknell University Press.
50.
MillerS. A., & InJ. R. (Eds.). (2011). Native historians write back: Decolonizing American Indian history. Texas Tech University Press.
51.
Natural Capital Committee. (2013). The state of natural capital. Towards a framework for measurement and valuation (p. 3).
52.
Office for National Statistics. (2023). U.K. natural capital accounts.
53.
PacifiCorp. (2004, February). Historic context statement for the Klamath hydroelectric project. Appendix E-6D, final license application. https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/energy/hydro/klamath-river/relicensing/klamath-final-license-application/Appendix_E_6D_Historic_Context.pdf
54.
PalladinoL., & KarlssonK. (2019, February11). Towards ‘accountable capitalism’: Remaking corporate law through stakeholder governance. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/02/11/towards-accountable-capitalism-remaking-corporate-law-through-stakeholder-governance/
55.
PinchotG. (1945). The long struggle for effective federal water power legislation: Jurisdictional problems under the Federal Water Power Act of 1920. George Washington Law Review, 14, 9–20.
56.
PinkerS. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.
57.
PinkerS. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Viking.
58.
PiraniS. (2018). Burning up: Global history of fossil fuel consumption. Pluto Press.
59.
PirieF. (2021). The Rule of Laws: A 4,000-year quest to order the world. Basic Books.
60.
PollmanE. (2011). Reconceiving corporate personhood. Utah Law Review, 4, 1629–1675.
61.
RamosM. M., & WardD. M. (2023). Modelling the reestablishment of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Klamath River tributaries after dam removal. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 32(1), 33–46.
62.
RisoV. (2024). The transition towards benefit corporations: What are the roles for stakeholders?Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 904–916.
63.
RodgersW. H. (1994). Environmental law (2d ed.). West Publishing Company.
64.
RühmkorfA. (2019). Stakeholder value versus corporate sustainability: Company law and corporate governance in Germany. In VitolsS. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of corporate law, corporate governance and sustainability. Cambridge Law Books; Cambridge University Press.
65.
SandersonK. (2025). Millions of tonnes of nanoplastics are polluting the ocean. Nature.
66.
SchallA. (2024). The principle of unjust enrichment. De Gruyter.
67.
SchneiderB. (2012). Abraham Lincoln and the American Indians. In SamuelsS. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Abraham Lincoln. Cambridge University Press.
68.
SimpsonW. (2024, February19). Klamath dam removal: It’s an environmental disaster. California Globe.
69.
SmilV. (2018). Energy and civilization: A history. MIT Press.
70.
SmilV. (2019). Growth: From microorganisms to megacities. MIT Press.
71.
SmilV. (2021). Grand transitions: How the modern world was made. Oxford University Press.
72.
SmilV. (2022). How the world really works: The science behind how we got here and where we’re going. Viking.
73.
SternT. (1956). The Klamath Indians and the Treaty of 1864. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 57(3), 229–273.
74.
SternP. J. (2023). Empire, incorporated: The corporations that built British colonialism. Harvard University Press.
75.
StocksC. (2020, August12). Governor urges PacifiCorp parent company to stick with Klamath Dam agreement. Water Power Magazine. https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/governor-urges-pacificorp-parent-company-to-stick-with-klamath-dam-agreement-8079793/
76.
StoutL. A. (2012). New thinking on ‘shareholder primacy. Accounting, Economics, and Law, 2(2), 1–22.
77.
SusskindD. (2024). Growth: A history and a reckoning. Harvard University Press.
78.
SwainW., & PeariS. (2023). Rethinking unjust enrichment: History, sociology, doctrine, and theory. Oxford University Press.
79.
TarlockA. D. (2002). The future of environmental rule of law litigation. Pace Environmental Law Review, 19(5), 575–610.
80.
ThateM. J. (2024). On the possibility of a reimagined capitalism: Cynicism, hope, and ESG investing. In PavaM. & DionM. (Eds.), Ethical economy (pp. 415–428). Springer Nature.
81.
Treaty with the Klamath, etc. (1864). Indian affairs: Laws and treaties. (Online) Oklahoma State University. https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-klamath-etc-1864-0865
82.
TurnerB., & WiberM. (2024). Failure to care despite legal personhood for the environment. Legal Pluralism and Critical Social Analysis, 56(3), 596–615.
83.
U.K. Parliament. (2021). Environment Act 2021.
84.
UrofskyM. I. (2020). The campaign finance cases: Buckley, McConnell, Citizens United, and McCutcheon. University Press of Kansas.
85.
CongressU.S.. (2018, August15). S. 3348—Accountable Capitalism Act. 115th Congress, introduced.
86.
von Benda-BeckmanK. (2021). Relational social theories and legal pluralism. The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies, 1(1), 1–24.
87.
WatsonS., & BuckleyL. (2024). Directors’ positive duty to act in the interests of the entity: Shareholders’ interests bounded by corporate purpose. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 24(1), 233–265.
88.
WestG. (2017). Scale: The universal laws of life, growth, and death in organisms, cities, and companies. Penguin.
89.
WittgensteinL. (1969). On certainty. Blackwell.
90.
WolffM. (1938). On the nature of legal persons. Law Quarterly Review, 54, 494–521.
