The opportunity to invest wealth, aggregate labour and expertise, and form companies in an efficient manner is fundamental to any society. While western societies have congregated around the joint stock company which is freely traded on stock markets, Islam has set out specific rules for the formation and function of companies which have some distinct differences.

Islam treats the formation of the company as a specific transaction requiring an offer and acceptance by all participants meaning that there must be agreement between partners for new participants. Fundamental to the transaction is also the notion that the corporate entity has a specific capital and body element, whereas the standard joint stock company is a company of capital only (even the Directors are employees). A “body” element to the company is an absolute requirement as it establishes complete accountability and responsibility for the actions of the company. This coupled with prohibition of “limited liability” means that the anonymity behind which many hide in the standard PLC (Public Limited Company) or SA (Société Anonyme in France) is avoided. This lack of an accountable body with limited liability has had disastrous consequences in the current crisis. 26.

When the disgraced Chief Executive officer of the failed investment Bank Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, gave testimony to Congress on October 6th, 2008 he defended his $484 million in salary fully aware that he was walking away from the disaster he and his colleagues oversaw at the bank. Without any personal liability for the 20 or 30 times leveraging of their balance sheet assets, the enormously risky bets they were taking nor the hundreds of thousands of derivative contracts which remain outstanding, Fuld could happily brush aside most questions. In his testimony he said he took “full responsibility” for the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and “felt horrible” about it. Yet, even days before the bank collapsed (failed to gain a Treasury bailout) their executives were endorsing $20 million in ‘special payments’ for departing senior executives27.

The debate over levels of executive bonuses in this crisis and whether they should be curtailed neglects the most important fact. When there is little or no actual monetary and legal accountability for the actions of a bank then we can expect the type of excesses that have become common. Islamic corporate law ensures that the owners of the company are not shielded behind limited liability, they are fully accountable for the performance of their contracts and any monetary impact for all the transactions they enter into. Furthermore reactive legislation such as the Sarbannes Oxley laws introduced in the US in response to the Enron and Worldcom debacles where senior executives were effectively “cooking the books” has had virtually no effect in this crisis because it failed to address the key element of liability for the transactions of the banks/institutions. In Islam the owners/partners of any company remain liable for losses even after a company has failed. This issue of real accountability for actions, rather than potential curtailment of bonuses provides a level of sobriety to the trading practices of company executives.

It must also be stressed that, with a few exceptions, the aggressive leveraging (borrowings), derivative bets, and array of risky transactions were all fully legal under the lax corporate laws governing business in the West. It is thus little wonder that executives have taken advantage of such a lax trading environment to drive massive compensation packets for themselves, with little concern for the risks involved.