1. How can we ensure corporations are held accountable for their actions "ethically" and "legally"?
Through strict regulations from governments at the municipal, local, regional and national levels, accountability of corporations can have a formal framework able to exert vigilance, regulation of activities and punishment to unappropriate conducts that may stress ethical or legal standards. Nevertheless, a worldwide stipulation of those standards is required, in order to effectively exercise that kind of control. Moreover, taking into account that corporations are mainly motivated by financial incentives, any of these measures could possible work if there is not a civil society manifestation of rejection against non-ehtical and/or non-legal conducts, which can be translated in terms of loss of market share and diminished revenues. Accountability demanded in those combined terms is the best way of pressure against corporations that want to play a no-rules game.
2. Should individuals (directors, employees, shareholders) bear any responsibility for the actions of a corporation? If so, to what degree?
On my opinion, people is more concerned with acting unproperly when a clear punishment or legal consequence is explicit of being applied when those conducts take place. Taking this into account, every single individual inside a corporation should bear responsibilities for the actions of the corporation they represent, specifically because of the fact that they do represent it for the outside world. This may sound a bit extreme, but taking into account that the ones who perform conducts of a corporation are persons, not robots or an invisible hand, and it's on the power of persons to decide whether to perform a determined task or not, having always the option of public exposure as a mean of protection. Then, in what degree should they bear responsibility? At the penal, financial, administrative and contentious levels. That is at every single legal degree to which a person can be subject.
3. What are the benefits of the corporate form? Could an alternative model offer these as well?
When talking about benefits of the corporate form, it may be said they're relative, although a visible benefit is always present: distortion of the personal responsibility for actions performed on behalf of the organization. This phenomenon can be accurately pointed due to the same consideration of the corporate firm as a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally person) and recognized as such in law [1]. This characteristic gives the corporation special benefits on distortion of personal responsibility, due to the fact that a legally person cannot be subject of penal punishments, for example. Just in certain cases, most of them related with financial fraud, a single person or a group of individuals from a corporation can be subject to it. If another alternative model can offer this benefit as well, it may be in the form of a political entity, in which punishable crimes performed by that political unit have as a consequence a legal one towards the political unit, not against that who performed it (notice I’m not talking here about administrative illegal conducts or about criminal conducts like homicide).
4. Search for a foreign multinational corporation that has operations in Colombia. Research if they are run under Colombian rules or regulations or if they have special regulations.
Siemens is a multinational corporation that develops certain activities in Colombian territory under the same rules as any national corporation, due to the principle of national treatment established in the international treaties in the framework of the World Trade Organization. Nevertheless, special treatment in taxes is normally given in Colombia to foreign investment, which makes it subject to a different taxation regime than regular Colombian companies. Another regulation applied exclusively in this kind of corporations that make direct investment in Colombian territory is labor regulations, which, as in this case, can be a restrictive one, in order for this company to perform activities in the country. Such regulation stipulates a minimum amount (percentage) of Colombian labor force working for that company compared with the total number of individuals employed by the firm. Such special regulations act as a stimulus for investment in the country and creation of employment, stimulus that benefit both parties’ interests, corporate and state ones.
5. Should economic efficiency (main argument for privatization) be the primary concern for common and public services? Are there other criteria to determine who should own or operate them?
As economic efficiency is one of the most important variables to be taken into account when determining the viability of a business, neoliberal economic logic would point to have it as a primary determinant in privatization decisions. Nevertheless, in common and public services, that logic may be not always applicable. This thesis is sustained on the basis that more than economic profitability or viability, the state primary mission is to guarantee and safeguard the security of its associate members. In that direction, common and public services such as education, health, personal security, water supply and basic salubriousness conditions are to be granted by the state. Of course, it cannot be ignored that economic efficiency is to be aimed in the provision of those services, but even if not completely present, it cannot be an argument for privatization measures based mainly on that assumption.

[1] Oxford Dictionaries, 2011. Definition of Corporation. Retrieved on Marce, 2011, from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1236185#m_en_us1236185
Bibliographical Sources:
- The Corporation, 2003. Based on the book The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Bakan, J.
Image Source:
Wuerker, M., 2007. Retrieved on March, 2011, from: http://aroots.wordpress.com/