Wow! Something I can semi-answer ... but I want to preface with the social implications of colonialism versus the development of the "corporation" during the outlook of the Victorian age:

"The Victorians changed the point of companies"

While I cannot speak upon the idea of a "company" or "corporation" pre-Victoria era, parliamentary permission was needed to render services to the crown, guilds, towns, etc (probably due to regulation, and the vast amounts of capital needed). This was no longer a prerequisite during this age, and general purpose corporations could be set up overnight. All that was necessary was for seven people to sign a memorandum of association for the company to be registered and to include the word "limited" in order to warn creditors that personal recourse could not be taken towards the company holders.

Such "Companies Acts" empowered a nation of shopkeepers, and was ironically copied in many other countries. Injecting cultural prejudices for these types of soulless institutions more or less allowed the imperialism that we are all too familiar with. Meaning that rampant speculation dictated the market, ripping-off the indigenous population was basically state supported. This includes chartered semi-private companies, and the infamous English East India Company. This type of charter yielded upon two ideas from the Middle Ages: Shares could be sold on the open market and limited liability. A cause-effect type of relationship is present due to the volatility of colonial ventures. This could also be in juxtaposition of economical philosophies of Dutch merchants that advocated the full state-sponsored collusion in the form of the Dutch East India Company (VOC, Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie).

Providing a catalyst for a "race to bottom", widening profit margins for semi-private investors and state sponsorship of the English East India Company. Initial populations of India were treated poorly dealing with cash crops/resources (+opium?), and corporations were not privy to the media as they are today. They only had to justify existence every twenty years. The sense of "corporate responsibility" had not yet developed, therefore scandals that we see today never surfaced.

Source:

MBA, Graduate level Organizational Management and Ethics

The Company:A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea, ISBN:9780679642497 , Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait

Thanks all.

Hardly at all in the early 1800s. HEIC rule simply meant that the zamindars now paid their taxes to the HEIC rather than to whichever warlord happened to be in control of the province. The ryots still pay their taxes to the zamindar, and the rest of society stays the same. The only potential difference is that if the pindaris come, the HEIC will seek to drive them away, indeed, kill them, rather than pay them protection money.