I was going to say somewhat the same as Muad’Dib. I.e., what difference does it make if a company keeps the same name, but changes location, products, management strategy, etc.?
One of the things I remember fondly from my years in England is the feeling that a long-established company, with whom you’ve done business (and with whom perhaps your parents did business) is still going to be there next time you need them.
Contrast that with California, where one has to spend an enormous amount of time finding places to buy clothes, computer equipment, food, books, and other basics, only to discover a couple years down the road that the places have entirely disappeared.
Some of the British labeling a la “Established in 1854” is pure advertising hype (who cares that a brand of jam has been around for 100 years?) but when it comes to general merchandise and services, company stability is a nice thing to know.
Unfortunately, companies that radically change policies or products are rarely willing to alienate existing customers – so many substantial changes go unremarked.
Years ago I remember reading that there is a company in England, purveyors of seafood as I recall, that has existed “from time immemorial”. This epithet was established either by law, or a royal decree. Had I been able to remember the name of that company, this post would’ve been much more interesting, and you all would not be rolling your eyes at me.
The term does have some legal standing. However, I don’t think it could apply purely to the history of a company - it’s more likely to do with some particular right they hold, such as access to particular oyster beds, or mud flats, etc.
I would presume that “oldest still extant company” would equate to “firm that is an unbroken lineal successor of someone or something engaging in business at the earliest date.” That people in Uberunterburg have been engaged in brewing beer since 1240, and there’s a brewery in Uberunterburg, does not operate to make that brewery date from 1240. But if the meisterbrewer in 1240 took on an apprentice in 1262 who ultimately succeeded him, and who took on an apprentice in 1295, etc., and eventually the business was formed into a company in 1768, etc., that would make sense as qualifying. On the other hand, a business may continue in existence while changing its principal product, as with Stora Kopperberg, or the same people making the same thing but moving to a new location: the fourth-generation church organ-builder from Hessen who emigrated to America and continued building organs, can reasonably be said to be continuing his business. Government entities like mints, royal charters like those held by fairs and guilds, etc., don’t qualify as being businesses.
Does that definition of “continuing business” make sense as a working definition for getting the answer here?
===========
Since the thread began with reference to The Bay as the continuing operation of the Hudson’s Bay Company, I’m wondering which of the other “famous” companies, like the (British) East India Company and the Dutch Eastindia Compagnie, survive today as businesses, and what they are doing?
