On pages 341-342 in Chapter 11 of the text the authors outline the concept of agency law. It doesn't explain the literal concept of fiduciary responsibility, but the idea is that an agent MUST look out for the interests of the principal ABOVE his/her own interests. To do otherwise is to disobey principles of that agency, and liability attaches.
Differences among legal entities: sole proprietorships, partnerships (limited and general), corporations, and LLC/LLPs. Officers, directors, and employees of these entities are "agents" for other people.
DO YOU THINK THE TYPE OF ENTITY PLACES DIFFERING (lesser) DUTIES ON THE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS OR EMPLOYEES?
In other words, to decrease the liability to owners, customers, or internal players, would it make a difference in their liability if they were involved in a different type of entity? If so, which would be best in which to escape liability through a fiduciary duty?
Chapter 11 Reed (2005) The legal and regulatory environment of business (13th) New York McGraw Hill
No, different entities do not place different duties on the officers, directors or employees. An employee that has been given a specific authority cannot claim that he can behave less responsibly because he represents a corporation instead of an unlimited partnership.
On the other hand all executives and senior employees having decision-making authority have the authority to bind the corporation. However, they cannot bind the owners jointly and severally. The liability of the shareholders of the company is limited to the face value of their shares. In practice even ...
This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to officers, directors or employees