Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 133–150 | Cite as

Assessing the Accountability of the Benefit Corporation: Will This New Gray Sector Organization Enhance Corporate Social Responsibility?

  • Rae AndréEmail author


In recent years the benefit corporation has emerged as a new organizational form dedicated to legitimizing the pursuit of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Eschewing traditional governmental authority, the benefit corporation derives its moral legitimacy from the values of its owners and the oversight of a third party evaluator. This research identifies the benefit corporation as a new type of gray sector organization (GSO) and applies extant theory on GSOs to analyze its design. In particular, it shows how the theory of GSO accountability can be used to assess the potential of benefit corporations for enhancing CSR. This research first examines the statutes that have established benefit corporations in five states in the US, along with bills in other states, to show how legislation defines their specific public benefits and holds them accountable for delivering these benefits. It then compares the accountability of the benefit corporation with that of other corporate-centric GSOs, e.g., GSOs that closely resemble traditional corporations. It concludes with significant design-based concerns about the utility of the benefit corporation as an effective organization for implementing CSR.


Accountability B-corporation Benefit corporation Government-sponsored enterprise Gray sector organization 



Corporate social responsibility


Government-sponsored enterprise


Gray sector organization


Quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization


  1. Adams, S. (2010). Capitalist monkey wrench: Can a new corporate structure get companies to do good by not always putting shareholders first? Forbes Magazine, April 12. Accessed November 15, 2010.
  2. André, R. (2010). Assessing the accountability of government sponsored enterprises and Quangos. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibald, T. (2007). A new kind of company. Inc, 29(7), 23–24.Google Scholar
  4. B Corporation. (2009). B Corporation Annual Report. Accessed February 8, 2011.
  5. B Corporation. (2011). Benefit corporation legislation. Accessed October 4, 2011.
  6. B Corporation. (2011). Make it official. Accessed February 8, 2011.
  7. B Corporation Directory. (2011). Accessed February 10, 2011.
  8. B Impact Assessment. (2010). Version 2.0, Sector: Manufacturing, Employees: 30+ Accessed February 8, 2011.
  9. Birrell, D. (2008). Devolution and Quangos in the United Kingdom: The implementation of principles and policies for rationalisation and democratisation. Policy Studies, 29(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair, M., & Stout, L. (2006). Specific investment: Explaining anomalies in corporate law. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(3), 719–744.Google Scholar
  11. Bochel, C., & Bochel, H. (2004). The UK social policy process. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Brummer, J. J. (1991). Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An interdisciplinary analysis. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  13. Business Associations Committee of the Section on Business Law of the Pennsylvania Bar Association: undated, ‘Amendments to the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes with Official Source Notes and Committee Comments’.…/Draft_Pennsylvania-Legislation.pdf . Accessed February 20. 2011.
  14. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 15(4), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. City of Philadelphia. (2009). Bill No. 090119-A, An ordinance amending chapter 19-2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled “Business Privilege Taxes”.Google Scholar
  16. Clapp, J. (1998). The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the developing world. Environmental Governance, 4, 295–316.Google Scholar
  17. Connor, P. E. (1980). Organizations: Theory and design. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Coppock, R., & Dierkes, M. (1973). Corporate responsibility does not depend on public pressure. Business and Society Review/Innovation, 6, 82–89.Google Scholar
  19. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Citizenship ecologies and the corporation: Examining the relevance of ecological citizenship for redefining corporate responsibilities. Organization & Environment, 21(4), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cutler, C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.). (1999). Private authority in international politics. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dembosky, A. (2010). Protecting companies that mix profitability, values. National Public Radio, March 9. Accessed September 7, 2010.
  22. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Donlan, T. G. (2009). Engines of destruction: Following the impulse that led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disaster. Barron’s, December 21, 51.Google Scholar
  24. Dyer, W. G. (1982). Patterns and assumptions: The keys to understanding organizational culture. Office of Naval Research Technical Report TR-ONR-7.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, I., & Hasnaoui, A. (2011). The meaning of corporate social responsibility: The vision of four nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greve, C. (1999). Quangos in Denmark and Scandinavia: Trends, problems and perspectives. In M. V. Flinders & M. J. Smith (Eds.), Quangos, accountability, and reform: The politics of quasi-government (pp. 83–108). Basingstoke, UK): Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haufler, V. (2001). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  28. Hays, C. L. (2000). Ben & Jerry’s to Unilever, with attitude. The New York Times, April 13. Accessed September 7, 2010.
  29. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogarty, R. A. (2002). The paradox of public authorities in Massachusetts: Massport and Masspike. New England Journal of Public Policy, 17, 19–37.Google Scholar
  31. Accessed October 2, 2011.
  32. Jones, A. (2001). Social responsibility and the utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koppell, J. G. S. (2003). The politics of quasi-government: Hybrid organizations and the dynamics of bureaucratic control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, I. (2009). Citizenship and the corporation. Law and Social Inquiry, 34(1), 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maryland General Assembly. (2010). Session, department of legislative services: 2010, ‘Fiscal and Policy Note, House Bill 1009’.Google Scholar
  37. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.Google Scholar
  38. Meidinger, E. (2001). Environmental certification programs and US environmental law: Closer than you may think. Environmental Law Reporter, 31, 10162–10179.Google Scholar
  39. Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mickels, A. (2009). Beyond corporate social responsibility: Reconciling the ideals of a for-benefit corporation with director fiduciary duties in the U.S. and Europe. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 32(1), 271.Google Scholar
  41. Moe, R. C. (1979). Government corporations and the erosion of accountability: The case of the proposed energy security corporation. Public Administration Review, 39, 566–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moe, R. C. (2001). The emerging federal quasi government: Issues of management and accountability. Public Administration Review, 61, 290–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moe, R. C., & Kosar, K. R. (2005). The quasi government: Hybrid organizations with both government and private sector legal characteristics. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, May 18.Google Scholar
  44. Palmås, K. (2005). The UK public interest company: The idea, its origins, and its relevance for Sweden. A report commissioned by the Swedish National Audit Office.Google Scholar
  45. Pennsylvania Bar Association. (2010). Amendments to the Pennsylvania consolidated statutes with official source notes and committee comments.Google Scholar
  46. Perry, J., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182–201.Google Scholar
  47. Purssell, A. (1999). Local government and the unelected state. In M. V. Flinders & M. J. Smith (Eds.), Quangos, accountability and reform (pp. 132–143). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  48. Richter, U. (2010). Liberal thought in reasoning on CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Senate of California. (2011). S. 201, introduced February 8 by Senator DeSaulnier.Google Scholar
  51. Senate of Maryland. (2010). S. 690, Chapter 97, (enacted).Google Scholar
  52. Senate of New Jersey. (2010). S. 2170, 214th Legislature, (introduced).Google Scholar
  53. Senate of New York. (2010). S. 7855, Calendar 72, (passed Senate).Google Scholar
  54. Senate of Vermont. (2010). S. 263, Sec. 1. 11A V.S.A. chapter 21, (enacted).Google Scholar
  55. Skelcher, C. (1998). The appointed state: Quasi-governmental organizations and democracy. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Social Capital Markets. (2010). Accessed January 4, 2010.
  57. Social Capital Markets: At the Intersection of Money and Meaning. (2010). Accessed December 28, 2010.
  58. Stanton, T. H. (2002). Government-sponsored enterprises: Mercantilist companies in the modern world. Washington DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  59. State of Maryland. (2010). Laws of Maryland.Google Scholar
  60. State of Maryland, Maryland General Assembly. (2010). House Bill 1009, Corporations—Benefit Corporation.Google Scholar
  61. State of New Jersey, 214th Legislature. (2010). Senate, No. 2170, July 1.Google Scholar
  62. State of Vermont. (2010). No. 113: An act relating to the Vermont Benefit Corporations Act.Google Scholar
  63. Stout, L. A. (2008). Why we should stop teaching Dodge v. Ford. Virginia Law & Business Review, 3(1), 163–176.Google Scholar
  64. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  65. The Economist. (2009). Capital markets with a conscience: social investing grows up. The Economist, September 1. Accessed December 28, 2010.
  66. The Economist. (2010). Social innovation: Let’s hear those ideas. The Economist August 12, 2010. Accessed November 15, 2010.
  67. Tozzi, J. (2009). Turning nonprofits into for-profits: New hybrid corporate structures allow nonprofits to accept private investment without diluting their missions. Bloomberg Businessweek, June 15. Accessed December 28, 2010.
  68. Turnbull, S. (1995). Innovations in corporate governance: The Mondragon experience. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 3(3), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van den Heuvel, K. (2010). Making the economy more just. Washington Post, July 21. Accessed December 28, 2010.
  70. Waddock, S. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waddock, S., & Mcintosh, M. (2011). Business unusual: Corporate responsibility in a 2.0 world. Business and Society Review, 116(3), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weber, J. (2010). “Impact Investing” Teeters on Edge of Explosive Growth. New York Times, October 10, 31A.Google Scholar
  73. Zattoni, A. (2011). Who should control a corporation? Toward a contingency stakeholder model for allocating ownership rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business Administration, Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations