Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 287–301 | Cite as

The Benefit Corporation and Corporate Social Responsibility



In the wake of the most recent financial crisis, corporations have been criticized as being self-interested and unmindful of their relationship to society. Indeed, the blame is sometimes placed on the corporate legal form, which can exacerbate the tension between duties to shareholders and interests of stakeholders. In comparison, the Benefit Corporation (BC) is a new legal business entity that is obligated to pursue public benefit in addition to the responsibility to return profits to shareholders. It is legally a for-profit, socially obligated, corporate form of business, with all the traditional corporate characteristics combined with societal responsibilities. Considering the history and perception of shareholder primacy in United States law, it is argued that this new business structure is an ethical step toward empowering socially committed commercial entities. The contribution of this research is to provide a fundamental base of knowledge about the new legal form of business, the BC, upon which further study may rely. First, the legal history of the corporation is briefly reviewed in order to provide context to the relationship of the corporate form to society, including exploration of the premise that shareholder wealth maximization is its best and only purpose. Second, the BC is described in detail, and state statutes are compared. Third, the BC is placed within the context of corporate social responsibility. Finally, opportunities for future research are discussed.


Benefit Corporation Business law Corporate social responsibility Director duties 



Benefit Corporation


Benefit enforcement proceeding


Corporate social responsibility


  1. Aguinis, R., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. André, R. (2012). Assessing the accountability of the benefit corporation: Will this new gray sector organization enhance corporate social responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 133–150.Google Scholar
  3. Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. B Lab: The Nonprofit behind B Corps. Available at
  5. Bodie, M. T. (2012). The post revolutionary period in corporate law: Returning to the theory of the firm. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 1033–1059.Google Scholar
  6. Bondy, K., Moon, J., & Matten, D. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 281–299.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, C. V. (2012). A novel approach to using LLCS for quasi-charitable endeavors (A/K/A social enterprise). William Mitchell Law Review, 38, 678–736.Google Scholar
  8. California Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). §§14600–14631.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, W. H., & Babson, E. K. (2012). How benefit corporations are redefining the purpose of business corporations. William Mitchell Law Review, 38, 817–850.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, W. H., & Vranka, L. (2012). The need and rationale for the benefit corporation: Why it is the legal form that best addresses the needs of social entrepreneurs, investors, and, ultimately, the public. Available at
  11. Conaway, A. E. (2012). The global use of the delaware limited liability company for socially-driven purposes. William Mitchell Law Review, 38, 772–816.Google Scholar
  12. Cotton, M. N., & Lasprogata, G. A. (2012). Corporate citizenship & creative collaboration: Best practices for cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Law, Business & Ethics, 18, 9–37.Google Scholar
  13. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (Eds.). (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in global context (pp. 3–20). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Deskins, M. (2011). Benefit corporation legislation, version 1.0—A breakthrough in stakeholder rights? Lewis & Clark Law Review, 15, 1047–1076.Google Scholar
  15. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919).Google Scholar
  16. eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, 16 A.3d 1 (Del., 2010).Google Scholar
  17. Gelter, M. (2009). The dark side of shareholder influence: Managerial autonomy and stakeholder orientation in comparative corporate governance. Harvard International Law Journal, 50, 129–194.Google Scholar
  18. Greyston, Social Mission. Available at
  19. Hawaii Statutes: Sustainable Business Corporations (2011). §40D-1 to §40D-12.Google Scholar
  20. Haymore, S. J. (2011). Public(ly oriented) companies: B corporations and the Delaware stakeholder provision dilemma. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 1311–1346.Google Scholar
  21. Kelly, T. (2009). Law and choice of entity on the social enterprise frontier. Tulane Law Review, 84, 337–377.Google Scholar
  22. Lacovara, C. (2011). Strange creatures: A hybrid approach to fiduciary duty in benefit corporations. Columbia Business Law Review, 2011, 815–880.Google Scholar
  23. Lieber et al. (2011). America’s most promising social entrepreneurs 2011. Bloomberg Businessweek. Available at:
  24. Lifsher, M. (2012, January 4). Businesses seek state’s new ‘benefit corporation’ status. Los Angeles Times. Available at
  25. Louisiana Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2012). Title 12, §§12:1801–1832.Google Scholar
  26. Maryland Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2010). §5-6C-01–5-6C-07.Google Scholar
  27. McBride, D. (2011). General corporation laws: History and economics. Law & Contemporary Problems, 74, 1–17.Google Scholar
  28. Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2012). The corporation is ailing social technology: Creating a ‘fit for purpose’ design for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 195–210.Google Scholar
  29. 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 & Comparative Law Review, 32, 271–302.Google Scholar
  30. Munch, S. (2012). Improving the benefit corporation: How traditional governance mechanisms can enhance the innovative new business form. Northwestern Journal of Law & Policy, 7, 170–195.Google Scholar
  31. Murray, S. (2012, April). Benefit corporations: Companies obliged to do good. [serial online]. Available from ABI/INFORM Global. Accessed June 25, 2012. Document ID: 2642857451.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, J. H., & Hwang, E. I. (2011). Purpose with a profit: Governance, enforcement, capital-raising and capital-locking in low-profit limited liability companies. University of Miami Law Review, 66, 1–52.Google Scholar
  33. New Jersey Statutes: New Jersey Business Corporation Act. (2011). §14A:1-1 to §14A:1-11.Google Scholar
  34. New York Statutes: Business Corporation Law. (2011). §1701 et seq.Google Scholar
  35. Osuji, O. (2011). Fluidity of regulation—CSR nexus: The multinational corporate corruption example. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Page, A., & Katz, R. A. (2011). Is social enterprise the new corporate responsibility? Seattle University Law Review, 34, 1351–1384.Google Scholar
  37. Page, A., & Katz, R.A. (2012). The truth about Ben & Jerry’s. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10(4). Available at
  38. Pategonia (Certified BCorp). Available at
  39. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89 (January–February), 64–77.Google Scholar
  40. Reiser, D. B. (2011). Benefit corporations—A sustainable form of business? Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 591–625.Google Scholar
  41. Resor, F. R. (2012). Benefit corporation legislation. Wyoming Law Review, 12, 91–113.Google Scholar
  42. Sabadoz, C. (2011). Between profit-seeking and prosociality: Corporate social responsibility as Derridean supplement. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmidt, E. (2010). Vermont’s social hybrid pioneers: Early observations and questions to ponder. Vermont Law Review, 35, 163–197.Google Scholar
  44. Schoenjahn, A. (2012). New faces of corporate responsibility: Will new entity forms allow businesses to do good? Journal of Corporation Law, 37, 453–473.Google Scholar
  45. Smiddy, L. O. (2010). Symposium introduction: Corporate creativity: The Vermont L3C & other developments in social entrepreneurship. Vermont Law Review, 35, 3–14.Google Scholar
  46. Sneirson, J. F. (2011). The sustainable corporation and shareholder profits. Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 541–559.Google Scholar
  47. South Carolina Statutes: Benefit Corporation Act. (2012). §§33-38-110 to 33-38-600.Google Scholar
  48. Sovacool, B. K. (2010). Broken by design: The corporation as a failed technology. Science, Technology & Society, 15(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  49. Sprague, R. (2010). Beyond shareholder value: Normative standards for sustainable corporate governance. William & Mary Business Law Review, 1, 47–82.Google Scholar
  50. Szmigin, I., & Rutherford, R. (2012). Shared value and the impartial spectator test. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1.
  51. Taylor, C. R. (2011). Berle and social business: A consideration. Seattle University Law Review, 34, 1501–1525.Google Scholar
  52. Tyler, J. (2010). Negating the legal problem of having “two masters”: A framework for L3C fiduciary duties and accountability. Vermont Law Review, 35, 117–161.Google Scholar
  53. Vermont Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). Title 11A, §§21.01–21.14.Google Scholar
  54. Virginia Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). §§13.1-782 to 13.1-793.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance, Insurance and Business LawVirginia TechBlacksburgVirginia

Personalised recommendations