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.
KeywordsBenefit Corporation Business law Corporate social responsibility Director duties
Benefit enforcement proceeding
Corporate social responsibility
- 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
- B Lab: The Nonprofit behind B Corps. Available at http://www.bcorporation.net/The-Non-Profit-behind-B-Corps.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- California Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). §§14600–14631.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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 http://www.benefitcorp.net/for-attorneys/benefit-corp-white-paper.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Deskins, M. (2011). Benefit corporation legislation, version 1.0—A breakthrough in stakeholder rights? Lewis & Clark Law Review, 15, 1047–1076.Google Scholar
- Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919).Google Scholar
- eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, 16 A.3d 1 (Del., 2010).Google Scholar
- 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
- Greyston, Social Mission. Available at http://www.greystonbakery.com/social-mission.
- Hawaii Statutes: Sustainable Business Corporations (2011). §40D-1 to §40D-12.Google Scholar
- Haymore, S. J. (2011). Public(ly oriented) companies: B corporations and the Delaware stakeholder provision dilemma. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 1311–1346.Google Scholar
- Kelly, T. (2009). Law and choice of entity on the social enterprise frontier. Tulane Law Review, 84, 337–377.Google Scholar
- Lacovara, C. (2011). Strange creatures: A hybrid approach to fiduciary duty in benefit corporations. Columbia Business Law Review, 2011, 815–880.Google Scholar
- Lieber et al. (2011). America’s most promising social entrepreneurs 2011. Bloomberg Businessweek. Available at: http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110621/america-s-most-promising-social-entrepreneurs-2011#slide13.
- Lifsher, M. (2012, January 4). Businesses seek state’s new ‘benefit corporation’ status. Los Angeles Times. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/business/la-fi-benefit-corporations-20120104.
- Louisiana Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2012). Title 12, §§12:1801–1832.Google Scholar
- Maryland Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2010). §5-6C-01–5-6C-07.Google Scholar
- McBride, D. (2011). General corporation laws: History and economics. Law & Contemporary Problems, 74, 1–17.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Murray, S. (2012, April). Benefit corporations: Companies obliged to do good. FT.com [serial online]. Available from ABI/INFORM Global. Accessed June 25, 2012. Document ID: 2642857451.Google Scholar
- 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
- New Jersey Statutes: New Jersey Business Corporation Act. (2011). §14A:1-1 to §14A:1-11.Google Scholar
- New York Statutes: Business Corporation Law. (2011). §1701 et seq.Google Scholar
- Page, A., & Katz, R. A. (2011). Is social enterprise the new corporate responsibility? Seattle University Law Review, 34, 1351–1384.Google Scholar
- Page, A., & Katz, R.A. (2012). The truth about Ben & Jerry’s. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10(4). Available at http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_truth_about_ben_and_jerrys.
- Pategonia (Certified BCorp). Available at http://www.bcorporation.net/patagonia.
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89 (January–February), 64–77.Google Scholar
- Reiser, D. B. (2011). Benefit corporations—A sustainable form of business? Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 591–625.Google Scholar
- Resor, F. R. (2012). Benefit corporation legislation. Wyoming Law Review, 12, 91–113.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, E. (2010). Vermont’s social hybrid pioneers: Early observations and questions to ponder. Vermont Law Review, 35, 163–197.Google Scholar
- 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
- Smiddy, L. O. (2010). Symposium introduction: Corporate creativity: The Vermont L3C & other developments in social entrepreneurship. Vermont Law Review, 35, 3–14.Google Scholar
- Sneirson, J. F. (2011). The sustainable corporation and shareholder profits. Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 541–559.Google Scholar
- South Carolina Statutes: Benefit Corporation Act. (2012). §§33-38-110 to 33-38-600.Google Scholar
- Sovacool, B. K. (2010). Broken by design: The corporation as a failed technology. Science, Technology & Society, 15(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
- Sprague, R. (2010). Beyond shareholder value: Normative standards for sustainable corporate governance. William & Mary Business Law Review, 1, 47–82.Google Scholar
- Szmigin, I., & Rutherford, R. (2012). Shared value and the impartial spectator test. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1.
- Taylor, C. R. (2011). Berle and social business: A consideration. Seattle University Law Review, 34, 1501–1525.Google Scholar
- 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
- Vermont Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). Title 11A, §§21.01–21.14.Google Scholar
- Virginia Statutes: Benefit Corporations. (2011). §§13.1-782 to 13.1-793.Google Scholar