Benefit corporation

"B corporation" redirects here. It is not to be confused with B Corporation (certification).

In the United States, a benefit corporation is a type of for-profit corporate entity, authorized by 30 U.S. states and the District of Columbia[1] that includes positive impact on society, workers, the community and the environment in addition to profit as its legally defined goals. Benefit corporations differ from traditional C corporations in purpose, accountability, and transparency, but not in taxation. Since December 2015, the Italian Parliament has introduced a new type of for-profit corporate entity named Società Benefit, a virtual translation of the US form, thus making Italy the first country in the world to make this legal status available on its entire territory. Australia is in the process of drafting their own, similar, version, as of February 2016.

The purpose of a benefit corporation is to create general public benefit, which is defined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, i.e. maximum positive externalities and minimum negative. A benefit corporation’s directors and officers operate the business with the same authority as in a traditional corporation but are required to consider the impact of their decisions not only on shareholders but also on society and the environment. In a traditional corporation, shareholders judge the company's financial performance; with a benefit corporation, shareholders judge performance based on the company's social, environmental, and financial performance. Transparency provisions require benefit corporations to publish annual benefit reports of their social and environmental performance using a comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent third-party standard. In some states, benefit corporations must also file the reports with the Secretary of State, although the Secretary of State does not control the content of the annual benefit report. In some states, shareholders have a private right of action, called a benefit enforcement proceeding, to enforce the company’s mission when the business has failed to pursue or create general public benefit, although, to date, no such proceeding has been instituted by benefit corporation shareholders in any U.S. court.

There are around 12 third-party standards that satisfy the reporting requirements of most benefit corporation statutes. A benefit corporation need not be certified or audited by the third-party standard. Instead, it may use third-party standards solely as a rubric to measure its own performance.


In April 2010, Maryland became the first U.S. state to pass benefit corporation legislation. As of September 2015, 30 states and Washington, D.C. have passed legislation allowing for the creation of benefit corporations:[2]

StateDate PassedDate in EffectLegislation
ArizonaApril 30, 2013December 31, 2014SB 1238
ArkansasApril 19, 2013July 18, 2013HB 1510
CaliforniaOctober 9, 2011January 1, 2012AB 361
ColoradoMay 15, 2013April 1, 2014HB 13-1138
ConnecticutApril 24, 2014October 1, 2014SB 23, HB 5597 Section 140
DelawareJuly 17, 2013August 1, 2013SB 47
FloridaJune 20, 2014July 1, 2014SB 654, HB 685
HawaiiJuly 8, 2011July 8, 2011SB 298
IdahoApril 2, 2015July 1, 2015SB 1076
IllinoisAugust 2, 2012January 1, 2013SB 2897
IndianaApril 30, 2015July 1, 2015HB 1015
LouisianaMay 31, 2012August 1, 2012HB 1178
MarylandApril 13, 2010October 1, 2010SB 690/HB 1009
MassachusettsAugust 7, 2012December 1, 2012H 4352
MinnesotaApril 29, 2014January 1, 2015SF 2053, HF 2582
MontanaApril 27, 2015October 1, 2015HB 2458
NebraskaApril 2, 2014July 18, 2014LB 751
NevadaMay 24, 2013January 1, 2014AB 89
New HampshireJuly 11, 2014January 1, 2015SB 215
New JerseyJanuary 10, 2011March 1, 2011S 2170
New YorkDecember 12, 2011February 10, 2012A4692-a and S79-a
OregonJune 18, 2013January 1, 2014HB 2296
PennsylvaniaOctober 12, 2012January 1, 2013HB 1616
Rhode IslandJuly 17, 2013January 1, 2014HB 5720
South CarolinaJune 6, 2012June 14, 2012HB 4766
TennesseeMay 20, 2015January 1, 2016HB 0767/SB 0972
UtahApril 1, 2014May 13, 2014SB 133
VermontMay 19, 2010July 1, 2011S 263
VirginiaMarch 26, 2011July 1, 2011HB 2358
Washington, D.C.February 8, 2013May 1, 2013B 19-058
West VirginiaMarch 31, 2014July 1, 2014SB 202

Connecticut's benefit corporation law is the first to allow "preservation clauses," which allow the corporation's founders to prevent it from reverting to a 'For Profit' entity at the will of their shareholders.[3]

Illinois established a new type of entity called the “benefit LLC,” making the state the first to allow limited liability companies the same opportunities afforded to Illinois corporations under the state’s Benefit Corporation Law.[4][5] Italy has been the first non-USA country worldwide to recognize the "B-corps" as a distinct corporate entity (Italian financial Act for 2016- L. nr. 208/2015).

Instead of recognizing Benefit Corporations, Washington created social purpose corporations in 2012 with a similar focus and intent.[6][7]

Differences from traditional corporations

Historically, United States corporate law has not been structured or tailored to address the situation of for-profit companies who wish to pursue a social or environmental mission.[8] While corporations generally have the ability to pursue a broad range of activities, corporate decision-making is usually justified in terms of creating long-term shareholder value. A commitment to pursuing a goal other than profit as an end for itself may be viewed in many states as inconsistent with the traditional perspective that a corporation’s purpose is to maximize profits for the benefit of its shareholders.

The idea that a corporation has as its purpose to maximize financial gain for its shareholders was first articulated in Dodge v. Ford Motor Company in 1919. Over time, through both law and custom, the concept of “shareholder primacy” has come to be widely accepted. This point was recently reaffirmed by the case eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Craig Newmark, et al., 3705-CC, 61 (Del. Ch. 2010). , in which the Delaware Chancery Court stated that a non-financial mission that “seeks not to maximize the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its stockholders” is inconsistent with directors’ fiduciary duties.

In the ordinary course of business, decisions made by a corporation’s directors are generally protected by the business judgment rule, under which courts are reluctant to second-guess operating decisions made by directors. In a takeover or change of control situation, however, courts give less deference to directors’ decisions and require that directors obtain the highest price in order to maximize shareholder value in the transaction. Thus a corporation may be unable to maintain its focus on social and environmental factors in a change of control situation because of the pressure to maximize shareholder value. Of course, if a company does change ownership and the result is no longer in adherence to its initially described benefit goals, the sale could be challenged in court.

Mission-driven businesses, impact investors, and social entrepreneurs are constrained by this legal framework, which is not equipped to accommodate for-profit entities whose mission is central to their existence.

Even in states that have passed “constituency” statutes, which permit directors and officers of ordinary corporations to consider non-financial interests when making decisions, legal uncertainties make it difficult for mission-driven businesses to know when they are allowed to consider additional interests. Without clear case law, directors may still fear civil claims if they stray from their fiduciary duties to the owners of the business to maximize profit.

By contrast, benefit corporations expand the fiduciary duty of directors to require them to consider non-financial stakeholders as well as the financial interests of shareholders.[9] This gives directors and officers of mission-driven businesses the legal protection to pursue an additional mission and consider additional stakeholders besides profit.[10][11] The enacting state's benefit corporation statutes are placed within existing state corporation codes so that the codes apply to benefit corporations in every respect except those explicit provisions unique to the benefit corporation form.

In the rest of the world, the corporate law position is sometimes very different. In the UK, for example, the Community Interest Company ensures profit and purpose can both be prioritised.


Typical major provisions of a benefit corporation are:




Right of Action

Change of Control/Purpose/Structure

Benefit corporations are treated like all other corporations for tax purposes.[12]


Benefit corporation laws address concerns held by entrepreneurs who wish to raise growth capital but fear losing control of the social or environmental mission of their business. In addition, the laws provide companies the ability to consider factors other than the highest purchase offer at the time of sale, in spite of the ruling on Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. Chartering as a benefit corporation also allows companies to distinguish themselves as businesses with a social conscience, and as one that aspires to a standard they consider higher than profit-maximization for shareholders.[13]

See also

Wikiversity has learning materials about Benefit corporation


  2. Benefit Corp: State by State Legislative Status Archived January 22, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
  4. S.B. 2358, 98th Gen. Assem. (Ill. 2013).
  5. Six Month Report (PDF) (Report). Governor’s Task Force on Social Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Enterprise. April 2013.
  6. HB 2239
  7. "Social Purpose Corporation". Washington Secretary of State. Retrieved 10 August 2016. As of June 7, 2012, a new type of profit corporation will exist in Washington. ..[T]his law...would allow a corporation’s shareholders and directors to put a social purpose (such as saving the environment or saving the whales) above the purpose of making a profit.
  8. "Balancing purpose and profit: Legal mechanisms to lock in social mission for "profit with purpose" businesses across the G8". Trust Law. Retrieved 3 September 2015.
  9. Marc J. Lane (March 11, 2014). "Emerging Legal Forms Allow Social Entrepreneurs to Blend Mission And Profits". Triple Pundit.
  10. Marc J. Lane. "Representing Corporate Officers and Directors". Aspen Publishers: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Retrieved 8 August 2012.
  11. Marc J. Lane. "Social Enterprises: A New Business Form Driving Social Change". The Young Lawyer. Retrieved 18 November 2014.
  12. "Maryland First State in Union to Pass Benefit Corporation Legislation". CSRWire USA. 14 April 2010.
  13. New-Economy Movement Archived August 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. article by Gar Alperovitz, also appeared in the June 13, 2011 edition of The Nation

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/23/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.