LAW AND
SOCIAL entrepreneurSHIP

UCONN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONFERENCE │ STORRS, CT │ APRIL 23-24, 2015

Cross-posted at Business Law Professor Blog.

At the end of next week, I will be at the University of Connecticut School of Business and the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center for their Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Conference.

Further information about the conference is available here, a portion of which is reproduced below:

In October 2014, Connecticut joined a growing number of states that empower for-profit corporations to expand their core missions to expressly include human rights, environmental sustainability, and other social objectives. As a new legal class of businesses, these benefit corporations join a growing range of social entrepreneurship and enterprise models that have the potential to have positive social impacts on communities in Connecticut and around the world. Designed to evaluate and enhance this potential, SE2 will feature a critical examination of the various aspects of social entrepreneurship, as well as practical guidance on the challenges and opportunities presented by the newly adopted Connecticut Benefit Corporation Act and other forms of social enterprise.

Presenters at the academic symposium on April 23 are:

Mystica Alexander, Bentley University

Norman Bishara, University of Michigan

Kate Cooney, Yale University

Lucien Dhooge, Georgia Institute of Technology

Gwendolyn Gordon, University of Pennsylvania

Gil Lan, Ryerson University

Diana Leyden, University of Connecticut

Haskell Murray, Belmont University

Inara Scott, Oregon State University

Presenters at the practitioner conference on April 24 are:

Gregg Haddad, State Representative, Connecticut General Assembly (D-Mansfield)

Spencer Curry & Kieran Foran, FRESH Farm Aquaponics

Sophie Faris, Community Development, B-Lab

James W. McLaughlin, Associate, Murtha Cullina LLP

Michelle Cote, Managing Director, Connecticut Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Mike Brady, CEO, Greyston Bakery

Jeff Brown, Executive Vice President, Newman’s Own Foundation

Justin Nash, President, Veterans Construction Services, and Founder, Til Duty is Done

Vishal Patel, CEO & Founder, Happy Life Coffee

Anselm Doering, President & CEO, EcoLogic Solutions

Dafna Alsheh, Production Operations Director, Ice Stone

Tamara Brown, Director of Sustainable Development and Community Engagement, Praxair

WILL CERTIFIED B CORPORATION ETSY BECOME A PUBLICLY-TRADED DELAWARE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION?

I consider the question above in a post at the Business Law Prof Blog here.

YET ANOTHER U.S. HYBRIDS MAP WITH HYPERLINKS: RHODE ISLAND SHOULD BE GREEN

I recently posted yet another U.S. hybrids map (with hyperlinks!) to reflect the fact that Minnesota should be viewed as a benefit and social purpose corporation state even though its approach to the two forms is slightly different than California’s and Florida’s. Since that time, James Woulfe at Connecticut’s Social Enterprise Trust points out that Rhode Island has both a benefit corporation statute and a low-profit limited liability company statute. Rhode Island thus should be green on my U.S. hybrids map, not gold. Accordingly, I post another corrected version of the map below along with the interactive version here. I am grateful for the watchful eyes of readers of this blog to ensure that my U.S. hybrids map is both up-to-date and correct. Keep those questions, comments, and corrections coming!

NEW AND IMPROVED U.S. HYBRIDS MAP WITH HYPERLINKS: MINNESOTA IS PURPLE!

On February 17, 2015, I posted an updated map of social enterprise legislation across the U.S. A few readers, however, took issue with my characterization of Minnesota as an ordinary benefit corporation state (light blue) instead of being a benefit and social purpose corporation state (purple) like California and Florida. Mind you, this had nothing to do with the Minnesota Vikings’ team colors, but rather had to do with the substance of the Minnesota benefit corporation statute. Let me explain.

In The Beginning . . .

Most of the early adopters of benefit corporation statutes followed the B Lab model legislation. The B Lab model statute required a “general public benefit” for hybrid corporations. On the other hand, one early adopting state, California, took a different approach to hybrid corporation legislation. California authorized “social purpose corporations” (previously called “flexible purpose corporations”) at the same time it passed benefit corporation legislation. [Footnote: Since that time, Washington and Florida also have authorized social purpose corporations. Washington has a social purpose corporation (“SPC”) statute but no benefit corporation statute, while Florida, like California, has a social purpose corporation statute and a separate benefit corporation statute.]

Distinct from a benefit corporation, a social purpose corporation pursues a chosen social or environmental mission without necessarily providing a “general public benefit.” Example: A social purpose corporation could produce electricity-generating windmills to preserve the environment, but nevertheless pay its employees substandard wages. Theoretically, a benefit corporation cannot save the environment at the expense of its employees. It must do both and more to fulfill its “general public benefit” mandate.

This “do everything well” approach has led many to argue that the B Lab benefit corporation model is fundamentally flawed. The B Lab model arguably is flawed, Haskell Murray and other commentators have written, because no person can serve two (much less more than two) masters simultaneously. Thus, a better model was needed.

Colorado and Delaware Modification

Next, along came Colorado and Delaware, which passed statutes blending the benefit corporation and social purpose corporation concepts. In particular, Colorado and Delaware created the “public benefit corporation” (“PBC”). PBCs are designed to further a general public benefit while pursuing a specific benefit purpose. Example: Our electricity-generating windmill company primarily will preserve the environment, but it will do so only after weighing the benefit of its primary activity against any countervailing social ills created thereby (such as paying substandard wages).

Clever lawyers, though, found an end run around the Colorado and Delaware approach. To wit, a number of public benefit corporations chartered in Delaware chose a specific benefit purpose of pursuing a general public benefit.  Oy vey!

Minnesota GBCs & SBCs

In response, Minnesota’s new hybrid corporation statute adopts an approach similar to that of California and Florida, but does so in a single hybrid corporation statute. Under the “Minnesota Public Benefit Corporation Act,” a hybrid corporation may choose to be either a general benefit corporation (“GBC”) or a specific benefit corporation (“SBC”). A GBC must pursue a general public benefit—please everybody—while an SBC need only pursue a single social or environmental purpose—not please everybody. Florida’s approach is very similar to Minnesota’s, but Florida follows the California model by authorizing benefit corporations and social purpose corporations in completely separate statutes. Moreover, unlike Minnesota and its “GBC” and “SBC” labels, neither Florida nor California requires a unique identifier for benefit corporations or social purpose corporations.

Of course, this brief explanation of the light blue (general and specific public benefit) versus purple (general or specific public benefit) debate necessarily omits many subtleties and nuances of the various U.S. hybrid entity statutes. Put differently, any map that I create will be more like an SBC than a GBC: the map will not please everyone. [Footnote: For the subtleties and nuances of benefit corporations, I highland recommend Haskell Murray’s chart posted to SSRN.]

New Hybrid Entity Map With State-by-State Hyperlinks

Nevertheless, being an incurable perfectionist, I have revised my hybrid entity map yet again in response to reader concerns. Moreover, in the new and improved map below, Minnesota is purple, reflecting the fact that Minnesota, like California and Florida, allows its hybrid corporations to serve either a general public benefit or a specific social or environmental benefit.

More importantly, perhaps, this new map contains hyperlinks to each state’s underlying hybrid entity legislation. I also have included a link to another resource: the Bloomberg BNA portfolio about social enterprise that Elizabeth Minnigh, Rob Wexler, and I co-authored. In this manner, any reader who does not agree with my color-coded map is only a mouse click away from conducting his or her own investigation. [Click on the following link to access a copy of the map below containing state-by-state hyperlinks to the underlying statutes: Social Enterprise Hybrids Map Mar 2015]