SOCIAL entrepreneurSHIP


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!


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]


David Brooks—the highly-regarded, conservative columnist for the New York Times—recently wrote an opinion piece entitled “How to Leave a Mark.” Mr. Brooks’ commentary was about social enterprise (which he labeled “social capitalism”), impact investing, and (perhaps surprising?) career advice. As regular readers of this blog undoubtedly know, impact investing means investing for both a financial return and a positive social or environmental impact.

Mr. Brooks previously has written about social enterprise, and with respect to impact investing, Mr. Brooks summarized his views as follows:

Impact investing is not going to replace government or be a panacea, but it’s one of a number of new tools to address social problems. If you want to leave a mark on the world but are unsure of how to do it, I’d say take a look. If you’re a high-net-worth individual (a rich person), ask your adviser to get you involved. If you’re young and searching, get some finance and operational skills and then find a way to get involved in a socially useful investment proposition. If you’ve got a business mind, there are huge opportunities to build the infrastructure (creating measuring systems, connecting investors with deals).

Someday government will get unstuck, with new programs to address this new era. But there’s no prospect of that happening soon. Right now social capitalism is a more creative and dynamic place to spend a life.

I generally agree with Mr. Brooks, of course, but I also believe that in order for impact investing to flourish, more changes in the U.S. legal landscape must occur. Significant changes are taking place with respect to U.S. business law. More and more states are experimenting with new legal forms for conducting social enterprise. Nonetheless, other changes in U.S. law are necessary to facilitate impact investing as “one of a number of new tools to address social problems.”

In a subsequent post, I will outline some of the changes in U.S. fiduciary and tax law that I believe must occur before impact investing can fulfill its promise as predicted by Mr. Brooks.


As of today, February 17, 2015, I count 36 states with some form of social enterprise legislation on the books. Four states came online with benefit corporation statutes as of January 1, 2015, and California changed the name of its “flexible purpose corporation” variant to “social purpose corporation” like Florida, Texas (quasi-social purpose statute), and Washington. Otherwise, I do not believe that much has changed with respect to U.S. social enterprise legislation since my last posting of the map below in August of 2014. Please let me know, however, if you have corrections and/or clarifications to this summary or this map.