LAW AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

WHAT SHOULD MY PRIVATE FOUNDATION DO FOR THE HOLIDAYS?

First and foremost, let me wish everyone who reads SocEntLaw the safest and happiest of holidays.

Next, I want to share something that, as the Grinch would say, has me “puzzled and puzzled ‘till [my] puzzler [is] sore.”*

Specifically, I cannot figure out why the Brewer Family Foundation’s tax lawyer, Ebenezer Scrooge, is insisting that the Foundation may buy $500,000 of stock in BP or give $500,000 to GreenPeace to celebrate the season, but that the Foundation cannot risk investing the same amount in SunSleigh, Inc. a “social enterprise” developing an affordable solar-powered car. I think old Ebenezer finally has lost it, and the Foundation needs a new tax lawyer.

Let me explain. Although not huge in terms of value, the imaginary Brewer Family Foundation’s mission is nonetheless a big one: to save the world, especially the environment. The Foundation’s endowment is $100 million and as required for tax purposes every year the Foundation distributes to charity at least 5% of the value of the Foundation’s assets. We’ve already met our 5% goal this year, but because our endowment is really well managed and generating an average 10% annual return, we’re feeling more generous than usual this December and have an extra $500,000 to spend. We’ve narrowed down our choices to the following three:

• Buying stock in BP (because we think BP stock is a really good investment right now even though it runs contrary to our mission of protecting the environment); or
• Giving money to GreenPeace expressly because we think GreenPeace hates oil companies and cares about the environment more than any other charity (except, of course, the Foundation); or
• Investing in SunSleigh, a local, privately-held company raising money to develop an affordable solar-powered car.

Personally, I would like the Foundation to invest the extra $500,000 in SunSleigh, but Ebenezer says we can’t.

More background: As I mentioned, SunSleigh is a private “social enterprise” company located here in Atlanta that is developing an affordable solar-powered car. A $500,000 investment in SunSleigh would equate to 1% of the SunSleigh stock. Like the Foundation, the owners of SunSleigh are so committed to the environment that they plan to sell the SunSleigh for as little as possible so long as they can generate a 2% return on invested capital. No doubt the investment will be very risky, and the Foundation might lose all $500,000, but in my well-considered judgment, SunSleigh really could help save the environment if it is successful. In fact, I sincerely and realistically believe that the Foundation might do more to save the planet by investing in SunSleigh than it could ever accomplish through all of its other investments and annual grants to environmental charities like GreenPeace. Moreover, SunSleigh really needs the Foundation’s $500,000 because it has been unable to attract normal investment capital due to SunSleigh’s commitment to keep the car’s costs low and pay only a 2% dividend forever.

So, I called my favorite tax lawyer, Ebenezer Scrooge, just to make sure that I was on solid legal and tax ground if the Brewer Family Foundation invested $500,000 in SunSleigh. After grilling me on all the particulars of the Foundation’s assets, mission, tax filings, annual distributions, and SunSleigh’s ownership, business plan, and stock offering—which, by the way, were all fine and legally compliant as far as Ebenezer was concerned—I was extremely disappointed to hear Ebenezer tell me that if the Foundation invested $500,000 in SunSleigh it could face a $50,000 penalty tax. Even more outrageous, Ebenezer said that I personally might have to pay a $50,000 tax as well. Further, if the Foundation invested in SunSleigh and lost the $500,000, then according to Ebenezer the IRS conceivably could revoke the Brewer Family Foundation’s tax exempt status.

I couldn’t believe my ears! After listening at length to Ebenezer explain in detail the complicated and confusing tax law applicable to private foundations, and after getting more and more frustrated, I finally said somewhat angrily to Ebenezer: “You mean to tell me that, in carrying out the Foundation’s mission to protect the environment, for a mere one-half of one percent of the foundation’s assets the tax law would prefer that I buy stock in BP or give the same amount of money to GreenPeace instead of investing in an idea that could make both BP and GreenPeace obsolete?”

Ebenezer sheepishly said, “Yes, that’s right.”

Then, I exclaimed, “You and the tax law are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.” I immediately hung up the phone and poured myself a spiked glass of eggnog to calm my nerves.

Do you know why Ebenezer probably is right? Revisit SocEntLaw in the future for the answer.

* “And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled ’till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn’t come from a store. What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.”
― Dr. Seuss, How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Social Enterprise Business Models

As I have noted in other work, the social enterprise spectrum theoretically lies between two extremes. On one end of the spectrum are organizations that pursue social and environmental missions and eschew profit motives, as some nonprofit organizations do. On the other end of the spectrum are organizations that focus solely on profit-maximization and disregard social and environmental missions—these are often called profit-maximizing businesses. I think that mainstream media ungraciously labels all businesses between these two extremes as social enterprise and fails to acknowledge that there are significant distinctions between business models at different points along the spectrum. Closer to the profit-maximizing side of the spectrum, you might find corporate philanthropy or corporate social responsibility initiatives. Closer to the nonprofit side of the spectrum, you might find nonprofit organizations using an earned income strategy to sustain a set of social services. Within this wide spectrum, I have seen mainstream media label two particular business models as “social enterprise”—the stakeholder governance model and the “buy-one-give-one” model—which I’ll briefly describe here.

The first model is the stakeholder governance model (also called the stakeholder relationship management model) which is espoused by communitarian and team production scholars and has emerged as a prototypical business model of social enterprise. Social entrepreneurs who employ this model have shifted away from the singular focus of creating shareholder value and embraced a holistic notion that a business’s constituents all deserve a fair return on their investments, whether investments of capital, labor, natural resources, or other factors of production. I believe that this is the type of business model that B Lab, along with other social and environmental impact accounting firms, assess and certify as the gold standard in “doing business well”. [Please correct me if I’m wrong.] One might look to Greyston Bakery, the iconic social enterprise, as an example. Greyston Bakery is a Yonkers, New York-based bakery that dedicates itself to community renewal by providing sustainable employment—including fair wages, benefits, and equity participation—to low-income community members and reinvesting significant profits in the Greyston Foundation, which provides jobs, job training, affordable housing, youth services, and health care to the Yonkers community. Greyston Bakery’s motto is, “We don’t hire people to bake brownies. We bake brownies to hire people.” Greyston became the first social enterprise to register as a benefit corporation in New York when the legislation passed earlier this year. Greyston seemingly treats its factors of production—labor, capital, and land—in an equitable and sustainable manner (although it seems to emphasize labor). This is the essence of the stakeholder governance model, and possibly what many “true believers” in social enterprise think of when they use the term.

The second business model of social enterprise is quite the opposite. It is the “buy one, give one” or “BOGO” business model. Under the BOGO model, a for-profit company sells products or services in a developed nation and donates similar (but different) products or services in a developing nation. The social entrepreneurs employing the BOGO model seem to be less concerned with transforming corporate governance structures and are seemingly focused on the impact that their businesses have on ameliorating an immediate social, health, or environmental problem. The most prominent example of the BOGO model is TOMS, a Los Angeles based shoe company founded by Blake Mycoskie. For every pair of TOMS shoes sold at a luxury retail store in developed countries, the company works with humanitary organizations to identify and give a free pair of shoes to children in developing countries. Other social enterprises that have followed TOMS lead include Warby Parker which donates eye glasses and Baby Teresa which donates baby clothes. Consumers in the developed world can now purchase a wide range of clothes and household goods using the BOGO model.

The BOGO business model is based on charitable philanthropy and has many critics, including me. Corporate philanthropy is a term often used in a derogatory manner by social entrepreneurs and development social scientists that embrace sustainability. The Chinese proverb tells us that “if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” The BOGO model relies on marked-up prices in developed countries to pay for the creation of similar products and services in developing countries. The BOGO model also floods developing markets with free products thereby diminishing the need and capacity of a developing country to manufacture and produce its own products for its own markets. To me, the model also relies heavily on the charitable heartstrings of individuals in developed countries who wish to contribute to a social or environmental issue and feel guilty about their own consumerism and privilege. To many, the BOGO business model is not “true” social enterprise.

Nonetheless, this issue is not as clear as it seems. Greyston Foundation, the nonprofit arm of Greyston Bakery, is also corporate philanthropy—profits from the bakery are donated to the foundation for charitable services. What really distinguishes the two models? Would TOMS Shoes be a “true” social enterprise if it adopted a stakeholder governance model for its internal governance structure? If so, it would seem that I am comparing apples to oranges—internal corporate governance to business strategy. That is, one might consider the internal workings of a business—the corporate governance—as the feature that distinguishes regular businesses or nonprofits from social enterprise. Those businesses that adopt a stakeholder governance model of corporate governance are social enterprises, those that do not are not social enterprises, even if they do adopt a business strategy that performs charitable or philanthropic work. What’s your take? Is that distinction too simplistic? What governance or business models have I overlooked?

[Disclaimer: my interest in these business models is partly for an article that I am writing, to be presented at a panel of the Nonprofit Law and Philanthropy Section of the American Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting on January 6, 2013.]

THE BENEFIT CORPORATION: CAN BUSINESS BE ABOUT MORE THAN PROFIT?

New laws take effect in Vermont and Virginia today, giving ethical business a boost. If Vermont’s law had been around 11 years ago, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield might not have had to sell their ice cream company.

Back then, Unilever made the highest bid for Ben and Jerry’s, so the laws of shareholder responsibility forced the hippie founders to sell, even though they wanted to keep control. Now, with today’s law, a new kind of corporation is created that prevents exactly that, the Benefit Corporation. Vermont and Virginia join Maryland and New Jersey in recognizing the new form of company. More than a dozen other states are taking steps to catch up.

“This new class of corporation is a milestone for two reasons,” says Kyle Westaway, a lawyer who studies corporate forms and represented Launcht, the first company to file and officially become a Benefit Corporation in Vermont. The law, he says, “broadens the goals of the corporation from [just] profit to: profit, people and planet. Secondly, the Benefit Corporation increases transparency and accountability, by using an independent third party to verify that a business is acting in a socially and environmentally conscious fashion.”

Each Benefit Corporation must adhere to third party certification meeting certain environmental, social, or other non-financial standards. Many use the similarly named B-Corp Certification and Impact Assessment, which we’ve covered multiple times on GOOD.

B-Corp certification is similar to Fair Trade or Organic, but deals with all aspects of how the company does business. Rigorous as the B-Corp label is, it’s still a stamp from a nonprofit. Benefit Corporations are recognized by the state as a distinct new category of company. Like B-Corps, Benefit Corporations are required to consider the environment, community, and employees in business decisions along with company profit. A typical company—like Ben and Jerry’s circa 2000—is required to maximize returns to shareholders at all costs. With Benefit Corporation status, there’s recourse if a future investor or CEO veers from the company’s ethical principles. Just like shareholders were able to force Ben and Jerry to sell because shareholder value was paramount, with a Benefit Corporation, shareholders, or the founders, could claim that environmental and social impacts weren’t fully considered, even in court.

Ben and Jerry themselves issued a statement when the law passed saying they were thrilled. ”Giving entrepreneurs and directors the legal protection to build values-based companies and retain the discretion to make decisions based upon both financial and social factors is a first step forward.”

Four B-Corps have already signed up and re-incorporated as Benefit Corporations in Vermont. Clean Yield Asset ManagementMerritt & Merritt & MoultonStartUp Owl, and Launcht, which did so even though it is based in New York.

“Frankly, I was born in Vermont and endorse many of Vermont’s policies and want Launcht’s state taxes to support a state I really like,” explains founder Freeman White on why he decided to pull a reverse-Delaware and incorporate his company out of state. “If our only responsibility was to our shareholders, we were concerned about loosing our core values. By establishing ourselves as a Benefit Corporation, we intentionally put ourselves on the hook to live up to our values … and by virtue of our legal structure we will be able to protect these values as we scale.” Launcht is a for-profit platform that helps nonprofits or other organizations crowdfund good projects. So it also mattered to White that his clients see Launcht as a trusted brand, even if the founders plan to cash out in a few years.

“If we were just a C-Corp we would be fighting the stereotypes some of our users, both founders and funders, might have about such corporations. My co-founder and I wanted ownership, so we can take advantage of the upside of potential exit opportunities in 3-5 years, thus we didn’t go the 501c3 [nonprofit] route,” he says.

Right now, being a Benefit Corporation is a statement to the world and a promise to yourself that the company does business with high social and environmental standards, and will continue to do so. Down the road though, being a distinct legal category of business could enable pretty incredible possibilities like preferential tax rates for more socially focused businesses. If that happened—politicians and B-Corp advocates are mum on this—then we could see persuasive new incentives and legal tools remake businesses of all stripes.

It could change how investments are made too. Impact investing is a growing field, where money managers steer their funds to good causes that earn a financial return as well as make a social impact, just like many potential Benefit Corporations. By requiring these companies to get certified by a third party, the law will enable investors to measure and compare companies on non-financial performance according to a single standard, or a small number of them. So that means, down the road, a company that serves the poor with affordable health services could attract new investment that supports the cause, even if its profit margins were lower than those of other healthcare providers, because it couldprove its social value.

That’s all a bit down the road, but we get a hint of the potential from the Green Mountain State. Small as it is, Vermont is a big player when it comes to values-infused companies, Seventh Generation chief among them. But even the flag bearer of better business stumbled. Founder Jeffrey Hollender was notoriously ousted in part because he disagreed with some of the new investors on just how far to take social responsibility, as he explained at length to GOOD in his first public comments after the ouster.

Chris Miller, of Seventh Generation’s Corporate Consciousness team tells GOOD it’s looking likely they’ll reincorporate as a Benefit Corporation, “we are a founding member of B-Corps, and our bylaws were changed to reflect that, so we think it’s a really logical next step.”

Even a $150 million a year business has cause to plan ahead to protect values. “It’s an important way for us to ensure that the things that we care about around our business are here for years to come as the company evolves, as we grow, as we go through leadership changes.” The change requires a shareholder vote.

Jay Coen Gilbert of B-Lab, the nonprofit leading the charge for all of this, says today’s milestone shows this is an “accelerating movement.” But he points out, even if this is happening in a state already famous for businesses such as Ben and Jerry’s and Seventh Generation, there are way bigger moments on the horizon.

New York and California are the on the cusp of enacting Benefit Corporation laws and that could cause a snowball effect if a critical mass of companies sign on and spread the word about the concept. California’s version of the bill has passed the assembly and could come up for a Senate vote soon. New York’s bill is waiting for the governor’s signature.

As for Ben and Jerry’s, the company, they say they support the law, but signing up doesn’t make sense. Spokesman Sean Greenwood tells GOOD, “To the best of my understanding, we’ve spent considerable time talking with our Leadership Team and our independent board of directors about the Benefit Corporation law and if it makes sense for Ben and Jerry’s to pursue.” He says that because the company has a unique governance arrangement already, it would require considerable legal restructuring. An independent board of directors was created to help keep the company quirky, independent, and honest even as it remains a wholly-owned Unilever subsidiary, an uncommon structure in business.

“Still, we applaud the effort for the businesses in Vermont to continue to lead the way with two scoops of progressive values and vision. We will support the Benefit Corporation law with our voice and our practices of daily business operations.”

Ben and Jerry, the people, did not respond for a request for comment in time for publication.

By: Alex Goldmark. Originally Posted in GOOD.

Photo: David Glover

FLEXIBLE PURPOSE CORPORATION

The Flexible Purpose Corporation is a new class of corporation, much like a C Corp or an S Corp, which allows the directors of a corporation to pursue broader objectives than the narrow focus of maximizing financial return for shareholders. On February 8, 2011 Senator Mark DeSaulnier introduced the Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011 (SB 201) into the California state legislature. It has not been passed into law yet, but we thought we’d give you a sneak peak of a potential new legal structure for social entrepreneurs.

Existing corporate law dictates that directors of corporations’ sole duty is to maximize shareholder value, which means that every decision of must be made with the goal of increasing the price of the stock. When a director makes a decision that does not maximize shareholder value, he opens the corporation up to a lawsuit from shareholders. This poses a problem for corporations that are seeking a financial return as well as other objectives such as positive environmental, social or community impact. The goal of the Flexible Purpose Corporation is to create a legal structure where profits can be pursued along side broader goals without opening the directors up to litigation.

Below are two key attributes of the Flexible Purpose Corporation.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE

As its name implies, the Flexible Purpose Corporation allows the directors a high degree of flexibility to choose a non-financial purpose that they want to pursue. This purpose is called a Specific Purpose and is defined as:

  1. Any charitable or public purpose that a nonprofit would be eligible to carry out or;
  2. Promoting positive or minimizing negative short term and long term affects of among any of the following:
    • employees, suppliers, customers, creditors;
    • the community and society; or
    • the environment.

A Flexible Purpose Corporation may have one or more Specific Purposes. They must be clearly stated in the Articles of Incorporation and approved by 2/3 of the shareholders.

TRANSPARENT REPORTING

After the Flexible Purpose Corporation has identified its Special Purpose, it must set annual objectives to achieve the Special Purpose. At the end of every fiscal year the Flexible Purpose Corporation must give a transparent account in its annual report detailing the actions taken by the Flexible Purpose Corporation to achieve the Special Purpose objectives. The report must include the following:

  1. Identification of short and long term objectives as they relate to the Special Purpose and identification of any changes made to those objectives in the last fiscal year.
  2. Identification and discussion of material action taken during the fiscal year to achieve the Special Purpose objective, the impact of those actions and the causal relationship between the actions and reported outcomes.
  3. Identification of material action that the Flexible Purpose Corporation expects to take in the short and long term to meet its Special Purpose objective.
  4. Identification and discussion of the process of for selecting metrics used for evaluating success of the Special Purpose objective.
  5. Identification of how much money the Flexible Purpose Corporation has spent to achieve the Special Purpose objectives, as well as a good faith estimate in how much it will spend in the next three fiscal years to do so.

The annual report must be publicly available on the Flexible Purpose Corporation’s website and be published within 120 days after closing the fiscal year.

The Flexible Purpose Corporation is focused on giving companies flexibility to choose how they want their company to pursue profit and purpose while requiring a high level of transparent reporting to ensure that they are taking tangible steps toward achieving that purpose. Should the Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011 be passed into law, social entrepreneurs will have more choice in how to structure their business to do well and do good.

Kyle Westaway is the founding partner at Westaway Law- an innovative New York City law firm that counsels social entrepreneurs. He has helped build Biographe – a sustainable style brand that employs and empowers survivors of the commercial sex trade. Kyle is a Cordes Fellow. He lectures on social entrepreneurship at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School. He writes for Huffington PostGOODTriple PunditSocial Earth and Law for Change.

Follow Socent Law on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.

photo: PatrickSmithPhotography

MISSION AND MONEY: A DANGEROUS MIX

Are so-called hybrid organizations such as B Corporations and Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (or L3Cs) good models for social entrepreneurs?

Social entrepreneurs are quite excited about this new trend of mixing mission and money within the organizations they run.  You can often hear many of them proclaiming their intention to “do well by doing good,” implying that they will not only save the world but they will make money doing it. Behind the slogan, these entrepreneurs are experimenting with what we call “hybrid” organizations.  In the for-profit world, new organizational creatures with descriptions like “social business” are now prioritizing social and environmental goals equally with financial performance.  Among non-profits, social entrepreneurs are launching what are usually called “social enterprises” or income-generating businesses, like coffee shops, thrift stores, and bakeries, within non-profit organizations.

One the surface these hybrid organizations look very promising—an opportunity to have your cake and eat it too.  The reality, however, is that these hybrid organizations come with substantial risks and consequences that are rarely discussed and that need to be carefully taken into consideration from the start.

Last week I participated in a research symposium on “Exploring Social Enterprises” at the UCLA School of Public Affairs; much of the discussion centered on organizational hybrids.  Several researchers presented truly cutting-edge findings about the consequences of choosing the hybrid organizational type.  Cumulatively, this research identified four key risks associated with hybrid organizations.

The first, overarching risk is that people just don’t know what hybrids are. Is it a for-profit? Is it a non-profit?  Is this about mission or money?  This ambiguity doesn’t just affect potential investors who, for a start, are often not sure whether these organizations are a fit for venture capital or venture philanthropy.  The ambiguity also affects board members who are not clear on whether their primary responsibility is to uphold mission or financial performance. Internally managers and staff face similar confusion and their decision-making often wavers or stagnates as a result.

Risk No. 2 is that these hybrids often have no clear systems of accountability. In traditional for-profits, everyone knows that profit maximization is the ultimate goal.  In traditional non-profits, everyone knows that social impact is the ultimate goal.  In hybrid organizations, these two goals are purportedly equal and yet they are often at odds.

The magnitude of this risk is easily understood by looking at funding flows to hybrid organizations—they are virtually non-existent. Capital flows require transparency and certainty, particularly with regard to the organization’s priorities. For hybrids with two equal priorities and no transparent system to uphold them, the risk of misalignment and failure is extremely high. Consequently, capital avoids these investments.

Over the past few years innovations such as B Corporations and Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs) have attempted to provide mechanisms to create this transparent accountability.  But without formal, widespread legal infrastructure to codify decision-making authority, the risk of weak accountability is too high.

Risk No. 3 is that hybrids often have difficulty maximizing either social impact or financial sustainability.  As the dichotomy between these two forces pulls social entrepreneurs in different directions, hybrid organizations often experience both internal and external pressures to lean more in one direction or the other. Non-profit social enterprises often ultimately choose social mission as their priority and find their enterprise running at a loss.  For example, the leaders of one non-profit operating a Ben & Jerry’s Partnershop decided that their commitment to employ disadvantaged youth with serious social and emotional challenges outweighed the gains in customer service that could be had from hiring more “polished” employees. The non-profit also determined that it was necessary to employ a social worker as full-time support staff for the youth in the ice-cream shop. Unsurprisingly, the Partnershop operated at a net loss.

For-profit hybrids often ultimately prioritize profit over mission and thus compromise their social and environmental impact.  The social entrepreneurs who founded Blue Avocado, makers of a line of hip reusable shopping bags, found early on that they had to make difficult choices about the level of environmental sustainability they could achieve for a competitive price. Their original hope was to create a locally sourced, fully organic cotton bag, but with a resulting unsustainable price they realized that some sacrifices on sustainability would be required to keep their social business viable.

Finally, Risk No. 4 is that as hybrids face pressures to maintain financial sustainability it will come at the price of a long-term erosion of moral legitimacy. One research study presented at UCLA investigated social service non-profits that employ their clients through jobs-training programs at social enterprises such as coffee shops and janitorial services companies. In these organizations, moral legitimacy was often questioned as clients were increasingly treated like regular employees and were “commoditized” by the business. A second study looked at the particular case of NPower, a non-profit technology provider that received substantial cash and in-kind support from Microsoft. As NPower was perceived to become more “business-like” in its operations, peer organizations questioned their non-profit integrity and social focus.

The net result is that hybrid organizations are not exactly the panacea they appear to be. Mixing mission and money is tricky business, requiring strong leadership to articulate and maintain clear priorities and accountability.  The attraction to this type of organization is rooted in our hopes of find more financially sustainable ways of creating social and environmental impact. But as social entrepreneurs explore this intriguing territory, we must also beware of serious and substantial risks.

reposted from Inc.com November 15, 2010

By: Suzi Sosa

Photo By: drburtoni

BC LIBERALS PROPOSE ‘HYBRID’ SOCIAL ENTERPRISE COMPANIES WITH PROFIT CAP

The Campbell Liberals are mulling changes to the Business Corporations Act that would clear the way for the emergence of a new “hybrid” company focused on “community interest.”

Investor returns would be capped but companies in the sector would have a measure of sustainability in their business models which would presumably offset a lack of opportunity for windfall profits.

“Community interest companies would be incorporated with all the flexibility and certainty of regular companies, but under legislation that ensures they primarily benefit the community,” says a British Columbia government news release this week.

The model for this initiative comes from the United Kingdom, which has seen 4,200 social enterprise companies emerge since 2005 in response to amendments to its Companies Act.

Businesses could include family services, recycling programs, education programs – with limited investor returns that would distinguish them from the non-profits you typically find in these sectors.

A switch to this designation would be “irrevocable” according to the release, and the only way to end hybrid status would be to break up the company – and even then assets could not be distributed to shareholders.

Organizations that would have an interest in this model could include, and this is speculation at this point, the Vancouver Foundation, B.C. Centre for Social Enterprise, and the Vancity Community Foundation.

No special tax breaks are contemplated – and with the British Columbia small business tax dropping to zero next year, why would they?

The B.C. finance ministry has posted a ‘community interest company consultation’ link on its website, www.gov.bc.ca/fin and has set a December 1 deadline for responses.

(No disrespect to Finance Minister Colin Hansen, or Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg who is the primary advocate for this idea, but I have to ask – am I alone in thinking this sounds more like an initiative of the B.C. New Democratic Party than one of the B.C. Liberal Party?)

By SCOTT SIMPSON 21 OCT 2010

from The Vancouver Sun

photo: kennymatic