Thursday, April 2, 2015

Why Do Social Enterprise Entrepreneurs Want Benefit Corporations?

In connection with the current legislative debate on benefit corporations in Tennessee (which has been gathering momentum since I last wrote on the topic), I have repeatedly asked about the impetus for the bill.  Of course, there is the obvious "push" for benefit corporation legislation by the B Lab folks, who have gotten the ear of folks at the Chamber, convincing them that the legislation is needed in Tennessee to protect social enterprise entities from the application of a narrow version of the shareholder wealth maximization norm (a conclusion that I dispute in my earlier post).  But what else?  What real parties in interest in Tennessee, if any, have expressed a desire that Tennessee adopt this form of business entity?

There is anecdotal information from one venture attorney that some Tennessee entrepreneurs have indicated a preference for the benefit corporation form and have specifically requested that their business be organized as a Delaware benefit corporation.  Leaving aside the Delaware versus Tennessee question, why are these entrepreneurs looking to organize their businesses as benefit corporations?  Where does this idea come from?

I start from the premise in asking this question that, as I earlier expressed, one can organize in Tennessee as a traditional for-profit business corporation and, with appropriate charter provisions, get the same (or, for most businesses I have looked at, at least close to the same) benefits.  So, the benefit corporation burdens of, e.g., additional reporting responsibilities seem to come with no or little benefit.  For a small entrepreneurial venture--like the ones we typically see in our for-profit venture clinic at UT Law, these burdens loom large.  Just getting these firms to engage in general corporate maintenance (e.g., filing annual reports, holding and documenting annual shareholder meetings and regular board meetings, etc.) in their early stages is tough. 

It is possible, however, that some entrepreneurs see more benefit in the benefit corporation than I do.  If I were to guess, giving credit (which may be unwarranted) to the engagement by these entrepreneurs in a well-informed, rigorous assessment of costs and benefits, I would posit that the benefit these folks see is a signalling one--that the "benefit corporation" label gives entrepreneurs and their businesses some market advantage or caché.  In other words, these entrepreneurs may have determined that benefit corporations are becoming or have become, from the perspectives of their relevant audiences, a desired brand.

That has some traction with me (although many social enterprise entities organized as other forms of entity seem to get their message out to the public in salient and sticky ways through their operations and other conduct, including by obtaining B Corp certification).  But the negative is that some of these firms may be over-signalling their social enterprise value, at least at the outset in the pre-revenue phase of operations.  (I suspect that many of the already-organized benefit corporations are in that stage of their existence, especially given the relative new-ness of the benefit corporation form.)  This concern can be a form of, or is akin to, greenwashing, which has been observed generally in the social enterprise space.  Query whether benefit corporation statutes will later be criticized for facilitating false or misleading signalling . . . .

It's also possible that the entrepreneurs are misinformed about the non-signalling benefits of benefit corporation status (especially as opposed to traditional corporation status, with or without B Corp certification).  This would disable them from making an accurate, complete cost-benefit assessment.  (Many of us who advise entrepreneurs know, for example, that they often come in asking for us to form an LLC for their business without really having a clue--or complete picture--as to why . . . .)  We can help guard against this possibility by purveying accurate information in the blogosphere, in other media, and in our scholarship.

Do any of you have any thoughts on this?  I wonder if a high-quality survey of the right sample population of entrepreneurs could tease out whether any of the rationales I posit here (or any you may come up with) have any validity . . . .  Maybe Haskell Murray, our resident co-blogger expert on social enterprise and benefit corporations, will want to take that on?!

 

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2015/04/why-do-social-enterprise-entrepreneurs-want-benefit-corporations.html

Business Associations, Corporate Finance, Corporate Governance, Corporations, Entrepreneurship, Haskell Murray, Joan Heminway, Social Enterprise | Permalink

Comments

I believe a professor at UConn, where I will be later in April, is planning such a survey. I will let you know what she finds. From talking to my students who want to start benefit corporations, the motivation seems to be signaling, being part of a community (the existing benefit corporations have at least one big annual event, often give each other discounts, etc.), and being part of a movement to change the way corporations are often run.

Posted by: Haskell Murray | Apr 2, 2015 12:56:23 PM

Prof:

I would agree wholeheartedly that most promoters of “start-ups” don’t have “a clue--or complete picture--as to why” they even need an entity – much less the demands of an entity. It has been my experience that these entrepreneurs are initially far more concerned about running afoul of the taxing authorities. Thus, the first professional they seek out is a CPA. Therefore, a great deal of the time, the first thing out of the prospective client’s mouth is “my CPA says I need for form a …” Thus, as an attorney “bringing up the back of the band” you are sometimes forced to overcome a predisposition by developing confidence and credibility with a client who already has a “established relationship” with their CPA.

In terms of the social benefit entities, I cannot find enthusiasm for simply adding a few more pages to the Code. As you have pointed out, the purported benefits can be readily structured within current (at least Tennessee) code and entity governing documents. The vast number of the entities formed remain “closely, closely” held – five or fewer equity holders (often family) and the philanthropic or “social” causes are effected without regard to the entity governing documents as there is no dissent. So many socially conscious businesses have succeeded (ex., Newman’s, Ben & Jerry’s) without special provisions.

Clearly I’m getting older and viewing matters with a different prism. The social enterprise model seems to me to be only the newest iteration of “dolphin free tuna” (hailing back to the late 1960’s to early 1970’s marketing – “the tuna company with a heart”). It appears to me to be primarily marketing a particular segment. No more than “Buy American,” “Buy Tennessee” or “Buy Local” has appealed to a broad swath of the consumer market do I believe social benefit branding will attract the larger price driven consumer.

I, too, look forward to the survey that Haskell mentions. What I also think would be important is to indicate not only size of the sample but the distribution of the sample from various regions of the country. As you have previously noted, it is not uncommon in the South to see a faith based marketing while anecdotally such marketing would be null or detrimental in other regions.

Thanks for posting. You’ve given me a new cliché – “greenwashing.”

Posted by: Tom N. | Apr 3, 2015 7:40:12 AM

Joan,

Good post, but it's important to note the link between your points about the costs associated with being a benefit corporation, signalling, and the threat of greenwashing. For the signal to be credible and avoid greenwashing, adopting the signal needs to be costly, but differentially costly. That is, companies that are genuinely committed to social goals must be better able to bear the costs associated with being a benefit corporation. So for an economist who sees signalling as the main point, those costs associated with the form aren't necessarily bad, they are a key part of the design.

Of course, that's true only up to a point. If the costs are too great, no one will want to be a benefit corporation. There's a balance that must be struck. It remains to be seen whether there actually is a balance point where benefit corporations are viable, and if so, whether the laws have actually found that point.

Posted by: Brett McDonnell | Apr 3, 2015 7:43:36 AM

Haskell, please keep me (us?) posted on that survey.

Tom N., I know what you mean. Some of my skepticism may come from the same aging phenomenon that you describe. And I have had the same experience with clients getting choice-of-entity advice from CPAs. I should have mentioned that in the post.

Brett, you always have such a fine way of getting to the nub fast. Thanks for taking my musings and getting to the point of the matter. Of course, you're right. This is a laboratory environment right now. It's also important to note that the true costs and benefits remain to be seen. For example, we don't yet know what the litigation or financing landscape will shape up to be in the benefit corporation setting. More for us to watch and write about . . . .

Posted by: joanheminway | Apr 3, 2015 8:07:53 AM

Post a comment