Talk:Benefit corporation/Archives/2011

The Evolution of Corporate Structure, Not B Lab Alone

In response to others' complaints below and the article's "Stub" status, I have replaced the Intro with one of broader sweep, and edited the first paragraph ("History"), where I replaced the dead "Enquirer" link with one to Greenberg & Bass LLP (greenbass.com) and updated the number of companies with B Lab's B-Corp certification.

This article needs to be grounded in the broader sweep of the evolution of corporate structure and the changing relationships between capitalism and society generally.

The new Intro is only a start. B-corps are a peaceful way to evolve capitalism, and this all-but-hidden development deserves better exposure in the Wikipedia. Please help with further improvements.

The B Lab Company, 8 Walnut Ave, Berwyn, PA 19312, founded in 2006 by two basketball shoe and sports apparel executives and a private equity investor [1], will have failed if the benefits of a Benefits Corporation can only be determined by them. Yes, it is nice to have third parties do a "third party certification," but the key is structural changes in capitalism that make the system run itself. The key is changing corporate boards, corporate officers, and corporate transparency so that corporations report on themselves, and everyone can plainly see what has or has not been done.

In the contributions I hope you will make to complete the still-missing story here, dig out the legal requirements for a B-corporation to have a member of the Board of Directors appointed with the responsibility to look inside the company and report to the public in quarterly and annual reports what the company did or refused to do to aid civic society at large. What are the legal requirements for a Chief Benefits Officer in the executive suite? What structural changes have different states implemented to achieve the "triple bottom line" of profits, people, planet?

The B Lab Company's goal should be to put itself out of business as a certification service. Structural changes in the corporation are more lasting, more powerful and more historically important for the continued growth if capitalism than cheer leading for "being nice". The B Lab Company's goal should be to gain tax advantages for B corporations so that it pays to form them. That makes the free market drive B corporation growth. Anything less leads to a top-down, command-economy program.

COLONIAL, INDUSTRIAL, SHAREHOLDER, & STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM

Another theme I hope you can run with better than I (I'm in biology, not the social sciences and history) is the broad sweep of history from colonial capitalism to industrial capitalism to shareholder capitalism to the B-corporation which fosters "stakeholder" capitalism. In colonial capitalism, investment and production could devastate workers and their lands. See for example the Belgian Congo book King Leopold's Ghost. Industrial capitalism raised vast amounts of capital to build railroads and steel mills, but recognized little value for government regulation or goals beyond the engagement of capital for wealth production. Shareholder capitalism after the SEC act of 1934 added regulation and transparency of the financial dealings behind the wealth production, but considered only the benefits of profit and only the financial interests of shareholders (stock owners).

The B-corporation preserves old methods of raising capital, limiting liability, and providing financial transparency, but extends benefits from profits for executives and shareholders to bringing benefits to the civic society in which the corporation, its workers, suppliers and customers are all embedded. This new "stakeholder capitalism" model asserts that, to survive in the long-term, a modern corporation must take a stake in the survival of the society and environment in which it is embedded

B-CORP AIMS HAVE LIMITED SCOPE

Urging corporations to be nice (to be broadly beneficial) is not as effective and restructuring internal governance and external reporting to make self-propelled change occur from within over time. Urging companies to be B-corporations is not as effective as mandating tax breaks to pay companies for providing benefits to their workers, suppliers, customers, and communities. B Lab's $1 million 2011 Rockefeller Foundation grant [2] for "setting and monitoring adherence to social and environmental performance standards" does not single out the pursuit of tax breaks to corporations for strengthening civic society.

But no matter how they are achieved, these goals themselves do not bring to corporations that are larger than most countries of the world any of the constraints that societies find useful to apply to countries.

Permit me to illustrate this point. The total amount of goods going out the door at BigCorp (the true name does not matter) is greater than the total amount of goods and services produced in many countries (national GDPs). In 2005, BigCorp's yearly goods and services sold (annual revenues) were 3 times the size of all goods and services created in New Zealand, twice the size of Israel, and larger than Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, and Sweden. Of the 180 or so countries in the entire world, fewer than 20% manage to be bigger than BigCorp. These countries are subject to United Nations sanctions, the World Court, and armed attack by angry neighbors. BigCorp is free of these "regulations". If BigCorp were to reincorporate under every provision of a B-Corp style charter, it might be a better neighbor but it still would not incur any of the constraints that the world places on countries with less economic power.

Because we have so much further to go than B-corp charters if we are to integrate corporations into society in ways commensurate with other entities of comparable power, it is important in this article to lay out the evolutionary progress that B-corp charters offer, the historic foundation on which they build, and the future desirables still not in the charter. ("BigCorp's" revenues are those of Walmart).

Please don't be cross with me for writing such a long discussion and not doing any work. A new INTRO has been crafted, and I struggled with the first paragraph and its dead "inquirer" link. Wikipedia really is a community and a business school or law student could have a field day here and make us all proud.
Jerry-va (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Subject

This article should be about US tax-code recognized B corporations, as offered in Maryland, Vermont (and New Jersey in a few hours) , not some independent organization's private certification process. http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/10/04/daily18.html?surround=etf&ana=e_article On New Jersey's process http://www.care2.com/causes/trailblazers/blog/new-jersey-b-corporation-bill-passes-legislature-heads-to-governor-for-signature/

People searching for "B corporations" will want to learn about actual, legally recognized tax status B corporations. Not an advertisement for some independent company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.46.101 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article (although less so than before) reads like an advertisement for B Labs. It needs added context and detail. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a rewrite of the article to build it more from verifiable sources. See if the NPOV and improve tags can be removed, or if further edits need to be done. Pcdgate (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the originally tagged version and the current version, the article has been substantially improved (though the earlier version had more external references in reputable sources), nevertheless the tone still seems to me somewhat NPOV (though my bias is towards removing tags in most cases). I'd fix the article if I knew how, but POV seems to be built into projects with lofty goals such as B corps. Enon (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

npov/ad tags

I don't really understand why they are on top of the page. Could someone explain the rational for posting those? Thanks. 75.149.68.209 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the promo for two certification groups, cleaned the article up, and removed the tags. It doesn't have many wikilinks though. Gurt Posh (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Title Change

I think the title of this article should be the full name Benefit Corporation rather than the abbreviated form.99.50.162.32 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was so shocked by this glaring fact I moved it before even seeing your comment. The way it was before was sort of like having the article for "college" be redirected to "college accreditation." Newenehpets (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved B Lab

Moved the section on B Lab to a new article because it confuses this B corporation article and would better serve the intent of the offering editor as it can stand alone on its own merits. I hope this resolves the issues discussed here.

This article could be expanded by a subject expert who can supply additional clarifications and references. Internal links to the new B labs article where appropriate should be added. Abject Normality (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

The section "Third-party certification" seems to be promotional material for a B Labs. I reworded the section to make clear that B Labs can certify any company and call it a B Labs certified B Corporation. In other words a B Labs certification does not make a corporation a Benefit corporation. 99.31.117.62 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)