February 8, 2012

Rise of the B Corp aka Benefit Corporations or Triple Bottom Line Businesses

Risk Management

When Raphael Bemporad and Mitch Baranowski met in 1990, they knew they wanted to create a company that was not only financially successful, but also socially and environmentally responsible. So in 2003, they launched BBMG, a branding and marketing firm. Though they were eventually successful in their mission-driven business plans, they wanted more. They wanted to be recognized as a beneficial company -- one that stood out from the many greed-driven corporations of modern business. 

Enter B Lab, an organization that supports "benefit corporations" by certifying such corporations, developing their legal framework, recruiting likeminded companies and helping them access "purpose-driven" capital markets. BBMG, along with more than 300 other companies, is now a certified B corporation, meaning it is not only an environmental steward engaged with its community, but it also has responsibilities that include the interests of employees, suppliers, consumers and the environment.

And B corporations (also known as "triple bottom line" businesses for their consideration of people, planet and profit) are now legal entities in some states, giving them greater protection against shareholder lawsuits. In April, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley became the first to sign legislation to recognize this new type of corporation. Vermont's Governor James Douglas followed suit, signing into law Act 113, also known as the Vermont Benefit Corporations Act. Other states working to pass similar legislation include Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. 

Andrew Kassoy, co-founder of B Lab, claims if BP were a benefit corporation, it is unlikely the Gulf oil disaster would have occurred. "If BP were a B corp, they would have looked beyond short-term profit and considered the environmental and community impact of their decisions," he said. "Instead of cutting corners, they would have evaluated the risks and consequences of a spill and decided to invest in better safety and extraction methods. It was the constant pressure to generate revenue, at all costs, that ultimately led to the Gulf oil spill."

Not everyone is onboard with B corps, however. Corporate governance experts worry about the rights of shareholders, while some investors feel reluctant to put money into something if a portion of the returns will go somewhere else, no matter if it is for a good cause.

In the aftermath of recent corporate debacles (AIG, Lehman Brothers, BP and Toyota to name a few), money-hungry actions on the part of these blue-chip corporations were unearthed, turning the stomach of the everyday American worker in the process. As a result, many have abandoned the cutthroat ways of these market share mongers, choosing instead to spend their money at socially responsible companies whenever possible. Though some criticize this movement, many consumers feel drawn towards the "do-good" companies. And, as evidenced by the actions of several states, some legislators seem to feel the same. 

Years ago, when Ben & Jerry's decided to donate 7.5% of pretax profit to community projects, capitalists thought it was crazy. Looking back, it now seems the ice cream maker was just ahead of its time.

The above article is reprinted from the September 2010 on-line edition of Risk Management Magazine.

 

Reprinted with permission from Risk Management Magazine. Copyright 2010 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.