Topic: Public Benefit Corporations - page 2. (Read 612 times)

Yes public benefit corporation is a good way of having a double development platform in this way the economy get developed and also the environment where the company operates get developed also and any corporation who don't comply to this get a legal suit.

I don't know if all countries have a "public benefit" requirement for their country but I know our laws are strict enough that on either way the rest of the citizens gets to benefit something out from both domestic and foreign corporations running in their country. For example taxes are set which in now way they can escape without paying, having corporations will also produce job availability for that country which would boost the economy, and of course if they do want to get less taxes corporations usually donate money in form of charity in order to lessen their burden.

Aside from the economical standpoint there are also laws that limit on what they can do and also require them on what they should do. For instance some countries require car manufacturers to have their cars at a EURO 4/5 standard which is good standard if you want the cars running in your country with less emissions.

Thanks Mu_Enrico for your reply!

It's hard to consider what corporations have benefited the community by paying their taxes.

An agriculture company that uses toxics to take care of their plantations, giving jobs to the community but creating terrible long term health issues. Are they benefiting the community? What is more important? The jobs or the long term's population health?

Same with oil companies, mining companies, etc.


Thanks Mometaskers for the reply.
It would be wonderful for more companies like these to exist, indeed. This would mean that we have a capitalism where profit is as important as positive social and environmental impact. Humans shouldn't design economies without thinking the issues that their operations can create. In order to think in long term, we need to think on what the impact of decisions and operations is.


Thanks Ranly123 for the reply.
It's very logic and we agree with you. Zero profit companies don't exist.

I also believe that there is no zero profit institute or companies. They should also benefit from the services they offered likewise their customers benefited from them. Saying they have zero profit is just a propaganda to lure customers on their services if there is.

If only these would be more common. I've checked and it seems it's mostly US, Australia and Canada that have these companies. If they'd be successful then that can inspire more entrepreneurs to register their businesses as PBC.

If the shareholders are philantrophists anyway, they probably wouldn't mind just getting small dividends. I think the big benefit compared to non-profit NGOs is that PBCs should be able to sustain themselves rather than relying on charity.

Corporations are always profit-seeking in nature, some that claim "sustainable" or "green" are just simply marketing effort to make it look good.
Profit-seeking will lead to efficient corporations. However, businesses always generate externalities. Thus, as long as externalities are lower than compensations (i.e. taxes, CSR, etc.), it is safe to assume that the corporations have benefited the community.

I think it's absolutely normal for any company to seek for profits as high as possible because thats in the first place why most people open businesses, but in the same time also aim to help the environment to grow and modernize. Also this kind of companies need to create as many work places as possible to make sure they are helping the community even more while their profits grow.

Unfortunately, I don't seem to understand vividly what OP means but from response, I think we are talking about social benefits from corporations to locals if I'm correct.

In other words, I would briefly submit that it is nice for corporatios to perform their duties to locals as signed in the memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Thanks for the reply Dothebeats.

Following your line, how do you think we could bring this approach you are talking about to the industry? Is it necessary for our sector? Yes? No? Why?


Thanks TheCoinGrabber for your answer.
Yes, sued indeed. The same way a normal C-Corp can get sued if they start misusing the money, which is not good according to for profit purposes.
The PBCs have a great PRO, the intrinsic value they provide to their customers and partners.
But they have a downside; they need to attend for profit and for purpose goals.


Thank you Bdlflt for your answer.
Indeed Patagonia is an incredible example of what this kind of entreprises/corporations can achieve.
Following in the line of your argumentation, do you believe this like something necessary or that it should be taken into consideration amongst the crypto space? If yes, how do you imagine it and why do you think it's important? If no, Why?


Thanks Merchantofzeny for the reply.
It's sad or weird, you put the name, but Public Benefit Corporations get no type of special benefit. They stand under the same regulations and taxations as normal C-corps, with the only difference that they have impact purposes at the core of their business which they need to attend. This is not a minor detail as if normal C-Corps took this kind of approach, they could get sued by stakeholders for going against the for profit purposes.

The incentive for investors is nothing more than create a more sustainable value and bring real benefits to future generations and the environment. What is money for if to be spent in ethic, money making but also impact creating businesses? There's a whole movement of for purpose/philanthropic/impact investors movement.
People are tired of just having money, they want to create real change in the world. It's the ultimate way to feel like you're actually doing something for humanity.

Let's not even talk about the new generations starting from Millenials!

We've been talking about benefits to the public but is there any benefit for the shareholders in addition to what they might have got from being in a regular corporation? I tried looking up the subject but can't seem to find any, either I must have missed something or this is because this is uncommon and not usually written about. I'm assuming there's a perk for going through the trouble. Maybe additional government assistance?

Patagonia is a great example of what PBC's can be and accomplish, but very few companies (and founders) are as successful for profits and the stated benefit.

One aspect here that I believe will be impactful but is hard to measure is how this type of signal - being a Public Benefit Corp instead of a standard S Corp or C Corp - can impact employee productivity. For one, it should make it very clear, from the top, what are some of the additional goals of the company beyond profit, and this can help in recruiting like-minded individuals and provide additional intrinsic motivation for them, especially if it's a grand goal like Patagonia's environmental aims. The passion a potential candidate would have for the stated goal could be the difference-maker if that candidate is trying to choose between multiple companies/job offers, and that type of selection from an employee I believe will improve their productivity at their chosen company (I chose this over that, so I'm going to try to confirm I made the right choice by working harder and believing I'm enjoying my work more).

There are other nuances at play too, but having the benefit codified in this manner I believe will help overall productivity.

I think they do serve a proper purpose to the world, they are not the norm and neither they will ever be but they are definitely a new thing people tend to like. Look at things like gofundme as well, they are basically making money off other peoples misery but they are still needed and loved because at least it gives a reason for us to donate directly instead of using a charity.

Basically all I am saying is they are not a "must" in business but they are getting their place in the world as a needed thing. I do not see them get any bigger and they are definitely good to have category but its just not enough for a business to be a billion dollar business. Something like instagram that barely makes money can go for billions of dollars on a startup exit while kickstarter can't because it requires to trust for people to keep on funding stuff.

Wait, sued? This is the first time I've heard about PBCs. Not a thing in my country I suppose. I've heard about Patagonia before and their environmental advocacy but I had no idea that they are compelled by law to pursue that.

This is interesting nonetheless though I don't think it can apply to most type of businesses.

Yes, considering that this world is trying to slip up on chaos and disarray everyday, we need more companies that not only take profits for their own benefit but also give back to the people and the environment as well. There really isn't much you can do about money when you have an environment with irreparable damage and people constantly making rounds spreading fear and causing trouble everywhere. It's about time that companies do something for the world, not just one-time charity works and fund raising events that would only benefit a handful of people with short-term effects. We need more of these PCBs; economy would still grow and thrive even if companies are allocating some resources to help build a better world.

of course that is not included in logic it can be abandoned. because it is certainly fraudulent, where the tip ends scam. therefore we must be careful to determine the steps. because the business can run continuously is the main thing

BitBustah, thanks for the reply!

A correction must be made, we're not talking about non profits, none of the mentioned companies are non profits and this is not a non profit scheme.

They are for profit for impact businesses.

Patagonia is not a non profit, Kickstarter is not a non profit, Etsy is not a non profit, etc.

They are all for profit for purpose companies that have both profit as impact goals at their business core.

Do we need more of these in the economy? Yes? No? Why?

A lot of these "non profits" are still scams because they give themselves millions in salary and use very little of the actual funds for charity.  They are quick to pull on people's heartstrings.  We have many psychopaths running companies like this.

I'm not sure about the impact in the economy as well, I think there might be cases that PBC has somewhat has a positive effect, but its not that huge, perhaps.

I read that Delaware is a good use case as they are more friendly to PBC's, but I can't find any study that says the impact is drastic, so for now we don't have any data to gauge, or if there are data, if might be too small at PBC is still in its infancy, I believed.

You mentioned that income is everything and money is the thing you are most looking for. then how do you think about the economic sustainability intended by the OP?
do you agree that it must still be done?

Governments themselves instilled us that not thinking other things than earnings, the money is everything, and now I do not think anything will change about public benefit. Because capitalism is here for it and wants it from us. What do you expect from people who kills seal and rhino for money today?