Social purpose corporations: Good business can now do good

(Flickr photo via JMRosenfeld)

We all know that entrepreneurs and investors in startups hope to make money.  Conveniently, the traditional corporate form allows that.  In fact, directors of traditional corporations are required to base decisions on just one thing:  maximizing financial return to shareholders.

In the words of Al Franken, “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize profits.”

Here in Washington, birthplace of the technologist-turned-philanthropist mentality, it’s not surprising that there is a growing cadre of visionary yet savvy entrepreneurs who not only want to make money, but want to do some good for the world in the process. Corporate lawyers have argued for centuries about whether that is legal in the current corporate system.

Certainly there are plenty of for-profit corporations that spend money on things that are good for the community or good for their employees but that, arguably, result in fewer dollars going into the pockets of shareholders.  The question is, how much civic-minded or mission-based spending does the law allow?

Drew Markham

Luckily, local entrepreneurs and investors who want to do something good for society will no longer need to worry about how much good is too much.  On March 30th a new law was enacted in Washington State that creates a new type of for-profit corporation, called a social purpose corporation.  This new structure is purely voluntary and must be elected by a super majority of shareholders of an existing or newly-formed corporation.

In addition to maximizing profits, the social purpose corporation must operate its business “in a manner intended to promote positive short-term or long-term effects of, or minimize adverse short-term or long-term effects of, the corporation’s activities upon any or all of (1) the corporation’s employees, suppliers or customers; (2) the local, state, national or world community; or (3) the environment.”

The corporation can also identify one or more specific social purposes that are unique to the company.  And each year, the company is required to post on its website a report that describes the company’s efforts to promote the social purpose or purposes.

Variants of this entity have been adopted in seven other states, but Washington’s approach is unique.  The social purpose corporation gives management and investors the flexibility to identify the nonfinancial factors that are key to the company’s mission, and provides directors the protection necessary to consider those factors in decision making.

The drafters of the new law, a committee of lawyers within the Washington State Bar Association, worked diligently for nearly two years to create a structure that would serve the needs of various enterprises including, the owner-managed microenterprise, the venture-funded startup, the late stage privately-held company, the wholly owned subsidiary of a public company, and even the publicly-traded enterprise.

Washington State has proven its leadership in the development of innovative technologies and world-changing philanthropy.  With the social purpose corporation structure, Washington companies can now lead the way in bringing those efforts together and harnessing the power of business to do good.

Drew Markham is an attorney in the Seattle office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. [Editor's note: WSGR represents GeekWire].

  • http://www.nickwhite.me/ Nick White

    So a company needs to write a report about their offorts to promote their social geoals, but haow much is enough? What’s to prevent corporations from paying lip service and using it as a means to build their brand? What’s more, this provides a board of directors with the opportunity to pursue non-profit maximizing goals, so couldn’t a firm apply for it to mitigate risk of getting sued for not maximizing profits? I’d also to be curious to know how this corporate structure applies to public companies compared to private ones.

    • http://www.facebook.com/robofhood Robert Hammond

      California did this earlier.  Patagonia is a test case of this concept in action.  

      Do you think this article is an ad?  

      • Brian Howe

        Drew has put phenomenal work into this legal structure because she truly believes in its’ ability to impact the local/global community and environment for good. Also, FYI-Patagonia converted to a Benefit Corporation, which is a different structure.

  • Joe M.

    This article is based on attorney’s limited understanding of business (and for those who would argue that, show me one fortune 500 company run by an attorney and then lets discuss the federal/state/local governments, full of attorneys who regularly mismanage governement run businesses in to the ground).

    The goal of any firm is the long term maximization of the common shareholder (arguably, stakeholder) value (Miller, Damodaran, etc, pick one).  This does not have a perfect positive correlation with maximizing profit, though that does have an impact.  Corporate social responsibility and its impact on shareholder value has been analyzed countless time as part of scholarly research and has often times found to have a postive correlation between the two. 

    So in essence, if companies are restricted by anything, it is laws lawyers put in place, which lawyers are now trying to fix.  The lawyers always win, because somebody paid for their time on both accounts.  Similar to alot of patent cases.  The lawyers always win.

    To reference a comedian turned politician as a definitive statement on this topic with zero business experience is a little absurd.  Almost as absurd as 90% of the laws lawyers I mean politicians create, most of them to increase fees for other lawyers.

    • Brian Howe

       Joe, you’re going to be hard-pressed to find when/where the attorneys who helped draft and propose this law got paid by anyone. This was almost exclusively a volunteer effort by a sincerely dedicated group that believed it was in the best interest of Washington State.

  • Foo

    The missing discussion here is not why corporation law needed to change, but why wasn’t the current non-profit status or not-for-profit structures adequate?  If you don’t want to be a corporation–maximizing shareholder value, then may be a cooperative, or non-profit.

    • Brian Howe

       Foo, interesting point. One one hand, the inadequacy is not so much the existing corporate structure but the way that most courts interpret the structures to require that boards maximize short-term profitability above long-term value creation. On the other hand, the issue is more philosophical–if business persons are the most influential in the world and able to address a range of issues at greater scale, leverage, and impact than NGO/gov. folks, wouldn’t we want them focused on solving intractable social/environmental issues? The SPC gives them an opportunity to do this explicitly.

  • Happy Counselor

    You’ve almost stitched it together.  The paradoxical aim here is to afford
    business entities the ability to opt out of existing precedents enforcing the
    primacy of shareholder concerns.  Today,
    it is easy for directors/officers to indulge in ‘social responsibility’
    initiatives in the name of engendering goodwill for the brand (short of
    declaring non-profit status).  Tomorrow,
    the bar will be higher.  Given a
    reasonable amount of time to consider and convert, for those entities choosing not
    to designate themselves SPC it will be a new standard of absolute “malfeasance
    for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize profits” (by virtue
    of not having declared ‘social purpose’ – in advance of capital raising or with
    2/3rds shareholder consent of current shareholders).

     

    It’s a win-win. 
    Lawyers make money advising the repercussions of the new law to all then
    filing for amended articles of incorporation or raising new prospects in
    shareholder lawsuits; and Washington State gets to tout “its leadership in the
    development of innovative technologies and world-changing philanthropy”.  (hehe)