The different corporate forms for social enterprise organizations

I recently got interested in the various corporate forms that social enterprises can take when pursuing double or triple bottom lines (financial, social, and environmental returns).  I write here about Google.org’s interesting dual structure, as well as benefit corporations and L3Cs.  In future blog posts I want to address some more fundamental questions about corporate form, including:

– What are the key questions social entrepreneurs should ask when choosing which corporate form to start their organization with?  Among those questions are, what sort of money do I want to raise, in what amounts, and what tradeoffs in ownership and other restrictions am I willing to make for that funding?

Google.org
My first interaction with these corporate forms was through a case study on Google.org, which I wrote at the Kennedy school and will soon publish through the HKS case study office.  Google.org was not a hybrid corporate structure, but simply united Google Foundation, a 501c3, with Google.org, a division/arm of Google, Inc.  Google.org’s structure allowed it to consider grant, PRI, equity, and other investments into nonprofits, for-profits, and other types of corporate organization.  It essentially was free to make a broad range of investments into a broad range of companies in a way that most other companies cannot do.

Benefit Corporations

Benefit corporations are a new class of corporation for which legislation has passed in 7 states so far: MD, VT, VA, NJ, HI, CA, and NY.  They have two requirements.

Requirement 1: They must operate for general public benefit – that is, “a material positive impact on society and the environment as measured a 3rd party standard through activities that promote the combination of special benefits.”  The 3rd party standard means that they must be independent (not related to party it’s measuring) and transparent in its methodology. Their evaluation mechanism must be public, and all changes to it must be reported publicly.

Requirement 2: They might, but are not required to, operate for specific public benefit by providing individuals or communities with beneficial products or services, promoting economic opportunity beyond job creation, improving environment or health, promoting arts / science / knowledge, etc.

Shareholders in this form have a right to action if general public benefit is not taken into account.  This means that anyone who owns shares in the company can file suit if they believe the general public benefit is not being met.  This separates the stakeholders of the company from the shareholders.  The stakeholders are all the members affected by the general public benefit – society, environment, etc. – while the shareholders are those who receive the private benefit of ownership.

Formation.  To form, these organizations, like others, must file articles of incorporation with the secretary of state in the state in which they wish to incorporate; must clearly state benefit corporation status; draft bylaws including mission statement; hold organizational meetings; and issue stock.  Two-thirds vote is required for an existing corporation to transform to a benefit corporation.

Management. The organization is managed by directors, who must consider stakeholders in their daily operation.

Taxation. There are no tax exemptions (e.g., such as the ones granted to a 501c3).  Only benefit corporations incorporated in Philadelphia receive a tax favored status.

Capitalization.  Can receive equity, debt, and PRI.

L3C

L3Cs were created to facilitate PRI investment, yet the IRS has not yet cleared — and may not ultimately clear — L3Cs for PRI investment.  The reason that being cleared for PRI investment is beneficial is that PRI comes with high transaction costs, with $15,000 – $40,000 for an opinion letter from a lawyer regarding whether PRI investment into a specific company would be allowed by the IRS.  Errors in judgment about PRI investments are costly, possibly involving personal liability.  The most common type of PRI is economic development money flowing into impoverished neighborhoods.
According to Wikipedia, L3C enabling legislation has passed in Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.  
This organization keeps tabs on all the L3Cs organized throughout the country.

Social stock exchanges (part 2)

Since making my previous list of social impact stock exchanges, I have found some other places where organizations and projects can get listed.

South African Social Investment Exchange (SASIX). This is the first social impact investment platform in South Africa.  It makes “carefully selected social development projects available as investment opportunities with a social return”. Each project is valued and then broken up into $6 shares.  Investors can buy each share, and if all the shares are bought then project implementation begins.  This is similar to Kiva and other crowdsourcing investment vehicles that aggregate small investments into a larger loan to an individual or a business.  As far as I understand, investors receive no return on their shares.  I also could not find a way for investors to re-sell their shares.  So this seems to be a grant rather than a liquid investment. 

NEXII Impact Exchange Platform.  Started by SASIX’s founder, this organization appears to list socially-responsible companies (and possibly also projects).  I could not find a list of the companies currently listed on the exchange, nor whether the exchange is operational, but I think NEXII only launched this platform in July 2011. 

Reclaiming philanthropy

I love this recent speech by Gara LaMarche at Atlantic Philanthropies.  Just tells us, simply and directly, that what people like me who are interested in “evaluation” and “performance” are amoral technocrats.  He’s right.  How often we forget that what drives people – not only money and resources, but, more important, hearts and minds – are issues and content, not processes.

Microfinance in the US

Here is an interesting twist on microfinance by West African and Dominican immigrants in Philadelphia.

In this version, the nonprofit fronts the money so that each participant can get a small loan right away — in the case of the Woodland Avenue group, either $500 or $1,000 — rather than waiting their turn for a larger lump sum. But like a traditional ROSCA, everyone shares the risk, via an agreement to assume responsibility for their peers’ debts. That peer pressure drives near-perfect repayment rates.

There seems to be a geographic risk here:  If a large grocer opens nearby, many bodegas will see demand plummet and risk-sharing among them won’t absorb the shock to their ability to repay the loans.
Source

Larry Summers on the economy

I love how clearly Larry Summers articulates our economic crisis:

LS: The principal problem for the United States economy over the near to medium term continues to be lack of demand. Demand, unfortunately, is heavily in the control of fiscal policy, which requires congressional action for important actions, and monetary policy, which depends on the Fed. So there are limits to what the Obama administration unilaterally can accomplish.

Mitt Romney and Harvard Business School

The New York Times has a wonderful article on Mitt Romney’s life in Cambridge and at Harvard’s law and business schools.  The articles remind me of a series that the Boston Globe several years ago, which I post below as well.

I think Jodi Canton does a wonderful job of describing how hard working and dedicated to his career and studies Mitt Romney was during his three-year-long joint degree studies at Harvard.  But during the process, she makes the HBS appear much more rigorous and daunting that I have found it.  Perhaps in Romney’s day, being grilled was a huge and scary deal.  But today it is stressful and uncomfortable only — and by no means the frightening endeavor that Canton makes it seem.  The cold call, discussion-based classroom experience incentivizes student to prepare – lest they appear stupid.  But with 10% of the class receiving a “3,” the lowest mark, and 20% receiving a “1,” the highest mark, while the majority receive a “2,” that incentive is weak and forces you to study only so much.  Driven people drive themselves to succeed regardless of environment, and I think Mitt Romney’s driven nature (note that I do not endorse his candidacy or politics, but only admire his drive) speaks more of him than of HBS.

“The Making of Mitt Romney”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/

“At Harvard, a master’s in problem solving”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/politics/how-harvard-shaped-mitt-romney.html

Metrics for the second social impact bond in the UK

More information on the metrics for the second social impact bond project announced by Civil Society Minister Nick Hurd involving problem families in Birmingham, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicestershire and Westminster.

The new bond for projects with problem families is likely to be more complex. The consultants A4e Insight have been hired by the Office for Civil Society to develop the metrics and will produce an initial report by Christmas. Edward Hickman, director of the firm, says that before any project can go ahead, it must be able to quantify a way of improving families’ lives and the improvement must generate sufficient savings for the local authority. Those savings must also be “cashable”, he said – capable of being turned into hard cash that will be used to pay back investors.
Andy Robinson, assistant chief executive of Leicestershire County Council, one of the local authorities involved, says there are likely to be a number of metrics. “There are a range of outcomes that might benefit the council,” he says. “They might include a reduction in police visits, a decrease in eviction rates, or a rise in school attendance.”

Source:
Third Sector
Analysis: Can social impact bonds help to create a better society?
1 November 2011
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1101352/analysis-social-impact-bonds-help-create-better-society/

Big Society’s social impact bonds program

I have not yet seen public announcements of social impact bonds for “problem families,” which UK’s Big Society project intended to accomplish.

Here is from the August 2011 article from the Cabinet Office:

A major trial of an innovative new way to fund intensive help for families blighted by anti-social behaviour, crime, addiction and poor education was announced by Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society today.
Liverpool and Essex are also looking to trial a related Social Impact Bond initiative to support vulnerable adolescents and their families with the objective of preventing care entry
We expect the Social Impact Bond pilots to be funding intensive interventions from spring 2012.

Roundup: Vaclav Havel obituaries

Roundup of great obituaries to Vaclav Havel on the web.

David Remnick, who spent many hours with Havel, writes in his New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/living-within-the-truth-vaclav-havel.html

Dan Bilefsky, who covers Eastern and Central Europe, and Jane Perletz, who has covered Indonesia and Pakistan, write in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/world/europe/vaclav-havel-dissident-playwright-who-led-czechoslovakia-dead-at-75.html

And, my favorite, a reprint of Timothy Garton Ash’s 1989 piece on the Czechoslovakian revolution in the New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/jan/18/the-revolution-of-the-magic-lantern/