Talk:Benefit corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed Correction: (History Section) regarding legitimacy of Illinois "Benefit LLC" entity type being established
After further research I believe this paragraph is not accurate.
"Illinois established a new type of entity called the "Benefit LLC", making the state the first to allow limited liability companies the same opportunities afforded to Illinois corporations under the state's benefit corporation law." (15)(16)
After reviewing the two citations (15) only mentions the bill number that was introduced and (16) references the attempt to pass the proposed SB 2358 to establish the new entity type "Benefit LLC" was just a progress update and not a confirmation of bill passage. Source: http://illinoistaskforce.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/task-force-six-month-report_4-22-13.pdf
I was able to locate the following link that shows that SB2358 failed. https://legiscan.com/IL/legislation/2013?page=52&chamber=senate&type=bill
I have not been able to find any further discussion that the state of Illinois in fact ever passed the "Benefit LLC" entity type. I did make a call to the Illinois Secretary of State's office to confirm and they told me that it didn't pass back in 2013-2014 and officially failed on failed on January 13 2015.
I would welcome any suggestions on how best to correct this inaccuracy related to this topic. Burdine72 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Public Benefit Corporation in Washington State?
An unsigned note in the table of states says:
<!-- Washington state does not have benefit corporations. It created social purpose corporations instead, which is has a separate Wikipedia article and is mentioned below. Do not add it to this table. -->
But. I am seeing:
Section 24.03A.245 - Public benefit designation
There is hereby established the special designation of "public benefit nonprofit corporation."
This is as of Jan 1 2022, so I am assuming that the note above predates this. If I am wrong and there is still some reason to keep WA out of the list, please comment here. 19:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Map is incorrect if true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishfery (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- That led to a messed up Washington State entry in the table. A public benefit nonprofit corporation is a quite different animal. Benefit corporations are generally still for-profit. More relevant is what someone added below the table:
- Washington created social purpose corporations in 2012 with a similar focus and intent. (with relevant citations to more relevant law.)
- That stuff should be in the table. The 'public benefit nonprofit corporation' type and statute should be mentioned only parenthetically.
- Or not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benefit_corporation&diff=prev&oldid=733841870 for the reasoning for the removal of the 2012 stuff and the comment. Mention both only parenthetically?
- @AHeneen?
- https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/legal-requirement/country/united-states/province/washington/corporate-structure/corporation/ is informative. They assert:
Extended content |
|---|
|
Corporations in Washington can meet the legal requirement for B Corp certification by amending their articles to become a Social Purpose Corporation (SPC) and then including further language (below) designed to create stakeholder consideration. This additional language has the effect of committing Washington SPCs to operate in the same way as model benefit corporations in other jurisdictions. The additional language obligates SPCs to pursue a general public benefit alongside the social or environmental benefit specified in the statute. PURPOSE CLAUSE: The purpose of the Company shall include creating a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, from the business and operations of the Company DIRECTORS CLAUSE: In discharging the duties of their respective positions and in considering the best interests of the Company, the board of directors, committees of the board, and individual directors shall consider the effects of any action or inaction upon: (i) the shareholders of the Company; (ii) the employees and work force of the Company, its subsidiaries, and its suppliers; (iii) the interests of its customers as beneficiaries of the purpose of the Company to have a material positive impact on society and the environment; (iv) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the Company, its subsidiaries, or its suppliers are located; (v) the local and global environment; (vi) the short-term and long-term interests of the Company, including benefits that may accrue to the Company from its long-term plans and the possibility that these interests may be best served by the continued independence of the Company; and (vii) the ability of the Company to create a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole. |
- -RememberOrwell (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
certified evergreen companies
There are also certified evergreen companies such as Flickr/SmugMug/Awesome., Enterprise, SAS, Radio Flyer, SRC, Edward Jones per https://www.thetugboatgroup.com/. Worth an article, and/or mention here? RememberOrwell (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)