Evaluating for-profit public benefit corporations as an additional structure for antibiotic development and commercialization

2020 ◽  
Vol 220 ◽  
pp. 182-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Outterson ◽  
John H. Rex
Keyword(s):  
Additional Structure ◽  
Antibiotic Development ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Benefit Corporations

Hospitals: N.Y. Appellate Court Denies Move to Privatize Public Hospital

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
Robert Chatham
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
York City ◽  
Public Health System ◽  
Municipal Hospital ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Benefit Corporation ◽  
The City

The Court of Appeals of New York held, in Council of the City of New York u. Giuliani, slip op. 02634, 1999 WL 179257 (N.Y. Mar. 30, 1999), that New York City may not privatize a public city hospital without state statutory authorization. The court found invalid a sublease of a municipal hospital operated by a public benefit corporation to a private, for-profit entity. The court reasoned that the controlling statute prescribed the operation of a municipal hospital as a government function that must be fulfilled by the public benefit corporation as long as it exists, and nothing short of legislative action could put an end to the corporation's existence.In 1969, the New York State legislature enacted the Health and Hospitals Corporation Act (HHCA), establishing the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) as an attempt to improve the New York City public health system. Thirty years later, on a renewed perception that the public health system was once again lacking, the city administration approved a sublease of Coney Island Hospital from HHC to PHS New York, Inc. (PHS), a private, for-profit entity.

Benefit Corporations Approach to Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure: A Focus on Italy

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Sciarelli ◽  
Silvia Cosimato ◽  
Giovanni Landi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Corporate Structure ◽  
New Approach ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Benefit Corporation ◽  
Benefit Corporations ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Governance Disclosure

AbstractOver the last decades, Benefit Corporations arouse as a new corporate structure, alternative to traditional ones and pointing to offer a new approach to the management of business and sustainability issues. These companies' activities are statutory aimed at bridging for-profit and no-profit activities; thus, they intentionally and statutory pursue economic purposes together with social and environmental ones, to create a positive impact on economy, society and environment. Even though, Italian and other national laws set some specific disclosure duties for Benefit Corporations, especially in terms of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues, the literature still calls for further research on the topic. Therefore, this paper is aimed at contributing to bridge this gap, investigating the way Italian Benefit Corporations approach ESG disclosure. To this end, an exploratory analysis has been conducted, implementing a qualitative method, based on a multiple case study strategy. Even though the descriptive nature of the study, the achieved findings pointed out that the Benefit Corporation structure not necessarily implies a better approach to ESG.

scholarly journals Certified B Corporations and Benefit Corporations

Management ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Central Research ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Exemplary Teaching ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
Benefit Corporations

Over the past decade, Certified B Corporations and Benefit Corporations, commonly known as B Corps, have emerged as a global phenomenon. Both organizational forms are for-profit businesses. Whereas Certified B Corporations have been accredited for their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices, Benefit Corporations are a new legal form, currently available in thirty-eight states and jurisdictions in the United States (US) as well as in British Columbia (Canada), Colombia, Ecuador, and Italy. Both types were promulgated by B Lab, a US-based nonprofit organization. Founded in 2006 in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, B Lab has sought to institutionalize business as a force for good. At present, certification is available to any business worldwide, and approximately 3,700 companies in seventy-four countries are currently certified. Prominent Certified B Corporations include Ben & Jerry’s, Danone North America, and Patagonia. Examples of Benefit Corporations include Data.World, Kickstarter, and Plum Organics. Overall, the B Corp movement’s radical aspiration to redefine business has garnered substantial attention from policymakers, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and academe. This article provides an overview of burgeoning scholarly work—ranging from general references and cutting-edge theoretical work to accumulating empirical findings and key pedagogical resources. A core focus is on enumerating the variety of theoretical perspectives that have been taken and the central research themes in extant work, including interdisciplinary publications. We close by discussing exemplary teaching materials and introducing other resources, such as the B Academics research community and available data sets for research.

Are Changes in Corporate Governance an Answer?

2021 ◽  
pp. 189-213
Author(s):  
Matt Fischer-Daly
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Private Regulation ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Benefit Corporation ◽  
Corporate Entity ◽  
Benefit Corporations

This chapter explores the potential for changes in corporate governance to overcome the decoupling problem in private regulation, through a detailed examination of the case of benefit corporations. In the United States, a benefit corporation is a type of for-profit corporate entity that includes among its goals — in addition to profits — a positive impact on society, workers, the community, and the environment. The chapter argues that the B-Corp movement is a false promise because of the legal limitations of actors to seek remedy if a benefit corporation does not meet its “benefit goals” and because of a variety of issues in the certification process for such a corporation. This argument is supported through the analysis of the private regulation program of a leading benefit corporation, which shows that its status has in no way improved coupling between private regulation practices and outcomes. It would seem that the benefit corporation certification is simply another modern ritual of due diligence, although there is a need for additional research on benefit corporations to confirm this conclusion.

The business of teaching and learning: an accounting perspective

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Ciancanelli
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education Policy ◽  
Financial Management ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Business Systems ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Perspective Drawing

A feature of globalisation is encouragement of universities to become more businesslike, including adoption of the type of accounting routines and regulations used by businesses. The question debated in higher education policy research is whether this focus on being businesslike is compatible with the statutory public benefit obligations of universities. This question is addressed from a financial-management perspective, drawing on Max Weber's discussion of the effects of accounting in business, governmental and not-for-profit organisations. 1 His approach is applied to three ideal-typical universities, focussing on differences in legal terms of reference and sources of funding. The article argues that the proposed reforms of public-sector accounting will make it difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain whether the publicbenefit aims of not-for-profit universities have been achieved. In addition, once installed, the business systems of accounting will encourage pecuniary rationality at the expense of the traditional value rationalities that ought to govern resource allocation in public-benefit organisations. The interaction between these effects introduces new risks, including the possibility that the controllers of universities may fail in their fiduciary obligations by wasting scarce resources on projects that, according to financial measures, appear profitable while neglecting those that have important public benefit and educational merit.

Social Enterprise Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Brakman Reiser ◽  
Steven A. Dean
Keyword(s):  
Social Enterprise ◽  
Social Enterprises ◽  
Social Entrepreneurs ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Social Mission ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Benefit Corporation ◽  
Benefit Corporations ◽  
Contingent Convertible Debt ◽  
Legislative Changes

Social Enterprise Law presents a series of audacious legal technologies designed to unleash the potential of social enterprise. Until now, the law has been viewed as an obstacle to social entrepreneurship, too inflexible to embrace for-profit businesses with a social mission at their core. Legislators have poured resources into creating hybrid corporate forms such as the benefit corporation to eliminate barriers to the creation of social enterprises. That first generation of social enterprise law has not done enough. The authors provide a framework for future legislation to do what benefit corporations have not: create durable commitments by social entrepreneurs and investors to balance financial gains and social mission by putting a speed limit on profits. They show how sophisticated investors need not wait for the advent of these legislative changes, outlining a contingent convertible debt instrument that relies instead on financial engineering to build trust between those with capital and those ready to use it to nurture a double bottom line. To allow social enterprises to harness the vast power of the crowd, they develop a tax regime that would provide crowdfunding platforms the means to screen the commitment of for-profit startups. Armed with these tools of social enterprise law 2.0 and the burgeoning metrics of measuring public benefit, entrepreneurs and investors can navigate even the turbulent waters of exit without sacrificing mission, so that a sale need not mean selling out.

Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 610-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Ballantyne ◽  
G Owen Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Social Value ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Access To Health ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Demand For Health

The future of health research will be characterised by three continuing trends: rising demand for health data; increasing impracticability of obtaining specific consent for secondary research; and decreasing capacity to effectively anonymise data. In this context, governments, clinicians and the research community must demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of health data. IRBs and RECs sit at heart of this process because in many jurisdictions they have the capacity to grant consent waivers when research is judged to be of particular value. However, several different terms are used to refer to this value (including public interest, public benefit, public good and social value), indicating a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the appropriate test for access to health data for research without consent. In this paper we do three things. First we describe the current confusion and instability in terminology relating to public interest in the context of consent waivers. Second we argue for harmonisation of terminology on the grounds of clarity, transparency and consistency. Third we argue that the term ‘public interest’ best reflects the normative work required to justify consent waivers because it is the broadest of the competing terms. ‘Public interest’ contains within its scope positive and negative implications of a study, as well as welfare, justice and rights considerations. In making this argument, we explain the normative basis for consent waivers, and provide a starting place for further discussion about the precise conditions in which a given study can be said to advance the public interest. Ipsos MORI study found that: … the public would be broadly happy with administrative data linking for research projects provided (1) Those projects have social value, broadly defined. (2) Data are de-identified. (3) Data are kept secure. (4) Businesses are not able to access the data for profit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document