An Institutional Analysis of the Rise of Benefit Corporations Outside of the US: The Case of Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 11806
Author(s):  
Marika Arena ◽  
Irene Bengo ◽  
Francesco Gerli
2020 ◽  
Vol 279 (1) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Mario Engler Pinto Junior

<p><span>The public interest of Brazilian mixed-capital company: approach to US benefit corporations</span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>RESUMO<br />O artigo faz um paralelo entre a figura da benefit corporation do direito norte-americano e a sociedade de economia mista brasileira, com o propósito de apontar semelhanças entre as duas estruturas societárias e lançar luzes sobre a racionalidade das soluções de governança adotadas em cada caso. A reflexão resgata inicialmente o conceito de interesse da companhia, destacando sua relevância como referencial jurídico para se aferir a legitimidade das decisões empresariais. Observa-se ainda que o entendimento sobre o tema varia conforme a abordagem teórica adotada, podendo se resumir na maximização dos lucros para partilha entre os sócios, ou combinar o atendimento a outros interesses não financeiros. Por sua vez, os desafios e soluções em matéria de governança corporativa também variam em função da amplitude do escopo atribuído à companhia. A benefit corporation procura combinar a consecução de algum objetivo de interesse público com a manutenção da finalidade lucrativa. A existência do escopo mais amplo permite questionar a adequação do desenho institucional para lidar com os conflitos inerentes ao novo tipo societário. Além disso, propicia uma análise comparativa com o modelo de sociedade de economia mista no direito brasileiro, que também está imbuída de uma missão pública, cuja consecução não afasta a necessidade de remunerar adequadamente o investimento acionário. Conclui-se que algumas medidas contidas na Lei nº 13.303/2016, para fortalecer o controle e gestão das empresas estatais brasileiras, guardam simetria com o tratamento aplicável às benefit corporation no direito norte-americano.</span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>ABSTRACT<br />The paper compares benefit corporations in the US with mixed-capital corporations in Brazil, in order to point the similarities and differences between both corporate structures. The paper also intends to shed light on the rationale of the governance solutions adopted in each case. The paper restates the concept of company’s interest and highlights it as a key legal reference for assessing the legitimacy of business decisions. Different readings of this concept are likely to translate into markedly different positions, from holding that the idea of interest refers solely to the purpose of profit maximization on behalf of shareholders to affirming the need to simultaneously accomplishing non-financial goals interests. The challenges and solutions concerning corporate governance also vary according to the extent of the corporation’s scope. Benefit corporations in the US seek to </span><span>simultaneously attain some goal of public interest and make profit for </span><span>its shareholders. The existence of a broader scope allows questioning </span><span>the suitability of their institutional design to deal with conflicts that are </span><span>inherent to this new corporate type. Their structure invites a comparison </span><span>to State owned enterprise (SOE) in Brazil. According to Brazilian Law, a </span><span>company controlled by the State is invested with a public mission while </span><span>needing to assure proper return to shareholders’ investment. The paper </span><span>concludes that some measures adopted by Brazilian Law No. 13.303/2016, </span><span>for strengthening the corporate governance of Brazilian SOE’s are similar </span><span>the U.S. Model Benefit Corporation Legislation (MBCL) concerning benefit </span><span>corporations.</span></p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 292-297
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Lee ◽  
Cecilia G. Ethun ◽  
Mohammad Y. Zaidi ◽  
Thuy B. Tran ◽  
George A. Poultsides ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Tariq H. Malik ◽  
Huo Chunhui

The Science-Sustainability poses an interdisciplinary paradox. On the one hand, the science for sustainability has increased in OECD economies in and in China as well as in the US in particular; on the other hand; the sustainability situation has worsened (Co2 emission has risen). On the face value, the adverse correlation shows a paradox. However, without explicating the science-sustainability relationship, it leads to a premature conclusion. In this study, we have drawn on three concrete questions for concrete answers. First, whether and how interdisciplinary sciences&mdash;energy science and environmental science&mdash;contribute to the sustainability. Second, whether and how the Sino-US inter-institutional analysis varies in the science-sustainability paradox. The empirical analysis from a panel data in the interdisciplinary and inter-institutional context show mixed patterns in three ways. First, the increase in the environmental science shows an improvement in the sustainability; the energy science shows a decline in the sustainability. Second, the Chinese environmental science has a comparative advantage to American environment science for the sustainability development, and the Chinese energy science has a comparative disadvantage to the US in the sustainability development. Third, the environmental science mediates the energy science in the science-sustainability relationships. Standing alone, the increase in the energy science harms sustainability; mediated by environmental science, it benefits sustainability. The study explains the adverse role of energy science in Jevons Paradox. The study also offers some policy paths for further research how capitalisms differently innovate, form strategies, and implement the practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana C. Gamboa ◽  
Mohammad Y. Zaidi ◽  
Rachel M. Lee ◽  
Shelby Speegle ◽  
Jeffrey M. Switchenko ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (S3) ◽  
pp. 888-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory C. Dann ◽  
Malcolm H. Squires ◽  
Lauren M. Postlewait ◽  
David A. Kooby ◽  
George A. Poultsides ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 557-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhree Kim ◽  
Aslam Ejaz ◽  
Gaya Spolverato ◽  
Malcolm H. Squires ◽  
George Poultsides ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (6) ◽  
pp. 1189-1198
Author(s):  
Jason T. Wiseman ◽  
Cecilia G. Ethun ◽  
Jordan M. Cloyd ◽  
Rita Shelby ◽  
Lorena Suarez‐Kelly ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 753-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van V. Miller ◽  
Kurt Loess

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document