I've thought about these for awhile, and think they are vulnerable to wobbly vision, since they have to maximize three objectives. I'd prefer that they stuck with the old goal (maximize profits*) while leaving social and environmental targeting/constraints/management to individuals, non-profits and government.**
Even allowing for three goals, I have other questions:
- It's not clear WHEN they are non-profits or just advertising virtue to make more profits
- How does one weigh cash against other qualified outcomes?
- What happens when stellar environmental performance comes with heavy cash losses?
- Can "legacy industries" be B-Corps (e.g., tobacco firms) or are they not "progressive" enough?
- What happens if activists set performance standards (e.g., vegan food only) that do not match social norms?
- Is it harder to track three indicators and goals when their weights are in flux, socially?
- Are B-Corps vulnerable to inertia, with "tradition" defended as socially optimal for workers?
- Can defense or oil firms be B-Corps? If they give more to the environment than recycled shoe makers?
* Maximizing profits is not the explicit goal; serving shareholders is the obligation. Most shareholders want to maximize profits (Milton Friedman explained why), but they COULD agree to pursue B-Corp goals. Does that mean that the market has already spoken and found B-Corps lacking? Or have times changed? I doubt it when I look look at how so many people are eager to learn how to make easy money from the Wolf of Wall Street. (They line up to pay $1,000 to a convicted criminal and acknowledged liar and fraud who stole $100 million from people; ironic that they don't want to know an ex-felon responsible for a stolen car.)
** Fixed weights/ratios would return them to a single-optimization goal but leave them vulnerable to focussing on the wrong, rigid mix of weighted goals.
H/T to CD