PleasantonWeekly.com : Law would allow corporations to be ...

Uploaded: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 6:42 AM???????????????????????????????????????????? Updated: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 6:53 AM Law would allow corporations to be 'socially responsible' 'Start of something transformational,' Marin legislator says

by Jason Walsh A new law passed by the state Assembly could, for the first time ever, make it legal in California for a corporation to put social responsibility before shareholder profits. The Assembly on Monday overwhelmingly approved AB 361, a bill introduced by Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman that would create a new class of corporation in California called "benefit corporations." Benefit corporations' charter would be, according to Huffman's office, "to pursue a material positive impact on society and the environment, while meeting higher standards of accountability and transparency." State law currently requires corporations to put financial interests first, and any corporation not doing so could face legal action from shareholders. Corporations in a "benefit" category would be required to submit annual reports on how they're meeting certain social and environmental standards, as defined by a neutral third party. Huffman calls the bill, which passed 50 ? 14, "the start of something transformational." "Socially-responsible businesses, investors and consumers all over California are calling for this type of legislation," said Huffman. "But most importantly, this bill sends a message to socially-minded companies and entrepreneurs that California is open for this emerging form of business." Similar legislation has been passed in Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Virginia. California's bill was suggested by several responders to Huffman's annual "There Oughta Be a Lawor Not" contest, which challenges constituents to propose their own legislative ideas. The bill was sponsored by a nonprofit agency called B Lab, which certifies socially responsible companies as "B Corporations." Jeff Kletter, founder and CEO of the San Rafael-based KINeSYS Inc., supports AB 361 and says such bills are necessary to "take the economy to the next level." "Benefit corporations are companies that care for more than the almighty dollar but understand the power of money to help achieve positive changes," says Kletter. Stuart Rudick, of Mindful Investors LLC, in Mill Valley, agrees, adding that "benefit corporations value profits, people and our planet equally." The bill now proceeds to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk for approval. Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.

---

Comments

Posted by Steve, a resident of the Charter Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 8:28 am <The bill was sponsored by a nonprofit agency called B Lab, which certifies socially responsible companies as "B Corporations." > Don't our legislators have better things to do...like getting the economy back on track and better budgeting. Instead, let's cater to this special interest auditing company to feed them business...ughhh!!!

Posted by Nate Silver, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:03 am I like this Bill very much. It is cutting edge, socially responsible, and good for California. I think it very well might attract companies from other states, and it might influence other states to pass similar legislation. Good news!!!

Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:58 am Wow, Nate--are you serious? This "Bill" is at least the third new piece of social engineering in this state that I've read about before noon today. What is going on here? Where are people's priorities? Certainly not on job creation or growth. What's it going to take to slap people back to reality? 25% unemployment? Flash mobs and riots in the street? Oh, wait...... At least we'll all feel good that those unemployed looters are expressing themselves.....

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:05 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com Too late for Solyndra!

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:08 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com BTW, steve, that isn't really Nate Silver posting.

Posted by Nate Silver, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:08 am No, Steeeeve, I wasn't serious. Unserious people like myself give reasons for our positions. Serious people like yourself howl at the moon with angry, hate-filled inanities.

Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:33 am Thanks, nate. I would hate to hear you were thinking we took you seriously. And I can certainly see where you would read into my comments about jobs and coherent priority setting as being hateful. I was venting with good reason, since some folks in this state still refuse to admit that we have serious fiscal problems created (and not being solved) by the Dems that have a stranglehold on our state. Anyway, you're a hoot...thanks for the sarcastic humor.....

Posted by Nate Silver, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:41 am By all means, vent away Steeeeve. It is probably better for you than other ways of releasing your anger and hatred. @"BTW, steve, that isn't really Nate Silver posting" And here we have Stacey the sleuth doing what she is so good at -- tracking down the REAL identities of the posters on these sites.

Posted by Steve, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, 4 hours ago Nate's way of venting his anger is with personal attacks and snarky replies. Of course, I'm glad he's doing it that way rather than by restricting my freedom with more government control.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, 3 hours ago Nate, I thought you changed over to Kate Golden or Nathaniel B. Silver. The question is, why is this legislation even necessary? Corporations can be socially responsible now. No corporation will choose to upset investors because the investors will go elsewhere. I think the person who posted on the proposed "babysitter" legislation was right; we need a part time legislature. These people have too much time on their hands--and without prejudice as to party affiliation.

Posted by Town, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, 2 hours ago So how does a company which makes no money stay in business?

Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, 1 hour ago I'm not sure what the big deal here is. There are already corporations that put other considerations ahead of profit making. They're called "non-profit" companies and "not-for-profit" companies. As far as I can tell from the article, this legislation is simply creating another class of corporation in addition to the at least two other classes of similar corporations which already exist.

Posted by Mike, a resident of the Highland Oaks neighborhood, 55 minutes ago It seems that existing laws do much to prevent socially irresponsibility, and most corporations already understand the advantages of good CSR in public relations; but if this bill works to prevent shareholders from bringing suit based simply on bottom-line figures, then I'm all for it.

Source: http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/show_story.php?id=7658

stage transfer deadline transfer deadline edu district 9 district 9 how to draw