{"title":"社会企业家精神:标签、变体、专用和传统公司形式之间的选择","authors":"Sofie Cools","doi":"10.1515/ecfr-2023-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 85 Around the globe legislators have created labels and dedicated company forms for social enterprises. On the basis of an analysis of US, UK, German, French, Dutch and Belgian law, this article exposes which elements are important (and which are not) in the creation of these labels and forms. First, the distinction between labels and dedicated forms is of relative practical importance. Even dedicated company forms are – like labels – to a large extent governed by general corporate law. This offers advantages in terms of network effects and easy adoption. Creating a completely new corporate form is therefore justified only if there are compelling reasons for a comprehensive overhaul of existing company law. Second, the introduction of labels and dedicated company forms is influenced by the level of stringency with which jurisdictions distinguish between companies and nonprofit forms. For instance, the American benefit corporations and the French ‘raison d’être’ were introduced to explicitly authorize what conventional companies can do elsewhere. Nevertheless, a high degree of flexibility in conventional company law is insufficient to facilitate social entrepreneurship. Mandatory law for social enterprise labels or forms is necessary to credibly signal commitment to a social purpose. Yet, creating labels or dedicated forms for lightly regulated ‘mission purposes’ may generate noise that interferes with this signal. 86","PeriodicalId":54052,"journal":{"name":"European Company and Financial Law Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Entrepreneurship: The Choice Between Labels, Variants, Dedicated and Conventional Corporate Forms\",\"authors\":\"Sofie Cools\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ecfr-2023-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract 85 Around the globe legislators have created labels and dedicated company forms for social enterprises. On the basis of an analysis of US, UK, German, French, Dutch and Belgian law, this article exposes which elements are important (and which are not) in the creation of these labels and forms. First, the distinction between labels and dedicated forms is of relative practical importance. Even dedicated company forms are – like labels – to a large extent governed by general corporate law. This offers advantages in terms of network effects and easy adoption. Creating a completely new corporate form is therefore justified only if there are compelling reasons for a comprehensive overhaul of existing company law. Second, the introduction of labels and dedicated company forms is influenced by the level of stringency with which jurisdictions distinguish between companies and nonprofit forms. For instance, the American benefit corporations and the French ‘raison d’être’ were introduced to explicitly authorize what conventional companies can do elsewhere. Nevertheless, a high degree of flexibility in conventional company law is insufficient to facilitate social entrepreneurship. Mandatory law for social enterprise labels or forms is necessary to credibly signal commitment to a social purpose. Yet, creating labels or dedicated forms for lightly regulated ‘mission purposes’ may generate noise that interferes with this signal. 86\",\"PeriodicalId\":54052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Company and Financial Law Review\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Company and Financial Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2023-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Company and Financial Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2023-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在世界各地,立法者为社会企业创造了标签和专门的公司形式。在分析美国、英国、德国、法国、荷兰和比利时法律的基础上,本文揭示了在这些标签和形式的创建中哪些元素是重要的(哪些不是)。首先,标签和专用表格之间的区别具有相对的实际重要性。即使是专门的公司形式——就像商标一样——在很大程度上也受一般公司法的管辖。这在网络效应和易于采用方面提供了优势。因此,只有在有令人信服的理由对现有公司法进行全面改革的情况下,才有理由创建一种全新的公司形式。其次,引入标签和专门的公司形式受到司法管辖区区分公司和非营利形式的严格程度的影响。例如,美国的福利公司和法国的“reason d ' être”被引入,以明确授权传统公司在其他地方可以做的事情。然而,传统公司法的高度灵活性不足以促进社会企业家精神。社会企业标签或形式的强制性法律是必要的,以可靠地表明对社会目的的承诺。然而,为轻度管制的“任务目的”创建标签或专用表格可能会产生干扰信号的噪音。86
Social Entrepreneurship: The Choice Between Labels, Variants, Dedicated and Conventional Corporate Forms
Abstract 85 Around the globe legislators have created labels and dedicated company forms for social enterprises. On the basis of an analysis of US, UK, German, French, Dutch and Belgian law, this article exposes which elements are important (and which are not) in the creation of these labels and forms. First, the distinction between labels and dedicated forms is of relative practical importance. Even dedicated company forms are – like labels – to a large extent governed by general corporate law. This offers advantages in terms of network effects and easy adoption. Creating a completely new corporate form is therefore justified only if there are compelling reasons for a comprehensive overhaul of existing company law. Second, the introduction of labels and dedicated company forms is influenced by the level of stringency with which jurisdictions distinguish between companies and nonprofit forms. For instance, the American benefit corporations and the French ‘raison d’être’ were introduced to explicitly authorize what conventional companies can do elsewhere. Nevertheless, a high degree of flexibility in conventional company law is insufficient to facilitate social entrepreneurship. Mandatory law for social enterprise labels or forms is necessary to credibly signal commitment to a social purpose. Yet, creating labels or dedicated forms for lightly regulated ‘mission purposes’ may generate noise that interferes with this signal. 86
期刊介绍:
In legislation and in case law, European law has become a steadily more dominant factor in determining national European company laws. The “European Company”, the forthcoming “European Private Company” as well as the Regulation on the Application of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS Regulation”) have accelerated this development even more. The discussion, however, is still mired in individual nations. This is true for the academic field and – even still – for many practitioners. The journal intends to overcome this handicap by sparking a debate across Europe on drafting and application of European company law. It integrates the European company law component previously published as part of the Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR), on of the leading German law reviews specialized in the field of company and capital market law. It aims at universities, law makers on both the European and national levels, courts, lawyers, banks and other financial service institutions, in house counsels, accountants and notaries who draft or work with European company law. The journal focuses on all areas of European company law and the financing of companies and business entities. This includes the law of capital markets as well as the law of accounting and auditing and company law related issues of insolvency law. Finally it serves as a platform for the discussion of theoretical questions such as the economic analysis of company law. It consists of articles and case notes on both decisions of the European courts as well as of national courts insofar as they have implications on European company law.