That said, I hope they write cool papers with various peers across the industry without worrying too much about the competing dynamics. That'd be a blessing for humanity, and good for their spirit.
Very silly to call every non start up a lifestyle business. It’s just a business. Start up are the weird thing that almost always an obscene waste of time and money, but sometime creates google.
Why is that so? Fast growth, when achieved honestly, is a result of solving user pain that others haven't. Maybe you think so because users != the public, but I think in totality the public is a collection of users who all have needs they want met.
Why? Because investors poured a bunch of money in to support fast growth and now they want their money back. And incremental growth won't do. Since 9 out of 10 of the investments fail, the surviving one has to continue to growth-hacking revenues.
The advantage to a PBC is protecting founders from a serious problem with standard corporations: you might bring on investors who could subsequently demand you pollute, exploit people, and/or do other immoral activities for profit. You don't have to do these things to grow a business quickly.
I’d like to provide maybe a clarification here that there is zero existing fiduciary duty in regular corporations to say yes to evil things, or even to turn a profit at all. A for-profit C corporation can legally sell stock, lose money every year, and go out of business, if the board of directors approves that strategy. Fiduciary duty exists primarily in areas of accurate communication and the avoidance of crime, fraud, etc.
A B corp basically is a C corp, but one that has formally published that their strategy includes a commitment to some social benefit. But if a C corp wanted to publish the same message to shareholders it could, and shareholder recourse would basically be to either try to replace the board, or sell the stock.
Consider the eBay/Craigslist case, eBay Domestic Holdings v. Newmark:
> When director decisions are reviewed under the business judgment rule, this Court will not question rational judgments about how promoting non-stockholder interests—be it through making a charitable contribution, paying employees higher salaries and benefits, or more general norms like promoting a particular corporate culture—ultimately promote stockholder value. Under the Unocal standard, however, the directors must act within the range of reasonableness. Ultimately, defendants failed to prove that craigslist possesses a palpable, distinctive, and advantageous culture that sufficiently promotes stockholder value to support the indefinite implementation of a poison pill. Jim and Craig did not make any serious attempt to prove that the craigslist culture, which rejects any attempt to further monetize its services, translates into increased profitability for stockholders.
https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=143440
This is where a PBC would have been different. With a PBC, courts are directed to balance the the stockholders interests with the company's stated public benefit.
I don’t think anyone can look at the company Craigslist in 2026 and say it has spent the last 30 years satisfying a legal duty to maximize profit.
The point of my example was the legal standard used.
A politician could trivially write a law to end this "problem", at any point. Or courts could start rejecting suits where investors sue. There is nothing inherent in nature that requires this outcome to exist.
This is an entirely self-made problem that society tolerates when it doesn't have to. Corporations used to need a blessing from the government to be formed, explicitly to avoid the risk of a massive corporation who can compete with the government and have investors that push anti-social goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation#/media/Fil...
I don’t think there’s some practical way to force existing corporations to include something in their charter, if that’s what you’re suggesting. Business organization is something that a business chooses to do.
Laws are but a pen stroke away.
<legalese intro>
No existing nor new C corp and their executives shall be be considered in breach of their fiduciary duties or obligations if they take an action they deem to be in the best interests of society at large, as long as it’s not fraudulent or otherwise illegal behavior.
<legalese outro>
1. Corporate charters and form of incorporation are consensually chosen by those involved.... you're suggesting something that is in violation of that consent. This would have crazy unintended consequences. Remember that a corporation is not necessarily a business. Imagine an investment holding company, or a building cooperative, where the directors could have a blank check to use money for some unrelated public benefit. That's completely bonkers.
2. PBCs don't get to do any "action they deem to be in the best interests of society at large"... they get to do things that are in the interest of specific public benefit goals which they have defined in their charter and those are balanced with the interests of shareholders. Everyone involved knows and agrees with what these specific public benefits are, which is an important thing.
They're also incredibly productive and can build/deliver really good stuff, so who knows :)