Article by Thomas Kelley
Social entrepreneurs are people who envision widespread, systematic social change and who attack society's ills at the roots, employing the spirit and the tools of entrepreneurship. They reject the traditional boundaries between the nonprofit and for-profit sectors and carry out their plans through so-called hybrid social enterprises, which combine the soul of nonprofit organizations with the discipline and business savvy of for-profits. Although social entrepreneurs generally are driven by a desire to do good, they view themselves as businesspeople who are trying to achieve double-bottom-line (financial and social) or triple-bottom-line (financial, social, and environmental) results.
Why should the emergence of these new hybrid social enterprises be of particular concern to lawyers? Because their creators say that they inhabit a social frontier, sometimes referred to as the “emerging fourth sector,” where outmoded laws and inappropriate, old-style legal entities hamstring their socially transformative plans. With increasing vehemence, they are demanding new laws, particularly new types of hybrid business entities.
This Article describes the social enterprise frontier, paying particular attention to a recent trend whereby social entrepreneurs form their ventures as for-profit companies even though their ambitions are largely charitable. The paper then critically examines various proposals for creating new types of hybrid for-profit/nonprofit entities to provide a legal structure for fourth sector ventures. The paper concludes that a very recent legal innovation, the Low Profit Limited Liability Company, holds particular promise for meeting the needs of social entrepreneurs and the emerging fourth sector.
About the Author
Thomas Kelley. James Dickson Phillips, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the UNC School of Law Institute for Innovation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law. A.B. 1984, Harvard University; J.D. 1991, Northeastern University School of Law.
Citation
84 Tul. L. Rev. 337 (2009)