Quick point—a “benefit corporation” seems almost identical to a “corporation” to me, from what I understand. I think many people assume it’s a much bigger deal than it actually is.
My impression is that practically speaking, this just gives the execs more power to do whatever they feel they can sort of justify, without shareholders being able to have the legal claims to stop them. I’m not sure if this is a good thing in the case of OpenAI. (Would we prefer Sam A / the board have more power, or that the shareholders have more power?)
I think B-Corps make it harder for them to get sued for not optimizing for shareholders. Hypothetically, it makes it easier for them to be sued for not optimizing their other goals, but I’m not sure if this ever/frequently actually happens.
In the case of OpenAI it also means that Sam doesn’t hold any stock in OpenAI and thus has different incentives than he would if he would own a decent amount of stock.
Quick point—a “benefit corporation” seems almost identical to a “corporation” to me, from what I understand. I think many people assume it’s a much bigger deal than it actually is.
My impression is that practically speaking, this just gives the execs more power to do whatever they feel they can sort of justify, without shareholders being able to have the legal claims to stop them. I’m not sure if this is a good thing in the case of OpenAI. (Would we prefer Sam A / the board have more power, or that the shareholders have more power?)
I think B-Corps make it harder for them to get sued for not optimizing for shareholders. Hypothetically, it makes it easier for them to be sued for not optimizing their other goals, but I’m not sure if this ever/frequently actually happens.
In the case of OpenAI it also means that Sam doesn’t hold any stock in OpenAI and thus has different incentives than he would if he would own a decent amount of stock.