New Corporate Forms: One Viable Solution to Advancing Environmental Sustainability

There is a clear trend in corporate governance toward increased attention to the environmental and social impacts of business operations. Major consulting firms are advising Fortune 500 companies on how to become more environmentally sustainable, private equity and “impact” investors are measuring environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and voluntary reporting and shareholder resolutions on issues of environmental sustainability are on the rise. While traditional corporate forms allow companies to embrace social and environmental responsibility with some measure of success, various real and perceived risks encourage directors to focus on short‐term profitability. Even if a company has a strong social mission at inception, founders often have difficulty “anchoring their mission” over time. And the lack of required disclosure of social and environmental performance makes it more difficult for investors to evaluate and compare companies. Many believe that the institutionalized mispricing of natural resources and the continued failure to price externalities, combined with the progressive nature of climate change, require the transformation of both business and law. This article discusses social and environmental sustainability within the traditional corporate form and then explores three emerging alternatives that are now being used by businesses in California: limited liability corporations (LLCs); benefit corporations (B corps); and flexible purpose corporations (FPCs). Of these three alternatives, FPCs—a corporate form that requires shareholders to agree on one or more social missions with management and the board—may be best suited to meet the needs of the many small private firms (as well as some large public companies) that, whether for purely economic or altruistic reasons, plan to integrate ESG into their operations.     

Does market misvaluation help explain share market long‐run underperformance following a seasoned equity issue?

We examine the relation between pre‐seasoned equity offering (SEO) announcement date misvaluation and long‐run post‐SEO performance for a large sample of Australian SEOs made between 1993 and 2001. Our study is motivated by inconsistent findings across countries with respect to the SEO long‐run underperformance anomaly first documented in the USA, inconclusive findings with respect to the hypothesis that managers exploit market misvaluation when timing equity issues, and a recent Australian Stock Exchange proposal to loosen SEO regulation. We find SEO firms underperform common share market benchmarks for up to 5 years after the announcement. Using a residual income valuation method, we show that this underperformance is related to pre‐announcement date misvaluation. An unexpected result is that underperformance and misvaluation are more severe for private placements than rights issues. Institutional factors unique to the Australian setting, particularly the large number of smaller loss‐making firms among private placement issuers, appear to explain the poorer performance of placement firms. Our results are robust to various measurement methods and assumptions, and demonstrate the importance of researching SEO performance in alternative institutional settings.