No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

There has been limited empirical research on the impact of legal issues on entrepreneurial ventures, despite the fact that this impact appears to be great. The low-profit limited liability company (L3C) is a new business entity form in the U.S. that allows for firms to support a social and/or environmental mission without maximizing shareholder wealth. According to Intersector Partners, L3C (2014), as of August 24, 2014, there are 1,072 total active L3Cs in nine states and one tribal entity. While L3Cs were initially designed to encourage more program-related investments from foundations, many ventures are forming this entity because it better fits with their core social and/or environmental mission.In this paper, we examine empirically whether the L3C designation can increase consumers' purchase intentions and perceptions of the designated business as one with primarily social or environmental impact. Our study used 330 participants, half of whom were identified as "green" consumers and half from the general population. Both groups were shown two descriptions of firms modified from real venture descriptions of existing L3Cs. One of these descriptions was given an LLC designation and one an L3C designation. One half of the participants were given a description of an L3C prior to being shown the L3C venture. Participants were asked to evaluate their likelihood to purchase from these two businesses and the perception that these firms supported social and/or environmental causes.Our findings showed no significant difference between either the entity, company, or when a L3C description was given in either purchase intention or perception of business. Both dependent variables were significantly different for green consumers versus the general population and between genders. This finding suggests that the L3C currently has only limited usefulness as a signal of attractiveness to consumers, but greater education by states and ventures may increase this potential over time.

Purpose As a result of COVID-19 and associated stay-at-home orders, the number of employees working remotely reached unprecedented levels during early periods of the pandemic. Since that time, some employees have returned to the office; yet, there is a lasting impact on employees’ desires for remote work. In response, decision-makers in organizations should be equipped with knowledge regarding what makes remote work beneficial for both employees and the organization and also fair and compliant with the law. This paper aims to take a dual perspective spanning human capital and legal aspects of remote work to offer six practical recommendations to organizations. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the human resources (HR) scholarly literature on remote work, using principles from evidence-based management to select valid and reliable findings in which to base practical recommendations for organizations. Associated legal risks are identified through a review of the legal literature on remote work and integrated into the recommendations. Findings Building on a multilevel model of HR practices, the authors offer the following six practical recommendations to organizations: offer hybrid work and both location and schedule flexibility; ensure fair and compliant work schedules; acknowledge manager perceptions; ensure fair approval and evaluation of remote workers; acknowledge individual workers; and align remote work practices with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Originality/value The multilevel model of remote work practices discussed in this paper offers an organizing framework for identifying advantages and disadvantages of remote work that future research may build upon. The six recommendations help bridge the research–practice gap by providing organizations with knowledge on how to maximize the benefits of remote work while mitigating potential legal risks.