scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

William Robinson

Bio: William Robinson is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Statute & Benefit corporation. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 4 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that Alaska should enact a benefit corporation statute because it would give Native corporations a legal entity that better fits their purpose. And they also argue that Native corporations would commit to pursuing public benefits, and their directors would be required to consider factors beyond shareholder value in making decisions.
Abstract: In the forty-five years since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) created the Alaska Native regional corporation and village corporations, shareholders and outside observers have criticized the statute’s use of the traditional corporate form as inappropriate for Alaska Native communities. The emergence of the benefit corporation entity across the United States may soon mean that Native corporations have a promising alternative. If Alaska joins the majority of states that have adopted this new legal entity, Native corporations would have an opportunity to significantly reform their corporate governance within the existing framework of ANCSA. This Note will argue that Alaska should enact a benefit corporation statute because it would give Native corporations a legal entity that better fits their purpose. As benefit corporations, Native corporations would commit to pursuing public benefits, and their directors would be required to consider factors beyond shareholder value in making decisions.

4 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated benefit sharing arrangements between oil and natural gas companies and indigenous communities in Nenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Districts, Irkutsk and Sakhalin regions in Russia and the North Slope of Alaska.
Abstract: Many transnational energy companies are engaged in the exploration and development of oil reserves in the Arctic, and are facing policy challenges in respect to benefit sharing with the local communities. Benefit sharing arrangements between oil and natural gas companies and indigenous communities were investigated in Nenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Districts, Irkutsk and Sakhalin regions in Russia and the North Slope of Alaska. We argue that Indigenous communities are not equally benefitting from oil and gas extraction, and no one benefit sharing policy model seems to ensure a sustainable local development. This may stem from the mismatch between benefit sharing policies and local institutional frameworks. Thus, as a part of benefit sharing obligations, companies and the state must work with Indigenous peoples and other affected communities to build local capacities and human capital. There is an urgent need to improve our knowledge base about benefit sharing in the Arctic energy sector, and we urge the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group and/or the Arctic Economic Council to conduct a synthesis study aiming at finding best practices, identifying lessons learned, and initiating an inclusive, multi-stakeholder process of developing guidelines for companies on benefit-sharing in the Arctic.

38 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify benefit sharing regimes involving modes, principles, and mechanisms of benefit-sharing, and disentangle the complexities of benefit sharing to understand existing procedural and distributive equity.
Abstract: This paper analyses benefit-sharing arrangements between oil companies, native corporations, the North Slope Borough, and Indigenous Peoples in Alaska. It aims to disentangle the complexities of benefit-sharing to understand existing procedural and distributive equity. We identified benefit-sharing regimes involving modes, principles, and mechanisms of benefit-sharing. This includes modes that reflect institutionalized interactions, such as paternalism, company centered social responsibility (CCSR), partnership, and shareholders. Principles can be based on compensation, investment and charity. Mechanisms can involve negotiated benefits and structured benefits, mandated by legislation, contracts, or regulation. Furthermore, mechanisms can involve semi-formal and trickle-down benefits. Trickle-down benefits come automatically to the community along with development. The distribution of money by the North Slope Borough represents the paternalistic mode, yet involves investment and mandated principles with top–down decision making. They are relatively high in distributional equity and low in participatory equity. Native corporations predominantly practice the shareholders’ mode, investment principle, and mandated mechanisms. The oil companies’ benefit-sharing represents a mixed type combining CCSR and partnership modess, several principles (investment, compensatory, charity) and multiple types of mechanisms, such as mandated, negotiated, semi-formal and trickle-down. These arrangements vary in terms of distributive equity, and participatory equity is limited.

6 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the growing corporate commitment to creating social value and the rise of multiplebounded bottom-lines in the United States, as well as the role of corporate law and share-theoretic norms.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 573 I. THE GROWING CORPORATE COMMITMENT TO CREATING SOCIAL VALUE .................................................................................. 574 II. THE RISE OF MULTIPLE BOTTOM LINES ................................... 576 III. CORPORATE LAW AND SHAREHOLDER PRIMACY .................... 577 IV. THE RISE OF B CORPORATIONS .............................................. 579 CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 580

3 citations

Book
23 Jul 2020
TL;DR: Hoffmann and Monte Mills as mentioned in this paper detail the history, context, and future of the ongoing legal fight to protect indigenous cultures, which is shaped by the assumptions that led to current federal cultural protection laws, which many tribes and their allies are reframing to better meet their cultural and sovereign priorities.
Abstract: In A Third Way, Hillary Hoffmann and Monte Mills detail the history, context, and future of the ongoing legal fight to protect indigenous cultures. At the federal level, this fight is shaped by the assumptions that led to current federal cultural protection laws, which many tribes and their allies are now reframing to better meet their cultural and sovereign priorities. At the state level, centuries of antipathy toward tribes are beginning to give way to collaborative and cooperative efforts that better reflect indigenous interests. Most critically, tribes themselves are building laws and legal structures that reflect and invigorate their own cultural values. Taken together, and evidenced by the recent worldwide support for indigenous cultural movements, events of the last decade signal a new era for indigenous cultural protection. This important work should be read by anyone interested in the legal reforms that will guide progress toward that future.

1 citations