The Mission-Driven Venture. Lane Marc J.

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Bartram's achievements were recognized by the Hitachi Foundation, which in 2012 named her one of the top young entrepreneurs intent on building sustainable businesses in the United States. The workers she's empowered earn more, spend smarter, and build wealth.

      Take Hortense, who did a good job when she was a short-term hotel housekeeper, thanks to a WorkSquare opportunity. The organization was able to shift her to another hotel that offered her a permanent opening paying $10.25 per hour. Leveraging her temporary assignment to secure full-time employment positioned Hortense for a brighter, more self-sufficient future.

      Social enterprises like Juma Ventures, Homeboy Industries, and WorkSquare, all shining examples of thought leadership, have become mainstream. They disrupt through innovation. They join forces as a community of change-makers. They scale through collaboration. They blur the lines between for-profit and non-profit. They embrace sound business principles. They create business models wherein measurement is integral to the normal course of meeting a challenge. And they abandon the systems that no longer work.

      The Origin of Mission-Driven Ventures

      But how did we get here? The origin of mission-driven ventures in the United States can be traced back to pre-Revolutionary New England when for-profit enterprises and organizations that promoted the social welfare were seen as necessarily separate and distinct, such that the latter's missions could only be funded with private donations. This conceptual distinction was preserved throughout the 19th century, with the establishment of charitable trusts and foundations by wealthy industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, and even through most of the 20th century. Adopted as federal law in 1954, Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code perfected the non-profit organization as we know it today – an organization with the sole purpose of engaging in charitable, educational, or other benevolent activities. Because non-profit organizations engage in only these kinds of activities – and, by definition, do not seek profit – they generally pay no taxes to federal, state, or local governments.

      Traditionally, non-profits were funded almost entirely through government grants and private donations. But over the last thirty years or so, non-profits have come to rely more heavily on “earned” revenue generated from businesses that are substantially related to the charitable, educational, or other activities they are organized to carry out for the public good.

      Just as non-profit organizations started to embrace for-profit business opportunities to diversify their sources of revenue while pursuing their missions, for-profit businesses began to engage in activities traditionally left to the nonprofit sector. The turning point may have been in 1967 when William C. Norris, then the CEO of supercomputer manufacturer Control Data Corporation, opened production plants in several impoverished cities and rural areas to create jobs that provided stable incomes and high-tech training for people who otherwise would have been left behind, like so many of the youth Juma Ventures serves. Norris was inspired by legendary Urban League president Whitney Young, who rallied against the social and economic injustice young African-Americans had long suffered. Norris also witnessed firsthand the 1967 Minneapolis race riot, painful evidence of that very injustice. Many contemporary corporations have followed Control Data's lead, adopting socially responsible practices either in the form of corporate philanthropy (dedicating a portion of their profits to fund activities that are socially beneficial) or as part of their business models (sourcing fair-trade agricultural products for which buyers pay more so that farmers in the developing world can earn more).

      They have many reasons to do so. For one thing, it's good for their bottom lines. According to B Lab, over sixty million Americans today say that it's not just the cost, convenience, and quality of the products they buy that matter to them; it's also their social and environmental impact. Moreover, according to Raj Sisodia of Babson College, publicly traded corporations that compensate their employees generously, invest in their communities, and make a conscious effort to reduce their adverse impact on the environment outperformed the S&P 500 Index by a factor of 10.5 over the years 1996 to 2011.

      These companies treat their stakeholders well, so their suppliers are happier to do business with them. Their employees are more engaged, productive, and likely to stay with them for the long haul. They are welcome in the communities in which they do business. And their customers are among the most loyal, according to Sisodia.

      But it's not only profitability that motivates these corporations to adopt socially responsible practices. It's also the belief that for-profit businesses can be a force for economic and social good, more so perhaps than any other economic sector.

      Businesses Drive Social Change

      Consider, for example, the TATA Group, India's largest private employer, whose more than eighty companies employ 200,000 people in steel, automobile, software, consumer goods, and telecommunications ventures. About two-thirds of the equity capital of the company's parent firm, Tata Sons Ltd., is held by philanthropic trusts established in the 1860s. The TATA Group's founder, Jamsetji Nusserwanji, noted long ago that “in a free enterprise, the community is not just another stakeholder in business but is in fact the very purpose of its existence.” Decades later, Manoj Chakravati, another corporate officer, framed the company's mission this way: “Corporate Social Responsibility should be in the DNA of every organization. Our processes should be aligned so as to benefit the society. If society prospers, so shall the organization…”

      To Ratan Tata, a former chairman of the TATA Group, writing with Stuart L. Hart, Aarti Sharma, and Christian Sarkar in the June 18, 2013, issue of MIT Sloan Management Review, “the maximization of profit is not a purpose; instead it is an outcome.” Their thesis is: “Profits are like happiness in that they are a byproduct of other things. Those who focus obsessively on their own happiness are usually narcissists – and end up miserable. Similarly, companies need a purpose that transcends money; they need sustainability strategies that recognize that you can make money by doing good things rather than the other way around.”

      The strategy has worked well over the long term: Tata Chemicals first introduced iodized salt to address iodine deficiency, then fortified iron in Tata Salt to combat anemia. The company has also invented an affordable, nanotechnology-driven water purifier that has transformed the barren village of Mithapur in Gnjarat into a thriving community. The company went on to create an “Innovation Centre,” built exclusively around social issues and sustainable value. The initiative has been a leading driver of revenue, profits, and jobs.

      A duty to contribute to the social good has recently been incorporated into Indian corporate law. The Indian Companies Act of 2013, which took effect on April 1, 2014, mandates large firms in India (including many American multi-national enterprises) to follow the TATA Group's lead and exhibit greater social responsibility. Firms with a net worth of Rs 5 billion (about US $82 million) or more, annual turnover of Rs 10 billion (about US $164 million) or more, or net annual profits of Rs 50 million (about US $820,000) would be required to invest at least 2 percent of their annual profits on CSR initiatives. Jamsetji Nuserwanji's legacy continues.

      Or look at the Bosch Group, a leading global manufacturer of automotive, building, and industrial technology as well as consumer goods. Following a tradition established by its founder, the company sees social and environmental issues inextricably linked to its future: “If Bosch is to remain a stable company, [it must] come to terms with the instability of the world at present. Accelerating globalization, the need for environmental protection and impending energy supply shortages mean that Bosch's corporate strategy must take into account social and environmental concerns.” And, indeed, it does: the company has embraced the core labor standards of the International Labour Organization, acknowledging human rights, equality of opportunity, the rights of children, and fair employment conditions.

      And then there's Mozilla Corporation, a wholly owned, taxable subsidiary СКАЧАТЬ