The False Tradeoff Between Financial & Social Responsibility

There is a perception out there that there is a tradeoff between social responsibility and financial responsibility. You can’t do both, people say. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Well, very fortunately the data just doesn’t support that perception.

Can you actually be more socially responsible and increase shareholder value at the same time?

The Only Social Responsibility of a Company Is To Increase Profits for Shareholders

In 1970, Chicago-school economist Milton Friedman proclaimed in an article for New York Times Magazine that a company’s only social responsibility is to increase profits for its shareholders. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and the Ayn Rand star-pupil Alan Greenspan turned this credo into de facto policy gospel.

There is passionate and meaty debate whether externalizing environmental damage and exploiting a work force is okay if there is no law or regulation against it. There is another debate whether these practices actually maximize long-term profits or the present value of future cash flows.

For a moment, let’s take this 1970 proclamation at face value and assume that an executive’s responsibility is to increase returns for company shareholders. Let’s agree that executives and board members do have a fiduciary responsibility to seek to gain a return on the capital invested in their organization, particularly if they work for a publicly-owned company or a company that is not a wholly-owned private corporation.

So this begs the question, can you do both–increase social return and increase financial return?

Can You Be More Socially Responsible & Financially Responsible?

Raj Sisodia, David Wolfe, and Jag Sheth recently published “Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose.” In the book, they share the results of a study in which they looked at companies that were especially socially responsible–they call these firms “Firms of Endearment” or FoEs. They compared the shareholder returns of these socially responsible firms with the S&P 500. What they found was that the firms that were socially responsible outperformed the S&P 500 by 9x.

These Firms of Endearment grew shareholder value 1025% in the last ten years while the S&P 500 returned 122%. Even when you compare the Firms of Endearment vs. the blue chip success stories profiled in Jim Collins’ Good to Great, the Firms of Endearment win. The firms profiled in Good to Great returned 316% while the FoE’s returned 1025%.” Here’s the graph from their web site.

Financial Returns of Socially Responsible Firms Vs. S&P 500 and Good to Great

Now, by no means does this data prove conclusively that more socially responsible firms create higher shareholder returns. The data show only correlation, not causation. The reality could simply be that firms that happen to be socially responsible happen to be in more profitable industries and so they can afford to give more to the community and create better work environments. But nonetheless, the point is clear– investing in being a socially responsible company certainly does not by definition go against shareholder interests and in many cases enhances shareholder returns.

iContact Case Study

Earlier today, I published a case study of social responsibility at iContact. In it, I shared the why and the how behind our social and environmental efforts at iContact over the past year including examples of how iContact has reduced costs and increased employee engagement through our efforts. As I wrote in the case, the benefits to date from our social responsibility efforts included:

1. Vendor cost reductions of $40,000 driving estimated net savings of $19,000 per month.
2. Increased employee engagement and excitement to be working at our company (which we believe will lead to greater passion in people’s work, additional discretionary effort from team members, increased productivity, lower regret employee turnover, and an increased ability to attract the best and the brightest).
3. Increased customer acquisition and customer retention from customers who are coming to us and sticking with us because of our social responsibility programs.
4. Additional press coverage from Entrepreneur, INC, and the Raleigh News & Observer that is helping us recruit the best and brightest and gain additional customers and partners.

So in fact, at least so far, we have been able to show both tangible and intangible benefits that connect the investment we are making in social responsibility with direct economic net benefits to our financial results and thus to the increase of shareholder value.

A False Tradeoff

While it would be nice to have even better data and employee surveys comparing before and after our work at iContact, there is substantial anecdotal evidence supporting a conclusion that in the case of iContact, increasing investment in social and environmental responsibility so far has increased profits, and will contribute very positively to increasing shareholder value in the many years to come.

So does increasing social and environmental responsibility always increase shareholder value? No, it does not. But in many cases it can and does and the Firms of Endearment study provides a fascinating basis for a likely connection between the most socially responsible firms and those who produce the highest return for shareholders. Investing in being a socially responsible company certainly does not by definition go against shareholder interests and in many cases enhances shareholder returns.

There does seem to be substantive and significant evidence showing there the tradeoff between social responsibility and financial responsibility is false and in fact social responsibility in many cases aligns with increasing financial profitability.

Comments/Thoughts?

Thanks for reading. I’d love to know your thoughts in the comments on social responsibility, effective CSR programs, whether being more socially responsible helps or hurts a business,  and whether your shopping decisions could be influenced by whether a company is responsible or not.

Maximizing Social Return from The Giving Pledge

I originally wrote this post for the Social Entrepreneurship Section of Change.org. You can find the original Change.org post here or read below.

A Vision in a Time of Peril

It’s hard to see the big picture in times of turmoil. Let’s go back to Wednesday, March 4, 2009. That day, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the richest individuals in America, wrote a letter to David Rockefeller, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. The letter suggested a gathering of their billionaire friends to discuss giving.

The letter was mailed in the backdrop of a tumultuous week. By that Friday March 6th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its lowest point in twelve years, free falling 52.9% from two years before in the good ‘ole days of 2007 prosperity.

March 6th, 2009 brings back vivid memories. I was visiting the White House with a group of young entrepreneurs with The Summit Series. The White House Office of Public Engagement had put together the session to discuss their plans for the Economic Recovery Act. As Jason Furman, the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, spoke to our group, the market was in freefall.

While the media was anointing The Great Recession and debating whether it would become a depression, Gates and Buffet had the fortune and foresight, to bring together their friends for dinner in New York to discuss how to give back.

The Launch of The Giving Pledge

Out of this meeting in New York came an initiative called The Giving Pledge, “an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.”

So through The Giving Pledge Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are encouraging other billionaires to give at least 50% of their net worth away.

In fact, instead of the recommended 50%, Warren Buffett has pledged to contribute 99% of his net worth to charity within 10 years after his death, all to be used for immediate need and none for endowments. Laudable indeed. Buffet writes in his usual matter-of-fact style,

“The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.”

How Much Money Are We Talking About?

Mr. Buffet will perhaps give around $50 billion to philanthropy by the time of his death. Through The Giving Pledge, he and Gates have the opportunity to leverage their influence and connections to multiply their giving many times over and set the example for other billionaires, who can no longer give away just 10% of what they have and feel good about themselves.

The total net worth of the Forbes 400 in 2009 was $1.27 Trillion. If Gates and Buffet convince 20% of these billionaires to give half of their net worth away, they’d be able to drive another $120B into philanthropy, doubling the amount of they themselves can personally give away.

So let’s say The Giving Pledge is successful and it generates another $120B in giving over the next twenty years, or about $6B per year for the next twenty years.

While an additional $6 billion per year can certainly make an impact, this amount pales in comparison to the $3.8 trillion proposed spending in the U.S. Federal Budget for 2011. It also pales in comparison to the $303B in total annual private giving by U.S. citizens.

The Goal: Sustainable Economic Prosperity

The two issues in our world today that are causing the greatest threat to a secure and stable human society with access to opportunity for all are extreme poverty and environmental sustainability. Most people don’t know that 39% of the human beings on this planet live on under $2 per day. If our goal is global stability, not to mention justice, this cannot be allowed in our world. And most of us by now get the global economic and natural disaster that will be caused if we keep increasing our annual consumption of goods without decreasing our carbon emissions.

As an entrepreneur and social entrepreneur, I believe that our mission, challenge, and opportunity as a generation is to create sustainable economic prosperity for all. We will never have a truly secure or stable world until we do. So how can this extra $6 billion per year be used to get the maximum return toward this goal of sustainable economic prosperity?

While humanitarian aid is absolutely necessary and moral, providing funds with this extra private capital for short-term gap filling needs caused by the symptoms of these issues won’t solve the issues themselves.

How Can This Money Make The Biggest Positive Impact?

So how can these funds best be used to generate the highest Social Return on Investment (SROI) and work toward sustainable economic prosperity for all?

The funds of these Giving Billionaires can either be given to address immediate need or invested to change much bigger systemic issues that are at the root cause of so much human suffering. While I do not know which will generate the highest return, I believe that by investing in changing global public policy (in a few select areas mentioned below) to reduce the incentive structures that are at the root cause of much suffering, lack of access to opportunity, and environmental damage these new Billionaire Givers will generate the highest SROI.

In order for this relatively small amount of additional capital to have the biggest positive impact, it must be leveraged. Philanthropic money can be leveraged by investing it in changing how other, larger, capital flows occur within our global system.

To effect real long term global change this $120B should be directed to:

1) Change U.S. domestic policy so we stop spending on the very expenditures that block access of the poorest countries to the market and creates need for more humanitarian aid and philanthropic giving in the first place (e.g. farm subsidies, trade tariffs, some military spending);

2) Influence a change in International Financial Reporting Standards and laws of nation-states so that companies can no longer off-balance sheet their negative environmental externalities;

3) As Nathaniel Whittemore has recommended, invest in social entrepreneurs who can leverage these dollars and markets (the largest capital flow of them all) to create sustainable change with dignity; and

4) Launch a campaign to encourage not just billionaires, but millionaires, to make a giving pledge and generate many trillions of additional dollars to invest in one through three.

Leverage Point 1: Invest in Domestic Policy Changes to Gain Social Return

Imagine the social good that could come from a concerted effort focused on lobbying to reduce the gargantuan $721B per year U.S. military budget (which as of 2008 was 48% of the world total military spending and larger than the next 45 countries combined) by 25% so that we could increase the salaries of every teacher in America by more than 50%.

There are 6.2 million elementary and secondary school teachers in the U.S. according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 Census. The average U.S. teacher salary was $51,009 according to American Federation of Teachers Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends 2007. So in total, the U.S. spends around $316 billion per year on teacher salaries. Hence a $180 billion re-allocation from defense to education would enable us to pay teachers 57% more.

Having this type of dollars and cents carrot might just enable Chancellors to negotiate out the single requirement of Teacher Unions that is the most damaging to our children’s education–the inability to fire a teacher who is not performing due to the tenure system, allowing the best teachers to be paid well above $80,000 per year.

Take a look at the below graph showing the allocation of 2009 U.S. Federal Taxes and you’ll see where our priorities seem to lie as a nation (of course noting that most funds for education come from State Taxes). A few billion dollars per year spent on influencing our Government to re-allocate this pie a bit more toward butter and a little less toward guns might just provide a huge return.

Source: Friends Committee on National Legislation Budget Chart for FY 2009

Leverage Point 2: Invest in Global Policy Changes to Gain Social Return

If these giving billionaires that join The Giving Pledge really wanted to get a large social return they would allocate dollars to change the public policies that drive the economic incentive structures that are the source causes of many of the issues.

One of the biggest problems in the world today is of course environmental sustainability. Six billion dollars per year, if the funds were focused, might just be enough to lobby the largest world governments to make a change to their accounting principles.

If companies across the world were required by law (that was enforced) to pay for the replacement of any environmental resource that they utilize such that each company had a net neutral impact on the environment, we’d remove much of the incentive structure that causes investors to seek out companies with the highest returns, which often are companies that unethically but legally have off-balance sheet environmental externalities that are simply passed on to all human beings.

Any philanthropist who can begin to create a tipping point for governments to stop accepting off-balance sheet negative environmental externalities that are not reported in GAAP or IFRS statements would enable the return on their investment to be leveraged many times over.

Change the economic incentive structure and you’ve changed the flow of trillions of dollars of private capital that billions of dollars of philanthropic capital simply cannot compete with.

Leverage Point 3: Create an Investment Fund for Triple-Bottom Line Entrepreneurs

As Nathaniel Whittemore suggested two weeks ago, some of the funds from The Giving Pledge should be directed to a Social Private Equity Fund. Nathaniel writes,

“What I can imagine is an institutional actor whose specialty is helping great social businesses with good revenues get even bigger while retaining their social and environmental missions. These types of firms would bring companies into their portfolio by acquiring some of the stock that had previously been held by investors and founders, in that way providing that liquidity that is missing from the current social finance system without compromising the social mission. This would create more incentives for early stage social investors, and provide social entrepreneurs more plausible returns that could increase the variety of the people thinking about social businesses.”

I agree with Nathaniel that late-stage capital for socially responsible businesses would be a help to provide liquidity, and thus returns, to the early stage investment funds already investing in triple-bottom line entrepreneurial companies.

I would add however, that any company that gets to $30M or $40M in EBITDA positive revenues, regardless of whether it has a core social mission or not, will be able to raise private equity and provide liquidity to shareholders. I don’t think the gap in the market is lack of funding for profitable at-scale social ventures.

The gap in the market is lack of funding and assistance for small-scale socially-responsible businesses that have the desire and dream to grow their impact and their revenues but don’t know how–both in the developed world and the developing world.

The biggest market gap I see is investment dollars in for-profit businesses in the developing world, where “microequity” investments of $5,000 to $50,000 along with some guidance and incubation can generate huge returns for a local entrepreneur who requires capital greater than a microfinance organization can provide but isn’t able to take on the $50,000 to $300,000 that organizations like Acumen Fund are able to invest.

And so, to maximize both financial return and social return for the Billionaire Givers, I would recommend not just a late-stage PE firm for social ventures, but also expanding capital investments in existing or new growth stage funds for socially responsible companies, particularly those in the developing world.

The second area of leverage I see within the world of private capital markets, is to invest in putting pressure on publicly-traded companies to implement strong CSR programs and actually live up to them. A few billion dollars spent buying mass media advertising to publicly encourage (read:shame) large MNCs so they live up to global CSR standards would be dollars well spent for social return.

Leverage Point 4: Invest in The Giving Pledge for Millionaires

While I applaud Gates and Buffet’s effort on The Giving Pledge, in order to enable this pledge to truly make a substantial impact, part of the funds should be directed to extend the effort beyond billionaires and create a new social norm where it is simply expected that anyone who makes way more than they need will contribute half of their net worth by the time they die to making the world a better place.

For the millionaires out there, it will just screw up your kids if you leave too much money to them. So why not ensure your legacy by committing now, publicly, to giving at least 50% away?

There are 10 million millionaires in the world, with a total net worth of $39 trillion according to the 2010 Merrill Lynch and Cap Gemini World Wealth Report. The average millionaire has $3.9 million.

Excluding the $1.3 trillion of the Forbes 400 from this $39 trillion, there is $37.7 trillion in assets among millionaires globally. What if there were a Millionaire Pledge?

If through a directed effort we can get 20% of global millionaires to commit to give half of their wealth, instead of an extra $120B for philanthropy, we’d have an extra $3.8 trillion. If we invest much of this $3.8 trillion in the three key leverage areas to fundamentally change our global economic and public policy system and use the rest to invest in filling short-term societal needs we can make a truly meaningful impact in the world.

Every multi-millionaire should commit to giving at least 90% of their wealth away by the time of their death. I made a commitment to do this in 2008 (in my book Zero to One Million) and will uphold this commitment. You can’t take money with you.

So who will take up this charge? And what do you think about these four areas of recommended investment?

Social Good With Market Returns at Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship

Why I’m At Skoll…

I’m in Oxford, England today for the first full day of the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship. I’m making great connections with investors who care about social impact equally to financial returns and learning how iContact can be a more socially responsible enterprise.

Our vision for iContact is to “Build a great global company based in North Carolina for our customers, employees, and community.”

So I’m here to ‘go to school’ for three days on how to truly maximize return for customers, employees, and community so that we can in turn maximize financial results for our shareholders. Fiduciary duty can go along with human social duty!

To me, having a formal CSR program and caring about impact for the customers, employees, and community is just good business sense that in fact maximizes financial return.

Increasing Financial Results By Focusing On Social & Environmental Impact

Personally, I strongly believe, in today’s new world, ensuring your business provides a positive social and environmental impact (or at least not a negative one!) will increase your financial return, not decrease it. I’ve seen this happen with numerous for-profit socially responsible companies like Ben & Jerry’s, The Body Shop, Whole Foods, Burt’s Bees, and Salesforce.com.

How can focusing on social impact improve financial results?

How can focusing on social return improve financial results? In three simple ways.

1. The type of employees who want to work at companies that care–companies that put equal emphasis on profits and purpose–are the most productive and often most aware and intelligent team members.
2. There is a growing movement toward consumers who care. Consumers will have much more brand loyalty to a company that they know cares and makes a positive social impact.
3. When customers become passionate about a brand they talk about it more and more people will write about it.

The Tipping Point

After 30 years of so many in the social enterprise field working towards this, the tipping point has been passed wonderfully and thankfully. As the Dean of the Oxford Said Business School Colin Mayer said last night, the financial crisis has shown that short-term focus on only financial results does not lead to long term success.

Organizations like B-Labs have succeeded in changing public policy toward the benefit of companies who care. Self-interested (”greedy”) business owners who want to make money will now wonderfully benefit financially from implementing a formalized Corporate Social Responsibility program and ensuring they track and social impact and environmental impact.

The invisible hand is now starting to work toward social good with economic growth now that incentives are being realigned properly toward sustainable economic growth. While there is much more path to tread toward truly aligning policy incentives and consumer purchasing behavior toward companies who care–it is happening and the tipping point has passed! Eureka!!

Social Good With Market Returns?

Right now a panel called ‘Social Good With Market Returns’ is about to begin. I’ve been tweeting a lot about the conference via @ryanallis.

The moderator is Herta von Stiegel of Ariya Capital.

The speakers are:

Nick O’Donohoe, Global Head of Research JP Morgan
David Chen, Principle, Equilibrium Capital Group [video]
John McCall MacBain, Founder and Director, McCall MacBain Foundation

Nick from JP Morgan is talking about the Social Finance group at JP Morgan. Nick is not a “normal banker.” They invest in social enterprises that have a double-bottom line (financial and social). This social investing field is also being called “Impact Investing.”

Ensuring Off-Balance Sheet Externalities Are Positive

There is a engaging discussion going on now at the panel around off-balance sheet externalities (positive and negative) of impact (positive or negative). Nick says “every time we make an investment we are creating externalities.” He says these externalities can be positive (jobs) or negative (pollution). He says “for the first time the investment community is measuring the social impact of what they are doing and only investing in companies that create net positive externalities.”

This discussion is at the core of global history of the past 200 years as the ideological battle between communism, socialism, and capitalism has been waged. The new consensus that is emerging here is that what has won (and in fact what must win for the sake of humanity’s ability to continue) is socially responsible capitalism. As John Perkins points out in Hoodwinked, there is nothing inherent in the model of Capitalism and the competitive market economy that require off-balance sheet externalities that destroy the world.

Taking Into Account the Full Cost of Environmental Damage

Now the discussion is revolving around how to adjust public policy to enable the true cost of negative externalities to be accounted for in the financial accounting results. Some are saying the Holy Grail for improving the world through business is to make all investing ‘impact investing’ by taking into account the true cost of environmental resources that are not renewed into Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

“Better accounting for negative externalities is really important” said John McCall MacBain of the McCall MacBain foundation just now on the panel. The discussion is revolving around environmental costs being forced on any organization that destroys a natural resource (public good) that does not replace it sustainably and the impact this would make on ensuring warped incentives are not provided to global financially-focused Boards of Directors.

The discussion has shifted to bringing the silos of philanthropy, impact investing, running non-profits and socially responsible for-profit entrepreneurship.

Borrowing a meme from my friend Judith Cone who worked at the Kauffman Foundation and now works at UNC as a Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, perhaps it is all about where goodness lies. Goodness can be in the heart of the public sector official, for-profit socially responsible entrepreneur, non-profit executive, global multinational Board member, activist, or investor.

Nick O’Donohoe from JPMorgan is speaking about how JP Morgan can access capital high net worth individuals and institutions they work with which want to tap into investment funds specifically set up for investing in companies who put an equal emphasis on social impact as financial results.

Questions & Comments?

What questions are there on this topic of public policy changes and investing in companies that create social good while achieving market returns or above market returns? I’d love to discuss this more!

You can follow tweets from the Forum here.

How I Aligned What I Love With What I Do & Scaled Myself

This post will require a certain degree of vulnerability. Sometimes we build a hard shell around us when we’re going through difficult times. This is a story of personal growth.

A year ago I was sitting late at night in my Durham office at iContact wondering if I’d become a corporate sellout.

Was I trading in some of my most productive years of life to build a company I was no longer passionate about?

I had gone from being an entrepreneur to a manager. I was 24 and we had 150 employees and $20M in sales. I was dealing with purchase order forms and paid time off policies. We had achieved all the goals we had ever set out for ourselves. Where was the entrepreneurial passion?

We had gone from #20 to #2 in the market in five years and I had no idea how we’d get to #1. I thought it might be the time to start thinking about finding my replacement.

Even though we were still growing very quickly, we weren’t quite growing at the same percentages as we were before and for the first time in our company’s history we were going to have a year in which we would not double sales.

My confidence was wavering. I had made some big mistakes:

• I had waited too long to launch a stock option plan for the whole company.
• I hadn’t hired a CMO soon enough.
• I hadn’t built the right ecosystem of mentors that could help me get to the next level as a CEO.
• I had focused too much on the surrogate-family side of our culture and not enough on the performance-focused side that was needed.
• I hadn’t created values that people believed in and used every day. I could recall just four of our ten values without looking.
• I had waited too long to start a formal manager training program.
• I hadn’t truly aligned my passion for social responsibility into the ethos of the corporation.
• I hadn’t created any effective mechanism for communicating strategic direction to the company and we had a lot of confusion as to what our focus was and operating choices were being made with different assumptions as to direction.

And these were just the mistakes I knew about!

Was I Right for the Job?

As I sat there in May 2009 I wrote in my journal “I’m not sure I’m the right person anymore to lead the company into this next stage of growth. We need to make some changes to keep the growth and hit our goals. Scary to think about. Terrible to have lost some of my confidence.” I wrote an email to our CFO on May 20th thinking about succession planning for me.

I wasn’t sure whether we should try to get acquired or keep the faith that we’d get to the $60M-$70M in annual revenue needed to go public and stay on track for the 2012 IPO. At certain points I lost the faith.

Finally in July we got the CMO we wanted. And things were looking way up by the end of the summer when we got an investment term sheet with a nine figure PMV. Wow!

But then came October. In the same week my business partner got cancer (he is now doing well!), my mom started having worsening chronic arm pain (she is now doing better), and a company that was looking to acquire us told us they weren’t going forward. I guess they say that difficult times are the foundry from which greatness is cast. But it’s sure not fun being the molten iron!

Through that baptismal fire I came to a critical understanding of self and what I needed to do to align what I love with what I do–something I’ve been preaching atop the mountain for five years in speeches but only half-heartedly living. It helped me discover my authentic self. It helped me find my Csikszentmihalyian flow.

Motivated More Than Ever

So I sit here tonight in my home in Chapel Hill motivated more than ever. iContact is now at a $34M revenue run-rate and growing that by more than $1M each month. We will hire more than 50 new team members in 2010. We had our first ever post-investment EBITDA positive month in December(!!!). We’re well on our way to fulfilling our dream of “building a great sustainable company in NC for our customers, employees, and community.” And we’ve got a plan to go from #2 to #1. We have a plan to win.

I no longer question whether I’m a corporate sellout putting in my time. I’m aligned, I’m focused. I’m learning. I’m surrounded by amazing people every day who know how to do what they do so much better than I ever could.

What I Changed?

So what did I do? Three things (and I’m still working on fully implementing them)…

1. I worked to align my long term life mission with what I do everyday today. My life mission, the one that’s been on my bedroom wall since May 2007, is to “be a leader of our generation as we work to end extreme poverty in our lifetimes.” While I was learning a lot about leadership and management and being paid to do it, I was somewhat unclear how building a SaaS company aligned fully with a passionate desire to end extreme poverty in the developing world over the next fifty years. The incessant question in my head was whether I’d be better off finding my replacement and either applying to the Kennedy School of Government or moving to Africa to invest in entrepreneurs there. I learned a lot about the integrated 1/1/1 corporate philanthropy model of Salesforce.com and wanted to see if we could do that at iContact. On January 8th, 2010 we launched an expanded CSR model, what we call the 4-1s Corporate Social Responsibility Model, at iContact in which we take 1% of equity, 1% of product, 1% of employee time, and 1% of payroll and invest it in local and global non-profit organizations. Since we’ve expanded this CSR program I’ve been able to see the tangible and immediate connection between my passion for social responsibility and what I do going to work every day. In 2009 iContact contributed $109,000 to 63 different 501(c)(3)s and in 2010 we’ll reach $150,000. But it’s not just money anymore. Now, each of our employees has the opportunity to be paid to take 1% of their time (2.5 days off from work) each year to do community service during business hours, which we’re tracking through VolunteerForce. While we’ve got lots of work to do to improve it, the model has real impact and tangible value for us and the community and it’s significantly helped me to a much greater degree see the meaning behind what we do everyday. I love it!
2. We changed our company values at iContact. I realized in July of last year that we had ten “Corporate Values” but I could only remember four without reading the sheet. At an EO entrepreneurial exec ed program at MIT in June I learned you should never have more values than you can remember and that to be worthy of being a company value you’d have to be willing to let someone go if they didn’t live up to it. Our values fit neither requirement. In December at our two day Senior Leadership Team (SLT) offsite in Chapel Hill we came up with WOWME. WOWME stands for 1) Wow the Customer 2) Operate with Urgency 3) Without Mediocrity 4) Make a Positive Wake and 5) Engage as an Owner. We launched these values last month at iContact and now every SLT member knows them by heart and we’re working toward all managers using them during every performance and coaching discussion. We will hire and fire by these values, live up to them, and hold each other accountable to them. They’ve even inspired me to pick up my game and get it in gear. I love it!
3. I let go of control. The best thing I’ve ever done for the growth of iContact is let go of control (and I’m still working on this skill). We have a six person Senior Leadership Team at iContact that can all do their jobs much much better than I can. We now have a thirteen person Leadership Team underneath them all of whom have more business experience than I do. When I realized that my job was not to ensure they did their jobs the right way but rather to enable them to do their jobs and hold them accountable for the results, my world shifted. I’m still learning in this area, but this single realization is enabling me to scale. I now focus on 1) people 2) strategy 3) culture 4) investment. Each time we get to a new stage in our company’s growth ($100k, $1M, $5M, $10M, $25M) I have to reinvent myself and my job description. I love it!

And here are some other life changes that are less critical to helping me align what I do with what I love, but are still fun to share…

1. I made an equity investment in an African company. On January 4th I became a 10% owner of Village Energy Ltd. of Kampala Uganda. For four years I’ve been personally making contributions to non-profit organizations focused on ending global poverty. My philosophy has changed on economic development over the past year. Today I believe that while effectively monitored bilateral aid is an important component of ending extreme poverty and emergency humanitarian aid is morally and critically necessary in many locations, an investment in a local entrepreneur in Africa will have much greater long term impact in terms of job creation, tax revenue base, and constituent-focused democratic institution building. I was very excited to invest in Village Energy which is bringing a $60 solar panel powered LED lighting solution to rural village homes through a microfinance and franchise distribution model for $3-$4 per month per home. The product is a substitute good for kerosene which often costs $5 to $6 per month, causes lung inhalation problems and often burns down the thatch houses. I hope this $15,000 investment turns out to have much greater social impact than a $15,000 contribution. There is SO much opportunity to invest in Africa and so many entrepreneurs and companies poised for growth. And there is a huge gap between the countless MFIs that loan out $50 to $1000 and the Acumen Fund which invests $50k to $250k. Ten years from now I dream of running a socially responsible venture capital firm on the African continent. The challenge will be finding a scalable model of investing $5000 to $50,000 at a time. I think it can be done. I know the pipeline is there.
2. We started a new entrepreneurial division of Virante. Virante is a 11 person company downstairs in the iContact building that I started as “Virante Design & Development” in 2000 that is now run by CEO Malcolm Young. I won’t say much about this early stage effort now because the team is still acquiring all the related domain names and IP, but it’s a socially responsible ecommerce play that I’m extremely excited about. Fortunately we’ve already got the team to make it happen and it won’t take much time. With the help of the Virante team and a 17 year old intern Aneesh that comes in each Wednesday they’re making it happen. Here I must quote my new New York friend Kim Scheinberg, “Starting a company is like having a baby. By far the most enjoyable part is the idea conception phase.”
3. I followed my passion for writing and started the next book. This post is the beginning of book #2. My plan–one 5 page blog post per week that by the end of 2010 will be a ready to become a book. The title–”Dare Mighty Things: How Entrepreneurs & Social Entrepreneurs Are Changing the World.”

I have had two wristbands on my wrist since November. The first one says “Make Poverty History.” The second, “$100M in 2012.”

Thank you to everyone who has supported me through this endeavor and to all who are with us in this journey.

Here we go…

================

Thoughts, comments, suggestions??? Feedback is the breakfast of champions!

Five Ways a Non-Profit Director Can Be An Entrepreneur

As a Non-Profit Director, you are an entrepreneur as well. You have a product and a customer, and you are working to rearrange limited resources to create value.

For the non-profit entrepreneur, today earned income models are becoming the norm rather than the exception. While 501(c)(3) non-profits have a benefit of being able to receive tax deductible contributions, these contributions are often unpredictable and at times can influence a non-profit to go in an undesired direction.

The age of non-profits being able to rely solely on donors and grants is over. For a non-profit entrepreneur, an earned income model exists when the non-profit company sells a product or service to others and gains net income on that sale which is reinvested in growing the non-profit in a sustainable manner. The line between non-profit entrepreneurs and for-profit entrepreneurs is indeed getting gray.

While you are required to reinvest practically all your net income back into the organization, you have a great advantage. As a registered 501(c)(3) you can accept tax-deductible monetary contributions from individuals and corporations. You can apply for and receive grants from foundations. You can also receive in-kind donations from local companies or receive discounts or pro-bono work from service providers.
At the end of the day, just because you cannot distribute net income to your shareholders doesn’t mean you aren’t an entrepreneur. Here are some ways you can be entrepreneurial as a non-profit founder or director:

1.Create an earned-income model. Find a product or service you can sell to others. Just because you have to reinvest your profits, doesn’t mean you can’t make a profit. You don’t have to give away everything. The more value you create, the more you will can earn and the more you’ll be able scale your organization to serve its mission. –> Quick Case Study: As an example, a non-profit I’m the Board Chair of this year, Nourish International, has an earned-income model.

Nourish teaches college students to run entrepreneurial ventures on its campuses. These ventures range from ‘Hunger Lunches’ with corn bread and beans to poker tournaments to selling medical scrubs.

Nourish then takes the net profit from the students’ ventures and funds a portion of administrative overhead at the national office and contributes to community-based non-profit organizations in the developing world that work to reduce extreme poverty and hunger. This past summer Nourish sent 58 of its students to nine projects in developing countries. Nourish’s model is growing and it now chapters on 29 college campuses.

2.Have an entrepreneurial mindset. Just because you have donors doesn’t mean you don’t have to have a sense of urgency and work quickly and efficiently to produce results and compete. The market for non-profit donations is competitive and contributions will go to those that are well-run and maximize positive human impact with minimum dollars (or at least maximize human impact in the fields that those with resources most care about, a substantive difference).

While there seems to be a somewhat unfortunate reality that some well-established non-profits with celebrity representation or large budgets can often get the bulk of available contributions and crowd out perhaps more deserving smaller NPOs, many of these established non-profits were start-ups once as well and only came to be influential by being efficient, achieving their mission, and attracting larger and larger contributions and grants.

3.Hire people who are smart, ambitious and driven. Don’t settle for poor-performers. As a Non-Profit Director you have the ability to attract talented, caring staff members that are willing to work hard for less than market pay. Use this to your advantage.

There are driven, smart, ambitious, educated, and talented individuals in the work force that want to work for a non-profit. Too often I have seen non-profit entrepreneurs settling for lower quality team members and not managing their performance. Hire A players who are passionate about what you are driving to achieve and empower them to be entrepreneurial, take risk, and grow the organization.

4.If You Aren’t Maximizing Social Value, Consider Merging. One of the issues in the non-profit world is that it is rather challenging for one non-profit to merge with or be acquired by another non-profit. This creates the reality that there are often dozens if not hundreds of small non-profits inefficiently and disparately going after the same cause. Industry consolidation and M&A in the business world happens naturally as controlling shares can be purchased in private or public markets. For a non-profit this is not possible so it is up to the humility of the founder to consider whether a merger could create a better social outcome.

Allowing for the benefit of competition and time it takes to start-up, test your model, and make it scale–consider shutting down or merging your organization with a more efficient or larger organization if you feel like your organization isn’t best using resources to create positive social value. Non-profit mergers can allow the combined entity to share resources, reduce overhead costs, and go after bigger grants while achieving the shared mission.

5.Run your non-profit like a business, because it is. Non-profit organizations sometimes use their non-profit status as an excuse not to seek to be efficient, employ staff performance management systems, or make the tough decisions for-profit businesses have to make to survive and thrive. Being a non-profit does not mean you should not seek to earn profit. It simply means you must reinvest this profit. The more profit your organization can make the faster it can scale and grow and achieve its mission (of course don’t make a profit in a manner that goes against your values and mission!). After all, your non-profit corporation is a business, just one that has committed to reinvest its profits every year back into the business and not distribute them.

What type of organization should I work for to make the greatest positive impact?
Often the best answer to the question “what type of organization should I work for to make the greatest positive impact” is a gray hybrid to the old-school black and white.

The answer is often a for-profit business that is socially responsible and integrates the concepts of social business into its organization, or an entrepreneurial non-profit organization that is run like a business, efficiently and with a sense of urgency.

And finally, today the boring and bureaucratic public sector is slowly but surely changing as it is again becoming cool for smart driven people to work in government. The bureaucracy that is Washington D.C. can only change if it is infused with entrepreneurial, efficient management that has a sense of urgency and passionately cares about making a positive difference.

Five Ways a For-Profit Entrepreneur Can Be a Social Entrepreneur

At the Entrepreneur & Social Entrepreneur Meetup on Tuesday I was having a great discussion with a new friend named Phil. Phil asked me a question I’ve heard often recently, “Can I still be a social entrepreneur if I run a for-profit business and not a non-profit?” In my view, the answer is a resounding yes.

What is an Entrepreneur & What is a Social Entrepreneur?

To me an entrepreneur is “a problem solver who takes action.” To me a social entrepreneur is “a problem solver who takes action.” There is no difference. The line is wonderfully blurry. Let me explain.

An entrepreneur is someone who rearranges the resources of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurial ability to create a product or service that provides value to others. Whether the entrepreneur is doing this within a for-profit corporation, in which the net profits are either reinvested in the corporation or distributed to the shareholders or a non-profit corporation in which the profits are fully reinvested into the corporation, he or she remains an entrepreneur.

Non-profit founders and directors have customers and products too. Traditionally the customers of a non-profit are its donors and grant makers and the product is the social value it produces. If the product is not valued, customers (donors) will stop giving and leave.

Today, the black and white world of non-profits and for-profits is graying. If you want to change the world for the better, it is an open question as to whether you can make a bigger impact in a for-profit or a not-for-profit company.

Profit’s Correlation With Social Value Provided,
As long as the for-profit entrepreneur a) competes within the laws of a competitive market system b) does not create short-term profit for the company by externalizing the costs of the off-balance sheet destruction of the environment and c) does not exploit its labor force, the only way for the entrepreneur to make a profit is by creating value for others.

The more the ethical entrepreneur helps others, the more profit he or she will make. Profit for an ethical entrepreneur who has not exploited the environment or labor force to gain that profit is not an ugly sign of exploitation but rather a laudable sign of value created. The successful and profitable entrepreneur has rearranged resources in such a manner that the value of the output created exceeds the sum value of the inputs.

For the ethical for-profit entrepreneur, as products are produced that help others, social value is created. The very act of building your business creates jobs, provides product and services that others value, and enables you to give back to your local and global community.

Your for-profit business can often be more sustainable than a non-profit business as you are not reliant on grants and donations to grow. While you have a disadvantage of not being able to receive tax-deductible donations, you have the big advantage in the labor market of being able to offer a wonderful thing called stock options to employees, which enables you to attract top talent and enable all to participate in the value-creation.

One of the most important things you can do as a for-profit entrepreneur to enable you to make a social impact is to be profitable. As Joel Makower argues in his book Beyond the Bottom Line, “One of the most socially responsible things most companies can do is to be profitable.” Without profits one cannot pay taxes, provide jobs that pay well, give back to a community, or invest in innovation.

Five Ways a For-Profit Entrepreneur Can be a Social Entrepreneur
So for a for-profit entrepreneur, if you really want to be a ’social entrepreneur’ here are some suggestions:

1. Give all your employees stock options. Requiring a team member to be there a minimum amount of time (like 6 months) before they earn the options is okay. Vest the options over a few year period (3 or 4) to help with retention.

2. Treat your employees well. Show that you care about them. Offer health insurance and good working conditions. While you have to manage to results and that requires being a professional firm that tracks performance, you can do many little things that create a good work environment and culture that actually help the firm reduce costs, retain great people, and attract a better team.

3. Ensure your net impact on the environment is at least neutral, if not positive. Don’t externalize the cost of environmental damage. In other words, don’t profit off of destroying the environment, even if it may still be legal to do so. Take into account the full cost of any environmental degradation or destruction in the production of your products and services. Look up the supply line and ensure your suppliers also neutralize their impact on the environment.

Quick Case Study: Last Month, Walmart introduced a Sustainability Product Index that asks each of its suppliers fifteen questions on energy, climate, resource use, and labor practices. It has asked its suppliers to respond by October 2009. It is using this data to understand the practices of its upstream supplier network (of over 100,000 suppliers) and provide a Sustainability Index for each of its suppliers. Walmart is also creating a “consortium of universities that will collaborate with suppliers, retailers, NGOs and government to develop a global database of information on the lifecycle of products – from raw materials to disposal.”

4. Have a formal corporate social responsibility policy. A particular CSR structure I’m fond of is called the 4-1s program, in which you set aside 1% of company profit (or 1 percent of payroll if you are venture-backed and not yet profitable), 1 percent of employee time, 1 percent of product, and 1 percent of equity to contribute back to your local and global community.

Quick Case Study: At iContact, we have been contributing 1 percent of payroll since 2007. In 2008 we contributed $55,000 to 37 different non-profit organizations. In 2009 we’ll reach $100,000. We are now expanding our CSR program based on the 4-1s model to include 1 percent of employee time (up to 2.5 days of paid time-off per year to be spent on community service products), 1 percent of product (we are providing iContact free to any non-profit organizations in the Triangle), and 1 percent of equity. Don’t wait until you’re 60 and wealthy to give back. Start from day one and create an integrated giving model. You can read about iContact’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program here.

5. As you succeed personally, give back. A great differentiator for the for-profit entrepreneur is that you and those working with you can become wealthy through the appreciation of the value of your stock ownership as you scale your ability to help others.

If you’re fortunate enough to have a liquidity event (go public or get acquired) use your personal resources to invest in other entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs who are changing the world for the better, contribute personally to the organizations (and candidates) that you feel are making the biggest positive impact for humanity, and vote with your dollars as a consumer and doing your best to purchase from companies who have a similar view about corporate social and environmental responsibility.

There is a movement of socially responsible companies that is defining our generation. These socially-responsible for-profits, sometimes informally called B Corporations instead of C or S corporations, can make a huge positive impact on the world, up and down supply chains.

Networks springing up
There are networks springing up for socially responsible professionals such as the Social Venture Network and Net Impact.

Companies like Vestergaard Frandsen, Salesforce.com, Danone, Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods are leading the way in this integrated social business model. They are doing well not in spite of their social mission, but often partially because of it.

There is a new genre of books focused on how to use business to change the world. There are many, but my favorites are The Business of Changing the World, Creating a World Without Poverty: How Social Business Can Transform Our Lives, The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets That Change the World, and The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits.

There are now publications that focus on the socially responsible business owner, including Stanford Social Innovation Review and Good Magazine (founded by the son of INC. Magazine). There is even a newswire just for social responsible news called CSRWire. There is even a stock index called the KLD400 for socially responsible companies!

There are venture capital firms that now focus on investing in socially responsible companies. These include Good Capital and SJF Ventures.

What Ben & Jerry’s and The Body Shop started is becoming wonderfully mainstream and necessary as a new generation that connects and collaborates globally like none before it becomes corporate leaders.

While I am generally a fiscal moderate who believes in the ideology of individual freedom and liberty, Milton’s Friedman’s 1970 assertion that ‘the business of business is just business’ was wrong. As Peter Drucker argued in 1942 in The Future of Industrial Man, companies must have a social dimension as well as an economic purpose.

The Revolution Will Be Tweeted – Saturday May Bring Change to Iran

Print This Article

As we sleep tonight in America, there is history afoot. Never before has the social web been used to such an extent within a country to attempt to remove a leader and coordinate a political revolution. Tomorrow, Saturday, will be an important day in the history of Iran.

For the sake of this post and citizen journalistic integrity, I’ll try to be as objective as I can here as few of us outside of Iran can know enough to truly know what is accurate. This noted, the consensus of the digerati has been made known and it is clear. In the world of Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and YouTube–the crowdsourced view is behind the ‘Green Uprising.’

A tipping point may be reached after today’s day of prayer and Ayatollah Khameni’s speech which may only inflame protesters. The momentum behind a movement has begun and it won’t easily taper.

As I browse Twitter tonight, I see tweets like the following:

• ravenclawgirl RT from Iran: Many of my friends calling & say goodbye, as they feel in 2morrow’s demonstration they may get killed #iranelection
• Macagogo A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history. Gandhi..#Iranelection
• dijitalboy RT @chestkneeshawk: RT BBC adds 3 satellites to overcome signal jamming in Iran. Yay BBC! http://budurl.com/ea4f #Iranelection
• KDSarge All followers of #iranelection think and review before you act or retweet. Iran govt out in full force on Twitter now
• maryamwebster Until we are all heard, none of us are free. Pray for those who are silenced/killed in Iran. Violence isn’t answr. #pray #iranelection #gr88

I am seeing Facebook Statuses tonight like this one:

• Shervin Pishevar – please pray for Iran and the brave Iranian people. In 5 hours we meet our destiny. I will not be able to sleep.

The informative Green Brief is coming out nightly from an Afghan man named NiteOwl, sourced entirely from Tweets from inside Iran. There are instructions on “Anonymous Iran” on how to surf in Iran using proxies so one can access the social web. There is a tremendous set of Flickr photos of the protests on the Fhashemi Flickr account. There are 180 posters from protesters shown at Design for Iran.

In two days, hundreds of thousands of Twitter members have turned their avatar green in support of the Iranian protesters using a tool at HelpIranElection.com.

Here are some videos seemingly showing violent oppression of the protests:

There are so many ethical issues here that we must tread carefully on. We must be careful in the West to so naturally and quickly support this uprising simply because we tend to lean toward the beliefs and views of the more moderate candidate Mousavi. Here is a good article supporting Ahmadinejad’s win. There are folks on the Ahmadinejad/Khameni side who are claiming that the support for the “American led coup in Iran” is causing unneccessary blodshed. Here is an example:

• @JimJones45 – 99% of tweets are from US backing a BLOODY revolution. People are dying. STOP destabilizing the Iranian state! #IranElection

This noted, others on Twitter seem to suggest these twitter accounts, most of which have no history before yesterday, are agents of the Iranian government.

To me, this doesn’t seem to be a Western-led coup. The pictures and videos of the hundreds of thousands of people in the street lay doubt to this claim.

Here is an excerpt of an email posted on Iran Fax Blog the that seemingly comes from an Iranian citizen:

Tomorrow, people will gather again in Valiasr Square for another peaceful march toward the IRIB building which controls all the media and which spreads filthy lies. The day before Yesterday, Ahmadinejad had hold his victory ceremony. Government buses had transported all his supporters from nearby cities. There was full coverage of that ceremony where fruit juice and cake was plenty. A maximum of 100,000 had gathered to hear his speech. These included all the militia and the soldiers and all supporters he could gather by the use of free TV publicity. Today, at least 2 million came only relying on word of mouth while reformists have no newspaper, no radio, no TV. All their internet sites are filtered as well as social networks such as facebook. Text messaging and mobile communication was also cut off during the demonstration. Since yesterday, the Iranian TV was announcing that there is no license for any gathering and riot police will severely punish anybody who may demonstrates. Ahmadinejad called the opposition as a bunch of insignificant dirt who try to make the taste of victory bitter to the nation. He also called the western leaders as a bunch of “filthy homosexuals”. All these disgusting remarks was today answered by that largest demonstration ever. Older people compared the demonstration of today with the Ashura Demonstration of 1979 which marks the downfall of the Shah regime and even said that it outnumbered that event. The militia burnt a house themselves to find the excuse to commit violence. People neutralized their tactic to a large degree by their solidarity, their wisdom and their denial to enage in any violent act. I feel sad for the loss of those young girls and boys. It is said that they also killed 3 students last night in their attack at Tehran University residence halls. I heard that a number of professors of Sharif University and AmirKabir University (Tehran Polytechnic) have resigned. Democracy is a long way ahead. I may not be alive to see that day. With eyes full of tear in these early hours of Tuesday 16th June 2009, I glorify the courage and bravery of those martyrs and I hope that their blood will make every one of us more committed to freedom, to democracy and to human rights. Viva Freedom, Viva Democracy, Viva Iran

On balance, to me the evidence seems to show that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that this election may have been rigged. To avoid a revolution and further bloodshed, a new fair election must be held.

In an age of instant communication you cannot deceive your population for long. If you throw an election, it will get out. In an age of transparency, the days of leaders who don’t serve their people are numbered.

If you’re on Twitter, you can connect with me via @ryanallis.

The revolution will be Tweeted.

P.S. – Here is an interesting article on how protests were organized before the days of social media.

Can a For-profit Entrepreneur Be a Social Entrepreneur?

Print This Article

Can a for-profit entrepreneur be a social entrepreneur? Can the Executive Director of a non-profit be an entrepreneur? Yes and yes!

At the Entrepreneur & Social Entrepreneur Meetup on Tuesday I was having a great discussion with a new friend named Phil. Phil asked me a question I’ve heard often recently, “Can I still be a social entrepreneur if I run a for-profit business and not a non-profit?”

In my view, the answer is a resounding yes.

What is an Entrepreneur & What is a Social Entrepreneur?

To me an entrepreneur is “someone who rearranges resources to create value.” To me a social entrepreneur is “someone who rearranges resources to create value.” There is no difference. The line is wonderfully blurry. Let me explain.

An entrepreneur is someone who rearranges the resources of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurial ability to create a product or service that provides value to others. Whether the entrepreneur is doing this within a for-profit corporation, in which the net profits are either reinvested in the corporation or distributed to the shareholders or a non-profit corporation in which the profits are fully reinvested into the corporation, he or she remains an entrepreneur.

Non-profit founders and directors have customers and products too. Traditionally the customers of a non-profit are its donors and grant makers and the product is the social value it produces. If the product is not valued, customers (donors) will stop giving and leave.

Today, the black and white world of non-profits and for-profits is graying. If you want to change the world for the better, it is an open question as to whether you can make a bigger impact in a for-profit or a not-for-profit company.

Profit’s Correlation With Social Value Provided

As long as the for-profit entrepreneur a) competes within the laws of a competitive market system b) does not create short-term profit for the company by externalizing the costs of the off-balance sheet destruction of the environment and c) does not exploit its labor force, the only way for the entrepreneur to make a profit is by creating value for others.

The more the ethical entrepreneur helps others, the more profit he or she will make. Profit for an ethical entrepreneur who has not exploited the environment or labor force to gain that profit is not an ugly sign of exploitation but rather a laudable sign of value created. The successful and profitable entrepreneur has rearranged resources in such a manner that the value of the output created exceeds the sum value of the inputs.

For the ethical for-profit entrepreneur, as products are produced that help others, social value is created. The very act of building your business creates jobs, provides product and services that others value, and enables you to give back to your local and global community.

Your for-profit business can often be more sustainable than a non-profit business as you are not reliant on grants and donations to grow. While you have a disadvantage of not being able to receive tax-deductible donations, you have the big advantage in the labor market of being able to offer a wonderful thing called stock options to employees, which enables you to attract top talent and enable all to participate in the value-creation.

One of the most important things you can do as a for-profit entrepreneur to enable you to make a social impact is to be profitable. As Joel Makower argues in his book Beyond the Bottom Line, “One
of the most socially responsible things most companies can do is to be profitable.” Without profits one cannot pay taxes, provide jobs that pay well, give back to a community, or invest in innovation.

Five Ways a For-Profit Entrepreneur Can be a Social Entrepreneur

So for a for-profit entrepreneur, if you really want to be a ’social entrepreneur’ here are some suggestions:

1. Give all your employees stock options. Requiring a team member to be there a minimum amount of time (like 6 months) before they earn the options is okay. Vest the options over a few year period (3 or 4) to help with retention.
2. Treat your employees well. Show that you care about them. Offer health insurance and good working conditions. While you have to manage to results and that requires being a professional firm that tracks performance, you can do many little things that create a good work environment and culture that actually help the firm reduce costs, retain great people, and attract a better team.
3. Ensure your net impact on the environment is at least neutral, if not positive. Don’t externalize the cost of environmental damage. In other words, don’t profit off of destroying the environment, even if it may still be legal to do so. Take into account the full cost of any environmental degradation or destruction in the production of your products and services. Look up the supply line and ensure your suppliers also neutralize their impact on the environment. –> Quick Case Study: Last Month, Walmart introduced a Sustainability Product Index that asks each of its suppliers fifteen questions on energy, climate, resource use, and labor practices. It has asked its suppliers to respond by October 2009. It is using this data to understand the practices of its upstream supplier network (of over 100,000 suppliers) and provide a Sustainability Index for each of its suppliers. Walmart is also creating a “consortium of universities that will collaborate with suppliers, retailers, NGOs and government to develop a global database of information on the lifecycle of products – from raw materials to disposal.”
4. Have a formal corporate social responsibility policy. A particular CSR structure I’m fond of is called the 4-1s program, in which you set aside 1% of company profit (or 1% of payroll if you are venture-backed and not yet profitable), 1% of employee time, 1% of product, and 1% of equity to contribute back to your local and global community. –> Quick Case Study: At iContact, we have been contributing 1% of payroll since 2007. In 2008 we contributed $55,000 to 37 different non-profit organizations. In 2009 we’ll reach $100,000. We are now expanding our CSR program based on the 4-1s model to include 1% of employee time (up to 2.5 days of paid time-off per year to be spent on community service products), 1% of product (we are providing iContact free to any non-profit organizations in the Triangle), and 1% of equity. Don’t wait until you’re 60 and wealthy to give back. Start from day one and create an integrated giving model. You can read about iContact’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program here.
5. As you succeed personally, give back. A great differentiator for the for-profit entrepreneur is that you and those working with you can become wealthy through the appreciation of the value of your stock ownership as you scale your ability to help others. If you’re fortunate enough to have a liquidity event (go public or get acquired) use your personal resources to invest in other entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs who are changing the world for the better, contribute personally to the organizations (and candidates) that you feel are making the biggest positive impact for humanity, and vote with your dollars as a consumer and doing your best to purchase from companies who have a similar view about corporate social and environmental responsibility.

There is a movement of socially responsible companies that is defining our generation. These socially-responsible for-profits, sometimes informally called B Corporations instead of C or S corporations, can make a huge positive impact on the world, up and down supply chains.

There are networks springing up for socially responsible professionals such as the Social Venture Network and Net Impact.

Companies like Vestergaard Frandsen, Salesforce.com, Danone, Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods are leading the way in this integrated social business model. They are doing well not in spite of their social mission, but often partially because of it.

There is a new genre of books focused on how to use business to change the world. There are many, but my favorites are The Business of Changing the World, Creating a World Without Poverty: How Social Business Can Transform Our Lives, The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets That Change the World, and The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits.

There are now publications that focus on the socially responsible business owner, including Stanford Social Innovation Review and Good Magazine (founded by the son of INC. Magazine). There is even a newswire just for social responsible news called CSRWire. There is even a stock index called the KLD400 for socially responsible companies!

There are venture capital firms that now focus on investing in socially responsible companies. These include Good Capital and SJF Ventures.

What Ben & Jerry’s and The Body Shop started is becoming wonderfully mainstream and necessary as a new generation that connects and collaborates globally like none before it becomes corporate leaders.

While I am generally a fiscal moderate who believes in the ideology of individual freedom and liberty, Milton’s Friedman’s 1970 assertion that ‘the business of business is just business’ was wrong. As Peter Drucker argued in 1942 in The Future of Industrial Man, companies must have a social dimension as well as an economic purpose.

Five Ways a Non-Profit Director Can Be An Entrepreneur

As a Non-Profit Director, you are an entrepreneur as well. You have a product and a customer, and you are working to rearrange limited resources to create value.

For the non-profit entrepreneur, today earned income models are becoming the norm rather than the exception. While 501(c)(3) non-profits have a benefit of being able to receive tax deductible contributions, these contributions are often unpredictable and at times can influence a non-profit to go in an undesired direction.

The age of non-profits being able to rely solely on donors and grants is over. For a non-profit entrepreneur, an earned income model exists when the non-profit company sells a product or service to others and gains net income on that sale which is reinvested in growing the non-profit in a sustainable manner. The line between non-profit entrepreneurs and for-profit entrepreneurs is indeed getting gray.

While you are required to reinvest practically all your net income back into the organization, you have a great advantage. As a registered 501(c)(3) you can accept tax-deductible monetary contributions from individuals and corporations. You can apply for and receive grants from foundations. You can also receive in-kind donations from local companies or receive discounts or pro-bono work from service providers.

At the end of the day, just because you cannot distribute net income to your shareholders doesn’t mean you aren’t an entrepreneur. Here are some ways you can be entrepreneurial as a non-profit founder or director:

1. Create an earned-income model. Find a product or service you can sell to others. Just because you have to reinvest your profits, doesn’t mean you can’t make a profit. You don’t have to give away everything. The more value you create, the more you will can earn and the more you’ll be able scale your organization to serve its mission. –> Quick Case Study: As an example, a non-profit I’m the Board Chair of this year, Nourish International, has an earned-income model. Nourish teaches college students to run entrepreneurial ventures on its campuses. These ventures range from ‘Hunger Lunches’ with corn bread and beans to poker tournaments to selling medical scrubs. Nourish then takes the net profit from the students’ ventures and funds a portion of administrative overhead at the national office and contributes to community-based non-profit organizations in the developing world that work to reduce extreme poverty and hunger. This past summer Nourish sent 58 of its students to nine projects in developing countries. Nourish’s model is growing and it now chapters on 29 college campuses.
2. Have an entrepreneurial mindset. Just because you have donors doesn’t mean you don’t have to have a sense of urgency and work quickly and efficiently to produce results and compete. The market for non-profit donations is competitive and contributions will go to those that are well-run and maximize positive human impact with minimum dollars (or at least maximize human impact in the fields that those with resources most care about, a substantive difference). While there seems to be a somewhat unfortunate reality that some well-established non-profits with celebrity representation or large budgets can often get the bulk of available contributions and crowd out perhaps more deserving smaller NPOs, many of these established non-profits were start-ups once as well and only came to be influential by being efficient, achieving their mission, and attracting larger and larger contributions and grants.
3. Hire people who are smart, ambitious and driven. Don’t settle for poor-performers. As a Non-Profit Director you have the ability to attract talented, caring staff members that are willing to work hard for less than market pay. Use this to your advantage. There are driven, smart, ambitious, educated, and talented individuals in the work force that want to work for a non-profit. Too often I have seen non-profit entrepreneurs settling for lower quality team members and not managing their performance. Hire A players who are passionate about what you are driving to achieve and empower them to be entrepreneurial, take risk, and grow the organization.
4. If You Aren’t Maximizing Social Value, Consider Merging. One of the issues in the non-profit world is that it is rather challenging for one non-profit to merge with or be acquired by another non-profit. This creates the reality that there are often dozens if not hundreds of small non-profits inefficiently and disparately going after the same cause. Industry consolidation and M&A in the business world happens naturally as controlling shares can be purchased in private or public markets. For a non-profit this is not possible so it is up to the humility of the founder to consider whether a merger could create a better social outcome. Allowing for the benefit of competition and time it takes to start-up, test your model, and make it scale–consider shutting down or merging your organization with a more efficient or larger organization if you feel like your organization isn’t best using resources to create positive social value. Non-profit mergers can allow the combined entity to share resources, reduce overhead costs, and go after bigger grants while achieving the shared mission.
5. Run your non-profit like a business, because it is. Non-profit organizations sometimes use their non-profit status as an excuse not to seek to be efficient, employ staff performance management systems, or make the tough decisions for-profit businesses have to make to survive and thrive. Being a non-profit does not mean you should not seek to earn profit. It simply means you must reinvest this profit. The more profit your organization can make the faster it can scale and grow and achieve its mission (of course don’t make a profit in a manner that goes against your values and mission!). After all, your non-profit corporation is a business, just one that has committed to reinvest its profits every year back into the business and not distribute them.

What type of organization should I work for to make the greatest positive impact?

Often the best answer to the question “what type of organization should I work for to make the greatest positive impact” is a gray hybrid to the old-school black and white. The answer is often a for-profit business that is socially responsible and integrates the concepts of social business into its organization, or an entrepreneurial non-profit organization that is run like a business, efficiently and with a sense of urgency.

And finally, today the boring and bureaucratic public sector is slowly but surely changing as it is again becoming cool for smart driven people to work in government. The bureaucracy that is Washington D.C. can only change if it is infused with entrepreneurial, efficient management that has a sense of urgency and passionately cares about making a positive difference.

Comments & Thoughts?

I’d love your comments on this post! Particularly if you have any examples of companies that truly integrate social responsibility into what they do, interesting models of corporate social responsibility, or examples of non-profits that are run like an entrepreneurial businesses. Also, I’d love any thoughts on the graying of the for-profit and non-profit sector and any thoughts on infusing entrepreneurial principles and efficient management into government. Thanks for reading! – Ryan

The Great Challenge of Our Generation

Print This Article

I write as my roommates watch the sci-fi movie Anti-Body through the amazing new Xbox/Netflix partnership in a cold and icy Chapel Hill…

This weekend I had the opportunity to speak at StartingBloc’s Greater New York Institute for Social Innovation at Yale University in New Haven. I had the chance to speak after Tom Szaky, the 27 year old CEO of TerraCycle, who is good work on upcycling waste into usable products.

In attendance were 150 of the smartest, most ambitious, and most caring individuals I’ve met, all from age 19 to 30. 25% were undergrads, 25% were grad students, and 50% were young professionals from firms like Goldman, JP Morgan, Acumen, Ashoka, McKinsey. They were all social entrepreneurs or future social entrepreneurs. If you’re under 30 and interested in social responsibility you should apply for their future Institutes in New York, Boston, or London.

StartingBloc has now reached 1000 fellows who have gone through their program. I first met their founder, the 27 year-old ebullient Kenyan Jo Opot last May in New York. She and their Director of Programs Taryn Miller-Stevens are examples of committed, driven, caring world changers.

I challenged the group to over the next 50 years, work together to create a world in which…

1. There is no killing of humans on a mass scale (genocide or warfare);
2. All humans have access to the basic human needs of clean water, nutritious food, shelter, and primary education;
3. We end preventable diseases like malaria, TB, and measles; and
4. We are environmentally sustainable

This challenge was based on the key simple principle from the Gates Foundation that all lives have equal value. I first shared the great challenges we face in the world including the most difficult economic news we’ve seen in our lifetimes, then the great opportunities (subsequent post on these coming soon) to frame the debate.

So, can we actually end genocide, warfare, starvation, and preventable disease in our lifetimes?

And can we actually provide accessible clean water, food, shelter, and primary education to every human in our lifetimes?

Your thoughts?

Sustainable Capitalism and The Role of Aid vs. Trade in Prosperity Creation

I picked up a glossy investment prospectus from a firm called Legatum Group at up at the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference today. A statement inside caught my eye. It stated:

“While aid can play an important role in alleviating immediate needs, its impact is naturally limited since it is neither sustainable nor scalable.” Separately, it states, “Quite distinct from the limited scope of charitable initiatives, businesses are both self-sustaining and scalable. Legatum directs its attention towards promoting entrepreneurship and business for all its social benefits within developing communities.”

I wanted to to take a chance to think more about the nuance of the right type of aid vs. the right type of trade and investment.

I feel presently that the answer to reducing poverty and increasing access to opportunity and prosperity in developing nations is three fold. The answer is A) for-profit private capital investment into sustainable companies that are socially responsible (or at least not socially irresponsible) AND B) direct “aid with standards” to community-based non-profit organizations run by local social entrepreneurs that are efficiently serving the needs of their communities AND C) efficiently run transparent government that creates and protects a system of law and property rights.

The question that should be asked cannot be as black and white of aid vs. trade. It’s not aid OR trade. It’s accountable aid AND sustainable trade AND efficient goverment. It’s a public/private/community partnership that does not succeed without participation from each sector. The questions that we as a society should be asking is how to make direct aid measurable and accountable AND how to make trade and investment sustainable AND how to make government efficient and transparent.

These methods of human and capital investment are on the spectrum of socially responsible venture philanthropy that builds human capital, infrastructure, and standards of living through education, medicine, nutrition, and technology that enables us to do more with less resources. At the end of the day–all private sector and public sector investment should come back to efficiently serving the needs and desires of the local population in a sustainable manner.

What the answer to prosperity creation seems not to be is the traditional bi-lateral government to government aid (read: loans that local populations will have to pay back to buy our stuff from our companies) nor traditional private capital investment in companies that are not socially responsible and end up hurting local environments. This of course is the very common and very key “aid vs. trade” question that so many like Sachs, Easterly, Collier, Stiglitz, Pralahad, and Gates have debated.

So what is the import of this debate and why is a tech CEO talking about it? The great war of ideas of the 19th and 20th Century between pure communism (total state control of the economic sector) and pure capitalism (total market control of of the economic sector) is giving way to an “end of history” state that could be simply called “Sustainable Capitalism.”

Sustainable Capitalism could be defined as a state in which competitive market economies that are based on environmental sustainability, democracy, transparency, communication technology, an educated populace, and a government with a limited but very important role in setting the rule of law, thrive while efficient social entrepreneurs with services that produce a public good are invested in with capital with measured returns and public servants integrate the same communication and ERP systems of the best-run companies in the world.

In this new Zakarian model of economic system, companies that destroy the environment, provide a negative net benefit through off-balance sheet externalities, or exploit their populations are video blogged and written about and pressured through market forces to reform or wither. This is perhaps somewhat idealist today–but it is the path I believe we are on. The fact that all companies must be sustainable soon enough for the system to scale and prosperity to be possible for all humans is clear. This trend will accelerate as we enter into the coming age of ubiquitous broadband and improved technology of the citizen blogger and as resources become less available. Governments, non-profits, and businesses will have a much higher level of accountability. This assumes of course people have incentives to work toward shared prosperity that can continue beyond the short-term, and I think that is a fair assumption and a vision shared by the global connected youth of today that I know.

What’s the common denominator for human invesment in either the public or private sector? Return on invested capital, as long as the definition of return is broadened to include social returns and the definition of cost is broadened to include environmental degradation. This is the Net Domestic Product (NDP) approach versus the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approach.

So am I criticizing the Legatum brochure statement? No, not really–I just hope they share the belief–and I am sure they do–that prosperity in the developing world and continued sustainable improvement can only be possible if we find methods to enable entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and public service entrepreneurs to transparently, efficiently, and sustainably make investments that maximize individual utility, return on investment, and the public good.

The effort toward sustainable capitalism and efficient government requires an improved ability to communicate, collaborate, and measure results. There’s a digital generation of entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs that gets this who will be the global leaders sooner than you might imagine.

Next Page »