I agree that not all blurring is good. However, I view Social Enterprise as an additional sector where both the social and revenue streams converge into one structure. This new structure can be either for profit or nonprofit in legal formation. But either format uses the triple bottom line as their framework for decision making.
It is a time in which meritocratic work towards positions of power is made impossible. All Boards really need to be required to give a seat to someone from Labor. There is no chance that the Working Classes can get any respect for what they learn hands on inside of the beasts that either fight the forces of greed, or make things that people need.
If there is one thing that would alter the imbalances we are experiencing as corporations take over, evidenced as these powerful mercenaries trained by the nations, but given greater paychecks from the people that subscribe to the directed intelligence of IHS, beyond what IHS gives away free, it would be exactly what I first said.
Corporations and Non Profits, with a representative of Labor seated on the Board.
So far it is the main thing I have to offer in pursuit of balance, fairness, and justice.
One additional reason the blurring isn’t always good—it’s confusing to the donor/investor. Viewing it through the lense of impact investing, we risk confusing the different types of returns and turning off donors. A Social Enterprise—nonprofit with a revenue model—will probably generate profit at less than market rates and this is ok; it’s still better than a 0% return with a grant to a traditional “churn and burn” charity that lacks revenue generation.
On the other hand, an impact investment in a for-profit Benefit Corporation may well expect risk-adjusted, market-rate returns. In fact, these returns are required if these businesses wish to continue attracting investment.
As practitioners, we must continue to drive toward clarity with our constituents and not allow the lines to get so blurred that we can no longer extract the important differences.
COMMENTS
BY Melody Keim
ON May 14, 2015 01:24 PM
I agree that not all blurring is good. However, I view Social Enterprise as an additional sector where both the social and revenue streams converge into one structure. This new structure can be either for profit or nonprofit in legal formation. But either format uses the triple bottom line as their framework for decision making.
BY Russell Scott Day/Transcendia
ON May 16, 2015 01:08 PM
It is a time in which meritocratic work towards positions of power is made impossible. All Boards really need to be required to give a seat to someone from Labor. There is no chance that the Working Classes can get any respect for what they learn hands on inside of the beasts that either fight the forces of greed, or make things that people need.
If there is one thing that would alter the imbalances we are experiencing as corporations take over, evidenced as these powerful mercenaries trained by the nations, but given greater paychecks from the people that subscribe to the directed intelligence of IHS, beyond what IHS gives away free, it would be exactly what I first said.
Corporations and Non Profits, with a representative of Labor seated on the Board.
So far it is the main thing I have to offer in pursuit of balance, fairness, and justice.
BY Aimee Minnich, Impact Investing Foundation
ON May 18, 2015 06:41 AM
One additional reason the blurring isn’t always good—it’s confusing to the donor/investor. Viewing it through the lense of impact investing, we risk confusing the different types of returns and turning off donors. A Social Enterprise—nonprofit with a revenue model—will probably generate profit at less than market rates and this is ok; it’s still better than a 0% return with a grant to a traditional “churn and burn” charity that lacks revenue generation.
On the other hand, an impact investment in a for-profit Benefit Corporation may well expect risk-adjusted, market-rate returns. In fact, these returns are required if these businesses wish to continue attracting investment.
As practitioners, we must continue to drive toward clarity with our constituents and not allow the lines to get so blurred that we can no longer extract the important differences.