The main image of the NYT Sunday Biz section cover piece titled "Businesses Try to Make Money and Save the World" is a suit with Birkenstocks. How annoying. It's like how Tom Friedman says Green got perceived as "vaguely French". The other big photo is of some hippie co-op Diner in Vermont, it's a mishmosh...

* "a whole generation... [from] the technological revolution and are now asking themselves if they can create change in the world." 

Now? Most tech wealth actually comes from changing the world (for the good (eg. ebay,goog,etc))... THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT A REVOLUTION. In fact, most businesses that succeed do so by helping people, or they wouldn't survive; they're an important agent of good, big and small; from the dentist to the chair-provider to the paint-retailer.

* "The social benefits that fourth-sector firms seek to unlock are not easily quantified and often take decades, not quarters, to attain...bringing in investors will force him to compromise his commitment to his principles. 'I don’t know that as a for-benefit company, you’re going to spin off the kind of returns venture capital demands, or that you’d want to'"

They CAN be quantified, it doesn't necessarily have to take decades, and investors don't necessarily compromise principles if social benefit is aligned with money. Google & eBay are for-benefit.

* "Could Altrushare or any other budding hybrid become another G.E.? Perhaps the better question is whether G.E. and other corporate titans could themselves become hybrids."

Actually, I'm more interested in G.E. and the former question, not the latter.

(Here's someone saying something similar) (Also, see most anything I've posted about John Mackey)

Comments

[Jessi]

Scott - agree with your post. but adding to the Google/eBay point, don't you think that many or even most capitalist enterprises have social benefit at core until they grow. There's a point where Google and eBay will outgrow their ability to prize social benefit by virtue of market pressures?