4 ms·
> "companies and people have strong economic/competitive incentives NOT TO INVEST" This is true in traditional for-profit companies where money is the only mot
by raybb 7y ago
> "companies and people have strong economic/competitive incentives NOT TO INVEST"
This is true in traditional for-profit companies where money is the only motive. However, I'd like to add that we're seeing a rise in or organization structures that promote social impact over simple profit. On the more for-profit side there are B-Corps, which have been gaining ground in the past decade or so (at least based on google trends and branding on products).
Right next to B-corps are social enterprises (which have many definitions but we can broadly can think of as basically, social impact as primary goal and at least partially self funded). I don't know if they're really gaining popularity but it brings me hope to see organizations pop up that are trying to fit this bill of doing good first and making money second.
Shameless self plug for those interested in social enterprises. I've recently started collecting resources related to social enterprises (as an org structure, distinct from social entrepreneurship which tends to focus on the individual): https://github.com/RayBB/awesome-social-enterprise/ https://github.com/RayBB/awesome-social-enterprise/
- sparkie 7y agoThere's a kind of social enterprise in the UK called a CIC, but the requirements to open a CIC essentially say that it can't have any political nature to it - in other words, you can't criticize or disagree with the government as part of the operation of your CIC. The CIC must be vetted before it can be established. This effectively limits CICs to following the status quo, with little chance they can be useful as a vehicle to bring about any social change that the government doesn't take a liking to. Opening a CIC also establishes an "asset locked body," which effectively gives part ownership of the assets of the company to the government. There is no way that assets can be moved out of one of these bodies, but only transferred between them, which can include other CICs, non-profits and charities etc. No way of getting your assets back into private hands if you sign up for one and the government decides it doesn't like your plans for instance. Simply running a private company, and donating some of your profits to charitable causes (with tax reductions) seems like a better way to keep control of your company and assets, and perhaps you could put into the company's bylaws restrictions on what shareholders can take out of the company, and what percentage of profits should be put towards community goals.
- raybb 7y agoI haven't looked too deeply into the UK laws about this but I appreciate your insight. Do you have any particular resources you'd recommend for reading more on this (kinda at the higher level you're explaining about the implications of CIC)?
- sparkie 7y agoThere's a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company giving an overview. The full details are all on the gov.uk website. Specific points about political activites covered in legislation: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1788/part/2/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1788/part/2/made) "For the purposes of the community interest test the following activities are to be treated as not being activities which a reasonable person might consider are activities carried on for the benefit of the community: the promotion of, or the opposition to, changes in any law applicable in Great Britain or elsewhere; or the policy adopted by any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter ..." Yikes. I recall reading it when I was considering starting a CIC some years ago, but reading it again now has me cringing at how authoritarian it is.