3 ms·

> Non-profits funded by grants. Employee owned businesses funded by loans. Serious question: is there any evidence to suggest that non-profits and employee-own

> Non-profits funded by grants. Employee owned businesses funded by loans. Serious question: is there any evidence to suggest that non-profits and employee-owned businesses are on average better at serving the public good? There are power asymmetries inside non-profits and employee-owned businesses, and these can lead to the 'power brokers' inside these organizations steering or commandeering the organizations for their own benefit.

fabianhjr 4y ago
Yes, GEO Coop keeps a fact-sheet: https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet With most citations being from: https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives For example: > Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).
- boole1854 4y ago
  Awesome, thanks
  - dbingham 4y ago
    Yeah, there's definitely quite a bit of evidence. But also, they're better - not perfect. The issue you pointed to is real and does happen. But it's not as ubiquitous as "investor funding companies putting aside all other concerns in pursuit of profit" and the harms that stem from it tend to be more contained.
    - subradios 4y ago
      It's a different set of problems too, cooperatives tend to have issues doing anything bigger than a local Bodega. Even in software, once you're big enough to have a real user base you need infrastructure, servers, people to keep those servers alive, and on and on and it dilutes the mission because even while there's no scumbag investors, factions within the company will want more for less and vote that way internally.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  >> it is more likely to promote community growth What does that mean?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I think of things like: a cooperative is unlikely to ship all their jobs overseas, so they will invest locally in the business instead. They will probably also be less inclined to pollute because the decisions are not made by people who live in the fancy clean neighborhood, but live all over the area.

fabianhjr 4y ago

Yes, GEO Coop keeps a fact-sheet: https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet https://geo.coop/story/fact-sheet With most citations being from: https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives https://geo.coop/story/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives For example: > Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).

boole1854 4y ago
Awesome, thanks
- dbingham 4y ago
  Yeah, there's definitely quite a bit of evidence. But also, they're better - not perfect. The issue you pointed to is real and does happen. But it's not as ubiquitous as "investor funding companies putting aside all other concerns in pursuit of profit" and the harms that stem from it tend to be more contained.
  - subradios 4y ago
    It's a different set of problems too, cooperatives tend to have issues doing anything bigger than a local Bodega. Even in software, once you're big enough to have a real user base you need infrastructure, servers, people to keep those servers alive, and on and on and it dilutes the mission because even while there's no scumbag investors, factions within the company will want more for less and vote that way internally.
artificialLimbs 4y ago
>> it is more likely to promote community growth What does that mean?
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I think of things like: a cooperative is unlikely to ship all their jobs overseas, so they will invest locally in the business instead. They will probably also be less inclined to pollute because the decisions are not made by people who live in the fancy clean neighborhood, but live all over the area.