4 ms·
With all respect to the intention, this is a dead end. There are many ways to argue the Basecamp decision. Framework themselves had a nice recent email to cust
by jonahbenton 3y ago
With all respect to the intention, this is a dead end.
There are many ways to argue the Basecamp decision. Framework themselves had a nice recent email to customers titled "We are not sustainable" that summarizes the conundrum.
It's worth reading MacAskill "Doing Good Better" and following the Ethical Altruism thread and the 80,000 hours stuff but with the awareness that the FTX fraud grew in that primordial soup. B-Corps are similarly non-useful as a signal of actual organization behavior. Some useful metrics are produced from corporate governance ESG/CER work but those have also to be read without the rose tinted glasses.
There is in some US states a binding corporate structure called something like Public Benefit Corp. They are as often as not used as the shell for a quasi government entity (and whether those are ultimately bound to ethical and sustainable practices is a question probably answered best with another question- "on what timeframe.")
- panarky 3y ago> dead end ... EA ... FTX ... ESG ... It's easy to rattle off a list of people who genuinely tried to be ethical but went astray, or fraudsters who disguised themselves in the clothing of morality and philanthropy. But none of these anecdotes of failure is evidence that doing business ethically and sustainably is a "dead end". OP's example of Patagonia is evidence that it's possible.