Humanity over Profits.

It's been a while since I've posted. Russ has largely taken over blogging for the company, focusing a lot more on fundraising approaches and GiftWorks tips; I tend to focus on broader issues, which I talk about on my personal blog. But today I wanted to share a few things from this weekend's Social Venture Network conference (www.svn.org).

First, SVN was founded by Josh Mailman of the Mailman Foundation and Wayne Silby, the founder of Calvert, the leading socially responsible investment fund and foundation. Both helped fund Grameen and Grameen Phone; the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize last year was the founder of Grameen.

SVN is made up of a group of business owners, innovators, and nonprofit leaders working to change the world through their work, business practices, and economic models. Some of our members: Ben Cohen from Ben & Jerry's, fundraising author and speaker Mal Warwick, Judy Wicks of the White Dog Cafe and founder of BALLE (www.livingeconomies.org), and the late Anita Roddick of The Body Shop, who passed away last week. It's an impressive group of people committed to social change and the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit.

The panel last night talked about corporate social responsibility and sustainability, and the moderator, whose father was or is a purchaser at WalMart, works for Business for Social Responsibility (bsr.org). Panelists were from Nike, Method, and Worldwise, all of whom are seriously committed to social responsibility and sustainability.

The panelists, that is, and at least two of the companies. Nike is doing a lot of work to improve its sustainability and impact on the world, with a legitimate effort to change anything from supply chain policies to manufacturing practices. Hannah (Nike) knows her stuff. But as she spoke about Nike and Walmart, I began to feel troubled by the entire dialog. So I spoke up during the Q&A.

I don't shop at Walmart. I don't shop at most national chains because I'm committed to buying from local businesses, as the economic impact is 3 to 4 times greater when you buy from local vs national businesses. But that's not why I don't buy from Walmart; on occasion I'll buy from Target, Costco, and rarely, Lowe's.

I stopped buying at Walmart in 2001 when I learned that if they took 25% of their profits, they could provide full health coverage and living wages to all of their employees. Walmart has the largest percentage of workers receiving public, taxpayer-funded assistance--TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. Instead of paying their workers enough to live on and adequate health insurance, Walmart pays its shareholders billions in profits. 25% of that would solve the problem, and shift the responsibility from the taxpaying public to the company.

So we're subsidizing those profits, and I have a problem with that. At Mission Research, we always pay a living wage, and we provide great health benefits. Nobody in our company will face bankruptcy because of a healthcare crisis in the family.

So yes, it troubled me that Hannah from Nike (I wear Earth Shoes now, great running shoes!) was promoting certain aspects of sustainability, but Nike itself stops at about where WalMart stops: at profit. So my question to Hannah was this: in the choice between human rights and profit, what does her board choose? In the choice between human misery and profit, what does Walmart's board choose? She answered honestly. It's profit.

At SVN, we believe in a different kind of business. Social Responsibility isn't a coat you put on everyday. You breathe it, you drink it. None of us is perfect, but the answer to the question in our board meetings will always be "humanity over profits". In the choice between greater profits and humanity, humanity wins.

We're not perfect. Ben & Jerry's was never perfect, and with the Unilever acquisition a few years ago, it will never be. None of the companies here is perfect. But we choose humanity over profits. We compete, we innovate, we fight hard to be the best, increase revenues, and build profits, but not at the expense of our neighbors, communities, and values. That's the difference between a socially responsible company and a company with an office on social responsibility. It's not an afterthought, it's part of the framework of principles that inform our vision, planning, decision-making, and execution.

My co-founders and I donated a combined 20% of our personal stock in Mission Research to the Underdog Foundation and the Mailman Foundation as part of our commitment to social responsibility. The company is over 27% foundation owned. We like making money. We enjoy serving customers with affordable, easy to use fundraising software, and we invest in customer service and education (more coming!). But this company will never choose profits over humanity. 

Comments

[Skeptical Observer]

This may- or may not- get posted. I find your reasoning a bit too self serving- aren't you the same person who talked about valuing your company at 'ridiculous multipliers'?

Also, what about your talented employees? Shouldn't they get the chance to succeed like you did at your previous company?

[Charlie Crystle]

The only reason it wouldn't get posted is because you posted anonymously. In the future, please have the courtesy to associate a name with your comments.

First, "ridiculous multiples" is a reference to what typical startups are striving for in selling their companies or going public, which is entirely fine from a social responsibility perspective. I have nothing against people making money--I'm a capitalist. But capitalism exists in the context of a community first--it's the economic system that serves us as a community. There's a line we draw as a community--the point at which it does not serve us well. Where a company draws that line is important, and to some, it's a gray area that raises tough moral and ethical questions.

As far as our own employees go, we all have stock options, and benefit with the success of the company, and all have the same comprehensive healthcare plan, and the lowest salary is significantly above living wages. I'd say we're doing pretty well for our employees, investors, community, and customers.