Week 4: Venture Development and Growth
Gosh, I really hate
for-profit ventures. But I guess I am just skeptical.
I can’t exactly pinpoint what my apprehension is about ventures that make money. Perhaps it’s just that I’ve spent all my working life in non-profits, and for-profit ventures still strike me as selfish. Perhaps it feels like an exclusionary act—one those that are able to afford goods or services can be engaged with the organization. So I really appreciated the insights provided by the articles this week, though I still can’t shake my skepticism.
Okay—so, you’re telling me capitalism is about choice.
In particular, I really appreciated the article “How Misinformed Ideas About Profit are Holding back the world’s poor”. I thought that this article was written for someone like me, who occasionally will let my socially-conscious idealism run away with itself and lose sight of “real world” structures. Because, of course--someone is going to be capitalizing on the market, and the market is better off having choices. So then it would make perfect sense that this idea of a competitive market empowers buyers, it enables scrutiny to factor into personal decisions, not just treating a purchase as a pure necessity. There was a lot of value in this article and a lot of truth to Hugh Whalan’s points.
I can’t exactly pinpoint what my apprehension is about ventures that make money. Perhaps it’s just that I’ve spent all my working life in non-profits, and for-profit ventures still strike me as selfish. Perhaps it feels like an exclusionary act—one those that are able to afford goods or services can be engaged with the organization. So I really appreciated the insights provided by the articles this week, though I still can’t shake my skepticism.
Okay—so, you’re telling me capitalism is about choice.
In particular, I really appreciated the article “How Misinformed Ideas About Profit are Holding back the world’s poor”. I thought that this article was written for someone like me, who occasionally will let my socially-conscious idealism run away with itself and lose sight of “real world” structures. Because, of course--someone is going to be capitalizing on the market, and the market is better off having choices. So then it would make perfect sense that this idea of a competitive market empowers buyers, it enables scrutiny to factor into personal decisions, not just treating a purchase as a pure necessity. There was a lot of value in this article and a lot of truth to Hugh Whalan’s points.
But is this concept of choice really choice?
If my option is to purchase Coca-Cola or drink unclean water, have I really been empowered? Sure, I can enter the market as a buyer, but have I met the need that I have? If the maximum agency you can have is to be ‘empowered’ to consume from a market that has been constructed by whoever in power, I don’t believe that you’re truly empowered. Rather, I would argue that the choices buyers are making are still limited by the constructions of the system. Perhaps at some point, the conversation can shift to empowering agents to create necessary change, but in the interim--fundamentally these limited ideas of ‘market’ and ‘choice’ are treating symptoms, not fixing systems.
Shifting to Impact
I will contend that there has been a shift to responsible business practices, and a socially-conscious emphasis on impact, as indicated by measures like the TR10 and the B-List. I am always impressed by lists like these—it gives me a little hope: someone, somewhere cares about similar things. I’m always happy to hear when organizations are shifting the traditional elements of a business plan to include determinants for social impact (eg. thinking of “Competition” as opportunities for “Collaboration”). I want to know about more organizations will emphasis on impact like those Kimberly Tripp was talking about. I am left hoping that this is the culture change, the shift to really caring about what, how, and when businesses/organizations act, always holding the best intention in mind. But is this real? Can all of the organizations listed on the B-List really be that invested in the change? Or is it another marketing tactic?
I suppose it becomes a question of intention for me. Does it
really matter if each of those orgs see it as a need to adjust to the shifting
tide of cultural norms demanding sustainable, ethical, responsible practices?
Does it matter if they believe in this change? Even if they treat the B-List like
a check-list, does it undermine the positive impact for their workers or
customers?
And further—even good intention can't undo bias. My cynic creeps out wondering, but who wrote the
criteria for the B-List? And what more did they leave out?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.