Thanks for the article – it’s more fuel to help prove my point to investors.

Have a look at the book, Firms of Endearment, which has noted a rising trend and attraction on the part of key stakeholders to associate with organisations with a mission that transcends profit. This means customers giving their business, people choosing to become employees and even shareholders preferring to include these companies in their portfolios. A sort of virtuous circle.

This is just one of a series of studies remarking the rise of more values-based organisations.
If you’ve not seen it, another take on the role of companies, more from the perspective of consequences is http://www.storyofstuff.com which is well worth a look.

Whereas 10 years ago people were more comfortable with working for a company for whom they might not identify with, today companies know that to attract strong talent prospective employees will want to know about what’s important to the company beyond profits.

In a world where climate change and the sub-prime crisis are much in the news, people understand that “profit” as the be all and end all for a company is a blunt, potentially destructive instrument.
Here’s one example, which is based on Environmental behaviour. It shows people prefer to buy from a company with a green commitment, but find it even more attractive by this issue when weighing up employers:
http://marketinggreen.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/employee-retention-charts_v1pdf.gif
(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brands”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823

I’ve also done research where we’ve looked at the collateral impacts of social responsibility initiatives and found that employees find it a differentiator when they’ve considered competing offers within their chosen sector. As you’d expect, it’s not the main reason, but in a market where there’s the perception that companies have very similar approaches (like banks) it’s a real differentiator.

This is just one of a series of studies remarking the rise of more values-based organisations.
If you’ve not seen it, another take on the role of companies, more from the perspective of consequences is http://www.storyofstuff.com which is well worth a look.

Whereas 10 years ago people were more comfortable with working for a company for whom they might not identify with, today companies know that to attract strong talent prospective employees will want to know about what’s important to the company beyond profits.
In a world where climate change and the sub-prime crisis are much in the news, people understand that “profit” as the be all and end all for a company is a blunt, potentially destructive instrument.
Here’s one example, which is based on Environmental behaviour. It shows people prefer to buy from a company with a green commitment, but find it even more attractive by this issue when weighing up employers:
http://marketinggreen.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/employee-retention-charts_v1pdf.gif
(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brands”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823
I’ve also done research where we’ve looked at the collateral impacts of social responsibility initiatives and found that employees find it a differentiator when they’ve considered competing offers within their chosen sector. As you’d expect, it’s not the main reason, but in a market where there’s the perception that companies have very similar approaches (like banks) it’s a real differentiator.

i think the 50/50 theory is great. as business and minds evolve, i think were just going to see more combinations of balanced companies out there. it will take a while to see it come into the heads running 99 percent of businesses, but it will happen. more and more companies will be providing value more than just a product, if not, theyll have trouble keeping a solid foundation of supporters. we have to remember that companies that provide real value, will always be supported, and more than likely, for the long term. if you can give your customers something that doesnt necessarily need to be sold to them, they just need to be aware that it is there, then youve got customers coming to you on their own action.

a few thoughts, great post.

In short, corporations should actually be 30 (profit)/30 (people)/30 (planet), right?

Also, what do you exactly mean by ’social’? Does social mean providing people with the opportunity to connect and interact (COMMUNITY) — or could social also mean providing people with something that makes their life better in some way (more vague, but more about value-adding than community-building)?

I think you mean social as in community…and that makes me wonder if I WANT every company to be a 50/50 organization in the way you describe…? I just want Charmin to make soft, comfy TP — not provide me with an opportunity to connect…

I think SCION is an excellent example of a profit-lead venture that has built and is sustaining a strong/active community…

Overall, the question seems to be about the efficacy of monetizing networks and rewarding connectors…Groups like the Purple List have high value…but ‘ideas’ aren’t like ‘things’ — and charging for introductions and contacts isn’t a bad thing…I just think it’s increasingly harder to monetize with technology making sharing and connecting so much easier.

Not a cohesive response…but thanks for posting something thought-provoking.