There's another group Chris, on Ning called the Peer to Peer foundation which may be of interest in this regard. I know a little about Chris Cook and Open Capital and of course P-CED.
I knew Mackey was writing several years ago, about Conscious Capitalism but cut off for a while after the Wild Oats controversy. I think he's now thrown in his hat with Gates and Creative Capitalism. Recently I discovered B Corporations which as far as I can see are a P-CED influenced model.
Jeff your information is very interesting may I offer counter-evidence on John Mackey. Firstly what makes both Ray Anderson and John Mackey heroes for me is that as decision makers for large stockmarketed companies they are subject to all the pressures of Wall Street Capitalism, yet they do take a pursposeful standard.
I am sure that like any human in the midst of such pressure you can find inconsistencies but in any event I ask you look at these 2 short videos and ask if they really represent John Mackey as a guy who has thrown in his towel to wall street's failed capitalism
Create value? GDP? Why do we create value? How to measure it?
We need to rethink not only our capitalistic system -> it is a whole system that must be slightly changed.
First of all the curriculum of business schools - I am happy to know that HEC has a partnership and look at Socail Business.
(Business man = it was is wife describing his husband -> "he is very busy man!" to explain to her friends tha he never had time to come home from work)
O.E. bisignisse (Northumbrian) "care, anxiety," from bisig "careful, anxious, busy, occupied" (see busy) + -ness. Sense of "work, occupation" is first recorded 1387. Sense of "trade, commercial engagements" is first attested 1727.
1150, from O.Fr. compaignie "body of soldiers," from L.L. companio (see companion). Meaning "subdivision of an infantry regiment" is from 1590. Sense of "business association" first recorded 1553, having earlier been used in reference to trade guilds (1303). Abbreviation co. dates from 1759.
As humans we seek happiness - meaningful life! With a restrucutre of the "rich and famous" we might hope that a deeper reflection on our existing capital systems will emerge. the mesurement of our nation states should not be GNP, GDP, Gross World Product? Social Venture perspectives
I am prepared to stalk economists - ultimately economics theory is sponsored by somebody , and if we then make a dichotomy - most macroeconomic theory over the quarter century that has been going global has been sponsored by the big gets bigger and has led to the wall street meltdown; only microeconomics has enough sustainability and transparency to be worth investing my child's -and yours - future in.
I believe it would be timely to review the last 25 Nobel Laureates for what relevance do they actually have to the compound consequences of designing sustainable globalisation? I think there needs to be much more transparency among Nobel committee members on this. What good are fancy theories of economics if they do nothing to stop global meltdown from compounding ever faster?
I believe that my economics heroes like Adam Smith and James Wilson will be turning in their grave at how little practical guidance economics has been in designing a globalisation that is worthy of humanity, let alone likely to sustain future generations. In fact we now have very little time left to select a future capitalism which is in most ways the exact opposite of the professors who have been sitting in Ivory towers with their prizes.
Chris, Yes I'd been following the Mackey blog, and I don't disagree with the concept. In fact as you will see from the paper delivered to Clinton's re-election committee, the very same question as is asked in that video is what it starts with, going on to define a community-stakeholder or people-centered model, catalysed by the power of business and information technology. Used then to leverage development aid funding as investment capital and as a result the Tomsk microfinance bank with a loan model based on Yunus' in a pilot from 2000-2005.
I value this because to achieve what he has, the author has endured homelessness, illness, been threatened with guns and put in a cell, had a smear campaign conducted against him and finally for all his contribution, airbrushed out of the picture. There is no comfortable salary or family life, and to my mind, a 'John Doe' leveraging investment for 10,000 new business is a a feat worthy of note.
Given the likeness and that we have had many conversations on this topic of business investing in community and social purpose, I am astonished to read you claiming that the above are the only sustainable models you know of.
Extract from paper follows:
"At first glance, it might seem redundant to emphasize people as the central focus of economics. After all, isn't the purpose of economics, as well as business, people? Aren't people automatically the central focus of business and economic activities? Yes and no.
People certainly gain and benefit, but the rub is: which people? More than a billion children, women, and men on this planet suffer from hunger. It is a travesty that this is the case, a blight upon us all as a global social group. Perhaps an even greater travesty is that it does not have to be this way; the problems of human suffering on such a massive scale are not unsolvable. If a few businesses were conducted only slightly differently, much of the misery and suffering as we now know it could be eliminated. This is where the concept of a "people-centered" economics system comes in.
The P-CED concept is to create new businesses that do things differently from their inception, and perhaps modify existing businesses that want to do it. This business model entails doing exactly the same things by which any business is set up and conducted in the free-market system of economics. The only difference is this: that at least fifty percent of profits go to stimulate a given local economy, instead of going to private hands. In effect, the business would operate in much the same manner as a non-profit organization. The only restrictions are the normal terms and conditions of free-enterprise. If a corporation wants to donate a portion of profits to its local community, it can do so, be it one percent, five percent, or even fifty percent. There is no one to protest or dictate otherwise, except a board of directors and stockholders. This is not a small consideration, since most boards and stockholders would object. But, if an arrangement has been made with said stockholders and directors such that this direction of profits is entirely the point, then no one will object. The corporate charter can require that these monies be directed into community development funds, such as a permanent, irrevocable trust fund. The trust fund, in turn, would be under the oversight of a board of directors made up of employees and community leaders."
This Ning space has no need for personal argumentative tone as implied by crediting "astonishment" to my mathematical purity. The PCEd model is quite closely related to the 34 year old social business model. However, if it differs by saying an organisation's constitution can be left fuzzy by such remarks as if owners wish they can choose a proportion of profits to be socially reinvested, then that is not a difference I can vote for. What we have seen in the last 25 years is speculators hire lawyers to close any such optional constitution down. Also community sustainability for the world's poorest places is only going to be compounded by models that return all the surplus a community generates to the community and does not extract it out to big capitals. Let's keep things simple rather than argue for minor variants. Our purpose is to look for something with enough MICRO gravity to replace the status quo that Wall Street was. Those of us who never want to see another Wall Street like that of recent years don't need to get divided and conquered within ourselves.