If you’re helping to build a business with a social mission, maybe you can identify with this excerpt from an article I co-wrote in The Guardian.

Suggesting you are a social entrepreneur or work for a social enterprise often sounds a bit silly to first-time listeners. “Is that a fancy way of saying you’re a party planner?” Or “Oh, so you’re on Facebook a lot?” are popular responses to the introduction of our profession….

It is alarming then to learn that we are facing linguistic competition. For when a term is too inclusive and flexible, when it stands for too much, it ends up meaning little. Yet worse than a tepid label is the lost followers and supporters of what the label stands for. Without a name that people understand and can act on, how will they begin to self-identify as agents of social enterprise – and what will they call their work when they do?

Read the rest on The Guardian‘s web site and let me know what you think, in the comments or via email.

Žižek argues that cultural capitalism (i.e., cause marketing, point-of-sale donations, fair trade and buy-one-give-one) is innocuous and naive. That this type of charitable giving leads both companies and consumers to undeservedly feel they’ve done something useful. That if we all truly cared, we would focus on system changes to eradicate poverty and leave our African-made recycled shopping bags at home.

It’s easy to take this as an argument against sustainable business–I did for a solid ninety seconds, until I thought about what it means to be a truly socially driven business. It’s not about charity. It’s about creating an environment, mechanisms and behavioral influencers that lead to sustainable change. This takes all forms: employee enfranchisement, ethical labor practices, community investment, waste reduction, environmentally sound supply chains, social investments, etc.

Žižek calls out Starbucks and TOMS Shoes for selling a diluted version of change and we, the consumer, for buying it. Surely we all agree that pink ribbons and reusable coffee mugs alone won’t turn Earth into utopia, but they can still alter behavior, priorities and resource allocation. To view this class of action as a roadblock or retardant to deeper change is lazy and short-sighted. While change sometimes looks sudden and instant (a flood wiping out a city) it’s brought on by incremental actions (each raindrop compounded with all others).

We need all manner of change–system changing individuals like Muhammad Yunus and carpooling recyclers who raise bake sale-organizing children (who grow into system-changing individuals).

Change doesn’t hinge on all or nothing. And Žižek knows this. While his critique of cultural capitalism is sincere and pointed, it’s also inspiring and serves to refocus us away from fretting about Earth Day activities to acting on our greater social mission.

HT @JohnCTownsend.

Jim Niegowski, Director, Nike Patents announcing the SBIO 2010 winner

I don’t often plug competitions, but Sustainable Life Media, Sustainable Brands Innovation Open’s parent organization, has a way of making magic out of the typically mundane. I’ve experienced this first-hand as an attendee at Sustainable Brands conference and have seen how past entrants of Innovation Open have benefitted from their participation. Earth Aid, winner of the 2009 competition recently raised $4 million in funding and BioLite was profiled in The Guardian and Men’s Health after its 2010 win.

Criteria
Sustainable Brands Innovation Open is open to entrepreneurs and companies with either idea-stage or early phase initiatives. Entries are scored on their potential to deliver a sustainable consumer product or business-to-business solution that promotes social and environmental responsibility.

Incentive
Ten selected finalists receive free admission to the Sustainable Brands conference (June 7-10 in Monterey, California) and the opportunity to both display and pitch their initiative to green/social investors, executives from leading companies, top brand consultants and conference attendees.

One, winning start-up will receive seed money, business services and consulting services from industry professionals, as well as top-level exposure and recognition.

Details
Submit a one-page business plan by April 25. Details and the submission form can be found here.

Businesses are held financially accountable by the market. Increasingly, we’re holding them accountable for their social impact as well. We reward humanistic companies with our purchases, our employment and our advocacy.

Yet our relationship (both the positive and negative) with nonprofits hasn’t evolved. We expect nonprofits to be socially effective and financially solvent without much reward for success in either category. Sure, Charity Navigator rates the efficacy of nonprofits, but that holds about the same amount of sway as a Good Housekeeping seal today. It’s a minimal influencer of donor dollars and social benefit.

Why don’t we apply the same market forces to reward nonprofits for their social impact and penalize them for lousy financial performance?

Robert Egger, founder of D.C. Central Kitchen, advocates a return on investment (that is, a donation) that corresponds to the social productivity of nonprofit. Currently, a $20-donation to DCCK helps the organization train and put to work hard-to-employe individuals, the financial impact of which is significant. These gainfully employed individuals now pay taxes and are less likely to revert to crime or drug use, saving tax payers money in social service and prison costs. Much like a business, DCCK is able to leverage my $20-investment. Egger’s proposal to the nonprofit sector is to pay donors yearly dividends on their donations, based on the organization’s performance.

In a core conversation on crowd-sourcing social impact at SXSW, Brian Reich advocated that nonprofits that can’t cut it, should bow out. It’s a heretical perspective (applying supply and demand principles to social aid) that I share. If an organization can’t levy adequate (donor) support, it should make way for ones that can.

Cause Capitalism is about creating stronger businesses by integrating a social objectives. Why not also look at creating superior nonprofits by applying specific market mechanisms?

*N.B. I understand the absurdity of the term ‘nonprofit’ in this post, but it’s an understood label that I hope allowed me to communicate my point without messy jargon.

…that the conversation is turning from Why? implement a social mission to How?

…that increasingly more entrepreneurs, veteran business owners and employees are testing ways to connect their passion to product and profit; and

…that I’m able to support you, the entrepreneur, business owner or employee (four times as many people contact me every week than just five months ago).

This means that more of us our doing our work to bring about social change, and we’re using the market (unshakeable supply and demand!) to do it.

While your peer group of social business leaders is bigger than ever, you’re still part of a small vanguard that’s reconstructing the way we tackle the world’s problems and do business. So dialogue, test and evaluate. And most importantly, let your instinct embolden you to act on ideas that others see as radical.