Thank you for this. This is a topic I have been wondering about for a while as well.
Here's my question, is there a need still for a *somewhat* universal definition of good (or social responsibility)? If companies can just set their own internal values, what defines them as good? I love your emphasis on this being a self-interrogative process, but it still seems to me that we need something external to measure against.
At the last place I worked — a design studio that was, at the time, wrestling with the same questions — we were toying with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a (perhaps imperfect) standard we could use.
Anyways, I really appreciate this piece. Thank you!
Thank you for reading, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
This essay is describing how the ways we conventionally think about and approach “impact” prevent us from actually optimizing for it, and I believe that many of the current external impact standards (such as B Corp) are rooted in this flawed conventional thinking. In my mind, understanding how to structure and run a company in a way that is genuinely optimizing for impact is a necessary first step before we can start to think about how an external assessment might look. I’d love to hear ideas from others on how / if this values-based approach can eventually be translated into an external assessment.
This…“Companies don’t often say “We gave $1 million to charities” and “We reduced our lowest-tier employees’ hourly pay by 25 cents company-wide” in the same sentence.” And that is how they take from one mouth to “feed” another.
Totally! One of the risks of compartmentalizing "impact" from other aspects of a business is the incentive to win at zero-sum games (or negative sum games - if you take from one mouth to "feed" another, while pocketing some for yourself). This can garner praise from those who can't see (or don't look) under the hood, even though in actuality there is no net positive impact occurring.
Thank you for this. This is a topic I have been wondering about for a while as well.
Here's my question, is there a need still for a *somewhat* universal definition of good (or social responsibility)? If companies can just set their own internal values, what defines them as good? I love your emphasis on this being a self-interrogative process, but it still seems to me that we need something external to measure against.
At the last place I worked — a design studio that was, at the time, wrestling with the same questions — we were toying with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a (perhaps imperfect) standard we could use.
Anyways, I really appreciate this piece. Thank you!
Thank you for reading, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
This essay is describing how the ways we conventionally think about and approach “impact” prevent us from actually optimizing for it, and I believe that many of the current external impact standards (such as B Corp) are rooted in this flawed conventional thinking. In my mind, understanding how to structure and run a company in a way that is genuinely optimizing for impact is a necessary first step before we can start to think about how an external assessment might look. I’d love to hear ideas from others on how / if this values-based approach can eventually be translated into an external assessment.
This…“Companies don’t often say “We gave $1 million to charities” and “We reduced our lowest-tier employees’ hourly pay by 25 cents company-wide” in the same sentence.” And that is how they take from one mouth to “feed” another.
Totally! One of the risks of compartmentalizing "impact" from other aspects of a business is the incentive to win at zero-sum games (or negative sum games - if you take from one mouth to "feed" another, while pocketing some for yourself). This can garner praise from those who can't see (or don't look) under the hood, even though in actuality there is no net positive impact occurring.