This harkens back to what Jesse Fink talked about several weeks ago. For-profit companies can still be socially responsible and environmentally friendly. There's a conception that non-profits are inherently more ethical, which is obviously not necessarily the case. The B Corporations are stellar examples of those that have managed to balance their (often competing) goals of maximizing profits and being socially responsible.

I definitely agree that the idea of B corporation branding is a needed indicator to differentiate between good advertising, and 'good' (socially, environementally responsible) companies.  I think it is increasingly apparent that 'green is the new black,' and that companies are openly competing on this playing field as consumer preferences are ever-more influenced by the carbon footprint they leave.  However, I think that the B-Corp guys' response to the question from the 'B-Consumer' in the audience was very insightful: Consuming only products from B-corporations will allow you to know that you are minizmizing your environmental impact while maximizing the benefit.  I think what's key is that these B-companies are not just environmentally friendly, but they are also successful in producing beneficial products.

I agree with the second post-- non-profits are generally assumed to be more credible and ethical than for-profits, just because they don't deal with money. But this is not necessarily true, money often brings competition and competitions means betterment! I've always thought that for-profits are better motivated to tackle investment-intensive social issues than non-profits and the panel discussion seems to concur. Though some speakers on the pasts have touched on the issue of social responsibility before, none have mentioned the extent to which a company can go, I am curious if there is a point -- an edge of chaos-- where the company's social responsibility conflicts with its larger vision.

Last edited by Vignan.Pattamatta (2008-03-21 20:54:11)