It's time for the U.S. Senate to ratify the new arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia (New START).
The treaty's benefits are clear and concrete (PDF). Each side would reduce its nuclear stockpile by about one-third. Each side would adhere to an effective, multi-faceted monitoring scheme -- including satellite reconnaissance, on-site inspections, and extensive information exchanges -- that would ensure compliance with the agreement. The treaty would also set the stage for enhanced U.S. and Russian cooperation on urgent issues such as curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and securing nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. And it would signal to the rest of the world that the United States and Russia -- which together account for over 90% of the world's more than 20,000 nuclear weapons -- are serious about their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty calls for existing nuclear weapons states to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals in exchange for other signatories agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.
The fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be. New START offers an important step in the right direction.
So why hasn't the Senate ratified the treaty yet? First, the administration needed to make the case for the treaty, with a particular focus on Republican skeptics whose votes were needed to reach the 67 vote total needed to ratify a treaty. But that case has been made. There have been 18 hearings, dozens of briefings, hundreds of questions answered at the request of individual Senators, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis, and testimony. An impressive bipartisan group of experts, including national security advisors and secretaries of state and defense from the Reagan, Bush (father and son) and Clinton administrations, has endorsed the treaty. So have all of the nation's top military leaders, along with key retired leaders like seven former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.
So what is the holdup? Laura Rozen of Politico got hold of a memo by a staffer from the Senate Republican Policy Committee that purports to supply the reasons why the Senate should delay any vote on the treaty. In fact, the memo acknowledges that two of the main objections raised by the treaty's critics have already been addressed.
The first issue is "nuclear modernization" -- the ability to build a new generation of nuclear delivery vehicles and to preserve the reliability of existing warheads in the context of an upgraded nuclear weapons complex. There are serious questions about whether spending in these areas is in fact needed at a time when U.S. and Rusian arsenals are being reduced. But whatever one may think about building a shiny new weapons complex at a time when a growing number of world leaders are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Republican memo notes that New START will "preserve the ability of the United States to modernize its nuclear forces." The real complaint is that the Obama administration is not doing so quickly enough, even though it is spending more on the nuclear weapons complex than even the George W. Bush administration did.
As Linton Brooks, the head of the nuclear weapons complex in the Bush administration, said in April, "I'd have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention" during the Bush years compared to the Obama years.
A second major issue raised by Republican skeptics has been whether New START constrains the United States from developing whatever kind of missile defense system it chooses to. It does not. The Republican memo notes that this "may be a true statement," but that the real question is how much money and effort the Obama administration is willing to devote to missile defense. As with nuclear modernization, this is an issue of administration policy that has no direct link to the New START treaty. The treaty allows any administration to pursue as extensive a missile defense system as it desires; it does not, and should not, dictate what shape that system should take, or how much should be spent on it. That is an ongoing policy issue.
Holding New START hostage to the policy preferences of some -- not all -- Republican skeptics makes no sense. New START is valuable in its own right, and it will make us all safer by reducing the number of nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States. Debates over what kind of missile defense system to build, or how much to spend on modernizing nuclear delivery vehicles and the nuclear warhead complex, should be pursued on their own merits, outside the context of the treaty.
The Senate should ratify New START before the end of the year, during its lame duck session. There is no good reason to wait, and there are a number of very good reasons to move forward now.
Social entrepreneurs are quite excited about this new trend of mixing mission and money within the organizations they run. You can often hear many of them proclaiming their intention to "do well by doing good," implying that they will not only save the world but they will make money doing it. Behind the slogan, these entrepreneurs are experimenting with what we call "hybrid" organizations. In the for-profit world, new organizational creatures with descriptions like "social business" are now prioritizing social and environmental goals equally with financial performance. Among non-profits, social entrepreneurs are launching what are usually called "social enterprises" or income-generating businesses, like coffee shops, thrift stores, and bakeries, within non-profit organizations.
One the surface these hybrid organizations look very promising—an opportunity to have your cake and eat it too. The reality, however, is that these hybrid organizations come with substantial risks and consequences that are rarely discussed and that need to be carefully taken into consideration from the start.
Last week I participated in a research symposium on "Exploring Social Enterprises" at the UCLA School of Public Affairs; much of the discussion centered on organizational hybrids. Several researchers presented truly cutting-edge findings about the consequences of choosing the hybrid organizational type. Cumulatively, this research identified four key risks associated with hybrid organizations.
The first, overarching risk is that people just don't know what hybrids are. Is it a for-profit? Is it a non-profit? Is this about mission or money? This ambiguity doesn't just affect potential investors who, for a start, are often not sure whether these organizations are a fit for venture capital or venture philanthropy. The ambiguity also affects board members who are not clear on whether their primary responsibility is to uphold mission or financial performance. Internally managers and staff face similar confusion and their decision-making often wavers or stagnates as a result.
Risk No. 2 is that these hybrids often have no clear systems of accountability. In traditional for-profits, everyone knows that profit maximization is the ultimate goal. In traditional non-profits, everyone knows that social impact is the ultimate goal. In hybrid organizations, these two goals are purportedly equal and yet they are often at odds.
The magnitude of this risk is easily understood by looking at funding flows to hybrid organizations—they are virtually non-existent. Capital flows require transparency and certainty, particularly with regard to the organization's priorities. For hybrids with two equal priorities and no transparent system to uphold them, the risk of misalignment and failure is extremely high. Consequently, capital avoids these investments.
Over the past few years innovations such as B Corporations and Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs) have attempted to provide mechanisms to create this transparent accountability. But without formal, widespread legal infrastructure to codify decision-making authority, the risk of weak accountability is too high.
Risk No. 3 is that hybrids often have difficulty maximizing either social impact or financial sustainability. As the dichotomy between these two forces pulls social entrepreneurs in different directions, hybrid organizations often experience both internal and external pressures to lean more in one direction or the other. Non-profit social enterprises often ultimately choose social mission as their priority and find their enterprise running at a loss. For example, the leaders of one non-profit operating a Ben & Jerry's Partnershop decided that their commitment to employ disadvantaged youth with serious social and emotional challenges outweighed the gains in customer service that could be had from hiring more "polished" employees. The non-profit also determined that it was necessary to employ a social worker as full-time support staff for the youth in the ice-cream shop. Unsurprisingly, the Partnershop operated at a net loss.
For-profit hybrids often ultimately prioritize profit over mission and thus compromise their social and environmental impact. The social entrepreneurs who founded Blue Avocado, makers of a line of hip reusable shopping bags, found early on that they had to make difficult choices about the level of environmental sustainability they could achieve for a competitive price. Their original hope was to create a locally sourced, fully organic cotton bag, but with a resulting unsustainable price they realized that some sacrifices on sustainability would be required to keep their social business viable.
Finally, Risk No. 4 is that as hybrids face pressures to maintain financial sustainability it will come at the price of a long-term erosion of moral legitimacy. One research study presented at UCLA investigated social service non-profits that employ their clients through jobs-training programs at social enterprises such as coffee shops and janitorial services companies. In these organizations, moral legitimacy was often questioned as clients were increasingly treated like regular employees and were "commoditized" by the business. A second study looked at the particular case of NPower, a non-profit technology provider that received substantial cash and in-kind support from Microsoft. As NPower was perceived to become more "business-like" in its operations, peer organizations questioned their non-profit integrity and social focus.
The net result is that hybrid organizations are not exactly the panacea they appear to be. Mixing mission and money is tricky business, requiring strong leadership to articulate and maintain clear priorities and accountability. The attraction to this type of organization is rooted in our hopes of find more financially sustainable ways of creating social and environmental impact. But as social entrepreneurs explore this intriguing territory, we must also beware of serious and substantial risks.
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
It's time for the U.S. Senate to ratify the new arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia (New START).
The treaty's benefits are clear and concrete (PDF). Each side would reduce its nuclear stockpile by about one-third. Each side would adhere to an effective, multi-faceted monitoring scheme -- including satellite reconnaissance, on-site inspections, and extensive information exchanges -- that would ensure compliance with the agreement. The treaty would also set the stage for enhanced U.S. and Russian cooperation on urgent issues such as curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and securing nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. And it would signal to the rest of the world that the United States and Russia -- which together account for over 90% of the world's more than 20,000 nuclear weapons -- are serious about their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty calls for existing nuclear weapons states to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals in exchange for other signatories agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.
The fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be. New START offers an important step in the right direction.
So why hasn't the Senate ratified the treaty yet? First, the administration needed to make the case for the treaty, with a particular focus on Republican skeptics whose votes were needed to reach the 67 vote total needed to ratify a treaty. But that case has been made. There have been 18 hearings, dozens of briefings, hundreds of questions answered at the request of individual Senators, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis, and testimony. An impressive bipartisan group of experts, including national security advisors and secretaries of state and defense from the Reagan, Bush (father and son) and Clinton administrations, has endorsed the treaty. So have all of the nation's top military leaders, along with key retired leaders like seven former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.
So what is the holdup? Laura Rozen of Politico got hold of a memo by a staffer from the Senate Republican Policy Committee that purports to supply the reasons why the Senate should delay any vote on the treaty. In fact, the memo acknowledges that two of the main objections raised by the treaty's critics have already been addressed.
The first issue is "nuclear modernization" -- the ability to build a new generation of nuclear delivery vehicles and to preserve the reliability of existing warheads in the context of an upgraded nuclear weapons complex. There are serious questions about whether spending in these areas is in fact needed at a time when U.S. and Rusian arsenals are being reduced. But whatever one may think about building a shiny new weapons complex at a time when a growing number of world leaders are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Republican memo notes that New START will "preserve the ability of the United States to modernize its nuclear forces." The real complaint is that the Obama administration is not doing so quickly enough, even though it is spending more on the nuclear weapons complex than even the George W. Bush administration did.
As Linton Brooks, the head of the nuclear weapons complex in the Bush administration, said in April, "I'd have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention" during the Bush years compared to the Obama years.
A second major issue raised by Republican skeptics has been whether New START constrains the United States from developing whatever kind of missile defense system it chooses to. It does not. The Republican memo notes that this "may be a true statement," but that the real question is how much money and effort the Obama administration is willing to devote to missile defense. As with nuclear modernization, this is an issue of administration policy that has no direct link to the New START treaty. The treaty allows any administration to pursue as extensive a missile defense system as it desires; it does not, and should not, dictate what shape that system should take, or how much should be spent on it. That is an ongoing policy issue.
Holding New START hostage to the policy preferences of some -- not all -- Republican skeptics makes no sense. New START is valuable in its own right, and it will make us all safer by reducing the number of nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States. Debates over what kind of missile defense system to build, or how much to spend on modernizing nuclear delivery vehicles and the nuclear warhead complex, should be pursued on their own merits, outside the context of the treaty.
The Senate should ratify New START before the end of the year, during its lame duck session. There is no good reason to wait, and there are a number of very good reasons to move forward now.
Social entrepreneurs are quite excited about this new trend of mixing mission and money within the organizations they run. You can often hear many of them proclaiming their intention to "do well by doing good," implying that they will not only save the world but they will make money doing it. Behind the slogan, these entrepreneurs are experimenting with what we call "hybrid" organizations. In the for-profit world, new organizational creatures with descriptions like "social business" are now prioritizing social and environmental goals equally with financial performance. Among non-profits, social entrepreneurs are launching what are usually called "social enterprises" or income-generating businesses, like coffee shops, thrift stores, and bakeries, within non-profit organizations.
One the surface these hybrid organizations look very promising—an opportunity to have your cake and eat it too. The reality, however, is that these hybrid organizations come with substantial risks and consequences that are rarely discussed and that need to be carefully taken into consideration from the start.
Last week I participated in a research symposium on "Exploring Social Enterprises" at the UCLA School of Public Affairs; much of the discussion centered on organizational hybrids. Several researchers presented truly cutting-edge findings about the consequences of choosing the hybrid organizational type. Cumulatively, this research identified four key risks associated with hybrid organizations.
The first, overarching risk is that people just don't know what hybrids are. Is it a for-profit? Is it a non-profit? Is this about mission or money? This ambiguity doesn't just affect potential investors who, for a start, are often not sure whether these organizations are a fit for venture capital or venture philanthropy. The ambiguity also affects board members who are not clear on whether their primary responsibility is to uphold mission or financial performance. Internally managers and staff face similar confusion and their decision-making often wavers or stagnates as a result.
Risk No. 2 is that these hybrids often have no clear systems of accountability. In traditional for-profits, everyone knows that profit maximization is the ultimate goal. In traditional non-profits, everyone knows that social impact is the ultimate goal. In hybrid organizations, these two goals are purportedly equal and yet they are often at odds.
The magnitude of this risk is easily understood by looking at funding flows to hybrid organizations—they are virtually non-existent. Capital flows require transparency and certainty, particularly with regard to the organization's priorities. For hybrids with two equal priorities and no transparent system to uphold them, the risk of misalignment and failure is extremely high. Consequently, capital avoids these investments.
Over the past few years innovations such as B Corporations and Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs) have attempted to provide mechanisms to create this transparent accountability. But without formal, widespread legal infrastructure to codify decision-making authority, the risk of weak accountability is too high.
Risk No. 3 is that hybrids often have difficulty maximizing either social impact or financial sustainability. As the dichotomy between these two forces pulls social entrepreneurs in different directions, hybrid organizations often experience both internal and external pressures to lean more in one direction or the other. Non-profit social enterprises often ultimately choose social mission as their priority and find their enterprise running at a loss. For example, the leaders of one non-profit operating a Ben & Jerry's Partnershop decided that their commitment to employ disadvantaged youth with serious social and emotional challenges outweighed the gains in customer service that could be had from hiring more "polished" employees. The non-profit also determined that it was necessary to employ a social worker as full-time support staff for the youth in the ice-cream shop. Unsurprisingly, the Partnershop operated at a net loss.
For-profit hybrids often ultimately prioritize profit over mission and thus compromise their social and environmental impact. The social entrepreneurs who founded Blue Avocado, makers of a line of hip reusable shopping bags, found early on that they had to make difficult choices about the level of environmental sustainability they could achieve for a competitive price. Their original hope was to create a locally sourced, fully organic cotton bag, but with a resulting unsustainable price they realized that some sacrifices on sustainability would be required to keep their social business viable.
Finally, Risk No. 4 is that as hybrids face pressures to maintain financial sustainability it will come at the price of a long-term erosion of moral legitimacy. One research study presented at UCLA investigated social service non-profits that employ their clients through jobs-training programs at social enterprises such as coffee shops and janitorial services companies. In these organizations, moral legitimacy was often questioned as clients were increasingly treated like regular employees and were "commoditized" by the business. A second study looked at the particular case of NPower, a non-profit technology provider that received substantial cash and in-kind support from Microsoft. As NPower was perceived to become more "business-like" in its operations, peer organizations questioned their non-profit integrity and social focus.
The net result is that hybrid organizations are not exactly the panacea they appear to be. Mixing mission and money is tricky business, requiring strong leadership to articulate and maintain clear priorities and accountability. The attraction to this type of organization is rooted in our hopes of find more financially sustainable ways of creating social and environmental impact. But as social entrepreneurs explore this intriguing territory, we must also beware of serious and substantial risks.
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
It's time for the U.S. Senate to ratify the new arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia (New START).
The treaty's benefits are clear and concrete (PDF). Each side would reduce its nuclear stockpile by about one-third. Each side would adhere to an effective, multi-faceted monitoring scheme -- including satellite reconnaissance, on-site inspections, and extensive information exchanges -- that would ensure compliance with the agreement. The treaty would also set the stage for enhanced U.S. and Russian cooperation on urgent issues such as curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and securing nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. And it would signal to the rest of the world that the United States and Russia -- which together account for over 90% of the world's more than 20,000 nuclear weapons -- are serious about their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty calls for existing nuclear weapons states to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals in exchange for other signatories agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.
The fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be. New START offers an important step in the right direction.
So why hasn't the Senate ratified the treaty yet? First, the administration needed to make the case for the treaty, with a particular focus on Republican skeptics whose votes were needed to reach the 67 vote total needed to ratify a treaty. But that case has been made. There have been 18 hearings, dozens of briefings, hundreds of questions answered at the request of individual Senators, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis, and testimony. An impressive bipartisan group of experts, including national security advisors and secretaries of state and defense from the Reagan, Bush (father and son) and Clinton administrations, has endorsed the treaty. So have all of the nation's top military leaders, along with key retired leaders like seven former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.
So what is the holdup? Laura Rozen of Politico got hold of a memo by a staffer from the Senate Republican Policy Committee that purports to supply the reasons why the Senate should delay any vote on the treaty. In fact, the memo acknowledges that two of the main objections raised by the treaty's critics have already been addressed.
The first issue is "nuclear modernization" -- the ability to build a new generation of nuclear delivery vehicles and to preserve the reliability of existing warheads in the context of an upgraded nuclear weapons complex. There are serious questions about whether spending in these areas is in fact needed at a time when U.S. and Rusian arsenals are being reduced. But whatever one may think about building a shiny new weapons complex at a time when a growing number of world leaders are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Republican memo notes that New START will "preserve the ability of the United States to modernize its nuclear forces." The real complaint is that the Obama administration is not doing so quickly enough, even though it is spending more on the nuclear weapons complex than even the George W. Bush administration did.
As Linton Brooks, the head of the nuclear weapons complex in the Bush administration, said in April, "I'd have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention" during the Bush years compared to the Obama years.
A second major issue raised by Republican skeptics has been whether New START constrains the United States from developing whatever kind of missile defense system it chooses to. It does not. The Republican memo notes that this "may be a true statement," but that the real question is how much money and effort the Obama administration is willing to devote to missile defense. As with nuclear modernization, this is an issue of administration policy that has no direct link to the New START treaty. The treaty allows any administration to pursue as extensive a missile defense system as it desires; it does not, and should not, dictate what shape that system should take, or how much should be spent on it. That is an ongoing policy issue.
Holding New START hostage to the policy preferences of some -- not all -- Republican skeptics makes no sense. New START is valuable in its own right, and it will make us all safer by reducing the number of nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States. Debates over what kind of missile defense system to build, or how much to spend on modernizing nuclear delivery vehicles and the nuclear warhead complex, should be pursued on their own merits, outside the context of the treaty.
The Senate should ratify New START before the end of the year, during its lame duck session. There is no good reason to wait, and there are a number of very good reasons to move forward now.
Social entrepreneurs are quite excited about this new trend of mixing mission and money within the organizations they run. You can often hear many of them proclaiming their intention to "do well by doing good," implying that they will not only save the world but they will make money doing it. Behind the slogan, these entrepreneurs are experimenting with what we call "hybrid" organizations. In the for-profit world, new organizational creatures with descriptions like "social business" are now prioritizing social and environmental goals equally with financial performance. Among non-profits, social entrepreneurs are launching what are usually called "social enterprises" or income-generating businesses, like coffee shops, thrift stores, and bakeries, within non-profit organizations.
One the surface these hybrid organizations look very promising—an opportunity to have your cake and eat it too. The reality, however, is that these hybrid organizations come with substantial risks and consequences that are rarely discussed and that need to be carefully taken into consideration from the start.
Last week I participated in a research symposium on "Exploring Social Enterprises" at the UCLA School of Public Affairs; much of the discussion centered on organizational hybrids. Several researchers presented truly cutting-edge findings about the consequences of choosing the hybrid organizational type. Cumulatively, this research identified four key risks associated with hybrid organizations.
The first, overarching risk is that people just don't know what hybrids are. Is it a for-profit? Is it a non-profit? Is this about mission or money? This ambiguity doesn't just affect potential investors who, for a start, are often not sure whether these organizations are a fit for venture capital or venture philanthropy. The ambiguity also affects board members who are not clear on whether their primary responsibility is to uphold mission or financial performance. Internally managers and staff face similar confusion and their decision-making often wavers or stagnates as a result.
Risk No. 2 is that these hybrids often have no clear systems of accountability. In traditional for-profits, everyone knows that profit maximization is the ultimate goal. In traditional non-profits, everyone knows that social impact is the ultimate goal. In hybrid organizations, these two goals are purportedly equal and yet they are often at odds.
The magnitude of this risk is easily understood by looking at funding flows to hybrid organizations—they are virtually non-existent. Capital flows require transparency and certainty, particularly with regard to the organization's priorities. For hybrids with two equal priorities and no transparent system to uphold them, the risk of misalignment and failure is extremely high. Consequently, capital avoids these investments.
Over the past few years innovations such as B Corporations and Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3Cs) have attempted to provide mechanisms to create this transparent accountability. But without formal, widespread legal infrastructure to codify decision-making authority, the risk of weak accountability is too high.
Risk No. 3 is that hybrids often have difficulty maximizing either social impact or financial sustainability. As the dichotomy between these two forces pulls social entrepreneurs in different directions, hybrid organizations often experience both internal and external pressures to lean more in one direction or the other. Non-profit social enterprises often ultimately choose social mission as their priority and find their enterprise running at a loss. For example, the leaders of one non-profit operating a Ben & Jerry's Partnershop decided that their commitment to employ disadvantaged youth with serious social and emotional challenges outweighed the gains in customer service that could be had from hiring more "polished" employees. The non-profit also determined that it was necessary to employ a social worker as full-time support staff for the youth in the ice-cream shop. Unsurprisingly, the Partnershop operated at a net loss.
For-profit hybrids often ultimately prioritize profit over mission and thus compromise their social and environmental impact. The social entrepreneurs who founded Blue Avocado, makers of a line of hip reusable shopping bags, found early on that they had to make difficult choices about the level of environmental sustainability they could achieve for a competitive price. Their original hope was to create a locally sourced, fully organic cotton bag, but with a resulting unsustainable price they realized that some sacrifices on sustainability would be required to keep their social business viable.
Finally, Risk No. 4 is that as hybrids face pressures to maintain financial sustainability it will come at the price of a long-term erosion of moral legitimacy. One research study presented at UCLA investigated social service non-profits that employ their clients through jobs-training programs at social enterprises such as coffee shops and janitorial services companies. In these organizations, moral legitimacy was often questioned as clients were increasingly treated like regular employees and were "commoditized" by the business. A second study looked at the particular case of NPower, a non-profit technology provider that received substantial cash and in-kind support from Microsoft. As NPower was perceived to become more "business-like" in its operations, peer organizations questioned their non-profit integrity and social focus.
The net result is that hybrid organizations are not exactly the panacea they appear to be. Mixing mission and money is tricky business, requiring strong leadership to articulate and maintain clear priorities and accountability. The attraction to this type of organization is rooted in our hopes of find more financially sustainable ways of creating social and environmental impact. But as social entrepreneurs explore this intriguing territory, we must also beware of serious and substantial risks.
eric seiger
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Fox <b>News</b> Contributors Mock <b>...</b>
On the video, Miller, Trotter, Scott, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and Fox News contributor James Pinkerton are seen preparing to go on the air when Miller says, "Oh, I do have something to say about Palin. I even prepared it. ...
Pulse <b>News</b> Now Free to Download | Android Phone Fans
Pulse News has announced that they're making their application free to download on the Android market following a desire to pull in a bigger userbase. They'll.
Obama 2012 - Doug Schoen - Fox <b>News</b> | Mediaite
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live ...
eric seiger
No comments:
Post a Comment