“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.”

More than a decade later these ideas will be found in the Community Interest Company, B Corporations and even the recent Manifesto for Philanthrocapitalism.

Somewhere recently, I read the question “where is the evidence of philanthrocapitalism working?”. I don’t know that, but I do know that while it was being talked about at the Davos Ukrainian Lunch we were on the ground in Ukraine directing our business to focus on social problems and had made some progress. Not least in influencing changes to childcare policy which would see a 40% increase in domestic adoption within 3 years.

http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/national/

This perhaps may be too much information

We observe the influence on Coca-Cola, a company which does not share product information, and the reflection of P-CED ideas on Connected Capitalism. Another more recent influence being our profit for purpose business model becoming the evaluation criteria for the UK Social Enterprise Mark.

When one offers information, there are times that it can be less than welcome. For instance our research on disabled children in state care which met with much hostility and defamation from parts of the nonprofit sector that didn’t like what was being said.

On reflection of what I wrote yesterday about Coca-Cola, I remembered that 2 years ago, I’d tried to offer the model of inclusive capitalism, to IBLF the organisation which their former CEO now heads. I’d also offered our research on microfinance and social enterprise in Eastern Europe to Oxfam who replied with a rejection of my offer. A similar experience came from offering the UK parliament’s APPG on microfinance a presentation on the success in Russia.

Clearly there are many whho don’t want information.

Some months ago I blogged about the “you, me, we and ethics” of sharing , relating the spread of a new economic paradigm which began with sharing an idea on the web.

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=132188

I think, though, we have to distinguish between information that should flow naturally from organizations that do a good job managing what they do and being willing to share freely vs. the process of collecting, analyzing, processing and preparing more extensive reports, documents, etc., that do have real costs.

Also, since Gabi Fitz has given more thought than most to the subject of knowledge dissemination, I invite people to view a Comnetwork video chat she recently recorded with Susan Herr. It’s here: http://vimeo.com/9133307