The Purposeful Company
It’s been more than 20 years since our late founder argued that the purpose of business goes beyond maximising shareholder value to benefit people. Hence people-centered economics.
By 2009, the argument for profit to be applied for social benefit and an ethics which are people-centered was being reiterated by the Vatican, with Caritas in Veritate.
Today, Charles Wookey from the Blueprint for Business says that the future of business lies in people not profit.
“The core of it is that a business must have a purpose that delivers long-term sustainable performance. That purpose — the ‘why’ — has to meet two societal tests: respect for human dignity and serving the common good.”
Introducing People-Centered business to the UK in 2004, Terry Hallman described the impact of his work in Russia to a leader of the Crimean diaspora.
Delivering a ‘Marshall Plan’ proposal to Ukraine’s goverment in 2007, We argued the case for capitalism to be redirected to solve a wide range of social problems.
‘This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for “people-centered” economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority — as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine’s poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a “top-down” approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first — not secondarily, along the way or by the way. ‘
USAID and the US Senate Committee on Foreign relations were called on for support in February 2008. They were informed of the desperate need to tackle social problems.
Within a very short time, there was a philanthropic roundtable at Davos focussing on social projects in Ukraine, where Richard Branson said “business should focus more on solving social problems”.
Those present included Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who are know to have benefitted from the ‘philanthropy’ of host Viktor Pinchuk. Clinton had been the original recipient of Hallman’s treatise when he served as a volunteer on the steering group of Clinton’s re-election committee.
In 2012, following Hallman’s death, I described our efforts in McKinsey’s Long Term Capitalism challenge. Of the articles I submitted, the New Bottom Line proved most popular. It reiterated what the ‘Marshall Plan’ and earlier work had argued.
In 2014 the Great Business Debate gavc opportunity to share with the BluePrint for Better Business.
It wasn’t a pleasant surprise to learn how much of what I’d shared ended up in what’s been described as The Purposeful Company by the people I shared with.
By 2010, USAID and the British Council had launched their own social enterprise development project in Ukraine and were soliticiting for partners. Unsurprisning our application was disregarded.
As it turns out, their partners would include the foundations of prominent oligarchs. One of them, Erste Bank, had been introduced to the ‘Marshall Plan’ in the Social Business Ideas competition.
Could it have something to do with PWC, who Terry Hallman had called on in 2010, requesting that they respect our IP:
“I understand PwC is working with East Europe Foundation and British Council on BC’s SE Project in Ukraine.
I’m pleased to see this effort, and commend you on volunteering.
However, there are some unaddressed legal issues involved. Namely, copyright. The entire project derives from http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/national/
I’m not sure it would be appropriate to call the project to a halt on grounds of Intellectual Property Rights violations because the project is so badly needed for Ukraine. I am sure that the Ukrainian side will not think twice about IPR violations. Ukraine remains among the worst locations in the world for such violations. Without IPR protections, it is extremely unlikely that social enterprise can take root in Ukraine. Reason: any social enterprise project, anywhere in the world, which is capable of turning a profit can have the ‘social’ part stripped out in favor of increased financial profit. If you understand Ukraine, you surely understand that is instinctive. There is no cognitive loop involved. Ukrainians see no point and assign no importance for IPR. IPR theft is an Ukrainian sport.
By contrast, UK and the US do understand IPR protections. There is no way forward without establishing IPR protections from the start of this project in Ukraine. It is incumbent upon UK and US partners to set the course and hold fast to it.
Therefore, on principle, by law as understood in UK and the US, and to foster the viability of the entire SE project, it is appropriate and necessary to square IPR issues before the project proceeds further. It can be shut down entirely, but that does no good for anyone except to reinforce the importance of IPR.
I shall look forward to your response, and will contact EEF and BC separately.
In the meantime, I wish all of you the best of holidays. And this note for the Christmas season: I’m not Scrooge, but maybe more the ghost of Christmas present. Remember Ignorance and Want at the end of that chapter.
With best wishes,
Terry Hallman
Founder
People-Centered Economic Development”
Recently I reflected on the Ignorance and Want allegory and what Dickens meant by factious purposes.
