To date, the following companies have been nominated for the Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses:
* Bonita Bay Group
* Wilson Miller
* Tithe & More
* Sunshine Pharmacy
* TMI
* Robert of Philadelphia
* “B”
* Whole Foods
* Planet Smoothie Naples Center (franchise)
* Chick Fil-A Naples Center (franchise)
Bonita Bay Group is a large, privately-owned development company that has a high public profile for its charitable giving, its enthusiastic employee volunteerism, and its good business practices: they seem a natural for certification as a Socially Conscious Business. http://www.bonitabaygroup.com/
Wilson Miller is also a large company, based in Naples but operating throughout the state. Their good corporate citizenship, employee relations, and environmental focus recommend them for our award. http://www.wilsonmiller.com/
I have written about Tithe & More, the real estate brokerage, before on this blog. They are one of my favorite companies ever. http://www.titheandmore.com/
Sunshine Pharmacy has garnered excellent press for its helping the less-fortunate to fill their prescriptions. http://www.mysunshinepharmacy.com/
TMI is a remarkable firm, a business incubator in Immokalee started by two retired IBM executives, both members of Greater Naples Leadership, who are dedicated to making a difference in the economy of that less-fortunate town to our east. I am dying to get them a website! I’ll write more about TMI soon.
Robert of Philadelphia is an upscale hair salon that has a tremendous reputation for giving. To date, Robert has more nominations than any other business. One activity of note is their involvement in locks of love (http://www.locksoflove.org/) http://ropsalons.com
“B” is the still-hush-hush technology start-up I am helping launch. Written right into B’s corporate charter is a dedication to give 10% of its profit to charity. B will also employ disabled veterans – but I’ve already said too much. (For more of this type of “too much,” poke around the earliest entries of my business blog: www.savvycapitalist.blogspot.com).
As a firm based out of our region, Whole Foods is ineligible for the Adam Smith Award this year. However, I will be blogging about this remarkable company more in the future; you’ll see soon why we are going to recognize them with an honorable mention if nothing else, for the impactful work accomplished thus far by the team – and especially the team leader, Damien Garcia – at their North Naples store. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/
Rounding out the list so far are two franchises. I am friends with both franchisees – no surprise there, as I’m attracted to giving people and, I'm grateful to say, usually vice-verse.
Jason Swinford, owner of our local Planet Smoothie of Naples Center, gave away well in excess of ten thousand dollars for fundraisers in his first year of business, before his shop was even profitable; now in his second year, he hasn’t let up that admirable pace. That commitment to the community has won him the good will of Naples. Ask Jason if doing the right thing pays.
Chick Fil-A of Naples Center, is similarly committed to giving back. Owner PJ Rodriguez is more engaged in giving than most companies I have observed, and his employee relations are admirable as well.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
What is a Certified Socially Conscious Business?
Broadly speaking, there are three types of for-profit companies in the world today.
The first is the traditional, no-frills, no-second-agenda, profit-driven company. These are run according to the maxim, “Maximize short-term profits.” This is Primitive Capitalism incarnate.
There’s nothing wrong with profits for their own sake. Profits are vitally important to any endeavor interested in longevity. Just to be clear: I am a huge fan of profit. Imagine a world without it.
The second type of for-profit business isn’t actually out to make a profit at all – they’re just lumped in the for-profit realm by tax law. This is the For-Benefit Corporation. Newman’s Own is probably most iconic and possibly also the purest of this category of business. The company produces and sells salad dressing, salsa, coffee, and a whole host of other foodstuffs. The IRS considers it a for-profit, and they pay taxes accordingly. But every dollar of profit Newman’s Own has made since its founding in 1981 has been donated to charity.
Newman’s Own was started by wealthy partners who were no longer interested in earning money for themselves; instead, they liked to share their food and they had an overpowering drive to help others, especially sick children.
The Adam Smith Award was not established to recognize for-benefit corporations. We at The Naples Institute hold for-benefits in especially high esteem. We do not consider for-benefits for our award for two reasons, though. First, they deserve their own very separate award – we feel that they operate on a completely separate plane from most businesses, with a completely different set of standards by which they judge their own efficacy.
Second, the companies we intend to recognize with the Adam Smith Award are regular, everyday competitors that are concerned with a profit motive, that do have to answer to owners or stockholders. Fulfilling their social mission is one important aspect of their overall performance, not the totality of it.
Socially Conscious Businesses (SCBs), then, are neither primitive enterprises nor for-benefits. Rather, SCBs occupy their own step between the two – an important step, but one that every primitive company can choose to take.
The Adam Smith Award is reserved purely for for-profit companies whose management, and whose corporate culture, sees the value of socially-responsible behavior as an integral part of the company mission – not the only aspect of the mission, and not an aspect that detracts from profitability, but a vital component of that company’s essence nonetheless.
Smith’s concept of enlightened self-interest holds that to do the right thing benefits the doer, be that an individual, company, or government. The Adam Smith Award is designed to recognize the one company in Southwest Florida that best exemplifies this ethic in practice.
If you know of a company of any size based in the six counties of Southwest Florida, nomination is just a mouse-click away. Please contact me with the name of the company and a short description of why they deserve consideration for the Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses. ted@naplessocialaction.org.
Please note: nominees that qualify will be Certified Socially Conscious Businesses for one year, whether or not they win the Adam Smith Award.
The first is the traditional, no-frills, no-second-agenda, profit-driven company. These are run according to the maxim, “Maximize short-term profits.” This is Primitive Capitalism incarnate.
There’s nothing wrong with profits for their own sake. Profits are vitally important to any endeavor interested in longevity. Just to be clear: I am a huge fan of profit. Imagine a world without it.
The second type of for-profit business isn’t actually out to make a profit at all – they’re just lumped in the for-profit realm by tax law. This is the For-Benefit Corporation. Newman’s Own is probably most iconic and possibly also the purest of this category of business. The company produces and sells salad dressing, salsa, coffee, and a whole host of other foodstuffs. The IRS considers it a for-profit, and they pay taxes accordingly. But every dollar of profit Newman’s Own has made since its founding in 1981 has been donated to charity.
Newman’s Own was started by wealthy partners who were no longer interested in earning money for themselves; instead, they liked to share their food and they had an overpowering drive to help others, especially sick children.
The Adam Smith Award was not established to recognize for-benefit corporations. We at The Naples Institute hold for-benefits in especially high esteem. We do not consider for-benefits for our award for two reasons, though. First, they deserve their own very separate award – we feel that they operate on a completely separate plane from most businesses, with a completely different set of standards by which they judge their own efficacy.
Second, the companies we intend to recognize with the Adam Smith Award are regular, everyday competitors that are concerned with a profit motive, that do have to answer to owners or stockholders. Fulfilling their social mission is one important aspect of their overall performance, not the totality of it.
Socially Conscious Businesses (SCBs), then, are neither primitive enterprises nor for-benefits. Rather, SCBs occupy their own step between the two – an important step, but one that every primitive company can choose to take.
The Adam Smith Award is reserved purely for for-profit companies whose management, and whose corporate culture, sees the value of socially-responsible behavior as an integral part of the company mission – not the only aspect of the mission, and not an aspect that detracts from profitability, but a vital component of that company’s essence nonetheless.
Smith’s concept of enlightened self-interest holds that to do the right thing benefits the doer, be that an individual, company, or government. The Adam Smith Award is designed to recognize the one company in Southwest Florida that best exemplifies this ethic in practice.
If you know of a company of any size based in the six counties of Southwest Florida, nomination is just a mouse-click away. Please contact me with the name of the company and a short description of why they deserve consideration for the Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses. ted@naplessocialaction.org.
Please note: nominees that qualify will be Certified Socially Conscious Businesses for one year, whether or not they win the Adam Smith Award.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Nau and Tithe & More
I read an article in the November/December issue of Good Business Magazine (www.good.is/business) about Nau, an innovative apparel company whose original charter committed it to giving five percent of its net to charity. One thought among its founders was that, rather than spend 10% on marketing, they’d spend half of that on good will, and let buzz grow organically. The company had a tremendous, unrelated upheaval. Under its new leadership, they are giving away three percent instead. Not bad. (http://www.nau.com/ )
How much do other companies give? If Nau is at 3%, Starbucks 1.7% and Lenovo 1%, where are some of the other most socially-conscious brands? Is there a big discrepancy between publicly- and privately-held firms? …Between large companies and small ones? …Among different industries? I don’t have an answer for you yet, but stay tuned. This is my new self-imposed “project.”
Yesterday I mentioned a new local company that has captivated my imagination: Tithe & More, a boutique real estate firm in Naples and Bonita Springs (www.titheandmore.com).
The founder, Bill Ventress, is a retired Proctor & Gamble executive and founder of Lenscrafters. Bill felt a calling to open a real estate firm in this area as an engine of giving. The agents each give ten percent of their commission to a cause chosen by the firm – that’s the “Tithe” part of the name. Ventress double-matches their contributions by paying at least twenty percent of his broker’s fee: that’s the “and more.” To date, they've donated more than $100,000.
Not bad, huh?
I first learned about Tithe & More last summer, when they donated $25,000 to one of my charities, One Laptop South Florida. With that money and more from the county’s Summer Migrant Program and a bit more from the Immokalee Foundation (www.immokaleefoundation.org), we were able to give free laptop computers and ten weeks of classes to 38 migrant children in Immokalee, the poorest of America’s poor.
Here is where Adam Smith’s concept of enlightened self-interest comes into play. First of all, here’s yet more free press for Ventress’ company. Second, Knowing about its dedication to good works, Jane and I are now much more likely to buy our next home from a Tithe & More agent – and aren’t you, too?
Enlightened: that’s helping people the way you should. Self-interest: that’s growing your company way better than your competitors because of the good will you’ve sown.
As any savvy capitalist knows, you can’t separate self-interest from enlightened behavior.
Do you know of a savvy firm? Nominate it for the Adam Smith Award by contacting me: ted@naplessocialaction.org.
How much do other companies give? If Nau is at 3%, Starbucks 1.7% and Lenovo 1%, where are some of the other most socially-conscious brands? Is there a big discrepancy between publicly- and privately-held firms? …Between large companies and small ones? …Among different industries? I don’t have an answer for you yet, but stay tuned. This is my new self-imposed “project.”
Yesterday I mentioned a new local company that has captivated my imagination: Tithe & More, a boutique real estate firm in Naples and Bonita Springs (www.titheandmore.com).
The founder, Bill Ventress, is a retired Proctor & Gamble executive and founder of Lenscrafters. Bill felt a calling to open a real estate firm in this area as an engine of giving. The agents each give ten percent of their commission to a cause chosen by the firm – that’s the “Tithe” part of the name. Ventress double-matches their contributions by paying at least twenty percent of his broker’s fee: that’s the “and more.” To date, they've donated more than $100,000.
Not bad, huh?
I first learned about Tithe & More last summer, when they donated $25,000 to one of my charities, One Laptop South Florida. With that money and more from the county’s Summer Migrant Program and a bit more from the Immokalee Foundation (www.immokaleefoundation.org), we were able to give free laptop computers and ten weeks of classes to 38 migrant children in Immokalee, the poorest of America’s poor.
Here is where Adam Smith’s concept of enlightened self-interest comes into play. First of all, here’s yet more free press for Ventress’ company. Second, Knowing about its dedication to good works, Jane and I are now much more likely to buy our next home from a Tithe & More agent – and aren’t you, too?
Enlightened: that’s helping people the way you should. Self-interest: that’s growing your company way better than your competitors because of the good will you’ve sown.
As any savvy capitalist knows, you can’t separate self-interest from enlightened behavior.
Do you know of a savvy firm? Nominate it for the Adam Smith Award by contacting me: ted@naplessocialaction.org.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Starbucks & Lenovo: making a difference
Welcome to part two of a series on my favorite topic, Bleeding Heart Capitalism.
For years now, I have been studying corporate giving. It fascinates me: how companies do it, what causes they support, and more than anything, how much of the pie they share with those who could really use the help.
For instance, it’s probably no surprise to anyone, but I’m a huge fan of Starbucks. I wrote at least half of my first book in their stores, most notably the one in Canton, Massachusetts. Quite recently, I’ve been using various Starbucks around Naples for meetings and to access the Internet when out of the office. I am most often found in the location on 41 and Central Avenue or 5th Avenue South.
I like the coffee, of course, but what keeps me coming back to Starbucks is the touchy-feely component: the spirit of do-gooderism is genuine, at least among a large number of front-line employees and managers. Jane’s mommy job* is at another of their locations, so I’ve benefited from an inside look at this firm for several years now.
According to the company, Starbucks gave 4% of its pre-tax profits to charity in 2006. They gave 1.7% in 2007.
“Pre-tax:” that’s good. If you’re disappointed that their percentage dropped by more than half, remember that they are in a world of hurt at present, due to the confluence of over-rapid growth and this unfortunate economy we’re in now. They’re still growing, though, so buy their stock. As the economy recovers, you’ll be glad you did.
Another firm I’m crazy about is Lenovo, makers of the ThinkPad notebook computer. According to their own advertising,
“Lenovo dedicates 1% of its corporate income to help entrepreneurs in distressed communities around the world put their ideas to work. This home-grown development approach has resulted in thousands of new businesses, helping people transform their lives and communities.”
That’s cool. If my next computer isn’t a Mac, it just may be a Lenovo.
Only one percent, though, huh? I find that interesting. Lenovo is able to brag about giving one penny per dollar of its “corporate income” to help others. For this marketing gimmick to work, it means that most companies don’t even give one percent. One percent is clearly very, very special. (Either that, or the marketing types at Lenovo are very, very brazen.)
I need to research what they mean by “corporate income.” Is that gross revenue or net? Pre-tax or post? That make a whole lot of difference. I promise to get back to you on this.
In my next entry, I’ll share more about corporate giving, including one local firm that’ll knock your socks off: Tithe & More.
http://www.starbucks.com/sharedplanet/index.aspx
http://www.lenovo.com/social_responsibility/us/en/social_investments.html
*Is “mommy job” a patronizing term? I hope you don’t think so. Jane used to be a top manager with an esteemed firm up in the Boston area. Then she founded a very successful company with me, and then she wrote a book on business excellence. But somewhere in there, we realized that if she didn’t get out of the house and home office for at least a few hours each week, she might end up killing me. Jane chose to be a barista at Starbucks because she liked the company as a customer, and also to take advantage of the part-timer health insurance (another very, very good sign that this company is the real deal).
So what makes it a “mommy job,” and not just a “job?” I think it’s all about intention. Jane has resisted promotion at every opportunity. Dealing with the public, making drinks, working alongside teenagers, Jane is in heaven. No pressure, no ambition, just something to let you have a life. This is the definition of a “mommy job” – or a “grandpa job” if you’re retired, or a “daddy job” if you were born with a trust fund, I suppose.
For years now, I have been studying corporate giving. It fascinates me: how companies do it, what causes they support, and more than anything, how much of the pie they share with those who could really use the help.
For instance, it’s probably no surprise to anyone, but I’m a huge fan of Starbucks. I wrote at least half of my first book in their stores, most notably the one in Canton, Massachusetts. Quite recently, I’ve been using various Starbucks around Naples for meetings and to access the Internet when out of the office. I am most often found in the location on 41 and Central Avenue or 5th Avenue South.
I like the coffee, of course, but what keeps me coming back to Starbucks is the touchy-feely component: the spirit of do-gooderism is genuine, at least among a large number of front-line employees and managers. Jane’s mommy job* is at another of their locations, so I’ve benefited from an inside look at this firm for several years now.
According to the company, Starbucks gave 4% of its pre-tax profits to charity in 2006. They gave 1.7% in 2007.
“Pre-tax:” that’s good. If you’re disappointed that their percentage dropped by more than half, remember that they are in a world of hurt at present, due to the confluence of over-rapid growth and this unfortunate economy we’re in now. They’re still growing, though, so buy their stock. As the economy recovers, you’ll be glad you did.
Another firm I’m crazy about is Lenovo, makers of the ThinkPad notebook computer. According to their own advertising,
“Lenovo dedicates 1% of its corporate income to help entrepreneurs in distressed communities around the world put their ideas to work. This home-grown development approach has resulted in thousands of new businesses, helping people transform their lives and communities.”
That’s cool. If my next computer isn’t a Mac, it just may be a Lenovo.
Only one percent, though, huh? I find that interesting. Lenovo is able to brag about giving one penny per dollar of its “corporate income” to help others. For this marketing gimmick to work, it means that most companies don’t even give one percent. One percent is clearly very, very special. (Either that, or the marketing types at Lenovo are very, very brazen.)
I need to research what they mean by “corporate income.” Is that gross revenue or net? Pre-tax or post? That make a whole lot of difference. I promise to get back to you on this.
In my next entry, I’ll share more about corporate giving, including one local firm that’ll knock your socks off: Tithe & More.
http://www.starbucks.com/sharedplanet/index.aspx
http://www.lenovo.com/social_responsibility/us/en/social_investments.html
*Is “mommy job” a patronizing term? I hope you don’t think so. Jane used to be a top manager with an esteemed firm up in the Boston area. Then she founded a very successful company with me, and then she wrote a book on business excellence. But somewhere in there, we realized that if she didn’t get out of the house and home office for at least a few hours each week, she might end up killing me. Jane chose to be a barista at Starbucks because she liked the company as a customer, and also to take advantage of the part-timer health insurance (another very, very good sign that this company is the real deal).
So what makes it a “mommy job,” and not just a “job?” I think it’s all about intention. Jane has resisted promotion at every opportunity. Dealing with the public, making drinks, working alongside teenagers, Jane is in heaven. No pressure, no ambition, just something to let you have a life. This is the definition of a “mommy job” – or a “grandpa job” if you’re retired, or a “daddy job” if you were born with a trust fund, I suppose.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Adam Smith, un-misunderstood
I’m an ardent capitalist. I hope that goes without saying, as one of my three blogs is "The Savvy Capitalist" (www.savvycapitalist.blogspot.com) but you never know. Among my friends around Naples, I’ve been labeled liberal so often that I’m beginning to believe it myself. (In Boston, by comparison, I was often called a conservative or even a libertarian).
I suppose you can be a liberal and a capitalist at the same time. Go figure.
Regardless, I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to call me a liberal when it comes to matters of fiscal policy. Here’s my take:
1. Government should stay out of our lives – and our wallets – when at all possible. “The Government is best which governs least” …I think there’s at least something to that.
2. Government intervention is almost by definition coercive.
3. The private- and citizen- (“nonprofit”) sectors are more efficient than government.
4. However, it isn’t always possible for government to stay small.
5. It isn't always possible, because companies and individuals often don’t pull their weight. As a result, the government is morally obligated to step in.
Take health care as an example. Health insurance has been the purview of the private sector for decades. State and Federal agencies fill in some around the edges. Citizen organizations try their best to augment this.
Yet 40 million Americans have no health insurance.
The present system is, in a word, inadequate. The result is that the federal government is about to step in and rewrite the rules.
A lot of people will snipe about this, but I think it’s fair for the rest of us to ignore their criticism. Conservatives have had their chance to insure our entire citizenry for decades in whatever creative way they saw fit. They failed to do it. Now, if their taxes go up and their government gets bigger as a result… hey, fair warning.
***
If you’re still with me, you’re likely convinced that I am, indeed, a tax-and-government-loving liberal.
Far from it.
In the 1760s and 1770s, economist Adam Smith wrote that the wealthy have a moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate.
No one ever called Adam Smith a liberal.
The Father of Capitalism didn’t say that the wealthy should consider caring for the less fortunate, or that they should do so a little, if it’s convenient.
His position was that a true, savvy capitalist understands the economic imperative to care for those worse-off than he.
Adam Smith’s take on government was that if you want to keep it small, fund charity work from the private sector. Otherwise, you’ll deserve a large, meddling government. Yes, “deserve.” As in, “this is what you asked for.”
Funny how few self-described capitalists understand this essential component of capitalism. It’s as if, for over two hundred years now, we’ve been picking what we like of this economic system and discarding the rest.
Let me state this quite clearly: You can’t have pure, true capitalism without a very active citizen sector, funded by the private sector.
What we have in the United States today is not pure capitalism; it is watered down on one side by inadequate private giving. It is watered down on the other side by the result, robust governmental activism.
***
We at The Naples Institute (www.institutenaples.org) devised the Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses not just to reward good corporate behavior – no, far from it! We have established this prize to expand the conversation. …To educate the region, the country, and the world on what true capitalism actually means. …And yes, absolutely, to change behavior on a very profound scale.
In future entries on this blog, you will read about specific companies doing some very laudatory things. Their leaders may not even know it, but they are followers of Adam Smith; they are some of the few, our culture’s bona fide capitalists.
I suppose you can be a liberal and a capitalist at the same time. Go figure.
Regardless, I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to call me a liberal when it comes to matters of fiscal policy. Here’s my take:
1. Government should stay out of our lives – and our wallets – when at all possible. “The Government is best which governs least” …I think there’s at least something to that.
2. Government intervention is almost by definition coercive.
3. The private- and citizen- (“nonprofit”) sectors are more efficient than government.
4. However, it isn’t always possible for government to stay small.
5. It isn't always possible, because companies and individuals often don’t pull their weight. As a result, the government is morally obligated to step in.
Take health care as an example. Health insurance has been the purview of the private sector for decades. State and Federal agencies fill in some around the edges. Citizen organizations try their best to augment this.
Yet 40 million Americans have no health insurance.
The present system is, in a word, inadequate. The result is that the federal government is about to step in and rewrite the rules.
A lot of people will snipe about this, but I think it’s fair for the rest of us to ignore their criticism. Conservatives have had their chance to insure our entire citizenry for decades in whatever creative way they saw fit. They failed to do it. Now, if their taxes go up and their government gets bigger as a result… hey, fair warning.
***
If you’re still with me, you’re likely convinced that I am, indeed, a tax-and-government-loving liberal.
Far from it.
In the 1760s and 1770s, economist Adam Smith wrote that the wealthy have a moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate.
No one ever called Adam Smith a liberal.
The Father of Capitalism didn’t say that the wealthy should consider caring for the less fortunate, or that they should do so a little, if it’s convenient.
His position was that a true, savvy capitalist understands the economic imperative to care for those worse-off than he.
Adam Smith’s take on government was that if you want to keep it small, fund charity work from the private sector. Otherwise, you’ll deserve a large, meddling government. Yes, “deserve.” As in, “this is what you asked for.”
Funny how few self-described capitalists understand this essential component of capitalism. It’s as if, for over two hundred years now, we’ve been picking what we like of this economic system and discarding the rest.
Let me state this quite clearly: You can’t have pure, true capitalism without a very active citizen sector, funded by the private sector.
What we have in the United States today is not pure capitalism; it is watered down on one side by inadequate private giving. It is watered down on the other side by the result, robust governmental activism.
***
We at The Naples Institute (www.institutenaples.org) devised the Adam Smith Award for Socially Conscious Businesses not just to reward good corporate behavior – no, far from it! We have established this prize to expand the conversation. …To educate the region, the country, and the world on what true capitalism actually means. …And yes, absolutely, to change behavior on a very profound scale.
In future entries on this blog, you will read about specific companies doing some very laudatory things. Their leaders may not even know it, but they are followers of Adam Smith; they are some of the few, our culture’s bona fide capitalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=small}