For me, the idea really crystallized with the Mondragon example, and thinking about how we can expand the footprint of cooperatives and employee-owned companies.
Some of the earlier for-profit enterprise examples give me pause. Isn't one big difference between nations and companies that nations are _supposed_ to have the welfare of citizens as their primary goal? Investor-driven firms are meant to provide shareholder return, and employee benefits are just means to an end. You may ask: so what? Well, for one, they are fragile and fleeting (Ford) and second, they are always going to be limited in how much they provide (shuttles to work, not new roads).
But I am excited to think about "companies" that are designed with member/employee welfare in mind can sustain a revenue generating business model. And how they can expand their impact to more parts of society!
Yes, exactly. Mondragon (and many cooperatives in Spain) started as a loophole for their bad government. They created democracies within a dictatorship, correcting bad governance with good companies.
But some places, like the US, had the opposite: Companies were taking advantage of citizens (think: the Rockefellers and Carnegies), but thankfully we had good governance that could step in to correct those imbalances.
Because many of us grew up with the latter, we think: "The government is out for the public good, companies are not." But the reality is that both can be good and bad. Ideally: Each can correct for the other's imbalance.
But I'm losing faith in the government's ability to fix things, at least in the US, so it's a good time to remember that we can still do a lot with our companies just like they did in Spain! Economic development alone was a good enough goal for the last couple of centuries, but now it's time for an overhaul. We can do a lot of good with our companies if we choose to.
Another great article and lots of food for thought here! Thank you.
Curious how this fits among the trend for solopreneurship, which seems to be lots of people's go-to mechanism to 'escape' and achieve 'freedom'.
Also, there is a call for better institutions to protect us from the dangers of AI, for example. Would those also come under the umbrella of companies in your definition?
Solopreneurship is still "doing something," especially if what you are doing is something good for the world. Any economic activity can be used for good!
An AI company can do good or evil. I'm personally bummed that OpenAi didn't continue with it's initial incarnation, that would have been such a collective good!
Very interesting take, Elle!
For me, the idea really crystallized with the Mondragon example, and thinking about how we can expand the footprint of cooperatives and employee-owned companies.
Some of the earlier for-profit enterprise examples give me pause. Isn't one big difference between nations and companies that nations are _supposed_ to have the welfare of citizens as their primary goal? Investor-driven firms are meant to provide shareholder return, and employee benefits are just means to an end. You may ask: so what? Well, for one, they are fragile and fleeting (Ford) and second, they are always going to be limited in how much they provide (shuttles to work, not new roads).
But I am excited to think about "companies" that are designed with member/employee welfare in mind can sustain a revenue generating business model. And how they can expand their impact to more parts of society!
Yes, exactly. Mondragon (and many cooperatives in Spain) started as a loophole for their bad government. They created democracies within a dictatorship, correcting bad governance with good companies.
But some places, like the US, had the opposite: Companies were taking advantage of citizens (think: the Rockefellers and Carnegies), but thankfully we had good governance that could step in to correct those imbalances.
Because many of us grew up with the latter, we think: "The government is out for the public good, companies are not." But the reality is that both can be good and bad. Ideally: Each can correct for the other's imbalance.
But I'm losing faith in the government's ability to fix things, at least in the US, so it's a good time to remember that we can still do a lot with our companies just like they did in Spain! Economic development alone was a good enough goal for the last couple of centuries, but now it's time for an overhaul. We can do a lot of good with our companies if we choose to.
Another great article and lots of food for thought here! Thank you.
Curious how this fits among the trend for solopreneurship, which seems to be lots of people's go-to mechanism to 'escape' and achieve 'freedom'.
Also, there is a call for better institutions to protect us from the dangers of AI, for example. Would those also come under the umbrella of companies in your definition?
Solopreneurship is still "doing something," especially if what you are doing is something good for the world. Any economic activity can be used for good!
An AI company can do good or evil. I'm personally bummed that OpenAi didn't continue with it's initial incarnation, that would have been such a collective good!