Working with Purpose, Forever
hakaimagazine.com
Working with Purpose, Forever
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#2> A Perpetual Purpose Trust (PPT) is a legal and organizational structure that allows a company to operate with a focus on achieving their overarching goal of creating purpose or impact rather than focusing on maximizing profits alone.
Patagonia and Bosch are the well known examples of this ownership structure.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#3> The transaction was financed by a lending institution that helps support alternative ownership models
I guess this lending institution isn't altruistic, so the founder essentially moved control of their business to them.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#4> The transaction was financed by a lending institution that helps support alternative ownership models I guess this lending institution isn't altruistic, so the founder essentially moved control of their business to them.
In theory the trust structure limits their control. They will presumably get repaid out of future profits, but won't be able to change the company mission (at least, as long as the company is able to keep paying what it owes them).
In practice, who knows how much that will hold up. I remember Etsy adopting some kind of benefit corporation status with great fanfare, only to quietly abolish it a couple of years later.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#5It would be interesting to see DAO's take on the mantle of websites and other projects that have similar trajectories as Local Ocean Seafoods.
The code would be able to facilitate payments for things like hosting and basic web maintenance in perpetuity, where otherwise the site would be dead forever.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#6> A Perpetual Purpose Trust (PPT) is a legal and organizational structure that allows a company to operate with a focus on achieving their overarching goal of creating purpose or impact rather than focusing on maximizing profits alone. Patagonia and Bosch are the well known examples of this ownership structure.
Maybe Zeiss too?
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#7> The transaction was financed by a lending institution that helps support alternative ownership models I guess this lending institution isn't altruistic, so the founder essentially moved control of their business to them.
Presumably there's a business loan with a fixed contract and terms. That's a very different situation than an open ended commitment to maximally enrich shareholders... Pay your bills and the lender has nothing to say about how you run the business. Don't pay your bills, and the contract (which everyone signed) says what happens.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#8> The transaction was financed by a lending institution that helps support alternative ownership models I guess this lending institution isn't altruistic, so the founder essentially moved control of their business to them.
Presumably there's a business loan with a fixed contract and terms. That's a very different situation than an open ended commitment to maximally enrich shareholders... Pay your bills and the lender has nothing to say about how you run the business. Don't pay your bills, and the contract (which everyone signed) says what happens.
Simultaneously achieving two goals (supporting the local seafood industry and making a profit) is much more difficult than achieving a single goal - making a profit, so the likelihood of failure is high.
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably there's a business loan with a fixed contract and terms. That's a very different situation than an open ended commitment to maximally enrich shareholders... Pay your bills and the lender has nothing to say about how you run the business. Don't pay your bills, and the contract (which everyone signed) says what happens.
Simultaneously achieving two goals (supporting the local seafood industry and making a profit) is much more difficult than achieving a single goal - making a profit, so the likelihood of failure is high.
Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood, writing software, designing chips, mining ores, whatever. So making profits and doing something else cannot be harder than just making profits. Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here?
Re: Working with Purpose, Forever
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simultaneously achieving two goals (supporting the local seafood industry and making a profit) is much more difficult than achieving a single goal - making a profit, so the likelihood of failure is high.
Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood, writing software, designing chips, mining ores, whatever. So making profits and doing something else cannot be harder than just making profits. Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here?
> Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood
It's selling expensive local seafood when your competition selling cheaper imported frozen stuff.
> Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here?
If there was no difference, then there would be no need in inventing alternative capital formation legal structures like PPT.