Main Page: Difference between revisions

From BurnZero
Line 29: Line 29:
What's common to both is that revenue generated are primarily associated with maintaining the survival of the business. So although Mcdonalds is deemed worse due to unaccounted [[externalities]] of profit so too are NFPs which hide externality costs within the pursuit of revenue for wages.
What's common to both is that revenue generated are primarily associated with maintaining the survival of the business. So although Mcdonalds is deemed worse due to unaccounted [[externalities]] of profit so too are NFPs which hide externality costs within the pursuit of revenue for wages.


So, the question is, if the current types of ICs still create externalities which could be avoided. Is it possible to create another type of corporation which mitigates this. There have been many attempts, the most successful of which have been the creation of [https://www.bcorporation.net/ B Corp] which certifies corporate ICs and SOPs to ensure they are sustainable. Patagonia, the clothing brand, emerged from this structure and successfully creates over 60% of its products from recycled materials.
So, the question is, if the current types of ICs still create externalities which could be avoided. Is it possible to create another type of corporation which mitigates this. There have been many attempts, the most successful of which have been the creation of [https://www.bcorporation.net/ B Corp] which certifies corporate ICs and SOPs to ensure they are sustainable. Patagonia, the clothing brand, emerged from this structure and successfully creates over 60% of its products from recycled materials. '''Fantastic, buy Patagonia, world saved, job done.''' Not so fast. although the ethical stance on a company like Patagonia is relatively better than buying Nike clothing, they are still making new clothes which requires a heavy petrochemical enabled supply chain. So can we do better?


== '''Part 6''': The Good Machine ==
== '''Part 6''': The Good Machine ==
Line 42: Line 42:


== '''Part 7''': Purpose *Under Construction* ==
== '''Part 7''': Purpose *Under Construction* ==
Whilst the [[Transparent incorporation statement|"''transparent"'' incorporation statement]] mainly codifies exclusions, i.e what the business '''cannot''' do, it does say much in regards to what it '''can''' do. In fact, the additional governance requirements, most notably the [[Transparency|transparent]] tenet, actually creates a massive disadvantage for the business. Knowledge is power, the more proprietary market information a business has the greater the businesses advantage is in the marketplace. By employing a pure transparency tenet, all competitive advantage is lost.  
Whilst the [[Transparent incorporation statement|"''transparent"'' incorporation statement]] mainly codifies exclusions, i.e what the business '''cannot''' do, it doesn't say much in regards to what it '''can''' do. In fact, the additional governance requirements, most notably the [[Transparency|transparent]] tenet, actually creates a key disadvantage for the business. The more proprietary market information a business has the greater the businesses advantage is in the marketplace, knowledge is power. By employing a pure transparency tenet, all competitive advantage is lost and in theory the business would not be able to exist.  


With the creation of the internet came ecommerce, business conducted in hyper liquid market. This quickly meant once an advantage was established it quickly dissipates due to how fast information moves, an arms race ensues, profits erode and only the lowest common denominator if left. Oddly, once this is reached, that the only thing that can differentiate a business is better ethics. In market place there is a technology plateau, where a business cannot make it faster, cheaper, more efficient the business has peaked and has no other option but to go backwards.
With the creation of the internet came ecommerce and business was increasing conducted in a hyper liquid market. This meant once an advantage was established it quickly dissipates due to how fast information moves, a very efficient arms race ensues, profits erode until only the lowest common denominator is left. Oddly, a recent trend has developed that once this level is reached, the only thing that can differentiate a new business is offering better ethics. Where a new entrant to a market cannot make it faster, cheaper or more efficient the business no other option but to differentiate itself by other means.


An example of this new trend is the online ticketed event space. Eventbrite came to the fore with an easy to use system which everyone started using, once the UI was established and refined and the cost of development has plummeted.
One recent example of this new trend is the online ticketed event space. Eventbrite came to the market with an easy to use system which everyone started using, once the UI was established and refined the cost of development plummeted and a new entrant emerged, Humanitix. The new entrant offers nearly exactly the same website and service, however differentiated on one key attribute, virtue. The company registered as a charity and donates its profits to helping disadvantaged kids around the world. The company is doubling in size every 6 months and now has offices in Sydney, Auckland and Denver. But is this the future of business on a dying planet? If an ethical arms race ensues is this the best we can do?


It will lead to an arms race
One major criticism of any Not For Profits (NFP) is that due to the lack of shareholder primacy, they are often bloated with human resources and thus inefficient.<hr/>
 
Like B corp, their tenet is ultimately shit because its for profit
 
You can put whatever ethical stance on a company like Patagonia but your still supply chain, beating indigenous, lower cost fossil fuel<hr/>
'''References'''
'''References'''
<references />
<references />

Share your opinion