Twice in the last week, I’ve asked for advice on where to turn for startup funding for ReGeneration Productions, LLC, the production company bringing you Mission: Sustainable. Twice, I’ve gotten the same answer: “Go nonprofit; it opens up a world of grants!”
Each time I hear this, I pause to reconsider and come to the same conclusion: Why shouldn’t organizations committed to passion over profit have a larger share of capitalist pie? Why should all do-gooders participate in commerce in separate sphere, guided by special rules and prescriptions? And lastly, call it semantics, but I’ve got a beef with using the phrase “nonprofit” to describe all of these wonderful organizations that have great potential for income. Something about the very wording seems to emasculate a corporation.
Environmentalists are spending a LOT of energy explaining to for-profit companies why they need to build concerns for environmental and social 
responsibility into their existing profit equations. Books like Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle share roadmaps on how companies should turn a profit in a less resource-intensive way. The trend is to push, coddle, protest, boycott, and embarrass existing companies into good behavior, when maybe it’s time to pour some of that energy into supporting new companies that “get it” from the beginning. Arguably, it’s the same logic as mandating sustainability education for children who will be tomorrow’s leaders. It’s about investing in the leaders of tomorrow today.
I’d like to hear what other folks have to say about the nonprofit vs. for-profit debate. I’m open to rethinking my logic, so let me hear from you: What are the pros and cons in your view?
Yours in business,
Rose
[Images courtesy of http://savantcreativegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/money_plant.jpg and http://www.ebooknetworking.com/books/086/547/big0865475873.jpg]
Tags: Green business practices, Green reading, Mission: Sustainable, Mission:Sustainable, Nonprofit, ReGeneration Productions
I think you’re absolutely right to go straight to the symbolism–the practical differences are not that huge–but it’s also important to consider the symbolism to potential donors of nonprofit status. On the smaller scale of the transaction you wish to conduct with a donor, I think nonprofit status acts as a powerful flag announcing that their donation will go towards the mission, and not merely lining your pockets or paying back an investor.
That said, taking nonprofit status would make it much harder (if not impossible) to get investors involved, and it would mean submitting yourselves to a certain amount of pressure to underpay everyone, because donors and boards don’t automatically understand that paying staff a living wage belongs in the “helping the org advance its mission” category as opposed to the “lining your pockets” one.
Eldan, great points re: symbolism and freedom. Creating a conscientious for-profit company is daunting because it’s sometimes an uphill battle to convince folks that we’re doing this for the right reasons and 100% committed to feeding the public accurate, timely information about green lifestyles. Sometimes I think that stamping “non-profit”on the project would satisfy the skeptics, but we at ReGen want the freedom and flexibility of a dynamic, creative small business.