The dissonance of two societal trends -- the resurgence of venture investing and the rise in environmentally and socially responsible enterprises -- has given birth to the notion of "patient capital."
Much like its gastronomical brethren movement, slow food, patient capital is a backlash against institutionalization -- in this case, of money as a means of earning, well, a fast buck. Rather, say its adherents, money should be a means of creating wealth -- the kind that enriches society, the environment, and our collective soul just as much as investors' financial standing.
This conversation is nothing new. For years, entrepreneurs and business folks interested in socially and environmentally responsible business have questioned the wisdom and appropriateness of our modern engines of capital formation and wealth creation. The past few decades have seen the emergence of new methodologies and metrics for integrating social and financial returns: screened portfolios, shareholder advocacy, double bottom line, triple bottom line (and even a quadruple bottom line), stakeholder capitalism, natural capitalism, restorative economics, social return on investment, blended value, sustainable development, and on and on. All of these question the notion, as Milton Friedman wrote in his famously titled 1970 New York Times article, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," that the sole purpose of business is to make money.
(My favorite rebuttal to Friedman, by the way, came in 1979 from Kenneth Mason, then president of Quaker Oats, who said: "Making a profit is no more the purpose of a corporation than getting enough to eat is the purpose of life. Getting enough to eat is a requirement of life; life's purpose, one would hope, is somewhat broader and more challenging. Likewise with business and profit.")
Over the years, Friedman's assertion has been burnished by the corps of capitalists seeking ever-higher, ever-faster financial yields for their investments. The boom cycles of venture capitalism -- in which twentysomethings armed with a screwdriver and a vague idea could raise a few million dollars based on a sketchy business plan and few proven management skills -- have only underscored that fast bucks were there for the taking. The short-term mindset of Wall Street, in which "long-term thinking" involves anything beyond six months (or, for some, six weeks), is what happens when "get rich quick" is taken to an institutional level.
Enter "patient capital." The term describes an amorphous but emerging set of business models. It is rooted in the notion that pursuing maximum growth and maximum shareholder value often dilute a company's social and environmental mission, and that achieving financial, social, and environmental benefits can take time. At its forefront are companies like Patagonia and Newman's Own -- for-profit businesses with strong social and philanthropic missions not likely to meet The Street's purely financial expectations. Right behind them are countless companies whose founders and investors support the values of sustainable business, clean technology, and "local living economies." Some of these are "traditional" businesses in that their structures and financial models are much like conventional businesses. Others harness innovative new models, such as "B corps" -- private companies that donate all of their profits to charity -- the Newman's Own model, since replicated by others.
Does "Patient capital" represent the future of business -- a world in which "sustainable businesses" yield "sustainable returns" -- or yet another "alternative" model destined to be fringe? It's too early to tell, but I'll look forward to the discussion at the upcoming Investors Circle annual conference. Though the notion of "for-benefit" social enterprises may be a tough concept for hardbitten Wall Street types to swallow, the time is ripe for a new style of business, one that expands the reach of both venture investing and philanthropy, bringing value to all parties without the social and ecological carnage that emanates all too frequently from our capitalistic world.
I couldn't agree more with Joel. This approach of patient capital is integrated into numerous successful economies through government driven business incentives. In the solar industry, this has happened in Japan and Germany, where the governments took practive steps to ensure the long term security and economic prosperity of their countries. We have taken a good first step recently with more and more companies not giving guidance of their financial performance as frequently, thereby freeing them up to focus more on key "longer term" initiatives. I believe that this will help increase the flow of "patient capital" into our financial markets.
Posted by: Aaron Nitzkin | May 01, 2006 at 11:06 PM
I think that if you read Milton Friedman's article, and you believe that all "sustainable business" related activity has a net short or long term "business case", than you can conclude that Milton Friedman's premise is dead-on. The business is run for profit--operating in a sustainable way, ensures long term maximized profitability. His article accounts for the fact that social and environmental activities can benefit the bottom line. Some don't, some do, best to focus on the ones that do. Not sure why Milton gets used in this negative way over and over again. If you look at the successful sustainable business case studies--they all benefit the bottom line. The ones that don't--don't go very far. Why fear the profit motive??--it makes the wheels turn!
Posted by: andrew g. | May 02, 2006 at 10:19 AM
The triple or quadruple bottom line concept is a little touchy-feely. But the multiple imperatives can be reduced to one. This will require a shift in regulations to account for things most businesses now ignore. (Such as CO2 emissions.) Aside from complying with government mandates, corporations will reap obvious P.R. benefits (which add to their bottom line.)
By pricing externalities and other factors in terms of dollars, we can let business continue to do what it is designed to do: maximize profits.
Posted by: BlackSun | May 03, 2006 at 10:59 AM