MV TELEGRAPH

A signage of a Patagonia store is seen on Greene Street on September 14, 2022 in New York City.

Michael M Santiago | News from Getty Images | Getty Images

Many brands align their profits with purpose, but Patagonia’s September decision to transform its for-profit business into one with all profits going to the fight against climate change is the most complex move by a U.S. company in sustainability capitalism. Is it a future model for other companies?

In a way, it’s a natural progression for the family business. Patagonia has long been at the forefront of responsible business practices. As early as 1985, Patagonia used part of its profits to help the environment with a “earth tax”.

It’s far from the only well-known US brand structured to allow profits to be donated to charity. Newman’s Own, the food brand founded by Hollywood icon Paul Newman, is perhaps the best known. Since 1982, Newman’s Own has given 100% of its profits to charity, which now totals half a billion dollars in contributions. But this company, with a purely for-profit structure, was more of a “first-generation” model for sustainable business, says Tensie Whelan, founding director of the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business. “The Patagonia model is a bit more sophisticated.”

A business model already in Europe

But while Patagonia made headlines in the US for being a novel marriage of capitalism and charity, similar corporate structures are already in use by several large European family companies, from Carlsberg to Ikea and Novo Nordisk. “Nothing new about this model,” said Morten Bennedsen, professor of family business at INSEAD and academic director of the Wendel International Center for Family Enterprise.

Even in the US, one of the most well-known retail brands has long had a #1 charitable shareholder designed by the family founder: Hershey’s.

“It’s a model that’s attractive to family businesses who don’t want to continue as classic family businesses and want the long-term stability and increasing professionalism that come with starting a business,” said Bennedsen. It’s often very attractive from a corporate tax perspective. “That’s another driver for it,” he said.

100% of Patagonia’s profits now go to the new non-profit Holdfast Collective – which owns all non-voting shares in the company (98% of total stock). A Patagonia spokesperson said the move shows that it is possible to “do good for people and the planet and still be a successful company.”

“Clearly profit-oriented”

Patagonia’s CEO went further in a September interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” dismissing any notion that this change would make it less focused on beating the competition. “What people don’t understand about Patagonia, both past and future, is that we are a hard-line for-profit company and extremely competitive,” said Ryan Gellert. “We compete aggressively with every other company in our space. I don’t think we’ve lost that instinct,” he said. “The whole thing will fail if we don’t continue to operate competitively.”

“How we make our products, how we sell them, and then the goal of unlocking value to help the environment… the alignment of those goals will be lost if the story doesn’t recognize that Patagonia is a for-profit company with its profits being unlocked.” to help the environment,” said the spokeswoman. “That’s a key difference.”

For values-driven founders, there are less extreme options than the paths taken by Yvon Chouinard and Paul Newman. “Most founders like to be in control and have a for-profit (less altruistic) sensibility,” Whelan said.

B-corp status, employee ownership, and mutuals and cooperatives are all models that allow for a greater focus on creating stakeholder value alongside shareholder value.

“We’re seeing significant growth in these alternative models,” Whelan said.

In fact, the number of B Corps has steadily increased since 2011, with the total recently surpassing five thousand.

For its part, Patagonia will remain unchanged as a day-to-day company, but all profits (after reinvesting in the company, paying employees, etc.) will be donated to the Holdfast Collective to help fight climate change, an annual stream of profits estimated at around $100 million a year becomes.

“This was a process I’ve never been a part of before,” said Greg Curtis, executive director of the Holdfast Collective. “It really started with what I want to happen to the company in the long run so that the purpose doesn’t change in the future. We want to recognize natural lifespans… What does that actually mean for capitalism? What really motivates people – is it gain, is it purpose?”

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard poses at his store in a November 21, 1993 photo. He founded the company in 1973, and in a letter announcing the plan to give away the company, he wrote: “If we have any hope of a thriving planet — let alone a business — we must all do what we can to do with resources.” , which we have. We can do that.”

Jean Marc Giboux | Hulton Archives | Getty Images

Jennifer Pendergast, executive director of the John L. Ward Center for Family Enterprises at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, said Patagonia’s decision could serve as a model for other family businesses, just like Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge Bill and Melinda Gates caused many billionaires to reconsider how they donate their wealth. “That said, it’s not so much the specific shape being used that’s unusual. It’s more their generosity,” Pendergast said. “It’s not that hard to start a nonprofit organization to take stock. It’s hard to get a family to agree to forsaking future wealth for a good cause.”

Long-term friction between purpose and capitalism

The new structure leaves some long-term questions about the integration of profit and purpose. Instead of a for-profit company deciding annually how much and how a portion of its profits will be donated to charity, the structure of the Patagonian Purpose Trust and the Holdfast Collective codifies the commitment. “In our model, the company that receives economic value has no voting rights and the company that has voting rights receives very little economic value. There is no incentive for Patagonia ever to make a decision that is not consistent with ensuring the Company’s purpose going forward,” Curtis said.

But with the founder and his family no longer in control of Patagonia, how will the for-profit company’s board of directors be selected and managed? “That will develop, the board, and at the moment it’s the family and their closest advisors,” said Gellert. But he added that no better option had emerged during a multi-year process to select the best option for the company’s future. The company considered a public offering or sale of shares to investors, “but we would have lost control,” he said. “We had very little confidence in discussions with a number of investors that integrity would be maintained.”

While this structure can be an option for both family-run and non-family-run businesses, Bennedsen says it works particularly well for family entrepreneurs who don’t want to transfer the businesses within the family and don’t want to go public or sell the old business.

However, expect the back and forth between profit and purpose to remain in any corporate venture.

“We’re well aware of the tension between growth and environmental impact,” Curtis said. “We would be ignoring our commitment to responsible growth if we only maximized sales to give away more money. It’s also important to resist the assumption that our value comes from the money we give away. We don’t think about it that way,” he said. “Our value comes from being a for-profit company and a benefit corporation.”

“The challenge for him [Chouinard’s] Family will be in later generations,” Pendergast said. “They must determine who will be the trustees of the interest held by the nonprofit that will determine how that nonprofit uses the proceeds they receive from Patagonia. It’s easy now because it seems that he and his family are aligned in their goals. It could get harder further down.”

“Sometimes there’s some tension,” Gellert said in his CNBC interview. “But the standard for Patagonia is purpose. Patagonia needs capacity and profit to take care of its people, to expand, to keep the supply chain running, and that’s all an important layer, but we want it to get better, and to keep innovating.”

Retail establishments and their merchandise are filled with stories about the enthusiastic farmers who picked the beans for the pricey cappuccino and the sustainability of a particular bag, helping the consumer feel less like a mere consumer and more like a conscious shopper in their choices make a difference. But there is an appropriate cynicism and altruism fatigue in response to corporate sustainability branding. Still, “a lot of the Patagonia model is repeatable,” Whelan said.

Already a B Corp, the company has been a leader in sustainability practices across everything including its workforce and environmental footprint, and has built a successful brand while upholding those values. “The fact that it has been able to become and sustain a $3 billion company is a testament to the business value of sustainability and the potential for stakeholder capitalism to be financially viable,” Whelan said . “Gifting away the company may be an anomaly, but the sustainable and responsible business model is one that we already see replicated.”

“The idea of ​​committing to ESG goals while making profits is no longer a paradox,” said Bennedsen.

On the window of an IN-N-OUT fast food restaurant in Encinitas, California on April 9.

Mike Blake | Reuters

When it comes to salaries, small business owners are usually not in the same league as larger companies.

It’s getting harder now in a tight job market with rising wages and more states and localities publishing salary ranges, making small businesses even less attractive from a salary perspective.

The stakes are particularly high considering that despite the slowing economy, small businesses are still in hiring mode and finding workers is not getting any easier. 86 percent of small business owners have expressed plans to hire one or more employees in the next year or two, according to an October survey by employee planning firm Homebase. Meanwhile, the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small businesses, last week reported a drop in confidence in Main Street for the tenth straight month, despite little change in the need to hire more workers.

“Owners continue to have a gloomy view of future revenue growth and business conditions, but are still looking for new employees,” NFIB chief economist Bill Dunkelberg said in a release accompanying its latest monthly survey. “Inflation, supply chain disruptions and labor shortages continue to limit the ability of many small businesses to meet demand for their products and services.”

The NFIB’s separate job report showed that 90% of job holders reported few or no qualified applicants for the jobs.

Here are five ways small businesses can level the playing field to attract top talent.

Highlight more than wages in the window

Jim Marx, director of retirement at Edelman Financial Services, recently drove past a supermarket that advertised “competitive benefits” in its storefront, highlighting perks like the company’s retirement plan, medical benefits and student loan assistance offerings. “It blew my mind to see that. They obviously want to get good talent in the door and they emphasized that,” he said.

The point: Small businesses need to ensure candidates understand the benefits of joining, beyond what is likely already a higher starting salary.

Benefits should be highlighted in job descriptions and discussed at every individual interview, during onboarding and in training, said Kayla Lebovits, CEO and founder of Bundle Benefits, a fully decentralized company focused on wellbeing, professional development and team building. “If it’s just mentioned in the job description but not promoted during interviews, [a candidate] will think it’s not real.”

Include current employees in the hiring process

Lebovits considers it effective to invite employees who actively use the various advantages of the company to participate in the interview. This allows candidates to get a real feel for how benefits like the company’s home improvement grant and co-working membership grant work.

“These aren’t big prize items, but employees use them,” Lebovits said.

Having an open dialogue about benefits and finding out what is important to candidates is crucial because it sets the tone for the future. “It conveys that the candidate is important to the company,” said Victoria Hodgkins, executive director of PeopleKeep, a benefits management software company. “In this work environment, candidates want to know that, and it gives them the opportunity to ask questions and learn more.”

Examine employee usage patterns and take advantage of popular perks

Small businesses generally cannot afford to offer the full range of benefits that large companies can, but they can offer a number of highly desirable benefits that employees take advantage of on a regular basis. “Find out what people are actually using and those are the ones you should be promoting because those are clearly the ones that people value the most,” Lebovits said.

In particular, benefits related to retirement, health and welfare can make a major contribution to improving the financial situation of employees. While most workers believe these benefits are important, according to an October study by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, there is a significant gap between the percentage of those citing their importance and the percentage that employers offer them. “This represents an opportunity for employers to increase the competitiveness of their compensation and benefits packages while helping their employees achieve greater long-term financial security,” the study stated.

In general, wellness benefits are also in high demand. According to a recent survey by TalentLMS, a learning management system powered by Epignosis, and financial wellness companies, a remarkable majority of employees, 68%, said they are more likely to stay in their current job longer when their employer offers financial wellness benefits to Tapcheck and Enrich. The survey also shows that 61% of employees are more likely to stay in their current job when financial training and resources are available.

Maternity leave is another important achievement worth considering. A recent survey by disability insurance provider Breeze found that most workers would prefer their employer to offer paid parental leave over vision insurance, employer-paid fitness or mental health benefits, employer-paid social events, or a student loan payback service. 1,000 employed adults between the ages of 22 and 40 were surveyed.

Avoid an all-benefits-equal approach

It’s important to offer a range of benefits that can appeal to different people.

For example, don’t just offer yoga or meditation apps or fitness benefits; Provide employees with multiple ways to top up, Lebovits said. “People take care of themselves very differently.”

And while the Breeze study found that parental leave is more popular than sight insurance among workers under 40, that could change once they hit “reading glasses age.”

Depending on gender, age and the nature of the work environment, there can be significant differences in the types of benefits that appeal to employees.

A May PeopleKeep survey of more than 900 small business workers found that 70% of women rate the benefits of mental health as “very or extremely” important, compared to 49% of men. Women also value flexible working hours (84% to 70%), paid family leave (73% to 61%) and professional development (64% to 57%) more than men, while men value internet and phone bill reimbursement more than Women (40% to 32%), according to the survey.

Turn existing employees into referral sources

If your existing employees are happy, they will be more likely to recommend a position at the company. That means making sure existing employees are excited about the benefits you offer – and to achieve that result, you need to make sure employees feel engaged.

Sixty-two percent of respondents to a recent survey conducted by Edelman Financial said they “don’t always feel represented” in their company’s messages about performance. The mood among women is even clearer: 68% say they do not always feel integrated – significantly more than their male colleagues (58%).

An overwhelming 93% of employees who do not always feel represented said they would be more likely to seek financial wellbeing support if it was tailored to their specific background and family circumstances, the survey found.

Finally, small businesses need to understand what attracts job seekers in the first place and highlight those benefits in all their communication with candidates. According to Homebase, 70% of small businesses cited a sense of community, followed by flexibility in the workplace (69%), close relationships with colleagues (66%) and closer relationships with managers (53%).