Pourquoi ? Parce que lorsque la part de gâteau de chacun se réduit, on a tendance à se battre comme des chiens pour des miettes et à penser que notre part est captée par “les autres” (alors que lorsque le gâteau grossit, une entreprise bouffe un maximum sans trop se préoccuper des autres).

C’est exactement ce qui se passe au PS. Depuis 20 ans, le PS perd régulièrement du pouvoir. Aujourd’hui, il est débordé à droite, au centre, et sur sa gauche. Il n’a plus d’espace. Et les dirigeants s’étripent JUSTEMENT parce qu’il n’y a plus grand chose à partager, pour avoir les miettes.

Si le PS était au pouvoir, il lui serait beaucoup plus facile de répartir postes, pouvoir et influence et de maîtriser les tensions.

Il est vain d’appeler le PS à la raison au nom de sa situation; au contraire, cette situation est la source du conflit.

A partir de cette constatation, Google a sorti un “Flu tracker” qui permet à la sécurité sociale américaine de pister, à peu de frais, la progression de la grippe et ce en temps réel puisque les données de Google sont disponibles immédiatement, soit 15 jours plus tôt que les données officielles !

Personne ne comprend pourquoi la corrélation est si parfaite, mais ça marche.

J’admire vraiment Google pour ce genre de “raccourcis”. Le moteur de recherche qui évalue la pertinence d’un site d’après le nombre de liens qui pointent vers lui, c’est un peu la même chose

J’avais 16 ans quand j’ai été aux Etats-Unis pour la première fois. J’ai passé un mois dans une université au fin fond de l’Ohio, état qui mardi soir a voté pour Obama. Je me souviens que les étudiants noirs et blancs vivaient de façon séparée et que, même à la télé, les programmes étaient séparés. C’est toujours un peu le cas aujourd’hui et quand j’y repense j’ai l’impression qu’en 1979, soit 11 ans après la fin de la ségrégation, le plus dur était déjà fait.

Dix ans plus tard, étudiant à Stanford, j’ai assisté à une discussion entre un étudiant “afro-américain” (c’était le temps du politiquement correct) et un étudiant “caucasien”. Le noir a brillamment démontré au blanc que Beethoven avait forcément du sang noir dans les veines puisque toute bonne musique était noire et que Beethoven avait fait de la bonne musique. Le soir même, des blancs ont été barbouiller sur une porte du campus un Beethoven à face de nègre, avec des grosses lèvres. Je me souviens que l’affaire a fait la première page du New York Times.

Je me souviens que j’étais fou de joie lorsque le Mur est tombé, que j’ai appelé mes amis pour qu’on parte à Berlin en voiture. Et puis, je me suis dit qu’on revenait finalement exactement à la situation d’avant la guerre de 14 et j’ai annulé. Je me souviens que pendant plus de dix-sept ans, j’ai regretté de ne pas avoir pu entendre Rostropovitch jouer du violoncelle devant le Mur, et puis j’ai cessé d’aimer le violoncelle.

Je me rends compte que Woody Allen, un juif, et Barack Obama, un noir, sont cent fois plus populaires en France que dans leur propre pays. Si j’étais BHL, je pourrais vous en faire plusieurs pages profondes, très profondes et bien entendu lyriques mais comme rien ne m’y oblige et n’ayant aucune explication plausible à proposer sur ce point, je vous laisse bien volontiers en tirer les conclusions qui s’imposent.

Je me souviens m’être dit que Sarkozy (« Ensemble tout devient possible ») et Obama (”Yes We can”) ont été élu avec des slogans finalement assez similaires alors que presque tout, au fond, les sépare. Surtout, l’arrivée au pouvoir est toujours une aventure individuelle et la vraie leçon à en tirer, c’est celle-ci : « Seul, tout devient possible » et « Yes, I can ».

Je me souviens que j’étais fou de joie lorsqu’ Obama est passé et puis je me suis dit que tous les gens qui sont ravis de l’élection d‘Obama parce qu’il est noir sont des racistes et que ça fait beaucoup de racistes.

Je ne me souviens pas, mais j’ai toujours su, que si les Américains n’avaient pas débarqué en 1945, je ne serais pas là.

1. Mission Statement

Support the development of humanitarian causes by giving them access to larger financial means through access to the capital of private companies: the altruistic companies.

2. Vision

Altruistic Capital broadens the concept of social entrepreneurship allowing any company in any field to have a real social impact.

Nowadays social entrepreneurship is reserved for companies working within an altruistic field of some sort.

It’s therefore limited to a range of activities that are both socially and financially profitable: two conditions difficult to reconcile.

Altruistic Capital breaks that cycle; the social impact derives from the growth of a company and the resulting increase in revenue/capital, and this regardless of the field of activity. By achieving financial performance, altruistic companies become useful.

The goal of the association Altruistic Capital is to bolster, worldwide, the creation and development of altruistic companies (companies that have donated part of their capital to one or various humanitarian causes).

Through the cumulated actions of such companies, humanitarian causes are empowered with an actual say in the economy (deriving from the financial lever provided by their participation in the capital of companies).

3. Goals

Within 3 years:

• Contribute to the creation and development of over 100 altruistic companies worldwide.
• Guarantee an actual and measurable economic impact on the humanitarian world: over 1 million euros worth of financed programs.
• Turn the spotlight on the expression “Altruistic Capital” making it as popular as “microfinance” and “social entrepreneurship” are nowadays.

4. Strategy

• Create and divulgate all required tools (i.e. typical articles of incorporation for an altruistic company) to enable and assist the mass creation of altruistic companies.
• Explain and promote an awareness of the modus operandi of Altruistic Capital (on one hand highlighting the differences with the more classical social entrepreneurship concept and on the other the humanitarian actions of regular companies – “humarketing“).

  Underline the impact (efficiency) of a capital donation as well as its complete measurability and accountability.

• Generate a movement benefiting altruistic companies: lobbying for them to be granted an economic edge and become more performant (image returns, popularity, reputation, employee and partners motivation, etc…)
• Create certified altruistic labels understood and recognizable by the public.
• Promote Altruistic Capital in the economic and financial community, and more specifically amongst founders and CEOs of companies, venture capital investors, banks, and “ethical” investment funds.
• Promote the Altruistic Capital concept in the “Open Source” community and convert “Open Source” projects into Altruistic enterprises.
• Promote Altruistic Capital in both the political and intellectual realms.
• Develop the association in the USA.
• Intensively use the Internet as a means of communication, cooperation and create action groups and think tanks.

5. Action Plan

• Formulate template altruistic articles of incorporation by September 2008, allowing any entrepreneur to easily incorporate as an altruistic company.
• Create a website with a blog by September 2008 (December for the English version).
• Incorporate “AC1“, the first altruistic enterprise in September 2008. “AC1” also known as “Roots of Heaven” is a company that produces electric bikes and motorbikes.
• Define and draft up the terms for the first altruistic label certification (gold, silver, bronze) by december 2008.
• Put a press kit and media plan together by december 2008. Target in priority financial medias (Echos, Tribune) and political press (Le Monde, Le Monde Diplomatique, Figaro…)
• Take part in the “ethical capitalism” curriculums of at least 5 Ivy League Colleges or Universities in 2009.
• Take part in at least 5 conferences related to either social entrepreneurship or ethical capitalism within 2008-2009.
• Introduce the Altruistic Capital to the network “Entreprendre” as well as to various other business creation networks in 2008.
• Create and manage a strategy committee gathering various recognized community organizers (editorialists, intellectuals, investors, local and national governments).

6. Web-Bibliography

Altruistic Capital or how to conciliate profit and commonwealth
Altruistic Capital: Year Zero
Similarities and differences between Altruistic Capital and Mohammed Yunus Social Business
Should an altruistic company adopt a more ethical behavior than any other company?
Altruistic capital, altruistic royalties: it’s the financing process that makes it efficient.
A new framework for altruistic action
Adam Smith’s Lost Paradise
Abel, the first altruistic entrepreneur

Le Business Plan du Capital Altruiste, en une page (french version of this post).

Et bien aujourd’hui, tout a changé. “Thierry” ne renvoie plus rien de pertinent puisque mon blog n’est pas en première page. J’ai tenté quelques mots clés dont je connais les résultats (”Speechi”, “TBI”) et TOUTES les positions Google ont changé et pas qu’un peu ! Le résultat est 100 fois moins pertinent.

Je suis allé chez Positeo voir ce qui se passait et les datacenters de Google (les machines qui fournissent les résultats sont complètement désynchronisés). Je vous donne les résultats de la requête “linkedin” (mon billet sur LinkedIn, le réseau des blaireaux est un des best sellers de ce blog):

Position : 4 avec 209 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.187.115 (1/15)
Position : >100 avec 207 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.249.93.184 (2/15)
Position : 4 avec 209 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.161.102 (3/15)
Position : 4 avec 211 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.169.115 (4/15)
Position : 4 avec 211 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.169.81 (5/15)
Position : 3 avec 208 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 72.14.207.184 (6/15)
Position : >100 avec 207 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.249.91.147 (7/15)
Position : 3 avec 208 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 72.14.207.184 (8/15)
Position : >100 avec 206 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.102.9.84 (9/15)
Position : 4 avec 209 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.187.81 (10/15)
Position : >100 avec 207 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.249.91.147 (11/15)
Position : >100 avec 207 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.249.93.91 (12/15)
Position : 4 avec 209 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 64.233.187.83 (13/15)
Position : >100 avec 206 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 216.239.59.44 (14/15)
Position : 4 avec 209 000 000 résultat(s) sur le datacenter 66.249.89.83 (15/15)

Bref du grand n’importe quoi. Il doit y avoir pas mal de sites d’ecommerce qui tremblent (c’est là qu’on voit l’importance qu’a prise Google).

Je ne sais pas d’où vient leur problème… Nouvelle politique ? Défaillance de l’algorithme ? Irruption de clônes de Bill gates dans les DataCenters ? Simple blague ?

Je parierais plutôt pour un grand rebattage des cartes, actuellement en cours.

Quelqu’un a-t-il une idée ?

In the Bible the first donations in history are those of Abel and Cain and their offering to God. Cain is a farmer and offers a part of the produce of his land, while Abel offers the first born of his flock.

God looks more favorably upon Abel’s offering – the text doesn’t explain the reason of His choice but from my point of view it’s because Abel offers something that although actually worth little (a first born doesn’t offer much meat and doesn’t produce any milk) does however have a very big emotional value and means a lot for the future.

Actually Abel opens his capital up whereas Cain offers only a share of his profit.

Cain is at best similar to the tycoon I mention in my other post who having achieved success donates part of his wealth – and this doesn’t cost him that much. (At worst he acts as those companies – or rather like the people who are responsible for such ventures - investing into charities as a marketing stunt).

The Bible talks a lot about the difference between capital and income, and the superiority of capital. The story of Esau and Jacob (birthright - capital - exchanged for a meal of lentils - produce) is yet another example.

Of course there are many other possible interpretations here. For René Girard, God prefers meat to vegetables because animals play the role of scapegoats (however the first born of a flock doesn’t offer the best qualities to become a good scapegoat able to divert violence, according to Girard himself).

Deep down I like my version better – and it also suits my theories better too…

I’m also aware that even though Abel’s offering pleased God things got tough for him shortly after and I certainly hope it won’t be premonitory.

I don’t think there can be any ambiguity upon reading my paper but I will say it again. The concept of Altruistic Capital is in no way related with Marxism. It would actually be more of a free-market idea.

About twenty years before The Wealth of the Nations, Adam Smith wrote a small book less popular but from my point of view more interesting: The Theory of Moral Sentiments. It’s not as much a book on economy than on moral or social issues (social as in Rousseau’s Social Contract). Adam Smith analyses human characteristics, according to Pareto it’s one of those - individualism – from which modern day free market theories derive.

However according to Adam Smith, man also has “sympathy” in him.

In this context this word doesn’t’ have its usual meaning. According to Adam Smith sympathy is the ability to feel other people’s emotions by stepping in their shoes. It’s a sort of empathy to which we rise thanks to our ability as a human being to imagine ourselves in someone else’s situation. (This is an actually very interesting partly religious, partly psychoanalytic concept that I will further address in another post).

Why does this sympathy disappear in The Wealth of Nations (and then in Pareto’s)? It’s not so much that it no longer exists but that it’s of lesser importance.

The main reason being that you can’t really draw a model out of it and Adam Smith wants to develop a scientific theory.

He disregards it in order to focus on a mathematical model, not for other reasons.

(It can also be argued that sympathy is actually a part of “self-love”, as Adam Smith defines it. Sympathy, as defined in TMS, that Adam Smith never denounced, clearly benefits to the self. Modern liberal economists suchs as Friedman have obviously overlooked that point).

I will give an example rather interesting and well-known. In order to invent classic mechanics, Newton needs to separate time from space: he doesn’t have the mathematical or experimental material to go forward without that imposition.

Contrary to what is now believed, this notion of time being independent from space is not that straightforward: back then time was actually only measured by motion through clocks themselves based on the revolving of the earth around itself, around the sun and gravity - and Newton knows it.

Basically time seems linked to motion and Galileo and then Newton boil it down to an independent variable not out of some philosophical concern but in order to go forward with their work. Newton’s doubts on whether time is indeed an absolute variable are evident in his Principia.

In the end classic mechanics are actually rather close to the truth, till Einstein restored time back to its real place by linking it to space and motion (resulting in The theory of General Relativity).

What I’m saying here on Relativity is quoted from Einstein himself. Einstein wonders why “Newton, the great Newton” talked about absolute time and justifies this by saying “He couldn’t do it any other way”.

The same thing happens with the free-market concept. The altruistic characteristic of mankind has been disregarded because it was far too complicated to fit it in a mathematical model - or because it has actually always been there but the words “self-love” lead to some confusion.

Seen like, this Altruistic Capital is a practical rather than theoretical attempt to inject a dose of altruism into the free-market. And from my point of view there should be many others.

Altruistic businesses are much like any other regular business, except for the fact that their capital (or a share of it) belongs to a humanitarian cause.

So should an altruistic company behave in a more ethical way? Have an ethical management?

I’d say no, or rather not necessarily. Altruist companies should be entirely into the economic game. It’s through the capital gains achieved by the company and the dividends paid to its shareholders that altruistic businesses are useful since their capital belongs to a cause. Any moral management restrains may result in a loss of performance that would cripple such companies in the market.

Altruistic businesses may – I haven’t said should – display a behavior as ruthless and blind as any other.

Let’s look at the example of Bill Gates Foundation (See CoeurdeRoy’s comment).

Let’s assume it had a choice between two investments: an ethical investment with a 2% return and another of non-ethical sort with a 5% return. Taking into account that its mission is to fight AIDS, picking the lower return investment would cripple its action. Over the long-term the foundation’s capital may even loose too much of its value leading to its demise? What should then the foundation’s directors do?

My answer to this is: whatever they want.

An altruistic company may of course decide to make ethical investment, however this is purely their own free will. It’s important for it not to be forced into it. The movement I wish to launch will not set any rules on companies behaviors. Structuring your capital to donate a share of it to a cause is the only thing it takes to become a part of it.

Going beyond this would hinder the altruistic action’s efficiency itself. And more important it would introduce a moral intent. It would be the beginning of a form of politically correct inquisition – anyway as the altruistic movement grows it won’t totally dodge this form of well-meaning inquisition (necessarily well-meaning). It won’t dodge abuse either – non-profits using donated capital to other goals than the ones initially set (more on this in my next article). One would better define each initiative’s framework right from the start to avoid as much as possible such downfalls.

Edit: Cedric suggested a simple modification of a company’s mission statement with a link to the excellent site The Corporation. But again the same concept applies.

An altruistic company may have an ethical mission statement but it shouldn’t be mandatory. Furthermore I feel it’s more important to focus on a company’s capital structure rather than its mission (no doubt one of my Marxist’s recollections).

I’ve just come across on the New York Times, an example of an “altruistic royalties” put into action by Even Ensler author of The Vagina Monologues. Eve Ensler applied the concept of Altruist Capital by donating the royalties of her play to her V-Day foundation (it fights violence and discrimination against women).
If the play goes ahead with volunteers its profits will be used to finance V-Day’s humanitarian actions.
Results:

• The play has been performed a countless number of times worldwide. It is today the most performed play around the world, before Shakespeare and Moliere (it’s a rather good play, but it’s clear that this worldwide success goes much beyond the simple quality of the piece).
• 39 Millions Euros have been collected over 10 years

.

There is no better example of interaction between an actual donation and the success of a business. It’s thanks to the donation structure chosen by Even Ensler that she could create such a community (directors, actresses – and of course the public) that is the very heart of the play’s success. Jane Fonda, Glenn Close, Kate Winslet, Meryl Streep and so many others have played pro-bono.

This was such a unique and efficient example that the Business School of Harvard turned it into a study case.

Altruistic Capital is quite simply the same exact line of thinking applied to the business world.

If you don’t look too closely Social Business and Altruistic Capital almost sound like the same thing. Therefore my friends tell me I’m being plagiarized in an intolerable way (by a Nobel Prize Laureate!), less friendly readers simply assume that Altruistic Capital is nothing new (this is their mistake) and that my way to introduce the concept is borderline megalomaniac (this is sometimes true).

But beyond the fact that both social business and altruistic capital are two humanitarian inspired attempts to better the world, which is plenty some would say, there is nothing much in common between the two concepts. They have entirely different takes on ho to act on the world and often in their analysis of the current reality.

What is a Social Business?

A social business has a commonwealth mission at its roots. It’s all about providing financial means to a poor population (micro-finance), bringing electric power to remote areas, reducing malnutrition (I’m using as examples the three social businesses created by the most extraordinary social entrepreneur of our times, Mohammed Yunnus).
In a social business, the economic aspect of the company itself nearly comes second and fades away compared to its altruistic mission. For instance, micro financing is at its origin a humanitarian action and it took years for people to understand it could also be an economically profitable enterprise (which it turned out to be, and this is what makes this a really brilliant idea, however it was nearly an unexpected side-effect).

As stated by Mohammed Yunnus (le Monde 05/25/2008), “Social Businesses are similar to traditional capitalist companies”, but they are no such thing deep down since “They are supposed to generate a social profit for a specific social class” and “working for a company with a social vocation will not provide you with any returns”.

I’ve written several articles on the advantages and downfalls of such a concept. Number one advantage is that all of the company’s partners agree to its humanitarian mission. Such a company (the most common status being cooperatives) is able to bring together a great number of goodwill and energy. It also has a direct impact on society through its actions.

However more often than not making economic concerns second in its priorities makes it hard for a social enterprise to become a serious economic actor. Worse than that it its growth is not linked to the value and progression of its capital and this is one of the main reasons behind the social classes gap we witness today with globalization.

On one hand the world of solidarity, 30% of human activity but 0% of worldwide capital. On the other the economic world that always ends up having the upper hand – Bob Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary thinks this will eventually destroy democracy (he’s an optimistic American), I think this may eventually lead to the destruction of humankind itself and almost everything that matters on earth (I’m a pessimist).

What makes Altruistic Capital different?

With Altruistic Capital, the company’s mission is solely economic.

What makes a company altruistic is simply the fact that part of its capital has been donated to a humanitarian cause. It’s through the structure of its capital that it has a commonwealth impact.

Nothing prevents an altruistic company to additionally set social mission for itself – in fact many do and will do so since social businesses are meant to adopt an altruistic structure (to better develop, find financial means, etc… See the case of Goodaction). However the main point here is the lever and inderection side-effect provided by the participation to the capital. No moral conduct is demanded from the company itself. This is all about using the financial returns of capitalism to fight its worst downfalls, since as explains Yunnus so well, “The system is blind to any other consideration than profit” (Bob Reich’s take: it’s pointless to expect companies to do the ‘right thing’). It’s through the progression of capital that the NGO shareholder will be able to make a difference in the world.

An economic lever to change the world.

I’ve already explained how the impact of Altruistic Capital can outweigh those of social business.

The bottom line of the current problem is economic and the lever provided by capital could be limitless. Any company, a startup, a bank, Total, L’Oreal can someday adopt this structure (under consumers’ pressure or by idealism, or with a very low share of their capital it doesn’t matter).

Altruistic Capital can be applied to the entire economic community and provides non-profit organizations with financial means (to apply towards lobbying, to take action, etc…) adapted and commensurate with the means available to the financial world. It is however very hard to find economically sustainable social business concepts, even if Mohammed Yunnus states that “looking all around us you will find ideas to create a social business”. His creative spirit distorts reality.
In our free-market and globalized world, the chances of survival for a social business are quite slim. Even if a sustainable concept was created a social business often becomes less performant from an economic point of view than a regular company (it sets ethical principals for itself, it donates part of its income…). Its financial structure stops it more often than not from lever much capital.

Our ability to economic interference

On the contrary an altruistic company is by definition efficient on an economic level. Its performance translates into dividends, capital gains that are paid to the NGO shareholders. On the short-term altruistic shareholders may really change the world’s balance, modify the way the market’s Invisible Hand acts. Altruistic Capital perfuses a dose of altruism to the very heart of the free-market.

Many forms of social business are nothing but a sham (nowadays you won’t find a single company that doesn’t dabble in it) . So-called social actions by some companies serve nothing but their sole economic interests (and their budgets are taken from or part of their marketing budgets: see the case of Volvic for instance, even though there are others). Altruistic Capital on another hand provides an unquestionable and measurable level of commitment in the form of the percentage of capital donated by the company.

Altruistic Capital is not a metaphysical enterprise either…

Ultimately all forms of social entrepreneurship share common roots, the first social Christian communities or the Israelian kibbutz of the 50s. Some examples of purely charismatic social enterprises were also brought to my attention (see the economy of communion) however as far as I’m concerned I see such idealistic forms of solidarity as unfortunately doomed over the long term and only valid for small communities.

For this reason, such companies are often the brainchildren of either saints or scammers. Altruistic Capital is cut out for real people, to make a difference in the real world.

Its realm doesn’t belong to some other world.