Editors’ note: In this article, Aaron Tanaka, director of the Center for Economic Democracy and cofounder of the Boston Ujima Project, envisions a new approach for economic development that is centered on the concept of a “social justice enterprise”—an enterprise that, beyond the social enterprise of “doing good,” actively has social justice embedded in the DNA of the values of the business. This vision is being piloted on a small scale in Boston through the Boston Ujima Project, but holds promise to guide many efforts to rebuild the economy from the bottom up nationwide.
This article comes from the spring 2019 edition of the Nonprofit Quarterly.
The belief that you can “do good while doing well” has entered the mainstream. Evidence of the trend ranges from the popularity of certifications like B Corp and the institutionalization of social enterprise as an academic field to the popular appetite for critiques of the concept—like that of Anand Giridharadas, in his best-selling book Winners Take All.1 In fact, the idea that merely scaling these solutions can solve society’s most intractable problems is, at best, an incomplete theory of change. The most successful capitalist firms understand that competition within markets alone is a failing strategy. Politics and culture determine the winners of the economy, and the winners of the economy dictate politics and culture. Corporate allocations for lobbying, political action committees (PACs), and advertising are examples of this logic at work.
The outcome of this system is a rigged competition in which social enterprises are up against Walmart, Amazon, and other monopolies of the modern era. Here, economies of scale are fortified by subsidies and tax breaks, trade policies and supply chain interventions, regulatory and contractual favoritism, and a myriad of other proverbial fingers on the scale.
In a practical way, business associations of color and social enterprise alliances that engage in public policy advocacy actively seek to counterbalance the monopolistic market terrain. National networks like the American Sustainable Business Council, the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, and the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives all propel these strategies.
Additionally, a growing number of grassroots organizations and social movement networks are putting their political weight behind a more radical subset of the social enterprise sector. Groups like the Restaurant Opportunities Center United and the National Domestic Workers Alliance have incubated worker-centered enterprises in the historically exploitative sectors of food service and care work. The Movement for Black Lives platform, the national Right to the City Alliance, and the New Economy Coalition have all articulated a vision for taking land out of the market by tapping into cooperative and community-owned real estate structures.
Often under the banners of new economy, solidarity economy, economic democracy, and “Just Transition” strategies, these efforts advance specific private sector models that can exist in the capitalist economy while also subverting it. Movement Generation—based in Oakland, California—posits that “the heart learns what the hands do.” This formulation calls upon movement activists to “show, not tell” the possibilities for the future.
Building momentum from small, successful models, the social justice ecosystem builds our collective muscles for economic self-governance and leverages grassroots political power to win policy solutions that disrupt the “race to the bottom economy” in order to help grow alternatives. Rather than bending to the system, we bend the system to us.
Origins of Social Justice Enterprise
At a local scale, this approach is manifested through the Boston Ujima Project (Ujima), a nationally recognized economic democracy pilot launched in 2017. Ujima is a start-up business and finance ecosystem governed by Boston’s working-class communities of color that includes over two dozen local businesses.2 Ujima’s ecosystem also includes the nation’s first community-controlled loan fund where every member has an equal vote on investment decisions, regardless of their personal financial stake.
Led by Boston’s grassroots organizations, Ujima is also creating a “Good Business Certification” to reflect the community’s demands for better policies, such as “Fight for 15” and “End the subminimum wage.” The “top tier” of Ujima’s Good Business Certification not only reflects the labor, ecological, and social standards that are expected from community-oriented companies, but also enrolls these firms as centers for building political power in a movement for racial, gender, and economic justice. Ujima calls these businesses “social justice enterprises.” The idea is that SJEs operate in relationship with and supported by grassroots networks, while also playing a protagonist role in the political and cultural struggle for transformative change.
Contradictions of Capital versus Community
In the face of the dramatic deterioration of organized labor, the need to reconceptualize social movement strategy is palpable. With a reduction from 35 percent of the U.S. private sector labor force—at the height of the labor movement in the 1950s—to 10.5 percent today (and only 6.4 percent in the private sector),3 the labor movement has had to expand its efforts to improve the quality of jobs held by nonunionized wage earners.
SJEs offer a workplace organizing strategy focused on the 47.5 percent of the U.S. private workforce (as of 2018, 58.9 million people) employed in the small business sector.4 Like multinationals, small business owners can be responsible and fair employers—or not. But unlike big businesses, many small business owners are working-class people of color themselves, who own and operate companies in the same communities where they live. These owners occupy a contradictory class position, facing pressure to extract profits from their workers and environment, while connected personally with the economic and political interests of their communities and employees.
It is certainly true that some small business owners are “bad actors” and should be challenged through an array of well-tested legal and campaign strategies. But a large number of these family and community entrepreneurs not only see their enterprises as a vehicle for “giving back” but also have direct economic interests that are in opposition to a multinational corporate agenda—and it is with this segment of community-oriented business owners that the social justice enterprise finds an opportunity to gain a foothold. SJEs seek not only to model structures and practices for the future of good business but also to leverage their political, cultural, and economic assets to create a more just society.
Ujima’s Three Pillars of the Social Justice Enterprise
1. Stakeholder Ownership and Control
SJEs voluntarily integrate operational and community stakeholders into their governance and distribute ownership benefits to those who produce value for the enterprise. Efforts to democratize ownership and control of the business unit should be seen as a central arena for contestation and innovation in the modern economy.
A. Stakeholder Ownership
A central feature of stakeholder ownership for any enterprise begins with distributing economic ownership to the employees whose labor is essential for the creation of enterprise value. For example, worker cooperatives are fully owned by employees, who each have an equal ownership stake. Employee stock ownership plan companies (ESOPs) permit either full or partial employee ownership of a firm. While some companies originate as worker-owned companies, many more become worker owned over time. For many businesses, the allocation of ownership to customers, community members, and vendors may also be appropriate.
B. Worker and Consumer Democracy
Workplace democracy is an essential feature of an SJE. In addition to empowering employees with corporate governance and voice, SJEs can engage with a range of stakeholders who are impacted by their operations and business decisions. SJEs may reserve board seats for customers or community members, or recognize elected consumer or community councils with delegated powers or roles in decision making. SJEs may also consider customer referendums or informal surveys to inform major corporate decisions that could impact those stakeholders.
Sign up for our free newsletter
Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
C. Community Collective Bargaining
While democratic structures help anchor worker control over a firm, an SJE also embeds itself, where possible, into community-governed structures that establish business practices that reflect the values and interests of the broader community. In Boston, the Ujima Project’s Good Business Certification enforces labor, operational, and marketplace standards that are democratically ratified and updated by membership of Boston’s working-class residents of color. In the absence of community-governed structures, SJEs can submit to other business standard and certification regimes—whether B Corp certification or industry-specific recognitions.
2. Social Impact and Community Benefit
SJEs pursue inclusive living-wage employment, provide enriching goods and services, and adopt ecologically restorative business systems. This commitment to achieving community impact through business operations is embodied by the social enterprise movement that precedes the SJE. But SJEs articulate more explicit expectations for labor rights and worker power as a constituent feature. Though structures for stakeholder ownership and control ensure a degree of worker self-governance, proposals for workplace mediation and union neutrality institute a layer of employee protections through independent and parallel channels.
A. Workforce Inclusion and Labor Rights
With SJEs, workforce inclusion is a central strategy for creating social impact and community benefit. In addition to hiring inclusive workforces, SJEs can integrate best practices for guaranteeing labor protections into their operations. SJEs commit to using third-party mediation services to provide workers with a forum to contest disciplinary actions or process grievances. SJEs also partner with worker centers or worker service networks to offer labor rights education, workforce development resources, and other benefits to uplift the protections and resources available to employees.
B. Regenerative Business Practices
A central community benefit generated by SJEs must be the regeneration of our natural ecosystems. Ecological practices begin with efforts to reduce environmental harm generated by “business as usual.” A regenerative enterprise, however, requires practices that not only do less harm but also repair and replenish the environmental systems upon which our economy and human life depend. Transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy, adopting zero-waste practices, incentivizing suppliers to adopt industry best practices, and implementing policies that actively contribute to the mending and regeneration of our ecosystems all reflect this distinction.
C. Positive Products and Service
As a business principle, SJEs are committed to providing or producing goods and services that contribute to the well-being of customers, communities, and the planet. Businesses delivering products or services used for repressive or extractive purposes are disqualified as SJEs, regardless of the ecological or labor benefits that accrue from their operations.
3. Worker and Community Power
The most distinct contribution of the SJE is to galvanize private sector assets to build grassroots political power in oppressed communities and communities of color. While social justice organizing has largely partitioned political power-building strategies to nonprofits, labor unions, and faith organizations, the SJE engages the small business sector as an essential force for building social movements. SJEs offer new infrastructure to activate workers, owners, consumers, vendors, and investors to build independent political power and the capacity for grassroots governance.
A. Worker Organizing and Policy Advocacy
SJEs support efforts to organize their workforces as educated and engaged actors for social change. SJEs partner with social movement organizations to provide political development and civic engagement opportunities for employees on the job. The organizing ethic of an SJE centers the agency of workers to ultimately express and act on their own beliefs and interests.
B. Electoral Engagement and Mobilization
As private firms unencumbered by nonprofit 501(c)(3) rules, SJEs offer infrastructure to advance electoral and political mobilizations in historically underrepresented communities. As labor unions decline, SJEs seek to diversify the sources of working-class political power by retooling small businesses as sites for electoral engagement.
For example, businesses can offer paid time for employees to door-knock for candidates, or even bundle donations for aligned political campaigns. Retail and consumer-facing companies can serve as voter registration locations, sources for election information, and hubs for voter turnout efforts. SJEs leverage private space for public mobilization.
C. Social Movement Infrastructure
As a new sectoral partner within a broader social movement ecology, SJEs help resource frontline organizations and coalitions. SJEs can help curb nonprofit dependence on charitable foundations and large donors. As oppressed communities organize to resist corporate extraction and state violence, SJEs activate business owners to join as full agents and partners in the struggle for justice and democracy.
Pathways to Scale
SJEs, in short, can help articulate a holistic and ambitious vision to transform small business to be a progressive force. As acknowledged, small social entrepreneurs are often already disadvantaged in the market. The ability to integrate many of these practices can be costly, time consuming, and even “bad for business.” Therefore, the proliferation of SJEs requires an expanded orientation by grassroots organizations and unions—from one of protest and opposition to also include partnership and mutual accountability with local aligned businesses. SJEs are positioned to model the future we seek while building a more democratic economy. The risks to businesses and our communities are systemic and propelled by the concentration of wealth, the monopolization of industry and data, and the extraction of labor and the living earth in an insatiable race for profits. SJEs offer an addition to the U.S. social movement ecosystem by articulating a proactive role for businesses to support and sustain grassroots change. Beyond “doing good while doing well,” SJEs join the struggle against class, race, and gender-based oppression, leveraging their private assets for a more enduring public good.
- Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018); and see Amy Costello, “Winners Give More, But Their Giving Reinforces Elite Power,” Tiny Spark podcast, Nonprofit Quarterly, September 25, 2018.
- See “Boston Ujima Project,” Ujima Good Business Directory.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics, press release, “Union Membership (Annual) News Release,” January 18, 2019.
- U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, “2018 Small Business Profile,” accessed February 26, 2019.
Working for a nonprofit is not always easy. Nonprofits typically have little money to pay their employees, and they often do not reward high performers with
Working for a nonprofit is not always easy.. Nonprofit organizations often have less than 20 staff members so you will never make it up into management at a large-scale organization with no layoffs or downsizing opportunities available like those found in larger private company structures.. However, when it comes to working as an employee at a nonprofit organization this isn’t always true.. Nonprofits are often understaffed so if the person you’re working alongside with is out for any reason, then it’s up to you to work extra hours or cover their tasks as they would have done them otherwise.. You’ll also need to take into account that some nonprofits are doing more work with fewer people which can lead to cutthroat behavior and inefficient processes since everyone has their hands full!. If you think about these things before accepting an offer at a nonprofit organization then you might find it much easier when making your decision.. When you are working at a small nonprofit and don’t have the qualifications or experience for more senior positions, it can be hard to get promoted into mid-level positions.. Working at a nonprofit organization is often considered “the first step” into one’s profession but that doesn’t make it comfortable when you’re struggling just to meet deadlines every day.. Working for a nonprofit organization means that someone is likely to stay in the same position until they are ready to retire or leave.. There is less opportunity to grow your skillset or even change jobs inside a nonprofit organization because it’s often an all-or-nothing environment in terms of responsibilities.. When working in a nonprofit, the services you help make possible may not immediately show a positive impact in the lives of your clients.. A worker in a nonprofit may not feel properly appreciated for their work and can be undervalued by the organization they are working with.. Nonprofit turnover rates are being driven by young people who want to work on personally meaningful projects and feel they have a more fulfilling career elsewhere.. Additionally, there might be less opportunity for upward mobility which can lead some people away from working at nonprofit organizations.. Thinking otherwise is a nonprofit myth and leads to the failure of many new nonprofits.
Effective non-profit board governance is critical to the success of any non-profit organization. This list was started as the inaugural post to CharityLawyer Blog. The post struck a nerve, was mentioned by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the Nonprofit Quarterly, and numerous bloggers and Twitter users.
Popular governance policies for non-profits include. The chair’s primary duty is typically to preside over board meetings and to act as a liaison between the board and the chief executive.. Similarly, the founder may act as the chief executive and run the day-to-day affairs of the organization.. The board has a duty to review the performance and set compensation for the chief executive and if necessary, censure or even terminate the chief executive.. If after considering alternatives, the board still finds the transaction with the insider is in the best interest of the organization, then the board should carefully document the basis for the decision and the fact that the interested director did not participate in the deliberations or vote.. The initial board is typically made up of friends and advisors of the organization’s founder.. Others adopt minutes that only document actions without any mention of the process of deliberations.. Many of us board members understand that we are fiduciaries and have a responsibility to provide financial oversight.
Nonprofit executive director evaluation every year is a big job; a good self-evaluation is an interim option ›
The evaluation of a nonprofit executive director or CEO every year is a big job for a board. Could a shorter, interim self-evaluation provide some relief if it was used every other year? Here is a model to consider.
The evaluation of the executive director or CEO is one of the most important responsibilities of a non-profit board.. This post is about the idea of an executive director self-evaluation as an interim mechanism for performance review.. And, it can serve as a bridge between comprehensive executive director evaluations that could then be done every second year.. Despite widespread acceptance of the importance of executive director evaluations, the reality is that in many organizations they are not done, or where they are done they are hasty or superficial.. Ideally an executive director evaluation should strive to be a transparent process, should involve the ED in its design, include collecting of some independent information (certainly from staff) and result in improved organizational performance.. One might well worry too that without any executive director evaluation, and the trust it helps cultivate, every board meeting becomes a test of the person in the post.. Executive evaluation is a big deal for a board, no doubt.. There would be more of them if executive directors, the board’s partner in governance, would show perseverance in asking for an evaluation.. Perhaps incorporating an “easier” form of executive director into an organization’s extended leadership calendar could make some space for other governance work.. An executive director or CEO self evaluation requires some questions, some time, and couple of people willing to sit down to review the responses.. A few, relatively open-ended, questions for the executive director’s response, preferably hand written Questions that probe his/her leadership accomplishments and challenges as well as their partnership with the board A meeting with the board chair and and one other person to review and discuss the responses and to make recommendations. Please list and indicate their priority How might the Board assist you in your further development as executive director?. How long one’s ED has been in their post and whether this is their first evaluation The quality of governance policies that outline the board’s expectations of their ED The confidentiality of the details of the evaluation outcomes The composition of the two person review team How well the self evaluation links with past ED evaluations The importance of knowing if one’s organization is a healthy workplace for staff The impact of any dramatic changes in the organization’s funding or public policy environment. Does the idea of an abridged form of executive director evaluation have a place in your non-profit’s governance practice?. The idea of an “abridged” form of executive evaluation however is less about simplifying an evaluation and more about coming at it from another direction as well as providing some relief from the pressure of undertaking a full evaluation every year.
Nonprofit Management 101: A Complete and Practical Guide for Leaders and Professionals, 2nd Edition ›
A new edition of the essential guide to nonprofit management This intensely practical, comprehensive guidebook is for both leaders new to the nonprofit sector looking for a quick primer on all the issues that matter, as well as established veterans looking to understand how all the pieces fit together. Showcasing practical tips and takeaways, this how-to manual and resource guide provides easy to implement solutions for organizations seeking to expand impact and meet mission. Seasoned veterans including Van Jones, Fair Trade founder Paul Rice, Lynne Twist, Kay Sprinkel Grace, Joan Garry, and more share knowledge and useful insights on all aspects of nonprofit management, including: Fundraising from individuals, companies, and foundations Online fundraising, social networking, and effective use of technology Marketing, public relations, and events Board and volunteer engagement Human resources and career planning Lobbying and advocacy Legal and financial management Leadership and strategic planning This is essential reading for anyone in the nonprofit sector looking for the latest information in the field.
Chapter 1 Nonprofits in the United States 5 Robert Glavin, Glavin Jacobson, Inc. and University of San Francisco, and Marco Tavanti, University of San Francisco.. Chapter 6 Nonprofit Partnerships: Collaboration, Alliances, and Strategic Restructuring 89 David La Piana and Bob Harrington, La Piana Consulting. Chapter 7 Risk Management and Insurance 107 Pamela Davis, Nonprofits Insurance Alliance. Part Three Nonprofit Law and Finance 163 Darian Rodriguez Heyman and Laila Brenner. Chapter 10 Nonprofit Law 165 Bruce R. Hopkins, Bruce R. Hopkins Law Firm, LLC, and Virginia C. Gross, Polsinelli PC. Chapter 11 Nonprofit Advocacy and Lobbying 181 Nayantara Mehta, National Employment Law Project; Nancy Chen, Legal Consultant; Marcia Avner, Avner Consulting; and Jeannie Fox, Hamline University. Chapter 12 Nonprofit Financial Management 197 David Greco, Social Sector Partners. Part Four Nonprofit Technology and IT 227 Darian Rodriguez Heyman and Laila Brenner. Part Five Fundraising 289 Darian Rodriguez Heyman and Laila Brenner. Chapter 21 Online Peer-to-Peer Fundraising 361 Nicci Noble, Noble Services LLC, and Sean Sullivan, Nonprofit Consultant.. Part Six Marketing and Communications 405 Darian Rodriguez Heyman and Laila Brenner. Chapter 30 Board Governance 503 Vernetta Walker, Walker & Associates Consulting, and Emily Heard, Nonprofit Consultant.
Thinking about investing in email marketing? Here are 7 Nonprofit Newsletter Best Practices you can use to raise more funds.
When executed properly, a nonprofit newsletter will help you get regular support for your nonprofit’s cause and mission, get engagement and traffic to your nonprofit website and maintain a relationship with your supporters and volunteers.. Sending newsletters is quick and affordable, but it also makes it easier for readers to simply ignore them.. However, even if we delete the message, we’ve still registered the logo/name (brand visibility) and the key message (subject line).. If you’re getting a lot of bounces, or if your open and click rates are low, you should re-evaluate your email list.. Good design increases the chance of subscribers answering your call to action (signing up, donating), and keeps their experience positive even when they run into problems.. What your supporters are interested in depends a lot on who they are and what you do, but generally, they want to know what you’ve achieved as an organization and how their support has helped you.. Try to always include helpful tips for your supporters (e.g. if you’re an animal rescue organization, you could include tips on how to best take care of a pet).. Here are a couple more tips on how to make your email newsletters more engaging:. Make sure the messaging is about the subscriber more than your organization.. Include all of your social media links and easy share buttons so readers can post your content to their newsfeeds.