LAW AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

CROWDFUNDING: THE REAL AND THE ILLUSORY EXEMPTION

From the Harvard Law Review – Volume 4, Issue 2

Crowdfunding is commonly defined as raising small amounts of capital from a large number of people over the Internet. To avoid the expense of securities regulation, companies often crowdfund by giving away rewards (such as a free t-shirt) instead of selling stock or other securities. In April 2012, Title III of the JOBS Act sought to change this status quo by directing the Securities and Ex- change Commission (SEC) to facilitate securities-based crowdfunding through websites like Kickstarter. Congress and the President believed this would broaden access to sidelined capital and help companies grow and hire. But this “retail crowdfunding” exemption, open to all investors, was not the only means of crowdfunding in the bill. A last minute compromise, which has been largely overlooked, expanded the ability of issuers to use the private placement exemption, as revised in new Rule 506(c), to crowdfund from accredited investors. This “accredited crowdfunding” exemption provides a less regulated capital-raising alternative to retail crowdfunding that is available to the same companies and more.

This article is the first to examine the impact that accredited crowdfunding will have on retail crowdfunding. It claims that accredited crowdfunding is likely to dominate and, depending on SEC action, could render retail crowdfunding superfluous or a market for lemons. But it also claims that accredited crowdfunding—when compared to traditional private placements—may face a similar lemons problem over the longer term on account of rules that discourage investors from fending for themselves. These potential problems threaten to under- mine the social welfare goals of the JOBS Act: increasing access to capital, spurring business growth, and creating jobs. But the SEC can minimize these problems and promote social welfare by strengthening the bargaining incentives of accredited investors and encouraging retail investors to piggyback off of ac- credited investors’ work. The normative section of this Article provides targeted recommendations that balance the need for capital formation against a novel incentives-based theory of investor protection.

Full article can be found here

ELLO AND SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

Cross-posted at Business Law Prof Blog.

My co-blogger Stefan Padfield [at Business Law Prof Blog] passed along this article from The New York Times Dealbook on the social network Ello.

Ello is a Delaware public benefit corporation. The social enterprise terminology is proving difficult, even for sophisticated authors at the New York Times Dealbook. The article calls Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s public benefit corporations. Patagonia, however, is a California benefit corporation. I wrote about the differences between public benefit corporations and benefit corporations here. Ben & Jerry’s is a certified B corporation, but, as far as I know, Ben & Jerry’s has not yet made the legal change to convert to any of the social enterprise forms. I wrote about the differences between benefit corporations and certified B corporations here and here. Just as my co-blogger Joshua Fershee remains vigilant at pointing out the differences between LLCs and corporations, so I will remain vigilant on the social enterprise distinctions.

Besides my nitpicking on the use of social enterprise terminology, there are a few other things I want to say about this article.

First, Ello raised $5.5 million dollars, which is not that much money in the financial world, but puts Ello in pretty rare company in the U.S. social enterprise world. The vast majority of U.S. social enterprises are owned by a single individual or family; some social enterprises have raised outside capital, but not many. The increasing presence of outside investors in social enterprise means two main things to me: (1) the social enterprise concept is starting to gain some traction with previously skeptical investors, and (2) we may see a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the near future, which would give us all more to write about.

Second, Ello included a clause in its charter that “forbids the company from using ads or selling user data to make money.” This provision seems a direct response to the eBay v. Newmark case. The business judgment rule provides significant protection to directors and, at least theoretically, should calm many of the fears of social entrepreneurs. But risk adverse individuals may seek additional layers of protection.

Third, Ello claims that their charter provision “basically means no investor can force us to take a really good financial deal if it forces us to take advertising.” This seems overstated.  Charters can be amended, but at least the charter puts outside investors on notice. This provision in the charter does not, however, protect against a change of heart by the founders and a selling of the company (such as in the case of Ben & Jerry’s sale to Unilever).

Fourth, this October 4, 2014 article claims that Ello is pre-revenue. The NYT Dealbook article notes that “[u]sers will eventually be able to download widgets and modifications, paying a few dollars for each purchase.” (emphasis added). Ello seems to be one of the growing number of technology companies that are being valued by number of users rather than by revenues or profits. Ello “grew from an initial 90 users on Aug. 7 to over a million now, with a waiting list of about 3 million.”

Fifth, even if traditional investors are (somewhat) warming up to social enterprises, social entrepreneurs still seem to be a bit skeptical of traditional investors. When raising money, Ello “drew the attention of the usual giants in the venture capital world. . . . But Mr. Budnitz said he instead turned to investors whom he could trust to back the start-up’s mission, including the Foundry Group, whom he came to know when he lived in the firm’s hometown, Boulder, Colo.” There are increasing sources of capital for social enterprises from investors who also have a stated social goal (See, e.g., JP Morgan’s May 2014 survey of impact investors).

Some in the academic world have wondered if social enterprise is just a fad. While I am confident that the space will and must continue to evolve, if it is a fad, it has already been a long-running one. The names and details of the statutes may change, but I see a growing interest in marrying profit and social purpose, and I think that interest is likely to continue in some form.

REPEAL IRC § 4944 TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

A while ago, I posted to this blog a short (mildly humorous???) story illustrating how certain federal income tax rules generally prohibit “risky” investments by private foundations, even when those investments have potential for tremendous social or environmental benefit. The so-called “jeopardizing investment” rules of IRC § 4944 impose a minimum 10% (with a possible 25% additional) tax on investments by private foundations that “jeopardize the carrying out of [the foundation's] exempt purpose.”

In my prior post, I hypothesized a private foundation considering an early-stage investment in a company developing an inexpensive, solar-powered car. I further hypothesized that the private foundation’s manager reasonably and rationally believed that an investment in the car company could have substantial environmental benefits. Further, the investment was on fair terms and involved no self-dealing or other economic benefit to the private foundation’s insiders. Unless the purchase of stock in the car company qualified under the narrow program-related investment exception, however, the investing private foundation could be subject to a 10% (and possible additional 25%) penalty tax under IRC § 4944. Moreover, the investment in the solar-powered car company could be penalized even though an outright grant by the private foundation to benefit environmental causes clearly would be permissible (and even encouraged).

Thus, from a tax standpoint, a private foundation manager seeking to support environmental causes is better off investing in BP and then giving away returns to Green Peace than making a “risky” investment in a solar-powered car company—even when that investment might have a much larger and more lasting positive impact on the environment. This makes no sense.

Actually, the most compelling illustration I can provide as to why the “jeopardizing investment” rules of IRC § 4944 ultimately make no sense comes directly from the implementing Regulations. Specifically, Reg. § 53.4944-1(c) provides:

A is a foundation manager of B, a private foundation with assets of $100,000. A approves the following three investments by B after taking into account with respect to each of them B’s portfolio as a whole: (1) An investment of $5,000 in the common stock of corporation X; (2) an investment of $10,000 in the common stock of corporation Y; and (3) an investment of $8,000 in the common stock of corporation Z. Corporation X has been in business a considerable time, its record of earnings is good, and there is no reason to anticipate a diminution of its earnings. [Imagine BP.] Corporation Y has a promising product, has had earnings in some years and substantial losses in others, has never paid a dividend, and is widely reported in investment advisory services as seriously undercapitalized. Corporation Z has been in business a short period of time and manufactures a product that is new, is not sold by others, and must compete with a well-established alternative product that serves the same purpose. Z’s stock is classified as a high-risk investment by most investment advisory services with the possibility of substantial long-term appreciation but with little prospect of a current return. [Imagine Y or Z as our solar-powered car company.] A has studied the records of the three corporations and knows the foregoing facts. In each case the price per share of common stock purchased by B is favorable to B. Under the standards of [IRC § 4944], the investment of $10,000 in the common stock of Y and the investment of $8,000 in the common stock of Z may be classified as jeopardizing investments (emphasis added), while the investment of $5,000 in the common stock of X will not be so classified. B would then be liable for an initial tax of [$1,000 (i.e., 10 percent of $10,000)] for each year (or part thereof) in the taxable period for the investment in Y, and an initial tax of [$800 (i.e., 10 percent of $8,000)] for each year (or part thereof) in the taxable period for the investment in Z. Further, since A had actual knowledge that the investments in the common stock of Y and Z were jeopardizing investments, A [the foundation manager] would then be liable [personally] for the same amount of initial taxes as B.

WHAT??? So the investment in Y is “promising” and at a “favorable” price, but still subject to a penalty tax? The investment in Z has “the possibility of substantial long-term appreciation” and is at a “favorable” price, but likewise is prohibited? Er, okay, let me get out my crystal ball and discern between a “promising” or “substantial long-term” investment and a “jeopardizing” one. Suppose that in the above example X corporation represented Enron instead of BP? In hindsight, an investment in Enron would have been the ultimate jeopardizing investment, but it would have been perfectly fine under IRC § 4944. Oh, and that’s not all! Incredibly, if Y’s “promising” product (e.g., an inexpensive, solar-powered car) would benefit the environment, then even if the investing private foundation’s mission was protecting the environment it could be penalized under IRC § 4944 for buying stock in the company.

The federal income tax rules thus support a bizarre paradox for private foundations: a foundation can give its money away to an organization supporting the foundation’s mission, but if it makes a risky but “promising” investment in support of its mission, the foundation faces the threat of penalty taxes.

If a private foundation is not engaged in self-dealing or otherwise benefitting its managers and other insiders, why do we care how its money is invested? The rules presume that a “risky” investment is a waste. But for whom is a “risky” investment a waste? Where does the “risky” money go? Does it just vaporize into thin air? No, it goes to pay third-parties for services, or products, or ideas, or research, or whatever. From my perspective, nothing would be better than the Gates Foundation spending its billions on risky, unproven, but promising investments potentially benefitting the environment, education, and healthcare. Can you imagine the jobs that would be created? Can you imagine the innovations that might result? At worst, the money spent goes to work in the broader economy rather than being stockpiled. Who says such risky expenditures are “jeopardizing investments”? The only real jeopardy is to social enterprise companies that could use the money to take reasonable and rationale risks for the benefit of us all.

We need to fix this.  Let’s repeal IRC § 4944.

MIT OFFERS FREE ECONOMICS COURSE ON THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL POVERTY

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and edX are offering a free online economic course focused on the challenges of global poverty.  The course starts this week and those who complete the course, which ends May 24, 2013, will receive a certificate.  The course is available here: https://www.edx.org/courses/MITx/14.73x/2013_Spring/about

The course description is:

“This is a course for those who are interested in the challenge posed by massive and persistent world poverty, and are hopeful that economists might have something useful to say about this challenge. The questions we will take up include: Is extreme poverty a thing of the past? What is economic life like when living under a dollar per day? Are the poor always hungry? How do we make schools work for poor citizens? How do we deal with the disease burden? Is microfinance invaluable or overrated? Without property rights, is life destined to be “nasty, brutish and short”? Should we leave economic development to the market? Should we leave economic development to non-governmental organizations (NGOs)? Does foreign aid help or hinder? Where is the best place to intervene? And many others. At the end of this course, you should have a good sense of the key questions asked by scholars interested in poverty today, and hopefully a few answers as well.”

The course is taught by MIT economics professors Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee and Esther Duflo.

I am about halfway through the first week’s material and am enjoying it.

 

2012 SEC FORUM ON SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL FORMATION │ 11/15 │ WASHINGTON D.C.

While only tangentially related to social enterprise law, I thought some of our readers might be interested in the 2012 SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation.  Many social enterprises are small businesses, and most social enterprises are, obviously, interested in capital formation.   

The SEC website describes the program as: “includ[ing] two morning panel discussions. The first panel will focus on JOBS Act implementation and the second panel will focus on small business capital formation issues not addressed by the JOBS Act. In the afternoon, breakout groups will develop recommendations on a variety of issues related to small business capital formation.”

The speakers include the SEC Commissioners, various leading practitioners, and one academic with an extremely impressive CV (Professor Robert Barlett of UC Berkeley School of Law).

The program lasts from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and finishes with a networking receptions.

You can pre-register here.

HOW TO STRUCTURE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR IMPACT

 

This is a full two-hour lecture at Harvard’s iLab on how to structure your social enterprise for impact. The lecture addresses the three types of social enterprise business models, then compares and contrasts seven legal structures including:

  • Corporation
  • B Corp Certification
  • Benefit Corporation
  • Flexible Purpose Corporation
  • LLC
  • L3C
  • Nonprofit

NYU JOURNAL OF LAW & BUSINESS HOSTS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW AND FINANCE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE │ 11/9 │ NEW YORK, NY

This announcement comes from an editor of the NYU Journal of Law & Business:

Please join the NYU Journal of Law & Business on Friday, November 9, 2012, from 2:30-5:30 PM for our Fall Conference on the Law & Finance of Social Enterprise.

The conference will be held in Greenberg Lounge at the NYU School of Law. Deborah Burand (University of Michigan Law School) will present groundbreaking work on social impact bonds; Ana Demel (NYU School of Law) and Rebecca Leventhal (Social Finance) will comment. John Tyler (General Counsel of the Kauffman Foundation) will present work on the fundamental question whether state attorneys general should regulate hybrid entities as charities; Jill Manny (NYU School of Law) and David Spenard (Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Kentucky) will comment.

Kyle Westaway will serve as master of ceremonies and will write an introductory essay for the Journal’s Winter 2013 Special Issue, in which the principal papers and written comments will be published.

INTRODUCING GIIRS – RATINGS AND ANALYTICS PLATFORM FOR IMPACT INVESTING

 

Today at the Clinton Global Initative, B Lab announces the launch of GIIRS Ratings & Analytics, and the commitment of 15 GIIRS Pioneer Investors who declare as part of their impact investing strategy an investment preference for GIIRS-rated funds and companies. Andrew Kassoy will be on a panel at 3:45 EDT Tuesday entitled Financing Inclusive Jobs: Impact Investing and the Triple Bottom Line, moderated by Adam Davidson (NPR’s Planet Money), with Cheryl Dorsey (Echoing Green) and Christina Leijonhufvud (J.P. Morgan). Please tune-in to watch this panel live as Andrew discusses the GIIRS Launch and Pioneer Investor commitment – live-streaming will be available here.GIIRS Impact Ratings provide investors for the first time with a comprehensive, comparable, and third party verified assessment of companies’ and funds’ social and environmental impact. The GIIRS Analytics platform gives investors uniquely powerful tools to analyze aggregated, verified and comparable data on the social and environmental impact of companies and funds across geography, sector, organizational maturity, and size. The launch of GIIRS Ratings & Analytics follows a successful global beta test with more than 200 companies across 30 countries from 25 leading impact investing funds (the GIIRS Pioneer Companies and Funds, respectively).The GIIRS Pioneer Investors are a diverse group of global private equity investors and credit providers, including mainstream global financial institutions, foundations, family offices, leaders in social finance, and a multilateral development bank. They include: Annie E Casey Foundation, Armonia LLC, Calvert Foundation, Farm Capital Services LLC, Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Impact Investing Foundation, Inter-American Development Bank, J.P. Morgan, KL Felicitas Foundation, Prudential Financial, Inc., The Rockefeller Foundation, RSF Social Finance, Skoll Foundation,The Tony Elumelu Foundation and W.K. Kellogg Foundation. GIIRS expects to announce additional GIIRS Pioneer Investors in the coming months.

“These Pioneer Investors recognize that we can’t build an industry for impact investments without credible, comparable metrics on impact,” said Andrew Kassoy, co-founder of B Lab, the non-profit organization powering GIIRS. “GIIRS has the potential to catalyze hundreds of billions of dollars of sidelined investment capital to flow to the world’s most inspiring and talented entrepreneurs. These businesses demonstrably create high quality jobs that increase economic opportunity here and abroad.”

GIIRS also announces today that three GIIRS Pioneer Funders – Deloitte, Prudential Financial, Inc., and The Rockefeller Foundation – have committed a combined $9 million in funding to accelerate industry adoption of the robust GIIRS Ratings & Analytics platform.

With the support of GIIRS Pioneer Investors and Funders, in five years GIIRS aims to provide Impact Ratings for more than 2,500 companies and over 350 funds, and to provide over 150 institutional and high net worth investors with the ability to benchmark social and environmental impact for the first time the same way financial performance is benchmarked today. By providing credible, comparable and verified impact ratings and creating a powerful analytics platform, GIIRS provides the needed capital markets infrastructure to drive $1 trillion toward impact investments in 10 years.

“The Inter-American Development Bank is committed to supporting entrepreneurs across Latin America and the Caribbean who show great potential to effect change in their societies,” said IDB Executive Vice President Julie T. Katzman. “GIIRS Ratings & Analytics provides tools to clearly measure the impact of our investments in venture capital funds – both at the level of the fund and the individual company.”

“Prudential is proud to be one of the GIIRS Pioneer Investors. We are also one of the first companies to have a devoted impact investment portfolio, reflecting our ongoing support of initiatives that provide positive, sustainable impact,” said Ommeed Sathe, Director, Social Investments at Prudential. “Earlier this year we were lead investor in an innovative new technology platform to create an automated infrastructure to monitor impact investments. This and our groundbreaking work with GIIRS and B-Lab underscores our commitment to creating an investment infrastructure that will nurture the growth of the entire impact investing field.”

GIIRS Pioneer Investors recognize that government and non-profits are necessary but insufficient to solve our most challenging social and environmental problems. As entrepreneurs around the world develop market-based solutions, they need investment capital to help them scale. Increasing interest in impact investing requires improved capital markets infrastructure, including generally accepted standards for defining, measuring, and comparing positive social and environmental impact. Without credible third party standards, there are significant barriers- to-scale including: a fragmented market where each investor defines impact differently, high due diligence and transaction costs, limited understanding by investors of how to manage for impact, and a weak policy environment due to a dearth of information. GIIRS helps remove these barriers to growth and attracts mainstream capital to the impact investment space.

 

Photo: Buck Forester

‘TIS THE SEASON… TO INVEST

Thanksgiving marks the beginning of the busiest consumer buying period of the year in the U.S.  This year, however, investors may want to consider spending more time shopping for stock than stuff.  The New Year will bring an increase of 14% in the federal tax rate for many investments – up from a rate of 0% for qualifying investments made on or before December 31, 2010 (yes, that means no federal tax).

And the holiday cheer offered by this potential tax benefit is not limited to outside investors.  Others who may want to consider a change in their end-of-year financial plans include:

  • Entrepreneurs – if you were thinking about forming a company or contributing additional capital to your new business at the beginning of 2011, you may want to accelerate your plans.
  • Option/warrant holders – if you hold vested options/warrants, you may want to evaluate an early exercise of your rights.
  • LLC members – have you been considering a change in form of entity?  Conversion to a corporate form before the end of the year could qualify the stock you receive for tax free treatment on capital gains.

More Details

Under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (signed into law on September 27th by President Obama), there is a 100% exclusion from federal tax for any capital gains realized from certain investments in “qualified small business stock” made between September 27, 2010 and December 31, 2010.  The excluded capital gain for qualifying investments is also excluded for purposes of the alternative minimum tax.  On January 1, 2011, the capital gains rate applicable to qualified small business stock will return to 14%, and gains will no longer be excluded for alternative minimum tax purposes.

Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code includes a number of requirements and limitations for this tax benefit, some of which are summarized below.  As the list below is not exhaustive, you should review the details of any proposed investment with an attorney or tax adviser to ensure that it qualifies.

  • The issuer must be a C corporation.
  • The stock must be acquired at original issuance from the issuer (not from a third party or secondary offering).
  • The stock must be held for at least five years.
  • The aggregate gross assets of the issuer (including majority parents and majority-owned subsidiaries) may not exceed $50 million at issuance.
  • The issuer must engage in the active conduct of a “qualified trade or business.”  Examples of businesses that do not qualify include: banking, insurance, financing, leasing, investing, farming, mineral extraction, hospitality businesses, and a variety of service businesses where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of its employees (such as those in health, law, consulting, and financial services).

Questions?

We at Campbell Law Group would be happy to help you evaluate whether or how you might be able to take advantage of this extraordinary opportunity.  In particular, feel free to contact me or Jochem Tans.

This content is provided solely for general informational purposes.  It does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific facts and circumstances, and its dissemination does not create an attorney-client relationship.   If you are interested in learning more or want to discuss a particular situation, you should contact one of us or another attorney or tax adviser.

SOCAP – DAY 2 RECAP

Day 2 at SOCAP… what a blur. We met so many amazing people and sat in on some of the best sessions of the conference. Below are some of the highlights from those sessions.

Seed Investing For Social EnterpriseRoss Baird, John Hardman, Kim Scheinberg, Tim Freundlich, Jessica Jackley

This panel was, by far, the most entertaining panel at SOCAP. I hate to say it, but you really had to be there to experience it… start saving your pennies for your ticket to SOCAP11 so you don’t miss out next year. Here are some of the best lines from the session in no particular order.

Village capital model uses the wisdom of a group of entrepreneurs to decide who to invest in. The HUB is launching a village capital fund called HUB Village Capital. It’s launching now with a cohort of 20 entrepreneurs at the HUB Bay Area. -Freundlich

Profounder is going live with 20 entrepreneurs looking to raise seed capital through private fundraising campings. The investors enter into a revenue sharing, not equity deal. Entrepreneurs looking to raise capital can do a private campaign for friends and family, or a campaign to the broader public. The unique twist on the public campaign is that once an investor makes his/her money back, the remaining proceeds go to a charity of his/her choosing.  - Jackley

I hate philanthropy.  - Scheinberg

Q: How does one get seed capital? A: Tell your story in a genuine way. -Jackley

If you are sitting in this room, you don’t need my money. -Scheinberg

Kiva was rejected twice by Echoing Green. I was rejected from Stanford Business School. You don’t need to be a part of any club to make it.  - Jackley

Not everyone thinks your kid is cute. Not everyone wants to steal your idea. – Scheinberg

Typically the relationship between the seed investor and the entrepreneur is like performing fellatio and having your hair grabbed. – Scheinberg (I think this was a comment on the power dynamics involved… but make of it what you will)

ReachScale Lunch Discussion – Corporations and Social Enterprises

David Wilcox curated a sharp group of people at this private lunch event. The topic was centered around the questions: How can large corporations and social enterprise work together? How can a partnership with between the two go beyond a transfer of money to assuage corporate guilt? Can real, equal partnerships exist? If so, what does that look like? This was by far the most engaging and intellectual discussion of the conference. I cannot do justice to the discussion here, but I will point you to a must read Harvard Business Review article on the Hybrid Value Chain by Ashoka.

The People Side of Triple Bottom Line – SJF Ventures, Endeavor, Better World Books

This panel discussed the bottom line that is all too often treated as an afterthought in triple bottom line accounting… people. The panelist discussed innovative ideas to engaging employees.

SJF Ventures presented highlights from an forthcoming report on the topic. One idea that caught my attention was Open Book Management.Open book management is a management stractegy based around transparency and accountablity from management to employees, whereby management discloses key financial metrics to the entire team so at they can rally around those goals and use them as a benchmark for success. For example, if your social enterprise needs to close $1.8 million of deals this year, that key metric is shared very publically with your employees. They use is as a goal and a constant benchmark for gauging success. Open book management is a simple, but often overlooked technique of creating employee buyin for the company’s goals. Combined with appropriate performance-based incentives, open book management can engage employees while motivating everybody to achieve stated goals.
Better World Books is the best example I’ve seen on employee engagement for two reasons: their approach to stock options and their response to the recession. Better World Books has instituted an incredibly generous stock option program: they give stock options to EVERY full time employee that has been there over a year. Currently 70% of their full time employees have options…. the other 30% are waiting to hit their one year anniversary. The fact that 30% of their full time work force has been employed less than a year shows that this type of employee engagement can lead to incredible growth in a social enterprise.

Better World Books was not immune to the recession, when it hit, their business suffered. Management had some difficult choices to make about how to cut costs in order to survive. like any business, they contemplated laying off employees, but in the end, they decided on a different approach. During the recession they cut everyone’s pay in order to avoid any layoffs, but they did this on a graduated basis, the highest paid managers took the biggest cut, and the lowest paid employees took the least cut. As business started picking back up, management decided to reinstate the lowest paid employees’ pay first, then gradually reinstate the better paid employees. The top levels of management didn’t reinstate their own pay until a year after the lowest employee’s pay was reinstated.  The outcome was a more loyal and engaged workforce.

These are but a few examples of some of the great ideas around fully engaging the most important resource any social enterprise has… its people. For more on employee engagement check out www.engageemployees.org