[rooshdi]

You just explained the problem yourself. Companies put cash and profits over causes and people. The "1% of Nothing" initiative is only encouraging founders to invest a percentage of this cash to a philanthropic cause. If I understand correctly, employees and other shareholder equity will remain unaffected. Furthermore, if they don't believe in the company's philanthropic efforts, they are still free to work or invest elsewhere.

[alexkearns]

But the problem of good and bad companies is not about how much they give to charity. I bet tobacco and arms companies give huge wads to charities but that does not make them good.

Good companies are companies whose work (their "cause" enacted by their "people") is socially beneficial. Such companies do not need to give 1% of their equity away to charities to be good - indeed to do so, would be to distract from their socially beneficial mission.

[rooshdi]

So, you support socially beneficial companies, yet object to companies diversifying their social contributions by a percentage or so? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that donating a percentage of equity from each founder would be distractive.

[alexkearns]

It would be 1% distracting.

[rooshdi]

Also, 1% diversified. If 99% of a company's social value isn't good, at least a percentage may be.