 So, you might imagine that in 15 minutes I'm going to teach you everything you need to know about setting up your social enterprise. Wrong. That's not possible, but I do have three takeaways I'd like to give you today. And first, I would love to just make a shameless plug. Jones Day is a relatively small law firm, 2,400 lawyers and 41 offices around the world. I've had the privilege of working there for 25 years. Today I run our renewable energy and sustainability practice, which fits very well with triple bottom line companies and their investors. And so for 10 years plus I've been working in the social entrepreneurship space. I sort of call it my incubation lab. Those of you who are familiar with empathic design thinking might be saying, what's this guy doing? He's doing his rapid prototyping on us. Well, yes, I am. We've been working on a lot of designs over the years, and quite frankly, as you know, if you know anything about empathic design thinking, the goal is to fail early and often. And we've had some failures, but we've had some successes too. And for me, one of the privileges of being involved in the space that long is I've seen some firsts. I got to be at the table when SoCAP was birthed, when GoodCAP was birthed, when B Labs was birthed. And I had the honor of incorporating and designing the first B-Corp certified venture capital funded from Sandhill Road Company in 2006, which has actually exited. So there are some exits out there, and people even talk about them proudly. So that's a little bit about me, but I'm not here to talk about me today. Actually I'm here to talk about you and your heart for this space. And I love the 1979 quote from Ray Bradbury because he talked about what we do with heart. And with heart, we take those leaps. We take those leaps of faith from tall cliffs, and we do it in the belief that we can build wings on the way down. Reid Hoffman has reinterpreted that for all startups. Reid Hoffman says, look, startups are like jumping from a cliff and believing that you can build a plane on the way down. Well, what I would say to Reid and Ray is you ain't seen nothing yet. You need to come see what social entrepreneurs are doing. They are jumping from cliffs, okay, and their cliffs are way bigger. And the reason they're bigger is because they're doing rapid prototyping on the way down. They're doing empathic design thinking. They're trying to come up with a cheaper, more extremely affordable model for what they're doing. It's going to be sustainable. It's going to provide flight ultimately, but it is also going to save the world. It's going into some of the hardest places to deal with some of the hardest challenges. And that's what I want to talk about today a little bit, is just how is it that we do that. I think, quite frankly, if we're going to be successful at this, if any entrepreneur is going to be successful for leaping off a tall cliff like that, they need to have three things. One, they need to have a good design in mind. Secondly, they need to have some lift. And third, they need to have a lot of courage. In the design area, you might think I'm a bit of an expert. Actually, I'm not. Most of the designs I use in social enterprises are tried and true designs that have been used for years and years. In fact, what I like to say is there's really only three patterns that come up in the social enterprise space. Either you're starting a social enterprise, you're pursuing some kind of a tandem structure, side-by-side for-profit, not-for-profit, or a for-profit owned by a not-for-profit, or you're moving a social enterprise from a non-profit the way Embrace did or Network for Good is trying to do the way a number of organizations have done. So actually, the patterns are pretty, it's a pretty small group of patterns. And I wish I could walk you through the details of each one, but honestly, I understand that you are not people with the best judgment in the world because you're sitting here listening to a lawyer talk as a warm-up act for Van Jones and Steve Wright. So I'm going to get myself off the stage as quickly as I can. But let me just say that in the design realm, there's only a certain number of tools in the toolkit that we have available to us. And quite honestly, the most favored tool for institutional money is a corporation. And we could go into the what's in the why's around why not LLCs, why not unincorporated associations, why not cooperatives. But the entrepreneur has to understand that the choices they make in designing their enterprise are going to either broaden or narrow the pools of capital that are available to them. And what I like to tell entrepreneurs is, please, don't make it more than a bubble off plumb the norm. Because the more complicated it is, the more difficult it is to understand, you're already confronting a capital market that has this dysfunctional bifurcated thinking. They believe that the money in their two pockets are somehow separated, that they'll donate $10,000 or their own vest a million. And when you go and you say, well, we're a blended value triple bottom line social enterprise, you can do both with once. Their reaction is you're making my head hurt. So coming up with a answer that fits into a norm is really powerful. And the one point I would say here is the overriding concern among social entrepreneurs that I work with is mission drift. They are worried that somehow when they take money, the money is going to cause them to move. And that's not an irrational concern on their part. Because quite frankly, most money, unless it's coming from a high net worth individual or their family foundation, has as its metric of success an internal rate of return, which is time sensitive. And so for the entrepreneur thinking about going into some of the world's hardest places to deal with some of the world's hardest challenges, time pressure is not necessarily the friend. But there are ways to do mission anchoring within the norm. And what I say to everybody is, if you've never heard of founders preferred stock as a vehicle to anchor the mission, look it up. And I have this to offer you. We are making available in the near future through law for change, a set of documents for social entrepreneurs to reference and for their lawyers to reference when they're starting a social enterprise, how we've done it in the past. And with a little luck, the guys at law gives will get the funding they need to take some of the content that we've developed over a lot of years and make available an open source decision tree for entrepreneurs to go through the decision making online without the need of hiring a lawyer or finding a lawyer who actually knows what they're talking about. Yeah, you can clap about that. That's a good thing. Lawyers sometimes exhibit some of the worst and some of the best instincts. And one of the worst would be to be incredibly proprietary about this. So it's good that we're going to make it available. The other thing that a social entrepreneur needs, if he or she is going to take a leap off that big clip, is they need Lyft. And Lyft is something that comes from money. Okay, let's face it. But I think we need to get away from this lexicon of calling social entrepreneurship and impact investing a sector. It's not a sector. Let me cast a bigger vision for you. It's a virus. Okay, we're planting a virus. Our goal is not to create something that gets bolted on next door to the capital markets. Our goal is to create something that infects the capital markets as a way of thinking and a way of doing business. And every business and every businessman and every investor decides that's the way to do it in the future. Now what is a sector is an individual business. Businesses fall into sectors and businesses fall in different places on the impact and financial return spectrum. So if you think of this XY axis, you may disagree with me on some of my choices of where I've plotted them. But in essence, there's an infinite number of points on this axis. And the challenge for a social entrepreneur is to find the money that's attracted either to the high impact or high return. We'd all love to be up into the right, but not every single one of these social enterprises is an up into the right hand corner enterprise. So finding the money that matches, that marries well with the goals of the enterprise, whether it's something like Kiva that's unlikely to produce wild profits over time, but is going to do great things in terms of generosity, or it's something like Network for Good that is sort of a SaaS platform that has the opportunity to unleash profits and unleash generosity, or maybe it's a change.org that is an amazing financial and activism engine. They're all in different places on the spectrum. And what I think is really important is that the social entrepreneur needs to be aware of the Frankensteins that are out there. And let me, this is a word to investors, okay? I have been doing this long enough, I have seen enough term sheets, and I know that most impact investors come with the best heart. But they don't always come with the best brains when it comes to putting together a term sheet. I have too many times seen mission aligned money that has terms in it that are completely stupid from the standpoint of attracting later unaligned, unmission aligned money. And if you're looking at term sheets that have two times participating preferred or convertible debt that has a security interest, you're in the wrong ball field. So this is my admonition to entrepreneurs, beware of the Frankensteins, and my challenge to investors, let's get back within a bubble off plum. We don't want to be more than a bubble off plum. Part of why I say that is because honestly, as I have seen more and more enterprises built by more and more lawyers and more and more entrepreneurs and funded by more and more investors, the fear factor has started to rise. That our sector, this space of social entrepreneurship and impact investing could suffer its own three cups of tea moment. And this would be a bad thing. I mean it to be a little bit funny. I say it tongue in cheek, but it would be a very bad thing because we would all get painted with that brush, that reputational brush. And so we need carefully thought through structures well done, especially when we're doing tandem structures or spinouts from nonprofits. Because you can imagine the headline in the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, when some enterprise goes bust after an exit. And all of it was spun out from a nonprofit. And the storyline goes, the donors subsidized people getting rich and the whole thing blew up later. Look at what social enterprises do. That would be a bad thing for all of us. The final thing that social entrepreneurs need before they jump off the cliff. And this one seems intuitive is courage. But I want to talk about courage in a slightly different way. Because, and actually I want to piggyback on one of my heroes in this space and one of the big thinkers and thought leaders, Kevin Starr. Kevin Starr just wrote this piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog last week or the week before. He said dump the prize. And basically his point was a thought provoking tongue in cheek challenge to us to think through what are we doing with all these competitions. That we are putting social entrepreneurs through with very little prizes that are taking a ton of time to prepare for. I add to that, what are we doing in this space that was founded on empathic design thinking and rapid prototyping. And a culture where we celebrate failure as a way to learn and do better. What are we doing adopting the societal norm of celebrity worship and hero worship and creating these, I mean I get that there's a time and a place for encouraging, okay? That's a good thing. But we can take it to the point of proliferation that we have today where we have so many competitions and what happens is somebody wins a competition and then they go on the competition circuit. And I realized this with Embrace when I worked with them. I've realized it with a number of different successful social entrepreneurs. And for me, the negative effect is insidious. Because what happens is, failure becomes something to be ashamed of. Or something to be afraid of when all you do is celebrate success. The benefit of rapid prototyping and celebrating failure is not that we're trying to give up on excellence, it's the contrary. We're trying to lean in to build the most excellent things out there to solve the world's biggest problems. And the only way to do that is to be honest with one another about the failures that we're experiencing. And I think it's safe to say, as one of the authors of some of the first hybrid legislation out there, I'd be hard pressed to claim a success today. I think we are in a rapid prototyping phase and we are going to fail early and often with some of these statutory forms. And so this is my warning to the entrepreneurs out there. Yes, we need B Corp certification. It's a fabulous brand and that's fantastic. But these statutory forms, we are not measuring success the right way if we're not seeing institutional money rushing to fund those kind of companies. So the jury's out on that and I say buyer beware, entrepreneur beware, investor beware until we know. And I love the entrepreneur who comes to me with the courage of their conviction. And the vertebrae of titanium and says, I want to be a benefit corporation. Or I want to be a flexible purpose corporation or social purpose corporation because they are my rapid prototyping next experiment. But for most people, the challenge of raising capital in that environment is too tough. So I thank you, I've tried to keep to my 15 minutes. I hope you got a little bit out of it.