[adaisadais]

Does anyone know of any companies where this strategy has worked?

Obvs lesser of the evils but the fear is that, at some point, the family or the fund, gets too far removed from the mission / founder (as is common with many companies) and ultimately chooses profits > environment.

[ddkto]

Yes - I work at Arup (https://www.arup.com/), a large engineering design and consultancy firm. The founder (Ove Arup) and original 7 partners “sold” their shares to a trust in the 60s or 70s (for something like 1 GBP, so they were effectively donated). The main difference between Arup and Patagonia seems to be that the beneficiaries of the Arup trust are Arup employees, while the Patagonia trust has other aims.

Ove Arup had a strong philosophy of design and how the business ought to be run, and the trust was set up to allow that view to continue to drive how we work. (https://www.arup.com/-/media/arup/files/publications/k/ove-a...)

I worked at a smaller firm previously that had a very similar ethos to Arup, but the original shareholders sold to a publicly held firm and it evaporated in short order.

The board that manages the trusts is mostly made up of folks who have spent much of their career in the firm, which helps to keep the trust from drifting too far from the mission. Obviously, there are changes with time, but we can make these changes for reasons other than next quarter’s financials.

(ps, if anyone is curious to see this from the inside, I am hiring devs! My burning need is C++ devs, but we are also hiring for skills all across the tech spectrum)

[csw-001]

Hershey (all profits go to boys boarding school) is a case in point - but the argument there is actually the exact opposite - that dead hand control is keeping the mission from shifting to be more inclusive.

[bombcar]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Hershey_School seems to be boy/girl now.