Now that all of us agree that the really important question is not whether corporations need to have a social purpose, but what they do with it (use design thinking to create social innovation driven business models, for instance), it's useful to ask if one social purpose is more important than another.
Some people, including IDEO's Tim Brown, believe that we need to rally our efforts to solve our biggest problems - health, education, governance, energy, and climate change - in a systematic manner.
I'm not so sure myself. For me, Zappos's 'Delivering Happiness' mission is an equally valid example of a corporation integrating Purpose, Participation and Profits as GE's Ecomagination strategy. Just look at the sub-title of Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh's book - "Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion and Purpose".
Jokes apart, delivering happiness seems like a perfectly valid Purpose to me, and, in the case of Zappos, it has indeed resulted in Passion and Participation from employees, customers and observers, and some serious Profits. The question is: is it enough for Zappos to purposefully deliver happiness, or does it also need to start a social responsibility project?
Going back to the big social issues, Nike with Nike Plus and Nintendo with Wii Fit have promoted an active lifestyle, connected people, and made profits (Purpose, Participation, Profits) without positioning their innovations as social responsibility, or even social innovation. Does it make their contribution to a creating a healthier planet more, or less, meaningful?
What do you think? Are Zappos, Nike and Nintendo good examples of corporations that combine Purpose, Participation, and Profits? Do share your insights in the comments below.