Ecosia's founders have legally restructured the company to prevent it from ever being sold, even by future owners. This ensures that Ecosia's profits will always be used to plant trees and pursue its environmental mission. The change involves a new legal structure called a "steward ownership model" and a purpose foundation that holds all voting rights. This effectively makes selling Ecosia for profit impossible, guaranteeing its long-term commitment to environmental sustainability.
In a 2018 blog post titled "Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia," the search engine company Ecosia, renowned for its commitment to planting trees using its profits, announced a legally binding commitment to its mission of reforestation, precluding any possibility of the company ever being sold for profit. This momentous decision, spearheaded by Ecosia's founder, Christian Kroll, ensures that the company will remain eternally dedicated to its environmental cause, safeguarding it from potential acquisition by investors primarily focused on financial gain. The post details the specific legal mechanisms employed to achieve this, explaining that Kroll and Ecosia's co-owner, Tim Schumacher, have amended the company’s structure by placing all voting shares into a purpose trust. This effectively renders the shares inalienable, preventing them from being sold and consequently ensuring Ecosia cannot be purchased by external entities.
The post emphasizes the significance of this action in solidifying Ecosia’s long-term vision. It highlights the potential vulnerabilities of for-profit social businesses, susceptible to being swayed from their initial mission by the pressures of the market and investor demands. By relinquishing the possibility of a lucrative sale, Ecosia aims to permanently shield itself from such influences, cementing its dedication to ecological restoration. The post underscores the permanence of this change, drawing a comparison to charitable foundations, which similarly cannot be sold. It also explains the enduring nature of the purpose trust, which cannot be dissolved or altered in its objectives. The core objective of the trust, as meticulously detailed in the post, is to ensure that Ecosia continues to operate as a social business, prioritizing environmental benefit over profit maximization, for as long as it exists. Furthermore, the post elaborates on the mechanisms within the purpose trust that ensure responsible and transparent governance, designed to maintain Ecosia's adherence to its ecological mission. Finally, the post reiterates Ecosia’s commitment to transparency and accountability, inviting scrutiny and welcoming feedback from its users and the broader community.
Summary of Comments ( 113 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43317887
Hacker News users generally praised Ecosia's commitment to its mission, viewing the legal restructuring as a positive move. Some expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of the business model and wondered how Ecosia would adapt to future challenges without the option of selling. Others questioned the specific legal mechanisms employed and compared them to other charitable structures. A few commenters also raised concerns about potential future leadership changes and how those could impact Ecosia's stated commitment. Several users shared their personal experiences with the search engine, generally positive, and discussed the tradeoffs between Ecosia and other search options.
The Hacker News post discussing Ecosia giving up its right to ever be sold has a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the implications of the "steward ownership" model and comparing it to other organizational structures.
Several commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability and enforceability of this model. One commenter questions how this structure protects against a hostile takeover, pointing out that the foundation could still be pressured or legally compelled to sell. They also raise concerns about the potential for mission drift over time, even with the steward ownership in place. Another echoes this sentiment, suggesting that dedicated individuals can be replaced, and the legal framework might not be sufficient to indefinitely prevent a sale if significant financial incentives arise in the future.
There's a discussion about the potential limitations of the steward ownership model for scaling and adapting to changing market conditions. One commenter argues that the inability to sell might hinder Ecosia's growth by limiting its access to capital or preventing it from merging with a larger entity. Another counter-argues that this structure might actually be beneficial in the long run by forcing the organization to focus on sustainable growth and long-term value creation, rather than short-term profits.
A few commenters draw parallels to other organizational structures, such as cooperatives and non-profit organizations. One suggests that Ecosia's model resembles a perpetual purpose trust, designed to preserve a specific mission over time. Another mentions the limitations of traditional non-profit models, which can sometimes be bureaucratic and inefficient.
Some comments focus on the practical implications of Ecosia's commitment. One commenter asks about the specifics of the legal structure and how it will be enforced. Another questions how Ecosia plans to attract and retain talent without the possibility of equity-based compensation.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of admiration for Ecosia's commitment to its mission and pragmatic concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the chosen legal structure. There's a general recognition of the innovative nature of the approach, but also a healthy dose of skepticism about its ability to withstand future pressures and challenges.