You have a good point, but I’m not sure I agree with your statement: “If young people truly find their passion and what they’re good at, they will be driving social change.” Yes, business and improved business practices can create value for society. But not all enterprises prioritize that, and not all young people think that way or direct their efforts towards working to drive social change. There are a lot of people who see business and work as a way to make money to buy things and don’t make the connection that you can make money and have positive impact at the same time.

I believe that you can work hard and make money AND “Work on Purpose,” so we agree there. But if you were talking to a young person who hasn’t even considered the concept, would you share with them the same link from Nestle? Or is there another way to explain how working hard and making money can be good for society, too?

(Can you try re-posting that second link? Looks like it’s to a local file on your computer, not a page on the web.)

Here’s the correct link to Dan Pollotta’s article (I’ve also corrected it above):

http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/2012/09/change-the-world-without-losin.html

I do agree with you that not everyone connects the dots between making money and simultaneously having a positive impact on society; I also agree that not all enterprises prioritize the creation of shared value.

But, I also believe it is important for young people to do what they love — what they are good at and what they have a passion for. I believe that many of the great advances in society have been made by individuals pursuing their passion — even where they had no concept of “doing good” per se. As Dan Pallotta points out in his article, this is true of many of the technological advances that have positively impacted society.

Take the ubiquitous cell phone, for example. In 1973, a team led by Martin Cooper, an exec with Motorola, developed the Motorola DynaTAC to gain a strategic advantage over Motorola’s competitor AT&T. While Cooper most likely saw the potential future of the cell phone market, he could not have envisioned that, nearly thirty years later, the cellular phone would be a critical tool in poverty alleviation in countries at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP). Back in early 2007, Dr. Al Hammond, a member of the Leadership Group at Ashoka, wrote, “It is still not widely appreciated that the rapid spread of mobile telephony, and the only slightly slower spread of Internet services, have over the past 6 years transformed the lives of more people at the BOP than all of the world’s development projects together.” (See Hammond, Al. “TN4B: How Mobile Phone Companies Have Cracked the BOP Code.” Next Billion. March 21, 2007. (Blog post.)) http://www.nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=604

This is not a unique example. Today, an increasing number of companies are realizing that the BoP provides an opportunity to grow sales, increase brand loyalty, and create new markets for their products. Not all (and possibly not even most) of these companies are purposefully attempting to drive social change. Nonetheless, to achieve their business objectives, they must find new ways to make products that meet the needs and demands of the poor, and to make those products both available and affordable to those living on under $2 per day. Not only is this race to the BoP market driving technological and commercial innovation and change, the market competition is driving down the costs of, and opening access to, goods the poor need and want. Perhaps more importantly, it is beginning to change the way the world views those living in extreme poverty — from aid recipients to empowered consumers; in so doing, it is serving to give the poor a voice and a choice in the goods and services they buy and use.

So, in answer to your question, that is what I would tell young people. I think they need to see that doing whatever they are passionate about will drive social change, whether or not they do so purposefully. As a change agent, they can choose whether or not to “work on purpose.” By choosing the former they may be able to engender and direct even greater impact; by the later, they may never know, control, or be able to capitalize on the changes they have effected. (This is what I was alluding to in my original response when I said “I wouldn’t edit [O'Reilly’s statement]; but, I would clarify it.” The two articles were intended to frame that clarification.)