http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/08/i-for-one-…

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/08/i-for-one-…

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/08/i-for-one-…

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/08/i-for-one-…

'Selling Out' is not the only option available to greenpreneurs – in fact, given the concerns you've raised, it should be considered only if the values of each organisation are in alignment.

Better structuring of entrepreneurial projects provides significantly more flexibility, and the potential to monetize a brand without compromising it's integrity (we'll be going through a lot of this in the 'how do you eat an elephant' series – http://ow.ly/nNsf ).

This is especially important for values-driven brands who are considered by their advocates, stakeholders, customers & suppliers to have an ethical obligation to 'holding the space' for enterprise-with-integrity.

Brands such as these are devalued over time if they don't maintain their values-orientation – meaning that the asset purchased may very well lose market share and diminish in value if not kept on track (making it a poor investment for the buyer).

Creating two entities – a trading entity and an intellectual property entity – means that one or either can be sold or licensed under strict criteria and the license to manufacture under that license can be revoked on the basis of its terms not being met.

Alternatively, a sale could be structured so that the company becomes a separate operational division within a larger corporation, providing the benefits of centralised infrastructure, whilst permitting the previous owners to remain on the board of that division for an agreed period (their primary purpose being to maintain brand integrity).

Large corporations are generally interested in the brand, as most (if not all) of the manufacturing capabilities of these smaller companies are generally going to be dissolved into a larger manufacturing enterprise that provides greater economies of scale. If the small, green brand wants to sell, without selling out, they could license the brand (to someone like Kellogs) and generate an upfront payment as well as an ongoing revenue stream through license fees as long as the brand is in use.

Of course, that's just one way of going about it – ultimately it comes down to a clear vision being articulated, and an intelligent strategy being devised to ensure that the entrepreneurs remain in integrity with their own values, whilst creating a compelling financial outcome for themselves.

Ultimately, in my experience, this comes down to a limited knowledge of what's possible, and a lack of clear vision and strategy being established early enough in the projects development (before the entrepreneur is exhausted from years of 80 hour weeks) to ensure that the exit is viable for all concerned.

The only other possibility is that these entrepreneurs really don't care what happens to their enterprise once it's out of their hands (which strikes me as highly improbable).