Does donor support help or hinder business as mission practitioners?: an empirical assessment.

January 2014 Steven L. Rundle is professor of economics at Biola University. He is the author (with Tom Steffen) of Great Commission Companies: The Emerging Role of Business in Missions (InterVarsity Press, 2003) and editor of Economic Justice in a Flat World: Christian Perspectives on Globalization (InterVarsity Press, 2009). —steve.rundle@biola.edu M attention has been given in recent years to the role of business in missions. Often called “business as mission” (BAM), the integration of business and missions presents new opportunities and raises new questions for mission scholars. It represents an opportunity in that BAM is the only ministry or mission strategy that has the potential to create wealth and support itself. All other ministries in various ways must transfer wealth from one group (individual donors, governments, and so forth) to another to stay afloat. Yet this self-supporting aspect also raises some important theological, legal, and economic questions. Theologically, it requires Christians to develop an understanding of how business relates to missio Dei. Legally, those conducting BAM within the context of a government-approved charity must exercise great care to avoid violating the law. Economically, since BAM is essentially a for-profit ministry, it raises many questions about how to structure and manage such a ministry for maximum impact. This article focuses on the economic question, specifically the role—good or bad—of economic incentives within a BAM context. A concern held by many mission leaders is that economic incentives, if left unchecked, can cause practitioners to lose sight of their ministry goals. Indeed, this fear underlies the advice often given to missionary-practitioners that they should keep their businesses small and continue to draw donor support rather than become dependent on the business for their salaries. The findings of this study do not support this concern. Based on a survey of 119 BAM practitioners, it finds that donor-supported practitioners are no more effective in producing spiritual fruit than their business-supported peers. Furthermore, in terms of other kinds of “fruit,” business-supported practitioners report significantly better results. This difference may partially be a function of firm size—donor-supported BAM practitioners tend to have smaller businesses than business-supported practitioners and are therefore likely to have regular contact with fewer people. Conversely, a thriving, highly visible business has greater transformative potential than a struggling, low-profile business. The evidence presented in this article suggests that, for a BAM business to have a meaningful impact in a community, it should be structured and incentivized much like a “regular” business, which includes (1) an independent board of directors and (2) salaries that are based, at least in part, on the company’s performance. We consider first the definition and goals of a BAM business, followed by a review of previous empirical work in this area. Does Donor Support Help or Hinder Business as Mission Practitioners? An Empirical Assessment