I can't say that I disagree with what you wrote. It's a noble goal and one for a world I wish we had. However, it's a bit idealistic for the world we do have.

I have yet to meet a VC playing exclusively with their own money. The firms we normally encounter are focused on a few things: 1) Using the combined resources of others, 2) Investing that money with a profit motive (usually with a 10x target), and 3) operating within the defined parameters and goals for which it was raised. That means that while many talk a great game, the bottom line is about, well, the bottom line.

Being highly speculative investments - especially at the pre-seed, seed, and series A levels - muddies the water a bit. Bigger funds playing in the follow-on rounds have a bit more leeway to judge not only the unit economics but the social impacts since the startup is a bit more established. The values and behavior of the founder can come in to play, but usually more as a risk factor than the goal of seeking out true believers and martyrs for the cause.

As VCs hope to gain their returns for their LPs, there is often considerable holding their nose and turning blind eyes to troublesome behavior. After all, a founder who is proven to grow a startup and begin moving toward the coveted unicorn status is more valuable to a portfolio page than a bad manager with a heart of gold.

It's cynical, but it's also true. However, I would say that if this is to be a change to be seen, get more VCs on panels who focus exclusively on B Corps or non-profits. The criteria might shift a bit and the answers might be more in line with your preference.

Despite my comment above, I did enjoy the article. Good work and thought provoking.