That’s not really true.

They would need change their model to meat based burgers after they gain market share for their mission to be BS. Profit has nothing to do with it.

What you are proposing would prevent them from building a healthy company that can maximize market share and have the largest possible beneficial impact on the environment. I want them to drive all the meat based competitors out of business.

Why does it have to be this company maximizing market share? Releasing the IP would allow others to do that as well, likely increasing the overall meatless share.

I don’t know since I am not the CEO or even in the industry.

Maybe open source IP model would fail to get critical mass. Maybe the best path forward is to get Burger King as an investor.

If they maximize profits while still being committed to an environmentaly friendly meat replacement, that doesn’t mean they are limiting their impact in any way. It’s just as likely they are maximizing their impact.

I personally don’t care how much money they make, but I do care about the environment and animal rights.

So one reason companies like to vertically integrate with companies that supply the goods/services they use in their products is to open up economies of scale and decrease costs. Ie instead of getting protein from an animal that has to be raised on plants they’re getting protein straight from the plant source. It’s always going to be a cheaper to go closer to the source, “if you can make it work” - in a sane universe without subsidies.

I agree. They "conveniently" forget to state their primary mission: make a bundle for the proprietors (founders, investors, etc). Either in profit or at exits.

While doing that they have some additional missions, which is cool, but in absence of that first point I do agree it comes off as marketing BS.

At the very least, they have investors[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods#Financing