I work a lot with mission-driven engineers on the financial side of their entrepreneurial projects.

Once they have identified their innovation and have an idea of how to bring it to market, I help them translate their project into financial terms and build the economic backbone of their business.

One thing always strikes me: money talk is NOT easy for them.

Not because they don’t understand numbers. They do (they are scientists!)

But because talking about money feels loaded. Risky. Betraying their values.

For founders who care deeply about impact, money often carries tension.

They worry about charging “too much”.

They worry about being misunderstood.

They worry about drifting away from their original intention.

So money conversations are postponed. Sometimes entrepreneurs hope these can simply be avoided altogether.

When financial considerations become moralised

This discomfort follows a familiar pattern.

In mission-driven work, money often becomes morally loaded.
As if caring about prices, margins, or revenue means caring less about people, purpose, or the planet.

They try to compensate by lowering their prices.
They personally absorb costs the business cannot yet carry.
They rely on goodwill and hope instead of structure.

Often, they tell themselves it’s temporary.

Just until customers understand the true value.

Just until things stabilise.

Just until xxx

This isn’t naivety.
And it isn’t irresponsibility.

It’s what happens when financial questions are treated as moral questions instead of practical ones.

When framed this way, money stops being a tool for sustaining the work.

It becomes something to justify, defend, or minimise.

How fragility quietly enters the business

Here is the mechanism most founders often don’t foresee.

When prices don’t carry the real cost of the work, the business becomes fragile.

It may still function.
It may even grow.
But it does so by pressuring the founder.

Extra hours.
Unpaid labour.
Emotional commitment filling the gaps the business can’t yet carry.

Impact work becomes subsidised by personal endurance.

There is no margin for error.
No buffer.

And if something shifts (a delay, a slow month, illness, accident…) the negative consequences are immediate.

The business doesn’t deteriorate because the mission is wrong.
It deteriorates because the economics are not designed to hold it.

Financial considerations as the container for impact

Here is the reframe that brings relief.

Strong economics is not the enemy of impact.
Strong economics is what allows impact to last.

Values need a container.
Without one, they depend on sacrifice.

Strong economics doesn’t dilute the mission.
It protects it.

It makes trade-offs possible.
It allows the business to carry responsibility.

When economics is designed intentionally, impact stops relying on personal heroics.
This is not a pricing debate. 

It’s a design question.

A small step forward

If you want one simple place to start, ask yourself:

What would change for you and your team if the business were able to financially support the impact it creates?

You don’t have to answer it now. Just notice where the load currently sits.