I think the notion of a for profit social mission is intellectually dishonest, inefficient, and a fad. To be clear, I think that companies act in their own self interest and doing good things socially is often in their own self interest, but a company's mission is to make profit. If you want to be intellectually honest, make a great product or service, sell it for maximum profit, and then use a charitable foundation or separate and distinct organization with its own decision making structure to maximize the expenditure of those profits. If you are an entrepreneur your first mission is to make your company/product successful, layering a second orthogonal goal into the mix is a recipe for failure.
BTW you are welcome to be a "hybrid" company from a marketing perspective, just don't for a minute be fooled by your own marketing or that of others out there. Successful companies have ONE mission, making a return on the risk capital invested. Stop wasting your time thinking about how your going to help others with money you haven't earned.
To be clear I am all for using some of your profits to have a social impact, and doing bad things to the environment, ecosystem, people generally is bad for a companies self interest. In the age of cell phones and the Internet, transparency will kill those companies who are behaving poorly, eventually.
One more thought... Companies have been operating under the model using profits for good as a percentage of profit for some time. My earliest exposure to this was Hughes Aircraft/Medical back in the 1980's. Ben & Jerry's were some of the first to "transparently" explicitly share their profit sharing model as part of their marketing message. This set us on the path we are on today, but by no means were they the first to use their profit for good.