Beyond Chocolate: Business, Philanthropy, and the Changing Face of Social Welfare

In the late 19th century, deep in the heart of England’s industrial cities, something remarkable was happening. Inside the factories of Cadbury in Birmingham and Rowntree in York, the smell of roasted cocoa beans filled the air as conveyor belts carried thousands of chocolate bars towards a future that few could have imagined.

Just a few decades earlier, chocolate had been a luxury product for the wealthy, bought in pharmacies and exclusive grocers. John Cadbury began his business career by opening a small shop, selling drinking chocolate, partly as this refreshment was an alternative to alcohol and was reflective of his dedication to the temperance movement.

Yet thanks to pioneering manufacturing technology, the likes of Cadbury and Joseph Rowntree (both Quakers, who did not attend University) had turned it into something entirely different: a mass-market treat that could be enjoyed by factory workers and schoolchildren alike. Perhaps Cadbury is best known for the invention of milk chocolate, but as we will see, Cadbury was a technology company - producing vast quantities of a product that was previously limited in its supply.

Yet their story isn’t just about chocolate. It’s about the power of business to transform society, the lost art of philanthropy without tax incentives, and how the role of government in social welfare has changed beyond recognition.

Technology and the Chocolate Revolution

Before the rise of Cadbury, Rowntree, and their contemporaries, chocolate was sold in powdered or block form, mostly for drinking rather than eating. The process of grinding and refining cocoa was slow, inconsistent, and labour-intensive. This meant high prices and limited availability—only the wealthy could afford it.

The industrial revolution changed that. Steam-powered grinding machines, mechanical presses, and new refining techniques lowered costs, improved quality, and enabled mass production. With the launch of the first solid chocolate bars, suddenly, chocolate became a staple of British life—available in corner shops, railway stations, and even vending machines.

Cadbury, as well as famously introducing the 'glass and a half' of milk into their dairy milk product, even travelled to the Netherlands to adopt a greatly superior cocoa processing technique. So while other chocolate companies were still bulking out their products with red lead and brick dust (!), Cadbury's had a perfectly pure cocoa that the public loved.

This was more than just a commercial success. It was a market transformation, driven by entrepreneurs who saw opportunity in technological progress.

A Different Kind of Capitalist: Business with a Social Mission

But these men weren’t just businessmen. They were Quakers, part of a religious movement that emphasised honesty, integrity, and a duty to care for society. There was no public relations office or campaign - as alien as it may seem, Cadbury and Rowntree saw their businesses as a means to do good.

Consider Bournville, the village that Cadbury built for his workers. It wasn’t just a factory town—it had spacious homes, schools, parks, and even swimming pools. In a time when slum conditions were the norm, Cadbury treated his employees with dignity because he believed it was the right thing to do.

Rowntree, too, went beyond profit-making. He set up pension funds, worker education programmes, and social research institutes to improve living conditions in Britain. His efforts weren’t about only enhancing shareholder value; they were about changing lives.

Giving Without Tax Incentives: A Lost Culture of Philanthropy?

One of the most striking differences between then and now is the nature of charitable giving. Today, philanthropy is often structured around tax advantages. Donors are encouraged to give because of tax relief, and businesses set up charitable foundations that maximise financial efficiency.

But when Cadbury and Rowntree gave, there were no generous tax breaks. Their philanthropy wasn’t about offsetting tax liabilities; it was about moral conviction. They gave because they believed they should, not because the system rewarded them for it.

This raises a provocative question: has modern philanthropy become weaker precisely because it is incentivised? When giving is built into the tax system, does it still have the same sense of personal duty and responsibility?

Admittedly, income tax—after several temporary measures—was permanently introduced by Robert Peel in 1842 at a rate of 2.9% on incomes over £150 (equivalent to around £14,350 today).

As we’ll see, the state was far smaller in those days. While this left many trapped in the kind of Dickensian poverty vividly portrayed in his novels, it also sparked an explosion of two great but now fading arts: entrepreneurship and altruistic philanthropy.

Then vs Now: The Expanding Role of Government

There’s another shift that’s hard to ignore. In the time of Cadbury and Rowntree, government spending was just 12% of GDP.

Today, it’s closer to 45%.

In their era, business and private individuals played a much bigger role in social welfare. Entrepreneurs like them didn’t just donate money—they built homes, funded hospitals, and created opportunities for workers. Today, much of that responsibility has been absorbed by the state, financed through taxation and redistribution. 

Has this shift truly been a positive one? While the modern welfare state provides a safety net independent of individual generosity, it has also eroded a culture of personal responsibility and voluntary philanthropy. When the state assumes the role of caretaker, people are less inclined to support one another directly, weakening the bonds of community and entrepreneurship that once drove both social progress and economic growth. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider whether a sprawling welfare system is the best way to foster a thriving, self-reliant society.

What Can We Learn Today? 

Cadbury and Rowntree were capitalists, technologists, and social reformers—a rare combination. Their story challenges modern assumptions in several ways. 

Business and ethics are not opposites—profit-driven enterprises can still be guided by moral principles.

Philanthropy doesn’t need tax incentives—giving can be driven by conviction rather than financial advantage.

The role of the state has fundamentally changed—and with it, society’s expectations around who should care for the vulnerable.

In a world where government now plays the role once held by philanthropists, perhaps the greatest lesson from the chocolate industrialists is this: social change doesn’t have to come from the state. It can come from business leaders who see their work as more than just profit-making—but as a means to nurture a thriving community.

The question is: do we still have leaders like that today? at Start Bay, we are passionate about leaders who do good business while doing good, and we are committed to serving charitable leaders and entrepreneurs who want to revive the spirit of the great 19th century philanthropists. Let’s talk if collaboration is on your mind.