Social Enterprise & Time Magazine's Persons of the Year

This may be the year of social enterprise awakening.

With megadisasters Katrina, Rita, the Asian Tsunami, the Pakistani Earthquake, Avian Flu, the AIDS Pandemic... there is a swelling urgency to find fast, effective business models to respond to--and possibly prevent--such wide-spread devastation.

Time Magazine has selected a trifecta of megastars in this field: rock band U2's frontman Bono alongside Bill & Melinda Gates.

The accompanying suite of articles gives an intimate glimpse of daily life for these three who are focused on massive systems, namely health and economics.

From Persons of the Year By NANCY GIBBS

And so another alliance was born: unlikely, unsentimental, hard nosed, clear eyed and dead set on driving poverty into history. The rocker's job is to be raucous, grab our attention. The engineers' job is to make things work. 2005 is the year they turned the corner, when Bono charmed and bullied and morally blackmailed the leaders of the world's richest countries into forgiving $40 billion in debt owed by the poorest; now those countries can spend the money on health and schools rather than interest payments--and have no more excuses for not doing so. The Gateses, having built the world's biggest charity, with a $29 billion endowment, spent the year giving more money away faster than anyone ever has, including nearly half a billion dollars for the Grand Challenges, in which they asked the very best brains in the world how they would solve a huge problem, like inventing a vaccine that needs no needles and no refrigeration, if they had the money to do it.

The Rock Star's Burden

By PAUL THEROUX
Published: December 15, 2005 | NY Times Op-Ed

This is to balance out the post on Bono's ONE Manifesto.

THERE are probably more annoying things than being hectored about African development by a wealthy Irish rock star in a cowboy hat, but I can't think of one at the moment. If Christmas, season of sob stories, has turned me into Scrooge, I recognize the Dickensian counterpart of Paul Hewson - who calls himself "Bono" - as Mrs. Jellyby in "Bleak House." Harping incessantly on her adopted village of Borrioboola-Gha "on the left bank of the River Niger," Mrs. Jellyby tries to save the Africans by financing them in coffee growing and encouraging schemes "to turn pianoforte legs and establish an export trade," all the while badgering people for money.

It seems to have been Africa's fate to become a theater of empty talk and public gestures. But the impression that Africa is fatally troubled and can be saved only by outside help - not to mention celebrities and charity concerts - is a destructive and misleading conceit. Those of us who committed ourselves to being Peace Corps teachers in rural Malawi more than 40 years ago are dismayed by what we see on our return visits and by all the news that has been reported recently from that unlucky, drought-stricken country. But we are more appalled by most of the proposed solutions.

Read full article

[On a side note, my father, Philip P. Durand, served with Mr. Theroux in Malawi as part of the Peace Corps.]

One: Bono = Numero Uno

The 2005 winner of the TEDPrize was the man with one name and the catalyst for the One Movement: Bono.

In his acceptance speech, he admonished the elite technorati to rise to the challenge of poverty and AIDS, he said:

But equality for Africa - that's a big, expensive idea. You see, the scale of the suffering numbs us into a kind of indifference. What on earth can we all do about this? Well, much more than we think. We can't fix every problem, but the ones we can, I want to argue, we must. And because we can, we must. This is the straight truth, the righteous truth. It is not a theory. The fact is that ours is the first generation that can look disease and extreme poverty in the eye, look across the ocean to Africa, and say this and mean it, "We do not have to stand for this." A whole continent written off,... we do not have to stand for this. [see video | read speech]

On Dec. 1, World AIDS Day, the inaugral podcast of the ONE Movement was broadcast. [ XML | HTML ]

The ONE Campaign seeks to end extreme poverty by allocating an additional ONE percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food.
It is supported by Bill and Melinda Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The ONE Campaign was founded by Bread for the World, CARE, DATA, International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee, Mercy Corps, Oxfam America, Plan USA, Save the Children US, World Concern, and World Vision, and works closely with the National Basketball Association, Rock the Vote, and the Millennium Campaign.
The ONE declaration:

"WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs - education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans - would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all."

Visit www.one.org for a podcast including Nelson Mandela, Coldplay, Val Kilmer and more hipsters with heart.

The Purpose Prize

Do you know of someone in their 60s or older who is truly reinventing what it means to be an innovator in the social sector?

Civic Ventures, a San Francisco-based think tank and incubator, recognizes the incredible social capital represented in older adults. With funding from The Atlantic Philanthropies and The John Templeton Foundation, the organization is launching a campaign to recognize, invest in, and inspire this group of innovators.

They are offering The Purpose Prize.

The hallmark of this campaign is a prestigious new prize to five exceptional individuals over the age of 60 who are defying societal expectations by channeling their creativity and talent to address critical social problems at the local, regional, or national level. Sixty semi-finalists for The Purpose Prize -- "Sixty at Sixty+" -- will receive national recognition for their work.

Five $100,000 investments in Americans who are using their life experience and creativity to transform our nation and defy expectations for the second half of life.

Nominations are due by February 28, 2006.

Don Gould, Pure Water for All

When people ask Don Gould how he knows that his product works, he answers, “Because babies stop dying.”



As part of a social enterprise consortium, Gould, who is both a product designer and ceramicist, helped to design and deploy simple effect water filtration devices to the developing world.

He talks with Tim Zak, host of Globeshakers, about both the traditional production techniques and the new economy models for collaboration. Together, they can deliver life-saving solutions that are as robust as they are elegant.

See photos and slideshow from the Pure Water for All project in Sudan.

So, why is water a problem?

[see Globeshakers for more details.]

Darrell Hammond, founder of KaBOOM!

Play is a crucial factor in the overall well-being of children. It affects the level of quality of life they will enjoy. Yet, play in many communities, schools, and families has been pushed to the back-burner. Darrell Hammond, founder of KaBOOM!, envisions a great place to play within walking distance of every child in America. Since 1995, KaBOOM! has used its innovative community-build model to bring together business and community interests to construct more than 850 new playgrounds and skateparks and renovate 1,300 others nationwide.


On Nov. 4, 2005, Tim Zak, host of Globeshakers, speaks with Darrell Hammond, founder of KaBOOM!, who envisions a great place to play within walking distance of every child in America. Darrell gives a “State of the Union of Play” address regarding play in America, why it matters for the health of our children, and what it means for the future of the American workforce.

Habitat JAM

Unprecedented Global Event:
Tens of Thousands of World Citizens Unite Online
to Debate Urban Sustainability Issues
Habitat JAM

www.habitatjam.com

Thursday, December 1 - Saturday, December 3, 2005
Open to everyone interested in creating a better world.
Come for an hour or stay online for three days

Triple Bottom Line Conference 2005

Money Flows: Triple Bottom Line Conference 2005

Nicole-Anne Boyer

from Worldchanging.com:

Of all of the big hairy systemic issues out there these days, I keep bumping into the question of sustainable finance. From whatever lens one takes -- macro or micro, public sector or private sector financing, driven by ODA or ROI -- the task of understanding money flows is critical for a more sustainable future. 'Cause like it or not, money flows frame the parameters of possibilities in our era.
With this in mind, I found myself at the TBLI Conference in Frankfurt, Germany early November (2-4th). The labour of love of Robert Rubinstein, this was the seventh Brooklyn Bridge TBLI event, which is practically middle age for a conference, not to mention testimony to Robert's ability to consistently attract leaders in the SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) sectors. The next conference will be held in Bangkok, an encouraging signal that this field is spreading beyond the Western markets.

Read entire article.

MicroVC

At this year's Pop!Tech, we heard from the Director of MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms, Neil Gershenfeld.

His unique laboratory investigates the relationship between the content of information and its physical representation, from molecular quantum computers to virtuosic musical instruments. Technology from his lab has been seen and used in settings including New York's Museum of Modern Art and rural Indian villages, the White House/Smithsonian Millennium celebration and automobile safety systems, the World Economic Forum and inner-city community centers, Las Vegas shows and Sami herds.

In a post at Worldchanging.org, Jamais Cascio writes of Gershenfeld's call for a more robust system for lending capital for "micro VCs".

By and large, people working to improve conditions in the poorer parts of the world consider microcredit -- the practice of offering very small loans to individuals starting small businesses -- to be a successful tool. But microcredit isn't as well-suited for people starting up riskier ventures; the funds needed are often substantially higher, and the more significant risk involved in the startup would inevitably lead to a greater default rate. MIT's Neal Gershenfeld, of Fab Lab fame, described in his book Fab the need for "micro-venture" services in the developing world to support the greater risk and greater upside of local innovation. It turns out that he wasn't alone in seeing that need.

Visit MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms.

Has corporate architecture doomed the city?

Over the last century, corporate headquarters -- as well as churches, universities and government institutions -- have been pillars of the urban environment, embodying the culture, values and aspirations of their societies.

Yet today's corporations -- competing in global, open-market economies; distanced and disassociated from the means of production — have increasingly situated themselves on the suburban periphery, replacing civic engagement with simple displays of technological prowess, such as the ubiquitous glass curtain wall.

As a result, "corporations must be seen as potential 'dissolving agents' of the cities in which they have chosen to locate," argues Peter MacKeith, associate director of the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts at Washington University in St. Louis, where he also serves as associate dean of Architecture.

read full article>>

Another Dispatch From Pop!Tech

A couple of months ago, I got captivated by the notion of the $100 laptop currently being developed by MIT's famed Media Lab headed by legendary technologist Nicholas Negroponte. He's a guy I started to track after reading his book Being Digital when I was a way wet behind the ears techie wannabe nearly two decades ago. Today at Pop!Tech, Negroponte outlined the details of the device and its intended effect on the developing world.

He pointed out that personal computer costs breakdown into essentially three categories: sales, marketing, distribution, and profit -- 50%, display -- 25%, and everything else -- 25% (75% of which is used just to store and maintain the operating system). By focusing on a low-cost, low-power display, a self-generated power supply, and emphasizing connectivity and an open source architecture, the device could potentially connect 100 million people a year (if Negroponte has his way) to the rest of the world. A workable model is to be presented to the U.N. in November with production prototypes due early next year.

However, Negroponte failed to address at least a couple of important issues. First, he proposes that all of the "know it exists, get it to those who want it" costs (i.e., sales, marketing, distribution) will be eliminated. One way or another, someone will have to pick up the tab here, particularly for logistics and support ... hope it's not just shifting the accounting of costs from the "laptop" account to the "U.N. (or some other nonprofit)" account. Second, and a big question in my mind, is how much of the laptop is recyclable, reusable, or remanufacturable? Does the world really need to produce 100 million a year more of anything that doesn't have a pre-defined, designed-in sustainability cycle, particularly in the developing world where sanitation infrastructures are primitive at best?

Just goes to show that even a "wow!" idea is just the first step in the lifecycle of a social innovation with impact.

Dispatch from Pop!Tech

In yesterday's sessions at Pop!Tech, we were enveloped by a tone of almost unfathomable optimism and ambition. Technological genius, indescribable integration of art and engineering, the exploration of space and oceans. Heady stuff, indeed ...

In contrast, this morning so far has been way more sobering and, in a way, a welcome grounding. The effects of global warming presented by author Mark Lynas literally stopped my brain in its tracks. In a synthesis of scientific investigation on the subject, Lynas made me believe a quote I read in the local paper: "Climate change is nuclear war in slow motion." The implications of even single degree increases in ocean temperature have vast implications on the physical, geographic, and social structures that provide a precarious equilibrium for citizens around the world.

Finally, I haven't gotten through all of Suketu Mehta's book Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found but if his excerpt reading is any indication, it's a must read. Cities now make up 1/2 the world's population and in the developing world, the migration of people from rural areas to cities (driven by what appears to be a universal lure, dependable income and the potential for a "better life") will fundamentally change our very notion of what constitutes "acceptable living standards."

The Influence of One Social Entrepreneur: Bill Strickland, MCG

Bidwell CEO to Advise Louisiana on Tourism
Founder & CEO of the boundery-busting Manchester Craftsmans Guild is tapped to help the New Orleans music and culture scene in its recovery.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Saturday, October 08, 2005

What One Man Can Do
Bill Strickland is in the business of saving lives. After almost 40 years of teaching kids, training adults, and telling his story, he's looking to "franchise" his brand of hope.
Inc. Magazine, September 2005 | Page 144 By: John Brant Photographs by: Graham MacIndoe
See slideshow and hear a soundclip of Bill's presentation

(Annie O'Neill, Post-Gazette photos)

What Price Culture?

An OpEd article in this past weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal by Douglas McLennan, editor of artsjournal.com questions whether the current financial model of arts organizations, increasingly focusing on "business-like" activities such as charging admissions fees, courting underwriters, and running retail shops is artistically appropriate and fiscally sustainable. He contends that the current system is "broken" and a new "model" must be invented.

It's clear that many arts and cultural institutions are stuggling. In my hometown, an institution as world renowned as the Pittsburgh Symphony continues to stuggle even after earning a majority of its operating budget through earned income and garnering salary concessions from its musicians.

However, what Mr. McLennan doesn't do in his article is suggest what a new model for arts and cultural organizations should look like, contending that we're "stretching traditional nonprofit status to the point of breaking". Although I'm not sure that there's is an obvious "answer", I do know that going back to the way the arts were "funded" a generation ago is not a viable solution. For example, patrons in the past had fewer choices on which to spend their entertainment dollars and the exodus out of many urban areas (including my own) over the years has reduced the size of the customer base. The bottom line is that arts and cultural institutions are exposed to market forces like never before and have no choice but to respond in ways that more closely resemble businesses.

Earned income activities not tied to the core mission of the organization, like a coffee shop run by a museum, is not likely to ever generate significant profits. They are mostly stopgap measures. However, social enterprise initiatives intimately linked to mission and run with the intent to make money (like all businesses, there is no guarantee) can not only effectively compete and grow but can also build organizational capacity, supplement other objectives of the organization (e.g., grow membership), and open up new revenue-generating opportunties.

One of the ventures in the Accelerator's portfolio is the Westmoreland Museum of American Art in Greensburg, PA. Like the organizations described by Mr. McLennan, the WMAA struggles to maintain a preeminent status among regional museums in the U.S. while ensuring its financial sustainability.
Its earned income initiatives, fully supporting the museum's mission to educate people about the art and history of their country, have not only generated increasing financial returns but has resulted in a variety of exciting (and potentially profit-making) partnerships.

For example, the Westmoreland was the premier show in the Visionaries eleventh season of profiling socially innovative individuals and organizations around the world for PBS and the Wisdom Channel. Entitled American Art-Alive and Well the episode is described as:

Bonded by an extraordinary personal event, a small group of people transform a stodgy old museum into a vibrant place pulsating with the energy of young people discovering art, history and music for the first time. The music of the NewLanders a group of Pittsburgh area musicians and songwriters who have researched and rediscovered songs written by, and about, the people of southwestern Pennsylvania is part of that story.

The business model for arts and cultural institutions may have outlived its usefulness but I would contend that the future still looks a lot like the present, with more of the very best and most relevant practices of the private, public, and citizen sector injecting life into a critical aspect of society.

The New Philanthropy

Used to be that when entrepreneurs hit it big, they'd put their loot into a venture capital fund to have an excuse to stay in the start-up game or into a philanthropic foundation to "give back", providing funds to worthwhile non-profit programs. But some of the savviest tech entrepreneurs of the last decade, most recently the founders of Google as described in today's USA Today, and the founders of eBay, Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll, are using their wealth to invest in non-profits pursuing businesses in support of mission and "socially progressive" companies formed as for-profits.

If the traditional sources of funding for both the non-profit and private sector began to dedicate even a small fraction of their vast holdings to social innovators, regardless of the legal designation of their enterprises, we might be forced to come up with a whole new definition of "shareholder value" and a new name for these "hybrid" endeavors.

Do well and do good may never have been mutally exclusive but we may very be at a "tipping point" at the interection of business and societal impact where only the savviest entrepreneurs need apply.

The Unintended Crossover of Innovation

A few years ago, the famed inventor Dean Kamen unveiled a product that he claimed would literally change the world. His invention, the Segway Human Transporter, is a self-balancing, electric-powered transportation device that uses gyroscopes and other mechanical innovations to allow people to travel farther and move quicker -- up to 12.5 mph. Many pundits envisioned the Segway as an enabler of "new urbanism", a way to arrest the pace of sprawl and make cities more livable. Public sector organizations like the U.S. Postal Service piloted the device to deliver the mail and police forces tried it out as a 21st century version of walking the beat.

While the Segway hasn't become quite as ubiquitous as originally touted, it's been described in a recent article as having "an unsought market." The market? People with disabilities!

In some ways, this should come as no surprise. Kamen was a card-carrying social entrepreneur long before he and his team invented the integrated technologies underlying the Segway. After all, he invented the first portable infusion pump capable of delivering drugs (such as insulin) to patients who had previously required round-the-clock monitoring, a phone book-sized dialysis machine, and a six-wheeled robotic "mobility system" for the disabled that can climb stairs, traverse sandy and rocky terrain, and raise its user to eye-level with a standing person.

But if you were a spunky MBA student helping Kamen write the Segway's business plan, you probably wouldn't suggest selling into the "disabled market". Too small. Too distributed. Too diverse. And, apparently, a real beneficiary of innovation's crossover effect.

So Many Books, So Little Time

As far back as I can remember, I've operated in a gray area of acceptable societal norms: the jock who can't keep his nose out of a book. Ahh, books! I've always been fascinated by every aspect of the industry -- how do authors get their brilliant ideas on paper in a coherent way, how are the army of supporters (like editors, photographers, cover artists) coordinated, how are books manufactured and marketed, how cool is it to get royalty checks in the mail?

But the whole idea of becoming an "author" is both daunting and frustrating. How do the seemingly limitless number of book ideas rummaging around my head and written down on sticky notes and the backs of napkins jive with a long-cycle, high overhead industry? I recently ran across a model that may provide an answer and at the same time make the whole book publishing industry increasingly irrelevant.

More Space is a book project that:

"...presents nine current business bloggers writing in their own unique styles. Each author challenges the premise that places of business can only be cold and uninspiring. By sharing their own experiences they offer up ways for you to re-ignite passion and enthusiasm in your work."

Can't diss the premise and topic for sure but what I really like about the project is the intent to offer a variety of formats (pdf, html, mp3, hardcover), license the works using Creative Commons, provide an initial run of the hardcover version with stuff you can't get in the free versions, and find a "business model" that fits consumer needs and pays for itself including compensation for the authors (prominent bloggers in this case).

Hmm, now where did I put all of those napkins and sticky notes ...?

SROI: Heart, Mind and Bottom Line

So, what is the ROI on SRI? Can we truly measure SROI?

And, by the way, what the heck are we even talking about?

With SROI, one measures the increasing social effects of an investment; with SRI one measures the increasing financial returns of a socially-oriented investment.

So what's the difference? Is there one?

Namely, we are talking about two different, but related creatures:

1. Social return on investment (SROI): the quantitative and subjective measure of social effects of a program (ex. higher test scores, lower mortality, cleaner neighborhoods, etc.)
   
2. Socially responsible investments (SRI) -- or "doing well by doing good" -- integrates personal and social values into investment decisions.
   

This synthesis of "investment" with "social" ventures is on the rise as more and more investors take responsibility for their own 401(k) and SEP plans.

They begin to think about the effects of that wealth and worry that their investment may be part of the problem, instead of part of the cure. But these investors still want to retire someday and are far from looking at these investments as handouts. Instead, they want to know that the business models of the organizations and the leadership teams have been duly vetted and approved.

It seems quite logical: we worry about what activities our money is going towards funding, in terms of both the activities those investments fuel and the return on that capital.

But what about that Social Return on Investment? As stock market volatility rattles the coffers of large foundations, more boards of non-profits and grantmaking organizations are asking for proof as to the effectiveness of their largesse.

In an interview with Accelerator president Tim Zak on Globeshakers, author David Bornstein, an expert on social enterprise says:

Right now you have companies with big foundations: Companies that give away thirty, forty, fifty, eighty million dollars a year. They have process that is shameful in terms of thinking through how they do it. They hire maybe five people who do minimal due diligence.

In some cases, it is merely word-of-mouth kind of things; they go to a couple of meetings and they give the money away.

It is nothing near the way it would be if they were actually investing seventy million dollars in a business. In that case, they would spend close to a year talking to everyone who has ever dealt with that business.

Towards this end, the skillsets of venture capitalists are being drawn into the social sector to provide such due diligence.

More than 500 "socially responsible investment" professionals gathered in Snowbird Utah last week for the 16th annual SRI in the Rockies conference.

Gil Friend of Worldchanging.com was there to report on the evolution of the field, described in Social Investment, Social Capital and Social Action:

There was some debate in the room over whether, and why, companies care about their SRI rankings. Some maintained that companies could care less; others noted that many public traded companies respond to extensive questionnaires (at 100 hours a pop) from multiple SRI analysts (sometimes dozens) -- the reason OneReport was developed -- while some approach the analysts and rating services (like the DowJones Sustainability Index, FTSE4Good, KLD, Innovest, and others) for advice on what they need to do to move onto the good list. That seems like an indicator of perceived value to me. As does the presence of a former Goldman Sachs CEO at the helm of Al Gore's new firm, Generation Investment Management LLP.
Perception is key to the investment game, of course. The profit opportunity lives in the value gradients between how different people evaluate risk and opportunity, and hence the value of securities. If I think global warming, toxic products and human rights are likely to be big deals, and you don't, we're going to place very different financial bets. Because SRI is a movement as well as an industry, the investors want to move markets -- like LEED has done in the building industry -- as well as profit from them.

One thing is for certain, when companies perceive that their financial well-being is directly tied to the stockholders' idea that their capital is invested in a social investment, then companies will need to make damn sure there is a healthy return.

We're talking SROI investors can take to heart, and ROI they can take to the bank.

Decaf Healthcare

The social pressure on healthcare rises. But when the Big Boys of commerce go to the Hill to ask for a little relief, will the pullers of the purse-strings listen?
Starbucks will spend more on healthcare than on coffee; for car makers, they'll spend more on that line item than on steel.

Thursday, September 15, 2005
Starbucks, others try to balance worker health care with expenses
By CHARLES POPE, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz didn't mention Wal-Mart by name Wednesday as he took part in several Capitol Hill events designed to draw attention to the nation's health care "crisis."
But the implication, in both words and actions, was clear. Schultz was part of a group that included CEOs from Verizon, Costco, Honeywell and Pitney Bowes who came to Congress to jump-start efforts to control health care costs. Each of the companies offers health insurance to virtually all of its employees, even in the face of sharply rising costs. READ FULL ARTICLE>>

Thinking With Our Hearts

An op-ed piece in the September 9th edition of the NY Times asserts that the standard measures of poverty in the U.S. are misleading and that significant headway has been made on improving the lot of poor people in this country. If you're anything like me, presented with selected facts from both ideological sides of the aisle on just about any issue, you can rarely get past a far from definitive "maybe". It's only when cold, hard facts hit the realm of personal emotion and intuition that we can get to a point of view. Maybe it takes a multifaceted "jolt" to view the world from a new lens. Instead of just thinking with our heads, we let our hearts get into the act.

While the aftermath of some prominent natural disasters have recently focused our attention with red-hot intensity on the seemingly wide disparities between individuals, if we're really being honest with ourselves, we realize that these disparities exist all around us. Rich and poor, minority and majority, blue collar and professional, mobile and immobile, young and old, ... most of the time, it unfortunately takes a catastrophic event to focus our attention long enough from the rush of daily living to form a thoughtful personal opinion about what is "right" and "wrong" (if anything), and what to do about it.

Much of the dialogue most recently has been between the "rich" and "poor" (although the dialogue seems to have forgotten about that vast turf called the "middle") and the implications of being in one camp or the other. Are we truly better off as a country? Have we moved the needle on poverty at all or have gigantic, government-driven efforts over the last 30-plus years been wasted? If vast government intervention is proving ineffective could a more "market-based" system, drawing on the central tenants of capitalism, prove more effective? How could the integration of social sector organizations and businesses change the game? It'll take our heads and our hearts to figure out any of these questions.

A Goldmine in Serving the Poorest Consumers

From former Accelerator staffer, Leila Berkley:

Check out a book out by a professor at the B-School at Michigan, C. K. Prahalad, titled The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, and is all about treating the world's poor as consumers (not poor) and giving them more choices, which will in turn help them. I think it (like many international development ideas) has some strong implications for our urban (or rural, for that matter) poor here in the states.

There is also an article online at changemakers.net.

From Amazon.com:

The world's most exciting, fastest-growing new market? It's where you least expect it: at the bottom of the pyramid. Collectively, the world's billions of poor people have immense entrepreneurial capabilities and buying power. You can learn how to serve them and help millions of the world's poorest people escape poverty.
It is being done-profitably. Whether you're a business leader or an anti-poverty activist, business guru Prahalad shows why you can't afford to ignore "Bottom of the Pyramid" (BOP) markets.
In the book and accompanying CD videos, Prahalad presents...

Why what you know about BOP markets is wrong A world of surprises-from spending patterns to distribution and marketing
Unlocking the "poverty penalty"
The most enduring contributions your company can make Delivering dignity, empowerment, and choice-not just products
Corporations and BOP entrepreneurs Profiting together from an inclusive new capitalism

Recovery 2.0

Ethan Zuckerman has spent his career building social networks through innovative technology.

He has been watching as the sprawling network of bloggers, technologists and working folk self-assemble tools, resources and coordinated efforts for search, rescue and recovery in the Gulf.

One massive effort is the PeopleFinder database which, according to Salesforce.com, contains over 87,000 records in the database, all entered by hand by volunteers. Imagine a state bureau trying to tackle that over Labor Day weekend!

The first design principle of PeopleFinder is "to bring people and data together."

The design aims to promote convergence: convergence of people who seek the same person, convergence of information about a person obtained from various sources, convergence of duplicated data, and ultimately convergence of missing people with their loved ones.

Zuckerman describes the timeline of tech events in conjunction with events on the ground in New Orleans and the Gulf.

The emerging story describes a virtual immune system swarming in response to the body blow of Katrina: individual groups establishing wikis and blogs; converging efforts behind a single URL (Katrinahelp.info); the use of on-line sales space Craigslist to offer shelter and supplies; AirAmerica Radio's Katrina Voicemail; amazing feats of digital heroism to link up families and account for the missing.

He identifies some guiding principles, and an evolving model for future disasters.

"Jeff Jarvis, who's done an excellent job of blogging various Katrina recovery efforts, sees an opportunity for a dialog about reactions to future natural (or, god forbid, manmade) disasters -- he's calling the idea Recovery 2.0."

From Jarvis' blog:

The goal is to be ready -- God help us -- for the next disaster so people can better use the internet -- via any device -- to better:
1. Share information,
2. Report and act on calls for help,
3. Coordinate relief,
4. Connect the missing,
5. Provide connections for such necessities as housing and jobs,
6. Match charitable assets to needs,
7. Get people connected to this and the world sooner.

Zuckerman's observations hold to just about any socially oriented effort, whether focused on acute short-term catastrophes or long-term recovery:

• People want to help.
• Sometimes code is the solution. Sometimes 2,000 loosely organized people are the solution.
• Simple tools work surprisingly well.
• It's not just your tools that need to be robust. You're dependent on everyone else's tools as well.
• Posses rock.
• Assume burnout.

As one of the core team members at Tripod in the 1990s, Zuckerman was at the center of a web-based communitity, that served as an early development lab for the blognation phenomenon.

Currently, his main affiliation is with the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. In a former life, he also lead a cadre of self-proclaimed geeks into the colorful chaos of West Africa, through Geekcorps. The organization transfers skills to the Third World, or -- in the words of Jim Moore -- the second superpower.

Geekcorps' early business model was very simple: (1) Geeks beget geeks; (2) Africa needs geeks; (3) Give a geeks money to go to Africa.

His blog is even titled, My Heart's in Accra.

One project in this area is BlogAfrica, a project to help Africans learn about weblogs and to aggregate content from African weblogs. Ethan also works with anonymous blogservers for use by people in the human rights community, allowing human rights workers to blog about situations in their countries without compromising their security.

Future of Public Radio

Anyone who thinks of Terry Gross when they hear the term "fresh air" is aware of the recent trials and tribulations of National Public Radio.

With hostile leadership both in the legislative and executive branches, not to mention within their own management circles at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the institution has had to fight for its political (and financial) viability.

The real threat, however, is the same one facing the music industry and broadcast television: namely, the power of the viewer to choose what they see, hear and interact with on an individually designed schedule. It even allows for real-time citizen reportage that scoops the traditional media.

Doug Kaye, founder of IT Conversations is at the heart of the podcast revolution. His
recent blog post speculates on the viability of the publicly funded radio icon in light of consumer-produced media.

From The Future of Public Radio:

"The future of public radio may not be podcasting, but it will certainly be based on much lower-cost methods of producing and distributing most programs, and as incumbents in the industry, the WGBHs of the world are unable to cannibalize their own operations to the extent they must to survive. To do so would mean walking away from all the buildings and studios and firing 80% of the staff. Just as 3.5" disk drives replaced the 5" drives at a far lower price/performance ratio, so will the new public radio produce and distribute programs at a far lower cost. And it won't be done by the same organizations."

WIE and the Enlightened Corporate Machine

What is Enlightenment? Magazine (or WIE) has filled an intersting space in the publishing arena: the intersection of religion, philosphy, business, science and ecology.

In the March-May issue, the writers focus on the new generation of CEOs who are trying to apply their personal awareness of the world to the actions of their enterprises.

The issue titled, Will Big Business Save the World? features senior leaders from erstwhile enemies of global consciousness such as Nike, Unilever, Hewlett-Packard and McDonalds. They stand along side other long-time advocates for system change as Peter Senge of SOL, Walter Robb of Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Dadi Janki of the Brahama Kumaris World Spiritual University.

The WIE website is chock full of rich articles and audio interviews (requires monthly subscription) that take a good look at the complexity of the issues. Although the publication has a decidedly New Age viewpoint, the articles address real world problems and theoretical/theological debates without listing too far to the Left or Right or the spectrum. The primary focus is on connectivity instead of divisiveness, with white papers available directly from the coporations they analyze and opposing viewpoints.

Doing well by doing good requires taking it all in, and WIE is attempting to do just that.

Capital Shakers and Market Breakers

Listen to a podcast from the June 24th session Social Change--for Profit? Capital Shakers and Market Breakers included top social investors and entrepreneurs recognized for building unique and cutting edge progress in bridging business and social change; each shared breakthroughs as well as hard lessons learned from the trenches.

Panel leader was Amber Nystrom, Executive Director, Social Fusion, a business incubator for social entrepreneurs in the San Francisco Bay Area; panelists included leaders from Rubicon, Calvert and Microcredit Enterprises.

[from Stanford's Solution Magazine]

This engaged dialogue showcased the mainstreaming of social investing and the bridging of private sector and traditionally philanthropic and nonprofit sectors through so-called double bottom line investing. San Francisco is quickly assuming a global leadership role in social investing, where investors and philanthropists are achieving simultaneous financial as well as social benefit returns on investment.

Million Dollar Partnership for Entrepreneurial Studies

The new partnership between the Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Washington University and YouthBridge Association, a St. Louis agency dedicated to innovative youth-focused social ventures, will foster and expand social entrepreneurship through a new award and competition.

One million dollars has been pledged for the effort, and other area universities, institutions, community groups, and foundations have been invited to collaborate in the effort.

Read full article:
WUSTL, YouthBridge to partner for social entrepreneurship
One million dollars would support new initiative
By Shula Neuman

Globeshakers: The Podcast

In partnership with Doug Kaye at IT Conversations, an on-line radio program focused on social innovation is about to hit the virtual airwaves.

Globeshakers is a program highlighting people who are transforming the world through technology, social enterprise and sustainable solutions. The host? Why it is the Accelerator's very own Tim Zak.
Each program he'll interview various species of "globeshakers" who work across the world and across industries, using innovation to shake up the status quo.

• The Shakers: people on the ground working for social change.
• The Movers: users of personal star power and influence to build buzz for a mighty cause.
• Big Brains: the thoughts and theories are making a big splash.
• Geeks for a Greater Good: the knowledge workers who harness the power of connected economies, embedded computing, robotics and smart mobs.
• Policy Wonks: the insiders with an ear to the ground, listening for the legislative drumbeat.
• Grease Monkeys: the foundations, nonprofits and consultants working under the hood of social engines.

And last--but by no means least--Zak will interview to those Enlightened Corporate Hacks who are true system-thinkers; who are shaking up the marketplace by crafting new language, sustainable business models, and, most important, global thinking.
Join us, won't you? At IT Conversations, coming Fall '05.

Stay tuned!

World Changing Bloggers

Go check out: WorldChanging.com.

This is definitely ont of the best and broadest conversations going on in the social enterprise space. The writers are weird, wary, worldly, wired and wicked smart.

Big topics include: A Newly Electric Green, Big Systems, Global Culture, Leapfrog Nations, The Tech Bloom, and (every social venture's favorite topic) Money as a Tool.



Listen to founding editor Alex Steffan's presentation at Pop!Tech 2004 on IT Conversations.
See information graphic from this speech posted on Alphachimp Studio's blog.

Social Enterprise Defined

Skoll Foundation. What do Jane Addams, Maria Montessori and Muhammad Yunus have in common? All are exemplary social entrepreneurs, leaders who have identified sustainable solutions to social problems that have fundamentally changed society. more>>


Ashoka. The job of a social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is stuck and to provide new ways to get it unstuck. He or she finds what is not working and solves the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution and persuading entire societies to take new leaps. Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry. more >>


Third Sector Enterprises

• Enterprise Orientation – they are directly involved in producing goods or providing services to a market.
• Social Aims – they have explicit social aims such as job creation, training or the provision of local services. They have ethical values including a commitment to local capacity building. Their profits are principally reinvested to achieve their social objectives. Increasingly social enterprises measure their social impact.
• Social Ownership – they are autonomous organisations whose governance and ownership structures are normally based on participation by stakeholder groups (eg employees, users, clients, local community groups and social investors) or by trustees or directors who control the enterprise on behalf of a wider group of stakeholders. They are accountable to their stakeholders and the wider community for their social, environmental and economic impact. Profits can be distributed as profit sharing to stakeholders or used for the benefit of the community. more >>

David Bornstein, author of How to Change the World
David went to Bangladesh to learn about the Grameem Bank that makes loans primarily to women. He discovered that the program is working: Women are building businesses. Social entrepreneurship is important, he concludes enthusiastically. He talks about a project [guided by Fabio Rosa] to bring electricity to poor people in Brazil: single wires going to houses, grounded in the soil, low voltages.

The project is also bringing solar panels to rural areas, renting them for what people generally pay for candles, kerosene, etc. Bornstein talks about "child line" in India, now in 55 cities. It's a number you can call if you see a child in distress. It started with one woman who spent 3 years trying to get the equivalent of an 800 number for it. It's deeply affected India's child protection policies. Ideas don't break through resistance, David says. Ideas are passive. Ideas need champions. They need marketing. They need to be shepherded through the system.

David spoke at the 2005 Pop!Tech conference.

• Listen to presentation
• See information graphic by Peter Durand