The Verticalization and Mainstreaming of Social Entrepreneurship

The financial crisis has not, thus far, cast a clear death blow to Milton Friedman's idea that the only responsibility businesses have to society is to maximize profits. That said, the last couple years have seen a steady mainstreaming of "social entrepreneurship," particularly within vertical industry categories such as Fair Trade. I believe both the verticalization and mainstreaming of the field will continue, creating a higher need than ever before to understand just what the broader designation of "social entrepreneurship" has to offer.

Social entrepreneurship tends to refer to the space in which companies and nonprofits use market and business objectives to achieve social aims. While there is some debate about whether the term refers exclusively to one legal business model over another, the core point for most of the people I tend to agree with is that "social ventures" as opposed to regular for-profit entities have an explicit focus on solving some social or environmental problem and maximizing social or environmental good alongside (or sometimes even at the expense of) pure, short-term profit maximization.

In this way, it is different from corporate social responsibility, which at its best is about giving back, improving employee culture and conditions, and reducing environmental impact. The difference is the fact that social entrepreneurship suggests that there is a core social or environmental value created every day by the products or services at the center of the very business. This does not mean that social ventures are "better" than non-social ventures -- there are lots of great companies that simply happen not to focus on solving social problems and which are still wonderful employees, community members, and philanthropists -- but it does mean they are different.

Social entrepreneurship is, however, a slightly weird field, in the sense that it is not an industry, but a term which applies to a number of (sometimes unrelated) industries, and a similar approach to business that places a social or environmental value at the center of the mission. Most people come into contact with the broader field of social entrepreneurship through one of the industries that it touches.

I think there are a few clear examples of these "vertical" fields that connect with the larger banner of social entrepreneurship that have gotten increasingly mainstream over the last few years. Cleantech is perhaps the most obvious, becoming one of the most invested in areas of venture capital ($1.9 billion was invested in Cleantech companies in the first quarter of 2010 alone). Microfinance is another clear example. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Grameen Bank founder Muhammed Yunus and the explosive popularity of Kiva are two of the more important historical moments for the prominence of social entrepreneurship, and the recent IPO of SKS could be another. Fair Trade, Organic and Local Food movements are all racing to the mainstream, as well.

Being based in Silicon Valley, I'm particularly interested in industry verticals that can attract tech talent to start new companies. I think we're going to see big booms in education startups (see: Udemy, Enzi, Grockit, DonorsChoose, Supercool School) and I hope that many will learn to work within instead of solely outside the current education system. Healthcare seems like an obvious area that mixes social good with the potential for immense profit, but there are still too few web tech companies working on the issue, a problem that programs like Hacking 4 Health are trying to redress. And although they are a little bit different in terms of their potential for financial gain, there also seems to be a mini wave of "government 2.0" startups (see: Code for America, CitySourced, Gov2.0 Summit) that are trying to change the way municipal services are deployed and how governments interact with citizens.

It makes sense that social entrepreneurship would mature into verticals like this: startups need accumulated bodies of knowledge and connections to be successful, and ultimately, what works in Fair Trade may not work in Education. At the same time, I think the common element of trying to maximize a social or environmental good takes as much managerial discipline as deploying a successful revenue model, and for that, the broader field of social entrepreneurship has much to offer.



http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/the_verticalization_and_mainstreaming_of_social_entrepreneurship?me=nl

A key to capital campaign success.

A key to capital campaign success.
By Daggett, Melinda
Publication: Fund Raising Management
August 1 1994

With the information gained from a feasibility study, an organization can either begin a campaign confidently or postpone it for a time so it can strengthen weak areas.

One of the keys to a successful capital campaign is thorough planning and preparation. Taking time to research your constituents and their interest in your campaign will pay dividends when deciding the campaign structure and beginning solicitations. A feasibility study or pre-campaign planning study is the first step to campaign success.

The feasibility study is particularly important for an organization that has never had a capital campaign or has not had a campaign for several years. It is also valuable for those who do not have a good feel for who their constituents are or what they think about the organization. Before beginning a study, an organization should be very serious about a campaign. Continuing talk of future plans and conducting studies without resulting action can leave a negative impression.

The study should consist of personal interviews with a representative sample of individuals, corporations and foundations that would be the most likely supporters of the campaign. For many organizations, this sample will average between 40 to 60. However, sample size may vary based on the size of the organization and scope of the proposed campaign. These individuals should have an interest or potential interest in the organization and its services, have given in the past or have the potential to give in the future. The group should be the "cream of the crop," those who are most likely to assume leadership roles in giving and volunteering. All constituent groups among which an organized campaign will be conducted should be represented. The types of constituent groups to be included in the survey will vary depending on the type of non-profit. For example, a study for an educational institution could include alumni, faculty and staff, and parents and grandparents of students. A hospital study might include interviews with doctors, former patients and medical suppliers. Every study, however, should involve the governing board and staff of the organization, and foundations and local corporations whose giving guidelines match the organization's mission and goals.

Often, a feasibility study can be performed by the organization's staff. However, time would have to be invested in training them. Staff would also have to divert time from their other responsibilities to focus on the feasibility study. Many organizations find it is helpful to use a trained outsider who is a specialist. This individual will tend to be more objective than someone on staff, is already knowledgeable in survey techniques, and will be able to devote complete attention to the project. In addition, interview subjects are often more comfortable expressing concerns or complaints to a third party. Cost considerations, staffing needs and available expertise are determining factors in deciding the best approach.


A key to capital campaign success. | Society, Social Assistance & Lifestyle Philanthropy from AllBusiness.com