The Change.org Social Entrepreneurship Blog

I am delighted to announce that I’ve been asked by the Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog to become a regular contributor.  It’s a real honor to be part of this phenomenal blog, so I hope that you will check it out and join the conversation.

I will still write for the Social Velocity blog as often as I have been, but if you’re interested in my additional posts, check them out there.  My first post “The Danger of Abandoning the Nonprofit Sector” is up today, and here’s an excerpt:

With all the excitement and energy around social entrepreneurship, there’s a tendency to dismiss the sector that was working on social impact long before it was cool: the nonprofit world.  These days, nonprofits get far less airtime in the social innovation movement than their for-profit, social entrepreneur counterparts…Again and again, I’ve heard that innovation will never become part of the nonprofit system — that nonprofits are too set in their ways. Or that the sector is too broken to emerge anew. That attitude, though, is unacceptable. There’s great danger in dismissing the sector. Sure, it’s inefficient, dysfunctional and broken. Yet it has tremendous potential for innovation. Indeed, without innovation in the nonprofit sector, the broader movement to solve social problems is doomed…

Tags: Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog, nonprofit, Social Entrepreneurship

A Watershed for the Social Capital Market?

One of the sessions of the RISE Social Entrepreneurship track was a panel of investors who fund social entrepreneurs (both nonprofit and for-profit).  One of the panelists was Scott Collier, Managing Director of Triton Ventures.  Scott has been a venture capital investor since 1991, serves on the board of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Central Texas, and is working to engage Austin’s funding community in social innovation.  In the RISE panel Scott was on, a conversation began around mission-related investing, the missed opportunity currently facing foundations, and how a new move by the Gates Foundation may be opening up a whole new pool of funds to social entrepreneurs.  I asked him to write a post on this. It follows here.

I was recently fortunate to be on a RISE panel with a great mix of entrepreneurs and venture investors turned philanthropists, private foundation founders and social investors, all talking about investment in social enterprises.  The discussion emphasized the grant-making functions of the foundations represented on the panel and the exciting ventures that these grants were supporting. However, as often happens, there was no discussion about the potential for social impact investing by the investment functions of these organizations if they were to allocate a portion of their investment capital to activities that could produce both a financial return and a social impact.

I mentioned that this seemed to be a missed opportunity since the investment function of U.S. foundations manages about $550 billion whereas the grant-making function manages a much smaller amount: about $45 billion a year.  This would seem to imply that small program-related or mission-related investment allocations out of the $550 billion under management could represent much greater impact investing potential than would similar allocations of grant funds.  I also mentioned a cautionary tale as revealed in an LA Times article in 2007, where it was pointed out that the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private foundation, was investing for a financial return in companies whose business practices were causing harm to individuals that were at the same time receiving benefits from NGOs supported by Gates Foundation grant funding.  Given that investment dollars comprise such a much larger sum, such returns-only investment practices could be undermining the value of grants, resulting in questionable net positive impact if viewed holistically.

What I failed to add to this conundrum is that the Gates Foundation has now recognized the opportunity to be a thought leader in making social enterprise investments out of their investment capital.  Below is an excerpt from the Gates Foundation website explaining features of their pilot $400 million PRI initiative.

Q. What is the [Gates] foundation’s new approach to Program-Related Investments?
A. We are working with a range of partners to use Program-Related Investments (PRIs) to deepen the impact of our work. We believe that investments are the right instruments to use in situations in which our program strategies are best served by partnering with revenue-generating enterprises, such as NGOs, financial institutions or companies. These entities may not be able to access investment capital from the private markets because the markets or entities that serve the poor may be perceived as too risky or costly to serve, or investors don’t have good information to assess the opportunities. By providing investment capital directly or by reducing risk to investors, we can help our partners access the capital they need to grow and demonstrate to the market that financially viable opportunities exist that serve the needs of poor or otherwise disadvantaged persons.  We know we can’t solve all problems with these types of investments – grant-making remains critical for those sectors that can never generate revenues or be addressed by market forces.

We have established a pilot program with an envelope of $400 million to invest in a range of investment opportunities. The capital for PRI investments or guarantees will be provided by this special $400M pool which will be managed by the CFO’s office of the foundation. Out of this pool, we will invest in PRIs that directly and meaningfully contribute to the achievement of the foundation’s charitable purposes.

Q. What types of investments will the foundation do?
A. We will evaluate a full range of investment opportunities that could include:

• Debt investments such as loans to NGOs, financial institutions or companies;
• Equity investments such as investments in venture capital funds or (less commonly) purchases of shares in companies;
• Guaranty investments such as bond back-stops, credit guarantees, or insurance.
• Any PRI opportunity must closely align with our program strategies, from increasing financing for agricultural smallholders in Africa, to supporting charter school facilities expansion, to increasing investment in global health technologies.

I spoke with a colleague who is close to Gates Foundation CFO Alex Friedman, who launched this PRI program, and he told me that a key part of the pilot launch was to organize a new group whose financial returns would not impact the performance objectives of the office of the CIO.  This was intended to free the new PRI group to focus more on social return than on financial return.

It is certainly exciting news that this $400 million, representing roughly 1% of the Gates Foundation’s capital under management, is now available for both financial and social return when invested in partnership with social entrepreneurs.  However, what may be even more exciting is that the intention of the move is to encourage other private foundations to do likewise and for Gates to thus be a catalyst for multiples of the $400 million to show up in the market as risk capital for social enterprises.  Could this be the beginning of large pools of capital available for direct impact investing, social venture funds and private equity funds, and the creation of a true continuum of capital availability in what is today a very nascent social capital market?

Tags: Entrepreneurs Foundation of Central Texas, Gates Foundation, mission related investing, PRIs, RISE, Scott Collier, social entrepreneurs, Triton Ventures

Climb on Board, Austin

Today wraps up the Social Entrepreneur track of RISE, Austin’s SXSW-style conference for entrepreneurs.  It was a lot of fun putting together the track with Jessica Shortall, with lots of help from Annie Frierson, Suzi Sosa, Andy White and the many amazing, inspiring social entrepreneurs in our area.  I’m so impressed with the speakers and panelists that made up the track.  From design-thinking for social entrepreneurs, to domestic microfinance, to technology for social impact, to social investing, to balancing mission and profit, and much, much more.  It was so great to see those working in the gray area between social impact and entrepreneurship together sharing insights, ideas, knowledge, discussion, debate.

I couldn’t get to all of the sessions in the track, and so I’d love recordings of those I missed.  But because RISE is a free conference there is little budget for “extras” like recording equipment and staff.  However, I heard a rumor that some of the sessions were unofficial taped.  If you know of any taped sessions, let me know, and I’ll post them to this blog.  And I will definitely make the case to the organizers of RISE that next year we find a way to tape sessions.  Because this content is just too rich to be shared by only the 25-40 people in the room.

So I wanted to share my takeaways from the RISE Social Entrepreneurship track and thoughts about where we go from here.

First, the takeaways:

• There is tremendous interest and energy around social entrepreneurship in Central Texas
• However, there is little infrastructure or eco-system to effectively support those entrepreneurs
• More social entrepreneurs in the track and attending sessions were women  (that could entirely be based on the fact that the leaders of the track are women, but I think there’s more to it than that)
• There is a debate about whether social entrepreneurs need to bootstrap as long or as hard as traditional entrepreneurs since the same end reward (financial profit) does not really exist for SEs
• Funders of social entrepreneurs are not present in nearly as many numbers as social entrepreneurs
• An “investment banker” or “broker” vetting and connecting social entrepreneurs to potential investors is a key part of the needed ecosystem

And that’s just a beginning list.  There were far too many conversations, insights, war stories, and needs to catalog here.

Which brings me to where we go from here. There is a disconnect for Austin in the realm of social innovation.  When I talk with people in the social innovation space outside of Texas they are always interested to hear that I am from Austin and are sure that Austin is well along the path of launching and growing social entrepreneurs.  Because of Austin’s reputation for progressive ideas, its wealth, its technology background and its rank as the third largest venture capital city in the country, people assume that social entrepreneurship, which often follows from these things, is burgeoning here.  When I tell them that isn’t the case, they are shocked. What is holding Austin back?

We heard some provocative conversations this week and saw some inspiring examples of social entrepreneurs who are making it and funders who are helping them along.  But that’s not enough, not even close.

Social entrepreneurs need access to significant funding at every step of the game from seed to growth, whether their  model is nonprofit, for-profit or a hybrid.  We need to give social entrepreneurs the skills to create solid business strategy around a great idea, language for creating a compelling pitch, infrastructure to grow results.  We need to create communities for social entrepreneurs and social investors to interact, network, learn from each other, forge partnerships.  But most of all we need to collectively say, it’s not enough.  One week a year is not enough.  A handful of social entrepreneurs and social investors in a city of 1.7 million is not enough.  Social innovation is a growing industry, one that Austin should and must climb on board.  I’m not satisfied.  I want to see more.  A lot more.

Tags: Austin, Central Texas, design-thinking, microfinance, RISE, social entrepreneurs, social innovation, Social Investing

The Social Side of Entrepreneurship

In less than a month, Austin’s premier entrepreneurship conference, RISE, will be in full swing. March 1st through 5th brings a SXSW-style conference that is quickly becoming the place to be for anyone thinking about launching or growing an enterprise. This year, RISE has added an official social entrepreneurship track to the conference, which seems to be a sign of the times. Social entrepreneurship is starting to take its rightful place next to “regular” entrepreneurship. Perhaps in the future there won’t even be a distinction.

But until then, I’m delighted to announce the lineup of this year’s Social Entrepreneurship track at RISE. Social Velocity is hosting the track, and it is sponsored by the Silverton Foundation.  Jessica Shortall, Director of Giving at TOMS Shoes, and I have put together what we think is going to be a pretty great group of sessions exploring all aspects of social entrepreneurship. In addition, Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS Shoes, will be one the keynote speakers of RISE on Tuesday, March 2nd.

The Social Entrepreneurship track will run on Tuesday and Wednesday of RISE week, March 2nd and 3rd. Here is the lineup of sessions:

• Social Investing, Social Entrepreneurship and Social Profit
• Overview of Social Innovation
• Austin’s Emerging Social Capital Market
• Social Enterprise Case Studies
• Seeking Capital for Social Enterprise
• Design Thinking and Social Entrepreneurship
• Economic Development: Microfinance to CDFIs
• Social Media and Social Impact
• Balancing Social Mission and Business Pressures

You can find out more about the entire Social Entrepreneurship track at the RISE website and sign up for those you want to attend. Sessions are already filling up. I hope to see you there!

Tags: Blake Mycoskie, RISE, Silverton Foundation, Social Entrepreneurship, Social Velocity, TOMS Shoes

Convergence Can’t Be Denied

There is a fascinating debate going on in the blogsphere touched off by Michael Edwards, author of  Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World and former director of the Ford Foundation’s Governance and Civil Society program.

In essence, the debate is about whether the convergence of the private (business) and the nonprofit sectors is a good or bad thing, whether market forces help or hurt social change efforts.  Michael kicked off the debate on Monday with the first in a week-long series of posts called “Should Civil Society Be Reduced to a Subset of the Market?” In subsequent posts he went on to attack the emerging social capital market among other things.  You can read the whole series here.

Sean Stannard-Stockton, of the Tactical Philanthropy blog, took up the charge and debated many of his points.  Then the two have gone back and forth over the issues. And the debate expanded on the New Philanthropy Capital blog where Tris Lumley wrote that Michael’s argument “boils down to social capital markets vs civil society – impact measurement vs social justice, data vs values, competition vs solidarity. And in this binary view of the world, he threatens to undermine the very real progress that’s being made towards a much more balanced and realistic perspective.”  Michael responds and so does Tris.

It seems to me that fundamental to Michael’s argument is his fear about the growing convergence between the nonprofit, private and government sectors.  That somehow the “market” will sully social change efforts.  Michael argues that civil society and the market are separate entities: “Civil society operates on solidarity and commitment—the willingness to hang in there for the long haul even if results don’t go your way. Markets work on the opposite principle, “exit”: consumers are free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like. Otherwise the efficiency of resource allocation would suffer.”

But the fact is that social change efforts and the nonprofits leading them have always existed within a market economy. Resource allocation to nonprofits is very much based on a market. If nonprofits can’t convince donors or governments that their work is important or has meaning, they won’t receive resources.  Nonprofit funders are consumers who are “free to move from one supplier to another whenever and wherever they like.”  It would be great if social change efforts could exist in some sort of vacuum where their good work automatically finds resources, but the world doesn’t work like that.  And as resources for social change efforts become increasingly competitive, nonprofits, and for profits working towards social change, have to become smarter about responding to the marketplace. And as the marketplace demands more social change efforts, which is increasingly the case, more resources will be brought to bear on those social change efforts, thus the creation of the social capital market.

The growing convergence among the public, private and nonprofit sectors is a reality we can’t avoid.  Nonprofits have to respond more effectively to market forces, governments have to be more efficient in their allocation and use of resources, and businesses, in order to survive in a marketplace that increasingly values social good, have to understand and respond to the effects their products and services and business model have on the broader society.

Binary systems and separated sectors just don’t exist anymore.  The lines are blurring.  The market is part of the reality of social change efforts.  To deny that is silly.

Tags: Ford Foundation, Michael Edwards, New Philanthropy Capital, Sean Stannard-Stockton, Small Change, Tactical Philanthropy, Tris Lumley

Losing the Charity Mindset

Along with the burgeoning social entrepreneurship movement comes a bit of hubris that social entrepreneurs know better how to create social change than do the nonprofits that have been working toward social change for years.  Some social entrepreneurs argue that nonprofits are too set in their ways to embrace a new way of creating solutions.  I tend to disagree.  We can’t, nor should we, discount and dismiss an entire sector of people and organizations that have been working on social problems for centuries.  However, I do think that there are some things that nonprofits can learn from social entrepreneurs.  One of those is how to lose the charity mindset.

Nonprofits are sometimes referred to as “charities,” and it is a real misnomer.  But beyond semantics, the word, and more importantly the mindset, does a real disservice to organizations working toward change  A charity mindset is when an organization, its board, its funders or others promoting its work have a narrow view that the organization is benevolent, but not critical, to the world at large.  The charity mindset assumes that a nonprofit starts from the position of need, inadequacy, and burden, rather than a position of opportunity, strength, and effectiveness.  The charity mindset differs from a social entrepreneur mindset in a number of ways:

• Symptoms vs. Solutions: A charity, by its very definition, exists to provide aid to the needy, not to solve the underlying cause of the need.  This is not to say that every nonprofit can work toward solving an underlying problem; there will always be organizations that exist simply to provide basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.).  But I wonder if too many nonprofit organizations view their work as residing in the “charity” camp, instead of working, as social entrepreneurs do, to understand the cause of the need and how how they may be able to attack and solve it.




• Fundraising: A fundraiser in the charity mindset apologizes for the burden of asking someone for money, but a social entrepreneur offers investment opportunities to prospects.  Wendy Kopp from Teach for America went around evangelizing the Teach for America story and sought investors who wanted to get in on the ground level of an incredible opportunity to change the American public education system.




• Investment in Infrastructure: Charities spend every last penny on the program and leave little money for building the organization.  Social entrepreneurs understand that it takes organizations, infrastructure, systems, and talent to effectively execute on a solution to a social problem.




• Respect: Charities may be beloved by their supporters, but they may not garner a lot of respect from them.  Social entrepreneurs behave as equal partners with funders in creating solutions, and, as such, they command and receive real respect from investors, volunteers, partners and others.




• True Costs:  Charities like to claim that as much money as possible goes to direct services, but social entrepreneurs recognize the true costs of their endeavors and are open and honest with funders about those costs.  In fact they demand that funders understand and support those true costs.

I think the old adage is true, people will treat you the way you ask to be treated.  If a nonprofit acts like a charity, people will treat it like one.  Nonprofits need to stand up and demand to be treated as critical, equal partners in creating solutions.

Tags: charity, Fundraising, Nonprofits, Social Entrepreneurship, Teach for America, Wendy Kopp

Social Impact Finance

It’s a new year and a new decade, and both hold tremendous promise for creating real social change.  And key to significant social change is a fundamental restructuring of how we finance that change.  I think (hope) that in the next decade we will see the emergence of a new Social Impact Finance.  And I imagine it will look something like this:

• Social Impact Funds Become Commonplace. Experiments like the Federal Social Innovation Fund (which combines government and private money to fund the growth of proven nonprofit models), Village Capital Fund (seed funding for social entrepreneurs, determined by social entrepreneurs), social investment funds like Good Capital, and venture philanthropy funds like New Profit and SeaChange Capital Partners are expanded and become commonplace.  Seed and growth funding for nonprofit, for-profit, and hybrid social impact organizations becomes more readily available and accepted.




• Foundations Get Risky. Foundations deny their risk-aversion heritage and provide risk capital for social innovation, whether through their customary 5% cap for nonprofit donations, or social investments from their corpus, or by foregoing dreams of perpetuity and giving all their money away on a big bet or two.  See Nathaniel Whittemore’s great post on this.




• Individual Donors Become a Powerhouse. Technology finds a way to harness the power of individual donors toward significant social change. Currently, individual donations make up the vast majority of funding entering the nonprofit sector, yet their gifts are fragmented. With the potential of a new nonprofit rating system on the horizon, and social media’s growing ability to gather and marshal individual participants, there could be a pivotal shift in how individual donations flow to the nonprofit sector, and how significant those individual donations become to nonprofits creating demonstrable social impact.




• Nonprofits Understand the Power of Finance. Nonprofit organizations understand and become successful at financing their overall operations, instead of fundraising for them.  And they begin to think bigger about their work, the overall outcomes they are trying to achieve and how finance fits into that (The GiveWell blog did a great series on the “Room for More Funding Question.”)

The end result of these and other changes will be, I hope, that “Social Impact” and “Finance” are no longer separate terms that have no bearing on each other, but instead inextricably linked concepts that create a better world.

Tags: GiveWell, Good Capital, Nathaniel Whittemore, New Profit, SeaChange Capital Partners, Social Innovation Fund, Village Capital Fund

Making a Vision for Change a Reality

One of the many things I love about my job is meeting social entrepreneurs (who often don’t even know that they are social entrepreneurs) who have amazing, game-changing ideas for solving social problems.  Their creativity, vision, passion and commitment are truly inspiring.

But the thing that strikes me about some of them, and the main reason I started Social Velocity, is that they don’t know how to make that idea, that solution, a reality.  We can’t expect that the same people who come up with great ideas or have a grand vision for change also have ALL of the skills required to build momentum around that idea and execute on it.  Often people approach me with a great idea, or a great organization, that has hit a roadblock.  They can’t figure out how to take the idea or organization to the next level, how to make their vision a reality.  Often I find that the roadblock exists because they are missing three key steps.

The first step is assembling an effective group of advisors, evangelists, supporters, workers, whatever you want to call them.  This doesn’t have to be an official board of directors or advisors.  But it does need to be a group of people who get the vision, are deeply committed to it and have resources to offer toward making the vision a reality.  These resources could be expertise in the particular solution, connections to influential people, funding, who knows.  But the idea is that a single actor cannot do it alone.  The same is true for people within organizations who want to take the organization in a new direction, toward a new solution.  Again, they need to find key supporters who can help them make their vision for change a reality.

The second key piece is a plan.  An idea for a new solution or an idea for a change in direction is great, but it is just an idea. It is difficult to build action around an idea.  To bring an idea to fruition you have to create a plan for how you will get from point A (where you are right now) to point B (where the vision is a reality).  What is it going to take to get there (infrastructure, funding, people) and how will you make it happen?  A clear, articulate, compelling plan demonstrates that you have done your homework, you know what you are doing, you have a clear vision, and you are going to get there.

Finally, you need to translate your plan into a pitch that will convince funders to jump on the train.  But how to successfully communicate with potential supporters is a key and often misunderstood skill.  You need to translate what you know to be truth (your vision for change) into something that will compel an outsider to become involved.

These three steps are key to making a vision for change a reality.  And this is what Social Velocity helps social entrepreneurs navigate. I think we are wrong to expect social entrepreneurs to do it all alone (assemble supporters, create a compelling plan, build the infrastructure, find funding).  They aren’t superheros; they are just leading the charge.

Tags: change, social entrepreneurs, Social Velocity

The Long View of Change

There is a tendency in the social entrepreneurship movement to think that everything related to social entrepreneurs and social innovation is new.  But  much can be gained by occasionally looking to other sources, examples, people and models to inform how change, in a broader context, happens and is eventually made a new norm.

One of these older models that could prove helpful to social entrepreneurs is the concept of Real Change Leaders–agents of change within successful companies–which was introduced by Jon Katzenbach’s 1995 book of the same name.  By “real change leaders” he meant mid-level, corporate employees who were working to encourage innovation within the company, which in a marketplace that increasingly demands innovation as a competitive advantage were critical to the company’s success.  These Real Change Leaders were not the CEOs or big-name leaders, rather they were the otherwise average, mid-level employees who were moving companies forward in remarkable, yet unrecognized, ways. Through extensive study and interviews, Katzenbach determined that these “real change leaders” share seven characteristics, which interestingly echo how many people describe social entrepreneurs:

• Commitment to a Better Way. They have an inexhaustible and visible commitment to the need for change and an ability to execute successfully on that change. Their change target is exciting, worthwhile and essential to future success.




• Courage to Challenge Existing Power Bases and Norms. They have the personal courage required to sustain their commitment in the face of opposition, failure, uncertainty and personal risk.  They do not welcome failure, but they also do not fear it. They demonstrate the ability to rise again and again.




• Personal Initiative to Go Beyond Defined Boundaries. They consistently take the initiative to work with others to solve unexpected problems, break bottlenecks, challenge the status quo, and think outside the box. Setbacks to not discourage them, and they do not wait around for directives to move.




• Motivation of Themselves and Others. They are highly motivated themselves, but more importantly, they have the ability to motivate and inspire others around them. They create excitement, momentum and opportunities for people around them to follow their example and take personal responsibility for change.




• Caring About How People Are Treated and Enabled to Perform. They really care about others and are intent on enabling the performance of others as well as their own.  They don’t knowingly manipulate or take advantage of others.




• Desire to Stay Undercover. They attribute part of their effectiveness to keeping a low profile. Grandstanding, strident crusading and self-promotion are viewed as sure ways to undermine their credibility and acceptance as change leaders.




• Sense of Humor About Themselves and Their Situation. Their sense of humor gets them through when others around them start losing heart. It also enables them to help others stay the course in the face of confusion, discouragement and the inevitable failures that change produces.

So these Real Change Leaders that Katzenbach chronicled 15 years ago share interesting parallels with those leading change in the social sector today.  Although the ultimate goal of his RCLs was change for the sake of greater profitability, as opposed to social entrepreneurs’ ultimate goal of change for the sake of the greater good, the comparisons are interesting and enlightening.  The book and the stories of RCL’s upon which it is based could hold some interesting insights for those who are working towards change in the much broader context of our communities, our institutions, and our world.

Tags: change, Jon Katzenbach, Real Change Leadership, social entrepreneurs