The best kept secret in the world of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is that CSR is an inside job. Many people who are heading up CSR departments (or are the CSR department) at their companies, were once regular employees who one day decided to start recycling at the office or organize volunteer days. What resulted was a snowball effect. Management saw the benefits of sustainability, clients became interested and engaged, the company re-branded and marketed its efforts, and these employees continued to develop more and more socially responsible initiatives. A new way of doing business had been born and a new social champion had arrived: the social intrapreneur.

For the full article go here.

And a shout out to the members of the NYWSE crew (specifically Shari Aaron, Ashby Andrews, Natalia Oberti Noguera, & Stephanie Niloff) who are hard at work getting this amazing program off the ground!

There was, however, a recurring theme that I noticed in many of my conversations: franchising, financing, and technology.

But let me back up a bit…the night before I attended a panel discussion at The Foundation Center on donor management systems. As some of the organizations I am working with are revving up for full-on fund development, implementing an affordable donor management program seems like a good part of the plan. I was a little shocked when I arrived that probably 80% of the attendees were twice my age. I got up and asked a question regarding options for donor management systems that would work for organizations with staff who telecommute and lack a brick-and-mortar base of operations. The question was confused people–both in the audience and in the panel–but I got a helpful answer in the end. However, the answer suited my question by accident–these traditional programs aren’t being designed with 21st century social entrepreneurs in mind, they just may work out unintentionally.

The demographic of The Feast was a stark contrast. It was packed with social-media savvy social entrepreneurs, many of whom were connecting for the first-time in person after months of communicating via Twitter, blogs, or email. For these social innovators, both the presenters and the audience, there were three things that kept coming up: franchising, financing, and technology.

Franchising: Social innovators are continuing to apply business methods to social ventures. Many organizations (like SHEnterprises (who presented at The Feast), The Unreasonable Institute, and The Ayllu Initiative) have incorporated franchising or model duplication as part of their strategy in order to implement successful programs on a large-scale. The organizations plan to make necessary tweaks to variables–like geographic location, population, materials, etc.–and roll out easily replicable programs that will yield high social impact.

Financing: Each start-up social venture must decide early on whether or not it is going to be for-profit or nonprofit.  Many incubator programs, like Echoing Green, don’t “discriminate” between nonprofit and for-profit ventures and encourage both structures as a means for social innovation. The decision between  nonprofit and for-profit, for many entrepreneurs, may be based on practicality, organizational mission, or structure. For many young social entrepreneurs, a for-profit social venture is an exciting opportunity to prove that socially-minded business can be financially sustainable.  However, when it comes down to it–the lack of flexibility between the two legal structures and the type of financing available, has many would-be for-profit social entrepreneurs turning to the 501(c)3.  The new L3C  (Low-Profit Limited Liability Company) is a new option that addresses this issue, but many feel like it is not fully developed yet.

While turning to nonprofit status may seem like the only viable option for start-ups seeking seed funding, the next step is communicating with foundations and individual donors about social entrepreneurship–a still relatively new field that is experiencing high-growth.  Finding, and then competing, for these funds is another challenge.

Technology: Someone at The Feast asked, “Where did all of these people come from?” My thought, “The internet.” Over 1,000 tweets were posted during The Feast (here’s the twitter feed)…and I haven’t even gotten around to checking out all the amazing blog posts about it. So #1) These social innovators are connecting via social media to keep the conversation going, network, and problem solve. #2) These leaders are also utilizing technology to implement their programs. Charity:water (who presented at The Feast), in an effort to increase transparency in the organization, is geo-tagging digital photographs of their projects around the world. (I mean seriously, check this out.) Another organization, Frontline SMS (who also presented), is using text messaging solutions for nonprofits…because, guess what? Most of the people in the world do not have internet access. So technology doesn’t just mean using the best technology available in the world, but using the best technology available for a given situation to solve the world’s problems.

This goes back to my experience at The Foundation Center. We may need to re-design and re-think some of the traditional nonprofit tools, resources, and structures.  “Accidental” tools are probably not the best, and assuming that these tools will have multiplier effects across the world (either multiplying efficiency or inefficiency)–it probably makes sense to design these tools with intention. What technologies would help a virtual nonprofit office? What are easily replicable best-practices for start-up social ventures? (These best practices, arguably will be easy to communicate and transfer due to this population’s heavy use of social media.) How can we duplicate not just our programs, but our start-up structures, procedures, methods for transparency and accountability? How can we increase access to financing and encourage faith in social enterprise amongst investors ?

What do I see happening next? Well, The Feast did an amazing job connecting like-minded social innovators and continuing to inspire them to action. Now, the next step is finding out what are the limiting factors for development of start-up social ventures. The innovation is happening faster than the infrastructure supporting it can catch up. The good news: the hard part is over. Entrepreneurship is notoriously difficult to teach–they’ve got the goods, let’s give them the tools to succeed.

The program was a six-month commitment—running from March to August—and participants met in-person once a month as an intact group and were assigned a Mastermind buddy to meet in between the in-person sessions. Each group session was an opportunity for program participants to “‘mastermind’—brainstorm with a purpose and achieve a collective brain trust to address a variety of challenges, clarify goals, critique plans, and generate ideas and solutions.” The program schedule included guest speakers Laura Allen (co-founder of 15secondpitch.com), who discussed “Selling Brand YOU”, and Sarah Leah Gootnick (founder of Secretary in Israel), who discussed “Increasing Personal Effectiveness for 21st Century Leaders.”

Our intimate group of 10 women was divided into pairs based on biographies and vision statements we submitted prior to beginning the program. My co-mentor, Leila Goldmark, is an environmental lawyer and currently a student at Columbia Business School. We were a great match and had plenty to connect over with our backgrounds in environmental issues and nonprofits and our ambitions to utilize technology and business principles in pursuing social and environmental goals. (All I’m saying is: Be on the LOOKOUT! Leila’s up to some awesome stuff!)

During our fifth meeting (in July) we all went around the table and caught the group up on where we were. It was inspiring to hear the things people were doing. So much had been accomplished since we all met in March. People had life plans and were executing them. Someone got a promotion, someone decided to take a volunteer sabbatical before business school, and someone had just finished the business plan for their social venture. Everyone had come such a long way in only 5 months! And then, what was even more powerful, was to sit back and realize, “Wait…so have I!” When I look back I can clearly identify a snowball effect that started in January when I decided to participate in the program. One thing led to another and all of a sudden I have found myself in an avalanche of opportunity.

Someone recently asked me if I thought the experience was valuable—especially considering that the model is based on mentorship between peers rather than senior-level professionals and junior-level professionals. I personally loved the fact that my co-mentors were my peers, I have learned so much from these women who have different strength sets from me, yet who are in similar places in their careers.

Here’s what some other participants have to say:

“Every meeting of our mentorship group was an opportunity to refine a skill, deepen our connections with the group, and to sit at the table with outstanding entrepreneurial-minded women. Our facilitator, Janet Wise, is a professional with a depth of knowledge and experience and a good friend and role model to us all. If anything, I started the group apprehensive about what I had to give to the other women in the group. I soon realized that we all had much more to give than we initially realized, and soon we were all mentoring each other. MMI is a wonderful for holding a mirror to our individual experiences and allowing us to see how much we all have to give each other when we collaborate.” –Laina Vlasnik

“Each meeting is structured around a topic that is relevant to busy social entrepreneurs: time management, personal branding, and strengths awareness. But the most valuable and significant reward of participating in MMI is getting to know 6-8 other talented and generous women. The MMI meetings have been a safe space for each of us to discuss, articulate, and refine our career aspirations. As the program is designed as an exchange (each person is both mentor and mentee), I received insightful career and life advice, as well as realized my own strengths and assets in the mentor role.”- Tara Pyle

“No matter how skilled or prepared you think you may be, career transitions and starting the path to entrepreneurship can feel isolated and scary. While Columbia is giving me the academic theory and hard skills to run a business, the co-mentoring Mastermind Mentoring Initiative through NYWSE has given me the safe space and support network that keeps me going. It has been a wonderful opportunity to share and discuss challenges with other women entrepreneurs who share my commitment to achieving social and environmental justice in business. If we do good, doing well will follow.” -Leila Goldmark

“As NYWSE MMI program facilitator, it was an honor to lead a group of truly talented, professional women into quantum level thinking, with a foundation of dedicated mentorship and a passion for sustainability for all!”-Janet Wise (Moderator)

Here are some inspirational quotes provided by MMI participants:

“What would you go for if you knew your success were guaranteed?” -Anon (via Janet)

“If you must doubt something, doubt your limits” -P.Pritchett (via Janet)

“Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it ies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”-FDR (via Janet)

“Fear is a great motivator.” (via Marita)

“Challenges offer great opportunities.” (via Marita)

And now, to introduce some of the wonderful women who participated in the First NYWSE MMI…

Participant Bios:

Leila Goldmark is an environmental attorney, social entrepreneur, artist, collaborator, and mom. The passion that runs throughout her life and career is working to better our shared environment and raise awareness about these critical resources. After receiving a J.D./LL.M. in International and Comparative Law from Duke School of Law in 2001, Leila worked as an Attorney and Watershed Program Director for Riverkeeper, Inc. where she conducted litigation and proactive policy campaigns to protect the 2,000 square mile watershed that provides unfiltered drinking water supplies to more than nine million New Yorkers. With the birth of her daughter, Jordan Kaya, Leila desired a change that would allow her to make more time for her family and incorporate more art and beauty into her career, while continuing to achieve a positive environmental impact. Currently, Leila is an ’10 MBA candidate at Columbia Business School. She plans to launch an organic children’s clothing company next year and build a philanthropic advocacy brand in order to: (1) Eliminate pesticides and other toxic chemicals that are prevalent in the textile industry; (2) Provide funding and campaign support to environmental and children’s non-profits; (3) Engage the next generation with environmental issues in a fun, non-threatening, light green medium – clothing and art! Leila’s clothing company will produce limited addition graphic tees and coordinating pieces, featuring up and coming artists. While she is still in start-up mode, any eco-artists interested in future collaboration should contact her at: LGoldmark10@gsb.columbia.edu, or find her on LinkedInor Twitter.

Tara Pyle is Senior Marketing and Events Manager at the Center for Architecture in NYC. At the Center, Tara manages event production for 1,000 meetings and events per year and coordinates the Center’s marketing, focusing on increasing the gallery’s profile among New York cultural institutions. She has a BA in Art History from Vassar College and is an active member of New York Women Social Entrepreneurs and the Junior League of Brooklyn.

Marita Rosado is the founder of Rosado Accounting Services, Inc., which provides accurate and efficient general accounting services, tax solutions, and billing services. Her vast experience spans through more than twelve years in the field of accounting and she has provided her expertise to a variety of industries, including publishing, investment banking, public accounting, media industries, IT services, advertising, retail and wholesale apparel stores. Prior to founding my own company, Marita worked for International Masters Publishers as an Assistant Controller/Consultant where she reviewed manufacturing transactions, analyzed standard and actual costs, maintained overhead rates, analyzed key production data, and performed month-end closing financial statements, budgeting, and analysis of special projects. Marita holds a Bachelors Degree from Marymount Manhattan College in Accounting and Business Administration Degree in Marketing at Polytechnic University of the Philippines. In 2006, she received her MBA from the University of Phoenix. You can reach Marita at marita.rosado@gmail.com.

Laina Vlasnik is the EPIC Partnerships Manager at New Leaders for New Schools, a national educational non-profit organization that ensures outstanding leadership for America’s urban public schools. As a former teacher, Laina fills her need to be in the classroom as a Saturday Tutor at Achievement First Crown Heights Middle School in Brooklyn. She is a proud graduate of both Florida State University and NYU.

Moderator Bio:

Janet Wise, Founder of The Collaborative Factor ™ has a Masters Degree in HR Development, is a former corporate Training and Development expert responsible for global leadership curriculums and professional development programs at Fortune 500 Companies, with more than twelve years experience helping top corporate executives become more effective in their business and personal lives. Janet now uses her expertise to facilitate and designs entreprenurial leadership programs for high potential entrepreneurs looking for a fast track solution, utilizing an open forum that builds trust, collaboration, exchanges thoughts, generates solutions, ideas and opportunities. Her signature program, The Collaborative, is a unique action-learning program, using proven techniques, resources, inspiration, support and accountability – and a proprietary business development model to show you how to effectively use Collaboration as a powerful business expansion strategy. Find Janet at: The Collaborative Factor, @wisesolutions, and Posh Place Cards.

If you are interested in learning more about the New York Women Social Entrepreneurs and/or the Mastermind Mentor Initiative, please check out the NYWSE website.

]]> http://alaurenabele.com/2009/08/nywse-mastermind-mentoring-initiative-wrap-up/feed/ 0 http://alaurenabele.com/2009/08/devils-advocate-teeny-tiny-nonprofits/ http://alaurenabele.com/2009/08/devils-advocate-teeny-tiny-nonprofits/#comments Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:29:11 +0000 A. Lauren Abele http://alaurenabele.com/?p=235 Last week I came across an interesting tweet from @kenscommentary (Ken Berger, President of Charity Navigator)– “Too many itsy bitsy nonprofits! Consider this before you leap into teenyness”–and a link to the following article, “Alternatives to Forming a Charitable Nonprofit.”

The article is full of very useful information outlining alternative nonprofit funding options (like fiscal sponsorship or collaborating with an existing nonprofit) and highlights the need for sufficient research to be conducted as well as preparing viability plans.

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there are currently 956,760 public charities, 112,959 private foundations, and 443,464 other types of nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS. That’s a lot. I am sure that many of these organizations have overlapping missions, serve similar communities, and feed off of similar funding sources. But does that mean that no new nonprofits should join this large community? And that especially goes for new, small nonprofits?

This is where it starts to get tricky, I think, for a couple of reasons:

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST: “Small” does not necessarily mean “unplanned,” “not well strategized,” or “not likely viable.” Although, sometimes (maybe more often than not) that is the case. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reminds us of this fact with its statistics on small business survival rates: “Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, 44 percent survive at least four years, and 31 percent survive at least seven years.”

What does this mean: Not every idea will make a great business. And, not every person who has an idea will make a good business owner.

FIGHTING FOR THE DOUGH: More nonprofits means more people “fighting for the dough.” Let’s look at environmental nonprofits as an example. Just because there are already a number of very large, very successful, and very well known environmental nonprofits out there, like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense (ED), doesn’t indicate that smaller environmental nonprofits don’t have a place. What it does indicate, though, is that when you are looking for environmental grants on the Foundation Directory you are going to see very long lists of grants awarded to NRDC and ED and substantially less grants awarded to smaller nonprofits that you may have never heard of before. What should a small, start-up nonprofit take away from this picture? Large, successful nonprofits are well-oiled fundraising machines that know what they are doing, have large fundraising budgets, and have built strong relationships with their funders over many years.

What does this mean: Competition for funding will be a serious issue for a teeny, tiny nonprofit and having a strong understanding of nonprofit fund development and philanthropy (or building up a team with fundraising experience) should definitely be a part of your “business plan.”

ENTREPRENEURSHIP & THE “AMERICAN DREAM”: Maybe my main issue with discouraging small nonprofits, is that entrepreneurship is heralded as the key to economic vitality and sustainability. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation; has front-and-center on their homepage: “Searching for a way out of the current economic crisis? Entrepreneurs have led the U.S. out of every recession of the last 100 years.”

In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the following interesting statistics on the impact of small firms in the United States:

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ about half of all private sector employees.
• Pay nearly 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually
over the last decade.
• Create more than half of nonfarm private gross domestic
product (GDP).
• Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists,
engineers, and computer workers).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced
28.9 percent of the known export value in FY 2006.

What does this mean: Lots of data supports the fact that small and micro businesses play a huge role in the U.S. economy and are a real vehicle for economic development. I think it makes sense to overlay this reality with the possibility of small social ventures and teeny, tiny nonprofits providing the same sort of social and economic boost.

Small nonprofits and small social ventures have the potential for significant social as well as economic impact. Smaller nonprofits are able to have much more focused niches, work on a grassroots level, make meaningful collaborations with small corporate sponsors, engage individual donors interested in more personalized philanthropy, and more. However, in order to be successful, small nonprofits and social ventures (like successful small businesses) need to realistically assess their “business plan” and thoroughly research all aspects of the endeavor they are planning to pursue. If it isn’t a sound investment, people either will not or should not invest–either financially or in-kind. While a start-up nonprofit can rely on an army of volunteers to get its feet of the ground, is it really ethical to ask people to donate their time to an enterprise you have not thoroughly developed, researched, or planned for? I say, “Go ahead! Start a nonprofit or a social venture!” But I caution, “Do your homework. And be prepared because it is not only going to be a lot of work, but also a lot of responsibility.” It may be philanthropy, but its not free–you will be accountable to not only your donors but also your volunteers.

For some more reading on entrepreneurship, I recommend checking out this Ventureneer post: “There is Never a Bad Time to Start Up a Company.”

]]> http://alaurenabele.com/2009/08/devils-advocate-teeny-tiny-nonprofits/feed/ 2 http://alaurenabele.com/2009/06/defining-social-entrepreneurship/ http://alaurenabele.com/2009/06/defining-social-entrepreneurship/#comments Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:56 +0000 A. Lauren Abele http://alaurenabele.com/?p=96

If you don’t already know, social entrepreneurship is definitely a jargon-y, buzzword whose definition is sometimes hard to pin down. A quick Google search for “social entrepreneurship” puts Wikipedia (of course!) at the top of the list. Wikipedia defines social entrepreneurship as “the work of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change.”

After perusing through a couple of the top Google search hits for definitions of social entrepreneurship, four main elements began to appear. While there is no hard and fast definition, social entrepreneurs tend to be described as individuals who are  (1) innovative problem solvers, (2) very committed to their work, (3) addressing large scale issues, and (4) contrasted with business entrepreneurs.

• Social entrepreneurs are innovative problem solvers

Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps. –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.–PBS: The New Heroes

Social entrepreneurs pioneer innovative and systemic approaches for meeting the needs of the marginalized, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised – populations that lack the financial means or political clout to achieve lasting benefit on their own.–Skoll Foundation

Social entrepreneurs drive social innovation and transformation in various fields including education, health, environment and enterprise development. –Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship

• Social Entrepreneurs are committed to their work

Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.–ASHOKA

Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a committed person with a vision and determination to persist in the face of daunting odds.–PBS: The New Heroes

[Social entrepreneurs] recognize the extraordinary potential in the billions of poor people who inhabit the planet, and they are absolutely committed to helping them use their talents and abilities to achieve their potential.–Skoll Foundation

• Social entrepreneurs address large scale issues

[S]ocial entrepreneurs are solution-minded pragmatists who are not afraid to tackle some of the world’s biggest problems.–Skoll Foundation

Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a committed person with a vision and determination to persist in the face of daunting odds.–PBS: The New Heroes

[A social entrepreneur] achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through a new invention, a different approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies or strategies, or a combination of these.–Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship

• Social entrepreneurs are contrasted with businesses entrepreneurs

Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of the impact s/he has on society. –Wikipedia, “social entrepreneurship”

Unlike traditional business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs primarily seek to generate “social value” rather than profits. And unlike the majority of non-profit organizations, their work is targeted not only towards immediate, small-scale effects, but sweeping, long-term change.–PBS: The New Heroes

Distinct from a business entrepreneur who sees value in the creation of new markets, the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of transformational change that will benefit disadvantaged communities and ultimately society at large.–Skoll Foundation

They pursue poverty alleviation goals with entrepreneurial zeal, business methods and the courage to innovate and overcome traditional practices. A social entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which are either set up as not-for-profits or companies.–Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship

And a quick commentary:

It’s easy to envision social entrepreneurs as innovators, but I think it is very interesting that so many organizations have also chosen to define social entrepreneurs as “very committed” –not that I do not think social entreprenuers are committed to the causes they support, but rather that commitment has become part of the definition. There is the implication that social entrepreneurship involves blood, sweat, and tears and involves a holistic value system that guides a social entrepreneurs life’s work.  For social entrepreneurs, work isn’t just a job–it’s a way of life.

The third characteristic–that social entrepreneurs address large scale issues–I also think perhaps narrows social entrepreneurship unfairly. I am sure that many of the larger organizations working in social entrepreneurship focus on large issues such as global climate change, world hunger, poverty, and education–but I imagine that the most successful social ventures operate at the grassroots level, addressing the specific elements of an issue and applying targeted solutions. The ability to yield greater impact and effectiveness is likely linked to the scale of the project….and I would assume that the closer you are to the ground, and the smaller the scale of your project, the more effective and successful it will be. Maybe it’s just semantics…or maybe it is just a different way of framing the issue.

Lastly, I want to address the tendency to describe social entrepreneurs as being distinct from business entrepreneurs. I understand, and totally agree with, the distinctions made between social and business entrepreneurs. But! I would add a bit of caution to the severity of that line. While some organizations contrast social entrepreneurs with business entrepreneurs, others compare them and emphasize as well as celebrate the use of business principles and private sector strategies by social entrepreneurs. As things continue to shift and the social sector continues to grow, I think that line will become more undefined. For example, while public policy graduate programs exist all around the country (See Public Policy School?), many business schools now offer social entrepreneurship and nonprofit specialties, conferences, and fellowships.

Check out: U.S. News & World Report’s MBA Nonprofit Specialty rankings, Harvard University’s Social Enterprise Initiative, Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business’ Center for Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, and Net Impact —just to name a few.

]]> http://alaurenabele.com/2009/06/defining-social-entrepreneurship/feed/ 0