Life's amazing and nobody's happy

This is a funny but also thought-provoking video we watched last week in training, courtesy of Steve Coles from Intentionality who was talking about well-being.

The Power of Networks

Building on Martin’s post about the Emerge conference last weekend, I wanted to share the insights from one of the sessions that I found particularly interesting. This session from the “Do It” breakout stream addressed the question of networks in the social enterprise space and how intermediaries could support social entrepreneurs. The discussion was animated by experts from well-established programmes such as Ashoka, the Schwab foundation and the Skoll Centre.

As we come to the end of the On Purpose programme and we’ve had nearly a year to learn about the realities of the UK social enterprise sector, I often find myself reflecting on what the sector really needs and what is the current missing piece of the puzzle that will allow it to grow exponentially. It became evident to me that money is not the issue. In fact, we are nearly at a point where there is more capital to invest in social projects than there are projects that satisfy both the social purpose and the commercial viability. “Investment readiness” seems to be the buzzword of the month. What it really means is that unfortunately this sector still has a long tail of small starters, relatively few more established groups trying to prove their business models and a scarcity of success stories which many aspire to (HTC, Fifteen, Big Issue).

Going back to the question of networks, could this be the magic ingredient? Andres Falconer (Managing director of Ashoka) opened the conversation by referring to networks as the holy grail of social enterprise and presented the way Ashoka endeavours to niche out individuals who could unleash the potential when paired with the right network and support. Similarly, Mirjiam explained how the Schwab Foundation moved away from granting financial prizes to simply offering their chosen members connections to other leaders and access to high profile circles such as the Davos Summit. Sarah Orr (Director of the Kravis Leadership Institute) explained how relationship building spanned from cooperation to coordination and ultimately collaboration, where the level of risk and interaction increases respectively. Then they all consecutively exposed their own approaches to finding these rising star entrepreneurs who they were going to help and plug into their web. Schwab has five criteria on the project idea; Ashoka looks for personal traits through in-depth interviews.

All these sounded like quite coherent and straightforward arguments until Indy Johar, co-founder of the newly established Hub Westminster, dared to challenge the status quo. He urged us to re-question the underlying principles in which these well-recognised entities operate and the way we’ve been framing the challenge, while proposing new ways in which the system could adapt. First of all, he urged us to abandon the theory of the hero entrepreneur. In his experience, the most successful ventures were founded by at least two people. By overly focusing on the single person, we are mystifying their capacities and hampering the rest of the supporting team. Members of the audience who were social entrepreneurs themselves were pleased to pitch in his favour: they could not have done it without their teams, they are still looking for more support and they do not feel like super-heroes. Indy also brought an innovative approach to the concept of due diligence. Although he admits not having the answers to this one, he’s convinced that something must be wrong if it takes so many and so long due diligence processes to in the end not find enough good social entrepreneurs to fund. Maybe that’s why he’s so pleased to host Village Capital at the HUB as an alternative model. Based on the group-lending mechanisms of microfinance, Village Capital is a social enterprise incubator where the seven organisation members decide among themselves who gets the funding prize of £50k at the end of twelve weeks.

Rather than picking out winners, Indy is more in favour of a user-based approach, where the individual builds the network once provided with the conditions. This would look more like a many-to-many exchange, building the network from the bottom up rather than with the pretense of a magic hand from above designing the ideal connections. That’s probably one of his inspirations for co-founding the HUB Westminster, in his words: “a place for unlikely encounters.”

Ultimately, all panel members agreed that there was probably room for more than one approach to support social enterprise initiatives and that, although these established programmes had been crucial for kick starting the movement and for building it from scratch, it was probably time to rethink the approach and open it up to others. Indeed, more and more individuals are willing to contribute with their unique skills. From university students to private sector consultants, the passion and interest are growing, but many do not find it easy to channel it given the nearly exclusive focus on the social entrepreneur persona.

In the end, hands were shaken and large smiles exchanged; nevertheless someone had rocked the boat.

The Emerge Conference

The Emerge Conference took place this weekend in Oxford with successful social business leaders from around the globe speaking to a few hundred delegates, mostly post-graduate students.

Application of technologies featured heavily. Ken Banks, the founder of kiwanja.net, spoke about his NGO’s provision of a free, open-source platform to send, receive and aggregate bulk text messages all from a non-internet enabled phone. One recent application of this service is for Mothers to Mothers, who prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child through a peer to peer advice service and currently 1 in 5 of HIV-infected pregnant women in Africa. They are integrating SMS messages into their services to remind mothers to take medication and attend. This exemplifies the fact that technology solutions work often because they are simple, effective and focussed on the nuances of communication and delivery, rather than any technological innovation.

In two impact investing conferences, it was striking that the vast majority of investors shunned rigorous measurement of impact for a simple metric of measurement, a story that resonated, and a balanced portfolio covering different human needs (education, health care etc). It’s probable that with the inadequacy of impact measurement, investors prefer simply to be wooed by an entrepreneur’s story and assess their ability to deliver on it.

Regarding the legal structures of companies, there were a number of not for profits that used hybrid models of funding. The profit arm of Embrace handles manufacturing, distribution and R & D, whilst the NFP arm makes a loss on delivering to the most needy and performs monitoring and evaluation. The not for profit holds the IP, which the for profit arm pays a royalty for its use, and therefore supports the unprofitable part of the business.

The conference closed with some wonderfully articulated pearls of wisdom by James Chin, founder of the World Toilet Organisation (check it out: it’s brilliant, http://www.worldtoilet.org/wto/). He recommended taking calculated risks: for example, naming your organisation the WTO because getting sued by the better known organisation by the same name would be worth it for the PR storm. Another gem of many: “There’s no such thing as work that’s easy or hard, just that which is fun or boring.”