One non-profit doing interesting work is Matchbook Learning. The reason
they stick out to me is simple. Throughout my life, I have seen people and
programmes reward students who perform the best, like merit-based scholarships.
I’ve seen programmes for students who are not in the top15% but quite close.
I’ve even seen programmes for B and C students. But I don’t know of any
regional or national programmes designed to take care and help and fund the
education of the students who are performing the worst. (Incidentally, I see
the same problem within my company as we decide in which countries we want to
do outreach.)
But what I love is that Matchbook Learning works with the
bottom 5% of schools (turnaround schools) in the U.S. using government funding
for turnaround schools. You should watch the TEDxUNC talk: The Future of Education.
Matchbook Learning Founder and CEO Sajan George tells how
he uses technology-infused, mastery-based, data-driven blended learning founded
in excellent teachers to turn schools around. I love how he left his job
turning around failing companies and, wanting to have a bigger impact, decided
to work on turning around failing schools.
In 2008, Bill Gates stood up at the World Economic Forum and gave a speech essentially saying that charities and governments cannot solve the world’s problems alone. He called for a new creative capitalism and the entrance of the private sector (businesses and innovation) into the work of caring for others. These are exciting times.
Businesses are having to change ways and explore better ways of pursuing interests. The new fad is corporate social responsibility (CSR). I long for the day when companies have no CSR departments because social responsibilities and social aims are so interwoven into their mission and actions and operations and vision and strategy that it is every (by giving it no place, it occupies every space). Please take a moment and watch this 5 minute video called We First. Why is it that we make money in the first place? Is it just profit for profit’s sake? Watch the video.
Someone was criticizing me recently saying that I don’t believe in for-profit work or working for for-profit entities. They asked me “how do you think non-profits function?” “Where do you think non-profits get their funds from?” So I want to introduce the simultaneously ancient and emerging field of social enterprises.
So what is a social enterprise? A social enterprise is a socially-oriented business venture created to solve a social problem or market failure through entrepreneurial private-sector approaches that increase effectiveness and sustainability while ultimately creating social benefit or change. But that’s a somewhat technical and long definition.
In simple terms a social enterprise is an organization that uses business models (like a for-profit company) in order to achieve social aims (like a non-profit). For-profit companies deal with a bottom line. Social enterprises often deal with what’s called a double-bottom line (people and profits) or a triple-bottom line (people, environment, and profits) instead of the traditional bottom line of profits. Social enterprises can legally be classified as for-profits or even non-profits. The legal classification doesn’t actually matter. What matters is that they have some means of a revenue-generating streams to propel the organization towards its aim and mission.
Now there are many benefits to working as a social enterprise instead of a traditional non-profit. I’ll list a few below. This is not a comprehensive list.
1. Traditional non-profits often depend on grants, contracts, funds, and donations from the private sector, the public sector, and private individuals. Social enterprises have their own means of generating revenue so donations and grants and fund raising becomes supplementary or optional.
2. Social organisations working in community or international development often deal with the problem of people not valuing the service or product provided because it’s free. By charging a fee for it, it creates a sense of value and a sense of ownership by the person who worked hard for the money to purchase the service or product. This often leads to better care of the service or product and ownership over its maintenance. However, if the price is set too high, the business pricing model becomes a hindrance or prohibition to those who desperately need such services.
3. Social enterprises have the potential to be more sustainable than traditional non-profits. This does include financial sustainability (#1), but it goes beyond that. Especially in community and international development, this includes the sustainability that comes from building the capacity in the community’s people to do the work. Social enterprises provide opportunities for jobs due to the revenue generation. This gives opportunity for training, and if it goes well enough, possibly expansion in other locations.
So to review, social enterprises have social aims.
Social enterprises create value.
Social enterprises are agnostic about legal form.
The "S" (social) drives the "E" (enterprise).
Now there are many ways to be a social enterprise and many companies claim the title (because there are certain benefits if people view you as a social enterprise). The differences in types of social enterprises depend on a few criteria:
1) How good is the social good you are producing? (an organization can be socially neutral or socially evil)
2) Do you directly produce the social good or do use the profit from some other economic activity to then do social good? (social good from product/service or social good from use of profit)
3) Is your social aim placed on par with or ahead of your profit aim?
4) Do you generate all of your revenue alone or do you supplement it with donations and fundraising and grants?
Let’s look at how John Rougeux categorises the nuanced spectra of organizations. I’ve added italicised examples of organisations that fit into some of the more positive categories.
———
Above is the old school way of dividing organizations: for-profits and non-profits, or businesses an charities. Non-profits help social problems, for-profits make money. An easy categorization, but hardly accurate, and certainly outdated. It’s also makes a dangerous assumption, that the good created for society is most easily judged be assessing an organization’s tax status. This paradigm assumes that there is no overlap between the two (i.e. all non-profits create more good for society than all businesses). The world isn’t that simple, and below is a more accurate depiction of how organizations might be categorized (click the image for an enlarged version):
At the left hand side of the spectrum are entities that harm society, and to the right are organizations that seek social good for society. For the purposes of this illustration, “social good” is the generally positive intent of an organization’s product or service, or the positive outcome sought from the way the product or service is delivered. Favorable results that stem from job creation, economic growth, etc. are not represented here.
These categories don’t imply that a business or charity is either “all good” or “all bad”, either; there are bright and ugly sides to any organization, but these nuances can’t be included here. Instead, this spectrum ranks how actively each type of organization generally seeks to better (or worsen) society.
For-Profit (Active Social Ill) – these are companies that actively harm the world through their actions. Thankfully there are few of these, but Girls Gone Wild is a good example. Sorry, no link included here.
For-Profit (Social Ill from Company) – a business that harms society through the way it runs itself falls into this category. A shady mortgage company certainly fits the bill. A company that packaged, sold, and traded sub-prime mortgages would fall into this category as well.
For-Profit (Social Ill from Industry) – these are entities that operate in an industry in which unwanted social outcomes are generally unavoidable. Coal mining, for example, provides a needed product, but no matter how it’s done and no matter how coal is used, it harms nature.
For-Profit (Neutral) – a business that doesn’t actively harm society, but doesn’t go out of its way to improve it, could be defined as neutral. A large number of businesses would fall into this category, like a local car dealership or a hedge fund.
For-Profit (Social Good at Discretion) - it’s not uncommon for a large corporation to develop its own foundation to make grants to other non-profits, and that’s how these businesses would be categorized. This is ranked lower than other categories, because donations are not necessarily tied to sales or the behavior of customers. The Hewlett-Packard Company Foundation and the Dell Foundation are two examples.
For-Profit (Social Good from Revenue/Social Good from Profit) – companies like Patagonia and Newman’s Own pledge a minimum percentage of revenue or pre-tax income towards causes. These arrangements directly link the success of the company with donations to charities. Another example is my church’s coffee shop Ebenezers Coffeehouse in which 100% of the profits go towards fighting human trafficking, economic empowerment, housing, orphanage projects, etc. Ben & Jerry’s Partnership Program fits into this category. They allow non-profits to run fee-discounted/free franchises and employ youth in jobs through this effort.
For-Profit (Social Good from Product) – this is a gray area, but there are certainly some businesses whose products are genuinely designed to improve people’s lives. A medical device company, like Medtronic, fits this bill. A new friend, Kohl Gill, runs Labor Voices, a group that rates and reports on working conditions and factories overseas and then sells this information to companies like a Nike or a Sprite so that they don’t employ such factories and the employers have to shut down or change their ways.
B-Corp (Social Good Before Profit) – these are a more recent creation, but more and more business are created with the intention of a double- or triple-bottom line, in which social outcomes are placed on par or even before the pursuit of profits. Better World Books is a good example of this. The Body Shop’s environmental, pro-animal, and fair-trade work is another example. Ben & Jerry’s is another example.
Non-Profit (Advances Culture) – organizations like the art museums, opera houses, performance centers, and the like all seek to improve society, and in general, the more of these, the better.
Non-Profit (Corrects Social Problems) – these are charities that seek to feed the hungry, house the poor, heal the sick, and so on. It would be difficult to make an argument that these types of organizations don’t deserve their own place at the far right of the spectrum.
There are a number of social enterprise/entrepreneurship conferences, workshops, competitions, accelerators, and incubators. These events and groups are helpful to social enterprises at different stages of development. One of the most difficult developmental points is initial funding or seed funding. So there are groups like incubators or accelerators that were established to help aid the launching of social enterprises. They locate and work with social entrepreneurs and organizations, help formulate a business plan, provide seed funding, help form a board, create a long-term sustainability plan, help locate partners and networks, and then set the enterprise off on its own hopefully to succeed and thrive. A few incubators, accelerator programs, competitions, and conferences are listed below.
I saw this title (Living Questions in Community) in a book I’m reading, though I haven’t read that chapter yet. But I know a bit what he’s getting at. One of my book clubs read a book called “Love Wins” by Rob Bell. It’s supposed to be a controversial book in Western Christian circles because the pastor questions the doctrine of hell or the dominant interpretation of it. His questions and his current understanding of the answers to those questions have upset a lot of people. He’s being called a universalist (which Universalist/Unitarians like), a blasphemer, a heretic, etc. So I’ve been watching somewhat, and yet completely fascinated.
What’s fascinating is not that he’s saying anything new (he’s not), but many of the people in Western Christianity aren’t exposed to the wide diversity of Christian thought and perspectives because only certain dominant ones are presented. Most people who see the entire spectrum are professors or seminarians, but not lay people. So what’s fascinating is that there is a man who wrote a set of books called “The Chronicles of Narnia.” He was a friend of J.R. Tolkien and his name is C. S. Lewis. Now C. S. Lewis is rather interesting to me because he is quoted by a lot of people in mainstream Christianity or who promote the dominant versions of it. Because of this, I was never eager to read him because I pretty much knew what he would say (I’ve read fiction works by him). So I decided to read him last year, and I was glad I did. He’s very different than I thought, and he thinks a lot of unconventional things, one among them is his understanding of hell. Lewis’s understanding of hell is very similar to Bell’s but Lewis never received (and doesn’t receive) a backlash like Bell received. That’s fascinating to me. It’s fascinating to me that people quote Lewis in some passages but ignore other parts of the same work or other works in which he may something quite controversial (to dominant forms of Western Christianity).
Now I don’t believe you can only quote someone if you agree with everything they said. That’s not a good policy. But I do think you should only quote someone if you agree with everything they said that is central to who they were and if the centrality of her message births the passage you’re quoting. Let me give an example. There have been a few conservative news commentators who have quoted Martin Luther King Jr. or have said they support his dream; however, at the same time they supported the war in Iraq. Now this is complete conjecture, but I’m going to make an educated conjecture. I think it’s quite fair to say that Martin Luther King Jr. would have opposed the war in Iraq giving his writings, his speeches, even his opposition to the Vietnam War. In fact, the strange thing about supporting part of his message (like the “Dream” speech) is that the dream speech is completely connected to his views about going to war in Vietnam, and I posit, Iraq, as well. Martin Luther King Jr. was a peace man, and he was a man who practiced the way of love. It was from that sensibility, and even more, that way of life that the “I have a dream” speech flowed and from that same understanding that I believe he would have opposed the war in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan).
So those occurrences in the news reminded me that I left out one characteristic about a church I would create or found. I want a place that understands how to live questions in community, a church with questions. I have thought about what that looks like. At first I thought it would be nice to have a board of judges who would review cases in which understandings of God would be challenged and that would make decisions on doctrinal amendments or clarifications (like the constitution; this process happens clumsily and inadvertently in religious groups like the Mormons). Such a board reminds me of the Supreme Court, but with the potential for abuse it reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition.
The main point is that some people have said that I am against institutions. That’s not true. I have worked to institutionalize good movements. That’s our hope. You start or join a social movement that seeks to create change to old institutions. Then one day the social movement is institutionalized and becomes the new institution. The new institution is celebrated because it is an improvement to the old institution. The new institution corrects the wrongs of the previous institution. But then what happens? Well, the new institution hasn’t arrived itself. But it thinks it has. So gradually it becomes more and more resistant to change, to the change that it initially institutionalized; thus, it becomes like the very institution it replaced, not in content but in how it manages the content, allows thought, and decides rules and doctrine. I wonder if you see what I’m saying.
I’m deathly afraid of this happening to me, that I grow up and run some organization or group that I started or that corrected or solved a problem in society. Then one day people in my organization want to make it better but I resist it and then I become the very person I used to fight against, but now, in a new generation. I saw this when I was a teacher at my innovative school, and I hated it. I hated that process, and I didn’t understand why it happens. I wonder if it has to do with the increasing distance that happens with institutionalization. One loses one’s “feet on the ground.” The ground perspective is always crucial.
So my dream is a system in which social movements become institutions that continue to meld and mold according to corrective social movements that show where the institution is lacking. Instead new institution after new institution, I want an ever-changing, never-complacent institution that continually births, promotes, educates, and questions itself through social movements and then answers, incorporates, and grows with those social movements birthing a new stage for a higher point of awareness and consciousness. That’s my hope.
Sometimes people think they you remain conservative is to cling to the message (the content) of the social movement that became institutionalized. In reality, to be conservative in the truest sense of the word (conserving the spirit of the institutionalized social movement) you must be willing to make the resulting institution better and respectfully question the new place you are at. In other words, you conserve the spirit of the movement; you remain faithful by betraying it, questioning it. It’s the fidelity of betrayal all over again. That’s my hope.
I took a 10-week course from the World Bank Institute. There were about 19,000 people in the course from all over the world.
Every week we received an e-mail telling us to log in. We did and we read a 6-7 page graphic novel set in 2020 dealing with some world crisis. We were then given a mission. Each mission had 3 objectives. The first objective was educational (do a lot of learning and reading and report on it); the second action-based (you had to do something to solve the problem in your community on a small scale); the third was imagination-based (you had to imagine the world in the future with the problem solved and write about it). Each week there was also a quest, a writing portion to write about you as a hero and what motivates, inspires you, bothers you, moves you, your background and environment, your mentors and helpers, etc.
Each week focused on a different problem: food security and agricultural development, water security and development, the energy crisis, women’s empowerment, crisis networking, etc. The list went on and on for 10 weeks. And the goal was to use social innovation and social entrepreneurship to address the problem. We followed along the story of the secret global agents who were social innovators and used their skills to solve the problem in the year 2020. It was a very cool game and course. I really enjoyed it though it was a lot of work (the 2nd objective each week took time).
If you completed 1 objective from each week and each quest you were called a hero. If you completed 2 objectives from each week and each quest you were called a certified hero. If you completed 3 objectives from each week and each quest you were called a legendary here.
I think certified heroes and higher received a certificate saying they finished the course. At the end of the course, you were allowed to submit a proposal developed as you worked each week and collaborated and discussed. Some would win mentorship prizes, some would win travel funding for a summit that is to happen in DC later. The top 20 would win a seed grant to launch their social enterprise and get started.
I submitted two proposals; neither was chosen. But I am helping and advising a friend from the class who is doing a film project on the Story of Happiness. He won a mentorship and chance to put his project on Global Giving and if he can get $4000 from 50 donors in a few weeks he gets a permanent spot there. So I’m helping him a bit, while I still pursue my own AIDS research and student summer project program (ask me later).
The game was designed by game designer Jane McGonigal who thinks games can change the world. Instead of telling her story, I’ll let you listen to her tell how she has created games that are changed the real world, not the virtual one.
