This week’s social innovation topic is “Capitalization and
Impact Assessment for Social Innovation.” Each article covered this week
focuses on the changing financial landscape of social innovation and the trends
that are influencing how individuals, organizations, and government view
ventures with social purposes, whether it be at their core or as a tangential
activity.
Melissa Ip’s Social Enterprise Buzz
article[1]
and The Economist’s “A Place in Society”[2]
introduce us to a changing landscape, driven in part by the demand for “private
capital and skills to supply the basics of life and to get small business
going” in parts of the world where it has been traditionally difficult to
access capital and to scale production and distribution. The articles focus our
attention on Kickstart International, a Kenya non-profit founded in 1991, that
assists impoverished people through sustainable economic growth and employment
creation, which is funded by Citi bank loans. These loans – which have
previously not been available to rural farmers and families enables people to
expand the production of simple tools like water pumps, creating opportunity
for further economic development and wealth creation. This access to capital
has not only created an entrepreneurial environment in these far off
communities, but has fostered sustainable development in ways that communities
were previously unable to experience.
The Stanford Social Innovation article “The Funding Gap”[3]
was of particular interest to me as it outlines the various roles direct and
intermediary investors plan in raising capital for social enterprises. The
article explains while investors are beginning to understand how ROI can be
realized through social-based ventures, “entrepreneurial energy is thwarted by
a lack of mission-aligned early-stage capital for social ventures”. This may be
because it is difficult for many foundations, philanthropists, and private
sector investors to see how social ventures or hybrid organizations sit on the
larger spectrum. As a result, two additional trends are occurring. First,
managers are rethinking business and operational practices to reflect both
social and financial returns. And secondly, innovation has occurred in the
development of sources of capital. For this second point, we will examine one
option more closely.
The Stanford Social Innovation article mentions that
socially responsible mutual funds are beginning to pop up as an additional
source of capital available for social ventures. Kiplinger financial and
business services’s James Glassman touches on this more recent development
exploring iShares MSCI USA ESE Select Index, “an exchange-traded fund that
tracks an index of companies that it says follow high ‘environmental, social
and governance standards’”.[4]
This investment strategy to generate financial returns while tackling a social
issue is a fast growing trend that provides investors with an additional way to
“feel involved” in issues they are passionate about. Most mutual funds that
have a socially responsible component adhere to a list of social,
environmental, or even religious beliefs. These mutual funds normally hold
securities that are important to socially-conscious investors and to corporate
citizenship, but for fund managers it becomes very difficult to find stocks
that will attract investors. One of the issues here, however, is that investors
never really know if there investors are going toward supporting or mitigating
social issues. While socially responsible mutual funds are an innovative idea
to attract investors and focus attention on social issues, do you think this
approach is more about public perception than trying to do the right thing? Are
there screening issues with offering stocks which may be socially responsible?
Is this really a good way to raise capital?
[1]
Ip, Melissa. Social Enterprise Buzz. “Citi Breaks Into the Social Enterprise
Sector with First-Ever Loan.” www.socialenterprisebuzz.com/2013/07/30/citi-breaks-into-the-social-enterprise-sector-with-first-ever-loan
[2]
The Economist. May 2012. “A Place in Society”. www.economist.com/node/14493098
[3]
Chertok, Michael, Jeff Hamaoui, and Eliot Jamison. Stanford Social Innovation.
“The Funding Gap”. Spring 2008. www.digitaldividedata.com/media/pdf/DDD-Stanford-Social-Innovation-Review_The-Funding-Gap-Spring-08.pdf
[4]
Glassman, James K. Kiplinger. “5 Mutual Funds for Socially Responsible
Investors”. May 2012. http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C016-S001-5-mutual-funds-for-socially-responsible-investors.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.