In bed with the enemy, “Let’s shift the conversation form how to grow the organization to how to best increase its impact…”

In a world that at times postures itself as a cynical and skeptical, unruly teenager that always feels deceived, it is sometimes hard to believe that big “C” capitalists like Coca-Cola are providing people of Kenya with solar power energy. The energy presence of Coke is now felt by Kenyans as a result of a Corporate-Social Partnership between the American solar entrepreneurs Guarav Manchanda. In this partnership Coca-Cola markets Machanda’s One Degree solar power kits[i] that give off-grid rural vendors a reliable power source. Because of this Corporate-Social Partnership, rural vendors can now stay open past sunset, increase safety and visibility after dark, and sell more soft drinks.[ii] On average the rural vendors are  able to stay open four extra hours each day, raise earnings by 15% on average and saved 90% on energy spending,[iii] due not purchasing kerosene lamps, flashlight batteries, or candles.  Simply put the introduction of the solar power kits has increased   business hours, increased profit on all angles, and reduces long-term expenses.

Based on this example one cannot deny that Corporate-Social Partnerships are channels with the  potential to bring social venture products and services to the Base of the Pyramid.  This understanding also leads to my question of, could Corporate-Social Partnerships be the types of approaches that current and future social innovators should be using in order to increase their impact?

There is definitely no one remedy that cures all illnesses and there definitely is not only one remedy that can increase social entrepreneurs’ impact. However, it does appear that Corporate-Social Partnerships can be effective tools for increasing impact on target populations that are at times difficult to reach by land or cultural access. Corporate- Social Partnerships are a bridge between the private and public sector and most importantly are a bridge between social entrepreneurs and their customers. This bridge is becoming more and more important as the world is becoming more globalized and interconnected. Therefore, it is essential that many social innovators and entrepreneurs’ target  companies that receive large portions of the over 5 trillion dollars[iv] spent a year by the BOP, because these are viable channels with strong potential to increase impact.  

For social entrepreneurs where the primary focus is impact and (not profit), bigger isn’t necessarily better.[v] Therefore, it is important to find more efficient ways to make their desired impact, and with the growing trend of corporate-social partnerships it is clear that there is potential for a strong and impactful relationship between the public and private sectors. Long gone are the days when non-profits and for-profit social entreprenuers worked in separation from corporations.  Over time it has become very clear to both parties that they are both focused on having their products and services reach those that need/wants them. In many ways these partnerships are a smart move for social entrepreneurs because there work allows for an increase in the health and income of many companies faithful consumers. Highlighting that they are a valued enterprise, for corporations.

Corporate-Social Partnerships when done right are mutually beneficial for all involved.  Social ventures now benefit from a robust corporate distribution channels that impacts millions. They can now streamline a communication that can permeate through cultural, social, and religious barriers. While corporations gain and maintain more faithful consumers.  

Ultimately when we discuss social ventures scaling up to make an impact, I think that we may be looking at the possibilities of scaling up a bit narrowly. In such a globalized world scaling up has for better or worse taken on a new form. The old rules of how to scale up- staffing, communicating, alliance-building, lobbying, and stimulating market forces[vi] , dare I say are out dated. I firmly believe that in the next decade or so scaling up will take the forms of partnerships in order to generate impacts and reach millions if not billions of people. Also for all the skeptics, Corporate-Social Partnerships can be an avenue   to ensure that there is more accountability being placed on corporations and the type of impacts that they have on many household, BOP and non-BOP.  While I believe in the power of Corporate-Social Partnerships, I am very interested to know  what  will be  the cost for this shift in ways of scaling up and can it be sustained?

---

[i] Why Coke Is Bringing Solar Power To Rural Kenya. http://www.FastCompany.com.

[ii] Why Coke Is Bringing Solar Power To Rural Kenya. http://www.FastCompany.com.

[iii] Why Coke Is Bringing Solar Power To Rural Kenya. http://www.FastCompany.com. 

[iv] How Misinformed Ideas about Profit Are Holding Back The World’s Poor. http://www.FastCompany.com.

[v] It’s Not All About Growth for Social Enterprises. 2013. Tripp, Kimberly Dasher. Harvard Business Review. 

[vi] How to Take a Social Venter to Scale. 2012. Bloom, Paul. Harvard Business Review. 

The Poor are Still Consumers

“Even the poorest people are still consumers[1],” this is completely true. This makes me think of every single time someone in Texas complains about illegal immigrants not paying taxes. Yet people do not think of the stimulus in the economy that these immigrants make.[2] These immigrants still pay for rent, gas for their cars, if they operate under a social security number that isn’t their own they will never receive the benefit of it. According to the article in the New York Times “Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.” If you would like to read further about immigrants paying taxes read this: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/unauthorized-immigrants-pay-taxes-too

            I knew a woman with two kids who worked sixty hours a week. She worked at the famous restaurant with golden arches, making only 5.00 an hour. Yet her kids were always dressed in name brands like Aeropostale and vans shoes. She always had coach sunglasses and Coach purse. She had enough money to go shopping and had money left over to pay her rent. This is my personal experience with even the poor being consumers. When I read about Coca-Cola and the bright box, it made me smile. We all deserve to enjoy the little things like a soda. Even if Coca-cola is not ending hunger or purifying water, its one more thing that the poor have that they did not before..

---

[1] http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682004/how-misinformed-ideas-about-profit-are-holding-back-the-worlds-poor

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-much-did-illegal-immigrants-contribute-to-texas-economic-boom/2011/08/19/gIQASvBFQJ_blog.html

Creating Impact: Does Intent Matter?

Week 4: Venture Development and Growth

Gosh, I really hate for-profit ventures. But I guess I am just skeptical.
I can’t exactly pinpoint what my apprehension is about ventures that make money. Perhaps it’s just that I’ve spent all my working life in non-profits, and for-profit ventures still strike me as selfish. Perhaps it feels like an exclusionary act—one those that are able to afford goods or services can be engaged with the organization. So I really appreciated the insights provided by the articles this week, though I still can’t shake my skepticism.

Okay—so, you’re telling me capitalism is about choice.
In particular, I really appreciated the article “How Misinformed Ideas About Profit are Holding back the world’s poor”.  I thought that this article was written for someone like me, who occasionally will let my socially-conscious idealism run away with itself and lose sight of “real world” structures. Because, of course--someone is going to be capitalizing on the market, and the market is better off having choices.  So then it would make perfect sense that this idea of a competitive market empowers buyers, it enables scrutiny to factor into personal decisions, not just treating a purchase as a pure necessity.  There was a lot of value in this article and a lot of truth to Hugh Whalan’s points. 

But is this concept of choice really choice?
If my option is to purchase Coca-Cola or drink unclean water, have I really been empowered?  Sure, I can enter the market as a buyer, but have I met the need that I have? If the maximum agency you can have is to be ‘empowered’ to consume from a market that has been constructed by whoever in power, I don’t believe that you’re truly empowered. Rather, I would argue that the choices buyers are making are still limited by the constructions of the system. Perhaps at some point, the conversation can shift to empowering agents to create necessary change, but in the interim--fundamentally these limited ideas of ‘market’ and ‘choice’ are treating symptoms, not fixing systems.

Shifting to Impact
I will contend that there has been a shift to responsible business practices, and a socially-conscious emphasis on impact, as indicated by measures like the TR10 and the B-List. I am always impressed by lists like these—it gives me a little hope: someone, somewhere cares about similar things.  I’m always happy to hear when organizations are shifting the traditional elements of a business plan to include determinants for social impact (eg. thinking of “Competition” as opportunities for “Collaboration”).  I want to know about more organizations will emphasis on impact like those Kimberly Tripp was talking about. I am left hoping that this is the culture change, the shift to really caring about what, how, and when businesses/organizations act, always holding the best intention in mind.  But is this real? Can all of the organizations listed on the B-List really be that invested in the change? Or is it another marketing tactic?

I suppose it becomes a question of intention for me. Does it really matter if each of those orgs see it as a need to adjust to the shifting tide of cultural norms demanding sustainable, ethical, responsible practices? Does it matter if they believe in this change? Even if they treat the B-List like a check-list, does it undermine the positive impact for their workers or customers?

And further—even good intention can't undo bias. My cynic creeps out wondering, but who wrote the criteria for the B-List? And what more did they leave out? 

http://www.socialenterprisebuzz.com/2013/07/11/first-two-grameen-uniqlo-stores-open-in-bangladesh/

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682126/why-coke-is-bringing-solar-power-to-rural-kenya

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682004/how-misinformed-ideas-about-profit-are-holding-back-the-worlds-poor

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/its-not-all-about-growth-for-s/

http://blogs.hbr.org/2012/06/how-to-take-a-social-venture-t/

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-05-09/inside-the-tata-nano-factorybusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681861/the-best-businesses-for-the-world-according-to-b-lab

http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/

Collaborating with unexpected business partners could lead to successful results

Last week, one of my criticisms was that companies place too much of an emphasis on design and not enough "innovative thinking" into implementation. This weeks article, Why Coke is Bringing Solar Power to Rural Kenya, highlights the ingenious way a medical supply company used Coca-Cola's intricate supply management system to ensure it's drugs reached people in remote areas.

At the last startup where I worked, Lyft, it joined forces with another product, Carstache, to help get the word out about the product.  Lyft is a peer-to-peer mobile ride sharing app where individuals use their own car to give rides to users in designated cities. Since the cars in the program are of various makes and models it can be very difficult to a) locate your Lyft vehicle and driver as a passenger and b) get word of mouth out about your service to customers if there is no distinguishing marker for the cars on the platform. That is when Lyft decided to have all drivers don a pink Carstache on the front of their cars grill to help make it easier for passengers to find their ride. Since the pink mustache is a rather unique identifier it ended up being a brilliant marketing ploy to spread the word around San Francisco about the new service. After seeing a smattering of pink mustaches around the city, it lead many people (including myself) to Google: pink + mustache + car to find out what was going on. Very little money was spent on marketing the application, the car 'stache and growing list of positive experiences from passengers did all the work for it. This brand marketing strategy is being employed in various cities across the country as Lyft expands to other cities.

As scaling a venture  (especially in rural areas) is a large hurdle for most companies to get across, an important question for entreprenuers to ask themselves is: What company might I team up with to effectively reach my user base? Perhaps this could be an opportunity for Pepsi-Cola to get more of Coca-Coca's market share and gain life long fans by teaming up with companies like Plumpynut in developing countries?














Article: Why Coke Is Bringing Solar Power To Rural Kenya (Fast Company,June 14,
2013); www.fastcoexist.com/1682126/why-coke-is-bringing-solar-power-to-rural-kenya

Source: http://www.carstache.com/

The Middle East Ecosystem and Social Innovation

0. 
   
   This week’s social innovation topic is “Venture Development and Growth.” In both Paul Bloom’s Harvard Business Review article “How to Take a Social Venture to Scale” and Kimberly Dasher Tripp’s “It’s Not All About Growth for Social Enterprises”[1], the authors emphasize the importance of understanding the ecosystem in which a venture lives – or hopes to live – and how this should not be a “one-time exercise”[2]. Achieving scale – or “a level where the new approach operates efficiently and effectively to achieve significant mitigation of a social problem” as Bloom refers to it – is an organizational challenge that requires examining a number of elements like communication, alliance-building, market forces, and lobbying. All of these are important for a young venture – particularly a social venture – to succeed. However, in some parts of the world where social enterprise is badly needed, the ecosystem is not yet ready to support social innovation, not to mention the underlying “elements” put forth by Bloom and Tripp.
   
   
   In Saudi Arabia for example, there is a nearly 40% youth unemployment rate, while nearly 70 percent of the youth population plan to emigrate.[3] Statistics are similar in other regions of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and get drastically worse when considering populations on the Levantine coast. Yes, the Arab Awakening has spurred a number of social initiatives from improving economic prospects for woman-owned businesses and subsistence farming in Jordan and Oman to the introduction of shared office space to support tech entrepreneurs in Qatar. But, for many in the Arab World – particularly in the Caliphates of the Arabian Gulf – there is no differentiating line between social innovation and the local version of charity, called “Zakat”. Some people, like Qatar’s Sheikha Moza, have established institutions to try to encourage and support entrepreneurship and innovation, however to what extent do these institutions support social entreprenership?
   
   
   From the authors of the Harvard Business Review articles, we understand that for venture development and growth to occur, organizations require support structures to encourage alliance-building and to stimulate market forces. While considerable gains have been made in places like Qatar to support entrepreneurs, significant strides remain to support social innovation.
   
   
   It is interesting that a region like the GCC has the financial and economic infrastructures in place to support social entrepreneurship, however the region at large has yet to realize how social innovation can tackle important challenges. The i2 Institute (www.i2institute.org/#), founded by Dr. Hayat Sindi, a Saudi social entrepreneur, may be one example of how attitudes regarding social innovation are changing. Dr. Sindi’s organization not only provides information on the issues and stakeholders involved in various regional projects, but she is attempting to establish a community where Arab entrepreneurs can learn more about the challenges facing social innovators in the larger Arab ecosystem. Using the tools provided by her organization, social innovators throughout the region can begin to identify how they can strengthen their ventures through alliance building and lobbying certain stakeholders in their local communities.
   
   
   In a society that faces significant economic, social, and political challenges, do you think the Arab World – particularly the Levantine region – can use social innovation to tackle major issues, or do you think the lack of financial and social infrastructure hinder their ability to do so? Given the growing and heightened social consciousness of many in the Arab world due to the Arab Awakening, do you think social ventures can overcome political shifts and regional divides? There seems to be no shortage of young leaders eager to push forward social agenda in the Arab world. Can an organization like Dr. Sindi’s support these individuals?
   
   

   ---

   [1] Kinberly, Tripp Dasher. Harvard Business Review. HBR Blog Network. January 21^st, 2013. http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/its-not-all-about-growth-for-s/

   [2] Bloom, Paul. Harvard Business Review. HBR Blog Network. June 18^th, 2012. http://blogs.hbr.org/2012/06/how-to-take-a-social-venture-t/

   [3] Boss, Suzie. New Ecosystem for Middle East Entrepreneurs. http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/new_ecosystem_for_middle_east_entrepreneurs