Written by Julian Cottee (Social Innovation and Sustainability Expert) and Chris Blues (Programme Manager for Social Ventures).
Competitions, accelerators and prizes are now well-established fixtures in the social entrepreneurship world.
The Chivas Venture, The Earthshot Prize, Nesta Challenges, The Audacious Project, European Social Innovation Competition, Food System Vision Prize and Tata Social Enterprise Challenge to name only a few.
Outside of award schemes that recognise retrospective excellence and best practice (like the UK Social Enterprise Awards for example), competitions come in a number of flavours. On the one hand there are the ‘gardeners’, who delve through the undergrowth looking for the green shoots of promising innovation to nurture. These are prizes like our own Skoll Venture Awards, which aims to spot potential and deploy small but targeted doses of no-strings capital to encourage growth. Other variants of the gardener paradigm are more involved, seeking to actively engage in and boost the evolution of new businesses.
In addition to publicity and funding, accelerator programmes offer a range of other services including learning and development opportunities, networking and access to investment, sometimes taking a stake in the business in return.
Elsewhere in the innovation support ecosystem are the ‘architects’ – challenge prizes that carefully identify problems that they or their funders are particularly keen on solving, and design tailored competitions to promote innovation in the sector. This is an idea with a long history. Famously, the British government in 1714 offered an award equivalent to several million pounds in today’s money for anyone who could come up with an innovation to precisely determine a ship’s longitude at sea. Today the X Prize Foundation offers similar amounts, and more, to those who can offer advances in diagnosis for medical conditions, or remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Both the gardeners and the architects of the social entrepreneurship world have in common the ambition of supporting innovation that our societies need, but for which there is not yet (or might never be) the market demand to unlock capital from traditional investors. They support young ventures with innovative ideas and high social impact potential, but with business plans that are still unproven. In between this high-risk grant capital and the world of traditional growth finance, is the world of social investment, which plays off the calculus of return on investment against the chance of societal benefit.
But how well is our landscape of capital and other support for social ventures really enabling the potential of the best social entrepreneurs to ideate, prototype, launch and grow new businesses that provide answers to the world’s systemic challenges at the scale we need? Even since the inception of the Skoll Venture Awards in 2012, the number and breadth of organisations (corporates, governments, nonprofits, and academic institutions) building awards that catalyse social ventures has grown exponentially. The ecosystem might seem crowded, but are we filling all the right niches, and are we providing support at all of the crucial pinch points along the social entrepreneur’s journey to allow beautiful, wise and impact-led ventures to grow, and to fill the landscape?
Social innovation needs gardeners and architects, and like any ecosystem, thrives on diversity and plurality. But by combining the best of these two approaches we might see something else too. Taking the big picture approach of the architect alongside the gardener’s ability to see possibility and provide it with what it needs to grow, we can map the system that enables and shapes social ventures to thrive, and ask how it could be improved. How are competitions feeding into the wider social innovation and investment ecosystem? Are we collectively selecting for and nurturing the most important attributes of truly impactful ventures? Are we duplicating efforts? How might social ventures move from one competition or accelerator to another most beneficially? How might we partner for increased impact?
Competitions play a key role in celebrating and supporting individuals and teams who have chosen to follow their imagination and to demonstrate leadership and courage through building a venture. To serve them better we can step back and consider how we can work together towards just, equitable and sustainable systems.
Tara Sabre Collier, Social Entrepreneur in Residence at the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Skoll Scholar alumna joins Chris Blues, Programme Manager for Social Ventures at the Skoll Centre, in examining inequalities within the Impact Investment industry.
Inequality is one of the greatest challenges of our time, hampering growth, spurring strife and instability and impeding human development.
Income inequality has been worsening
across countries since the turn of the century and is likely to be tremendously exacerbated by COVID-19. The impact investment sector has been a powerful force for progress towards many SDGs but needs to take a critical look at how, as a sector, it is advancing or exacerbating SDG 10. In most of the world, income and wealth inequality are inextricably tied to race, ethnicity, gender, national/origin migration status but most impact investors have not fully interrogated their roles in fostering equity and inclusion across their organizations and portfolios.
There is no aggregate global diversity and inclusion data for the impact investment industry.
Data from the UK, one of the world’s leading countries for impact investment, show a clear discrepancy in the ecosystem, with people of colour occupying less than 7% and women outnumbered 2:1 in board directorships. While the UK does not necessarily represent the entire impact investment industry, it is an important global hub. Moreover, there are a number of global commonalities in terms of wealth distribution, private capital markets and philanthropy that indicate other Western impact investment markets will similarly fall short. The impact investment industry hybridises investment, philanthropy, and social enterprise traits; talent, staffing and leadership trends will reflect this DNA. A few global highlights from these sectors (across UK and USA) reveal less than admirable diversity and inclusion track record.
Women are about 56% of US philanthropic foundations CEOs, but people of colour only occupy 11% of said roles, despite a significant philanthropic emphasis on serving communities of colour in the US. There’s now evidence that this disparity is reflected in philanthropic funding for social entrepreneurs of colour, with a recent Bridgespan study showing Black-led social enterprises have 76% smaller net assets than white-led counterparts, mostly attributed to bias.
Just 3% of UK charity CEOs were of non-white backgrounds, despite the fact that a large share of the UK sector’s work likewise addresses communities of colour. On the international front, an older study indicated less than 10% of the largest international NGOs had African board members, despite Africa being the largest market for INGO grant funding and programs. Likewise, despite women comprising 70% of INGO staff, women are still vastly under-represented (i.e. approximately 30%) as CEOs and leaders of these organizations.
These select examples demonstrate a pattern of diversity paucity which contravenes the vision of impact investing.
If the impact investing industry replicates these disparities, there is a risk of reinforcing income inequality, instead of combatting it.
The representation gap also points to a possible market failure whereby impact capital is likely not being efficiently distributed to many promising ventures with potential to solve societal challenges because of a disconnect between primarily Western white male funders and under-represented social enterprise founders, especially in the Global South. Furthermore, the lack of representation in impact investment teams and portfolios would likely detract from the sector’s financial performance, given the proven linkages between gender/racial diversity and financial performance. There’s no dearth of evidence for the commercial benefits of
representation but nevertheless a handful are mentioned below:
Research by McKinsey & Co. found that public companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity were 35% more likely to have financial returns above national industry medians
A study by Boston Consulting Group found that if investors had invested equally into startups that were founded by women, an additional $85 million would have been generated over the five-year period studied.
While the corporate sector continues to rise to the occasion on diversity and inclusion efforts, the impact investment industry is yet to get on board with really advancing the inclusion agenda beyond gender. In the face of what we are learning from the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no time like now to decidedly develop diversity and inclusion initiatives that will improve financial/social returns. If impact investors are truly serious about the SDGs, including SDG 10, we must fight the hazards of inequality, starting with our own industry.
Authors: Chris Blues, Programme Manager for Social Ventures, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship
Tara Sabre-Collier, Social Entrepreneur in Residence, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship
The Skoll Centre’s Apprenticing with a Problem (AWAP) awards support individuals to engage in experiential learning and deep immersion around the challenges that they seek to tackle. Ana María Ñungo, of the Oxford Saïd MBA class 2016-17 set out to understand some of the issues surrounding access to higher education in Colombia, which has major consequences for social mobility.
Tell us a bit about your background
I was born and raised in Bogotá, Colombia. However, for the last 10
years I have lived abroad. I am an electrical engineer, and prior to the MBA I
worked in the energy industry (utility and renewables) and also founded a
non-profit focused on energy access. During the MBA, I co-founded Language Amigo, a social
enterprise that creates opportunities for low income youth in Latin America.
the problem that you were interested in tackling?
I was looking at the current situation of university students in
Colombia who have to work while studying, and whether they have adequate job
opportunities. I was also interested in seeing how this problem relates to
student’s retention in higher education, as the dropout rate in Colombia is
almost 50%, which is amongst the highest even for Latin American countries.
Lastly, I wanted to learn about the development of the collaborative economy in
the country, as it can represent a good opportunity for these students who are
you use the AWAP award?
I travelled to Colombia and lived there for a few months, during which
time I was able to fully dedicate myself to looking into this issue on the
ground, working with universities, students, and other experts in higher
My main partner was the Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas,
which is one of the largest public higher education institutions in the
country. With their help, I conducted a survey that reached +150 students and
gave me first-hand information about their thoughts and experiences on the
problem. I also interviewed students, as well as professors and other
university personnel that were experts in topics such as student drop out and
employment opportunities. This includes José Manuel Restrepo, who was the
chancellor of the Universidad del Rosario and is now the Minister of Commerce,
Industry and Tourism of Colombia. Additionally, I met and learned from people
who are leading projects to support the development of the collaborative
economy in in Latin America.
This experience also allowed me to meet some of the college students who
are now part of my social enterprise Language Amigo. They are not only
generating flexible income, but also learning and thriving as part of an early
stage international start-up.
stands out to you most from your learnings over the period?
So many learnings during this time! Amongst the most important for me
In a city like Bogotá, where my research was primarily based, most students think that there are job opportunities, however, most of them agree that the opportunities are not appropriate for students.
What most students want or need is flexibility, adequate compensation and opportunities that are aligned with their academic programs. Flexibility not only in terms of schedule but also location. Some students have to commute +3 hours/day in order to attend university and work, and over 70% of the surveyed students said that their compensation was lower than the minimum wage. Also, except for people who are doing internships (which are usually only available for a small percentage of final year students), most jobs are not related to their fields of study.
Universities, employers, and even government organizations are either ignoring this issue or trying to address it in a siloed way.
While there are many factors that lead students to drop out of university, socio-economic issues are one of the most significant. I heard in interviews that for many low- or middle-income families, this drop-out problem represents a frustrated dream for a whole family and for all the people that supported the student and believed that they were going to have a different future.
your most surprising finding?
While the collaborative and digital economy is a good potential
opportunity for students who are in much need of flexibility, there is very
little knowledge about digital platforms that offer self-employment or
freelancing opportunities. Only 21% of students knew about these digital platforms
and just 5% had actually worked with them. In addition, one of the biggest challenges
for collaborative economy entrepreneurs in Latin America was that people simply
didn’t know about them or their platforms.
I think that students are very immersed in the digital world, however,
they are not yet utilizing it to find the flexible jobs that already exist on
Apprenticing with a Problem changed the approach you are taking to tackling
I learned how to reach
college students in more efficient and effective ways. Even just to have
students answer a survey or be interviewed seemed to be a challenge at first.
But strategies like having strong partnerships and learning about the specific
social media where students are active were key to catching students’ attention
and obtaining a response.
I also realized that
it made more sense for my start-up to recruit youngsters who are studying
languages as they can find and provide more value to our mission. We are
basically applying the lesson of aligning the job opportunities with their
fields of study.
advice would you give to other setting out to tackle complex social or
It is definitely useful, and I would say it’s almost a must, to have partners on the ground that are very familiar with the problem and have access to your target population. Do as much field research as possible by yourself as well.
Don’t be shy and ask others who have researched similar issues. Prior to going to Colombia, I read many articles and emailed all the authors I found. The response was positive and many of them were happy to give me an interview.
Be open-minded, some of the information on the ground may be completely different from what you had thought. In my case, I thought I knew the university student life in Bogotá since I studied there for almost 4 years. However, things have changed quite significantly! I ended up joining over 20 Facebook groups to learn about current student life and reach out to them.
Our Early Career Research Fellow, Tanja Collavo, examines the reasons why there is a gap between research and practice.
Knowledge is fundamental to solving the wicked problems of our societies. But academia is very rarely explicitly included in the list of players that should contribute to solving global challenges or called upon as a provider of relevant and useful knowledge. Given the amount and quality of knowledge about global issues and potential solutions that sits within high education institutions all over the world, this looks like a missed opportunity. Why is this the case?
Firstly, academics rarely leave their “ivory tower”. Academic papers are not easy to understand for other audiences due to their technical and sometimes theoretical language. Moreover, potential users frequently discard them because they are too long to be read in a short time or to be grasped quickly. Researchers still try and connect with practitioners, i.e. individuals and organizations working in any sector, only at the end of their research projects or, in the best cases, when they are collecting data. This does not allow practitioners to inform the research project and leaves them skeptical about the relevance and applicability of findings. Therefore, trying to share knowledge in more immediate and simple forms, and engaging in a constant dialogue with practitioners who are working on wicked problems would be a critical step for academics, and their knowledge, to contribute to the creation of social and economic development.
Secondly, practitioners too frequently do not recognize the potential value of academic knowledge. In the past years, I have conducted interviews with several third-sector organizations and individuals working to improve the lives of others. I encountered many prejudices around what academics know and do not know, and I heard too often the idea that an organization already “gets it all”, given its track record and experience on the ground. The truth is, many practitioners are too busy with “survival” and day-to-day decisions to be fully up-to-date on their sector, on best practices, on what is coming next or what is happening in similar and connected contexts. Recognizing that academics have the privilege to get to know multiple sectors and/or organizations and that they have the time and neutrality to spot what is and isn’t working, might help practitioners to advance faster in the realization of their social goals and might also favor a stronger involvement of academia in the solution of wicked problems.
Thirdly, the current institutional context makes it difficult for academics and practitioners to collaborate. Academic careers are based almost exclusively on the number of publications and the prestige of the journals in which they appear. Publications usually require several years. Meanwhile, practitioners usually need to show short-term results, responsiveness to issues, entrepreneurialism and problem solving. This makes it risky to spend the time to connect with academics, who often present in-depth analysis and no course of action. Therefore, unless there is an effort to at least partially align the incentives and cultures in the worlds of academia and practice, collaborations might remain difficult.
Finally, it is difficult for academics and practitioners to get to know each other. Even when researchers and individuals working to solve wicked problems want to connect, they often do not know whom to reach out to ‘on the other side’ or how to get their attention. There is therefore a strong need for initiatives and intermediaries to bridge the gap between academics and practitioners, understanding where potential connections might lie and how to create them. Academic research centers, foundations, network organizations or international bodies like the UN would be in a privileged position to act in this sense.
Time is a precious resource when dealing with wicked problems and grand challenges. A better connection and knowledge exchange between academia and practice could reduce mistakes and the duplication of efforts and could favor the diffusion of best practices and a better understanding of different contexts. This, in turn, could improve solutions and accelerate the creation and growth of the social and environmental impact produced by different individuals and organizations. So why wait? The scale and urgency of the world’s challenges calls for immediate action, and each of us can make the difference at least in one of these four critical points.
DPhil (PhD) candidate in Economics at the University of Oxford, and Skoll Centre affiliated researcher, Muhammad Meki, and his colleagues describe their early research into launching a microequity programme in Indonesia for microentrepreneurs in collaboration with Allianz.
In many developing economies, a significant proportion of households derive their primary income from microenterprises involved in retail, light production of goods such as clothes, trade, and smallholder farming. Individuals who operate and work in such small firms tend to be poor; as such, improving their performance offers the potential for wide-scale poverty reduction.
There has been much talk about the potential for microfinance to lead to such poverty alleviation, however recent rigorous evaluations of microcredit have revealed more limited impacts. Reflecting on the evidence, it may be more appropriate to view microcredit as a way to ‘grease the wheels’ of development, rather than as a ‘silver bullet’ for transformational change (Banerjee, Karlan, and Zinman, 2015). Recent research also suggests that to help entrepreneurs better manage their enterprise, personalized approaches like consulting and mentorship can have more significant benefits than generic business training programs (Karlan and Valdivia, 2011; McKenzie and Woodruff, 2016; Valdivia, 2015; Bruhn, Karlan, Schoar, 2018; Brooks, Donovan, and Johnson, 2017).
First TNF investee and first graduate to mentorship phase — fish cake producer.
Since a key part of economic development is the movement from having most people working in small enterprises, to working as employees in larger, more productive enterprises, some experts believe that we should focus more on the small set of ‘transformational’ entrepreneurs rather than on the large group of ‘subsistence’ entrepreneurs (Schoar, 2010). Even the aforementioned microfinance studies showed that while microcredit does not generate large impacts on average, it can provide a significant boost to relatively more successful entrepreneurs (Banerjee, Karlan, Zinman, 2015; Meager, 2016).
TNF investee — broilers and gas cylinders seller.
Adding microequity to the picture?
Equity-based financing may be an alternative way forward for transformational entrepreneurs, since it can provide them with a more flexible form of finance that is better suited to the needs of a growing business, especially as it often comes with personalized support from investors to overcome the unique business challenges they face. While equity financing has the potential to grow rapidly in emerging markets, especially with developments in financial technology and the digital economy, the minimum financing amounts tend to be well beyond the needs of many grassroots entrepreneurs. What they may need is a more nuanced form of equity-based financing, tailored to microenterprises: microequity.
Lembaga Demografi (LD) enumerator interviewing TNF investee.
Trust Network Finance
With the intention of exploring the potential for equity-based financing for microenterprises in Indonesia, Allianz Indonesia has embarked on a microequity pilot project near Jakarta called ‘Trust Network Finance’ (TNF). The program involves 4 phases:
A selection phase in which microentrepreneurs are provided with a small initial amount of interest-free financing for their informal business, which increases if they repay successfully and share some of their profits, i.e., if they show characteristics of ‘transformational’ entrepreneurship;
A mentorship phase where selected entrepreneurs are appropriately matched with mentors for personalized business development advice. Mentors are incentivized to invest their ‘sweat equity’, which will be formalized as a 10% ownership share in the enterprise at the third phase;
A formalization phase in which entrepreneurs undergo formal business registration, and TNF and the mentor take formal equity stakes in the business;
A graduation phase, in which TNF reduces its ownership stake, by selling to the owner or an external investor and using the sales proceeds to refinance the program.
As entrepreneurs graduate through the phases, they gain the right to recommend new entrepreneurs for the program and even become mentors themselves, building up the ‘trust network’.
LD enumerator interviewing TNF investee
Some preliminary evidence on this new approach
TNF has recruited approximately 150 clients since the pilot started in June, 2016, with the most advanced participants now having advanced to phase 2. In late 2017 we surveyed 80 clients, with the aim of learning about what kinds of people were joining TNF and what attracted them to join.
Clients tend to like TNF, seeing it as a unique product;
Client understanding of the later phases of TNF is relatively low on average, which likely reflects the relative complexity of this unfamiliar venture capital-like model, compared to conventional microcredit;
There seem to be two groups of clients in the pilot: (i) a (larger) group of less dynamic entrepreneurs, who mostly see TNF as a convenient way to get operational financing for their enterprise, and are more likely to leave the program during the selection phase, and (ii) a (smaller) group of more dynamic entrepreneurs, who are relatively more attracted by the opportunity to reach the mentorship stage;
Many clients in this majority-Muslim nation see the interest-free TNF product as complying with Islamic law, and this was a very important factor in them joining.
These early results are promising, and provide some guidance for TNF as it scales up. Perhaps the network of clients can be harnessed to better identify and target the transformational ‘diamonds in the rough’, who can use TNF to become successful generators of wealth and employment.
The research has been funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Government of Australia, through a core grant to the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab Southeast Asia (J-PAL SEA). The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ alone and are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government, J-PAL SEA or other partner organizations. We thank our colleagues at J-PAL SEA, and the Demographic Institute at the University of Indonesia (LD UI), for their support in implementing the research. We thank the team of Trust Network Finance at Allianz Indonesia for their support on this research.
Muhammad Meki is a PhD candidate in Economics at the University of Oxford. He is interested in the effect of equity-like financial contracts on the investment and growth of microenterprises in developing countries.
Simon Quinn (@simonrquinn)is an Associate Professor of Economics and a Deputy Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford. Simon’s research interests lie primarily in the study of firms and development.
Russell Toth (@russell_toth) is a Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the School of Economics at the University of Sydney. He is a development microeconomist, with primary research interests in the development of the private sector in developing and emerging market countries.
Oxford Saïd Researcher and Early Career Research Fellow, Tanja Collavo, gives us a whistle stop tour of her recent DPhil research.
The cultivation of networks is one of the most popular tools for supporting social entrepreneurship and social innovation. Venture philanthropists, hubs, foundations, national and local networks all try to foster social impact by connecting social innovators with their peers, with potential investors and donors, and with individuals and organizations that can become their mentors and advisors. Yet, there is little knowledge on “best practices”, on what works and what doesn’t, and on the different ways in which network-based support to social innovation can be structured.
Over the past four years, I have analysed the features of four very different social entrepreneurship support organizations (a foundation, a venture philanthropist, a network organization and a trade association). Each of them has been successful in supporting the growth and development of social entrepreneurship in England over the past 15 years through the creation and management of multi-stakeholder networks. I was surprised to find that, despite their differences, each of these organizations engages in similar activities with regard to network-management.
Shared network strategies
First of all, the four agencies invest significant effort in signalling through multiple means the initiatives and success of the individuals and organizations that are affiliated to them. For example, they talk about their operations, impact and achievements on websites and newsletters. In addition, they engage with local, national and international media platforms (newspapers, magazines, televisions, etc.) so that the positive news coming from their contacts can spread even beyond their own reach. Furthermore, they organize yearly award ceremonies that provide additional coverage and popularity to the most successful part of their networks, usually the social entrepreneurs and enterprises that they are trying to help.
Secondly, the four organizations have proactively created within their networks an environment favouring the coming together and collaboration of individuals and organizations from different sectors and backgrounds. For example, these organizations publish blogs and articles on the benefits of cross-sector collaboration and propose common projects to their network members in a way that highlights what each of them can obtain from collaborating with individuals and organizations from other sectors. Furthermore, they train their members in multiple ways in order to reduce sector and cultural barriers among them. Each of the four organizations has also developed a narrative stressing how real change and impact are only possible in the presence of cross-sector collaboration.
Thirdly, the four agencies often try to elevate the reputation of the social entrepreneurs and enterprises present in their networks. They set up free events, webinars and initiatives explaining the benefits of social entrepreneurship for society and its superiority to other means to deliver social impact. Additionally, they present social entrepreneurs and enterprises in their online and offline communication, as well as in their events, in an enthusiastic light, defining them as the changers of the world or the creators of a more just and inclusive society. The elevation and legitimation of social innovators in these (and other) ways puts them in a stronger position when negotiating for help and support with players from other sectors that might be more established and resource-endowed than they are.
Finally, the four organizations manage the unavoidable competition (for funds, recognition for the “best approach”, attention, etc.) among the social entrepreneurs and enterprises that they support in a way that makes it possible and almost natural for them to collaborate and share ideas. For example, two of the agencies encourage friendships and frequent contacts among their network members, another one directly adopts a negotiation role when collaboration is needed among “competitors” for a specific project. In general, all four have tried to attract enough opportunities and resources into their networks to be able to provide something to everyone, so that the social entrepreneurs and enterprises they support do not perceive that the success of a peer might mean their own failure.
However, despite the engagement in similar activities, the four organizations did not appear equally effective in leveraging their networks to help social entrepreneurs and enterprises. My data showed that if an organization manages a relatively small network – no more than 100-150 social innovators and partners/supporters – then it is in a good position to effectively employ its contacts to help social entrepreneurs and enterprises. Indeed, a manageable network opens up the possibility to know well enough the resources and contacts available and to propose meaningful connections and strategic advice. Additionally, in small networks it is easier to create a family-feeling and to set clearer expectations about each member’s contribution to the “common cause” — in this case the enhancement and scaling up of social impact — thus also making the maintenance of collaborations and connections easier.
On the contrary, if an organization deals with a larger network, its ability to provide helpful connections and advice is necessarily limited by the impossibility of knowing well each of the individuals and ventures attached to its network. In this case, the added value of the organization is rarely based on its offering of connections but derives instead from other resources. For example, one of the organizations analysed, which manages a large network, was praised by social entrepreneurs and enterprises for its delivery of helpful information on the legal landscape for social entrepreneurship and for signalling the resources available in the sector in terms of funds and expertise at the local level. Alternatively, organizations managing large networks might think about using their contacts to attract funds to redistribute among their affiliates for expenses they have a hard time getting funds for, such as capacity building or experimentation.
Are networks helpful?
Absolutely, but only under certain circumstances which are often determined by the network size and by the organization’s own capacities and resources. Therefore, a networking strategy should be tailored to the type of network an organization is managing. In any case, the analysis of four successful “networkers” in the social entrepreneurship sector suggests that the creation of connections and networking opportunities should be sustained through supporting activities, such as the four described above: the showcasing of a network’s members and projects; the establishment of an environment supporting the creation and maintenance of cross-sector connections; the support of social entrepreneurs and enterprises in negotiating with other players; and the management of internal competition.
None withstanding the importance of networks and the opportunities they provide to support social impact in many different ways, in a space that is almost saturated with networks it might also make sense to map out what is already there and maybe join or support an existing network rather than building a new one. Because several organizations provide similar types of support but not all of them do it effectively, in some instances it might make more sense to pool resources across “networkers” in order to jointly deliver a more powerful and comprehensive support rather than to keep trying to build new networks. If my research confirmed one thing is that there is already a lot of help available in the social entrepreneurship and social impact space but often “networkers” do not have the resource or capacity to be effective in everything they do and social innovators might end up not accessing any type of support because of the excess of supply makes it difficult to understand what network might be the right fit.