Posts

Is the “social” needed before the “enterprise”?

With the new academic year kicking off, the debates and discussions are well underway.   Skoll Scholar Daniela Papi (@danielapapi) takes a moment to reflect on one of the more heated conversations we’re having: why the polarization between “entrepreneurship” and “social entrepreneurship”?

Reposted with permission from Daniela’s blog.

I’m starting my first week of classes at the University of Oxford in their MBA program, and I realize that I am not in the minority for having chosen this program because of its connection to the Skoll Center and its focus on “social entrepreneurship.” Many of the people I have met state that some aspect of “better” business is what brought them here…. well, that and the fact that you get to study in an institution with 800+ years of history and where some of the world’s most brilliant minds have gathered. It’s a fascinating place!

During our first week of orientation we had an optional day and a half session on social innovation that opened with Pamela Hartigan, director of the Skoll Center, speaking about how she thinks the word “social” needs to be removed from “entrepreneurship”. I couldn’t agree more, especially given the reception these concepts have received from some of my MBA classmates.

The polarization of “entrepreneurship” and “social entrepreneurship” implies mutual exclusivity. If you are a “social” entrepreneur, do you somehow get to claim moral superiority over your every day entrepreneur? Many of the most mission driven organizations I have seen have never heard of nor benefited from the term “social enterprise”, so why do we make this distinction? Is this naming trend causing us to forget that ALL business has the responsibility to not only increase profits for shareholders, but also respect and support the world around it?

I view “social” enterprises as businesses working towards social changes as their mission above maximizing income. We don’t call Colgate a social enterprise, but if a group said they were starting a business with the explicit mission of getting toothpaste out to people all over the developing world to reduce tooth decay, we might consider them so. If a group with a stated social mission took on the same business as Colgate, would just the motivating factor be enough to note the difference? Or, would there be no difference at all? And towards that end, should programs like mine be working to remove the polarizing “social” from the entrepreneurship to attract more MBA’s who don’t associate at all with the social side of this curriculum. Perhaps through their drive for successful businesses they will be ones who have the largest ability to make changes in the world?

Relying on free market approaches to global development does leave me with some additional concerns many stemming from a lack of a systematic way to define what “social” impact is.  If we believe that people will vote with their money for the things they believe in, then we might take the mindset that as long as you had a socially driven society, the market would drive social improvements. The dilemma here is that the social/environmental implications of certain purchases are not readily available to influence consumer decision making. More worrying is that much of this complete impact understanding is also not readily understood or sought out by business leaders themselves. If we don’t know our social impact and can’t measure it, how can we improve it?

It turns out the same dilemmas causing failures in the NGO world are at work in business. An inability or lack of effort to measure impact and tie positive impacts to future decision-making, both for donors and consumers, is creating inefficient markets where funding is going to areas which, with full informational clarity would be less desirable options.

How do we mesh all of the good intentions on one side with all of the business drive on another and make all parties realize that we can and are working towards the same goals? I’m so excited to see where this year takes me and all those of us on this course and how this unique MBA program will impact the work we all take on throughout our lives. Let’s hope that in the future the “social” doesn’t need to be listed as a distinction as a better understanding of the complete spectrum of impacts of our work will be available to all business leaders and consumers and we will all prioritize a better world in designing our businesses.

Diving Deep, Crossing Boundaries: A SOCAP WrapUp

This post was written by SBS MBA Nikhil Neelakantan, who has just returned to Oxford after 3 days at SOCAP/Europe.

Courtesy of twentytwentystudios

Last night’s six-member panel brought SOCAP/Europe to an appropriate end.

The panel consisted of social entrepreneurs, volunteers and the founding members of SOCAP/Europe, Kevin Jones and Frank van Beuningen. This was typical of the conference: people from all backgrounds brought together by an interest and passion for impact investing.

This resulted in conversations that frequently needed translation (No, structured banking does not deal with the architecture of banks!) but it also meant that people were exposed to different points of view.

This also meant that there was space for a deep-dive into the details of impact investing as well as an opportunity to learn about innovative organizations using SMS technology in developing countries.

Another feature of the conference were the participant-driven Open Space sessions. I was able to attend two of these sessions, which were “held” in an Unconference format. The first described the work of the World Bank in creating the Development Marketplace. The World Bank Institute created the Development Marketplace over 12 years ago to provide grants to innovative social ventures. Now it is looking to help these social entrepreneurs get commercial investments.

The second Open Space session that I attended was built around the question of providing financing to SME’s trying to build businesses in rural India. We had participants who were eager to start asking questions of those who had already built these links in India. The consensus was that there was lots of opportunity but that one had to proceed by developing partnerships with Indians who were already working in this space (this includes government agencies such as IDBI).

The conference also brought some reflection on the future of SOCAP/Europe. Where is it going next? It seems logical that it will stay physically in Amsterdam (The Dutch have $7bn invested by retail investors in social enterprises through organizations like Triodos Bank and Oikocredit. They are surely the world’s epicenter in social investment).

However will the format remain the same? Will more policy makers and government entities get involved? Despite the lingering questions, we left the conference buoyed by the fact that we were setting the foundation for a larger group of people who were willing to venture forward into the brave new world of impact investing.

SOCAP Report: What Layer Cakes have to do with Social Finance

This post was written from SBS MBA Nikhil Neelakantan, dosage live from SOCAP/Europe in Amsterdam.

What does a recipe for a layered cake have to do with impact investing?

I would have said “nothing”. That is, healing until I attended the session titled “Layer Cake Deals”. This panel featured speakers from organizations like Triodos Bank (old hands at impact investing) and ABN Amro (a relative newcomer to the field).

According to the panel, medical “layer cakes” are created by putting funders with different priorities in the mixing bowl.  That means funders providing grants, subsidies and soft debt can work with risk-taking venture impact investors to create bigger, faster and more scalable solutions to some of the world’s biggest problems.

Triodos Investment Management has developed a fund that adopts this structure to fund agricultural entrepreneurs in the developing world.  Governments and social investors form the first layer of the cake, providing external guarantees against  default. Social investors seeking lower returns form the second layer, providing subordinated debt. Triodos Bank provides the final layer with a commercial credit line (which it is comfortable doing, partly because of its confidence in the other layers).

However there is a darker side to layer cake deals. The senior debtors are those who often receive the lowest returns. This can partly be explained by the fact that donor agencies and other social investors are willing  to fund high-risk ventures in order to bring in more mainstream funding, therefore providing a “multiplier effect”.   Thus, how to balance the different “ingredients” of the layered cake is a discussion certain come up at impact-investing conferences and offices of funders across the world.

SBSers everywhere

SOCAP has made realize once again that Saïd Business School is extremely well represented in the impact investing space.

I have met practitioners, speakers and leaders of social enterprises who are alumni of the Business School. Some of my “networking time” was spent swapping stories with other SBS’ers about everything from rowing to exams (Am I glad that we don’t have to come back for exams in August that cover material taught over one year!)

My classmates – including budding entrepreneurs building social enterprises in Chad and India – are also representing SBS at SOCAP.  I am impressed by the reach of this strong and cohesive group of former and current students – and I am looking forward to being part of this contingent in the years to come.

Debating the future of social finance at the house of lords

This post was written by Elizabeth Ritchey, member of the SBS  2010-2011 MBA class, and co-chair of the Social Finance OBN.

What's the future of social finance in the UK?: MBAs outside the House of Lords

On May 24th the Social Finance OBN (Oxford Business Network) and the Social Entrepreneurship OBNs teamed up for a joint trip down to London to visit the House of Lords.

Tim Jones, the Social Entrepreneurship sector consultant for SBS, hosted a lively panel discussion on the current state of Social Finance and Entrepreneurship.

The panel consisted of

We discussed everything from social impact bonds to how to build a sustainable future to getting back to the fundamentals of ‘social’.  After the panel we were treated to an insider’s tour of the House of Lords by Lord Mawson and Baroness Steadman-Scott.

It was a wonderful afternoon packed with ‘social’ of all forms. Thank you again to Tim Jones for making it possible!

Announcing the 2011-2012 Skollars!

Drumroll, please!

It’s a special day here at the Skoll Centre, as we can finally introduce you to our newest class of Skoll Skollars!

After a rigorous 6 month search, we have selected four fantastic social entrepreneurs who have made significant contributions to the field already – and who will continue to do so long into the future.

The annual Scholarship funds social entrepeneurs to undertake their MBA at Said Business School and welcomes them into a community of innovators spread across the globe (now 39 Skollars strong over 8 classes).

It was a difficult process and we’d like to thank all the amazing candidates we met along the way.  We look forward to having you all with us next year and making social impact happen together.

Congratulations David, Daniela, Sydney and Andy!  We can’t wait for you to join us next year.

(Read their full bios by clicking on their picture)

          

SBS Venture Fund gives flight to big ideas

This post was written by Vannary Sar, of the Skoll Centre.

Last night hundreds of students, alumni and people from the business community gathered at Saїd to watch the Venture Fund Final (or should I say “show-down”) and let me tell you, what a fun night!  The Venture Fund happens once a year and is an opportunity for SBS entrepreneurs to battle it out for a chance to win seed capital for their venture.  To date, the Fund has a portfolio of five promising start-ups, with a total investment of £675,000 – and we were all hoping to see another cheque with many zeros being handed over.

The four ventures competing were Contego, TheySay, Off.Grid.Electric and Green & Grow.  The teams pitched their ideas with passion filling the theatre, and you could feel the drama (at one point a £250,000 cheque was waved in the air!)  All entrepreneurs did extremely well, fielding difficult questions and justifying their projections – but the two ventures that impressed the investors the most were Green & Grow and, Off.Grid.Electric.  Congratulations to both teams, and especially Skoll Skollar, Xavier Helgesen and Skoll Centre Associate, Erica Mackey of Off.Grid.Electric. We are SO proud of you!

The celebrations continued throughout the night with cocktails and live performances from Oxford’s a cappella group ‘Out of the Blue’ and it was great to be part of such a supportive and entrepreneurial atmosphere.  While this event isn’t run by the Skoll Centre (congratulations to our SBS colleagues for their hard work), it is a vivid reminder of the incredible resources and networks out there in the wider Oxford ecosystem for entrepreneurs.  These support systems are so critical to entrepreneurs – especially those with ideas for social impact ventures, where seed funding is even more scarce.

A great night all around, where little (or BIG) ideas can turn into a reality.   Here’s to the winning teams!