Posts

,

Global Goals for an Uncertain World

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

Avery Bang, Oxford MBA at the Saïd Business School, shares her insight from the  Skoll World Forum session “Global Goals for an Uncertain World”.

The buzz of the Skoll World Forum is something any attendee is not soon to forget. I look forward to this week every year with excitement for the flood of new ideas, and dread for the lack of sleep and inevitable FOMO (not familiar with FOMO? You clearly haven’t yet studied at Oxford Saïd).

One of the sessions I most looked forward at this year’s Forum was Global Goals for an Uncertain World, moderated by Susan Myers of the United Nations Foundation. I entered to session with a genuine curiosity of how she would lead a conversation about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through a diverse panel including a Skoll Awardee, a Deputy Minister and an Oxford social entrepreneur. When the session started with a 90 second, dance-move inspiring animated video Turning Plans into Action, my FOMO melted away and I knew I had found my people.

For those who are not familiar, the Sustainable Development Goals (officially known as Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) are a set of 17 targets to fight inequality and tackle climate change launched in 2016. The SDGs were announced as the United Nations wrapped up the 15-year cycle of the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and launched the even more ambitious plan to banish a host of social ills by 2030. For those of you that skipped the video animation above, the MDGs got us half way over the last 15 years; the SDGs will get us the ‘rest of the way’ over the next 15.

I personally love audience participation, and really appreciated that the afternoon discussion weaved in each of the panelist’s favorite goals, invoking an audience-wide inquisition of our own (mine is #9 – comment below with yours!). I walked away with a much greater appreciation for a range of issues – access to justice for building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions (goal #16) in particular jumped out. Vivek Maru of Namati, a 2015 Skoll Awardee, painted a story of a world with access to social justice through ensuring all people ‘know law; use law; and shape law’. The panel conversation also shed light on how close several goals were from being cut, and how the world will truly be a different place in 15 years because they weren’t.

Susan framed the session with three main discussion points; how to sustain momentum for the SDG release, particularly in a time of political turnover; how to empower social entrepreneurs to work on SDGs; and how to empower action across all levels. Throughout the conversation, it became clear that there has been a fundamental shift between the MDGs and SDGs – a shift towards aligning international commitments with those right at home.  Elissa Goldberg, the Assistant Deputy Ministry of Global Affairs for Canada shared her government’s commitment to develop their national plan using the SDGs as a framework, and it occurred as something of an ‘ah-ha’ moment for me – how incredible is it that we are all one, operating under one global framework, all aligned towards one (or 17, in this case) common goal. By aligning our domestic agenda with our investments overseas the global community is speaking loudly that there no longer can be an ‘us’ or ‘them’.

One common goal – one common framework – and one incredibly inspiring conversation. After another, after another, after another. With a new common vocabulary that we all can work towards, and within, I believe the SDGs will continue to ensure that social entrepreneurs, policy makers, private sectors players and everyone in between continue to contribute one common direction.

 Follow Avery: @AveryBang

,

Philanthropy for a Fractured World

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

David Sanders, Oxford MBA at the Saïd Business School, gives his perspective on the Skoll World Forum session, “Philanthropy for a Fractured World”.

On the final morning of the 2017 Skoll World Forum, simultaneous panels were offered on Impact Investing and Philanthropy.  I debated whether to catch up on the latest from the former, with its sex appeal of “profit + purpose”, a proposed new kind of capitalism, or to return to the original solution for affecting positive change: strategic donations.

A simple realisation drew me to Philanthropy for a Fractured World:  the most pressing, extreme problems facing society today do not lend themselves to viable business models, but through giving, these issues can be remedied.

Foundations and family offices are increasingly seeking hybrid organisational models when deploying capital, and I expected the session on philanthropy to at least touch on this growing practice.  Much to my surprise, and relief, on the contrary, the panelists reminded the packed room that philanthropy has a unique, and extremely important role to play in the social impact space.

Panelists at the Skoll World Forum, from philanthropy and government, discuss the role of their organisations in an increasingly polarised society.

Panelists at the Skoll World Forum, from philanthropy and government, discuss the role of their organisations in an increasingly polarised society.

The speakers, who included Lillianne Ploumen from the Government of The Netherlands, Darren Walker from the Ford Foundation, Laleh Ispahani from Open Society Foundations and Pia Infante from the Whitman Institute, discussed their organisations’ respective responses to crises, with significant focus paid to the risks facing women and minorities in the U.S. under a Trump presidency.  Ms. Ploumen’s department has partnered on the #SheDecides campaign, which swiftly raised €183 million to help fill the gap in maternal health provisions following the president’s drastic cuts to Planned Parenthood services.  This initiative, from a foreign government to the U.S., is admirable, but indeed troublesome—it seems the U.S. is entering a period of international reliance for the protection of human rights.

Mr. Walker emphasised the importance of minority representation in leadership positions today, especially where racism and sexism persist, and he also cited specific concerns on the failure of the economy to deliver stable jobs to low-income populations.  These shortcomings, coupled with a shrinking government social mandate, escalates demand for Big Philanthropy.

While the panelists focused more on the role of philanthropy than they did on specific causes, a highlight of the conversation was a recognition that there are causes that span the political spectrum.  Disability issues and criminal justice-reform, to name two, are both values-based issues, and garner support from the right-leaning Koch brothers, and progressive institutions like Open Society Foundations.

The world of giving does grapple with some important questions, however, around its own identity and purpose.  As Mr. Walker acknowledged, philanthropists are incredibly privileged, and it is easy for practitioners to succumb to an ivory tower mentality.  One proposed solution to this, as posed by the distinguished moderator Marc Gunther from Nonprofit Circles, is to democratise the work.  Like shareholders of a public company, who convene regularly to take a voice in key decisions, should not beneficiaries to causes also be gathered to express their views to donors?

In the Trump era, the culture of giving in the U.S. plays an essential role for social progress and human protections.  And it seems, based on the views of those at the Skoll World Forum, philanthropy is stepping into its heightened role with a determined spirit.

Follow David: @DavidSandersUSA

 

,

Has Impact Investing Been Inflated?

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

Rareș Pamfil, Oxford MBA Candidate at the Saïd Business School, shares insight on the Skoll World Forum debate, “Has Impact Investing Been Inflated?”

Participating at this panel were:

  • Julia Sze, Director of Impact Investing at Arabella Advisors
  • Chris West, Partner, Sumerian Partners (formerly Director of Shell Foundation)
  • Mara Bolis – Senior Advisor, Private Sector Department, Oxfam America
  • Cathy Clark – Director of CASE i3, Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University
  • Lisa Kleissner, Co-Founder, Toniic

This was a special session at the Skoll World Forum, because it centered around an Oxford-style debate on the motion “Has impact investing been inflated?” Chris West and Mara Bolis argued for the motion, Cathy Clark and Lisa Kleissner argued against, and Julia Sze moderated.

It should be noted that speakers on both sides of the debate are active in developing the impact investing space, with neither of them opposed to the practice. Nonetheless, today they took a firm position either for or against the motion being debated, for the sake of creating a more thought-provoking debate.

The argument from Chris West and Mara Bolis broadly followed the one made in their recently launched report: “Impact Investing: Who are we Serving” (blog by Mara Bolis). Their key concern with the field as it stands today is that there is a mismatch between the type of capital supplied and the type of capital needed. “Because this sector is trying to behave differently, this money should behave differently”, pleads Mara Bolis. Too frequently, the social entrepreneurs who are knowledgeable about the financing needs of enterprises which serve the poor in developing countries, are left out the conversation when impact funds and other investment vehicles are designed. This has lead to unrealistic expectations about returns, and risks undermining the sector.

What can be done? Chris West argues that more patient capital is required, as well as more realistic expectations about returns. Entrepreneurs also need to ensure that they accept investment only at the right time, from the right people, and under the appropriate terms. Otherwise, enterprises can end up with “schizophrenic boards”, which cannot agree on whether to prioritize financial growth of social impact. Participants from all sides agreed that social investment finance intermediaries have a key role to play in helping entrepreneurs raise the right kind of capital, as do resources developed for entrepreneurs seeking investment, such as the CASE Smart Impact Capital toolkit.

Nigel Kershaw, OBE Chair of The Big Issue Group, addresses the panel of speakers.

On the other side of the debate, Cathy Clark and Lisa Kleissner spoke about the progress that has been made in developing this field, emphasising that there is genuine commitment to social impact among many of the funders have in the field. For instance, in the Toniic 100% impact network, over 130 individuals have pledged to use 100% of their assets for positive social and environmental impact, amounting to a total of over $4.5 billion in assets. Lisa Kleissner, who is a member of the network, shared her personal perspective: “The money that we [received] was more than we had hoped for, so we were willing to take a risk.” Her approach has been to work closely with entrepreneurs, understand their business model, and provide a combination of grants, loans, and other investments as needed.

The T100 project will provide other personal journeys and insight from 50 Toniic 100% impact members. The early findings are that 83% met or outperformed financial return expectations (in a sample of 40 portfolios), and 87% of all respondents met or exceeded their impact return expectations. However, what constitutes an annualised market rate of return varies considerably among respondents, leading 53% of respondents to state that the discussion around financial returns needs to be re-framed.

What can we conclude from this this debate? By one metric, the side against the motion won. The small group of 7 audience members who felt that impact investing had not been inflated grew to over 15 after the speakers finished their remarks. But they remained a minority in the room. Nonetheless, many audience members commented that “Has [the promise of] impact investing been inflated?” was the wrong question to ask. Inflated according to whom? And is it not too early to tell? What is clear is that the field has developed substantially in the last 15 years. Regardless of whether early results meet or defy expectations, the recently created sector infrastructure (funds, advisors, measurement experts, and other intermediaries) will enable growth, better capital placement, and better impact outcomes in the coming years.

 

, , ,

Carbon Imperialism or Energy Leapfrogging

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

Seth Collins, Oxford MBA Candidate 2016-17 at the Saïd Business School gives his perspective on the  Skoll World Forum session “Carbon Imperialism or Energy Leapfrogging”.

How to balance the ethics and the economics of energy development?

The opportunity is clear for developing countries to forge their own energy infrastructure path, and the question, then, is whether or not they will be empowered to do so with the support of international capital markets.

You see, the banks were not at COP21. In the plenary, we spoke of capitalism’s amorality, and the need to build the playing field to guide the system; currently, argued the panelists “imperialism” hides behind the notion of risk. The risk of funding a energy infrastructure project in a developing country—something everyone agreed was an easy cash flow win if done right—is the risk of a pension fund trusting an institution in a developing country. The fear is that the opportunity is not being realised from the perception, but not the existence, of risk, leading to the paralysis of passive money instead of productive capital.

Of the $300 billion spent last year on clean technology infrastructure, only $22 billion went to developing countries.  If we really want to meet the energy needs of developing countries and mitigate climate change with an aim to stay below 2 degrees, that $22 billion need to ratchet up to $500 billion, a multiple of 25x.

This requires transformational solutions. At Skoll, we heard World Bank President Jim Kim refer to the Development Finance Institution industry as a “cottage industry” as he explained how the Bank is working to change its internal incentive structure. He spoke of how to leverage money through the Bank at a 5x rate. While a useful vehicle to enable progress, that 5x multiple comes with the bureaucracy that prevents Kim, a trained doctor, from talking about coal, even though overwhelming evidence now shows that coal should not have a future in the 21st century—in climate, we have already built enough coal power plants that, if they run for their lifetime, will alone put us beyond the ambition of 1.5 degrees; in health, we know that the local costs to health alone from the pollution of a coal power plant are triple its economic benefits over 10 years; economically, renewables are now cost competitive in technology-agnostic auctions across the world and will continue to push coal into the uneconomic realms of generation merit order; and, as we see increased variability in heat waves and droughts, coal power plants will shut down under heat duress and compete with local communities for water access. 5x with bureaucracy is not the 25x we need.

We heard Citi’s Global Head of Environmental Finance and Sustainability outline how the underlying purpose of the two dominant incentives for clean energy infrastructure developed in the US (PURPA) and Germany (FiTs) was to provide a proxy long-term off-taker guarantee, and that to see the take off of energy infrastructure supported by capital markets will require a similar mechanism moving forward. This is the inspired market thinking we need to compliment the socio-political pressure promoting 21st century energy infrastructure jobs.

While calling the banks a cadre of imperialists uninspired to invest in productive change may ring normatively true, it is up to leaders to build the rules, frameworks, and enabling environments through which to pull the uninspired from the passive cubicles of the Street or the City to build the inspiration of billions to have the capabilities to build lives powered by cheap, distributed, and clean electricity.

, ,

Business as a Catalyst for Poverty Alleviation

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

Allegra Day, Oxford MBA at the Saïd Business School gives her perspective on the  Skoll World Forum session “Business as a Catalyst for Poverty Alleviation”.

In the Opening Plenary of this year’s Forum, Winnie Byanyima of Oxfam International revealed the fault lines in the capitalist model that have enabled 8 men to own as much wealth as half of humanity. Winnie was unequivocal that the system is rigged against the majority and a new economic model is needed that is fairer and more sustainable for all. This echoes a theme that has reverberated across the Forum: business is central to poverty alleviation, but the current legal structure and incentives underpinning big business need to change.

Throughout the week, we have heard from organisations championing this change through investments in staff, suppliers and innovation. Hamdi Ulukaya, CEO of Chobani, spoke of providing a living wage for his employees, one fifth of whom are refugees. During the Business as a Catalyst for Poverty Alleviation Panel, Charlotte Oades of Coca-Cola outlined the company’s aim of supporting 5 million women entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and eventually enter the supply chain of Coca-Cola and other companies through the 5by20 initiative. Fellow Panellist Cherie Blair CBE, QC spoke of her Foundation’s work with financial institutions in markets where women are viewed as “risky” customers training local staff to understand that women are generally good borrowers and should be considered for loans.

But is all this enough? Those spearheading the B Corp movement would probably say no. Panellist and Co-Founder of B Lab Company Bart Houlahan reminded us that in many places, directors are liable under company law for not returning maximum profit. The B Corp model offers a solution: a new legal structure enabling directors to incorporate community engagement, worker involvement and environmental footprint objectives alongside profit maximisation. We now need greater adoption of the B Corp model and adaption of the model to suit multi-national corporations. Alongside this, Ms Blair and Mr Houlahan called for greater education of bankers, investors and lawyers to understand the changing role of business.

Beyond legal reform, the Panellists described two key ways in which businesses can play their role in tackling poverty. The first is more support for women-led businesses in addition to women-owned businesses, given the challenges associated with ownership of assets for many women. Panellist C D Glin of the US African Development Foundation described this as a critical tool for economic growth that dovetails with the safety and security aims of the US Government. The second is support with scaling up enterprises. Ms Oades spoke of the role Coca-Cola can play in scaling enterprises through identifying and sharing learnings across its network that can be adapted to a local context.

During the Forum’s Skoll Awards Night, Bono said that capitalism is “not immoral but amoral: we have to tell it what to do.” Conversations at the Forum have made clear that we as leaders, consumers and human beings must challenge businesses to modernise and innovate in line with moral and ethical standards to create more common ground for us all to share.

Follow Allegra: @legshd

, , , ,

Building Bridges: Partnerships in Responsible Supply Chains

Forging Common Ground – Series of Oxford Student Insights to the Skoll World Forum 2017.

Macarena Hernandez, Skoll Scholar and Oxford MBA Candidate 2016-17 at the Saïd Business School, gives her perspective on the Skoll World Forum session “Building Bridges: Partnerships in Responsible Supply Chains”.

The task to build bridges to trigger the development of responsible supply chains is not only a task for “bridges builders”, it is a common task. We need to forge common bridges together.

The session kicked off with a “pop-quiz” leading by the session’s moderator, Daniel Viederman, Managing Director at Humanity United. “How many cocoa farmers are around the world?” After guesses and approximations, the right answer was 5 million.

Could you imagine the investment that is needed to audit all of these cocoa farmers have the responsible practices? How many more products a single food industry company have? As Viederman mention, we are not talking about a lineal supply chain, we are talking about a supply web.

The complexity of this supply web has meant that no one takes the responsibility to ensure fair labour conditions within the web. The private sector thought that labour issues needed to be solved by the public sector. Governments have been establishing regulations that encourage big industry players to start solving these issues.

Despite this complexity, companies such as Target and Mars Inc. are taking responsibility and action. In 2015, Target started a partnership with GoodWeave in support of their mission to end child labour in the rug industry. Mars Inc. is partnering with Verité to design simple solution for their suppliers to meet their responsible sourcing standards.

Building Bridges - Partnerships in Responsible Supply Chains panel

Building Bridges – Partnerships in Responsible Supply Chains panel

These leading efforts are transforming the unfair labour practices across industries. However, these partnerships and projects are not easily scalable for the various products across different industries. As Marika McCauley Sine, Mars’ Human Rights Director, said, ‘the situation is complex; we need to make it easy. We need to be specific and clear. Make it as simple as possible.’

For me, this simple and scalable solution is called: trust. If enterprises trust in other stakeholders, especially suppliers and suppliers of suppliers, there would be no need for huge investments to develop detailed audits or localised projects throughout the supply chain.

Although, building trust is not easy. How can we trust in others? Transparency, openness, collaboration, accountability, and information flow is needed. Who is creating trust through stakeholders? Talking and listening during the forum, two potential solutions came into my mind. After the panel, I had the opportunity to talk with Charmian Love, Co-Chair and Co-founder of B Lab UK. I realised that the B-Corporation Certification is identifying responsible players around the world. Listening to the session “Data-Driven Models for Change”, I discovered that Provenance is developing digital tools to trace products’ journeys.

Both trust’s mechanisms, mentioned above, include characteristics such as collaboration, data sharing, and transparency. This openness creates and distributes value along all stakeholders. Which make me reflect: Are the main industry players and competitors ready to collaborate between them? Are the innovators ready to share best practices? Are businesses ready to share value, despite the fact that these actions will reduce barriers to entry, increase the number of competitors, and increase consumer power?

I hope they are! In the long term, collaboration will be the key for value creation. My favourite value at Prospera, the Mexican social enterprise where I was working before coming to Oxford, states: “El que comparte, prospera. Siempre.” Translated to English: “The one who shares, thrives. Always.”

Follow Macarena: @macarenahdeo