social enterprise | ChangingMedia

Oct 22

0

Powered by Poverty

By Robyn Stegman | Social Enterprise, The Thagomizer | No Comments

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” – Walt Whitman

Last week and throughout my Thagomizer posts, I often give glowing reviews to social enterprises. However this week I’d like to look at the failures of many of the businesses I’ve praised. While social enterprise has provided a new way of funding social change, it has not been as effective at producing impact. Sure most social enterprises have positive outputs: shoes provided to the poor, increased availability of affordable health services, microloans for businesses. However while models like Toms Shoes provide a way forward for funding, it also represents a step back in the way we address poverty.

I was reminded of this when watching The #GlobalPOV Project video on “Can We Shop to End Poverty?” As U.C. Berkeley professor Ananya Roy eloquently explains, while our purchases for good make us feel better, they aren’t actually ending poverty; they are perpetuating it.

The point Roy makes is that while opportunities to help people in poverty are increasingly visible while we shop, the root causes of poverty and inequality are hidden. The workers who make the goods we shop, the people helping us at checkout, the farmers who grow the food, are all hidden from us. Toms Shoes is a great example of this. While pictures of their “shoe drops” and founder Blake Mycoskie giving shoes to poor children litter their website, there are no pictures of anyone who actually makes the shoes. On the website you can find pictures of the office staff, of the communities they give shoes out to, but not the people who assemble and create the raw materials for the shoes. Yet it’s in the making of shoes, not in giving of shoes where Toms could have the most impact on people in poverty.

Most of Toms Shoes are not made in the communities they serve. Toms does make sure they have ethical business practices throughout its supply chain by requiring suppliers to sign a Code of Conduct ensuring fair wages and benefits, standards of health and safety, and no child labor. But giving out shoes made outside of the community has the potential to undercut domestic entrepreneurs. If they focused on not just giving people in poverty shoes, but giving them the opportunity for a steady paycheck they could do a lot more good. This is an opportunity Toms is now seeing. Mycoskie has even announced that by the end of 2015 they will produce one third of their shoes in the places they serve.

The hazards of giving have been well documented in the world of international aid. The influx of donated rice into Haiti to aid those affected by earthquake hurt domestic farmers who relied on people buying their rice. Toms Shoes might have been innovative in figuring out how to pay for social good but their model of creating social good is outdated. What we need is more support for long-term, systematic solutions but instead most social enterprises focus on immediate results that look good on an infograph.

The narrative social enterprises provide to the consumer is a compelling one, placing you as the hero in someone’s life. However while your purchase may help that person, there is also an unseen narrative. Our wealth is created on the backs of many in this country and throughout the globe. Our purchases perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Until we examine the systematic inequalities, until we zoom out from giving shoes and focus on why people don’t have shoes, social enterprise won’t change the world. We need more social enterprises not just using business for charity but advocating for changes in the way we do business to create a more equitable system. Ananya Roy quotes a U.N. official in her video: “policy not charity is what rich countries can do for poor counties.” I would say the same of social enterprises. It might not make for the best photos but advocacy could change far more lives than a pair of shoes.

Oct 07

0

Sufferfest for Social Good

By Robyn Stegman | Social Enterprise, The Thagomizer | 4 Comments

When Andrew Yang noticed a young employee demoralized by undercompensation and having to scrounge for enough money to pay to attend friend’s weddings, he didn’t rush to the rescue. “In my old company, I would have pushed his pay to market, as he was doing very good work,” he wrote in his post on non-profit martyrdom, “But in the non-profit, I hesitated, thinking that maybe his suffering was necessary, despite my knowing that he was being paid far less than would have been the case in another setting.” This idea that “suffering is necessary” for social good has been part of the non-profit narrative for a long time. We honor people who sacrifice donations and time and expect our supporters to give something up for social good.

The growth in social entrepreneurship is changing this paradigm by giving new options to make an impact without having to be a overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated non-profit employee. This week I ran across a fantastic piece by Leanne Pittsford, founder and CEO of Start Somewhere and manager of the popular Tumblr “When You Work at a Nonprofit.” She used Google Trends to take a look at changes in search terms people were using to find employment. She found people searching for “nonprofit jobs” (blue line) and “non-profit jobs” (red line) have gone down dramatically in the past decade.

However when she looked at the people searching for jobs at “jobs social enterprise” (blue line) and “social enterprise jobs” (red line) both had increased.

So why is that less people are looking for nonprofit jobs even though there is an increase in people looking for social good jobs? Pittsford believes it is a sign of the sinking reputation of the non-profit industry which has a history of employee mistreatment in the name of a good cause. “Nonprofit is losing bright, motivated, socially-minded people, who now have another option for a career with meaning.” she writes in her blog, “And this option has afforded these bright, socially-minded people the things we have not: innovation, use of technology, well-paying salaries, and growth opportunities.” The story I believe these graphs tell is the promise of a new age of social enterprise and a redefinition of social good, one that hacks some of our more selfish natures to do social good rather then rely on “true altruism.” Sacrifice is no longer the only road necessary to make an impact.

It reminds me of a quote that struck me a few months ago. “The world could eliminate extreme poverty for about $45 billion a year,or roughly the amount spent on movie tickets annually worldwide,” a Harvard economist estimated. I don’t think the nonprofit sector can access that kind of money through altruism alone. Think how much money is spent every year publicizing a movie, engaging us, and drawing us in. Yet most people wouldn’t know where to begin to give $8 to help solve poverty. What if doing good were as easy and fun as going to the movies? What if we put the fun back in fundraising?

Those of us in the social change world have always been afraid to admit there is a selfish bone in our body. The public wants social good to happen with pure intentions, devoid of the dark stains of capitalism and self-interest. I was having a discussion with a friend about TOMS shoes and she brought up the point that “it would be much more effective if people just gave their money to a non-profit who could buy several pairs of shoes, instead of buying a pair of shoes for yourself where only one goes to someone in need.” That’s true if we lived in a world where we had plenty of money to give and no need for shoes ourselves. “How much money have you donated to a charity that provides shoes to those in need this year?” I asked her, “is it more than what you’ve spent on shoes?” My guess is many of us would answer no to this question. It’s not a bad thing; it’s reality, and new social enterprises allow us to benefit ourselves while benefiting other people as well.

While Pittsford’s graphs focus on how people are seeking on jobs in social good, my guess is that we are also seeing changes in how people are seeking out social good organizations to support with volunteer hours and donations. The social rewards of giving back are worthwhile but your needs should also be respected. As Scott Burkholder wrote in an earlier ChangeEngine blog post on the Tyranny of Low Overhead, “I think society wrongfully assumes that because creating art and social change makes people feel good, that should be sufficient compensation. It is not. If it is valuable to society, society should at least sustain and maybe even reward the change that is created.” We are beginning to see a new breed of organizations that don’t require us to suffer for our cause and in the end that’s a more sustainable and effective practice. No one can live forever on good will alone.

Jul 16

0

Biting Galileo’s Style

By Hasdai Westbrook | ChangeEngine, Silo-Breakers | No Comments

Yes, we admit it: we’re shamelessly ripping off Galileo’s style for our own purposes. But in this case we come by it honestly. Our impromptu Silo-Breakers series prompted a tremendously thought-provoking contribution from our friend, Rodney Foxworth, on the power of racial divisions in Baltimore. So provocative in fact that it sparked its own spirited back-and-forth via email, even as we were discussing the mundane details of when to schedule publication.

The exchange put us in mind of Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” where he framed his argument for the Copernican model of the universe, in which the earth revolves around the sun, in the form of a classic Platonic dialogue. Perhaps the reference is obscure, but then again maybe not. Perhaps there’s as much progress to be made scouring our souls as gazing at the stars. So here, in somewhat briefer form, we present our dialogue on the cosmology of our personal universes and on the forces that keep us apart…

(TAKE THE BREAKOUT CHALLENGE! What’s YOUR silo? And how do you break out of it? Let us know @ChangEngine #breakoutchallenge, facebook.com/ChangingMedia, or email hasdai@changingmediagroup.com.)

Jun 26

0

Silo Breakers – Rodney Foxworth

By Rodney Foxworth | ChangeEngine, Silo-Breakers | One Comment

Editor’s …

In the latest installment of ChangeEngine’s series of profiles in silo-breaking, social entrepreneur and reluctant trans-cultural ambassador Rodney Foxworth issues a powerful challenge to confront our deepest assumptions and understand the depths of what divides us…

I live an intensely bifurcated life, which has begrudgingly placed me in the role of cultural translator and community bridge-builder. And the bifurcation of my life has never been more pronounced than it has been over the past year.

For the past year, I’ve worked to help build a community of social entrepreneurs in the field of Black Male Achievement through BMe, a project of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Open Society Foundation; concurrently, I’ve helped organize and connect a growing network of (mostly white) self-identified social entrepreneurs and changemakers, with very little overlap between the two communities, a sad reality that haunts me day and night. While there are traumatic structural and historical forces that have produced a city as doggedly segregated as Baltimore (and the world of social change has not been exempted), I’ve largely failed in my responsibilities as an organizer and advocate for Baltimore City.

When we began the breakfast series last fall, I had every intention of creating a platform that represented the diversity that the city offers. And in some ways we’ve succeeded. But in the area that matters most to me, we’ve failed terribly. Prior to launching the breakfast, I had observed how community events and initiatives aimed at advancing and uniting the city were organized by committees suited for Portland or Seattle, but not Baltimore. I was either too arrogant or too optimistic to think I could change this dynamic on my own. Let me be clear in my working theory: you cannot advance or unify a city or community without significant leadership, involvement and validation from the people most affected.

I’ve discovered more and more that the racial and socioeconomic fault lines in this city run deeper than even my cynical mind could ever imagine, and in the process, I’ve become complicit in reinforcing the very dynamic I sought to change. While I hold myself accountable, I need everyone to take ownership of it as well–as one of the few black figures in the room, I cannot orchestrate meaningful connections between two worlds on my own, nor should I.

It is impossible to make positive change in this city when you are far removed from the needs, challenges, passions, and desires of most of the people living within it. Without that connection to community, you are simply left with a suboptimal perspective of what a better Baltimore can look like for large swaths of its residents. Or, as my friend Lionel Foster might say, what looks to be a renaissance to some, might feel like a takeover to others.

In contrast, the men (read here and here for examples) who best exemplify the ideals of BMe have deep relationships with the communities they serve. Much of the impetus behind BMe was to celebrate and recognize black men serving their communities who might otherwise go unrecognized. They know their communities intimately and recognize that the solution to any problem rests with the people they serve.

The silos and racial and socioeconomic fault lines run so deep, in fact, that what defines a “better Baltimore” might look markedly different between the two communities. For example, it might include for a black empowerment agenda as advocated by my friends and BMe leadership awardees Adam Jackson and Dayvon Love. To simply integrate the two communities is naive — we must first wrestle with our conflicting visions for a better Baltimore, confront our skepticisms and concerns head on and interrogate our individual motivations.

I’m not suggesting that every white do-gooder become a radical black nationalist, but I expect that every white do-gooder examine why it is a valid and valuable position, and grapple with the historical, political and social realities that would foment a black empowerment perspective. You must put yourself in uncomfortable situations and have a willingness to have your worldview challenged without retracting. You must be willing to learn. And you must take ownership of your learning.

It requires a muscular empathy that is presently lacking. Without it, we will continue to perpetuate long-standing divisions and power structures along racial and socioeconomic lines that will retard progress for the majority of Baltimore’s residents.

Rodney Foxworth is an independent writer, entrepreneur and consultant. He is also co-founder of SocEnt Breakfast, a forum and platform for idea sharing, resource exchange and connecting among Baltimore’s social entrepreneurs, nonprofit and civic leaders, community advocates, grant-makers, and social investors.

TAKE THE BREAKOUT CHALLENGE! What’s YOUR silo? And how do you break out of it? Let us know @ChangEngine #breakoutchallenge, facebook.com/ChangingMedia, or email hasdai@changingmediagroup.com.

IMAGE CREDIT. www.chrissauter.com.

May 06

0

The Business End of Social Change

By Robyn Stegman | Social Enterprise, The Thagomizer | One Comment

Perhaps by now you have noticed the spiffy new banner to accompany my post (thanks to blog-master-extraordinaire Hasdai Westbrook). Yet perhaps now you are wondering, “What exactly is a thagomizer and what does it have to do with your blog?”

As a dino-phile it is only fitting that I find inspiration for the title of my blog from my favorite “terrible lizard,” the Stegosaurus. The spiky end of a Stegosaurus tail is called a “thagomizer” and it is the business end of Stegosaurus: it is what packs the punch, delivers the painful blow, and shows predators who’s boss. Similarly how we create, define, and share wealth is, in this blogger’s opinion, the business end of social change. It pays our salary, funds our programs, and defines success. The economy is both a constructive and destructive driver and plays a central role in everyone’s life and pursuit of happiness. If we are looking to radically change our world to maximize the happiness and wellness of everyone then I think we need to start with what we value.

The traditional nonprofit model separates the way we raise money from the way we use it for social good. Donors make money doing everything from finding oil to running big box stores and then give it to nonprofits who use it for various projects for social change. The donor side then is free to consider the best ways to make money without regard to social impact and the nonprofit can focus on doing good with no consideration of economic impact. In this way we separate organizations and actions that create money from those that create social good.

I believe this results in many of the problems Scott Burkholder has commented on in his series on Dan Pollata’s Ted Talk on the way we think about charity. He points out five challenges social change makers face:

Below average compensation
Small or no budget for advertising and marketing
No tolerance for taking of risk in pursuit of new ideas for generating revenue
Expectation to make change in short time frames
No profit to attract risk capital

When we create a split between organizational and personal contributions to the economy and contributions to social good we do not expect the way we make money will make us happier or more well and we are mistrustful of any model of social good that also seeks to make money. It is for that reason we create different standards for nonprofits than businesses. Nonprofits must use the bare minimum amount of money in order to run their program (i.e. no overhead), give no economic incentive to their employees (i.e. minimum compensation), and must always be able to produce results from economic inputs (i.e. no risk, no innovation, just results) because it is the only way they can prove their value.

Nonprofits are marginalized as takers rather than contributors to our society since money is the thing most valued and nonprofits by definition take money without offering any economic return. This makes them subject to their donors who do have money, and thus power to dictate how a nonprofit operates. Innovation in social change in this system then requires nonprofits to find donors to take a risk. Without willing funders a nonprofit cannot succeed.

Take for example Artprize, an innovative art initiative in Grand Rapids featured on the ChangeEngine blog this week. Founder Rick DeVos is grandson of the co-founder of Amway, Richard DeVos and much of the funding for Artprize comes from various DeVos or Van Andel (the other Amway co-founder) family foundations. While the method of giving out Artprize is democratic, participatory, and a brilliant model, the funding model hasn’t shifted much since ancient systems of patronage. To create change we often have to rely on finding the Rick Devoses of the world, the people with the access to money but the vision to invest in something new.

What first interested me in the economy, social enterprise, and alternative ways of exchanging was this conundrum. How do we merge the economic creation with the creation of social good? How do we take the ability to influence and control social change out of the hands of a few wealthy individuals and businesses? The Thagomizer is a way to explore those questions and consider how to:

Change what we value and find ways to measure and compensate those who make our lives, society and world better
Blur the line between business and nonprofit by creating businesses that measure social impact and nonprofits that are funded through their own economic activities
Give everyone the economic opportunity to have the ability to improve their lives and give to others

By tearing down the walls between making money and doing good, we can begin to start a conversation about how we can do both at the same time.