Douglas Holt’s value proposition today was that marketing (specifically branding) can make a difference. In an age where many of us are time-poor, branding affords us a heuristic to make good decisions quickly. From Patagonia, to Fat Tire beers, to Snapple drinks, the evidence presented was clear that accurate and painstaking build up of a brand creates response from consumers and often loyalty and ownership to the brand (if you believe in the product of course).

Rather than debate, delve deep and distil the one-liners (which are better regarded as positioning statements), we should see brand as the culture of the product, what it represents. Perhaps unobvious, but consumers are generally non-objective about their consumption but rely on how they sense the product and brand culture often frames these perceptions.

Further, brand culture is theorised to be particularly powerful when they represent some brewing counter culture as it promises exclusivity and perhaps, for the bourgeois bohemian, exclusion. Drawing a parallel, I view social entrepreneurship as as-yet mainstream (even President Jimmy Carter and Lord Anthony Giddens was checking up on it) and therefore presents an advantageous position for social entrepreneurs pursuing their cause.

Brand culture is built on stories, events, news, anecdotes, in essence, any form of medium which reinforces the reason for its acceptance. For social entrepreneurs, I liken it to a constant and keen sense of communication by the social establishments themselves, by the popular culture, by influencers (Social Edge and Participant Media) and by customers (in this case, beneficiaries like Fiona Muchembere who has moved me particularly). Brand stories girdle the brand.

In my view, brand building for social entrepreneurs is important but not just for those who want to reduce carbon emissions, end poverty or empower women but, instead, should be focused on the entire movement of making the world a better place. The more stories there are that contribute to the culture of making the world a better place, the better.

There is one disagreement though, the brand culture of making the world a better place should not and must not remain a counter culture for the sake of, as it were, brand-building efficacy. It must flourish and become mainstream so that it becomes an integral way of life, weaved into the very fabric of our societies. Indeed, every individual should develop the loyalty and ownership to the brand of turning the world around for the better.

My parting shot is encouragement to all bloggers on Social Edge, keep it coming! Brand stories girdle the brand.

Unfortunately, Fiel dos Santos from Mozambique wasn’t able to participate at yesterday’s session since he wasn’t able to get a visa in time. I wonder why the authorities weren’t able to provide a speaker at the Skoll World Forum with a visa. We’ll probably nether know.

Anyways, Jude Kelly started the session with stating how important it was “to detect how your personal story relates to what you’re doing” in your professional life. And that ran through the whole session.

So, we got to hear really fascinating stories. Jude Kelly – who had a difficult childhood and described herself as a criminal – is now artistic director of the South Bank Centre in London, probably the largest cultural centre of its kind. For her, story-telling is about being able to express yourself. And that has also influenced her work with the project Metal which is about providing artists with greater freedom of creative expression.

Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa told the story of how he – as a psychologist – started the comic series “The 99” where the 99 characters are from 99 different countries, which is based on the Islamic culture and history and which is based on a concept known to Muslims all over the world. He presented a powerful video which can be seen here.

He was followed by Dr. Thomas Clark who stressed again how inspirational it is to hear everyone’s stories. In his eyes, role models become what they are by telling their stories. And another powerful video about Grassroot Soccer! For him, soccer is one of many “useful mechanisms of getting the message out”.

Oxford alumnus Peter Bisanz presented his work and his belief in the good in the world. I think his work can be best presented by yet another video.

The session was really inspiring because everyone on the panel is working in her or his way to promote cross-cultural understanding and to make this world a better place. Asked whether it was not strange that if their work was successful they would make themselves needless I think Peter Bisanz’ answer is representative for everyone trying to make this world a better place: “The irony that if our work was successful that then we would be out of work? I would be happy to move on to something else.”

Observing this session brought back memories of standing before a VC panel earlier this month and pitching our entrepreneurship business projects  – today’s panel of reviewers was equally impressive but also more oriented towards providing support than picking an idea to shreds.  I want to highlight two particularly interesting projects that came up and the comments offered to them as they move forward.

The first project was a Philippine art-related NGO that sells local artwork and incorporates the artwork into its publication of children’s books. They want to introduce their books into the global market while still maintaining their core mission of leveraging the arts to promote social justice. This struck me as a perfect business consulting project as the organization is really confronting standard questions of distribution, global expansion and brand equity. The quality of existing books is really quite impressive, so the foundation is strong to take a valuable product to a global market. Two themes the panel recommended the organization to consider, which would help any organization considering global expansion are:

1. identifying global thematic topics that will translate readily to an international market, and
2. establishing licensing partnerships with museums around the world as another distribution outlet for the artwork and book sales.

The other project that really blew me away with its creativity was a person who is introducing superhero comic books in Kuwait. The idea is to create a figure similar to Spiderman that would fit more readily into an Islamic context and be utilized to promote pluralism and multi-cultural acceptance.  The challenge, however, is to separate the success of the business with the fear of some investors/distributors of playing in an Islamic cultural space. The panel recommended that the entrepreneur identify a Stephen Spielberg-type of “godfather” who can promote their concept to the larger media companies while protecting the content that’s so important to the project’s mission. That will take a lot of time and energy to cultivate individual relationships but in the long-term may help protect the project’s value..

 

The challenges facing social entrepreneurs are enormous. Literally billions of people live in poverty around the world. Climate change engulfs the entire planet, but disproportionately poor people living in Southern countries. Thinking of the sheer magnitude of the many social problems we face cannot help but evoke a feeling of pessimism.

The Friday morning panel on replication and scale tackled these issues, sharing insights on how to achieve scale with your social initiative to meet these enormous problems head to head. Dorothy Stoneman, Founder and President of YouthBuild USA kicked things off and took us through 15 simultaneous steps towards going to scale with public funds. Her biggest piece of advice: you must be able to handle what you create. And you need the resources and capabilities to match your vision.

Martin Burt, Founder of Fundacion Paraguaya and Teach a Man to Fish went next. “If you come from a developing country,” he started, “you have a mentality that you cannot work internationally.” However, organizations in the North are expected almost by right to work all over the world. After a good push from the Skoll Foundation, Martin was able to think bigger and take his model to other developing countries. He felt that he had a distinct advantage in that he could empathise with what it's like to live in poverty, and could see through excuses

Chuck Slaughter, Founder and President of Living Goods, was the final speaker. He outlined the benefits of the franchising model and stressed the tools that can be brought from the private sector to the development sector. "Make no mistake: sustainability and scale go together," was his bold proclamation.

The problem I’ve seen with initiatives on the ground is that scale often comes at the expense of quality. The biggest organizations are often doing the worst work. We need to clearly separate scaling up an organisation with scaling up the social impact of an organisation. In business speak, this is analagous to adding value as opposed to capturing market share; the companies with the highest profit margins are not necessarily the biggest. Even a small organisation often has many untouched areas where they can leverage the impact of their work without seeking additional funding.

Paul Farmer highlighted this point his keynote address at the closing session. He criticised social entrepreneurs with being "obsessed with scale" to the point where we "fetishise" it. His point was not to avoid the question of going to scale, but rather to consider it critically.

The topics were broad and the panel diverse.  Delegates presented on the issues of waste management, sustainable agriculture, reusable energy, transit repair services in developing countries, and sustainable forestry investment.  They came ready with their stories, ideas, and ready to share their successes and challenges.  As an individual in the process of creating a business plan to address a pressing social issue, this session offered key insights.

Throughout the session, three key recommendations emerged.

1. Know your model and the numbers that go with it
2. Prioritize and focus you challenges
3. Don’t limit yourself!

No matter the topic or the delegate, the advice came back in their three areas. 

Know your model and the numbers that go with it

It was clear which delegates had a good understanding of their own model, while others were struggling to truly identify what their business actually was.  Panelist Brizio Biondi Mora reflected that of all social entrepreneurs, 1% make the rules, 4% play their game according to the rules and the other 95% don’t even know what their game is.  He stressed the criticalness of knowing your business, you model, and having a deep understanding of what you do better than anyone else.  With this, you should also know where you are most vulnerable, where you will most likely take a hit.  A delegate working on renewable energy clearly had thought about this and was able to speak to her team’s scenario analysis, giving credibility to her work and a platform for more substantial recommendations.

Prioritize and focus your challenges

Some delegates were lacking clarity on their challenges and why they were seeking insights.  The panel stressed the need to talk concisely and concretely about your problems and what you have done to address them.  If you do not, they had no problem pushing you to ensure you will in the future.  You should have done your research about other like organizations to really understand your challenge and potential ways to avoid the obstacles.  Last, delegates who had asked themselves WHAT ELSE stood out.  Those that thought out of the box on their challenges and came with potential ideas got the panelists attention and most constructive feedback.  They pushed the delegates to think about diversification of products to allow for diversification of return and investment.  Blending things left and right, they were looking for ingenuity and brought a fair share of their own as well!

Don’t Limit Yourself

Many of the delegates were missing the BIG players, partnerships, and ideas.  The panelists were happy to provide them, forcing delegates to think about who are the big players that would want to partner, who are other people in the industry that could be collaborators, and how to use the increasingly blurred line between for profit and non-profit to their advantage. 

 

 

 

Led by a team from the innovative design firm IDEO, this was an interactive workshop with the participants doing much of the work.  IDEO CEO Tim Brown gave a brief overview of Design Thinking and the goals behind it.  Design Thinking is a human centered approach to problem solving. The goals include creating impact via innovation, creating sustainability and having a social impact in the developing world. 
Design Thinking:
    - is inherently optimistic
    - requires one to try things (prototype)
    - relies on story-telling to discover opportunities
    - is an evolving process

The challenge - build empathy and identify opportunities inspired by the cultural context.

The participants were divided into teams and challenged to discover and recommend new initiatives in health and wellness for the Skoll Foundation.  Each team member assumed the role of either: child advocate, women's advocate, an ayurvedic doctor, a medical doctor or a microfinance loan officer.    We watched a short video of interviews in an Indian village, viewing from the perspective of the role we were assuming.  IDEO researcher Jane Fulton Suri encouraged us to look for unintended uses, ways that people work around situations, surprises, and body language.

After the short briefing and film, the rest was up to us.  First we each shared our observations from the perspective of our role. I played the child advocate.  There was a lot of overlap in observations, but surprising differences as well. Next we were asked to identify three top themes, then narrow it down to one area to brainstorm solutions.  That was challenging and we ended up selecting our primary them at random.  We focussed on money/financing and the role that plays in village healthcare.  We brainstormed a large list of solutions - some practical, some crazy.  At the end each team reported out on their most impactful idea, wildest idea, and the idea that you wanted to learn more about.  The report out was great with solutions as crazy as doing a Bollywood style health education movie to giving cash bonus to doctors for caring for girl children.

The exercise was frenetic and fast paced, and I know we all wanted more time.  We ended with a discuss of how this tool can be used by social entrepreneurs.  

Highlights:
    -the empathy based approach inspires a larger range of ideas
    -empathy can be motivating
    -storytelling is important
    -users become part of the design team
    -depth is more important than breadth (usually done deeply with small groups of people)
    -empathy raises consciousness about what we don't know
    -human centered design includes the larger context

The first speaker was in a bind. His small venture fund (c.$4 million of current investments) supported financial services businesses aimed at lower income consumers in the US. However, the venture was part of a parent bank that was not keen on his plans for a larger $30 million fund (doubting the plausibility of achieving both “high returns and high impact”). One panel member questioned where the real fit and crossover with the parent business lay. Another felt that social finance is not that sociable and believed that “making high interest out of poor people was disgusting”. Probably a little unfair but it was time to move on.

Next speaker wanted to explore the idea of “micro-franchising”. Panel liked it. Benefits highlighted were 1) allowed individuals with a desire, but no idea of their own, to get up and running with a proven concept 2) creation of significant synergies with micro-finance institutions by reducing the time, costs and risks of issuing new loans. I wondered whether “micro-franchising” was just rebranding the process of making business models both replicable and scalable.

The next speaker was Agora Partnerships which works with small start-up “cottage industry” type businesses in South America. His model for each entrepreneurial business is simple 1) help formulate the business strategy 2) plug the entrepreneur into networks (such as accountants, distributors) 3) gain access to long term capital. Simple but excellently articulated he also spoke about demanding a focus on ethical business values and creating a “new class of entrepreneurs”. He added further insights on how business communities in developing countries are often totally inaccessible to the poor and the cultural context and difficulties in accessing exit strategies in countries such as Nicaragua.

Next up was a New Zealand enterprise focusing on bringing together a number of social entrepreneurs in areas from affordable housing to youth mentoring and support. Despite some early money from a benefactor, the speaker was interested in how further capital could be accessed. The conversation veered off towards the facilities offered by the likes of Tridos Bank such as putting together pools of small depositors linked to specific projects. Only other significant insight was a comment on why UK ethical funds (estimated at $8 billion) did not place their 5% cash holdings into deposits at banks like Tridos where the capital would be recycled into social ventures.

Finally, we were regaled by Unlimited India’s Richard Alderson. The venture provides support, training and mentoring and small amounts of capital (around $2,000) to help the very earliest stage social ventures in India get their first steps on the rung to development and further financing. A panel member commented on Richard’s excellent ability to “tell a story” and how it is a necessary “institutional competence” for his type of business. Richard’s target is for Unlimited India to be the recognised home for young stage entrepreneurs in India. Witnessing the enthusiasm, knowledge and communication skills he displayed this morning I wouldn’t bet against him.

This session included ‘pitches’ from wide ranging interests and pursuits – all with a clear understanding of either what challenge they were facing or had a clear idea of their desired objective, but needed help thinking through the right questions to develop a model to achieve these objectives. 

What business are we in?

The challenges faced ranged from needing to decide and focus on which business we’re in – distribution or in the provision of technology in rural areas.  The challenge is perpetuated by the fact that it is extremely hard to deliver technology to rural communities without adequate distribution systems – a challenge even the biggest multinationals face. 

The panel encouraged the delegate to understand their own capability constraints and if limited, to seek an external partner who could help with aspects needed to run the initiative outside of their core competence. 

What is the right platform for my idea?

Another challenge was how to deliver the objective to creating a market place for sharing mobile phone applications – applications that can be used for social impact.  This to ensure that supply and demand is matched, but also that good ideas and initial work is progressed by collective work.

The panel encouraged the delegate to think about existing platforms available to allow developers to share their applications within their intellectual property right constraints, if any.

Do I need a revenue model outside of traditional aid to grow my initiative?

An initiative to empower low income labourers with soft skills (communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, etc) faced wanting to grow and expand to reach more people is struggling with whether to take the model to corporates to generate income or to seek aid/ donor funding.

The panel had two strong, somewhat contradictory pieces of advice:

1.       It is very hard to move away from being dependant on donor funding, so try to avoid it.

2.       Moving to a model that generates revenue from corporate training might detract from your original message.  If this is the case – approach with caution.

The overriding consensus was that whilst donor money is hard to let go of and not become dependent on, it is equally important to stay true to your organisation’s mission.  The challenge is to create a revenue model that sustains this mission.

How develop a scalable model?

Two project sought help with scaling their projects to match the supply and demand and scale the project to attract more of projects seeking Diaspora skills or more funders to contribute to NGO needs. 

The panellists’ response to both these requests was broadly that there are many organisations that are doing this or those who have tried to do and failed.  Learn from them.

As a young woman I can imagine few experiences more inspiring than the opportunity to engage with women who improve lives across the world.

African Inspiration

Fiona Muchembere was a picture of African women’s strength! She challenged the misconception that it is not inherent in African culture to seek education and knowledge, but rather that it is a lack of resources that does not give us the opportunity to do so.  She mentioned Zimbabwe’s education system once recognised as the best in Africa and I couldn’t help thinking of the challenges facing our own education system in South Africa.  And how desperately we needed to fix the disparities between how the rich and the poor are educated.  A definite opportunity for Social Entrepreneurs!  An African woman standing up and making her positive voice heard was comforting and reassuring – that we are all fighting towards the same goal. 

Women leading in the Arab World

Dr Iman Bibars’ insight into the challenges facing women in the Arab world and perspective on the success stories of women who have risen to become social entrepreneurs and act as agents of change despite these challenges proved that such can be done in even the most challenging environments for women.

A healthy disrespect for ‘formal’ Education

Bunker Roy’s ‘healthy disrespect’ for formal education was appropriate when considering the achievements and courage of all the ‘barefoot’ college graduates who left their home countries to train as ‘barefoot’ solar engineers in India.  The training was provided by people with no formal education to women with no formal education.  And despite this, they were able to return to their communities as empowered women changing the way hundreds of people live by providing electricity.

Women just need the same opportunities – not more, not less

Dr Nafis Sadik had previously shared her experiences of trying to persuade the Pope of the benefits of family planning and contraception, today reminded us of some important facts:

• Many people talk of how sex workers spread AIDS.  But no one talks about the men who go to sex workers, without whom, there wouldn’t be a sex trade
• That if more women where in decision making authority there would be no wars!

Furthermore, she brought to our attention that whilst it is the role of women to cook, all the chefs of the world are men.  The deficit is that women fail to leverage it as an economic opportunity.  Where there is money involved, men are there!  We need to make sure that women are part of such economic empowerment.  Once given the rights and the access, women are the change agents in this world.  Women do not need any more or any less opportunities than men.  We need the same opportunities, with which we can do so much more.

SustainAbility’ s Maggie Brenneke presented her research on advocates for social entrepreneurs from within corporations, termed “Intrapreneurs.”  Not a new concept -- but certainly a growing one.

 

Intrapreneurs are change agents from within major corporations who “develop and promote practical solutions to social or environmental challenges where progress is currently stalled by market failures.” 

 

The workshop participants acknowledged the growing acceptance in the private sector of who social entrepreneurs are and what they do.  A year ago, SustainAbility found more questions about social entrepreneurship than either information or impressions when they interviewed corporations on the topic.  This year, they found a recognition of the field’s growing presence and credibility. 

 

The International Business Leaders Forum led a workshop with participants on how to structure effective social entrepreneur-corporate partnerships based around the four steps of their partnering framework:

 

1.     Scope & build a relationship with a partner(s)
2.     Managing & maintain the relationship
3.     Review & revise the partnering process
4.     Sustain outcomes

 

The keys to successful partnerships, whether long-term marriages or short-term arrangements (“one night stands”, as one participant volunteered), is to continual assessment and management of the partnership. 

 

Both sides must 1) clearly communication of shared goals and 2) delineate the activities and levels of commitment, and objectives. 

 

Recommendations included

• being sure to observe potential partners outside of the normal work environment,
• conducting due diligence on participants and the venture not only before entering into the arrangement but at various points during the process
• see the end points even from the beginning

 

The bottom line from all participants was a clear directive to look before you leap! 

 

Cabannes was followed by Kelly Zhao (heroically standing in for her boss, Simon Lv, on two hours’ notice), from the China-based Non-Profit Incubator (NPI). She described a fascinating situation in China, whereby the shrinking of the state and the emergence of a wealthy class has simultaneously created a need for independent non-profit organisations, and a fledgling culture of philanthropy. The newness of these institutions is startling. 2-3 years ago, there were few private foundations in China, and philanthropy was virtually unknown. This is changing fast, but there are still many regulatory issues that non-profits must face, in a country that is still somewhat cautious about the emergence of civil society. NPI exists to help new non-profits negotiate these hurdles, and is looking to replicate its basic model in Northern and Western China. Ms. Zhao said that the situation in China is changing so rapidly that there may no longer be a need for NPI within 3-5 years, as the rules for establishing grassroots organisations become more liberal, and the resources available to them continue to multiply.

Rounding out the panelists, Professor Rathgeb Smith from the University of Washington spoke about how social entrepreneurs can create change in government culture. He said that governments are increasingly recognising that social entrepreneurs can implement more innovative program models, bring new people into the delivery of public services, and broaden the constituency for government to address urgent public problems. As an example, he cited the American tax credit programmes for low-income housing, that have become very popular with developers, banks, CBOs, and virtually everyone. This degree of entrepreneurial and institutional involvement has created a much larger base of support for the provision of low-income housing.

Audience Discussion, and Concluding Thoughts

Following the panelist presentations, a fascinating conversation began to emerge.  Despite the generally upbeat picture painted by the panelists, many in the audience expressed trepidation about social entrepreneurs aligning themselves more closely with government.  One audience member pointed out that the word “politics” had not been mentioned, despite the fact that government is inherently political.  There are many hazards in political affiliation, which social entrepreneurs would do well to avoid.

Other concerns were raised about the corrupting effect that government culture can have upon entrepreneurial culture.  One person pointed out that the mission of many entrepreneurs is to change culture, whereas the mission of government is largely to stabilize it.  These can be diametrically opposing goals, and if government controls the purse strings, then entrepreneurs can turn into bureaucrats. When this happens, then the tactical “success” of acquiring government funding can be a long-term strategic failure.  So, when is it right to pursue government funding, and when should it be avoided?

Unfortunately, the session drew to a close just as the conversation was getting ramped up.  It is clear that social entrepreneurship can offer tremendous levels of innovation and enthusiasm in traditionally governmental sectors, and that governmental funding can be an invaluable resource for scaling up an entrepreneurial organisation.  However, there are serious concerns about forging tight linkages between the two spheres -- most acutely in regards to maintaining the integrity of the organisational DNA.  I can see both the hope and the danger in fostering these relationships. For example: Professor Gergen spoke admiringly of Barak Obama's call to create a Washington-based Office of Social Entrepreneurship, as evidence that the movement was finally coming of age. This may be true -- and I share Professor Gergen's enthusiasm -- but part of me can't help but be concerned that "social entrepreneurialism" not acquire the same sort of partisan taint that now afflicts "faith based organisations."  

Regardless of pros and cons of making financial linkages between governments and entrepreneurs, one thing which cannot be ignored is that social entrepreneurs must operate within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by governments, and that those frameworks can either be tremendously helpful or harmful.  How entrepreneurs should attempt to influence the regulatory ecosystem is still an open question.  Some panelists and audience members called for greater unity within the social entrepreneurial movement, so that entrepreneurs may wield greater political power, rather than fighting amongst themselves for scraps of investment.  But how can this best be done? At the session's end, this frontier still looked like a frontier.

The conversation quickly involved the audience as an incoming MBA student expressed his concerns about future career choices and having to balance the need for a good living and his desire to serve his community.   This drove the conversation into suggestions about how to compete with the private sector for top talent when we may not be able to compete in salary. 

The second big discussion launched when Pamela Hartigan asked panelists to share who would be their perfect candidate.  Rodrigo Baggio wanted to see those with a shine in their eye and managerial skills as well.  Riders did not want people who idealized the experience, for this would only lead to disappointment.  Instead, they wanted passionate people who know this will be hard, but incredibly worthwhile work.

From this topic came a question about diversity of leadership and best practices to ensure this.  This was again a recognized area of difficulty and all shared their efforts and their doubts.  While in some countries, movements have begun that have changed the culture around certain professions (i.e. Teach First; Acumen), it was questionable if the same change was possible in 3^rd world countries. 

The founder of MBAs Without Borders shared his confidence that this was possible and encouraged others to not underestimate the power of people who want to impact their local communities.  Another example of Teach For All was provided as evidence that social entrepreneurs all over the world are recognizing the desire of current generations to make an impact on the most pressing social and environmental issues.

The session was rightly closed with a plea from Deepti Doshi to not limit ourselves when thinking about these issues.  Instead of thinking how we deal with our limits, think about if there were no limits, what would we do then.  Once we figure that out, we will find a way to get what we need to make it happen.  We have to, since once we see what we could actually do; there is no way to ignore it.

Professor David Gergen opened this session by noting that social entrepreneurs and governments are not always natural allies. The role of social entrepreneurs is often to fill voids in the governmental provision of social services. Thus governments may perceive social entrepreneurs as competitors, or usurpers of the government's rightful role, while social entrepreneurs are often prideful of their independence, perceiving the government as a failure. Yet as entrepreneurship becomes a more powerful social force, the two institutions must find new and creative ways to engage with each other. There is the potential for both great conflict and great synergy.

There are some issues that are too big for social entrepreneurs to take on alone. Some problems require complementary legislation or regulation in order for entrepreneurs to find them tractable. Citing climate change as one example, Gergen pointed out that entrepreneurs can't put a price on carbon by themselves.

What are the areas that government needs to get involved in, and where do they need to stay out? What might be fruitful? What can we learn from each other? What should we be wary of? What are the new frontiers? In truth, social entrepreneurs and civil servants are both pursuing the same goal -- the betterment of society.

The Panelists

The first panelist, Vera Cordeiro, is the founder of the Saúde Criança Renascer Association, an inspiring health care program which began at a single hospital in Rio de Janeiro, and is now in the process of expanding to the 5,000 other public hospitals in Brazil. In order to accomplish this expansion, governmental cooperation has been essential, but it was not easy to get. Ms. Cordeiro went as far as chasing down Brazilian president Lula at the Davos World Economic Forum, and telling him about Renascer's programme. He was delighted by it, and asked her to follow up with his ministers, but nothing ever came from these discussions. One particular obstacle she highlighted was that government ministers were unaware of social entrepreneurialism as a phenomena, lumping it in with NGOs in general.

Renascer finally got its break when it partnered with Avina, a large Latin American sustainable development organisation. Avina's clout gave Renascer the connections it needed, and expansion has been relatively easy since then, at least as far as governmental relations go. Cordeiro said that fostering a culture of volunteerism in Brazilian society has been the bigger challenge; her parting advice vis-à-vis governments was to "be humble, and talk to people in the right position."

The next panelist, Yves Cabannes Spoke about Participatory Budgeting, a new form of local financial governance of which I had been previously unaware. Participatory budgeting, as the name implies, is a way of letting citizens participate directly in budgetary decisions. Sometimes this can be a token gesture – 2%-3% of the municipal budget – while in other cases it can account for 100% of the local budget. From its beginnings in Latin America (most notably Peru), it is now spreading through the rest of the world.

While Cabannes highlighted some of the ways in which community-based budgeting had fostered the development of social enterprises that might otherwise be excluded from the budgeting process, he said that it is still very difficult to work with government money. Priorities are constantly shifting, and the rules of the game change every year. Nonetheless, he clearly felt that it was an important and beneficial process, stating that participatory budgeting had “re-opened the agora” in communities which had embraced it.

What is empathy? Not only feeling someone else’s pain but also acting to avoid causing harm and building the good. Applied empathy is seeing the environment and knowing how to act. The faster things move, the more critical that becomes – especially because so many people are being left out as change accelerates.

Existing institutions are often the same around the world in their lack of empathy. Change-making and community engagement is anathema to the very idea of discipline in public school teaching and top-down organizational policies/roles. The problem is the lack of a critical mass of individuals able to ask questions from empathetic perspectives as opposed to enforcing the rules. The result is what is happening in American corporate ethics, namely a shift from acting on ethical principles back toward rote compliance.

To combat that shift and keep facilitating change...
1) CEOs must ask questions about all those affected by the organization -- employees, stakeholders and general communities.
2) Management must operate according to not only rules and compliance but also values and principles
3) Ethical leadership must be implemented by every individual in an organization -- everyone must be empowered as an empathy activist.

Just as change occurs in societies with a high proportion of empowered, empathetic individuals in the general population, the same critical mass is necessary within organizations. Creating that empathy requires experiential learning; "It can be caught but not taught."

5 Key Takeaways:
• Things that are wrong may not be your fault but they are your responsibility
• Change is unpinned by listening with empathy and acting for equality
• Those most in need often have the least access to communication channels; learn to read the cues of others...  this is a skill that requires continual practice
• Anyone not a master of empathy will be marginalized
• Leaders must be skilled at applying empathy to facilitate change

Think about what you are trying to achieve and compare it with your behavior. Are you acting with empathy?

There is no longer a clear distinction between non-profit and for-profit organisations. "Hybrid" models are becoming increasingly common to simultaneously deliver social impact and scale.  But is this new organisational form more effective, or does it risk getting "stuck in the middle" between the two orthodox forms?

This was the topic tackled by a diverse panel. Tina Seelig, Executive Director of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program grounded the issue by touching on different hybrid forms. One model is a for-profit company sacr