Globalization and the Poor, Part 2: Cross-sector Partnership This event is sponsored by WRI, in conjunction with their conference, “Eradicating Poverty through Profit”, December 12-14 in San Francisco. For more information, see http://povertyprofit.wri.org Neither civil society nor most developing country governments can provide needed services to tens of millions of people every day. Large companies have the capital, management skills, and technological capacity to operate on that scale-and, potentially make a significant dent in poverty. However, that requires access to and cooperation with those communities, which suggests a critical partnership role for community groups, NGOs, private foundations, and other elements of civil society. How can such cross-sector partnerships facilitate commercial success and ensure that companies add enduring value? Is civil society prepared to help globalization—and market-driven processes—succeed in poor communities? If so, how can we do it successfully?

What are cross sector/ multi-stakeholder partnerships? By Jeff Hamaoui

Stakeholder refers to persons and/or groups of people that affect, or are affected by, an organization’s decisions, policies, and operations[1]. Consequently, the word stake, in this context, means an interest- or claim on a business enterprise. Those with a stake in the firm’s actions include such diverse groups as customers, employees, stockholders, the media, governments, multilateral organizations, professional and trade associations, social and environmental activists, and non-governmental organizations.

Business organizations are embedded in networks involving many stakeholders. Each of these has a relationship with the firm, based on ongoing interactions. Each of them shares, to some degree, in both the risks and rewards of the firms’ activities. And each has some kind of claim on the firm’s resources and attention, based on law, moral right or both. The number of stakeholders and the variety of their interests can be diverse, making a company’s decisions very complex.

Not surprisingly, business and stakeholder interests often coincide. When their interests are similar, stakeholder and companies may form coalitions, that is, alliances to pursue a common interest. These strategic alliances or coalitions among companies and their stakeholders are often referred as partnerships.

Some useful working definitions of cross sector / multi-stakeholder partnerships are:

A partnership is an alliance between organizations from two or more sectors that commit themselves to working together to develop and implement a specific project. Such a partnership implies that participants are willing to share risks, costs and benefits, review the relationship regularly and revise the partnership as necessary.

Alliances between parties drawn, for example, from businesses, government and civil society, that strategically aggregate the resources and competencies of each to resolve a specific problem/challenge.

Partnerships across different sectors of society imply transcending some of the divides between business/NGOs/governments. Interest from many governments and NGOs in working with business is quite high so the partnership model has been replacing the adversarial model.

Partnering across sectors means that different sectors of society are open to communicate and collaborate with each other, fostering and creating more inclusive-participatory models for solving problems.

A management tool to deliver business, social and environmental development outcomes by optimizing the effectiveness of different partners' resources core competencies.

"...multi-stakeholder partnerships are partnerships that could engage two or more parties from various sectors of society such as: businesses, governments, multilateral institutions, Non governmental organizations, civil society."

Considering the above definitions, multi-stakeholder partnerships are partnerships that could engage two or more parties from various sectors of society such as: businesses, governments, multilateral institutions, Non governmental organizations, civil society.

It is important to bear in mind that partnerships are about sharing not shifting risks and they should aim to find innovative ways to pool resources and talents based on each parties’ core strengths. They ought to be designed and maintained over time in such a way as to deliver mutual benefits for all collaborating parties.

Another point to consider is that multi-stakeholder partnerships are not static. Groups that are highly involved with a company today may be less involved tomorrow. Controversial issues that that are highly important at one time may be replaced by others; stakeholders that who are most dependant on an organization at one time may be less so at another. In addition, interests and priorities in companies can change over time so the nature and objectives of partnerships change as well.

Attached are some other useful documents, including a recommended reading list, case studies and background information.

Attachments: Background Information-Cross Sector Partnerships.doc (64 KB) COMPLEMENTARY RESOURCES ON PARTNERSHIPS.doc (26 KB) READING LIST.doc (47 KB) CASE STUDIES.doc (268 KB)

Janine Firpo - Nov 10, 2004 2:49 pm (#1 Total: 25)
Hewlett Packard


As a contribution to this conversation, I would like to make key three points.

First, I believe that it is important to remember the purpose of business. The roots of business are, at their core, about the exchange of social value. Business began because one person had something that another person wanted or needed. As business has grown, we have lost sight of these beginnings and sometimes see business as opposed to social value. Yet reseach has shown that the companies that have been the most successful over the longest period of time are those whose mission encompasses the social vision from which the company emerged. Remembering these roots, and what business is really about, may help us place this conversation in a broader context.

Second, I believe that when we speak about private sector involvement in the bottom of the pyramid markets, it is important to think beyond the MNCs. Although there is value from the largest companies, there can be tremendous value, and potentially more flexibility and creativity, from smaller companies. There are many, many companies in the world of all sizes. Yet these conversations tend to focus on the MNCs. Why don't we speak very often about the next level of companies? The Fortune 1000? Or even the smaller players within the BOP markets? What is their potential role?

Third, when multinationals are described in these conversations, there is always a reference to them as sources of capital. While that is true, I am concerned that too often the capital investments are considered a key corporate contribution. After working within this space for a multinational for the past 4 years, I now believe that the intellectual capital, the convening power, the business acumen, and the management capabilities that corporations bring to their work in development can be much more important than the capital investments. Capital can come from many sources. These other assets I mentioned are unique to corporations and could be much more central in conversations about their partnership strengths in this space.

Jeff - Nov 10, 2004 3:48 pm (#2 Total: 25)
Origo


This is another one of those difficult topic areas that is fast becoming a meaningless buzzword as everyone from development agencies, multinational corporations, NGO’s, foundations, governments, communities and social entrepreneurs strive to figure out how to work together to accomplish shared goals.

Right now, pretty much anything from a formal conversation between organizations to a meticulously planned alliance is hailed as a partnership; often with words like “revolutionary” or “visionary” thrown in for good measure. Everyone working at the BOP seems to be talking about partnerships; some are trying it out and a very few may even be succeeding…

So what is all the fuss about? The basic idea is actually a fairly intuitive one; that different groups with different capacities are really good at doing some things and poor at doing others, and that when it comes to the restricted resources available at the ‘base of the economic pyramid’ it makes sense to see how they can work together to provide some kind of systemic and complementary interaction in a given region or market to address the seemingly intractable challenges faced from any one organization’s or individual’s perspective.

However, the promise of partnerships is more profound than assembling a neat puzzle of complementary competencies, and needs to be clearly understood before you can make those pieces even fit together. For corporations, the partnership motivation at the BOP is clear: finding a more effective way of engaging in new and emerging markets by working with partners who have different capacities, credibility and in some instances capital. The bottom line for corporations to invest into partnership efforts at the BOP, however enlightened they are, eventually comes down to the bottom line; it’s all about potential roads to growth and profit.

For almost everyone else, cross sector partnerships promise something slightly different—but ultimately linked to the corporate motivation. If you can get a partnership to work with a corporation, then the opportunities for harnessing the corporate engine and its ability to scale, innovate and move capital into new markets is mouthwatering.

The challenge then is to avoid establishing partnerships that passively place players “side-by-side” and create active partnerships that allow partners to influence and integrate the way each other’s business is designed. This is no mean feat and, given the variety of ‘business’ imperatives at play in any partnership, the trick to achieving that level of influence is to prove that the best business design comes from novel partnerships themselves.

There are a growing number of cases in this area and if you are interested you should check out some of the attached materials posted with this article; they range from an exploration of the passive style of partnerships that focus on ‘brand’ and ‘philanthropy’ to the more active partnerships focused on business results in a variety of sectors; from partnerships to understand how to deliver micro finance services between HP, Accion and the Grameen foundation in Uganda to CARE Internationals goal to train over 100,000 women in Bangladesh in a business partnership with Hindustani Lever (HLL).

This seems to be a good place to start this discussion.

One last note, for social entrepreneurs it is worth checking out the Guide to Development Actors we helped the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) create as many of the players that business can turn to will work or have resources to work with SME’s: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/devguide.htm

In addition; the other guides at the page below have some useful case studies on cross sector partnerships that look at both the operational partnership structures and also at innovative capitalization strategies.

http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=Njc&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

I have included some other useful documents, including a recommended reading list, case studies and background information, in my main article, above.

jdailey - Nov 10, 2004 7:17 pm (#3 Total: 25)


When the original message starts with
 "Neither civil society nor most developing country governments can provide needed services to tens of millions of people every day. Large companies have the capital, management skills, and technological capacity to operate on that scale-and, potentially make a significant dent in poverty.",
...it raises my hackles just a bit. The market, that perfect invisible hand, cannot adequately address issues of wealth distribution, public goods, or systematic economic subjugation. In academic circles they call that neoliberal mythology, and it is just that. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

Finding common ground with companies large and small that wish to do well while doing good is an admirable ideal, and one that should be pursued. Companies should recognize the triple bottom line is about creating the customer long term. e.g. slowly killing off your workers through groundwater pollution is counter productive long term. Governments should not abdicate responsibilities that rightly rest with the people, and civil society actors should assert their voice of the under-served and under-represented. http://www.civilsoc.org/

Market failures, like the provisioning of financial services to the poorest are defined by both the inability of corporations to see the benefit of creating new customers and by the dynamics of economic class and social caste. Microfinance institutions that seek to redress this face an incredible uphill battle and do more with fewer resources than most of those in the corporate world could comprehend.

Nonetheless or perhaps therefore, I believe that corporations do have resources that could be more productively utilized in the proverbial "raising of all boats", that in turn could lead to more stability locally and globally. For instance, water purification technology, partially subsidized by government but sold by corporations, could do more for public health than the health education programs that dot the world scene.

The corporations in turn, benefit from the increased stability of the workforce and should therefore surrender some profit to the government. The same could be imagined for many other products.

Conquering abject poverty will require many creative applications of business models and partnerships, and corporations as the new power centers have a huge role to play, but the limitations of the neoliberal mythology should be understood.

"In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."--Alexis de Tocqueville

jdailey - Nov 10, 2004 7:18 pm (#4 Total: 25)


When the original message starts with
 "Neither civil society nor most developing country governments can provide needed services to tens of millions of people every day. Large companies have the capital, management skills, and technological capacity to operate on that scale-and, potentially make a significant dent in poverty.",
...it raises my hackles just a bit. The market, that perfect invisible hand, cannot adequately address issues of wealth distribution, public goods, or systematic economic subjugation. In academic circles they call that neoliberal mythology, and it is just that. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

Finding common ground with companies large and small that wish to do well while doing good is an admirable ideal, and one that should be pursued. Companies should recognize the triple bottom line is about creating the customer long term. e.g. slowly killing off your workers through groundwater pollution is counter productive long term. Governments should not abdicate responsibilities that rightly rest with the people, and civil society actors should assert their voice of the under-served and under-represented. http://www.civilsoc.org/

Market failures, like the provisioning of financial services to the poorest are defined by both the inability of corporations to see the benefit of creating new customers and by the dynamics of economic class and social caste. Microfinance institutions that seek to redress this face an incredible uphill battle and do more with fewer resources than most of those in the corporate world could comprehend.

Nonetheless or perhaps therefore, I believe that corporations do have resources that could be more productively utilized in the proverbial "raising of all boats", that in turn could lead to more stability locally and globally. For instance, water purification technology, partially subsidized by government but sold by corporations, could do more for public health than the health education programs that dot the world scene.

The corporations in turn, benefit from the increased stability of the workforce and should therefore surrender some profit to the government. The same could be imagined for many other products.

Conquering abject poverty will require many creative applications of business models and partnerships, and corporations as the new power centers have a huge role to play, but the limitations of the neoliberal mythology should be understood.

"In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."--Alexis de Tocqueville

Radu Seserman - Nov 10, 2004 8:28 pm (#5 Total: 25)


Janine, I agree with you, mostly on your first two points. A business's function in society is to provide goods and services. The existence of a profit allows the business to continue its activity. It seems that is forgotten and the business reason of being is to generate quick, huge profits. Third point it is true but practically is defeated by the first point.

K.L.SRIVASTAVA - Nov 10, 2004 9:56 pm (#6 Total: 25)
Researcher and Consultant,Hyderabad,INDIA


The topic of cross sector partnerships is extremely relevant for countries like India where Government sector is vitally important for streamlining and funding development pathways. It will be naive to think that private business sector will suddenly change its business practices and start aiming for social and environmental returns. Similarly, the NGO sector alone is not equipped to deal with deep- rooted and gigantic social and environmental problems which are increasing year after year.

We have to move from the present "sector polarisation paradigm" towards a new "sector collaboration paradigm" in several areas. In order to achieve our goals, we need better conceptual clarity and a new breed of leaders/entrepreneurs and managers who can translate these ideas into reality.

Ofcourse, there are several problems and traps in this line of work. But they need to be managed sincerely. I believe that the cross-sector partnership will emerge as an important part of Social Entrepreneurship in many parts of the world.

Thanks,

K.L.

Emma69 - Nov 11, 2004 5:56 pm (#7 Total: 25)


Hello,

I also think that the main issue/relationship embedded in the role of business and society has been left entangled in policy circles. If we apply closer scrutiny into this problematique, one aims among so many others would be to inquiry about this surge and trends toward the role of corporations, and their applications of shareholders’ value as core business practices!!!!!! In my opinion, it is along these dots that the whole prospects vis-à-vis corporations’ standing and societal development should be re assessed. These prerogatives bearing upon critical reflections in regards to the state of our current corporate governance practice, and the standardization of these platforms toward strategies for market penetration and the arrangements of private and public partnerships.

Moreover within the nexus of private/public engagements, the role of the private sector has become highly prominent; but to ensure proper accountability another aspect behind this phenomenon seems liaised with the dynamics of diffusion of power. To talk about this process for example, put the mantra of "common sense values", as the focal point vis-à-vis sustainable development and Poverty Reduction Strategies at national/governmental levels. Under this web the role of the private sector being one that has greatly evolved as power brokers, when it comes to involvement into policy formulation in states and markets in developing countries. Hence, within these layers (private/public partnerships), the status of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations brings about these new paradigms to harness approaches toward market liberalization, equity and the role of western institutional investors to guide standards, norms in corporate governance.



Emmanuel Asomba

ianbryan - Nov 16, 2004 4:31 pm (#8 Total: 25)
The Sensible City


I could not agree more with the point being made in the second paragraph. I work 100% with companies that gross UNDER 30 million dollars per year. In my environment, the social capital that is created by several dozen small businesses cooperatively working with local communities outperforms the impact of one big company tossing money at a needy community.

On a global scale, we find similar scenarios. Businesses willing to "roll up their sleeves" and get involved in human communities are usually smaller businesses with a long-term commitment to the area of development. Larger corporations, by design, have no choice but to abandon their efforts if new global markets do not tender results.

I incourage more dialogue about cooperative, community-oriented business at every level and the possibilities that arise when small businesses team together with the same entrepreneurial approach applied to the 3rd sector that they apply to business at home.

edward - Nov 17, 2004 3:22 am (#9 Total: 25)
self


The stated or implied tension in this discussion between the 'business of business is to make money' and other goals such as community good reminds me of one of the often forgotten (deliberatly?) principles declared by Adam Smith. He stated that businesses and common society work best when they work together and are in harmony. He argued that the sole pursuit of profit to the extent that it 'injures' society is wrong (again something of his writing that is often ignored). For those who do not know, Adam Smith was a philosopher in the 18th century Scottish school that contributed to the European Enlightenment. He is credited with having 'invented' capitalism with his concepts of the division of labour and the 'hidden hand' of commerce. His monumental work is often used to justify the most predatory and rapacious forms of business practice in the name of free enterprise. It's therefore all the more intructive that such a philosopher in fact argued that business and the common good must go together and when they do, both prosper.

Janine Firpo - Nov 17, 2004 1:11 pm (#10 Total: 25)
Hewlett Packard


Hi IanBryan - I would like to know more about the companies that you work wtih and the kinds of contributions they are making. Would you be willing to chat?

Janine

ianbryan - Nov 18, 2004 12:08 pm (#11 Total: 25)
The Sensible City


Adam Smith is not forgotten! But many Americans do not know (or choose to forget) that when the nation was formed, careful attention was placed on the pursuit of private enterprise. You could only establish a corporation if you could prove that your intentions and methods of development would actually benefit society. Furthermore, the Revolution itself was a rebellion against the corporate (and backed by the Crown) chokehold on daily life in the colonies. The Boston Tea Party was not a rebellion against the Crown... it was a rebellion against the Tea Trade.

So now, there are regular forums and debates about the "question" of "whether or not" a business should take care of society. Yet, in America, social responsibility was once and should still be more of a mandate than a debate.

But to come to a point, the only sustainable solution is to find ways in which businesses can make heavy community and environmental involvement profitable. This is the focus of my firm and it is the focus of organizations like the Community Action Network in London and others.

If we can teach businesses that street-level, grass-roots compassionate human involvement is MORE profitable than multi-million dollar advertising campaigns (augmented by a few donations to nonprofits), then there is hope for sustainable capitalism.

ianbryan - Nov 18, 2004 12:12 pm (#12 Total: 25)
The Sensible City


Hi Janine, I would love to chat. I have been collecting case studies over the past few years and have over 100 compiled. There is a lot of really exciting stuff going on out there.

Re: Private Sector Involvement at the BOP (Msg 10 of 11)

Hi IanBryan - I would like to know more about the companies that you work wtih and the kinds of contributions they are making. Would you be willing to chat?

Janine

Jefbuder - Nov 18, 2004 12:35 pm (#13 Total: 25)
oneVillage Foundation


I would like to add a few things here.

Importance of Global Strategy It is very important that we link BOP strategies with a global approach to sustainability. Development in bottom up economies must proceed complementary to as Amory Lovins puts it, a Factor 10 reduction in reduction in human consumption levels overall. Remember that we here at this virtual conference are mostly that 1/10th of the world's population that consumes according to UNDP 9/10ths of the resources. More about Factor Ten: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1081.php

Cross-Sector Partnerships At the oneVillage Foundation http://www.onevillagefoundation.org, we are developing a comprehensive program to provide end to end human Services. We feel it is very important to develop grassroots connections, not only with what is called the BOP economy as discussed here, but also in relation to affluent regions. The linking up of the BOP cross-sector partnerships with socially conscious consumers, businesses and investors in affluent regions is central. We also feel that corporations have an important role to play in this process, however at a reduced level than is currently seen in so-called advanced nations like the US.

What is missing to power up the bottom up economy? Useful and effective tools Financing Networks Education and Training

Replication Rapid replication is vital... Humanity needs to rapidly move towards the more effective allocation of ecological as well as human resources, for current unsustainable trends cannot continue indefinitely... Key to replication of sustainable systems is the careful integration of the components listed above - finance, networks, and sustainable technologies, ICT - through you guessed it cross-sector partnerships.

To move forward on the overall approach mentioned above, the oneVillage Foundation is currently working with the Brussels’s Chapter of the Club of Rome to organize the Digital World Conference. This conference is sponsored by UNESCO and the Club of Rome. It will take in Paris in May of 2005. Go here for more information: http://www.onevillagefoundation.org/ov/news/bdd.html

Thanks so much for reading this. I look forward to your responses.

go here for more: http://blog.onevillage.tv/archives/2004/11/crosssector_par.html#more

Jeff

moniquec - Nov 18, 2004 1:15 pm (#14 Total: 25)
Microfinance Opportunities


This is my first time participating in Social Edge. However, this discussion seemed like a good opportunity to share our experience with this BOP paradigm. I work on microfinance. One of our areas of specialty is microinsurance. Microinsurance services, be they protection for property, life insurance, livestock insurance or other options, are in demand by the poor. The success of this new financial product for the poor depends on partnerships between insurance companies and microfinance institutions (MFIs). The latter are the agents for the delivery of insurance to those low income populations. MFIs have a comparative advantage understanding low income market dynamics. The MFIs have track records of operating effectively in these markets with other financial services, such as credit and savings. Partnerships of this kind are an effective business strategy for both the insurance companies and the MFIs. They can limit the risks for each player while maximizing each institution’s comparative advantage and existing infrastructure–physical, social and financial. The numbers for those who have already dared to explore this market are encouraging. Through 2000, AIG’s profit on a group personal accident policy reaching over 40,000 working poor in Uganda was over 30% per annum of premiums paid. This program has grown to cover over 1.6 million people in that country. Today, AIG has numerous partnerships with microfinance institutions throughout Eastern and parts of Southern Africa. And that is only one product.

ianbryan - Nov 19, 2004 12:08 pm (#15 Total: 25)
The Sensible City


Thank you for your post. Is there an American organization or institution where I can locate more information?

Emma69 - Nov 19, 2004 2:45 pm (#16 Total: 25)


Re : Importance of global strategy

About the importance of global strategy key factors around this nexus are the necessity to develop and improve information mechanisms on developing countries. These approaches bearing upon the state of informed decision-making vis-à-vis markets, and the role of policy makers in such debates.

Furthermore, to look into the prospects and implementation of standards, these exercises should take into consideration the specific realities of low income countries, and their participation in the definition of those standards. It is interesting to note that the relevance of improved information and the implementation of standards carry out challenging dimensions for developing countries. On one hand such challenges identified in terms of the cost benefits behind such mechanisms, while on the other hand also prevail the efficacy or level of technical assistance needed to undertake such measures at low income country levels.

Emmanuel.

moniquec - Nov 19, 2004 4:46 pm (#17 Total: 25)
Microfinance Opportunities


Ianbryan:

Our organization, Microfinance Opportunities partners with the MicroInsurance Centre on issues of microinsurance. The former focuses on undertaking of market research to identify the opportunities for delivering microinsurance for low income populations, the latter develops the partnerships between insurance companies and microfinance organizations.

For more information please go to our websites: www.microfinanceopportunities.org www.microinsurancecentre.org

Love Humanity - Nov 20, 2004 12:59 pm (#18 Total: 25)
Louise Williams


Being new to the Social Sector I find this an interesting discussion. I feel it is an important one and from my observations there is a trend where the larger multinational organizations are realizing the benefit of partnering with organizations to effect positive change. On the other hand if they are unable to find the appropriate oranizations to partner with, they are forming a division to carry out various projects to make their communities better places for work and also for recreation.

I do not think that the private business sector will change overnight, but if properly presented with the reasons why their involvement both financially and in partnering in some way during the implementation of a given cause will benefit their companies in the long run, I think private businesses will step forward in due course. It is all in the presentation.

Examples of this in India are the Tatas and Birlas. These companies both realize the benefit of giving a helping hand-up out of poverty...not a hand-out.

From my observations most charitable organizations currently approach business just for wanting money so the organization can do good for others. I think if charitable organizations would approach businesses differently by planning further out to see the end result of why the social change must take place and why the businesses would benefit, then the businesses would realize the value of their participation in project.

To be part of effecting positive change for the future requires one to partner with others. It cannot be done alone.

Radu Seserman - Nov 20, 2004 7:46 pm (#19 Total: 25)


In the November 19th issue Financial Times presents 'World's Most Respected Companies' (based on a survey of more than 1000 senior executives). All companies on the list are well known in the world. Most of the reasons these companies are admired and made it on the list, as the newspaper quotes, are: "They have a monopoly"; "They rule the word"; "There is hardly any village in the world where ...... isn't known"; "For 100 years, they have maintained dominance." So the question is not whether large corporations can eradicate the poverty in the world. Obviously they can, "They rule the world", and obviously they choose not to do so. The question is how to change corporate mentality of dominance, thirst for power, and careless about the little guy. The success examples about corporate involvement are exceptions. They based on the good will and heart felt feelings of some leaders, they do not bring structural changes. They do not offer economic sustainability because they always advocate growth, and growth it is, ultimately, at the expense of others. Until the conditions are set so small business can flourish, individuals be able to acquire enough productive assets to secure employment and support themselves, and communities are economically sustainable there will always be poverty because the many are at the mercy of a few to bring in or take out jobs. The history teaches us that there are very few good ‘philosopher kings’. Also history teaches us that we cannot succeed without trying and perseverance wins.

Radu Seserman - Nov 20, 2004 7:59 pm (#20 Total: 25)


Ian Bryan, I completely agree with you and I believe that the solution lays in cooperation among community oriented businesses. If you are interested to discuss more and eventually take some constructive action please contact me at radu@adrisgroup.com

tutormentor - Nov 21, 2004 8:18 am (#21 Total: 25)
Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection


This is another interesting Social Edge conversation. I participate in this forum as a form of research and sharing. The links many people post to their own web sites provide ideas and inspiration to my own work. I hope the links I often provide do the same.

With that said, I feel that we'll not get far with this type of conversation until we "map" the various issues that we're all addressing, then create "communities of involvement" where people who care about the same issues can go to get information that leads to further involvement.

In terms of mapping issues, think of a pie chart. Each slice represents an issue that is important to one or more groups of people. I'd like to be able to find a place on social edge, or someone else's web site where the slices of the pie are interactive entry points into hubs where I can grow my involvement with an issue. For instance, the "health" slice would have links to AIDS, hunger, social/emotional, etc., while the environment slice might have global warming, water useage, etc. While no single organization can reach out and gather all that is known about current involvement in each of these categories, an interactive web site could be created where people log in an add links to show what they know.

By creating issue hub, conversations like private sector involvement, would have a greater chance of being populated by people who care deeply about the issue and are more willing to act on the ideas shared than they are in a generic dicussion of issues like this.

There are a growing number of organizations beginning to host communities interested in social issues. As these begin to focus on specific issues, I feel more people will get involved and begin to innovate actions. At www.tutormentorconnection.org and www.tutormentorexchange.net I'm creating a hub for people interested in mentoring kids from poverty to careers. In the Learning & Management tools section of www.tutormentorconnection.org I put links to web sites which I feel are good examples of knowledge sharing and innovation.

I'd like to see a section on Social Edge that collects and maps similar links, by issue category. I feel this would help us all put these ideas to good use.

ianbryan - Nov 21, 2004 10:57 am (#22 Total: 25)
The Sensible City


Louise, I could not agree with you more. One of my favorite nonprofits, The Jane Goodall Foundation, spends more time teaching villagers how to farm than they do feeding the hungry. But there is more to be done.

The current norm in corporate enterprise of throwing money at problems and feeling accomplished is starting to fall apart because we aren't seeing sustainable programs that regenerate human society. This is the essence of Social Enterprise. This is where no multinational corporation can go without the guidance of a grass-roots sensitive, tactical, compassionate, street-level initiatives to empower each community (not the WORLD or the COUNTRY, but the community - one population at a time).

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but you might be inspired by what we are doing at The Sensible City. Go to www.sensiblecity.com if you want to see this in action.

Welcome to the community!

~Ian Bryan

vibowman - Nov 21, 2004 6:46 pm (#23 Total: 25)
Performance Studies Theatre, Inc


And that is what I also strive to do, help one community at a time through a non-profit after-school arts program. Our education system stinks in early childhood learning and behavioral actions. I have been trying now for 3 years to get funding to establish this program in one of the poorest communities in Phoenix, and all I get is people telling me to go here and there and do this and that. I have spent any extra that I have to get this program going. Studies have shown how positive this program can be but studies do not give you seed money to start. So tell me, who's listening and who gives a damn about children who really, really need and parents also, someone to show them the way. Surely everyone know that not everyone learns through books but they can learn when you connect them to action. I am little upset and maybe this isn't the forum I should be in. So except me for my passion and not my pain.

Glad to meet you,

Vivian

OKInternational - Nov 27, 2004 2:54 pm (#24 Total: 25)
Occupational Knowledge International


So if I can take this discussion outside of the abstract for a second, I just returned from Bangkok where my organization received an award for our partnership to address lead poisoning with an environmental certification program for the lead battery industry. The Seed Awards (Supporting Entrepreneurs for Environment and Development) were presented to 12 partnerships from around the world working on innovative projects and should be of interest to anyone interested in cross sector partnerships. (see http://www.seedawards.org/)

I think the most important part of forming our partnership was to establish trust with the businesses and governmental agencies that we approached to join in this effort. Working with major battery manufacturers in India, where we are pilot testing the program, has been a bit easier than expected because it was clear that we share common objectives of increasing the supply of raw material (lead) from proper recyclers, and also we are helping to level the playing field among their competitors by raising standards (see http://www.okinternational.org).

The biggest challenge in our case is to extend the partnership to include the major purchasers of lead batteries – the auto industry, solar industry, and computer companies. Their input is essential to the ultimate outcome of our certification effort, but it is difficult for them to see the direct connection between their purchases and the social and environmental impact of the lead poisoning epidemic. This is a case where the connection to their operations is a bit removed. As they see it, lead poisoning is an externality beyond their control. The question is whether they want to take control by requiring environmental certification from their suppliers and in this way act much like individual consumers who buy certified organic, or Fair Trade, or FSC certified wood.

I am open to any suggestions on how to reach out to these companies to join the partnership.
Thanks,
Perry

sjordan - Dec 6, 2004 3:09 pm (#25 Total: 25)
US Chamber of Commerce CCC


Over the past few years, we've been involved in a number of business coalitions that have reached out to different stakeholder groups. From a business perspective, I can share with you some of the things we've learned about how civil society groups engage with business successfully. Here are some of them:

1) learn about the business or businesses you want to work with, what they do, their competitive context, what they'd like to achieve. Not every business is going to be a good candidate to partner with, but there are over 3 million businesses in the U.S. and countless more around the world, so build "coalitions of the willing" first. 2) talk about how your project reflects your potential partner's values and traditions and will make a difference in the community where they do business. 75% of companies cite their traditions and values as the main driver of their civic activities. 3) be willing to listen and assume that the corporate representative you are talking to is a moral human being. 4) have clear, concrete, well-defined goals for the project, and a realistic strategy to achieve them, 5) be confident in bringing your knowledge and expertise and core competencies to the table, and be professional

The nonprofits that have really succeeded in working effectively with our business coalitions have been very competent, very high energy, very focused, and have been "pro-business" in their mentality and attitude.

In terms of wealth creation, we need to re-think our approach to the poor, and start focusing on asset creation, human capital development, infrastructure development, and other platforms that promote productivity -- the beauty of this approach is that all of these ideas are very congenial to long-term business development and to far-sighted business investors.

Regards,

Stephen Jordan