Responsibility

Faith-based groups (meaning the full range of formal and informal religious communities) are among the most active social sector organizations in many parts of the world. If religious orgs are serious about building and enhancing community, why are they so behind in leveraging the latest and greatest technology tools to do so? And if nonprofit and do-gooder techies are serious about social change, why aren't they tapping into some of the largest and most effective community-based organizations out there – which are faith-based? It's a missed opportunity IMHO [Note: social media jargon for In My Humble Opinion].
 
Fortunately there are some murmurings. A couple of weeks ago, Time magazine ran a story on U.S. churches using Twitter during their regular services. And the online virtual world of Second Life is fertile ground for a whole range of active faith based communities from across the religious spectrum. You may want to check out this Guided Tour of Spirituality in Second Life.
 
There are a few great postings on Church 2.0 offering an overview of some of the most cutting edge and technology-relevant happenings that involve faith-based communities in the United States. But they are an exception to the rule. Many traditional religious institutions are experiencing a decline in membership among youth - perhaps in part because they don't fully understand how to communicate in a changed world? Take a look at the official website of the Catholic Church, representing one of the largest religions in the world, and you'll know what I mean.
 
I sense a lot of fear among traditional religious institutions around embracing and leveraging technology change. And the silence is deafening from the technology community on how new tools and technologies can be leveraged to support the rich and important spiritual practices of people all over the world – not to mention to support the incredible social action work of religious communities on the ground.
 
So in an attempt to walk the talk I am launching a "Technology & Spiritual Practice" program, designed to help faith-based communities make the leap into the brave new world of technology and social media, and to start a dialogue between spiritual leaders and technologists. But we need your help…
 
1.  Do you agree that there is a clear divide between the worlds of religion and technology?
2.  If so, why is it the case and what should we do about it?
3.  What are some examples of cutting edge technology practices among faith based communities from around the world?
4.  Assuming a dialogue could be established between spiritual leaders and technologists, what meaningful and impactful work might come out of such conversations?

Join Paul Lamb, a Man on a Mission, in the conversation.

For starters, this week’s topic is counterintuitive.

By which I mean, this piece of advice -- stop following your dreams so that you can succeed -- goes clean contrary to the advice we've heard so often: "follow your dream," "follow your bliss", "do what you love and the money will follow."

That alone makes it interesting.

So here's a question.  Our dreams may define success -- but will they take us there?

Many of us are in the social entrepreneurship-sphere because our dreams of a better world mean more to us than simply making money hand-over-fist without consideration for others, for the global ecology, for "the human heart".  So anything that calls our dreams into question is good for getting us thinking, if nothing else.

And why do we have these dreams in the first place?  Why is the world not already the human-friendly place that, in our dreams, we'd like it to be?

Isn't it precisely because many people haven't followed their dreams, opting instead for better paid or more secure work that all the evidence suggests would be -- at least in financial terms -- way more successful?

So if the "bite the bullet and just do it" opposite of the dream world works, and works so well that more or less the whole industrial world happily follows its dictates -- and if the dream has a harder time working, because it doesn't engage the universal motives of self-interest nearly as strongly as sheer competitive entirely profit-driven business -- what conclusion should we come to about the dream?

Should we stop following our dreams so we can succeed?

Can the dream be too much of a good thing?

Should we be attempting to create our dream world in a distinctly non-dream way?

I looked up "don't follow your dreams" on Google, and found "don't follow your dreams, chase them" and " don't follow your dreams, lead them" -- but neither one of those is what I'm getting at here.  I'd like us to try shaking our assumptions just a bit, and see where it leads us.

I am not against dreams ("I have a dream" -- remember?) but I am against unquestioned assumptions, and as with an earlier Social Edge event that asked whether procrastination and untidiness might be good for us, this event will try to ask the counter-intuitive question.

And with purpose.

The purpose here, let's not forget, is to succeed.  So the whole question could also be phrased as "what does it take to succeed -- and would it help to dismantle our dreams?" What are the strategies that bring success?

Once we've envisioned the goal -- and here the dream really is important -- what happens if we drop the "dream" thing entirely, and simply ask ourselves what's the best way to get there?  Will we find fresh, new, powerful ideas to carry us to our goal?

Often, clearing the mind of assumptions and preconceptions does that.

Please join Charles “Hipbone” Cameron in the conversation.  This could be fun -- but more than that, it might teach us a few things that surprise us!

Is there a code of behavior for social entrepreneurs?

Turn inwards where morality meets ethics, and you'll likely find some sense of what lines cannot be crossed, a moral sense -- but if you look around outside, can you also find a code that's agreed by your peers, that guides you in cases where your personal sense of morals may be conflicted -- and perhaps even instructs you to a narrower range of choices on occasion?

Does the community of entrepreneurs answering a social vision have a formal code?

Professor David Batstone offers ten Principles for entrepreneurial ethics. Reading them, I wonder how far they go towards converting an "entrepreneurial venture" into a "social entrepreneurial venture" by their very nature:

1. Company directors and management will consider their work force valuable team members, not merely hired labor.
2. A company will think of itself as a part of a community, not just a "market."
3. A company will take every possible care to ensure the quality and safety of the products it brings to the public.
4. A company will treat the environment as a silent "stakeholder," a party to which it is wholly accountable.
5. A company will strive to diversify the kind of people who lead and manage its affairs.
6. A company will pursue international trade and production based on reciprocal exchanges that respect the same rights accorded its own people.
7. A company will nurture an organizational culture that encourages its employees to give critical feedback on unethical practices, and even "blow the whistle" when their voices are ignored.
8. A company will protect the privacy rights of its suppliers, customers, and employees.
9. A company will deliver what it promises, and promise what it can deliver.
10. A company will not seek to generate any revenue from practices that threaten life.

What further principles would be required for social entrepreneurs?  Do any of Dr Batstone's principles seem impracticable or not relevant in the culture you are working in? What stories can you tell about ethical problems, lapses, and successes in the field (you may want to read Leila Chirayath Janah's experience)?

• Does your social enterprise have a code of ethics? Formal or informal?
• If not, would it help to have one?
• If informal, would it help to formalize it?
• If formal, is it ever a problem rather than a solution?

• Does the world of social enterprise have a code of ethics?
• If not, would it help to have one?
• If informal, would it help to formalize it?

What should such a code contain?

How would it address the very different circumstances (ranging from government support to active governmental opposition, persecution or suppression, from richest and most advanced to least advanced and poorest, and from the purely local and marginal to the global and widely supported) in which social entrepreneurship is practiced?

Bribery, for instance:  is it ever even remotely acceptable -- or is it sometimes a necessity if you intend to get food supplies to the starving?

Dive in, have your say -- join Charles (hipbone) Cameron in discussing the ethics of social entrepreneurship.

World Water Day is 22 March 2009, with the Skoll World Forum following closely on its heels on 25-27 March, so this seems an appropriate time for us to discuss water...

World Water Day's focus this year is on "waters that cross borders and link us together":

The world’s 263 transboundary lake and river basins include the territory of 145 countries and cover nearly half of the Earth’s land surface. Great reservoirs of freshwater also move silently below our borders in underground aquifers. With every country seeking to satisfy its water needs from limited water resources, some foresee a future filled with conflict. But history shows that cooperation, not conflict, is the most common response to transboundary water management issues.

Shortly thereafter, the Skoll World Forum will feature an event on Water:

Governments, international organizations and businesses struggle to achieve the MDGs for drinking water and sanitation. Join this vital, solution-oriented discussion on how social entrepreneurs can contribute and collaborate in order to meet these goals.

So:

Let's get some conversation rolling on the topics the Skoll water panel will discuss:

• What are the most promising innovations in this area?
• What is the role of non-state actors in global environmental governance?
• What questions of power and public/private authority do they raise?
• What are the ecological presuppositions of sustaining the water-related MDGs in an age of rapid climate change?
   

Some other topics that may crop up include:  

• Water wars

Riparian conflict may be in our future, as World Bank vice president Ismail Serageldin put it 1995, "The wars of the next century will be over water." That's a tough prospect, and for further reading, Vandana Shiva has a book titled Water Wars.  But there's also hope: as Joyce Shira Starr documented in Covenant over Middle Eastern Waters, water has considerable sacred signifocance in the Abrahamic religions, and may in fact be a force that draws people together rather than pulling them apart as a result. Which brings us to...

• Water altruism -- water specialist Dr Aaron Wolf takes a reassuring stand:

The actual history of armed water conflict is somewhat less dramatic than the “water wars” literature would lead one to believe: a total of seven incidents, in three of which no shots were fired.  As near as we can find, there has never been a single war fought over water.  This is not quite true.  The earliest domestic interstate conflict known is a dispute between the Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma over the right to exploit boundary channels along the Tigris in 2,500 BCE.  In other words, the last and only “water war” was 4,500 years ago.

There seem to be more questions than answers here...

Another fascinating lead is to the work done on Balinese water use by J. Stephen Lansing, which ties together traditional Balinese "water temples" and the latest in Santa Fe science for modeling complex systems.  Lansing's book, Perfect order : recognizing complexity in Bali, creates an inspiring interweaving of traditional/spiritual and ecological/scientific approaches.

Lastly, we might want to consider various ways of purifying water, from massive national desalination projects to individual homes with "closed water systems" such as the experimental home built by R.L. Crosby, of Biorealis Systems -- see the water systems description.

• Where are we headed?
• What do you think?
• Where should we look next?
  
  Please join Charles "hipbone" Cameron as we explore social entrepreneurial approaches to water issues.
   

Navigating Traditional Power Structures to Strengthen Economic and Societal Rights of Women

In recent years, we have witnessed an increasing number of women holding power in government, the private sector and civil society, taking on roles previously seen as being the preserve of men. Some signs of progress:

• While still uncommon, women as heads of state or holding high-level cabinet positions are no longer a complete novelty. Elected in 2007 and 2006 respectively, two women are at the helm of Argentina and Chile, the second and fifth largest South American economies. The 2005 election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as the first African woman head of state sent a powerful message to the continent and to the world.

• The very first bill that Barack Obama signed since becoming the US President guarantees equal pay for women. During the bill signing ceremony, several Congresswomen were standing behind the President, including the first female Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

• The exercise of power is not limited to those in charge at the very top.  Women leadership is central to successful grassroots and community-based initiatives. When women participate in the decision-making processes, the benefits of a program expand beyond the women’s immediate families and into the larger community. For instance, many link the Grameen Bank’s success with the fact that 97 per cent of its borrowers are women.  To these programs, women bring intelligence, fairness, vitality, commitment, resiliency and hope.

Yet these achievements do not paint a comprehensive picture of the state of women’s rights, in particular as it relates to navigating traditional power structures. For this week’s discussion, I’d like to start off with the following questions:

- What are the main barriers that still prevent women from successfully navigating traditional power structures in both rich and developing countries? What can we do to bring these barriers down?

- What can we learn from the individual and collective experiences of women who have succeeded in establishing their leadership in difficult and unfavorable conditions?

- Over the next five years, what major milestone could be achieved that would signify a major advance in women’s political, economic and societal rights?

Join Edith Asibey, president of Asibey Consulting, in the conversation.

President Obama has now been in office for one hundred days, and he has covered more ground in that time than many presidents do in an entire term. From the economy to foreign policy, he has shown quick, decisive leadership. So much change has taken place, and so quickly, that it would be easy to miss one of the most exciting aspects of his administration: the focus on social entrepreneurship.

Obama has committed to organizing an Office of Social Innovation, and he has just signed a Serve America Act that includes a Social Innovation Fund to seed new social enterprises and expand existing ones. He has also put aside tens of billions of dollars for green initiatives that will undoubtedly cultivate more promising social ventures. Perhaps most of all, he has used his bully pulpit to highlight the stories of social entrepreneurs, inspiring young people to follow a new model for making a difference.

Obama's commitment follows a global trend among foreign leaders to focus on social entrepreneurs as a key ally of government in delivering services. Indeed, for years now, the Labour government in Britain has made social enterprise a centerpiece of governmental departments from health to the environment to social services.

While Obama’s clearly been a champion of social entrepreneurship, there are questions about whether he could be doing even more. As an example, the conversation about social enterprise has been largely divorced from the conversation about how to rescue the US economy. Obama has brought the big banks and financial institutions to the White House to talk about how to responsibly serve Americans, especially those struggling to get by on low incomes.

But he has not directly called attention in these conversations to the many responsible social enterprises that are already working on financial education and services for the poor. Perhaps the answer is not only more regulation (as Obama has stressed), but also socially responsible business models.

This leads to a number of questions:
1. How is Obama doing in his commitment to social entrepreneurship?
2. How does Obama's commitment to social entrepreneurship compare to other world leaders?
3. Where should he go from here? He's made the commitment to an office and set up a fund… what should be next on his social enterprise agenda?

Join Seth Green, Founder of Americans for Informed Democracy, in the conversation.

Effective Solutions to End Extreme Poverty can be Found among the Unsung Grassroots Leaders in the World's Poorest Countries

Over the last 50 years, countries around the world have tried to reduce the number of people living in extreme poverty. Collaborative efforts of nations have also tried to resolve the associated problems, including the lack of access to basic survival tools, education, health and the degradation of the natural environment.

These attempts have had very little success and we still have close to one billion people living in extreme poverty. Dambisa Moyo, in her latest book, Dead Aid, states that in the last fifty years more than $1 trillion dollars has been transferred from rich countries to Africa and that the receiving nations are not better off as a result, but possibly worse.

I travelled around the world over the last 25 years and met hundreds of courageous and unsung community leaders in the most poverty-stricken areas. These local heroes apply innovative solutions to solving extreme poverty in their communities and make significant positive changes. These unknown leaders do this with very little or no outside support.

These extraordinary individuals are still a largely untapped resource and have not been recognized by the international community as a way to solve extreme poverty in a more effective way.

At Sawa Global, we have taken a new approach to give recognition and connect these "voiceless" leaders to a global audience and provide a more effective way to solve extreme poverty. We built local capacity on new media tools in the world's poorest countries by training local amateur and professional videographers. These videographers not only find the local grassroots heroes but also work with them to document their success stories on short videos and showcase these on our website portal.

From there, we connect the heroes to our global network of strategic partners that can help grow and replicate their project on a local and global level.

In just a few months, we have trained and recruited close to 300 videographers in 57 countries, received hundred of ideas on local grassroots leaders and approved a group of Sawa Heroes that changed the lives of over 10,000 people by giving them access to income and education, recovered hundreds of former child soldiers and protected 10,000 hectares of tropical forests.

The solutions to extreme poverty are here!

So then:

(1) How do we get international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank to work in equal partnership with these grassroots leaders and replicate their innovations on a global scale?

(2) How do we create a society where the answers to eliminating extreme poverty are sought among the grassroots leaders who live in these conditions?

(3) How do we create a global community that can learn from and support these forgotten global leaders on an ongoing basis?

Join Daphne Nederhorst, founder of Sawa Global, in the conversation.
 

This event is something of a collaboration between Social Edge and Root Cause/Public Innovators, with Andrew Wolk and Colleen Ebinger joining Charles "Hipbone" Cameron in welcoming you to a discussion of hope -- and change -- that couldn't be more timely.

Government’s long-standing support for business entrepreneurship provides a model for the ways government leaders might address some of the world’s biggest social challenges. In the US, the federal government has encouraged a flood of innovation and entrepreneurship that has produced some of the world’s greatest companies, in turn creating thousands of jobs and at times spawning entire new industries -- as did Ford Motors with the automobile industry and Microsoft with the software industry.

What if governments around the world now took the same approach to supporting social innovation and social entrepreneurship? The Public Innovators initiative at Root Cause has been working closely with several state- and city-based examples launched by public innovators - government officials who open the door to greater innovation and entrepreneurship in social problem solving:

•    Lt. Governor Landrieu through Louisiana’s Office of Social Entrepreneurship
•    Governor Perry via the OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact
•    In Virginia through the Phoenix Project
•    Governor Beshear and the Kentucky Commission on Philanthropy, and
•    Mayor Hickenlooper with the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships.

At the US federal level, President Obama has pledged to create a Social Entrepreneurship Agency and a Social Investment Fund Network. Meanwhile, the America Forward coalition is advancing a policy agenda that creates infrastructure for social entrepreneurs and government to work together.

On the global stage, the UK has a Minister for the Third Sector. The Acumen Fund is investigating entrepreneurial ways to influence governments, corporations, and international agencies to work between the markets and philanthropy. And at the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos, social entrepreneurs will gather with world political and business leaders to address the global financial crisis.  

We're at a tipping point for change.

•    What opportunities for partnering social innovation and government do the current crises bring us?
•    How can we work most productively together?
•    What lessons are we already learning from these initiatives?
•    What other efforts are in place?
•    How can we ensure we don’t miss this window of opportunity for larger scale change?

Join Andrew Wolk, Colleen Gross Ebinger and Charles "Hipbone" Cameron in the conversation.
 

It would appear that it is almost impossible to preserve your community’s health in a global economy. Capital can freely move around taking jobs and resources with it. Your town or city can be blessed with the influx of capital one day, just as easily it can be cursed by its departure the next. For your community the mobility of capital could lead to population loss, which can result in a weak local economy and low quality of life.

Labor will follow capital, legally or illegally. In absence of job opportunities in their local economy, residents will relocate in search of work. I recently moved to Pittsburgh. The loss of the steel industry to the global economy led to significant job losses, which has resulted in continued population loss. The loss of population density has also impacted the viability of our small business sector with significant loss of businesses and jobs.

Oddly enough, working towards a strong local economy is also good for the planet. A good example is food. On average, produce at an American grocery store travels 1,500 miles! Yet, our local farms continue to disappear. Food costs also impact the restaurant industry, which affects local employment opportunities. As the uncertainty of our food supply increases, would it not make sense to secure local food production both for security and employment reasons?

What would it take to develop such solution? Do we need a local food distribution system and marketing strategy with a low CO2 factor? Should government figure things like these out? Or is it up to the entrepreneurs and individuals committed to a livable planet?

Unfortunately, for government it is a challenge to work with only the common good in mind, the incentives to do otherwise are just too great. It is also difficult to depend solely on the private sector when profit is the only motive, which is why we find ourselves in such desperate straights. Philanthropy and charity while honorable, working towards a livable planet is large enough work that is hard to depend on one-person, company, foundation, or benefactor.

• Is then one of the goals of social enterprise to create business models and trade practices that lead to local living economies?
• How would you explore the means to creating a local living economy in your community?
• Could a local community of innovators help residents create these business models and trade practices that lead to more sustainable change?

Join Carlos Gasca Yanez in the conversation.
 

Yes, what can the community sector teach the corporate world? Values? It's not that simple -- but it’s that important.

Please forgive any hubris you may detect in our title this week -- what one group can teach another often comes across sounding a tad patronizing, and we can all learn from each other.  Jerr Boschee even wrote a piece for The Chronicle of Philanthropy in September titled A Key Lesson Business Can Teach Charities -- so the traffic flows both ways.  And that's all to the good, there are lessons to be learned, and business has been teaching the social sector the virtues of analysis, monitoring of success metrics, consistency, scalability and so forth.

"Social and environmental entrepreneurs have a lot to teach big business," claim John Elkington and Mark Lee in their article on Grist, This Ring a Nobel?  But let's not stop there, let's get a conversation going, and tap into the wisdom of this particular crowd (with a tip of the hat here to James Surowiecki). What have we learned?  Because that may be a good indicator of what we are able to teach...

And values, which may be our strong suit, would seem to play an important role here.

Do we have something to teach the business world

• about the value of values?
• about the importance of innovation?
• of spontaneity?
• of the passions and feelings of those who work with us?
• of the singular importance of integrity?
• about the way the world works?

Managing three bottom lines requires greater agility, perhaps, than only one.  Are there qualities -- of flexibility, of risk taking perhaps, of dedication -- that the business world could learn from us?

And if the corporate world does learn from us, do we expect it to become more efficient, but otherwise remain unchanged -- or is the change we'd look for a change in basic values?

Is social enterprise just one sector of the broader economy -- or *the* wave of the future?  What do you think?  What do you know?  What do you feel in your bones?

As the New Year is about to bring change, join Charles “Hipbone” Cameron in the conversation.

Muhammad Yunus in his book "Creating a world without poverty" defines two possible kinds of Social Business:

1. Companies that focus on providing a social benefit rather than on maximizing profit
2. Profit-maximizing businesses that are owned by the poor or disadvantaged

Today, probably because of Muhammad Yunus’ focus on poverty, the definition that people remember from his book is the second definition, as presented in Wikipedia:

“In his book Creating a World without Poverty - Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus defines what a social business is and what it is not. It boils down to the following requirements: 

1. social objectives: it needs to have positive social objectives (help comes from the altruistic social services that the business provides to the poor): e.g. health, education, poverty, environment or climate urgency
2. community ownership: it needs to be owned by the poor or disadvantaged (dividends and financial growth return to the poor where their fiscal situations are helped bringing them out of poverty): e.g. women, young people or long-term unemployed
3. non-profit distribution: investors may not, after having had their investments paid back, take profits out of the enterprise.”

Unfortunately this definition allows to address only a narrow slice of the issues, mainly around poverty (because of item 2 and 3). Meanwhile the world has a need for entrepreneurs with social businesses to be funded to address the whole spectrum of poverty, diseases, global warming, etc...

The way out of these issues is that both in developing and in developed countries any business anywhere should have the opportunity to become a social business.

So I would like to offer the following definitions:

Social Capital: the trust that you have accumulated within your family and your community (back to the original use of the term as presented in Wikipedia:

“those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit....The individual is helpless socially, if left to himself....If he comes into contact with his neighbor, and they with other neighbors, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community. The community as a whole will benefit by the cooperation of all its parts, while the individual will find in his associations the advantages of the help, the sympathy, and the fellowship of his neighbors "

Social Business: any business which is focused on optimizing both Social Capital and profit rather than just maximizing profit.

This should help transforming existing regular businesses into social businesses, and it should help resolve the current issue of creating and financing social businesses. There is today a lack of understanding on the part of regular investors, and a lack of focus from those who do social investments.

Matching demand (social businesses looking for cash) with supply (social investors with precise ideas of what they think should be fixed) can be difficult. It will stay like this until there is a way to bring focus (option #1) or until the lack of focus is compensated by volume (option #2).
I believe that the answer is in option #2, and the adoption of a much broader definition is the way to get there.

My questions to you are:
•    how do you define Social Business?
•    do you believe in existing businesses becoming Social Businesses?
•    do you agree that it would help financing of Social Businesses?

Join Marc Dangeard, founder of the Entrepreneurs Commons, in the conversation.
 

A recent interfaith dialogue in Malaysia on poverty found Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Taoists in general agreement that materialistic craving lies at the root of the present economic crisis, a position that the Dalai Lama also took in a recent speech, saying "People have become selfish and materialistic, which has led to the economic slowdown" -- and echoed by Pope Benedict XVI.

But do the faith traditions of humankind have a solution to offer?

There's prayer, there's the recognition of one's own role in contributing to the crisis, there's "changing one's ways" via a return to simplicity and necessity -- which can be seen as change called for by a renewed spirituality, or as a matter of common sense if not sheer necessity.

But do the world religions offer approaches to the economy, to banking and investment?

TIME quotes Aaron Levine, the rabbi chairman of Yeshiva University's Economics department, as proposing the Talmud as a source for insights into an appropriate ethical approach to financial disclosure, and mentions his upcoming article "The Recession of 2008: The Moral Factor — A Jewish Law Analysis" in a book from Oxford University Press.

One prominent issue is that of loans -- Proverbs 22.7 says quite bluntly "a borrower is a slave to a lender" (KJV) -- and interest. In his hugely popular book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes:

There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest - what we call investment - is the basis of our whole system...

Islam, indeed, has developed Islamic banking and money transfer systems, specifically to avoid usury, which is forbidden in the Quran. And the US Treasury is interested -- Robert Kimmitt, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush, said during a visit to Riyadh in late October 2008, "the US government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis" -- and shortly thereafter facilitated a seminar (download the PDF here) on Shariah-Compliant Finance with Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance.

And it's not surprising: Islamic banking seems to be weathering the crisis better than most, see Islamic Banking: Steady in Shaky Times.

From Hinduism, Mahatma Gandhi (one of US President Obama's heroes) offers an uncompromisingly moral approach to economic issues, under which "capitalists would hold their wealth as trustees for the service of society."

For a sense of economics based on Buddhist thought, we can turn to EF Schumacher, the economist author of Small is Beautiful, and his essay Buddhist Economics (download the PDF here).

And shamanism - arguably the oldest religion of them all?  The New York Times suggested recently that we might learn some profitable lessons from the Kwakiutl ceremony of giving known as the Potlach.  And then there's "the world's first non-reserve, non-fractional bank" recently started by a breakaway group of Lakota (Sioux), which deals only in silver and gold.

•    How can the moral insights of the world's religions be assimilated into the global economic system?

•    What practical steps can be taken in regulation, alternative banking systems, and economic theory and education, to facilitate change?

•    How does a consumer society adjust to "voluntary simplicity" without the transition causing greater economic chaos than already exists?

•    What do our religious traditions suggest?  How do we implement their suggestions?  Where is wisdom?

Join Charles "Hipbone" Cameron in the conversation. And let's open up the possibilities...
 

Imagine you’re someone who wants to make a difference in the world without devoting all of your time to the effort.  

You want to lend your creativity, connections, and capital to effect change but you don’t have tons of time.  You go to a website like Social Actions.  You enter the keywords that describe the cause you want to serve.  And immediately, you’re presented with opportunities to donate, sign petitions, join mailing lists, and attend nonprofit events.  These opportunities, as impactful as they are, leave you feeling somewhat unfulfilled.  

You start to think, there must be meaningful ways online to support social entrepreneurs.  But you can’t find them. The reason you can’t find them is that the technological infrastructure is devastatingly nonexistent.  Why?  Because the creators of websites that facilitate collective action have, for the most part, created online tools that serve the needs of traditional nonprofits, the kinds of nonprofits that seek donations, create petitions, setup mailing lists, and run awareness-raising events.

With the exception of Kiva, MyC4, Wokai, Ideablob and a hand full of campaigns on ThePoint, there are very few opportunities online to support social entrepreneurs.

• What would happen if ordinary people could use the Internet to seamlessly contribute to the work of social entrepreneurs in a range of ways?
• What if ordinary people could be the arbiters of which social entrepreneurs find the right combination of creativity, connections, and capital to fulfill their world-changing missions? 
• What kinds of online tools would need to be developed to enable this sort of mass participation in social entrepreneurship?

I’ve made a shortlist of actions people might take to support the work of social entrepreneurs:

• Connect social entrepreneurs with the people you know who can help them do what they want to do.
• Lend your expertise in a specific area, such as communications, management, technology, or product design.
• Offer to make a business plan more creative, inclusive, and environmentally friendly
• Present yourself as a resource when and where social entrepreneurs need your help
• Contribute to the start-up funds, either as loans, grants, or investments.

I’m hoping this list and the questions above will spark a conversation that shifts the way we think about how social entrepreneurs could and should receive the support they need.   

Join Peter Deitz, Founder and Executive Director of Social Actions, in the conversation.
 

Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary General of the UN and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, was quoted recently as saying:
"The financial, fuel and food crises of 2008 are in part a result of speculation and a failure of governments to intelligently manage and focus markets."

We live in a world of immensely complex interdependencies, and if, as the saying goes, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas, it is even more likely that the current financial crisis will have ripple-through effects on the global ecology.

It is important for us to ask what those effects will likely be, and what can be done to improve the situation.

A UNEP document suggests that:
"Mobilizing and re-focusing the global economy towards investments in clean technologies and 'natural' infrastructure such as forests and soils is the best bet for real growth, combating climate change and triggering an employment boom in the 21st century."

Is this the "tipping point" that finally persuades the commerce- and consumption-driven parts of the human race to rethink our whole approach to the world in more ecologically sensitive -- hence, more sustainable -- terms?

Or will we see a return to "business as normal"?

Or (as seems most likely) are we headed for some intermediate outcome, in which steps are taken to reduce harmful emissions, but globalization continues much as before, with, perhaps, the leadership role "moving east" as Helena Cobban suggests in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece?

Jeffrey Sachs, writing soon after the financial crisis started, commented:
"At the UN, the world grappled with poverty, disease, hunger, and climate change in the near total absence of US leadership. This was pathetically underscored by President Bush, whose speech to the UN on Wednesday was filled with “terror,” “terrorists,” and “terrorism” 31 times, but didn’t include a single mention of “climate,” “environment,” or the “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs). By the time of the UN’s MDG Summit Day yesterday, the US was simply nowhere to be seen, neither in the plenary sessions nor in the breakout events."

• How awake are we?
• Where will the leadership come from?
• What's the role of social entrepreneurship?
• What ecological philanthropies will be hardest hit?
• What urgent government programs may be sidelined?
• What's the opportunity here?

Will global economic declines be used as "tempting excuses for most to put ecological concerns aside" as the UNEP fears they may? Or is the financial crisis "an Ecological Warning Shot?"

Join Charles “Hipbone” Cameron in the conversation and let’s talk about areas of special concern -- but also the possibilities of real change.

From local micro-businesses to global commercial giants, to NGOs and government agencies, the mobile phone is becoming a key tool for reaching new markets and servicing customers at the lowest possible cost.  As penetration and usage increase, international development efforts around the mobile phone are also growing.  Via cellular networks, Indian farmers are finding out the latest crop prices (see the Thomson Reuters announcement), South African HIV Aids patients are receiving better care (see the BBC News announcement) and Iraqi refuges in Syria are finding out about food distribution programs (see the United Nations announcement).

The potential to scale and replicate development efforts via the mobile phone is enormous, though to date, most of these initiatives remain in the proof of concept or pilot phases.  For many organizations, especially smaller ones, the challenges and costs of technology development and establishing a user base are proving arduous. 

While some aspects of these programs can be measured, such as how many clients were served or the number of text messages were received, there is still little credible evidence of how mobile initiatives are impacting development.  And even when those issues have been solved, there are few revenue models that make these efforts sustainable.

• Against this backdrop, what are some of the potentially impactful ways that the mobile phone can be used to better serve those at the bottom of the pyramid?
• What are the real barriers to effective implementation and how have some organizations been able to overcome these?
• Are there solutions that can be reused in multiple geographies and what can we learn from them?
• Who are the major technology players that are starting to break down these barriers?
• Are there business models that work? If yes, what are they, and how likely are they to ensure sustainability?
• Finally, what are the initiatives that are having a positive impact on lives, and how are these being measured?

Join Mercy Corps' David Lehr in the conversation. And read his article, Dialing for Development (download the pdf), published in the Fall 2008 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

What is the role of private enterprise in delivering the goods and services to the poor? Should private companies serve the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP), or is this responsibility better left to the public sector or NGOs?

When they aim to do so, are they really reaching the BOP or rather some segment of the middle class?

These are some of the questions that surround the notion that private companies can achieve profit and development objectives simultaneously.
 
Whether private companies can equitably serve the world's 2.1 billion people that live on less than $2 a day is a highly contested question. Proponents contend that the private sector has the capital and efficiency necessary to infuse low income communities with long-overdue investment for infrastructure and channel financing for development that extends beyond donor funding. 

Examples of effective private sector participation in emerging economies include the employment of local entrepreneurs in Mexico City to operate water trucks that distribute water to residences not served by the public grid, the telecommunication industry's role in distributing mobile phones to African fishers who check fish prices and pay bills on their cell phones, and Tata Motor's recent unveiling of it $2,500 car, which could extend the luxury of mobility to millions of poor and middle-income families.
 
Market development at the BOP can also unravel the notion that the poor are merely "victims" or passive aid recipients by engaging them as consumers and entrepreneurs, creating millions of small and medium sized entrepreneurs in the process. This is in contrast to a financial and regulatory status quo that aligns incentives for the private sector with short-term financial gains rather than the needs and aspirations of the poor.  Additionaly, engaging the world's poor in private enterprise creates longer-term sustainable value by fostering local involvement, ownership, and accountability for affordable access to basic goods and long-term fiscal responsibility.
 
Private sector presence has historically been stronger in developed countries, where 43% of electricity services and 80% of water and sewage services is provided by private enterprise.  In contrast, in developing countries, only 36% of electricity and 35% of water and sewage services are delivered via the private markets, which suggests enormous potential for the private sector to expand access to basic goods and services in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
 
However, there is a broader question about the role that private enterprise should take in delivering services to low-income households. Public companies report to shareholders on a quarterly basis and therefore have short-term financial objectives that are often in conflict with longer-term development objectives. This leads companies to prioritize wealthier households. Until social indicators are built into corporate quarterly reports, companies will have little incentive to make financial tradeoffs in support of low-income development.

In addition, there is a philosophical question about whether the poor should be expected to pay for services, including basic ones such as water, sanitation, and housing. Many researchers have looked at the ability and willingness to pay of the poor in order to prove them as a viable customer base. However, there exists a public perception that companies are robbing the poor if they make profit off of them.
 
• What is the role of private enterprise in fighting poverty?

• What is the broader legislative, social, and institutional framework that must be set in place in order to make profits while helping the poor?

Join Mike Lee in the conversation.