Social entrepreneurs are quickly becoming celebrities

just in the last couple weeks, Nicholas Kristof devoted his column to the field and CBS Evening News featured social entrepreneurship in its making a difference series. But the question is whether social entrepreneurs will use their newfound glory to make an even larger impact or allow the field to be co-opted. Maximizing social change requires striking a delicate balance.

The fear of co-optation comes from the fact that as social entrepreneurship has become a fad, corporations have increasingly jumped at the opportunity to brand themselves as part of the field. Corporations are creating new clothing, phones, watches, and more to show their heart to Americans. Undoubtedly, this can be a force for good. Every water bottle can be an educational tool, as well as a refreshing drink. But the concern is that as more and more corporations create "socially conscious" products, there needs to be a quality control mechanism so that consumers can tell these products and their respective social value apart. In addition, its essential that consumers understand that while some of these products (such as Product Red) are decent ways to support the Global Fund, the best way to support the Global Fund is to give a direct donation. In other words, there needs to be a vehicle that bridges engagement so that consumers may start at the level of buying Product Red but are brought in deeper so ultimately they become donors to the Global Fund and not just conspicuous consumers of trendy products that only give a small part of their revenues to global health. Until such a clear network of accountability for social entrepreneurship is developed, this risk looms over the future of the field.

We can do well and good at the same time--it is our individual responsibility that empowers us to impact our world in a positive way.

Our ability to do good and well can be faciliated when companies implement logistics to ensure credible social actions.

In our increasingly interconnected world with new technologies and the internet, social change is becoming a fastreality. It is possible when individuals, corportaions, non profitsm and policy makers have a common zone of agreement: a better world.

Americans for Informed Democracy is hosting a summit entitled "Social Entrepreneurship and Global Change" at Boston College on March 24. I will be a small group leader and I invite anyone who is interested to join!

Here is the link for the "Social Entrepreneurship and Global Change" summit details: http://www.aidemocracy.org/change.cfm

I agree with Seth's comment. Campaigns, like Product (RED), that engage people in global issues through their purchases are a good start, but they're just a start. Education about issues like the global AID pandemic, the Millennium Development Goals, the impact of international trade policies on the developing world, and the fight against malaria is crucial for securing sustained involvement from the public. If there isn't even a basic level of knowledge behind this trend of "consumerism-for-good," then it's just consumerism.

In tandem to their major product campaigns, businesses can engage youth through providing free educational materials for schools, running essay and video short contests that center on global issues, and providing scholarships for students who are tackling issues like the ones I mentioned above.

That, in my mind, would be a good place to start.

I agree with you Seth, to a large extent. However, I do just want to shed light on the changing dynamics of today's society. Presently, the average consumer prefers convenience and quick results in the age of blackberrys and quick result diets...things of that nature. I believe, most of the average popluation are concerned with the pressing needs of those in the world around them and would love to aid in anyway, but many do not know how to help or do not have the time. Their heart is in the right place, but they don't know how to initiate change. I think it is practical and smart for activists and leaders to collaborate with businesses to go futher. Although, as you mentioned, small proceeds are given with items purchased from consumers ...things add up and the more people buy the more proceeds we get. In appealing to the average consumer, I believe it is more likely that it will have a greater impact. This may be even taking advantage of the fact people like to indulge in trends and would buy a inspiRED t-shirt or LiveStrong braclet because it the "in" thing to do. I understand the main focus is lost in the fad mayhem, but I must say that many people with the hectic schedules of their lives can't dedicate as much as they would like to social, let alone global change. For example Poveryfighters.com -Click a box on the website and that donates a quater to help fighting poverty. This is attractive to someone who wants to help, but again, does not have the time dedication. From my own observation, I do believe that this is positive in the light if social dynamics, because now many individuals can in some way contribute to a cause(s); and if there is such a drive, they also now have a path to walk along, not smoothly paved, but a start.

The challenge facing the next generation of leaders has never been nearly as ambitious as presented before our generation. Leaders today are impelling us, from as early as 15 years-old, to end global poverty, fight HIV/AIDS and manage the most interconnected international community in the history of mankind. All of this as the world population is reaching astounding new levels, and is not expected to peak until 2050. Thus, it is up to you and me to make the difference, they say. They are right. But we must be careful. We should not enter the world of non-profits, NGOs, social entrepreneurship or international development with our eye on corporate profits or ulterior motives.

As any good mentor or adviser would tell you: act with passion and do the right thing. Companies that exploit the current "trendiness" of helping the poor, rebuilding New Orleans or stepping in after a tsunami have, indeed, proven helpful to millions. Imagine, however, a generation of engaged young leaders that is business savvy but also socially responsible in a genuine manner. What if social entrepreneurs became players that investment bankers respected for efficiency and effectiveness? But what if these social entrepreneurs, over time, also became the leaders of other industry? Then this world would truly be a better place to live, in spite of the daunting challenges that are staring all of us in the face.

Ultimately, we get to decide our role in the future of society. Will we be effective arbiters of social justice, equality and education, or will we choose to stand aside and watch as suffering persists under our noses? I believe the choice is overwhelmingly clear. Being a social entrepreneur as a young person not only builds invaluable skills that can be applied across industries, it empowers a change agent – and once the bug has bitten you, you can never forget the possibilities your success presents for the future of our world. And with success comes fame. But it's not the glory that compels the best to act. It's the reward of changing a life.

We can do well and good at the same time--it is our individual responsibility that empowers us to impact our world in a positive way.

Our ability to do good and well can be faciliated when companies implement logistics to ensure credible social actions.

In our increasingly interconnected world with new technologies and the internet, social change is becoming a fastreality. It is possible when individuals, corportaions, non profitsm and policy makers have a common zone of agreement: a better world.

Americans for Informed Democracy is hosting a summit entitled "Social Entrepreneurship and Global Change" at Boston College on March 24. I will be a small group leader and I invite anyone who is interested to join!

Here is the link for details on the "Social Entrepreneurship and Global Change" summit: http://www.aidemocracy.org/change.cfm

Together, we can do good and well. Come join us on March 24th, Saturday.

I applaud the product RED campaign. I beleive you should do the best you can with what you know... For individuals who know about initiatives that are donating to cuases one believes in (sucha as the Global Fund) and one has the means, I admire their ability and willingness to donate. For the rest of Americans who are neither aware of such initiatives nor seeking to learn about the ways we can support communitiies elsewhere in the world, campaigns such as Product RED is a great way to expose trendy consumers to fundraising campaigns! It's from this point of exposure that I hope many mall goers choose to learn more... It's from this openning to a larger cause that I beleive they'll begin donating directly to causes as they do the best they can with what they know.

I agree with other posts that there need to be checks in place to monitor trendy do-good campaigns, but thus far I've been pleased that publicity campaigns have exposed unexpecting mall go-ers to larger global issues. Hopefully this will serve as a point of entry for many Americans into furthering their understanding and support of such issues! Hopefully future campaigns will also publicize the cause as much as their product as well.

You’ve all made some very good points! I’d like to comment on the potential for corporate-led social entrepreneurship to become a distraction. (Sorry, but I don’t have much time so my apologies for not taking the time to ‘soften’ my ideas.)

While I agree with Autumn that corporate campaigns can serve as a point-of-entry to introduce individuals to global issues, the practice also gives me cause to worry.

Perhaps most importantly, I’m concerned that a lot of equally-important but less-flashy causes (the classic example is infant diarrhea in Africa) will be left by the wayside if they’re not adopted by corporate groups.

It also makes me wonder if we’re enabling people to continue on oblivious of their global environment if they haven’t been spoon-fed issues. People are capable of such great things; I think part of helping them achieve that greatness is holding them to high standards.

Finally, I just can’t trust corporations. I know, I’m a cynic. What can I say!? I respect the good that comes from campaigns like Product (RED), and I’d like to think that these projects were created by someone with good intentions. However, corporations have hardly proven to be worthy stewards of humanity. They are not human and have no moral compass. In order to succeed, they must make profit their primary concern – let’s not lose sight of that.

It’s not that I’m against these campaigns; it’s just that I would want to keep an eye on them. Maybe I’m trying to have it both ways…

Best,

Corporations are legally bound to maaximize profits. They are amoral. I trust them to lie, cheat, steal, pollute and evn kill to meet that mandate. But, corporations are tooks, organiozational structure that can be run by, or at least populated with People who do have morals. While one part of a corporation may be harming the environment, another may actually be helping AIDs victims.The trick is to frustrate the destructive behavior as much as possible while encouraging the good behavior. RainForest Action Network does this very well - see their campaign to convert Citibank into a force for good, or at least to stop doing harm. Corporations are not going away, so subvert the big ones and run the small ones.

I agree with Patrick and Lindsay about the varying nature of corporations. I have also pushed the edges of being a bit cynical about corporations' attempts to contribute to the "greater good" of society. As Patrick pointed out, it is important to realize the diversity within large corporations, as well as the diversity which exists in the category of those entities which are labeled “corporations.” There have been countless reports of lying, polluting, discrimination etc. by some of these entities, which makes it difficult not to generalize.

I acknowledge that corporations are focused on the bottom line, so I don't expect good intentions to foster socially conscious products or marketing. The intention is irrelevant; the action, education or change which the product/marketing provokes is what has value. As Seth noted, there needs to be a kind of mechanism for measuring the impact and legitimacy of these social initiatives. I do not expect corporations to shift their focus from the bottom line to the triple bottom line through good intentions, instead I would look to measures that should be in place to rate the impact of their social initiatives, regardless of their intention.

Autumn seems pleased that Product Red is the way "many mall goers choose to learn more." And certainly there's good that can come out of this. But here's the problem: there are moments in our history where Americans have really felt called to sacrifice and to join a movement to change the existing social order

think the civil rights movement -- not merely find ways to add slight acts of redistribution within it. The civil rights activists (which I'm proud to say included my father!) did not take up the cause because it was cool or compassionate but because they believed it was right and just. Today, we have reason to be similarly called to action to protest the vast inequality in our own country, let alone globally. But there are few protests, even amidst a young generation that does care deeply (-- just look at all those bright youngsters willing to take huge pay cuts to serve in Teach for America). What concerns me is that halfway measures like Product Red may be a distraction that allow people to feel as if they're solving today's ethical wrongs when in fact they're merely massaging them. In other words, what if Product Red is like a pain drug that reduces the hurt of a broken leg but never actually fixes the leg. Indeed, what if it makes the pain just tolerable enough that people never come to fully recognize the extent of the break and thus the need to fix it. I continue to believe that these products are positive, but they have to be met with a critical eye and the leaders of the product and of the movement have to call on people to do much more than show their conscience at the Gap checkout counter.

I couldn't agree more with Lindsay. I think attempts like Product RED and in a similar vein, Bono and Jeffrey Sachs' crusades to end poverty are much more likely to harm the movement than help it:

· they take the focus away from the issue and what needs to be done to overcome it. Moreover, they distort the issue and take advantage of Americans' desire to do good by appealing to aspects of Western culture that got us to this place with so many grave inequities in the first place…

· they suggest that as Americans, we can go on living our lives the same way we always have, even continue to buy our clothes at the Gap, but poof, at the same time poverty will just disappear. This is an approach we're all naturally attracted to—wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to make any drastic changes to end poverty?

· But we can't. We have to make MAJOR changes in our day-to-day lives and at the policy level to overcome huge issues like poverty. I think these changes will probably make us happier in the long-run, but all of these campaigns make Americas cling tighter to wasteful consumptive lifestyles, making them think that change can happen without any major personal shifts. WE MUST SHIFT THE DISCUSSION TO ONE THAT REALIZES DRASTIC CHANGE MUST HAPPEN TO CHANGE THE WORLD.

· Most of these programs channel funds into one central source functioning much like a major corporation. This approach will not do anything to overcome poverty…small grass-roots efforts will. Smaller-scale efforts will avoid many of the downfall of these larger "development" efforts. They avoid corruption (both in impoverished countries and in the U.S.) because an internal accountability system is developed among a small community group. They address the necessities of the community instead of a "one-size fits all" approach that other programs pursue. This doesn't mean it can't reach the same scale of other development programs, but it does mean it will at least have a chance at meaningful change.

We must not say things like every little bit helps and think that just because someone cares, it means they're doing the right thing. Entering into the field of "social change" must not be done blindly. And, it seems blatantly obvious that every one of the popularizations (that I've seen!) of the social change movement are doing just that—jumping in to get a cut at the trend of doing good and doing a lot of harm in the process.

Social entrepreneurship might be a new way of thinking about the commodity situation. If part of the central problem of the global economy is that consumers and producers know very little about each other and the conditions in which they live--thereby allowing grave inequalities to be perpetuated--then it seems like a good step for the middlemen to make their agendas, causes, and links better known. So if socially responsible corporations raise awareness about the conditions in which their workers live, and the resources that go into their products, I think that's positive. But if they are selling commodities that have only a very symbolic connection to their cause (like the ONE bracelets) and raise anonymous monies for cloudy relief organizations, it doesn't really improve the alienated situation of distant consumers and producers.

Hello, everyone. To accumulate capital for the implementation of pioneering ideas, there is a concept at www.careerprepadvantage.org. It is only a concept and is subject to refinement, which means that the concerns about Product RED and corporate America would be taken into consideration before the concept become a construct.

The concept is meant to provide several services, starting with education of a very large number of university and high-school students in social and environmental responsibility ("SER"), then the provision of grants for the implementation of pioneering ideas. As an example of education and grantmaking: instead of spending millions on registering and remonstrating with youth about voting in elections, the concept would create community funds so that youth, their parents, and neighbors discuss, decide on, and direct funds for community improvement, age and citizenship status notwithstanding. Another example is at www.mymontebello.com/micro .

The concept is meant to address concerns expressed by contributors to this conversation about challenges which merit more attention, like infant diarrhea in Africa, about greenwashing by corporations, and about social dynamics. I ask Seth and Elise to be in touch, as I would like to know whether Americans for Informed Democracy would provide content for the concept and whether the concept would be worth discussion at the upcoming summit at Boston College.

Lest I forget, the concept is to be stakeholder-driven, without shareholders. This would provide an alternative model for the governance of corporations which, hopefully, would have beneficial ramifications, like compelling representative democracy to become more democratic.

Van Ajemian, J.D. vanajemian@yahoo.com, subject field "Young Social Entrepreneurs" 323.720.1022, office and voice mail, Pacific time

In some ways, I think co-optation is a good thing. The trick will be how do we keep continuous forward progress to make sure this isn't just the next big thing. If companies and big campaigns can help plant seeds of interest and/or change, I'm all for it. Again, the challenge becomes nourishing these seeds of change in people with real facts and action. But I am a huge supporter of making this stuff (social and environmental responsibility) more fun and positive. I was at a meeting with Paul Hawken and Vicky Robin once and there biggest message was we have got to stop making this stuff so boring and intrusive. There's no better way to shut down a converstion with some people than bringing up the details of global warming. Show them a green Gibson guitar or Armani Hemp jeans and they might stay and listen for a while. As Julia Butterfly Hill says, "we have to make this movement IRRESISTABLE". The mainstream crowd has been hearing the sky is falling, the sky is falling for a long time now - and we know it is - so we need to wrap it in new ways to excite and inspire them to join in the movement. Why not use tools that we know work (e.g. marketing, advertising, etc.) to do this? What if we could get to the point where everything in the mall is sustainable? Maybe we need figure out ways to work with people rather than always telling the can't or shouldn't do.

A Social Edge member (Maya 21) would like to ask the following questions:

>> Why do you put emphasis on the youth, not the mature folks too? What are the mature folks doing to change conditions?

I think this is a problem when you send youth to emerging countries and the culture wants to see workers and partners with more experience. This has been a problem with the non-profit sector and social entrepreneurs --there should be more good opportunities for the fifty + change agents. >>

In some ways, I think co-optation is a good thing. The trick will be how do we keep continuous forward progress to make sure this isn't just the next big thing. If companies and big campaigns can help plant seeds of interest and/or change, I'm all for it. Again, the challenge becomes nourishing these seeds of change in people with real facts and action. But I am a huge supporter of making this stuff (social and environmental responsibility) more fun and positive. I was at a meeting with Paul Hawken and Vicky Robin once and there biggest message was we have got to stop making this stuff so boring and intrusive. There's no better way to shut down a converstion with some people than bringing up the details of global warming. Show them a green Gibson guitar or Armani Hemp jeans and they might stay and listen for a while. As Julia Butterfly Hill says, "we have to make this movement IRRESISTABLE". The mainstream crowd has been hearing the sky is falling, the sky is falling for a long time now - and we know it is - so we need to wrap it in new ways to excite and inspire them to join in the movement. Why not use tools that we know work (e.g. marketing, advertising, etc.) to do this? What if we could get to the point where everything in the mall is sustainable? Maybe we need figure out ways to work with people rather than always telling the can't or shouldn't do.

Victory condition

What is the purpose of the "social entrepreneurship" movement? What is our "victory condition"?

I would posit that the victory condition is to cause all enterprises to become, by default, social enterprises.

That is, I believe that the objective is to change the global economic model from one in which firms and organizations span a spectrum from "for-profit" to "non-profit" (with, presumably, "social enterprise" somewhere in between)---with aims spanning a similar spectrum from "purely financial return" to "purely social return"---to one in which financial return and social return are commensurate and identical.

Below, I make a few theoretical claims. If anyone is interested, agrees, objects violently, would like elaboration or clarification, or thinks these ideas are foolish, naive, and likely to make things worse rather than better, feel free to speak up.

1. The 20th-century global-capitalist model of economic development has created new problems (like global environmental instability) and exacerbated old ones (like poverty and income inequality) mainly because critical costs have been "externalized."
2. Costs have been externalized because the parties adversely affected by the externalities have been ignorant of their existence, in no position to defend themselves against the costs imposed, or both.
3. To address the problems caused by the excesses of the current economic regime, account for and internalize all costs.
4. To internalize all costs, transparentize the material infrastructure of society (all production, maintenance, and disposal processes, operating and lifecycle impacts, and so on), and understand the social, economic, environmental, political, and cultural contexts and impacts of the production, operation, maintenance, and disposal of that infrastructure and its components.
5. To force the transparentization of material infrastructure, educate the consumer base about the externalized costs being imposed onto it and equip it with sophisticated investigation and communication tools with which to learn about the causes of those costs, and to demand from the firms and organizations involved in the production and marketing of the components of the material infrastructure of civil society that they provide an honest and thorough accounting of the impacts of that production.

Students of economics (among which I cannot claim to count myself) will likely recognize this proposal as being simply a proposal to fulfill the theoretical assumption of perfect information. This is correct, but not complete: perfect information will do nothing if the consumer base has no power to call for alternative products to the ones currently being manufactured (and fomenting resource wars, exacerbating income inequality, wrecking the environment, and so on). The long-term role of social enterprise in creating a sustainable, equitable society, then, must be (at least) three-fold:

1. Educate the population about the challenges to its future prosperity. Provide a comprehensive accounting of the impacts of the current material infrastructure.
2. Work with firms (and individuals, and organizations) in the preexisting industrial order to transition from a restricted mode of return analysis (which understands financial return as an abstract) to a synoptic mode of analysis (which understands financial return as a proxy for social return). Use clever PR tricks to shame unenthusiastic firms, organizations, and individuals into appropriate and timely action.
3. Create an alternative material infrastructure whose maintainers evaluate its operation with a synoptic framework (i.e., internalize all costs). An educated and empowered population will offer their support (and dollars) to these firms, organizations, and individuals over the holdouts of the previous industrial era ten times out of ten.

I apologize again for the generality and theoretical abstraction of these comments. In any case, the process is already underway; the operative question, perhaps, is simply whether it is underway at sufficient speed. If anyone is interested in more practical ramblings, I have some marginally coherent suggestions about how to accelerate the process.

In related news, projects like Product(RED) are not particularly impressive; aside from being a blatantly obvious corporate marketing gimmick, one cannot reasonably claim that the (relatively trivial) donations that are made can be legitimately conceived as part of a coherent plan to systematically address the pandemics plaguing the nations beyond the gates of the OECD country club. Certainly the individuals who receive treatment through the Global Fund as a result of purchases of (RED)-branded garbage are likely to be grateful, and those impacts should not be underplayed; the subjective value of a single life, certainly, is beyond measure or analysis. One might reasonably ask, however: shall we continue offering patronizing handouts to the structurally and systematically deprived of the world (whom, generally speaking, have been deprived for the material benefit of the citizens of the country club nations), or shall we take studied, catalytic action to change the parameters of the global economy so that such handouts are no longer necessary?

Yes, that is a rhetorical question.

I am certainly interested in some more more practical ramblings, as long as they remain as coherent and relevant as those you already shared with us, and I am especially interested in any marginally coherent suggestions about how to accelerate the process of taking studied, catalytic action in order to change the parameters of the global economy, you were talking about. thanks for providing me with intellectual nutrition, I am really appreciating it!

In any endeavor, there exist a way to pursue good or pursue personal interests that do not benefit society. This is a reality that each person face - social entrepreneur or not.

The issue, then, should not be whether or not a social enterprise is tainted by meaningless propaganda. The issue should be how to work towards the social change that social entrepreneurs hope to achieve.

The issue of co-optation only becomes a central concern if a person wants to be branded as a social entrepreneur. Frankly, those who are concerned about such branding may be the very ones posing to be social entrepreneurs.

There are definitely several organizations wanting to put a social aspect to their products. I have seen a lot of them and frankly, these enterprises don't make sense especially since they are usually sold at above market rate. After all, if your organization is supposed to have a social aspect to it, there is no need to add the cost of doing your social work on top of the actual cost, right?

So what do we do about these organizations? Again, I don't think the real social entrepreneurs have enough time to debate this issue with those organizations or companies. The time, effort and cost of doing so, alone, can be put to a better use for the beneficiaries of projects and programs of social entrepreneurs. It would be putting such resources to waste.

I think that the general public is educated enough to know where such social benefits advertised by these companies go. If there are no concrete information provided to the general public, then it is safe to conclude that the so-called social aspect of the company is non-existent. There are specific laws already in place to ensure that such false advertising does not happen. These laws have corresponding punishment. Anyone can file a complaint against those companies posing as contributing to social change when they are actually not doing so. Also, those who are interested in monitoring such company are always welcome to do so. Such an effort would be lauded, but I am not sure if it would be sustainable given that mosst social entrepreneurs may not have enough resources to contribuute to such a body. However, we should not expect such an institution from the government.

To answer the questions:

I think that social entreprenuers who are doing their work well can and should try to work with the government to influence policy change. Admittedly, there are a lot of obstacles imposed by government institutions to prevent these from happening. In Asia, governments are not prepared nor are they willing to work witth young social entrepreneurs. In our experience at the Philippine Youth Employment Network, though, we found that it is certainly easier to work with government once you have trainings, success stories to show. What did we do? We pursued our work with or without their support. We made sure that eventhough we're grappling with resources, the organization could still manage to pursue its goals through the support of private individuals and through volunteerism. This was an important factor in the success of our organizations. Our participation in various meetings and conferences brought about the inclusion of youth employment at the national, regional and international level. By talking about our work and what we do and the people we've helped, we were able to convince policy makers to include youth employment in thhe policies.

At the end of the day, there's one thing I often ask myself: have I helped anyone today? This is one question that I think anyonee or any institution should ask himself/itself in order to see if it served its purpose - if it pursued the social change it wants to happen.

If an organization or a person begins asking itself/himself, have I earned anything today, that's a clear signal that the organization/individual is not after social change. Sustainability and profit for sustainability are acceptable. But one thing that social entrepreneurs should accept is that being involved in a social enterprise will always give financial headache. After all, most social benefits do not provide a financial benefit.

So, does policy change become a distraction? Only if you let it. At the end of the day, it's all a matter fo priority.

As for staying pure to its mission, a social enterpprise is only a social enterprise in so far as it stays true to its mission. Once it forgets to work towards achieving the very purpose it was created for, it ceases to be a social enterprise.

The task of a social entrepreneur is to improve lives and make a social difference. Accepting donations and assistance from companies should not affect the enterprise if one is clear with his/her goals with respect to the assistance coming from private institutions.

As for social enterprises, the real challenge is to provide products/service at current market price or at a lower market price for consumers to benefit over the product. It is not a social entepreneurship to add $1 to a product or service that would help more children go to school. If one really means to help others, then that help should go without a cost to anyone else, but one's self or one's organziation. To sell a product for $20 a piece and then give $1 that should have been part of the profit is the mark of a social enterprise.

This is my contribution to help quell overpopulation fears, end world hunger, and create a brave new world inside our own: Please handle with care and respect and offer your help to join a special slew of sexy socially conscious soldiers for good.

http://www.realneo.org/news/2007/02/05/project-genesis-garden-of-eden-ii

enjoy! Peace...

I have led a social benefit organization for more than 30 years, connecting inner city youth with adult volunteers and learning experiences. I think the ideas you've all expressed are fantastic. I have some observations and an invitation.

The problems of the world are complex, and as some of you have said, the business marketing of social enterprise, needs to link to forums, web sites, and learning circles, where groups of people, such as yourselves, are engaging in this same type of discussion, but focused on specific causes, such as AIDs, Water, Katrina, Poverty, etc, and specific geography where the problem is acute.

I've posted a link to a web site that provides much wisdom that could be applied to solving complex problems - http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/categories/businessInnovation/2007/02/13.html#a1780

Any group of people (young or old) could be using the ideas on this site to innovate new ways to solve deeply entrenched problems, or new problems that will emerge in your lifetimes.

As I said above, generic discussions like this need to be happening in many places, but with a specific focus and purpose. I've provide a link to the Boston Innovation Hub which illustrates the many different, and related, issues facing the citizens of Boston. No one can be deeply involved in every one of these issues, but choosing one, and staying involved for a lifetime, can make you an expert, and as you grow in your wisdom, and your career, this knowledge can make you a more impactful leader - http://www.tbf.org/indicatorsproject/hubofinnovation/innovation.asp

While I have led a volunteer-based program since 1975, I also worked in advertising for 17 years with a large national corporation. I know how important it is to create a daily reach and frequency of a message if you want customers to respond. Non profits and social benefit organizations don't have advertising that is consistent and on-going, especially the smaller organizations that work in relative isolation. Thus, some organizations need to take the role of intermediaries and knowledge managers, building data on organizations that provide services in specific areas. At http://www.tutormentorconnection.org you can see how I focus on tutor/mentor programs in the Chicago region and in other cities.

At the same time, others must dedicate themsleves to finding ways to encourage business to create messages that point to these knowledg hubs (like the Boston hub), or like Guidestar, or Idealist, or even Social Edge, is an essential step that must be taken in order for more people to begin to get involved in any cause, or to encourage them to stay involved or grow their involvement, over a lifetime of learning and action. Imagine if every beverage container, bar of soap, napkin, paper towel, etc. had a "get involved" message, and pointed to web sites that served as entry points like the Boston Hub. Imagine if at the end o