Wednesday, November 28, 2007

What Would it Take?

I heard a report on WBUR in Boston this morning about a Catholic elementary school that is likely to be closed by the archdiocese as part of a consolidation plan. It serves a largely immigrant population, runs a successful after school teen drop in center that is one of the few neighborhood alternatives for kids who don't want to be on the street, and is a real oasis in an area heavy with violent crime. Parents claim that the education outpaces that available in the public schools although the school has a tough time attracting more students because of the rough area in which it sits.

This came amid the endless reports on the mainstream media about Black Friday and Cyber-Monday shopping -- including the craziness of 4 a.m. store openings and people waiting all night for bargains.

It got me thinking: what would it take to get people to come out at 4 a.m. to save a neighborhood school? What would it take to get everyone who stood in line to get into a store to give just $10 or $20 to make the world a little bit better? What a difference it would make if we could each forego another sweater or belt in order to help a kid get a better education.

If the Archdiocese acts to close the school the principal has said that she'll try to keep it open as an independent school. I'm going to try to organize a group to help. Want to join?

Monday, November 26, 2007

Social Enterprise, Enterprise Social

Argggggghh! Company-centric Web environments are taking on the moniker "enterprise social networks." As if it wasn't hard enough explaining social enterprise those not familiar with it, we now have a similar sounding name that are far more about enterprise -- corporate messaging, connecting the Kool-Aid drinkers, etc. -- than social missions and positive impact.

And just this morning I heard that "triple bottom line" was passe. We haven't even gotten there yet.

Couldn't the corporate flaks call theirs something else? Can we take back the terminology?

If the enterprise social networks can be used to tell truth to power, it might be worth it. But otherwise, I want my words back!

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Fairwell to Motto

The magazine Motto has ceased publication. Started as Worthwhile, the magazine espoused a mission of "purpose, passion, and profit" and had a strong subtext of sustainability and social responsibility. I was a blogger for the magazine in its early days and am sorry to see it go.

I am curious about its demise given my own interest in both publishing and social enterprise. Though I can only speculate from afar, I see three reasons that Motto failed:
1) It was principally a print publication at a time when off-line media is having a tough time. A glossy magazine is an expensive proposition in the best of times; given the current climate, it would be tough to make a new entry fly even with deep pockets and an editorial focus on celebrity gossip never mind a niche focus like finding deeper purpose through business;
2) It was an advertising-driven business model. The magazine never had very many ad pages and ad dollars are shifting on-line (see item above). It is enormously expensive to get up to the circulation numbers that attract national advertisers. Given the niche market, I would have at least experimented with a higher subscription price to make the publication less dependent on space advertising;
3) They were under capitalized. The publication ceased operations after four years. It typically takes seven years for a magazine to reach profitability. Unless you have deep, deep pockets, it is difficult to survive that long. I would have started on-line and only gone to paper when I could demonstrate market demand for it.

Founders Anita Sharpe and Kevin Salwen may have been ahead of their time. Social enterprise is much hotter now than it was four years ago. They may also have cast their net too wide: they were about finding purpose in work no matter the type of organization for which one worked although they featured a lot of what one would call social enterprises. A tighter bead on being the journal for the movement might have helped.

I'll miss Motto and wish Anita and Kevin the best of luck in their next adventure.

Monday, November 12, 2007

United Way On Board

There are days when one wonders if social enterprise is getting as much traction as it is hype. Then one reads an item like this one from the Worcester (MA) Business Journal: United Way and the Institute for Non-Profit Development are making grants to help non-profits to start for-profit arms to help increase impact on mission and organization stability.

I've worked with non-profits for more almost twenty years and among the things that I've learned in that time is that United Way is a conservative organization. They are rarely a first mover -- they have plenty of good places to put their money. This effort is supported by only $80,000 in grants but, given that we are talking about United Way of North Central Massachusetts and an Institute headquartered at a community college it is significant.

So on those days when you aren't quite sure about the future, remember that there is news like this that can reassure us that we are heading in the right direction.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Six Earths is All it Takes

Great story on Marketplace on NPR tonight: it looked at how much capacity the world would need if everyone consumed as much as does the average American. It turns out that it is equivalent of six Earths. Count 'em, six.

It's part of a special report, Consumed, that examines whether current consumption patterns are sustainable. (D'oh, they're not). This story was followed by another on "overshoot" -- the consumption of natural resources faster than they can be reproduced. It was equally frightening: right now we are overshooting on trees, fish, and fossil fuels by 30%.

In the interview, UCLA geography professor Jared Diamond predicts that a first world lifestyle will not be possible anywhere on Earth in 30 - 50 years unless things change.

This is a clarion call for a conversion of traditional grow-at-any-cost capitalism to social enterprise. Unless we trade our short term focus on quarterly earnings for a longer view that values sustainabilty and social responsibility, we are going to grow ourselves into oblivion.

The current system provided a materially great life for many people (especially the few at the top) but it is like having a diet of all candy and ice cream -- eventually you get sick and the body stops functioning. We have to acknoledge that we are part of a larger ecosystem and are, in part, responsible for its survival if we are to survive ourselves.

What do you think? Can we reverse our patterns of overconsumption?

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Will recalls boost SE?

This has been the year of recalls. Lead-paint tainted toys (multiple times), toothpaste, tires, pet food, spinach, and most recently a million pounds of ground beef. I would think that all of this has to add up to a lack of trust in those businesses that strive for shareholder value without social value.

If that's true -- and the holiday season will be the true test of whether consumer behavior changes at all based on these safety scares -- shareholder value will also be compromised. That, in turn, should be a boost for socially aware enterprises that take extra steps to measure and manage their processes and products.

I doubt that any of the people running the traditional corporations is a bad person. But they are likely converts to the pursuit of ever lower prices. A certain amount of fat-cutting in the supply chain is both healthy and necessary but eventually the lower costs come with a price --compromises in safety and oversight among them.

Social enterprises aren't perfect. No organization is. But I trust them to be more vigilant about everything from worker safety and compensation to manufacturing standards.

Consumers have short memories. I, for one, am hoping that concern for our own safety and that of our families keeps the memories of the recalls fresh and inspires people to make more socially aware choices when they shop.

Friday, November 2, 2007

Vikings and Farmers

I was listening to Don Sull of London Business School at a conference last week and he explained that he would take entrepreneurs over innovators any day of the week when a company is looking for new ideas. Innovation is over-rated, he said. It is a matter of Vikings vs. Farmers.

Vikings head off into unknown territory looking for opportunity. They probe to find a place where defenses are weak (or non-existent) and move aggressively to seize opportunities. Farmers, on the other hand, are tied to their land. They can become better and better farmers but they don't go out and discover new farms.

Sull was careful to say that Vikings are not inherently better than farmers. They are just less afraid to take risks and set out for undiscovered shores. In fact according to Sull, businesses need to find the right balance of Vikings and Farmers. Vikings, after all, aren't particularly good at hanging around to cultivate the long-term value of what they've discovered.

The "Vikings and Farmers" metaphor carried over to the rest of the conference and seemed to resonate with people from a wide range of companies and geographies.

We entrepreneurs are natural Vikings. However our ventures, if successful, eventually reach a stage where we need a few farmers to help us keep them going and this can be one of the most difficult transitions for any enterprise. Farmers want to introduce structure and process; Vikings hate structure and process. Farmers are patient; Vikings are restless. But in the end, Vikings need Farmers and Farmers need Vikings. It just isn't always easy to live together.