Art brokers that use abandoned office buildings as their galleries; a winery that started moving bottles after promising to donate part of its proceeds to breast cancer research; Bono’s highly publicized (PRODUCT)RED line, which has licensed to multinational corporations like Gap, Apple and Motorola: all of these have become accepted examples of social entrepreneurship.
While most people think of nonprofits, like the United Way, Red Cross or local children’s hospitals, as social entrepreneurship, the social sector is increasingly embracing commercial enterprises as exemplary ventures.
Since 2003, Cleveland’s Civic Innovation Lab has given $1 million to 37 companies and entrepreneurs to seed their social businesses. These ventures all have a component that will contribute directly to social welfare. However, funded companies, which include the art broker example above, as well as a beautification company that plants flowers with money from corporate sponsors, must be potentially successful for-profit ventures.
The idea that making money (or as many would justify, improving the economy) is not at odds with socially conscious ventures is not entirely new. Civic Innovation Lab borrowed its model, in part, from the 28-year-old Ashoka organization, which seeds social entrepreneurs, promotes group enterprises and networking, and builds infrastructure aimed at making businesses successful. In 2006, Ashoka had 160 employees working in 60 countries on a $30 million budget.
Ashoka, the Civic Innovation Lab and similar organizations are well positioned to raise funding for their efforts. The social component each funded company makes investments more acceptable, often allowing for contributions from nonprofit foundations. Ashoka received part of its funding from the Knight Foundation.
Yet, the effort is not without critics. Advertising Age alleged that companies licensing the (PRODUCT)RED name spent more than $100 million advertising their associated gear and donated only $18 million to the (PRODUCT)RED charity. Surely, nonprofits waste millions of dollars of corporate and personal donations on individual salaries and unsuccessful projects, but much of the contributed money goes directly to aid those in need.
While the new face of social entrepreneurship has opponents, its innovation could drive greater availability of funding for the organizations that need it most, as well as recognition that economic growth has tremendous social benefits.
April 24, 2008
April 21, 2008
Problem solving at sea
As an attendee of yesterday’s Research ShowCASE at Case Western Reserve University, I was confronted with the best and most promising study the university had to offer: hundreds of student research posters, panels on cutting-edge industries and dozens of university faculty. Yet out of the hundreds of research projects presented at the ShowCASE, I seriously questioned whether more than a few could ever move beyond the research lab and enter the marketplace.
In evaluating the challenges in encouraging university researchers to tackle real world problems, I was particularly struck by a comment made by Case Associate Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering James Basilion, who spoke on a panel about translational research. When asked to compare basic and translational research, Basilion used an analogy about surfers. He equated basic research with the surfer out at sea, riding a wave, steering the board gently left and right, but aiming only to make it safely to the beach. Translational research, he said, is having to meet someone on the beach by the palm tree at exactly 3 p.m.
This intense difference explains why many university basic researchers have exceptional difficulty transitioning to a translational field. They are used to using exacting lab conditions to test hypotheses and safely reach a previously unknown conclusion that can be tested and reproduced in other labs. Translational research, on the other hand, aims for a specific application that must be proven at specific times, meet predetermined milestones and be reproduced anywhere with similar results. In this case, a successful experiment is more than just hitting the beach.
All of the translational research panelists argued that the research community probably demands some of each kind of surfer from universities. Basic research that furthers the canon of scientific knowledge through unpredictable discovery has been a key role of American universities since the industrial revolution. However, industrial and public officials have complained that universities are miles out of touch with the real world or as Basilion would argue showing up at a different end of the beach three hours after the meeting time. When industry demands solutions to a known market need and university researchers have expertise that can meet that need, it is often a struggle to make former wave riders conform to the norms of the business world.
Frustratingly, there may be no perfect solution to creating university-industry partnerships. Available funding for research is shrinking at universities statewide, and demands are being made in Columbus and Washington for return on investment of research dollars. It is imperative that we find a process that works, a solution that allows the free spirited research faculty at universities to create and tinker, but at the same time provides direct monetary benefit to the institutions for their survival as independent platforms for such thought. Maybe you have a suggestion?
In evaluating the challenges in encouraging university researchers to tackle real world problems, I was particularly struck by a comment made by Case Associate Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering James Basilion, who spoke on a panel about translational research. When asked to compare basic and translational research, Basilion used an analogy about surfers. He equated basic research with the surfer out at sea, riding a wave, steering the board gently left and right, but aiming only to make it safely to the beach. Translational research, he said, is having to meet someone on the beach by the palm tree at exactly 3 p.m.
This intense difference explains why many university basic researchers have exceptional difficulty transitioning to a translational field. They are used to using exacting lab conditions to test hypotheses and safely reach a previously unknown conclusion that can be tested and reproduced in other labs. Translational research, on the other hand, aims for a specific application that must be proven at specific times, meet predetermined milestones and be reproduced anywhere with similar results. In this case, a successful experiment is more than just hitting the beach.
All of the translational research panelists argued that the research community probably demands some of each kind of surfer from universities. Basic research that furthers the canon of scientific knowledge through unpredictable discovery has been a key role of American universities since the industrial revolution. However, industrial and public officials have complained that universities are miles out of touch with the real world or as Basilion would argue showing up at a different end of the beach three hours after the meeting time. When industry demands solutions to a known market need and university researchers have expertise that can meet that need, it is often a struggle to make former wave riders conform to the norms of the business world.
Frustratingly, there may be no perfect solution to creating university-industry partnerships. Available funding for research is shrinking at universities statewide, and demands are being made in Columbus and Washington for return on investment of research dollars. It is imperative that we find a process that works, a solution that allows the free spirited research faculty at universities to create and tinker, but at the same time provides direct monetary benefit to the institutions for their survival as independent platforms for such thought. Maybe you have a suggestion?
April 8, 2008
If you build it...
According to a recent census report, Ohio led the nation in county population decreases as home to seven of the 34 counties with the biggest population declines in 2007.
Cuyahoga County (which includes Cleveland) reported the third biggest population decline nationally, losing 13,304 residents in the last year alone. And Mark Salling, director of Cleveland State University’s Northern Ohio Data and Information Service, said that since 2000, Cuyahoga County has lost more population than any other county in the country, approximately 98,000 people.
Other Ohio counties experiencing high population loss were Hamilton (Cincinnati), Montgomery (Dayton), Mahoning (Youngstown), Lucas (Toledo), Trumbull (Warren) and Summit (Akron).
Most commentators take one of two paths in addressing this situation. While some lament irreparable doom and gloom, others claim Northeast Ohio’s economy has finally hit rock bottom, an ironic silver lining to a six percent unemployment rate. However, a few mavericks have tried to analyze the cultural elements that ail troubled economies and offer advice on how a struggling city can turn things around.
As a recent college graduate and returning Akron resident, I was particularly struck by the research of one such non-traditionalist, Next Generation Counseling founder Rebecca Ryan. Nearly three years ago, Ryan offered her services (at a substantial charge) to Akron claiming that by implementing a few small initiatives the city could “broaden and strengthen its economy in the coming 2-4 years.”
Ryan’s argument was simple, though subject to many column inches of debate. She said that while workers of previous generations found a job and moved accordingly, today’s young, well-educated, talented workers chose where to live and then found a job in that community.
Thus, Ryan advocated an approach to economic development that is more rooted in Field of Dreams than in classic business theory. Build a community that talented young folks would like and they will come to live there. Build a city of talented young people and companies will come to where the workers are.
While I could spend many blogs debating the validity of this theory, especially in light of times of higher unemployment, today I merely want to give consideration to Ms. Ryan’s thoughts and ask what the Greater Akron community has done with her research. While some of Ryan’s suggested efforts, including the development of Lock 3 and the completion of the Towpath, have been addressed, others including greater connectivity between parks, al fresco dining areas and a marketing campaign to encourage former Akronites to return home are still awaiting attention.
A $1.2 million effort to make Akron cooler may not top my list of best economic investments, but I can’t dispute the importance of a talented workforce, an engaged government, and a scenic and culturally aware downtown in helping cities succeed.
Our ability to build such a community may be as much the result of young execs as it is the cause. But any steps we can take to improve our community will surely be viewed as efforts of good faith and interest in our future.
View a pdf of Ryan's full report.
Cuyahoga County (which includes Cleveland) reported the third biggest population decline nationally, losing 13,304 residents in the last year alone. And Mark Salling, director of Cleveland State University’s Northern Ohio Data and Information Service, said that since 2000, Cuyahoga County has lost more population than any other county in the country, approximately 98,000 people.
Other Ohio counties experiencing high population loss were Hamilton (Cincinnati), Montgomery (Dayton), Mahoning (Youngstown), Lucas (Toledo), Trumbull (Warren) and Summit (Akron).
Most commentators take one of two paths in addressing this situation. While some lament irreparable doom and gloom, others claim Northeast Ohio’s economy has finally hit rock bottom, an ironic silver lining to a six percent unemployment rate. However, a few mavericks have tried to analyze the cultural elements that ail troubled economies and offer advice on how a struggling city can turn things around.
As a recent college graduate and returning Akron resident, I was particularly struck by the research of one such non-traditionalist, Next Generation Counseling founder Rebecca Ryan. Nearly three years ago, Ryan offered her services (at a substantial charge) to Akron claiming that by implementing a few small initiatives the city could “broaden and strengthen its economy in the coming 2-4 years.”
Ryan’s argument was simple, though subject to many column inches of debate. She said that while workers of previous generations found a job and moved accordingly, today’s young, well-educated, talented workers chose where to live and then found a job in that community.
Thus, Ryan advocated an approach to economic development that is more rooted in Field of Dreams than in classic business theory. Build a community that talented young folks would like and they will come to live there. Build a city of talented young people and companies will come to where the workers are.
While I could spend many blogs debating the validity of this theory, especially in light of times of higher unemployment, today I merely want to give consideration to Ms. Ryan’s thoughts and ask what the Greater Akron community has done with her research. While some of Ryan’s suggested efforts, including the development of Lock 3 and the completion of the Towpath, have been addressed, others including greater connectivity between parks, al fresco dining areas and a marketing campaign to encourage former Akronites to return home are still awaiting attention.
A $1.2 million effort to make Akron cooler may not top my list of best economic investments, but I can’t dispute the importance of a talented workforce, an engaged government, and a scenic and culturally aware downtown in helping cities succeed.
Our ability to build such a community may be as much the result of young execs as it is the cause. But any steps we can take to improve our community will surely be viewed as efforts of good faith and interest in our future.
View a pdf of Ryan's full report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)