Educating for the future

Today, a child of 5, entering our education system will be working until 2070, at least; but we cannot predict the future in 5 years, let alone 65, so how do we know how we should be educating our children? Ken Robinson believes we need to focus on nurturing creativity in our children, instead of educating them out of creativity, as we are doing at the moment. We've decided what the World of Work needs at the moment, and this is what we are preparing our children for -but the World of Work maybe be incredibly different in the future.

If there is on1 think I am sure about, it is we need more creativity to solve the mess we have put this planet, and this society, in. There are many problems that need to be solved -and that can be solved, but only through creativity.

We should focus on developing our children, and helping them be the best they can be -without defining what the 'best' is (i.e. academically intelligent). Apparently Picasso said every child is born in artist, but only a few are allowed to keep the skill into adulthood. Why should sport, art, music, theatre and other non-academic subjects take up so little of our childhood (especially at school), and even at High School, University and beyond, our we still undertaking enough of these activities to develop ourselves -or are we too focused on developing the tiny per cent of our brain that deals with marketing, finance etc?

In fact, we need to not just nurture creativity in our children, we need to nurture it in everyone, and in the World of work, this means nurturing it in our employees. When I heard google allow all employees 10-20% of their time to do whatever they want to to, whilst at work, i became inspired (i hope this is still true, at google!). Of course nurturing creativity in employees will help them be better at their jobs, but it will also, more importantly, help them be better for the whole of society. This is something responsible leaders need to think about.

Overcoming differences is neccessary -and maybe even possible

There might still be hope! When I consider nationalism and countries that make progress in extraordinary times; both point to hope in our fight against massive problems like Climate Change. Why? Because when we fight against a common enemy, we bring everyone together and achieve something that otherwise we cannot do.

The world has not worked together to really tackle a common enemy ever before, and this is a big test. However many regions or countries or groups of people have done just this before. By overcoming our differences we can understand that we are, fundamentally, all after the same, and when something threatens that, we can work together. It is not easy, and it is rare that a challenge is so great that it can bring us all together. For the moment, Climate Change is certainly not bringing us all together, in the way that, say World War 2 brought the entire UK (and many of its colonies) together to fight a common enemy.

Many in the World do not care about climate change, because they are not affected by it, or do not think they will be affected by it… and this is a huge issue. This is what must change; otherwise we are accepting that, until the whole World is affected by the issue, we will not tackle the issue. Of course, by that time, it will be SO much harder to deal with the issue. But I suppose this is normal, looking at how much easier it might have been to stop Hitler before 1939, when Chamberlain refused to deal with the issue head-on; instead Britain waited until the problem was so much bigger before actually trying to tackle it.

So, can we learn from these (and other) lessons and get together to fight the common enemy now, when the battle can still be won, and can be won with less disruption, loss of live, damage etc than if we continue to wait? We are evidently starting to find out.

Stability and responsive competition

Business needs certain things, and what seems to be mentioned most often is the need for stability, so business can research, plan, execute, invest and so on. But today’s society is becoming increasingly unstable affecting the stability of society, but also the stability of consumers –and, on the flip side providing immense opportunities to new market entrants who can take advantage of the instability.

It is therefore imperative that current businesses seek to restore stability to society, to prevent climate change flooding cities or causing the biggest migration in history. It is selfish that big business wants to preserve the status quo and ensure the future that it is planning for in its strategic plans can be realized. This is a good thing; this encourages the current players who normally get complacent to take action to ensure stability.

As the world becomes more unstable we need to support social entrepreneurs who will create new solutions and put the current solution providers out of business. Look at the pharmaceutical industry which is struggling, look at the auto industry which is struggling, look at countless other industries that are struggling –and anticipate more disturbances to their market and within their market. It seems a win-win solution.

More new entrants will both create new solutions to current problems and incentivize current market leaders to fight back to keep their market share. One will be fighting for more stability, and one for less –but, ultimately this competition will be good for us all… in the hope that both ‘attacks’ can succeed. With a more competitive market, with more problems that need profitable solutions, there is cause to be optimistic that businesses will, for their own survival and sake of their own future, rise to the challenge.

Substituting the very bad for the bad

Sometimes it is just not possible, or too hard to actually solve a social problem, in which case it might be easier to try to just reduce the problem. 1 example would be to decide to use biofuels instead of oil for energy, in that using biofuels is better than oil, in terms of the impact on climate change (though still debatable), but it still has many other negative impacts (food prices increase being one of them).

Another example, rather more interesting, is the issue of alcoholism which leads to health problems (such as harming the liver) and social problems (such as abusing others or not working). This article talks about a solution in Africa where local alcohol is highly alcoholic and dangerous, but extremely cheap. So if something less alcoholic (and thus less dangerous) can be provided for the same price, people might switch. It is an interesting solution; and what i like about it is that it still tries to create local economic benefit (which presumably, the local dangerous alcohol does) in order to keep costs down.

A parallel can be drawn with cigarettes and providing low-tar cigarettes (or 'light' cigarettes) instead of regulars. Though, is this the best solution compared to promoting nicotine patches or just by trying to stop smoking altogether? It depends on the problem, since now the problem is seen less as the health impacts on the smoker and more on the health impacts of others (and the nuisance factor). Presumably promoting such low-tar options, though helping reduce the harm on the smoker, does not really reduce the nuisance factor and still harms (though maybe somewhat less) other passive smokers.

I wonder what the side-effects of the above mentioned experiment is Africa are -would the local alcohol growers/sellers start campaigns against the cheap beer?, and whether there has been any studies on them. Well, if DfID get involved, I am sure there will be plenty of studies!

How to reach fulfillment

Tony Robbins suggests we need to be fulfilled, to do this we need to meet our needs. To do this we need to accept that our decisions affect our destiny and we need to thus understand our decision making process in order to make the right decisions for ourselves.

To do this first we need to decide what we want to focus on, in order to generate feeling. Then, we need to decide what this means to us and finally we need to decide what we are then going to do.

Once we have this then we need to pay attention not on the resources needed, but how we can be resourceful in meeting our needs. Ultimately to be fulfilled we need to go beyond meeting our basic needs (certainty, variety, significance, connection of love) to those needs of the spirit: growth and contribution beyond ourselves.

Watch this 20 minute video, if there is nothing else you do this year, and be inspired!

Responsible leaders need to appreciate others

Tony Robins suggests we need to not just understand what drives others, but we need to appreciate what drives others. Ultimately what drives someone can change; but first we need to appreciate others and what influences them, before anyone can change.

Responsible leaders need to influence others

Tony Robbins suggests you can only move yourself and others to action once you understand the invisible forces that shape ourselves and others. To do this we need to understand what influences people in the short-term (their state) and in the long-term: their NEEDS, their BELIEFS, and their EMOTIONS.

He suggests everyone has the same needs, but prioritizes them differently and this thus shapes who we are, along with our beliefs which shape how we will try to meet those needs.

Is being a charity, charitable?

I’m the first to admit most charities become so focused on what they are trying to change and who they are trying to help that they forget, as an organization, as a collective of individuals and as individuals, they also have responsibilities to society beyond their core activities, just like every other organization, business, government or otherwise.

Thus the need for social charities to consider their economic and environmental impact, for environmental conservationists to consider their social impact and so on. But, further to this, there is the issue of what is the charity’s contribution to society? Yes, it aims to contribute something by achieving its mission, but can it achieve more?

Without straying from its mission, can it utilize or leverage what it has to help society in other ways? Can it lend its office space, its staff skills, its communication channels etc to other organizations or individuals in society? It is about going beyond the ‘practice what you preach’ debate into the realm of ‘contribute all you can to improve society’

The role of arts in education for Sustainable Development

It is now best practice for workshops and lessons to be interactive and learner-centred; indeed occasionally role-plays and the like are utilized to increase the ‘learning by doing’ element of such a workshop.

The next step is to go beyond ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by expressing’ but to recognize the power for the arts (music, art, theatre etc) to connect to people emotionally and sensually; to not just support co0ncepts of discovery, creativity and innovation, but to inspire. The arts can transcend gaps (in student abilities, in time, in cultures) that other forms of communication cannot and can play a key role in not just improving the educational experience, but in relating education to sustainable development.

Through arts individuals can feel a part of something bigger, can connect to other people and to society and can better value intangible elements in life. They can of course also develop key skills required for a sustainable society such as creativity and communication; but more importantly they can be inspired, inspire others and envision a sustainable World.

Once such a world is envisioned, the arts can be used to inspire action, as communication tools and as enablers. They can be used not just to help people think but to help people feel and to influence how they behave. There is a whole new world out there and the arts need to play a greater role in that World, starting with education.

6 practices of high impact nonprofits

From an excellent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 07 edition:

1. Serve and Advocate in order to achieve large-scale social change. It does not matter which angle you start with but to have a high impact you need both [my note: agree, but advocacy is much harder, costlier, unmeasurable etc than serving as well as less attractive to funders -unfortunately]
2. Make markets work: tap into the power of self-interest and laws of economics. Understand how to influence the market through working with different partners e.g. changing business behaviours, earning income.
3. Inspire supporters to help in whatever ways they can and nurture supporters' groups to maximum benefit.
4. Nurture networks; share ideas and information and harness the power of partnerships.
5. Be adaptive by responding to external changes; make sure you listen to others and understand the changes as well as evaluating activities and incorporating learnings.
6. Share leadership within the organisation and with other organisations by building strong leaders internally, building strong executive teams and powerful boards. This is crucial for sustainability.

Other important management principles:
-diversified, sustainable, financial support
-invest in HR and build reliable infrastructure (even if this means higher admin costs)

One area the article touches upon but I believe is the most crucial practice of all, is the use and leverage of other organsiations and other resources through the use of mutually beneficial (or 'strategic') partnerships. Finally an excellent point is made about the need to focus less on process and more on impact!

Myths of Nonprofit management

From an excellent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 07 edition:

Myth 1: Adequate management is necessary but perfect management is not and has little improvement on social impact [my note: agree, but it depends how you define this as financial management is crucial as is HR management; the latter terribly neglected in all organisations, especially nonprofits]
Myth 2: Brand name awareness is not always important and does not have to be a critical part of strategy [my note: agree, but it depends on if the brand is also a message/'voice' that is crucial to the organisation's mission]
Myth 3: Breakthrough ideas are not always necessary; what is better is to tweak existing ideas to make them more successful [my note: the problem with nonprofits is most of them do not know what other ideas are out there, working and why and there is little genuine sharing or knowledge transfer in the industry globally -maybe higher staff turnover would be a good thing?]
Myth 4: Missions drive an organisation but there is not much need to specify what it is, fine-tune it and write it down [my note: surely this requires a nonprofit whose mission is already well understood by existing staff, easily understood by new staff and brings staff together rather than causing rifts, which also seems common]
Myth 5: Measuring nonprofits' impacts does not work as something like 'overhead ratio' has little direct bearing on impact [my note: agree, especially as most nonprofits need to spend more on HR to ensure effective programs and more on advocacy to ensure sustainable programs]
Myth 6: Large budgets does not mean high impact; organisations of large and small budgets can have high impact [my note: yes, but larger organisations should be able to better pool resources , partners and knowledge to make a greater impact. Unfortunately they should also be more flexible and innovative and work more with the low budget nonprofits to provide them these capacities]

CSR’s challenge in China

As Rich and others well know, business in China is moving rather fast. For most Multinationals they are under pressure to make profits in China, gain market share, open new branches or R & D Centres, recruit more (quality) staff and so on. The Olympics are around the corner which is adding extra pressure along with increasing numbers of high profile CEO and political visits because of China's growing importance in the World -environmentally, socially and economically.

What this means is that things like risk management tend to get pushed down the agenda (which is a big, big mistake), volunteering gets sidelined unless HQ orders everyone to do something on 'company's volunteering day' (as employees are too busy to take time off of work and companies unwilling to spend too much time organising anything) and community partnerships or other elements of CSR (like HR diversity programs or governance) tends to be dealt with rather hurriedly.

This is a missed opportunity for all concerned. Working on CSR is by necessity a long-term strategy. There is now a slow trend of companies in China to start to engage in more meaningful community partnerships, but only a slow trend. Most companies still lack the time, the ability, the people or the will to really engage meaningfully, even though the more meaningful the engagement the greater the benefits. Yes, more and more organisations are offering consultancy related to CSR in China, more and more are also providing outsourcing services (such as PR or legal companies, let alone those in supply chain areas); but the major issue is still there. Consultants or other agencies rarely train staff. They make suggestions that are accepted or otherwise or they implement directly and what is really needed is training (not just conferences) of staff dealing with these issues accompanied with high level support providing the time and will power to make something meaningful happen.

I expect that, for Foreign companies, their 'Global CSR people' will start playing a more important role in the future, as they recognise the limitations their China staff have and the environment these local staff operate in. It also means we will see more high level Global CSR meetings in China, attended by Global staff. By this i do not just mean the UN GC or those events, i mean meetings by WBCSD or BSR as well as smaller meetings. I also expect companies to start having their internal Global /Asia CSR meetings here more often. Unfortunately those people will still struggle to find a 'green' venue for their meetings too!

Speaking Different Languages

In all the literature about cross-sector partnerships there is always two key problems that are identified. The first is the lack of communication and poor expectation setting between different partners, and indeed different people within each organization. The second is the different perspectives the different organizations are coming from. I’d like to focus somewhat on the second problem for a moment.

What do companies think of NGOs? There are some good terms that come to mind, such as ‘dedicated’ and ‘worthwhile’ but more often there are rather less-favorable terms used such as ‘unprofessional’, ‘a nuisance’, ‘money hungry’ and ‘unreasonable’. In return, what would NGOs think of companies? Thinking of the whole range of NGOs here, though in public most are very positive if it helps them get money (except for the combative anti-corporate NGOs), in truth most NGOs do not look too highly upon companies either.

This misunderstanding between both groups leads to a lack of trust and without that no partnership can be a success. 1 way of avoiding a lack of trust developing is to try to bridge the gap between companies and NGOs. If NGOs knew what it was like to have to reach ambitious targets or get fired, what it is like to deal with internal politics, what it is like to deal with finance departments or sales departments, they might understand companies better. Similarly if companies understood the lack of trained staff in NGOs, the lack of consistent funding and how that affects an NGO’s operations; and what an NGO is actually doing, they could recognize the different pressures NGOs come under.

In addition to all this, there is often a real language barrier. Companies talk about sales, profits, margins, adding value, supply chains, distribution, brands and franchises. NGOs tend to talk about communities, vulnerable groups, sustainability, empowerment, IEC (Information, Education and Communication) and more. If it happens to be an International NGO and a Multinational company then there will also be all kinds of internal words and acronyms that add even more to the confusion.

Despite all the literature and examples of how these issues affect partnerships, there are very few proposed solutions. The best solution is for an NGO to recruit staff from a business background and for a business to recruit staff from an NGO background. The former can be tough though, since not too many staff are willing to move to the countryside or take massive salary/benefit cuts (which is often the case in Asia) whilst the latter is just as hard since not too many NGO staff have the relevant experience or skills to cut their teeth in the business world.

Thankfully some certification schemes are being developed (such as that by the IBLF), some masters, MBA or short-term programs exist that can bridge some of these gaps (such as those provided by Ashridge), providing relevant training to either party; yet neither of these solutions are likely to have a massive impact. Hence both parties continue to be communicating and getting increasingly frustrated.

Companies are looking for quick results, but NGOs realize that reducing poverty or solving massive environmental problems will not happen quickly. Companies expect a measurable outcome, yet many development programs require sophisticated assessments or evaluations in order to understand what impact the program had, if any, and these impacts are often spread over a wide group of beneficiaries over a long period of time with other forces playing a part. There is definitely still a need for greater understanding between the NGO and corporate sectors.

Partly this can be solved through recognition and acceptance of this language and experience barrier and then both parties can be more patience, explain themselves and their concepts better. For those involved in partnerships it really helps to try to meet as many staff as possible in the other organisation to find out what they do and how the organization works as well as talking to friends in the same sector and researching the company or NGO endlessly (NGO folk, try going online and downloading a presentation the company gave to investors and trying to understand it!).

Since business is everywhere and generally goes along similar lines it can often be easier for an NGO to understand a business, even if there are still communication problems. In my experience though, the more significant issue is for business to understand development. The ‘base of the pyramid’ area is really just smart marketing –but marketing that requires some understanding of a new market segment and it is clear that business currently lacks any understanding of the ‘poor’ or ‘disadvantaged’ market. Well, apart from needing this to succeed in the BoP world, they need this to develop successful community partnerships.

Companies need to understand how development works, what terms like ‘training of trainers’ or ‘peer education’ might mean and how they fit into program designs. Granted they cannot become experts over night, but an openness to trying to learn this, to visit NGOs, spend some time with them, at their work and taking some time to actually read some of their (often lengthy) reports can work wonders. Of course, for those who do not understand the 3^rd sector, they are just happy to give away some cash based on some simple criteria and get some PR out of it. An actual partnership though can be so much more. Companies can really help NGOs, giving them advice to improve their programs, helping them develop their brand and raise awareness of issues, helping them develop professional budget or accounting procedures and so on.

Yes, true partnerships require much more work than just giving out money and more often than not neither companies nor NGOs have the time, skills or genuine interest in such a partnership. But, it is clear that when these kinds of partnerships develop they really make a difference and often in many unexpected ways. There is no need to go through the ‘benefits to a company from engaging with the community’ here, but this is the time for both sectors to spend more time trying to understand the other and trying to work with the other, rather than against them.

In recognition of these kinds of language problems that exist, Plan China (some shameless self-promotion here) is organizing a study trip for corporate staff involved in working with the community to some of our program areas to understand the bigger picture and rather than just talk about the problems, the focus will be on solutions. The idea being that afterwards, staff can return to their companies better able to understand NGOs, poverty and how their company could play a role.

An inspiration, a hero, a role model.... Anita Roddick died yesterday

Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop is one of the few people I could call either a hero, a role model or an inspiration to me. Way before people were talking about CSR she was doing it (1976) because it needed to be done for business reasons and for social and environmental reasons.

Her whole life has been devoted to issues she truly believes in and issues her company truly believes in. Lets just have hope in others like her and hope that there are many many more people like her still to come.

For Dame Anita, the truly exceptional entrepreneur, business and ethics came together. "Businesses have the power to do good," she wrote. "That's why The Body Shop's Mission Statement opens with the overriding commitment, 'To dedicate our business to the pursuit of social and environmental change.'" Capitalist with a Conscience

Smoking in China

It is interesting to hear that 18 months after China ratified the WHO’s framework convention on tobacco control, China has now finally announced it is going to do something to meet its commitments. This is not just a ’smoke-free Beijing’ slogan which in effect means nothing; it is potentially a new law that can be relatively easily enforced. The government can stop companies from advertising and it can stop advertisers from accepting advertising; by enforcing the law from both directions it might actually be enforced -at least in the big cities. It will be interesting to see what happens in the countryside and what what strategy the tobacco companies come up with (maybe just focusing on promoting the brand of the company rather than its products, like Western tobacco companies; or maybe resorting to more underhand tactics and increasing promotion online, ‘on-the street’ or through other less regulated channels).
It is about time that China accepted that the profits the government makes from tobacco (taxes as well as from the State Owned Enterprises in the industry) and the number of people employed in the industry (including many poor urban residents selling cigarettes in tiny shops or from make-shift stands on the sidewalk) is not a reason to continue to support an industry which such devastating impacts on people’s lives, their productivity and their household economy (it is no wonder that most NGOs prefer to support women more than men when so many men spend their pocket money on cigarettes when women spend pocket money on food, education or clothes for the family).

I wonder, though, how the tobacco lobby in China (and though Western companies are a part of this lobby, evidently the major players are all Chinese) let this happen? China is a huge market for the tobacco industry and one of the few countries where (I believe) the number of smokers is growing. I also wonder how high up this decision goes and whether the decision was purely an economical one (i.e. taxes received =lower than cost to health system for dealing with impacts) or also motivated by other reasons.

Smoking itself is one of those industries CSR people love to talk about with the question: Can tobacco companies be responsible? In one way, the answer is no, since the companies’ product kills people that consume the product, and those who do not and particularly harms the vulnerable in a household (i.e. the women and children who suffer from second-hand smoke but do not smoke). In another way, the answer is yes, since the companies’ product is not illegal, employs millions of poor people (especially farmers and those involved in distribution) and contributes high taxes to the governments that need money for health sectors. Does anyone know of any Chinese Tobacco companies that have ever said anything about CSR (not just charity)?

We're using up our Earth!

Humanity's Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet's ecological resources. This is a vastly underestimated threat and one that is not adequately addressed.

It is fascinating stuff, showing that around 1988 we started using up more resources that the Earth generates each year and that North America uses up 8 times more resources, per person, than Asia Pacific. The UK's footprint (in hectares per person) has gone from 4 to 5 in the last 40 years; even though its capacity has stayed almost constant around 2. China's footprint has doubled from 0.8 to 1.6, whilst its capacity has been getting smaller relatively quickly (down from 1 to 0.8).

The good news is that technology can save our problems; but due to market imperfections, it is unlikely to -will we, since it is the only other option, be able to reduce our global footprint instead, to solve the problem? It seems unlikely, bearing in mind the impact of fast growing developing countries -though if the developed countries could halve their ecological footprint it would make a massive difference. Anyone for behaviour and lifestyle change?

Compromise

-or Balance, either are key elements in Sustainable Development. 1 interesting example is about energy, since around 20-30% of energy is lost in transmission; hence the interest in personal energy sources.

This is especially useful in developing countries where there is no infrastructure to distribute energy, but, for example, also relevant for developing countries. Since we will (eventually) roll out hydrogen powered cars, we will need to roll out a network of hydrogen providers (i.e. filling stations). What if each individual could make their own hydrogen, with a system that came with their car, when they bought it? It would save on time and money and resources to install these distribution systems. However, it might be much more efficient to make the hydrogen in a big facility, rather than in many many (individually owned) smaller ones. I guess the solution varies for each product or service, but it is an interesting conundrum.

The owner is not the user

This is a major problem that society is still trying to overcome. A typical example is that when a building company builds a house it wants to build the house that it can make the most profit on, through selling it. It has an incentive to source cheap materials, if this does not effect the value of the house -or it might want to source energy inefficient materials, because there is no incentive for it to use energy efficient materials. Why? Because the person who buys the house will be the one who will be paying the energy costs!

A possible solution to this is PSS -Product Service Systems, which sounds complicated, but is really just the idea of not selling someone a product that, once sold, no longer is related to the seller; but instead, selling a service which includes that product plus extra services. The seller can make more money on an ongoing basis from the extra services related to the product and, as will be attached to the product for longer will have an incentive to ensure its performance is, well in this case, environmentally friendly, as this will affect its service revenue/contract. It also means that the seller can easily retrieve the product afterwards and re-use it in some way; and the seller is motivated to do this, and can easily do this.

PSS seems to be a win-win, but is not as easy as it sounds; leading to extra complexity, extra costs (although potentially, extra value) and greater risk (for the seller to have to support an ongoing commitment) but it can really motivate the seller to be more sustainable!

Own but don't possess

What if you wanted to own something but did not need to actually have it in your possession? Maybe you can save energy and resources by not having it in your permission. The best example is of a bank that needs to have gold reserves in order to have assets and protect its currency, but actually it probably never needs that gold.

It could buy the land the gold is in, but save on actually extracting the gold. Just by knowing it owns the gold (which could be extracted if required) could be enough. An interesting idea indeed, that is applicable elsewhere.

Leverage points

Another aspect of Systems theory centres on identifying key aspects of a system which not only allow you to be able to make a difference to this aspect, but subsequently have an impact on other elements in the system.

Of course, this means you need to be careful about how changing 1 aspect of the system impacts upon other elements; but if you can identify an early aspect of the system and change that, great leverage can be achieved. It is risky, but it could be rewarding. Seek out those leverage points and apply some leverage, but be careful about what happens!

Fixes that fail

1 of the learning points of Systems theory is that often, in response to a problem a 'fix' is undertaken that is not actually the right 'fix' -it has been created without enough attention (or knowledge) to other elements in the system. Thus the 'fix' does not solve the actual problem, but often makes the problem worse by accidentally increasing the impact of another aspect of the system which continues to work restricting the attempted solution. The solution failed, because it was just a fix and not a real solution.

Real solutions need careful analysis of the problem; causes and effects; consequences of the actions involved in the system and an understanding of knock-on effects. This is a crucial aspect of poverty reduction when programs are not integrated or fail to make a difference because it was the wrong solution in some way. Take your time, analyse the problem, test the solution. Don't be left embarrassed by creating a 'fix that fails' -create a real solution!

Are Leadership skills transferable?

Maybe not. Apparently there are 3 aspects of leadership: personal leadership skills, relational leadership skills and contextual leadership skills. The point being that personal leadership can be transferred along with the leader, but the relational skills the leader has will depend on those who the leader must related with or to -with different people, the leader may not be effective. Similarly, the ability to lead varies in contexts especially different cultures. Cultures may or may not be country based, but of course, can vary between organisations too -and that could be the big killer and the major hindrance of leaders successfully leading other organisations, other than their current one.

Spread good ideas

The biggest problem about poverty reduction is a lack of knowlege about how to reduce poverty and a lack of education about aspects of poverty -hence the poor often lack health knowledge or education or ideas to improve their economic efficiency (i.e. knowledge to improve crop yields etc). Many NGOs work in concentrated areas to make a difference through an integrated, long-term approach.

This is great, but maybe it would be more efficient to work in disparate villagers and trust (or facilitate) other villages to learn from the NGO's actions in 1 village, in order to replicate it. This does of course require a visible improvement in poverty and a clear link with the cause; which the nearby villagers can learn from. Peer education on a village/geographic level could be a great way of quickly and efficiently spread education about how to individually act to reduce your own poverty. The Millennium villages concept has adopted this idea.

Consumers drive responsibility

Is it consumers that are driving responsibility, through requiring safe products made in a responsible way? This does play a significant role, in which case are B2C (Business-to-Consumer) companies more responsible than B2B (Business-to-Business) companies?

I understand that eventually B2Bs sell to consumers, and that consumer's requirements will work themselves up the supply chain to force B2Bs to be responsible, but in reality this is doubtful. However, if CSR is just commonsense, then maybe there is no difference, as any buyer of a product (be it a consumer or a business) will demand the same from the seller. However I would be interested in comparing how responsible B2B companies are compared to B2C companies.

A company's 'community'

It is often hard to define the community around the company -yes a company should be a good neighbour to its community, but a better word than community is influence. A company should do good within its sphere of influence which is wider than 'community' and therefore better for society, but it is also easier to identify a company's sphere of influence (through mapping) and where the leverage points are to make a difference in that sphere.

Market Intelligence

Fundamental to R&D, marketing, sales and more; yet how good is our market intelligence? CSR helps with principles to listen more, speak less; talk, understand, question, analyse and then it is possible to get useful market intelligence. Understand the current market, understand new (potential) markets, understand the trends affecting all markets; all of this helps to improve product and service identification and sale but also helps give the market what it wants, which is a key responsibility of business!

The most improtant stakeholder cannot speak

The natural environment is what all of us rely on for our existence, so it is quite important to know what it thinks, what it is up to, what's affecting it, how it relates to us. But, it cannot speak, and environmental NGOs/Charities may be able to stand up for the environment, but they do not really know what it needs, what its state is and what it wants to say. Of course, they should continue to try to communicate with the environment through research as much as possible, and to try to listen to the signals the environment gives off. This way, they can do their job as best as possible -and they need to, we are really not listening to the environment; instead we are suffocating it!

Risk and Opportunity

I fundamentally believe that CSR is about companies behaving responsibly; why would they do this? Simple: to reduce risk and find new opportunities. Those risks and opportunities can be related to PR, employees, sales etc etc. Though many companies like the word 'opportunity', others might not really understand the word 'risk', a good way of expressing this is to explain that it is all about trying to "pre-empt potential blindsides". In business, there is always something that will unexpectedly come up and affect you. It is necessary to try to anticipate these and act to mitigate their impacts.

Hence the importance of stakeholder dialogue so a company is more in touch with its stakeholders and able to better predict future 'blindsides'. It is crucial -start engaging today!

Transparency is...

...a swimming pool with clean water, where you can see the ends, see the floor, see who else is in it.

...not a muddy lake where you do not know how deep it is, what attackers lurk within in etc.

A great mental picture which has many lessons for the real world. think them through in more detail.

Another urban way!

Urban areas can be green, they can include biodiversity, they can involve circular, planned systems which are designed to increase the quality of life for all living things in the city. Urban development is not just roadworks, slums, pollution, overcrowding or high prices.

But, which is more common? Why -is it because of a lack of knowledge, a lack of ability, a lack of money, or (as i suspect) just because of a lack of will. It is time for people to stand up and make the changes we need to see in our society. Those building and selling such properties must be pressurised to take action, and must be willing to take action.

Business's convening power

A NGO with x million approaches the government for a partnership and is rebuked, but if they partner with a company who foots the x million they will be accepted, due to the clout that the company has. Why? Well it is not just brand or connections, but because governments recognise how important companies are through their FDI investments, job creations, technology transfers and so on.

It is clear business has this important convening role and this should be utilised as much as possible.

The purpose of business...

(not an easy answer, but here is one answer:)
Make sustainable profits in sustainable ways.

How? Need to define 'sustainable ways', which is different for each company, and translate that for each individual's job role and evaluation criteria.

But is 'profits' necessary? In today's society with the current ownership structure, yes. Since pension funds, and the whole banking system is dependent on generating dividends to then give back to society, indirectly, or to re-invest. However, potentially profits are not necessary, when a company is privately owned, collaboratively owned and so on. There is a trend for this, but how important will it become?

Culture vs Human Rights

What do you do when cultural sensitivity is in contrast with human rights? do you abide by the local culture (i.e. not promote women) or do you support women's rights?

It seems that there are many examples of 'international human rights' being in contrast to local traditional norms and cultures. Similarly, since values are so crucial to people and to organisations, how do you deal with contrasting and conflicting values? Do you impose values on others (surely not!) or what?

Migration

Migration is often unplanned, but actually it is also, often planned, or at least encouraged. Since the importance of remittances has now been well recognised in contributing to a developing country's economic growth, international migration is often encouraged, despite the brain-drain consequences.

Internal migration is also often encouraged as a solution for those whose geographical location restricts their ability to escape poverty. But, of course, migrants are often mistreated and exploited. Furthermore, how is migration related to outsourcing and the whole freedom of work/movement issue? It seems that migration is actually the opposite of outsourcing. Instead of sending work to poor people to do it, the poor people come to the rich countries to do it (or replace 'countries' with 'cities' for internal migration). Is there a correlation of any kind? Which is better -migration or outsourcing? How are the drivers different and what is a more successful way of reducing poverty?

Urbanisation -good or bad for SD?

Urbanisation is traditionally seen as a disaster for SD. Unplanned urban expansion causes diverse environmental and social problems which previously did not exist -and the problems are exacerbated due to their ability to spread quickly or just become more significant due to the numbers of those affected.

But, maybe urbanisation can be an opportunity? It is easy to reach out, within a city, to those in need, quickly. It should be easier to plan and control development. It should be easier to solve problems in an urban environment. Evidently it is not, and there needs to be more work at a city and government level to see urbanisation as an SD solution and to plan it thus.

Who owns natural resources?

The discussion on ownership of natural resources is not one with an easy answer, but it is one that is becoming more important as energy (which comes from natural resources) becomes a greater issue; not just the supply of energy, but related issues of energy security, renewable energy etc. Water is also a big, big issue and one that will get even bigger. It is also related to energy, since hydro-power can be an effective method of generating electricity, often in developing regions which can benefit from the electricity and the income; since those areas might not have any other resources.

If you build a dam to generate electricity, you create unmeasurable impacts upstream (through needing to flood certain areas and destroy biodiversity or relocate residents) and even greater impacts downstream where the river's flow and composition is altered which affects those who rely on the river for food, to flood their fields, for transport, for drinking or even for their own electricity. These are just the problems affecting people directly, let alone the other biodiversity related impacts. So who owns the rights to use a river, especially if that denies others those same rights?

Public health -the public's responsibility?

I've mentioned before how it seems that individuals are losing their responsibility and nowadays it is up to companies and governments to help/tell people how to live their lives responsibly. In a health context this is more extreme: if a person wants to be fat and eat junk food and not do exercise it is surely up to them. They need to make informed choices, for sure; once a government (or a company) has made the relevant information available, why should they still be involved?

Well, moving past this kind of health topic to ones of public health, like SARS or avian flu or HIV/AIDs, one can see that increasingly companies are having to play a much greater role; in a supporting role to gvernments to help governments deal with these kinds of crisese. Why? Because they will be affected -as with any CSR issue- they will start to be impacted through a lack of employees, customers etc. But where is the impact? This involvement is purely a risk management investment. But how many investments must companeis make in risk management? What companies can afford these investments and should they be bearing these costs, probably disproportionately?

Climate Change affects those who did not cause it

So what does this mean? An acceptance of this fact might help for a start, but that won't happen. Money to help those who need it could be provided, through traditional aid or disaster relief public fundraising campaigns, but this will likely happen after a disaster which is, of course, too late. Some extra aid money is bein provided to help those countries deal with any extra possible disasters and prevent them. Otherwise a market-based system will be needed, like the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), which allows polluters to pay others to reduce their pollution, since it is probably cheaper and easier for others to reduce their pollution (or not become polluting). Though CDM is not working effectively right now it is a great experiment and we have to hope it will have some impact and continually get better.

Problems with strategic CSR

One aspect of Strategic CSR is when a company uses its core competencies to help society; such as trained staff or (customised) products. But it is easier to just write a cheque and give some money. Not only is this quicker and require less time from the company (as well as being simpler, since companies are not development experts) but normally it just requires 1 or 2 people to sign off on the contribution.

If you want to, say, develop a new toilet that is suitable for people that lack suitable toilets, you do not need to just talk to PR or Finance, you need to talk to Sales and Marketing, R&D and HR... in fact you need an internal project team that is committed to this (and thus more than just the CSR person!) and able to do this. Part of the ability issue is whether the company allocates these people to the project. This project may be great in many ways, but it is most likely not going to be as profitable as targeting rich people and selling them toilets (though, in the long-term it might be). So, a) how to build this consensus and commitment to this idea throughout the organisation that you need to deliver this project successfully, and b) how to get them committed to the project, compared to the other priorities the company has?

Corporations helping community or vice versa?

I fully believe that business can be the solution to poverty. The process is simple:
1. Identify the problem
2. Identify the solution (technological, training etc)
3. Innovate to provide the solution to the problem.

Point 2 is actually quite easy, and there are already solutions to almost every development challenge, be it finding water, preventing HIV/AIDs etc. Point number 3 is where the challenge lies. So far government has failed to provide the solution in most developing countries for various reasons (money, ability etc). Can business do better? Well they also need to overcome problems, such as providing the solution cheap enough, ensuring there are qualified people to distribute and provide the solution, ensuring the solution is suitable to local needs and so on.

If a company can do that, great. Companies can profit from helping the community. If they do that, then there is a clear motive for business to invest money in helping raise awareness of the problem, the need for their solution and their proposed solution (possibly through NGO partners).

This is the issue: when does this become unethical? Health companies already understand this uneasy balance when they go to doctors to tell them about their solution to a health problem. This means the doctor will use that product to solve the problem, but is it actually the right or best product -or just the only product the doctor knows about? How to stop the doctor accepting bribes for distributing that product and not another one? Will the patient lose the trust of the doctor knowing how closely associated the doctor is to the company (and companies often havea lack of trust)?

For me, working in an NGO, where we have the trust of the community, we would gladly like to (and already do, to some extent) promote certain products (and sometimes subsidize them) -in fact we are keen to help companies understand the problems and help them develop a solution, but where is the line between promoting something that will help solve a problem and becoming (in effect) a distributor for the company? How does this affect the trust the community has in us, if they link us so closely to a company?

Upcoming posts

Over the next week I will be posting based on some thoughts from the conference I am attending; there will be many (but short!)!

Has Development failed?

This article questions whether the theory of 'development' as proposed by the UN, World Bank and IMF mostly, has failed. The article makes sense but has a ridiculous notion of development, only focusing on those 3 organisations who though shoot above their weight in some developing countries regarding their influence on policies, really have very little impact at all because they only worked at the governmental level until recently.

Development in its modern sense is about government -yes, in theory good governments lead to their citizens creating their own development by operating in a peaceful society which respects rights and gives the freedom to make the most of the market. Unfortunately most governments in impoverished countries are not like this, and trying to change those governments has (as history has shown) only made things worse. Stability and peace is the most important requirement for development. It would be nice to have functioning education, healthcare etc.. or even a functioning market, but without these, it is necessary to help create them.

If governments cannot create them, then other actors must and this is whether civil society comes in: NGOs, trade unions, co-operatives and of course, individuals. Of course there is a role for business/entrepreneurship too. Development is about all of these actors, and it is not failing; it is struggling to be efficient in overcoming the government deficiencies, the market deficiencies and the instability most developing countries are in.

Secondly development as seen by grass-roots organsiations, individuals themselves, and now even by the UN/IMF/WB is now seen as the opposite of what the article describes: it is about bottom-up, empowerment, skill provision, access to markets and so on. It is about partnership between different societal actors and it is about, eventually, reforming those limiting factors -especially government, through a gradual process. It takes time to educate citizens, train teachers or health workers, or create distribution channels for medicines, credit etc.

Once countries have skilled empowered citizens, they will inevitably be able to enter government or create new (capable) governments. If the WB/UN/IMF model has failed, that is really of little significance to development now, as those actors are now so minor. Much more important are civil society actors, entrepreneurs and 'foundations'. Development has barely even started yet... but in the last decade or more, it is sure that there are enough cases of it working in different ways in different countries to prove it can work. Just give all those actors the chance to do their bit and it will work, from the bottom-up.

Unfortunately development takes a long-time. That must be accepted. Unfortunately there are bad people doing bad things which is continually restricting development's potential. That must be accepted and worked around. There are many exciting examples of development taking off -explore the nextbillion.net, ashoka.org and hundreds more organisations that are connecting technology, people and organisations to create more success and scale-up successes to create greater impact.

‘Strategic’ CSR in China

Why should a company ‘do’* CSR? Because it is in its own benefit to do it.

What CSR should it ‘do’? That which benefits the company the most.

The word strategy always sound good, and in a CSR sense, it means doing something that is of maximum, long-term, benefit. Strategic CSR is not, necessarily a strategy in itself, but a commitment leading to a direction identifying certain areas a company will focus on which will improve itself and society (either at the same time, or at a later date). Thus an investment in staff makes it easier to attract new staff, reduces staff turnover (and hence recruitment costs), increases staff morale and productivity etc. An investment in the supply chain improves partnerships with suppliers, increases their efficiency, reduces risks from being associated with suppliers who break the law etc.

In the last few years, a new are has developed focusing on strategic CSR within a company; normally including a team crossing the functions of sales, marketing, research & development and corporate affairs. The objective: to develop products that fulfill a societal need, and to deliver that product to those who need it, profitably. Simple examples would be a company that makes soap that has tremendous hygiene benefits. Thus by improving the distribution a company can get soap to more people who need it and by reducing costs poorer people can afford it. It might not be easy to do either of these, but it can be possible and should be attempted because if it can be done, sales can be increased.

Many multinational companies are now focusing on this area; though not so much in China (as they are still obsessed with the higher margin middle and upper class customers), but i am sure it will be an area to watch for more. Interestingly though, China’s very open capitalist market economy has led to many companies employing these kinds of strategies anyway, without having a dual goal of helping society AND making a profit. They just want to make a profit; but the side-effect is to help society. It is easy to buy things like soap in even the most remote areas of China.

What is next, is the products and services that are harder to distribute en masse and harder to profitably sell to the poor; such as water purification systems, education, sanitary toilets, advanced farming tools, good quality roads and so on. The list of possible products and services the poor do not have in China, but need to improve their lives is a long one. The challenge is to develop a needs-based product, get it to customers and sell it to them profitably (yet at a price they can afford -or possible along with micro-loans).

China, with a huge market offers significant opportunities to do this by achieving economies of scale and scope. It is, of course, also a country with 20 million people in absolute poverty and around 200 million in poverty -second only to India. However China also offers numerous challenges, such as Intellectual Property Rights and logistics. The challenge to entrepreneurs (and of course, current businesses) out there is look for the needs that poor people have and try to serve that need profitably.

*I dislike the use of the word ‘do’ but ‘do’ is the simplest word that everyone will understand. To explain how to ‘do’ CSR is not possible in a simple blog post; though use of the word ‘do’ does imply something very simple, it is indeed definitely not.

Not Zimbabwe again

A topic I have not touched for a year or more; orginally writing about how the West should be ashamed for not doing something about a country that is constantly getting worse. Well, finally, as the problem has got worse, some other African countries have been forced to do something. Not because they really want to help of course, but because the problem is so bad that at least a third of Zimbabweans have fled their own country, many to South Africa. The migration is having such an impact on South Africa it has been forced to at least acknowledge the problem and started to apply some pressure.

The pressure makes no difference; Western countries ignore the problem; Zimbabwe gets worse. Inflation at 3,000% was bad, now it is above 15,000%. Prices triple every month. Salaries double every 3 months... an imbalance that means poverty is just getting worse and worse -a vicious cycle has taken hold leading to worse health problems and worse educational facilities. How can this cycle be broken? Even if Mugabe falls, even if the transition to a stable leadership could be relatively smooth (which would be a first through out the World), how long will it take to recover? to rebuild, to retraing, to re-attract talent...

But first we need to convince our governments to do something. To get rid of Mugabe and his cronies and try to help Zimbabwe find itself a decent leadership. Then we can think of trying to help. The future is not good. If anything it is, unfortunately, a case of how bad can a dictator mess up a country, before it actually self-implodes? It seems, regrettably, like we might be finding out in the next year. At least something might change soon -but only because the situation is so bad. And what do we do about it?

Macro Micro-finance

The greatest problem for countries to trade their way out of poverty is lack of infrastructure, especially roads. Even if the government funded the big main roads throughout the country, and the government maintained them, what about the small roads connecting through to the villages? Well if we presume that these small roads are only used by the villagers themselves to transport goods out of the village, or into it, then the villagers could pay for and maintain the road. They have free labour to some extent (in the off-season) and only need the materials/expertise (though we are talking simple roads here).

If we believe that improved roads really will help the village trade and increase their income, why not lend them money to build the road and get them to pay it back over time; once their incomes go up. The loan would be guaranteed by the whole village as they all have a stake in it. This idea of collaborative, group-ownership, lending model might work. The returns might not be great; and the loan would have to be paid back over quite a long time, as the initial cost is quite high -but it could still be profitable, and the primary purpose is to utilise funding more effectively in ways to support development.

Now, once the road is built, villagers' incomes increase and so they can become traditional microfinance clients, and this can be much more profitable.

Mission Creep

Corporations face a choice of whether to diversify or to specialise. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to both. However the decision on what to do is normally driven by the need to make the company as successful (i.e profitable) as it can be, in the long-term. Thus if the objective is already decided it can be easy to list the pros and cons and see whether to diversify or specialise.

For NGOs, it is not as simple: NGOs are driven by a vision: to make the World better, and each NGO has it own mission: how it will make the World better. Though it is rare, once an NGO achieves 1 mission (i.e. campaigning for better environmental protection), it can then move onto another mission towards this overall vision. Most large NGOs do this within the context of restricting themselves to what kind of missions they will undertake: normally based on their expertise and their beliefs -so they may concentrate on the environment, or poverty, or education etc.

Larger NGOs are quite well funded, however they still face potential mission creep, though for smaller NGOs it is a much greater concern, for NGOs all require funding (from just a few dollars a week to millions) and that funding must come from something and be directed towards something else. Often the 2 are connected, sometimes they are not. Faced with the opportunity to get money, most NGOs will try to get it, changing their programs or approach accordingly (which may no longer best address the needs of who/what they want to help). Is this good or bad? Every NGO must make decisions on a case-by-case basis, but it is very tough to reject funding.

Additionally many NGOs have their own little 'cash cow' which they use to raise money, and they spend resources on generating income -how much should they spend? Well, the international standard is no more than 20% of expenditure should be for admin or for fundraising. A 'cash cow' could be money from the government, from a business, from the public, from selling a product or service etc. But what 'cash cows' to pursue that support the mission; and which to reject? Again a case-by-case decision must be made considering various factors. One thing is for sure, Mission Creep in an NGO is a tricky issue and an issue most companies don't face. They have to worry more about strategies and less about objectives. NGOs often worry about objectives because theirs are more fluid and less defined.

Women

If the World was equal women would, on average, be in half of all positions. In reality most, globally, dominate the 'working in the field' and 'looking after the home/family' positions and are under represented in many others. The devil's advocate (or the economist) could argue that the division of labour means people do the job they are best at. True women are probably best at bringing up kids; but maybe they are also the best at running countries, institutions and businesses too?

After listening to a special podcast from one of my favourite websites, I had a new epiphany. Previous I was all for women's rights, and women being at least equal to men. I had also read some of the (slightly scary) articles about Women soon not needing Men (biologically) -well, whatever. I had, also, realised that when Women are allowed to do things, they often do them better than Men -maybe because they need to prove themselves (having not been allowed to to it before) or maybe they just work harder than Men. I am well aware that Men and Women are better at different things.

Being involved in the Development World I am well aware of the crucial role that women play in rural communities (particularly). They care for the elderly, care for the young, look after the land if the men work elsewhere (migration) for cash, look after the home and more. They are the life of a community. They are very busy, but very competent. But they are 'stuck' in this role, without being able to use their wonderful abilities to achieve more. They are also discriminated against (physically and mentally) at home and in communities, often lack any voice individually or collectively in communities (as Men are seen as more important, culturally, especially in China) etc. So, the idea of empowering women came about a while ago. We are a year into our own Rural Women Empowerment Program -and it is such a simple concept but so exciting.

Allow me to elaborate. You have these women, who are normally quite busy, but sometimes have some free time; they are mostly uneducated but have huge responsibilities (including managing household finances as well as everything else previously mentioned). They rarely read (some cannot read). So you give them something to read, something relevant about childcare, farming, finances, womens health etc. Then you get them to get together with some other women to discuss what they are reading, share ideas and work on common challenges. Then they have a greater collective voice in the community, are more effective at their 'work' saving them time etc etc. Many of them can then work together to start micro-businesses (needlework, selling food, for example) from micro-finance. The result: just from giving them something useful to read and facilitating/encouraging the formation of collective groups is incredible.

Micro-finance is now becoming well-known, and is making a greater impact across the world. over 90% of all micro-finance clients are... Women. They are ones who have the time and ability to implement small business ideas; they just need the seed capital and training to do it. And it is making a difference, a huge difference. Our Micro-finance program has lent to over 5,000 people and not had a single payment default on interest of 10+% (which is low for micro-finance, due to local situations).

Anyway, back to the epiphany (of sorts) was that for the jobs that Women are most under-represented in; i.e. politics, Women might actually be the best ones at those jobs: better at understanding different people's opinions, better at negotiating, better at 'reading people', more inclined to help people and be less ruthless and so on. Apparently there is a UN Security Council resolution about Women being involved in more political processes, though i wonder how this is enforced...

So we shouldn't be helping women get certain jobs because they have equal right to them, we should be helping them get them because they can do them better and though that might mean Men like me lose out, it means Women can help make this World a better place cause all the Men can't manage to do it! hmmm

Values for Sustainable Development

So, though the World is more and more acutely aware of how unsustainable it is, the World continues to get more unsustainable. Weird that isn't it? I have wondered for a while how this bizarre effect takes place. The more extreme example I can think of is HIV/AIDs.

I know there is obviously a lack of education and awareness about the disease; but if 25% of a population, or in some villages 60% have HIV/AIDs and are actually, visibly dying from it, why doesn't the rest of the village realise and address the issue? Is it just because everyone catches it before it is too late to realise? In which case, why is it, when these people then tell a nearby unaffected village about HIV/AIDs, that that village seems to ignore them, catch HIV/AIDs themselves etc.

I might be oversimplifying things somewhat, especially for such a complex issue. But People are pretty stupid. I've commented before on the problems of the disconnect that is the main cause of today's problems -we do not see the (unsustainable) impact of our actions, but even when we do see the negative impact of our actions, we still don't care. We absolve ourselves of responsibility, find some solution (to the detriment of someone else) and move on. It is a dog eat dog world. But when you've eaten all the dogs, then what will be left for you to eat?

So if you were given the chance to try to spread a few values that you thought might be the ones, that if everyone agreed with, and acted based upon, would lead to a sustainable World? Well, I led a short discussion and though the list could be endless and so many of the values are overlapping we came up with:
-Respect
-Interdependence
-Equality
-Responsibility

I believe that if everyone lived those values and understood those values the World would be a much better place. As it happens the project we've been running to teach the top high school students in China about these values through discussion on key SD issues is just finishing it's first phase. So far about 2,000 students reached and, for a pilot, it has been fantastic. Let's see what more we can do next time.

Community

Everyone and everything is part of a community, though how large the community is and who/what is in it varies. Human beings seem to change communities more than most species, moving between communities and changing communities more and more often. At what cost?

Communities developed as people realised they needed to trust others to survive and work with others for the common good of their community. Nowadays we leave communities searching for spouses, education, jobs, fun, adventure or just something new and different. Ironically the people that are forced to leave communities are often the ones that do not -they are forced to leave because occasionally they did something to offend the community, but most likely because the community is unable to provide for those within it any more.

A sense of community is essentially similar to a sense of social responsibility, though a sense of community is easier to define and provides more tangible benefits to those within it. It is, I believe, not a bad thing to move communities, but the bad thing is that once we move out of a community we often do not move into another one, or we do not recognise the one we have moved into -how big is it? who is in it? what are the commonalities holding the community together?

We don't recognise our community because we are not trying to; we are not trying to because we do not recognise the value of a community -to us or to others. We do often end up in some kind of community, whether we want to or not, but then we are not entirely aware of it, and are not sure if it is the right community for us. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. These new communities that we join are often short-lived or only based on a social nature; thus there is no long-term commitment to the community, especially it's physical environmental nature.

We need to identify our community and it's impacts. We need to recognise it for what it is worth and strive to improve the value we get from it, and the collective value within it, as well as how it interacts with other communities. I worry that as we lose our sense of community, we venture into the unknown -with unknown consequences, both short and long-term. What community are you a part of?

Participation

Levels of Participation is what possibly used to be 1 aspect separating businesses from NGOs from governments -but the recent trend has been for everyone to take-up participation in different ways which is now another example of the blurring of the line between the 3.

Governments all try different models of participation as democracies or even as autocracies too various degrees; with citizens able to vote on certain people or decisions as well as have access to information and the ability to input into ideas, processes etc through consultations.

NGOs have long had to use participation to find volunteers and raise funds and utilise some sort of research to start an idea and then to affect real change engage people in their activities as much as possible.

Businesses used to only use participation for market research and employee unions, but now involve employees much more, customers and their ideas much more and stakeholder engagement is the buzz word around to identify new opportunities and understand potential risks.

Though all kinds of participation are different within sectors and within organisations there still is a trend for all 3 sectors to increase their participation: for government it is a way to increase their legitimacy (which is getting lower), for businesses it is a way to increase trust and hopefully increase profits and for NGOs it helps increase their impact.

Participation for me is a great thing as it helps create mutual accountability between groups, increases communication, gains greater agreement, inspires confidence and generates ideas amongst other things. Of course there are limits to how much participation is useful -however I believe these limits should be decided by the 'participants' rather than those deciding. If it requires too much time for too little benefit, let the 'participants' say! If 'participants' are not qualified for certain discussions, let them realise so!

Power to the people, greater participation and greater involvement can unite this world slowly and surely to achieving better things for more people in better ways. After all, who will complain if an idea they contribute to fails? Though they might not take responsibility, they will still be happy about the process of decision making -and this is the key point for participation. The process is more important than the result and if 'successful' will often achieve better results in the wider sense.

What is the role of NGOs?

NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) is a very loose term covering all kinds of organisations: normally anything that is not a government or for-profit enterprise. It could include churches, chambers of commerce, business association, lobby groups, trade unions, charities and more.. However the way it is generally used is to describe an organisation that is organised like a business in order to serve a social purpose and without focusing on profits.

Thus typically there are 'grass-roots' NGOs often formed from a few volunteers campaigning for a local issue or providing care for some disadvantaged section of society; there are larger charities that provide welfare to those in need and there are the bigger Development NGOs that aim to influence government and business and effectively use resources to e.g. reduce poverty on a large scale.

Moving quickly past such a brief summary, in recent times there has been a blurring between business and NGOs into the so-called world of 'social enterprises' whose primary goal is to serve society but who wish to make profits at the same time. Many think that these are more effective at solving societal problems as it is more sustainable, more competitive and more efficient. It is noted that the best way to solve problems requires large-scale solutions and these kinds of scales or innovations are often only achieved through a profit incentive and a functioning market to make organisations more effective.

NGOs are often profitable in some sense: selling a service to make money (e.g. running a home for disabled people) or providing benefits to a corporate partner (e.g. advise on reducing their environmental footprint or training their suppliers) -they just pay less tax and promise to spend any profit on further programs. They do not have owners as such, and this is normally seen as their advantage: no money to stock-holders or to rich private owners. However it is also seen as a disadvantage: who are they accountable to?

Interestingly NGOs and businesses alike seem to be converging on a model that governments ar supposed to use -but often fail to do so. The model of being accountable to various stakeholders locally and otherwise. Governments are notoriously slow to change, and rarely due if changes negatively impact those in power, or those who might get in power. Now that many companies engage with local groups; NGOs engage with local governments and communities it seems like both sectors are listening.

It's pretty clear that NGOs are not changing the World; neither are ineffective governments (which are still too frequent around); and neither are aid agencies. Business, it seems, could be the answer; but it requires a stable environment and infrastructure and this is often lacking. Thus the current trend for NGOs to work with governments and businesses (using Aid) to try to focus on this issue 'sustainable livelihoods'. Is this the future role for NGOs?

As the most trusted type of organisation in the World, will NGOs be able to bring partners and stakeholders together to find solutions to allow business to flourish -to create meaningful jobs? Jobs, is the ultimate issue here -and this is really only something that a business (whether it is for-profit or not; including collaboratives) can provide. This week the good news is that more people have jobs now than ever before, but more people do not have jobs too (as the population constantly grows).

I am excited by some of the work that Plan is doing in China: trialling new methods and schemes that government (especially in developing countries) is unable to try (too slow, too corrupt, too cumbersome, too political, too hierarchical, too poorly trained); raising issues that otherwise have no-one to raise them and so on. The end result should be either government, business, or individuals doing something different that is better than what they were doing before.

The problem is so much that NGOs do is not sustainable, not an efficient use of resources -and often fails. Not that it is always their fault: after all most businesses fail too. Interestingly NGOs tend to try much much harder than businesses to make their projects a success. I am still looking for the balance between time/money spent researching, measuring etc vs. actually doing, subsidising, training etc.

In the future I see NGOs having to better define their 'ownership' in order to work out where they fit in society; since their roles overlap with all other sectors (including the media). I see them struggling to keep their 'independence' whilst being involved in so many 'partnerships' (including revenue generating activities). I think accountability will be come a bigger issue: NGOs will have to carefully balance how they spend their money on staff (pay more to get better?) and on research and evaluation. But I hope that NGOs will be given more slack to fail more, learn lessons and so on. International NGOs will need to start incubating ideas, being more innovative, spinning off from themselves to remain flexible and innovative and better define their relationships and purpose to other (grass-roots) NGOs.

In many areas NGOs are in competition with each other for resources: a good thing no doubt; but more partnerships are likely to form to prevent competition ruining funding streams or affecting transparency. NGOs have undoubtedly become more professional; and the next step is to move into the relm of M&A, spin-offs and so on. It excites me to end this post with the concept of taking the real world to NGOs: could venture capitalism have a role with development? How can you define the worth of an NGO? There already exists 'tables' of NGOs which are most effective with their money. It would be great if these very basic methodologies could develop -and who knows what might happen?

Business is having its time turning into an NGO through social enterprises; now NGOs need to do their bit to come towards business by tackling the challenges outlined above. And, who knows maybe a time will come when NGOs and Business will be one and the same -all serving to create jobs and services that society needs, whilst being accountable (and responsible) to society.