02.17.08
Posted in exchanges, rating agencies, India at 5:11 pm by Andrea McGrath
Standard and Poor’s (S&P) Crisil and environmental and research firm KLD Research and Analytics have launched a new Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) Index in India (S&P ESG India Index). The new ESG index comprises 50 Indian companies drawn from the largest 500 companies listed on the National Stock exchange - and was a pilot project initiated and sponsored by the International Finance Corp (IFC). As discussion of measurement in the nonprofit sector once again is gaining energy and debate - it’s interesting to think through what we can learn from these new performance indices. As traditional ‘for-profits’ - and those that rate their performance - are beginning to think through how they gain clarity on ‘social, environmental and governance’ metrics - it is interesting to think through how can we build on these and apply them to this emerging “middle space” of enterprises that are pursuing both financial and social returns. What can we learn about what can be comparable in ‘social’ measurement and how (if) it might apply with emergent social capital markets.
Permalink
02.05.08
Posted in exchanges, funds at 11:32 pm by Andrea McGrath
If you haven’t yet seen this yet, Sean Stannard-Stockton is hosting some thoughtful conversation on his own blog Tactical Philanthropy - sparked in part by the recent NY Times article on the challenges of Kiva.org in having (at least temporarily) more demand from donors than supply of enterprises. Sean’s recent entry raises some great questions on supply and demand on these new ‘exchanges’ - particulaly the idea of referring excess capital to other ‘exchanges’. In response, Dennis Whittle of Global Giving makes note that they indeed do refer their donors when it “makes sense” to other exchanges with whom they have agreements. Conversation definitely worth following…
Permalink
01.26.08
Posted in funds, economics at 5:26 pm by Andrea McGrath
This morning I watched the video of Bill Gates talk at Davos this past week (see here). His theme was ’creative capitalism’ - stretching the reach of market forces to help the poor - and the growing understanding among us all that ”when change is driven by proper incentives you have a sustainable plan for change…” Worth a watch…
And in one of the many responses to Bill Gates speach - Bill Schambra of the Bradley Center of the Hudson Institute sponsored a discussion on January 30th on the potential of “creative capitalism” with a panel which included William Easterly (Brookings Institution and New York University) Eugene Steuerle (The Urban Institute) and Allen Hammond (World Resources Institute). Attached here is the transcript.
Permalink
01.17.08
Posted in exchanges at 4:21 pm by Andrea McGrath
This year we hope to post conversations with the teams behind some of the developing social stock exchanges - both those who are ‘listing’ nonprofits or social enterprises.
Before the holidays I had the opportunity to speak with Neil Abraham, who is one of the cofounders of Altruistiq (or ALEX). The team at ALEX has been operating since June 2007, and they are actively collaborating with thought partners and potential funders in thinking through some of the questions around and challenges in developing a nonprofit exchange. Among the many topics we discussed was how they can establish ‘shares’ in nonprofits that inherently possess value: Why would someone purchase a ‘share’ in a nonprofit (as opposed to simply making a donation) and How could investors in these nonprofit shares get a “return”? Three possibilities for adding value to nonprofit ’stocks’ that they are exploring include: (1) Voting rights: Possibly offering a lower class of voting rights, such as rights in community or local affiliates; (2) Non-cash dividends: such as gift certificates from the nonprofit or some sort of non-cash value from a nonprofit donor or partner organization; and (3) Real cash dividends: Since nonprofits can’t pay out dividends, what if there was an intermediary who could pay dividends on behalf of the nonprofit? What if a market maker or big corporation could “sponsor” the dividends of these shares - and perhaps even tie the dividends to performance? Thus dividends could be paid when an organization hits specific metrics or quarterly targets (this last idea touches on two areas of interest: value of the stock in the form or cash dividend and tying dividend payments to performance measures) Each of these three possibilities could - to a varying degree (as yet untested)- define or create the ‘added value’ of owing a nonprofit stock (as opposed to making a traditional donation). They might also encourage trading of these shares, as ‘new’ donors look to buy these shares (rather than simply donate).. Great questions to explore… If you are interested in connecting with the team - please do email them at: info@altruistiq.com
Permalink
01.03.08
Posted in Uncategorized, meaning as metrics, soft metrics at 8:09 pm by kevindjones
Sean Stannard Stockton is talking to Google.org next week about how to measure a non profit. He asked me to weigh in and I did here.
Sean is also tracking the GiveWell meltdown here and here that’s also impacting xchangexchange.com blogger Lucy Bernholz, a boardmember of Givewell.
Permalink
12.29.07
Posted in marketsareconversations, wicked problems, MDG's at 7:22 pm by kevindjones
A blog of mine in a faith-based venue a network group focused on the Millennium Development Goals. How to talk across the divide to people who only measure things in soft ways, and who can see grass roots needs but not system problems. Measuring soft stuff is a wicked problem; you can’t let the measurement deplete identification they feel with the cause, with feeding the children they visited on their mission trip, etc. yet you have to get them to see broader food security issues, its relation to global health issues. The sick child and the system have to both be in the picture. And the money and the social capital at the table has to understand how they both fit into the solution set.
Permalink
Posted in exchanges, commonstradingfloor at 6:16 am by kevindjones
“It is risky to use concepts like commons and non-commodified relations to describe a superior
form of economic organization for early-21st century America. It runs into the teeth of the dominant
analytic paradigm, which relies on neoclassical economics to press for the strengthening and extension
of exclusive property rights–the antithesis of a commons—in all aspects of economic life. Yet, the
interest in these phenomena is driven by empirical facts that are impossible to disregard, and risky in
their own right to ignore.” from a Stanford Cyberlaw research report on collaborative economics by Mark Cooper (to get the report you have to scroll down through his blog)
Soft things like the increasing value of collaboration are getting easier to measure because of fundamental principles by which digital information now has to be shared and processed. The technological aspect of the new social value creation is a key element, and will guide the design and prospects for success of any social stock exchange that arises. Cooperation is now a new means of production; there is a lot of interesting thinking going on about how the new medium changes the way we work and makes sharing fundamentally more valuable because digital goods are not scarce and actually increase in value as they are shared.
Permalink
Posted in meaning as metrics, soft metrics at 5:42 am by kevindjones
“I can say my measurement of my success is around how much meaning I’ve made,” ex-Apple rising star Tom Williams of Givemeaning.com in the Toronto Globe and Mail. From Gift Hub. It’s one answer to how you measure soft things. The perception of meaning.
Permalink
12.28.07
Posted in Uncategorized, economics, India at 3:11 am by kevindjones
This is my response to Shana Ratner, whose work I admire, on what to measure. I have a house in Sonoma California. I noticed today two shops that seem to be doing well. one was consignment furniture, another was consignment couture; people selling their furniture and their high end, glittery gowns and things. I think, in light of the wonderings about recessions, peering under rugs for canaries in the mine, that those two shops numbers (number of consignment sellers, avg. dollar of items sold, throughput of retail stock, etc. factored against new car sales, by price, and new home sales, by price, factoring in time on the market for home sales and slicing in forclosures or other signs of housing distress,and then doing a similar slice by price and item in local newspaper classified ad line sales from individuals those are measurements that would be meaningful and that would let me know whether, for example, i’d want to start a competing newspaper here, or some other business. i believe in measurement where there is an outcome that results in more money flowing or more perception of trends and value over time. i believe in measuring soft things, like you do in a failing community’s assets. in social enterprise, it’s been mostly academic hand jive. additive friction without additive value. measurement should increase the flow of value, not be a net cost.
Permalink
12.26.07
Posted in Uncategorized, attentioneconomy, commonstradingfloor at 11:41 pm by kevindjones
Phil Cubeta’s gift hub blog has touched on the underlying thread I’ve been thinking about; user ownership of what is produced online, and how that value can be exchanged.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »
