Have we lost our heads?

I suppose that in the 1970’s, with the long hair and the residual 60’s carefree attitude, it was not a surprise that cyclists did not wear helmets. After all, seatbelts were rarely used, even in the few cars that actually had them. Our family Rambler, for example, had a bench seat in both the front and the back and I never recall wearing a seatbelt. This was the dawn of the mass popularity of dangerous recreation: half pipes for skateboarders, freestyle and aerial skiing, and backyard trampolines. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that bungee jumping was invented in this era. None of the pioneers in these sports wore helmets. Helmets were only for those who fell. They were a sign of weakness.

A few brain injuries later, and a fairly enthusiastic legion of aging 1950’s-born parents, emergency docs, and safety conscious politicians (who could see the effect of head trauma on healthcare costs) undoubtedly were behind the gradual recognition that helmets could help mitigate fatal injuries in sports and in many recreational activities. Ice hockey goalies graduated from no headgear to masks, then to helmets, then helmets with cages, then fancy helmets that looked like they had been crafted by the airbrush artists from the advertising world.

In these years many jurisdictions legislation was passed to make helmets mandatory. Motorcyclists, for example, were now forbidden by law to emulate Henry Fonda. Recreational skiers, skateboarders and ATV riders all began wearing helmets.

Of course, the commercial minds were quick to see opportunity in both legislation and social trends. Companies started making helmets for sports enthusiasts. There was an attempt to make skull caps cool…and not just for the Harley crowd.

I remember the first bicycle helmet I owned. It was actually a moped helmet, which I fished out of a garage sale freebie box. It had a leather lining, a plexiglass snap-on face shield and like a construction hard hat, made the wearer several inches taller because of the huge bulbous headroom. (I actually found a photo of the model I owned...at right) I didn’t like the white and black austerity it offered, so I removed the visor, taped off the snaps, reflectors and rubber, and spray painted it—of all colors—light blue. This was certainly the 80’s. I was trying desperately to make a cool helmet to protect my melon. For me, a daily commuter in Vancouver traffic at the time, it just made sense.

Within a few years, a myriad of entrepreneurs were creating helmets that quickly put my converted helmet to shame. These new helmets were lightweight, vented, fancifully painted and moulded, with simple chin straps, and NOT nearly so ugly.

In a social marketing wonder study, within a decade, wearing a bicycle helmet became cool. Every bike shop and outdoor store was selling a variety of styles catering to every type of cyclist: BMX and trick riders, mountain bikers, racers, commuters and recreational family riders. Peer pressure changed almost overnight from promoting wind-in-the-hair freedom to promoting chic caution.

Even the curb-hopping, time-is-money bike couriers wore helmets.

Sure, laws were passed in may jurisdictions that reinforced a requirement to wear a helmet when cycling, but my observation is that the change in cycling attire was less driven by the application of municipal authority and more by style. Maybe it was even driven by common sense. For whatever reason, everyone wore a helmet without complaint. Some, like me, even wore it with pride. When I showed up at work in bike gear with my helmet under my arm, I was broadcasting my own personal environmentally responsible statement that I did not drive. The truth is, I felt “naked” if I ventured out without a helmet.

But things have changed. In the last several years I’ve noticed riders of all ages are shedding their helmets. All that great work to bring about a positive change in behavior is being lost. As a social marketer, I see this loss as a failure. It is remarkably difficult to convince large numbers of people to adopt a new behavior. When everyone embraces the new behavior as being normal, it is mystifying to have those old habits recur. It is social recidivism.

At a personal level I fret when I see a high school student riding carefree without a helmet, while lost in the musical world of their MP3 to boot! It seems unnecessarily dangerous. I am even more distraught, however, when I see 40-somethings like me riding without a helmet. This is like evolutionary regression, a reincarnation of our teenage tendency to flaunt death and danger. I’m quite sure that soon we’ll all take up skateboarding and hang gliding to complete our youthful revival.

Hopefully we won’t fall on our heads in the process.

Subject: Microcredit

Here’s where commerce and social justice intersect.

When we live in Canada, or presumably in any nation that relies on entrepreneurship and the market to drive economic, social and even political growth, it is easy to make the argument that supporting entrepreneurs is a good idea. Yet, it is remarkably not the first thing that comes to mind for most if they learn of poverty, natural disaster, war, or other woeful conditions in the developing world.

Microcredit is a simple concept that generates a massive opportunity.

I might casually describe microcredit as the process of making loans to small scale entrepreneurs. This seed capital—frequently as little as $50—is sufficient to allow them to purchase the most basic means of production: a sewing machine, a bicycle, a plow. A good idea and business diligence is not limited to citizens of developed countries, of course, but with a small initial investment, an entrepreneur living in relative poverty can grow their wealth for their family and to reinvestment in their business.

I’ve described the most simple model. Of course, lack of access to capital only accounts for part of the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in developing nations. Tax, tariffs, inflation, lack of access to appropriate markets, and a myriad of non-market forces like drought, pestilence, war and corruption also throw a wrench in the works, even for those with the most focused business acumen.

However, there is an incredible history of how successful the simple model can be.

Arguably it was the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh that initially brought global recognition to the power of microcredit. Their model of loaning primarily to women yielded unheard of repayment rates (even when compared to the conservative commercial loan sector) and real success in social indicators among the poorest in Bangladesh. There are other global lenders that work the same magic: the Foundation for International Community Assistance in the US; Banco Sol in Bolivia, Fonkoza in Haiti, Calmeadow based in Canada, and a host of others.

If even the simple model works, then there is even more opportunity if the other challenges are removed. The Fair Trade movement with organizations like Transfair, Bridgehead and La Siembra is helping to develop social awareness and a proactive consumer campaign to promote global markets in which producers are paid a fair price for their products. Fair trade is now accepted by most—even if not everyone understands the nuances—as being a good thing. It has become a positive gut reaction of consumers, rather than a curious marginal concept.

Our toolbox for justice is growing.

We can consume responsibly, invest responsibly, make capital available for microcredit, support good charities and laudable business practices, we can use our political voice to advocate for fairness.

Aspiring philanthropists. Inspired philanthropy

When a child gives their piggy bank contents to a charity because they were moved to do so by a meaningful story on TV, philanthropy is in action.

A child philanthropist? To most, such an expression is patronizing, or it is as rare as (or rarer than) a child prodigy in music.

But when I read Dan Pallotta’s article which encourages those of us in the business of asking people to make a difference in society, I was reminded that even a child can be a philanthropist if encouraged to act on their emotional response.

Philanthropy, as Pallotta infers, is not about size of the gift, it is about the act of giving.

We all need to applaud all the aspiring philanthropists.

In social marketing, I believe that no meaningful change in societal mores will come about if only a few privileged individuals alter their behavior: everyone needs to change their behavior to make a difference. Whether it the social marketer is promoting recycling, increased transit use, ethical investing, or action to decrease child abuse, they are not targeting their message at a handful of people.

Of course, it is possible that if inspirational people lead the charge, then others may follow. However, the message of behavior change must meet the needs of a large audience or must be adaptable to reassure as many people as possible that they are doing the best thing for them.

Unlike Pallotta, I do not disparage the $10 SMS donations. For some, that is all they are prepared to do in a crisis. I am always disappointed that individuals are willing to accept a lesser role to play in helping others, but I would be much more dismayed if they did nothing.

I agree that great things can come from modest people who want to make a difference. In fact, I believe that sustainable social change RELIES on the “middle donor” to use a fundraising term. The large number of people who are interested in doing nothing to help society and the small number of key players in social change are not the key audiences.

Sound fundraising practice helps the $25 donor to become a real actor in the charitable endeavor by honoring them as philanthropists. Similarly, sound social marketing should address the people who are able and willing to make a difference in order to cultivate them into the leaders of improved social behaviors.

Subject: Program Related Investments

In Canada, we have over 81,000 registered charities. Staggering. Each is seeking financial support for their work from individuals, foundations, public sector grants and from corporations.

It is a familiar model of charity: ask for a gift of cash (or securities) that can immediately be put to use to deliver social programs to those in need.

But the landscape is changing.

Charities are not the only purveyors of social benefits. They are only part of the non-profit, responsible business landscape. Furthermore, there appears to be a growing skepticism that Canadian charities (in their proliferation) are less efficient at addressing social ills than are well run social businesses.

In the US, increasingly there is a discussion of “sector agnostic” work. Even the term social entrepreneur is being questioned, as it implicitly doubts the value added from commercial entrepreneurs who develop businesses that are socially beneficial. In the US, there is also a growing argument in favor of foundations providing program related investments.

Canada needs to listen to these arguments.

Here in Canada, I have been trying to learn of foundations and individuals who are interested in INVESTING in social business. Of course, there are donors. There are also granting bodies, both public and private. There are even databases and resources to identify these donors and funders.

However, there are very few ways that I have found that help a struggling social entrepreneur identify and secure social venture capital in Canada.

True, some of the community foundations host donor advised funds, from which philanthropists can direct funds to support an investment in charitable causes or businesses with a social mandate. There are also the Social Venture Partners groups across the country, and the Social Capital Partners in Toronto, and Renewal Partners in BC along with a handful of other niche organizations. However, if one looks into the key players in the financial field of social investment, the same names keep reappearing in Canada, and they are more experts in the field--idealistic pundits--than actual investors. I don’t doubt they are like me: they would also like to see more investors come forward to support social enterprises.

In fairness, the Social Investment Organization is perhaps the most obvious convener of the players and resources in this field in Canada. However, their focus appears to be on the more socially responsible traditional investments of ethical mutual funds, or investments in companies that meet laudable, corporate responsibility standards. Indeed, I look forward to attending their conference in June 2010 to increase my knowledge of their view of the social investment landscape in Canada.

By comparison, the Canadian Community Investment Network Co-op offers a variety of links and information on what they refer to as “community investing.” Through their list of members, I learned of the Canadian Alternative Investment Cooperative. (CAIC)

CAIC was established in the 80’s by a group of religious communities in order to pool assets to make loans to social ventures. They appear to be perhaps the best example of the sort of structure I am recommending: an organization working directly to invest in small entrepreneurs, that happily advertises the success of the organizations in which they have invested.

Even with all the hype about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), remarkably few of the big banks or financial firms in Canada have investment funds available for social entrepreneurs. I presume that investing in social businesses is seen as too risky. In fairness, Alterna and Vancity are leading the charge, but their investment funds are often very limited in size or scope, especially when compared to the social venture capital markets that are part of the growing tide in the US.

I would like to trumpet the vision of the Trillium Foundation, as they are one of the first of the Canadian foundation community to consider how best to invest in programs. Their recent announcement about increasing the money in their Future Fund highlights their commitment to providing what they refer to as social finance. Their term is, in effect, what I refer to as social venture capital that is available for program related investments.

Canada needs to develop a more robust series of forums to bring together weathy individual investors and foundations with the organizations seeking investors. This meeting of money and ideas is the backbone of the SOCAP conferences in the US, but there hasn't been the same development in Canada. (Ironically, the handful of Canadian luminaries in this field were present at SOCAP)

I believe that there are non profits using very entrepreneurial approaches to solving social problems, and there are some businesses that are founded in order to address social concerns. In fact, I have worked with Canadian organizations that fit both models.

The challenge is that these organizations simply do not have ready access to capital to underwrite their ideas. The banks won't touch them. Traditional philanthropists are wary of new initiatives. We need philanthropy to be augmented by—or at least transformed into—investment in good social ideas.

Put simply, Canada needs more capital that is available for Program Related Investments—and I would like to see more Canadian public and private foundations come forward with program related investments rather than grants. Canada also needs more transparent mechanisms through which eligible organizations can connect with social venture capitalists.

Subject: Ethical Investing

The challenge with ethically responsible investing is that the average person may not have the knowledge of exactly how their invested money is being used.

For the investor who wishes to deputize a financial expert to ensure a diverse strategy to mitigate risk, many will invest in ethical mutual funds. In this scenario, mutual fund managers will seek companies or indices that meet a set of predetermined--but often reasonably obvious-- parameters or screens: no tobacco, no armaments, no pornography, no child labour and no companies with unsavory management or environmental practices.

The average investor, unless they are particularly motivated to engage the company at a shareholder meeting (or through proxy voting through a mutual fund provider like Meritas, for example), has to expect that the fund managers in charge of their money are vigilant in both adhering to the parameters and willing to divest if they become aware of a change in the company’s behavior.

Even knowledgeable investors who manage their own portfolio typically can’t have access to the inner workings of a company in which they hold stock except through quarterly reports, press releases or other external communications. Even with their savvy, they have to read between the lines produced by marketing and communications experts in order to make a best guess about a company's business.

As we’ve witnessed recently with the Madoff and Enron scandals, the mortgage market collapse, and the financial meltdown, even the most experienced investors may be the last to know if there is a problem. This recent experience further complicates the market for the investor who wants assurance that they are investing ethically.

Aside from an obvious desire to feel secure about their investments while generating a modest return, the ethical investor may want their investments to meet more than minimal criteria: they want to be proud of their support, in the same way that donors to reputable charities can be proud of their philanthropy.

For these investors, an investment in La Siembra is a worthwhile consideration. La Siembra is a worker owned Canadian cooperative that has grown each year since its inception in 1999. Their business is to import, produce, and distribute fairly traded cocoa, sugar and other high quality chocolate and baking products while minimizing their ecological footprint.

La Siembra offers investors a direct link to supporting good business. Such an investment is a credible alternative to “green” or “ethical” mutual funds offered by banking institutions or investment companies. Holding an investment with La Siembra simply makes sense in any ethical investment portfolio, and offeres competitive returns on investment when compared to other ethical fund returns.

Investors in La Siembra correspond directly with the cooperative, the shares are eligible for a registered retirement savings plan, and the investment supports a business that is founded on ethical principles of providing a fair market value to farmers, producers, retailers, investors, and customers across the world.

La Seimbra is tackling poverty by providing fair wage employment to more than 12,000 individuals in five developing countries.

If a person wants to be absolutely sure that their money is invested ethically, there are many options, but an investment in La Siembra offers individuals a guarantee that their money is working to improve the common good and is supporting a higher standard of international business.

Social Entrepreneurs are powerful change agents

In a blog on using marketing tools and techniques to change individuals’ behavior, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention the good work and the support of Ashoka and their network of fellows, volunteers, and experts worldwide.

Ashoka is a global organization that is dedicated to recognizing and supporting social entrepreneurs in order to develop meaningful social change. Their belief is that it is possible to develop a social marketplace for ideas where everyone can be a changemaker.

I recently was invited to an event where Ashoka Canada inducted eleven new fellows, each of whom are leading measurable projects of transformational change in social policy and social service delivery in Canada. Although they are certainly not the only Canadians who are making significant contributions, it is delightful to see them recognized and supported by Ashoka Canada.

A social entrepreneur can be defined in many different ways. Ashoka explains their use of the term as follows:

There is nothing as powerful as a new idea in the hands of a first-class entrepreneur.

Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.

The discipline of social marketing is a swiss army knife for social entrepreneurs.

It is a box of tools to assist the social entrepreneur as they implement their ideas on a wide scale. Social marketing can help transform one person’s ideas into group action.

What differentiates a social entrepreneur from any executive director of a charity, or leader of a church congregation, or member of a service club, or even a political activist? The difference lies in the application of entrepreneurial spirit: the desire to find new scalable mechanisms to tackle endemic, significant, social problems. Many social entrepreneurs establish charities as a vehicle to house their action. Others perhaps work through social networks, social affiliations, family foundations or even in a private or non-profit business setting.

Social entrepreneurs are not limited to one sector. Nor is the term a simple reinvention of the celebration of voluntary activity or civil society organization. Nevertheless, the term social entrepreneur is a way to identify the global leaders who are championing transformational changes to perspectives, policy and citizen engagement in order to improve society.

In the words of David Bornstein, author of How to Change the World, social entrepreneurs are “positive disrupters.” They are in business to improve the social fabric, even if that means challenging the social mores. One might say that they don’t have a profit motive to drive their efforts, but they have an ethical imperative that governs their entrepreneurship.