Will “social capital” be the next big industry to emerge?

It’s new enough that there’s not even a commonly accepted term for it. Some call it “social capital” or “social entrepreneurism”, others “blended value”, and some choose the Starbucksian name “double-triple bottom line.” You might just call it making money from doing good.

Microcredit is the major innovation that popularized the idea of alternatives to traditional philanthropy. An economics professor named Mohammed Yunus famously pioneered giving very small loans to people in developing countries to build businesses or take care of basic needs, often something as simple as opening a small store or buying vaccinations for a family.

Contrast that to aid organizations that have spent hundreds of years providing selective handouts — with little result. In just three years, microfinancing by both non- and for-profit organizations has taken flight, with a huge effect. The key was simply adding old-fashioned capitalism and a business model to charity.

Today, businesses that act with philanthropic goals but operate under business plans that mandate turning a profit are beginning to consider themselves a distinct group. Companies like the fair-trade juice venture Adina World, low-cost solar light maker D.light Design, microfinance group Unitus and the online social change startup Virgance all have fundamentally different businesses, but the same motivator: a better world.

A recent conference, Social Capital Markets 2008, saw several hundred entrepreneurs gather in one place to trade ideas for getting financed and growing in a world that’s still dominated by old-line institutions like the Red Cross. A common business model involves co-dependent non- and for-profit arms working as a single unit. One example: Zerofootprint, a carbon calculator for cities that has a non-profit foundation doing strategy for the for-profit corporation.

While most philanthropic ventures still operate solely as non-profits, there’s a growing niche for the new breed. That’s because, as Elizabeth Funk of Unitus put it while speaking at the conference, “greed is one of the fundamental drivers of humanity.” For-profit businesses have a drive that was long ago lost in the sprawling bureaucracies of traditional aid groups.

The goal, however, is not solely maximizing profits. Good Capital, a venture investment firm in San Francisco that focuses on social capital, walks a cautious line with its investments. The fund requires a positive return on its money, but also guards against profit-taking. “Nobody wants what happened when Ben and Jerry’s sold,” co-founder Kevin Jones told me, referring to the socially responsible ice cream maker’s buyout by a giant conglomerate. “You had these great shops in San Francisco with social programs. All that went away within two months when Unilever bought.”

One of Good Capital’s early investments was Better World Books, which got $4.5 million earlier this year to collect old textbooks for resale or free distribution to developing countries. Jones relates that the company wanted to give away too many of its books, a move the investors had to block to maintain margins. “They were scaring away investors — they were scaring us,” he said. But those same investors also allowed other aid organizations to buy into Better World, a move Jones calls a “reverse poison pill” designed to help block potential buyers motivated only by profit.

Overall, the returns promised by funds like Good Capital, are lower than traditional venture investment, but there’s no shortage of investors who want in. Right now, those are typically “high net worth individuals”, in industry parlance — meaning rich people — but if the first generation of funds proves it can turn a profit, traditional investors like pension funds will likely come knocking as well.

What’s not lacking are young entrepreneurs looking for a way to change the world. Social capital is far from mature, and Jones predicts “a lot of failures” as the fledgling industry finds its wings, much as the organic food and fair trade markets have been doing for a decade. But those are now mature industries, and their successes foreshadow a permanent place for social investment.

Next Story: Motorola says no Android phones until the 2009 holiday season
Previous Story: Nintendo dishes out another stellar earnings report: DS has now outsold the GameBoy

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Photo of Chris Morrison

About the Author, Chris Morrison

Chris Morrison writes about cleantech and environmental issues for VentureBeat, with occasional forays into gaming and semantic technology. He got his start writing about tech for Business 2.0 magazine, but quickly realized new media was the ticket when that institution closed its doors in 2007. Chris has also covered public equities and regulatory issues. He originally hails from southern Virginia, graduated from Evergreen State College in Washington, and now lives in San Francisco.

  • The term being used to describe these businesses is "mission-based" business.

    WSJ and other publishers have covered the trend in the last couple of years.

    Here is an example: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119553078105898...
  • This is just my own opinion, but I wasn't considering businesses that have a regular business plan (e.g. brewing beer) but just give a good deal of money away to causes to be part of this particular group of companies. That seems to be much of what the WSJ is talking about.

    Take D.light for example. They're not giving away any of their profits. Their actual product is the charity -- just a cheap light designed for people in the developing world.

    Then again, I'm not the one writing the definitions. Thanks for the note ;)
  • Twitter now has a new competitor

    Niche market MicroBlogg. It's been called the Twitter for VC's and entrepreneurs. A microblog with a purpose: http://www.venturedig.com
  • Good article . If we analyze the organizations you mentioned, I think there is great potential for new kinds of businesses to emerge. I think all these organizations will have a primary mission to do good with financial returns being secondary.
    Types of businesses which might emerge : Triple bottom line, double bottom line, social businesses ( i.e. no dividend to shareholders).
    Capital source options: funded like traditional business, social venture funding, patient capital, crowd funding, grants,etc..

    A matrix on the 'business goals' and 'capital sources' might give all possible combinations of new types of organizations.
  • Grunche
    Capitalism is the longer and harder road, but necessary, towards a classless society and without State: communism.
  • Grunche:
    As Muhammad Yunus mentions in his book "Creating a world without poverty", and I believe he is right, Capitalism a half developped structure because it assumes that people are one dimensional beings only concerned about maximizing profit for themselves. And the theory behind free markets is that the best way you can contribute to society and to the world is by doing just that, getting the most for yourself.
    However it is not working, and this is probably what we are seeing the current crisis in Wall Street, because of this "conceptual failure" as he calls it, because people are not one-dimensional beings, they have many other interests beyond maximizing profit, and they have many other needs. So Capitalism is the way to go, but it needs to evolve.

    Chris:
    Going back to Blended Capital as discussed in the post, there is one big issue that has not been resolved yet is what is it exactly? While everybody understand at a high level the concept, or what some other people call double or triple bottom line, it is very hard from the investor prospective to figure out what you can expect from it. You know you will get less return, but how much and how do you figure out good deals and bad deals? There is an issue of estimation and measurement of success that still needs to be resolved.

    One way to deal with this is what we are doing with Entrepreneur Commons (www.entrepreneurcommons.org), using debt instead of equity. Because equity creates tension between the investor and the entrepreneur, for example by forcing the issue of exit: the investor needs his money back at some point, but who do you sell too, and should you really? (the Ben& Jerry things)
    With debt, everything becomes a lot easier: you know exactly when you will get your money back and how much you will get, and you can benchmark this against the market to decide whether you are comfortable with a given rate for a given "mission".

    In addition to clarifying the issue, debt is a good thing because we have historical data on what can be done. Microfinance is for a big part about helping entrepreneurs in developing countries. This is debt to finance small businesses.
    And "Social Capital" in the US can be done the same way, with the difference that you need more than a few dollars to help an entrepreneur here. And the good news here is that you do not need huge amounts of money in the US either: according to Inc Magazine, and looking at their Top 5000 fastest growing companies, the average capital to get started for companies in the list is $25K, and if you look at their top 500 it is $75K.
    The default rates from Grammen Bank (microfinance) are 1 to 5%, so very manageable, and there is no reason why we could not do as good in developped countries.

    So there is an opportunity to make a big impact, and I am convinced that Social Capital is the next big thing because we have no other choice if we want to world to become a better place...
  • Here is my take on SoCap08 and the integration of social capital at the heart of capitalism.

    It is due to the emergence of social media networks.

    http://socialcapitalvalueadd.com/2008/10/20/soc...
  • Great Article! The only point that i would contend with is the idea that these Social and Environmentally Responsible Venture Capital opportunities will inherently generate a subpar ROI. There is no reason that these innovative companies cannot meet or exceed market returns. We can have our cake and eat it too. I am a part of a team that is proving this point; www.funkventures.com.
  • Interested in Socially Responsible Investing? Check out this Facebook group dedicated to it;

    http://www.facebook.com/inbox/readmessage.php?t...
  • Great article Chris. I hope you are doing well. I think there are more models to be explored here to get higher IRRs for traditional VCs and to effectively link pension funds, endowments to foundations.
  • Challenge offers from digital philanthropies -- such as microscholarships for new learning options, and microjobs to build track records in online markets -- can spur creation of social capital at the base of pyramid . See Seeds of Change at http://www.openworld.com and strategies for human capital formation at www.entrepreneurialschools.com .

    Best,
    Mark Frazier
    @openworld (twitter)
  • edhardy622
    British law student sues Abercrombie-Fitch for disability discrimination.
    http://www.abercrombieshop.us