According to chapter three, reducing aggression and increasing pragmatism in Environmental Advocacy, give way to the "Third Way Environmentalism" where the 'creed' is: "working with self interest is more effective than appealing altruism." This creed has led to the three principles that support this 'environmental third way': To help businesses modify their operations in order to reduce pollution; to make partnership with corporations; and to run a business to secure own incomes. But I'm a little worried about the fact that the basis of this "new third way" is the self-interest rather than altruism. Admittedly, this pragmatic approach has proved to be an effective win-win model, but what happens in the event that the model is no longer profitable for corporations (especially regarding the two first principles.)? Will Mcdonalds continue in its efforts to reduce environmental impact if it finds that using environmentally friendly materials is more expensive financially? ...
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Three Ways to “Go into Business”
From both the book and the articles this week, I’ve seen at least three ways for nonprofits to collaborate with for-profit organizations (There might be more).
In my last week’s posting, I asked an off-topic question: Does MBA students care as much to collaborate with nonprofit or government as we do? And this week, when I read the word “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)” while I’m searching what “corporate quid pro quo social entrepreneur” means, the answer jumped into my mind, which leads to the first way to collaborating with business: asking for more. It might sound naïve, but after I read the article: Putting CSR into perspective, I found it implementable. Business entrepreneurs are becoming aware that they can “demonstrate corporate responsibility and good corporate citizenship by ... making a sizeable donation to a major charity ... in exchange for that charity's very public endorsement of the company's good citizenship”. So I think it is true that businessmen want to make money, but by making an enterprise image, the public would trust this brand more and thus increase the sales volume. A great example I will share with you happened in China. After the disastrous earthquake in 2008, a local beverage enterprise which sells drinks made by traditional Chinese medicine (which is not very popular among young people, of course), donated 100 million RMB (around $14 million) to help the people and families affected. This movement shocked the public, and in2008, their sales volume became the top one in China’s market — the first time a local beverage brand exceed Coca Cola and Pepsi. And this became a classic marketing case in China. So, while for-profit organizations are considering collaborating with nonprofits as well, what we can do is to win the competition to get more money. Asking them for donation, announcing the public about their donation, so that we can gain a win-win result in both promote the business enterprise and ourselves.
The second way is to get in partnerships with for-profit organizations. In the third chapter of the book, Forces for Good, the example of Environmental Defense caught my attention. By using advanced technology to help McDonald’s to reduce plastic waste, they meet their mission to protect the environment while getting more donations. More important to me, this partnership has the potential to last for a long time. Because not like simply asking and giving relationships that many nonprofits have with for-profits, this partnership is established on a tangible foundation. It’s hard for other similar nonprofits to substitute for Environmental Defense in this relationship with McDonald’s, because the technology and experience in working together have tightened this partnership.
The third way is to run a business-like nonprofit. A good example from the article is Delancey Street Foundation. For me, it’s not only business-like, it’s almost a small city! Matt has explained this point fully and I talked too much about the first and second ways, so I’ll just stop here.
In my last week’s posting, I asked an off-topic question: Does MBA students care as much to collaborate with nonprofit or government as we do? And this week, when I read the word “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)” while I’m searching what “corporate quid pro quo social entrepreneur” means, the answer jumped into my mind, which leads to the first way to collaborating with business: asking for more. It might sound naïve, but after I read the article: Putting CSR into perspective, I found it implementable. Business entrepreneurs are becoming aware that they can “demonstrate corporate responsibility and good corporate citizenship by ... making a sizeable donation to a major charity ... in exchange for that charity's very public endorsement of the company's good citizenship”. So I think it is true that businessmen want to make money, but by making an enterprise image, the public would trust this brand more and thus increase the sales volume. A great example I will share with you happened in China. After the disastrous earthquake in 2008, a local beverage enterprise which sells drinks made by traditional Chinese medicine (which is not very popular among young people, of course), donated 100 million RMB (around $14 million) to help the people and families affected. This movement shocked the public, and in2008, their sales volume became the top one in China’s market — the first time a local beverage brand exceed Coca Cola and Pepsi. And this became a classic marketing case in China. So, while for-profit organizations are considering collaborating with nonprofits as well, what we can do is to win the competition to get more money. Asking them for donation, announcing the public about their donation, so that we can gain a win-win result in both promote the business enterprise and ourselves.
The second way is to get in partnerships with for-profit organizations. In the third chapter of the book, Forces for Good, the example of Environmental Defense caught my attention. By using advanced technology to help McDonald’s to reduce plastic waste, they meet their mission to protect the environment while getting more donations. More important to me, this partnership has the potential to last for a long time. Because not like simply asking and giving relationships that many nonprofits have with for-profits, this partnership is established on a tangible foundation. It’s hard for other similar nonprofits to substitute for Environmental Defense in this relationship with McDonald’s, because the technology and experience in working together have tightened this partnership.
The third way is to run a business-like nonprofit. A good example from the article is Delancey Street Foundation. For me, it’s not only business-like, it’s almost a small city! Matt has explained this point fully and I talked too much about the first and second ways, so I’ll just stop here.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
L3Cs: The profitable nonprofit?
L3Cs are a fairly new type of Limited Liability Corporation - an actual company that can accept money from charitable foundations because they have a social mission and profit is a secondary goal. Currently not all states legally recognize L3C's, but they are gaining momentum.
L3C's are an interesting concept, but what about helping established nonprofits that already engage in business practices that must pay taxes on any unrelated business income?
For example, the Apalachin Library near me has rented out an apartment on the second floor of the building (which used to be a farm house); an unrelated business activity gaining earnings that the library has to pay taxes on. The Tioga County Historical Society (TCHS) has a gift shop, but the items sold must be connected to the mission to the museum, namely they must have some local historical or educational significance or the income is taxed. Selling art by local artists for example would not fall under this mission; contemporary art is not really historical or educational so the museum would have to pay taxes on any profit earned from those sales.
I would like to see the government reduce (or even eliminate) taxes on nonprofit business related income; with the stipulation that that business related income doesn't exceed a certain percentage of the nonprofit's income; because essentially efforts should be going toward supporting the mission and not unrelated business activity (anyone have better suggestions to reduce mission-drift in this case?). Reducing or eliminating these taxes would encourage nonprofit organizations like the TCHS to engage in some business activity utilizing assets they already poses - but may be too hesitant to use because of legal issues. This would not only help the organization, but perhaps even reduce pressure on local government to help support the organization.
James Undercofler made an interesting blog post relating L3Cs to the Cultural Sector.
L3C's are an interesting concept, but what about helping established nonprofits that already engage in business practices that must pay taxes on any unrelated business income?
For example, the Apalachin Library near me has rented out an apartment on the second floor of the building (which used to be a farm house); an unrelated business activity gaining earnings that the library has to pay taxes on. The Tioga County Historical Society (TCHS) has a gift shop, but the items sold must be connected to the mission to the museum, namely they must have some local historical or educational significance or the income is taxed. Selling art by local artists for example would not fall under this mission; contemporary art is not really historical or educational so the museum would have to pay taxes on any profit earned from those sales.
I would like to see the government reduce (or even eliminate) taxes on nonprofit business related income; with the stipulation that that business related income doesn't exceed a certain percentage of the nonprofit's income; because essentially efforts should be going toward supporting the mission and not unrelated business activity (anyone have better suggestions to reduce mission-drift in this case?). Reducing or eliminating these taxes would encourage nonprofit organizations like the TCHS to engage in some business activity utilizing assets they already poses - but may be too hesitant to use because of legal issues. This would not only help the organization, but perhaps even reduce pressure on local government to help support the organization.
James Undercofler made an interesting blog post relating L3Cs to the Cultural Sector.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Running Non-Profits Like a Business
Chapter 3 of the Forces for Good allowed me to reflect on how non-profits are technically managed. Usually, I can determine that there are distinct differences between non-profits and for profit organizations. Sure, most of us probably feel that for profit businesses for the most part are greedy, and sometimes do very little to serve the community. On the other hand, non-profits tend to focus on serving the community while enhancing their mission. However, in order to improve efficiency, and increase revenues, should non-profits be run more like a for profit business?
Maybe not completely changing business strategies is the best thing to do but rather partnering with a business is. (p. 60) To me, this is almost like advocacy. Some of us stated in class yesterday that some non-profits may not have the capacity to advocate. However, partnering with a business in terms of accessing corporate donations and volunteers to create more sponsorships, in a way is a form of advocating, except the for profit business is doing the advocating. It sort of seems like an easy way to advocate.
We certainly have talked enough about non-profits in class thus far. I think it is very important to recognize how powerful for profit businesses can be. Since starting in the MPA program, I have always felt there has been a bold line drawn between the two types of organizations. It may be time to start crossing that line. Locally, I truly believe there are is a handful of very powerful for-profit businesses. They have the means, and the capacity to help our local non-profits succeed by establishing partnerships.
Maybe not completely changing business strategies is the best thing to do but rather partnering with a business is. (p. 60) To me, this is almost like advocacy. Some of us stated in class yesterday that some non-profits may not have the capacity to advocate. However, partnering with a business in terms of accessing corporate donations and volunteers to create more sponsorships, in a way is a form of advocating, except the for profit business is doing the advocating. It sort of seems like an easy way to advocate.
We certainly have talked enough about non-profits in class thus far. I think it is very important to recognize how powerful for profit businesses can be. Since starting in the MPA program, I have always felt there has been a bold line drawn between the two types of organizations. It may be time to start crossing that line. Locally, I truly believe there are is a handful of very powerful for-profit businesses. They have the means, and the capacity to help our local non-profits succeed by establishing partnerships.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thoughts from an "Ignorant" Classmate
I think one of the benefits of the class and program in which we are enrolled is that we not only learn from our professor and our texts, but we also have the opportunity to learn from each other. I am offering some thoughts in response to a few blog posts that I hope will provide members of the class with some information about a viewpoint that may be different from their own. Since beginning the social work program, I have been challenged regularly to put my own ideas on the back burner long enough to really consider another person's viewpoint, even if it is different from my own. Sometimes this reconsideration has changed my thinking, other times it has not, but each time it was fairly considered. I hope that sharing my own viewpoint will help people to reframe their thinking about individuals who support conservative politics. After all, faith-based nonprofits currently provide a multitude of public service to individuals in a variety of settings and receive significant government funding to do so. So, regardless of your own religious values, please understand that this is not an attempt to promote my own, but to share how they effect my ideas and my work.
In response to the Heritage Foundation, several times the word "ignorant" has been used to discuss the ideas and agenda of that organization. Regardless of my own stance on their agenda, I do not think the word "ignorant" is a fair descriptor of the individuals who make up the organization. Being a relatively conservative Christian, I would like to offer the idea that, more often than not, people who hold conservative views based on their religion, are in fact far from ignorant about situations and issues at hand. Personally, in regards to several "hot button" issues, I know that it is irresponsible and unfair to simply choose to go along with the conservative side, without ever considering all of the layers of issues. Because of this, I, and others like me, often do far more research on issues than those of the non-religious public, and even then, when we do choose a "side" it is done so with caution, an open mind, and a lot of thought. This research involves seeking out sources of information both by Christian and secular key players in the issues. It is more a process of evolutionary understanding than of selecting a specific "right" or "wrong" and being stuck on that belief. While I am well aware that this "evolutionary process" of understanding does not apply to everyone, I have found after several years at Christian college and after working for a church in a denomination that is centuries old, that this is the case more often than not.
Like it or not, anyone who is serving in a public arena will be challenged to consider and understand ideas that are the polar opposite of their own, and will at some point be challenged to work collaboratively with individuals or organizations who hold differing beliefs or political values. I think "ignorant" can be a dangerous word to use - for either side - when you are speaking about a group of people with whom you are not personally familiar.
In response to the Heritage Foundation, several times the word "ignorant" has been used to discuss the ideas and agenda of that organization. Regardless of my own stance on their agenda, I do not think the word "ignorant" is a fair descriptor of the individuals who make up the organization. Being a relatively conservative Christian, I would like to offer the idea that, more often than not, people who hold conservative views based on their religion, are in fact far from ignorant about situations and issues at hand. Personally, in regards to several "hot button" issues, I know that it is irresponsible and unfair to simply choose to go along with the conservative side, without ever considering all of the layers of issues. Because of this, I, and others like me, often do far more research on issues than those of the non-religious public, and even then, when we do choose a "side" it is done so with caution, an open mind, and a lot of thought. This research involves seeking out sources of information both by Christian and secular key players in the issues. It is more a process of evolutionary understanding than of selecting a specific "right" or "wrong" and being stuck on that belief. While I am well aware that this "evolutionary process" of understanding does not apply to everyone, I have found after several years at Christian college and after working for a church in a denomination that is centuries old, that this is the case more often than not.
Like it or not, anyone who is serving in a public arena will be challenged to consider and understand ideas that are the polar opposite of their own, and will at some point be challenged to work collaboratively with individuals or organizations who hold differing beliefs or political values. I think "ignorant" can be a dangerous word to use - for either side - when you are speaking about a group of people with whom you are not personally familiar.
Diversity and advocating lobbying
The role of nonprofits in advocating and lobbying has a tremendous impact on communities. But more than just creating an effect on the community as a whole, nonprofits empower individuals to take charge of their --- and fight for their interests. Inclusion is important in nonprofit advocacy and lobbying. This brings a two way advantage. Individuals get their voices heard through participating in grassroots advocacy. Nonprofit organizations also benefit from having a diverse membership. Everybody has something to bring to the table. Everybody has skill, creativity, and potential to create networks. I am totally agree that diversity in lobbying activity is the key to success for nonprofits that are engaged in advocating... I wonder how effective a nonprofit´s advocacy activity could be having a limited perspective of the problem ... having people from different backgrounds can enrich the process, providing, among other things, different ideas and solutions.
Case of Women Rights Center
Women Rights Center in Armenia initiated drafting of Law on Domestic Violence in 2005 and advocated and lobbied it since 2007. In September 2009 the law was submitted to the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of RA for further circulation and on November 12th, 2010 it has been presented to the Government of RA for consideration.
The strategy used to force law was to work with the women parliamentarians and push the law with their help. The first challenge the organization faced was that women parliamentarians were sure that domestic violence is not an issue in Armenia. As many male officials and authorities they were sure that domestic violence is western issue that foreign governments and agencies trying to integrate in our society to weaken strong Armenian family values and traditions.
Domestic violence topic is very sensitive topic for Armenians. Over centuries Armenian Families were considered as one of the strongest family units with very little number of divorces. The other challenge with domestic violence topic was that general public under the domestic violence only understood severe physical violence. The population did not identify psychological, economic and sexual violence in the family as domestic violence. Sexual violence in the family even nowadays is a taboo topic. There is zero record on reporting sexual abuse in the family in my city which is the second biggest city in Armenia.
I agree with M. Avner that building of advocacy capacity is very important before initiating advocacy. Without strengthening the knowledge base, having strong facts and numbers in hand, building coalition with other interested organizations to make lobbing stronger, understanding the opposition it is impossible to be quick and effective. Another issue with this campaign was that the population was not supporting the issue either. As professionals in this field we could identify easily domestic violence and the issue was obvious for us but for general public that was not able to identify psychological and economical violence was difficult to accept that the phenomena of domestic violence is existing in Armenia. As a non-profit we cannot lobby an issue which is not coming from grassroots and is not the voice of the target group that we are representing. Such campaigns will stretch longer, will request much more resources and there is no guarantee that it will have any success.
This case is showing that sometimes before starting the lobbying there may be a need to do public awareness raising activities also that can initiate debates and dialogues on the issue that will help both general public and authorities to look at the issue from different angles.
The strategy used to force law was to work with the women parliamentarians and push the law with their help. The first challenge the organization faced was that women parliamentarians were sure that domestic violence is not an issue in Armenia. As many male officials and authorities they were sure that domestic violence is western issue that foreign governments and agencies trying to integrate in our society to weaken strong Armenian family values and traditions.
Domestic violence topic is very sensitive topic for Armenians. Over centuries Armenian Families were considered as one of the strongest family units with very little number of divorces. The other challenge with domestic violence topic was that general public under the domestic violence only understood severe physical violence. The population did not identify psychological, economic and sexual violence in the family as domestic violence. Sexual violence in the family even nowadays is a taboo topic. There is zero record on reporting sexual abuse in the family in my city which is the second biggest city in Armenia.
I agree with M. Avner that building of advocacy capacity is very important before initiating advocacy. Without strengthening the knowledge base, having strong facts and numbers in hand, building coalition with other interested organizations to make lobbing stronger, understanding the opposition it is impossible to be quick and effective. Another issue with this campaign was that the population was not supporting the issue either. As professionals in this field we could identify easily domestic violence and the issue was obvious for us but for general public that was not able to identify psychological and economical violence was difficult to accept that the phenomena of domestic violence is existing in Armenia. As a non-profit we cannot lobby an issue which is not coming from grassroots and is not the voice of the target group that we are representing. Such campaigns will stretch longer, will request much more resources and there is no guarantee that it will have any success.
This case is showing that sometimes before starting the lobbying there may be a need to do public awareness raising activities also that can initiate debates and dialogues on the issue that will help both general public and authorities to look at the issue from different angles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)