Позитивные изменения. Том 3, № 4 (2023). Positive changes. Volume 3, Issue 4(2023) - Редакция журнала «Позитивные изменения»
The second big issue of the session is the modern world dominated by men. Shiva Dustdar, director of the EIB Institute, recalled that while Henry Ford was creating a global automobile empire, Mrs. Ford drove an electric car, drawing low attention to her invention. Only a hundred years later the electric car got a second life. With everything going on around us, isn’t it time for true femininity? Perhaps a shift towards emotional intelligence and away from the principle of “bigger-stronger-faster” is exactly what is needed in times of crisis. What can impact investors do?
Research shows that female founders continue to receive less investment than male founders. This opens up opportunities for investors to make more inclusive solutions.
Another compelling point raised in the Big Conversation revolves around the idea that people seek economic security rather than economic growth. This leads to the intriguing question: Is it time to discuss the concept of ‘de-growth’?
People want more tangible impact, not just promises of impact, and empty talk about impact is becoming more and more common. This is probably why most of the second day’s program was devoted to planning and measuring social impact.
TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM
How can we move from the conventional impact measurement (and ROI impact on each invested EUR) to a tangible social change? This is the question that every social innovator can ask himself: Does my solution contribute to the societal transformation? Or does it provide only a small improvement?
Leading organizations in social entrepreneurship, like Acumen Fund and Ashoka, share their insights on navigating these complexities. Key themes include the significance of systemic thinking and tackling the root causes of issues, rather than just their apparent symptoms. This approach involves embracing the complexity of problems and not becoming excessively focused on just output and outcome metrics. Instead, the focus should be on selecting a few critical indicators that provide meaningful insights into the impact of an initiative. Therefore, merely having a multitude of indicators is not particularly beneficial. Instead, selecting one or two key indicators thoughtfully can yield meaningful insights from the impact assessment, helping to determine the proximity to the desired impact. The secret to effecting system change lies in viewing the problem through a different lens. We must delve beneath the surface to grasp the problem’s complexity, rather than just focusing on what is immediately visible. This approach raises the question: What aspects of impact truly require management?
Increasingly, the advice is to focus on your organization’s unique story rather than attempting to quantify a broader impact. It is essential to blend various methods and tools, tailoring them to the specific system you are engaged with, rather than relying on a single approach. For success in contemporary impact measurement, entrepreneurs should evolve into ‘internal engineers,’ skilled in identifying and monitoring change, rather than merely tracking indicators. Additionally, it is vital for all employees to adopt the role of change detectors, moving away from the model of a single individual responsible for measuring impact and collecting periodic surveys from clients and beneficiaries. What do we all need to become vigilant observers within the systems we work with or for, and to consistently communicate with one another about the dynamics of change?
The panelists underscore that impact measurement is always contingent on key stakeholders, ‘clients,’ and the intended purpose — questioning who the results are presented to and their intended use. This context makes the perspective of investors particularly intriguing. Several investors in attendance disclose case studies illustrating their shift from investing in standalone, exceptional projects to investing in an ecosystem of projects. They conduct comprehensive analyses of these ecosystems to identify strategic intervention points where their investments can add significant value. One investor succinctly expresses their desire: “We want to see the shift and understand exactly how we contributed to it.” Another panelist adds a crucial insight: “Ecosystems are always local, at most regional.” This emphasizes the need for in-depth knowledge of the ecosystem to pinpoint key intervention areas.
“If we see an increase of resources in the system, for example, the emergence of new funds, then we cannot definitely say that we have made a contribution, because it is not enough to simply add resources to the system, we need to change the behavior of people in the long term.” Have we heard this from donors before? I do not think so.
A notable example is presented in a panel discussing nature-based solutions. The Optimus Foundation spearheaded an experiment where nine competing nonprofits from Indonesia and Vietnam were united in a 1.5-year program. This collaboration focused on mangrove restoration and protection, involving major organizations and policymakers, developing financial models for scalability, enhancing organizational capacity, and implementing measurement and technology solutions. The outcome was an eye-opener for other donors who were impressed by the synergistic efforts of these traditionally siloed players. This example, though rare, plants a seed for future collaborative efforts.
Suddenly the conversation takes another turn, highlighting that the quality of impact measurement is influenced by the perceptions held by entrepreneurs, nonprofit teams, and investors regarding Impact Measurement and Management (IMM). Facilitating discussions about the purpose of IMM for each party can greatly simplify the process. A new resource, IMMJourney. com, is mentioned as a helpful tool for guiding such conversations.
Despite the array of strategies and insights available to those involved
