The Sector Inc’s partner Sinzer has developed the Strategic Impact Framework (SIF) which is designed to be easy to use and flexible in structure. The Strategic Impact Framework allows you to create your own building blocks that represent your strategic impact pillars. Once you’ve created your building blocks you can develop a template in which you can pre-set metrics to measure the impact performance related to each strategic pillar. Important note: this framework doesn’t value impact in a currency. It can use standardized indicators (such as the IRIS indicators). Here is a detailed tutorial on creating templates!

The flexibility of the Strategic Impact Framework of Sinzer allows for many types of templates and applications. Here are some of the common applications for SIF we have seen:

Impact investors can measure (standardised) indicators for input, output and outcomes. Their custom Strategic Impact Famework allows them to structure, monitor and report their impact of their investees. Example customers for this application are impact investors Noaber Foundation and Aglaia Biomedical Ventures that have developed their own framework and are measuring their results using Sinzer. Donwload there case studies via the links.

Charities that offer services to a community can monitor the impact they are creating on a specific target audience by measuring the before- and after scores of a set of metrics. These metrics can be based on standardized questionnaires or indicators such as those published by the Global Value Exchange or on metrics that are specific to the impact goals of the charity. An example of this is the use of Sinzer as an ‘Impact and Data Management Tool’ for Aleron (a social impact consultancy firm) who are setting up this tool for a UK charity via the Impact Readiness Program.

Foundations that offer grants to many different projects can have individual projects measure the impact they are creating. The foundation can evaluate if the impact goals of the projects are aligned with the foundation’s goals and can give guidance to projects to improve their impact. An example customer is the Dutch VSB foundation.

Each of these applications requires a specific set of features. The choice of the right building blocks and community settings will determine in part the success of your endeavor. Once the template is published you can use this for each investments, projects and/or activity. With minimal effort, you can enter targets and actuals and manage the performance in a dashboard. Furthermore, you can create surveys to collect data and export data in Excel and Word!

#sinzer #socialimpact #sdgs #csr #socialinnovation #socialenterprise #charity #wbs #mba #impact #toronto #love #peace #ESG #bradfordturner #thesectorinc #csi #MaRS #socialfinance #fundraising #impactinvesting #consulting #digitaltransformation

MBAs with a concentration in sustainability use the trialed and tested framework of a conventional MBA while also having a specific focus on the intersection of sustainability and business success and ethics, all in an effort to advance sustainability principles.

It’s not solely focused on the environment. It also tackles social sustainability and social impact.

As businesses become more conscious of how they affect the world, businesses are on the lookout for employees who are more able to promote sustainable measures.

Here are some of the world’s top business schools preparing graduates to be ethical, sustainable leaders.

1. Warwick Business School

Warwick Business School’s full-time MBA program gives students the opportunity to visit Vancouver – regarded as the world’s greenest city – to learn about sustainable business.

There is also a Business and Sustainability module which introduces the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, as well as modules like the Economics of Well-being, Human Resource Management and Corporate Responsibility.Students can also make the most of learning about different cultures on international modules in India, Mexico, Brazil, or China.

2. University of Exeter Business School

The Exeter MBA can be undertaken full-time in over 12 months, or as an executive part-time option over 24-36 months. The program focuses on sustainability, purposeful leadership, innovation and technology, so graduates will transform not only themselves, but the world around them.

Stuart Robinson, Program Director of The Exeter MBA says, “The creation of sustainable practice is now in the mainstream of industrial, societal, and technological progress globally, so we are delighted to be recognized as an MBA that offers students the skills and knowledge to take this forward in their careers.”

3. MIT Sloan School of Management

Students attending Sloan interested in social and environmental impact could look into MIT’s sustainability certificate (only open to masters-level students as an add-on to existing degree programs).

The program also involves the Sustainable Business Laboratory, where students work in teams on problems faced by real firms attempting to advance sustainability strategies. Coursework includes a sustainability capstone class during your final term, along with a variety of sustainability electives.

4. INSEAD

INSEAD is incorporating sustainability into their INSEAD MBA curriculum, with two courses standing out – Business Sustainability and the SDG Bootcamp.

These courses enable students to analyze, improve and create innovative business models that are more profitable and sustainable.The SDG Bootcamp is an intense workshop focusing on problem framing, ideation and prototyping. It encourages students to address critical real-world problems in line with UN Sustainable Development Goals.

5. The Fuqua School of Business

Fuqua’s Client Consulting Practicum (FCCP) – an experiential learning program – offers teams of students the opportunity to work on sustainability issues for client companies and non-profits.

The business school also boasts an award-winning research and education enter, the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE). The center helps organizations and leaders with the necessary business skills to promote and achieve social change.CASE sponsors i3, a professional online training program for direct impact investing. Similarly, the center funds fellowships which enables students to trial social impact careers through internships without financial struggles.

6. Saïd Business School, Oxford University

The MBA program’s curriculum allows students to choose elective options like Social Enterprise Design, or Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation.

Similarly, the school’s Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship provides students looking to create social change through innovation with the relevant resources.

7. I.E. Business School

Located in the Spanish capital Madrid, IE Business School pushes to incorporate innovation throughout the school’s ethos. The school offers a number of appropriate sustainability courses, and also holds an annual Social Responsibility Forum that explores CSR-related issues.

8. Harvard Business School

HBS was in fact one of the business schools to build research in the CSR space through its Social Enterprise Initiative. Many of the MBA program’s core curriculum classes also integrate CSR case studies.

9. Cornell S.C. Johnson College of Business, Cornell University

Johnson’s Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise – which launched in 2003 – publishes relevant sustainability and CSR research. If they so wish, two-year MBA students can choose a concentration in Sustainable Global Enterprise, as well as a company project focusing on CSR topics.

Students enrolled in the SGE immersion work in multidisciplinary teams on consulting-type assignments with real firms that are focused on strategic initiatives exploring new business opportunities related to sustainability.

10. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University

The core curriculum on RSM’s MBA program offers courses including Business, Society, and Sustainable Development, which places a strong focus on CSR and sustainability.

The school produces a range of research in the sustainability field, but more importantly, RSM incorporated the UN Global Compact’s Principles for Responsible Management Education into their MBA curriculum.

Source Article: Niamh Ollerton; TopMBA.com: https://www.topmba.com/why-mba/10-best-business-schools-sustainability

#thesectorinc #wbs #socialinnovation #bradfordturner #mba #sustainability #sdgs #ESG #impactinvesting #csr #charity #nonprofit

In recent years the world has seen a dramatic change in society’s view of corporate and social sustainability, with a growing emphasis on creating sustainable economic growth to the benefit of society at large.  Below, Frederik Dahlmann, Assistant Professor of Global Energy at Warwick Business School discusses capitalism’s new direction.

In 1972 Milton Friedman wrote, “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” His article warned against diverting managers’ attention away from making profits for their owners by promoting desirable social ends or “building personal empires.” Instead, managers should focus their efforts on maximising shareholder wealth.

Since then the world has changed significantly and a growing chorus of scientists, campaigners and politicians are demanding companies’ executives do more to address “global mega-challenges”. Climate change, resource shortages, security risks and inequalities are just some examples of an increasingly fast-paced, complex and multi-dimensional business environment causing widespread concerns.

As a result, societal expectations of how firms integrate stakeholder views into business management and create sustainable economic growth have steadily risen. Increasingly, a number of trends suggest that managers may need to move towards pursuing more broad-ranging contributions of their companies to society.

Changing our Understanding of Capitalism

Not least since the global financial crisis people from around the world have been calling on politicians to implement tough actions designed to address some of the weaknesses of a capitalist free-market economy. Many of these frustrations are based on a list of political, social, economic, emotional, ethical and religious arguments.

The recent emergence of social movements such as “We are the 99%” and Occupy, as well as ideas, debates and conferences such as Inclusive Capitalism, Responsible Business, New Growth Models, The Share Economy, The Post-Capitalist Economy and Combining Purpose With Profits demonstrate that these debates are widespread and growing. Academics and policy makers, for their part, are searching for new ways of accounting for and promoting economic activity beyond GDP growth.

Yet many of these efforts go beyond companies’ immediate short-term financial considerations and may even challenge their existing economic logic. Some therefore suggest that companies should publicly redefine their purpose and highlight what contributions they make to our prosperity by transforming ideas into products and services that solve society’s problems.

New Organisational Forms

While it is tempting to see such debates as largely a problem for existing businesses and politicians to deal with, many new enterprises are already displaying a fundamentally different attitude towards these issues. In future, the fiercest competition for companies is likely to come from startups whose entrepreneurs are well aware of these global sustainability challenges and which they seek to address through innovative products and services.

For example, a growing community of so-called Benefit Corporations, or “B Corps”, have been certified as meeting rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. These more than 1,000 B Corps from 33 countries and over 60 industries are working together toward one unifying goal: to redefine success in business. Their mission is to be of benefit to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Elsewhere, social enterprises are a similar example of organisations focusing mainly on solving environmental and social issues, often particularly in developing countries.

These new types and variations of enterprises represent an interesting and slowly accelerating trend. Many of them are tapping into the wider sustainability agenda by redefining organisational purpose and success.

New Key Performance Measures

Faced with pressures to accept the wider role of stakeholders and responsibilities, companies largely responded by publishing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or sustainability reports. This required challenging efforts of measuring, reporting and verifying non-financial data. Whether such activities are genuine attempts to communicate companies’ wider performance or merely serve as “greenwashing” has been the subject of intense debates.

But many of these processes appear to be changing too. Reporting firms’ social and environmental performance is increasingly becoming more standardised and rigorous, much like reporting firms’ financial accounts. For instance, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) has made it its mission to embed “Integrated Reporting” into mainstream business practice for both public and private organisations. Both the UK and the EU have also introduced legislation requiring large companies to disclose environmental data such as greenhouse gas emissions and other non-financial information.

Elsewhere, the professional services firm PwC published its first ever efforts to account for the company’s “total impact”. In fact, “impact” may become a key concept to watch as there has been an explosion in activities designed to invest in and measure impact beyond financial returns. New forms of Sustainable and Responsible Investment including Impact investment, Green Bonds and Social Impact Bonds have seen strong growth in recent years.

Towards Maximising “Total Impact”

Taken together these examples are all signals of a trend towards a more “mixed economy” where the dividing line between private and public activity, financial and non-financial gains is increasingly becoming blurred.

Managers in existing businesses need to decide whether they believe that managing sustainability should be left to these new organisations or whether they want to adapt to this changing environment.

The debate over companies’ purpose continues and many will favour retaining the simpler metrics surrounding shareholder wealth. Yet changes in investment trends also reflect the underlying social shifts where younger generations of investors (“The next generation of wealth”) appear to be increasingly interested in and concerned with investment outcomes beyond financial results. Measuring impact beyond financial returns is notoriously difficult. PwC’s efforts, as well as metrics provided by others, serve as useful starting points for understanding the vital role that business organisations can play as part of serving our wider society. Whether this will be enough to transform companies’ attention to maximising total impact in future depends on managers and investors working together.

Originally seen on European Financial Review.

Article Sourced from Warwick Business School (WBS): https://www.wbs.ac.uk/news/sustainability-and-total-impact-just-as-crucial-as-profit/

#thesectorinc #wbs #socialinnovation #impactinvesting #ESG #corporatesustainability #bradfordturner #sdgs #sustainability

The connection between business and society is a popular topic. The social and environmental issues we face on a global level are becoming so significant that there are plenty of business opportunities in contributing to solving them. This is not only interesting from a risk and reputation management perspective. Sustainability can be a platform for profitable growth while solving wicked social issues.

Many corporates today have a traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) approaches or philanthropic activities. Some of them are moving forward to a shared value, more integrated strategy. Leading corporations have started to explore and implement Corporate Social Impact Strategies (CSIS). The European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA) recently conducted a research about this new approach.

CSIS are investment-oriented approaches to build sustainable value creation models while also generating strategic social impact. These corporations are finding new ways of leveraging the strength of their core business to generate positive social impact. The investments companies are making in Corporate Social Impact strategies are relatively still small, despite the enormous potential. Think about the volume of unmet needs of people at the bottom of the economic pyramid and other wicked social issues that need a scalable business approach to solve it. Things to consider building an effective corporate social impact strategy are:

  • Does it grow the business and increase profitability?
  • Does it adopt relevant innovations and insight into new market segments?
  • Does it build an enabling eco-system for future business?
  • Does it attract and retain top talent?
  • Does it strengthen brand value?
  • Does is improve supply chain efficiency?
  • Does it solve a wicked social issue?

If you have set up a strategy to create social impact, it also makes sense to measure it. Utilising social impact measurement as a forecasting tool can provide valuable insight in the expected social impact of your strategy. It also allows you to prioritize where to invest your resources. Only by measuring social impact consequently and consistently can drive improvement and maximize social impact.

Do you want to learn more about measuring social impact?

The Sector Inc offers a fast, one-day Impact Strategy Assessment, which you can book here: https://www.thesectorinc.ca/book-online/impact-strategy-assessment

#socialimpact #wbs #ESG #impactinvesting #socialenterprise #sdgs #funding #charity

For a full copy of The Sector’s report, please contact the firm.

Ontario’s Government is “adopting new “digital practices and technologies that will deliver simpler, faster, better services to Ontarian’s.” In the 2019 Budget, the Government revealed its digital plan that includes, among other measures, the Simpler, Faster, Better Services Act.” And as per the Government’s claims, “if passed, it will significantly improve how government works and the services it delivers to the people of Ontario” (Government of Ontario, 2019).

At the same time, the organizations which largely deliver, government social services in Ontario (often coined “The Third Sector”), are experiencing an acute “digital skills gap;” the majority of reporting they are not “confident about having enough skilled staff or training to effectively use their technology for their work” (ONN, 2019).

Also, at the same time, Canada’s “Big Four” consulting firms, have been investing-in and building internal capabilities to advise “public sector organizations at the forefront of using digital technologies to transform the way they function” (Deloitte, 2019).

Over the last twenty years, the Ontario Public Service “transitioned from being an organization which provided service-delivery directly to clients, to an organization which now focuses its core operations on policy and program design,” outsourcing it’s “service delivery” to the Third Sector (Government of Ontario, 2017). It currently spends approximately $350,000,000 annually on consultants focused on technological innovation, making little additional provision to ensure these capabilities are developed in the Third Sector. This dissertation tests the hypothesis:

If the Government of Ontario shift’s spending from consulting services in policy and program-design at the ministerial level, toward a greater proportion of spend, allocated toward management consulting services focused on digital transformation of service-delivery, at the agency and point-of-service level, it will yield a positive social return on investment.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The Undefined Role of the Ontario Public Service 8

1.1 Assumption 1: The Speed of Digital 10

1.2 Assumption 2: Consulting Firms Are the Required Intermediary 10

1.3 Hypothesis 11

1.4 The Approach: What if “The Big Four” were Retained? 11

1.5 The Problem Statement: The Third Sector Can’t Afford the Big Four 12

2. Context Behind the Hypothesis: Government Spending (A Market Analysis)

2.1 Government Spending on Transfer Payments: The Market for Social Services 12

2.2 Segmenting the Third Sector’s Transfer Payments 12

2.3 Government Expenditure on Consulting Services (The Market For…) 13

2.3.1 Government Buying “Technical” & Consulting Firms Selling “Technical”? 15

2.3.2 Costly Consultants Permanent Employees Could Do for Less 15 2.4 The Market for Consulting Service to the Third Sector 16

3. Literature Review: Existing Literature from All Three Sectors

3.1 Conducting the Literature Review 17

3.2 Broader-Public-Sector Literature on Government Transformation 17

3.2.1 The Creation of Streamlined Client Pathways 18

3.2.1.1 Government Literature on Streamlined Pathways 18

3.2.1.2 Third Sector Literature on Streamlined Pathways 19

3.2.1 Proven Outcomes & Tracked Evidence (Finance First) 20

3.2.2 Inter-Governmental Integration: Integration Before Digitization 20

3.2.3 Inter-Sectoral Integration: The Digital Requirement 20

3.3. The Big Four Literature on Digital Transformation of Government 20

3.3.1 The Preeminent Role of Digital in Government Transformation 21

3.3.1.1 A Tone of Urgency, Competition, & Optimism 22

3.3.3 Better Delivery Through Stronger Data 22

3.3.4 Self-Serve Models 22

3.4 Literature on the Third-Sector’s Skill Gap 22

3.4.1 The Sector’s Digital Skills Gap 22

3.4.2 A Lack of Internal Digital Capabilities 23

4. Research Methodology: An “Intrinsic” Case Study

4.1 Overall Approach: The Critical Success Factors to the Consulting Engagement 23 4.1.1 Research Questions: Breaking the Problem into Factors to Build Strategy 24 4.1.2 The Structure of the Research 26

4.1.3 Research Presentation Format 27

4.2 Research Plan 1: Factors For & Against, Digital Transformation; Third Sector Perspective

4.2.1 Description, Rationale and Expectations 28 4.3.1.1 The Survey (Questionnaire) 29 4.3.1.2 Semi-structured Interviews 29

4.3.2 Critique 29

4.3.2.1 The Survey (Questionnaire): The Sample Bias, Timing, and Reliability 29

4.3.2.2 Semi-Structured Interviews 30

4.3.3 Issues Encountered: The Good and the Bad 30

4.3.3.1 The Survey (Questionnaire) 30

4.3.3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews 30

4.3.4 Analyzing the Results 31

4.3.4.1 The Survey (Questionnaire) 31

4.3.4.2 Semi-structured Interviews 31

4.4 Research Plan 2: Providing Capacity Building Services; The Big Four’s Perspective

4.1.1 Description, Rationale, and Expectations 31

4.4.1.1 Semi Structured Interviews 31

4.4.1.2 Datamining for Verification and Fact Checking 32

4.4.2 Critique

4.4.2.1 Semi-Structured Interviews 32

4.4.2.2 Data Mining for Verification & Fact-Checking 33

4.4.3. Issues Encountered 33

4.4.3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews 33

4.4.4 Analyzing the Results 33

5. Findings

5.1 Analysis of Findings

5.1.1 Third Sector Perspective: Analyzing Survey Results and Interview Responses 33 5.1.2 Market Factors which Support Digital Transformation of Third-Sector Organizations

5.1.3 The Big Four’s Perspective: Analyzing Survey Results and Interview Responses 40

5.2 Learning Points Toward Strategic Government Spending 46

6. Proposed Strategic Government Spending

6.1 Diverting Funding from Program & Policy Design to Service Delivery 46

6.1.2 Provincial Transfer Payments to Create Scale and Efficiency 47

6.1.2.1 Creating Scale Through Operations Design 47

6.1.2.2 Creating Third Sector Scale Through Consolidation 47

6.1.2.3 Issuing Tenders for Management Consulting Services Toward Digital Transformation

7. Concluding Remarks

7.1 Dissertation Summary 48

7.2 Critique and Limitations 48

7.2.1 Lack of Technical Rigor 49

7.2.2 Lack of Formal Financial Analysis 49

7.3 Further Research 49

#fundraising #digitaltransformation #toronto #socialimpact #wbs #love #impactinvesting #sdgs #csr #esg