With Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World, Michael Edwards delivers a powerful critique of the movement he calls philanthrocapitalism. This review tracks his main arguments and summarizes the book's content. Despite a few weaknesses in sourcing its arguments, the book is strongly recommended both to academics and to practitioners, especially to the prophets and disciples of the venture philanthropy and social business.

Originating from Silicon Valley in the early 1990s, high-technology-oriented entrepreneurs-turned-philanthropists have applied venture capital principles to philanthropy in order to address intractable social problems, coining the term venture philanthropy (VP). Evolving from an emergent to a pervasive model in Europe in the last two decades, the VP approach has been considered as an innovative alternative to the traditional philanthropy (TP) type of benevolence and cheque-writing (Anheier and Leat 2006). With increasing expectations, in the context of governmental hollowing-out of social services, debate seems to have become polarised. VP is criticised for not being a solution to changes in the social landscape and for its business approaches failing to address fundamental social issues (Sievers 2001; Anheier and Leat 2006; Shiller 2012) and so remaining simply a myth. This research explores the nature of VP based on the organisational perspectives of four funders in Scotland, with a focus on the engagement process. The new empirical data regarding the funding distribution process are gathered with the aim of answering the core questions: 'why give', 'what to give' and 'how to give'. A new operational framework for analysing funders is developed and is used to analyse processual trajectories mapping the convergence and divergence amongst the four funders, citing new evidence from Scotland. Case studies from the years 2011 to 2014 present four grant-giving modes respectively: 1) pure grant-giving but emerging to a business approach applied to funding distribution; 2) grant-giving but applying venture capital approaches (VP); 3) mixed grants and repayable business loans; and 4) repayable business loans. To map the feature of emergent trajectory, a new operational framework is proposed and utilised for analysis. Research findings suggest that a pattern of resource heterogeneity is emerging in the four funding models in response to isomorphic forces. While dealing with inward (governance) and outward (market and political) legitimacy forces, hero-entrepreneurs are shown in the four cases as the key driver to identify the need for change and drive change forward. Meanwhile, hero-entrepreneurship behaviour is associated with the setting of goals, shaping the rationale of the funding scheme, marshalling resources and aligning with partners to demonstrate value adding through the engagement process. The contribution of this research to the philanthropic field is threefold. Firstly, with regard to its theoretical contribution, the findings support conventional isomorphic change theory by arguing: a) that the agent-conduit-roles of funders are not determined by structure, but rather individual agents (hero-entrepreneurs) play a cementing role in the change process of initiating, leading, diffusing influence and levering power for social change; and b) that in their agent-conduit-roles funders act as an active but reflective intermediary, change taking place in the process of legitimacy and resource distribution through the cycle of change-model shaping; convening and conducting; reflecting, dismantling and reshaping. This contribution enhances and complements the discovery by Mair and Hehenberger (2014), which suggests TP and VP create shared space for negotiation, shared objectives and a reflective isomorphic process (Nicholls 2010a). Arguably, funders should strategically consider complex and plural elements of funding and integrating a competitive market and a cooperative rationale with emotional motives into a decision-making. Realisation of social objectives will ultimately be achieved through reflective isomorphic processes, adjusting the funding structure to fit social contexts with convergent resources alignment. Secondly, with regard to its empirical contribution, this research proposes a new typology of funders. Different from the typology proposed by Ostrower (2006), the new typology proposal is based on what the funding is for. The elements of the new typology are synthesised from why, how and what in action, i.e. grant-giving mode, engagement approach and level of risks. Thirdly, practical contributions emerging from the implications of the proposed framework, which are discussed in the concluding chapter, may improve the quality of decision-making in funding behaviour and may also help to shape modes of governance for social problem-solving.

Many contemporary policymakers and philanthropists interested in fixing problems in urban education look to business practices and market-based reforms. Venture Philanthropy (VP), draws its practices directly from the financial sector, using strategic investment to increase the capacity and achievement of funded organizations and to promote social goals. VP firms are increasingly a part of the education environment yet currently there is little empirical data on the specific meaning, ideas, and logic through which these organizations understand and investment in education, particularly urban education. This research sought to answer the research question, what is the theory of action of a venture philanthropy firm focusing on educational improvement and what new meanings and practices does it produce in one urban district? This study collected data using embedded ethnographic methods including over 200 hours of observations, 21 interviews, and document collection creating a case study of a single education VP, the Center for Educational Advancement (CEA). Using Foucauldian disciplinary theory to analyze CEA's perspective on and practice of educational investment, this study found that CEA sought to transform the instruction and culture within its portfolio of urban schools by using the disciplinary practices of observation, judgement, and examination, thereby producing for its donors a student achievement return on investment. / Policy, Organizational and Leadership Studies

This doctoral thesis contains three research papers in social finance, a field concerned with the financing issues of organizations aiming to solve social problems. Intertemporal Preferences of Nonprofit Organizations This paper studies the intertemporal preferences that govern the spending decision of nonprofit organizations. I estimate the subjective discount rate and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution based on an extension of the consumption Euler model that allows for heterogeneous parameter estimates with regards to donation dependency and size. Biting the Hand That Feeds You: Effects of Embezzlement in Nonprofits This paper studies how newspaper reports on embezzlement affect donations received by nonprofit organizations. Based on a unique data set on wrongdoings by top managers in nonprofits between 1995 and 2002, I provide evidence that the cost of weak governance in nonprofits is very high. What is the Business of Business? This paper develops a theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of new organizational forms, such as socially responsible firms and social enterprises, which embody the private sector’s efforts to resolve problems that typically have been within the purview of government and traditional charities. The framework yields an optimal investment policy, which typically Pareto-dominates many common social investment principles, such as break-even conditions, social screening and SROI. About the author Andreas Nilsson pursued his PhD in the Department of Finance at the Stockholm School of Economics. During this time, he was affiliated with the Swedish House of Finance and SIFR and spent two years as a visiting fellow at Harvard University. He is the founder of Sonanz, an asset management firm focused on social investments. / <p>Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan, 2014. Sammanfattning jämte 3 uppsatser</p>

This bachelor thesis evaluates how high-engagement investors contribute to the development and growth of for-profit social enterprises by providing both funding and non-financial advisory services focused on organisational capacity-building. Case studies on three social enterprises describe the structure of funding deals, what considerations affected these due to the high social character of the ventures, and inquire into the relationship between social enterprise and their investors to evaluate how the investors provide value for their investees beyond capital. The investor types involved include commercial venture capital funds, angel investors, accelerator programs and venture philanthropy funds; a sort of social impact investment fund which combines the high- engagement mentoring of venture capital funds with lower expectations on financial returns in exchange for higher demands on social impact. The findings indicate that high-engagement investors in general provide a wide range of services to the social enterprises studied, where strategic advisory services and networks introductions are identified as key enablers for development. Aligning philosophies on the combination of business and social impact is also identified as critical for a constructive relationship between investor and investee. The perceived value of venture philanthropy funding diverges between the cases; while filling an empty space in the social enterprise capital market, some findings question their capabilities and investment model. Apart from the initial research questions on how high-engagement investors add value to social enterprises, the study raises further questions on social enterprise funding in general and the issues that obstructs these organisations from introducing innovation and growth to underdeveloped markets.

公部門站在主要的資金提供者，並鼓勵企業加入贊助行列，支持表演藝術團體的持續發展。但是，有限資源面對眾多的申請者，資源提供者(公部門以及企業部門)，大都採取被動的態度，受理申請。這種傳統的資源提供模式，採取名額多、補助額度少的方式。因此，為爭取更多的資源，表演藝術團體必須在不同部門之間奔走，尋求資金挹注的最佳組合。此一模式，長期以來，造成資金提供者與資金需求者(表演團體)，雙方在資源交換的效率低、交換後雙方都不滿意；就社會行銷的觀點而言，如此的交換模式耗損相當高的交易成本，資源無法有效的整合與運用，無法創造最大的社會效益。使得公部門、企業、表演團體都急於尋找資源有效運用的良方。 以發掘商業組織為對象的創業投資，運用到以非營利組織為對象。透過策略管理的方式慎選投資標的，建構可以創造高社會報酬的計畫，稱為公益創投。本研究假設，公益創投可以運用在以創意為核心表演藝藝術產業，探討表演團體接受公益創投的可行性。公益創投主動尋求投資之標的，長期參與不僅投注資金，也投入人力以及各項資源。並要求達成設定的績效目標以及價值與利潤的回饋。 經由文獻探討，並以實務經驗者參與焦點座談的方式，實際模擬遴選準則以及實務上可能之標的等。發現對於公益創投的模式，表演藝術團體是有條件的接受，在尊重藝術創作的前提下，它提供一套系統化的投資方式，提昇資源應用的效率，創造更高的社會效益。讓有潛力的團體，能夠在需要的時機被主動發掘，成為重點投資的對象。是傳統藝術資源運用模式之外的另一項具有策略性的選項。建議，在現有的資源中提出一定的比例，採行公益創投的模式重點投資值得發展的計畫。 / The public sector plays a prominent part as the primary funding channels for performing arts groups as well as appeals to the private sector for joining the funding game. Limited funding resources have proven to be challenged for numerous fund-seeking applicants. The resource providers (public and private funding sectors) have been known to take on a passive attitude—accepting, assessing and allocating sent applications. This traditional interaction frequently adapts the “more dividers, less grant” model. In turn, performing arts groups spend more time circling different funding departments, in search of the best funding combination to meet their needs. This long-adopted method has caused low efficiency on both the funding providers and the funding seekers. Both parties rarely exchange their resources and even when do so, rarely are both parties satisfied with the mode of exchange. Taking the view of social marketing , this exchange pattern not only results in transaction costs, resources are left ineffectively integrated and therefore fails in reaching the best social beneficiary. Foreseeing hazardous future in funding, public sectors, enterprises and performing arts groups are jumping to find best applicable measures to resource integration. Seeking venture capitals to invest in nonprofit organizations. Weighing through strategic management and invest in the chosen organization to create high social rewards is “Venture Philanthropy”. This study hypothesizes Venture Philanthropy can be exercised on performing arts industry and based on this hypothesis, the study will discuss the feasibility of performing arts groups accepting Venture Philanthropy. Venture Philanthropy actively seeks investment target which not only participates in capital for the long run, but also puts forth human resources and other related assets. Investors must ask for the achievement of the assumed goal and the feeback of values and profits. In-depth research in literatures, seminars of administrators in performing arts groups, simulating panel selection with prospective invested candidates, this study finds Venture Philanthropy module is conditionally accepted by performing arts groups. Under the premises that investors trully respect artistic originalities , Mode of Venture Philanthropy provides a systematic investing frame and by increasing the efficiency of applied resources, highly beneficial results are introduced to the society. The module allows potential arts groups to be actively sought out in need time and become key investments. This boasts another strategic opportunity outside the traditional interaction between performing arts groups and funding sectors. In conclusion, it is highly suggested that a certain percentage of the existing resources can be released as Venture Philanthropy module to amplify deserving and potential groups .

Over the last three decades, scholars in management, policy, and geography have examined the growing economic, social, and spatial impact of the financial sector. Venture capital firms have been a focus, generating a contested but deep literature around the roles of such "value-adding" capital providers in supporting the growth of firms, industries, and various territorial innovation models. In parallel, there has been substantial government support-financial, regulatory, and otherwise-of these private sector financial intermediaries, despite scepticism. The past twenty years have seen the emergence and rapid growth of analogous funders in the third sector, itself the realm of substantial experimentation and growth. These new intermediaries, "venture philanthropists", have become important players in shaping, structuring, and channelling funding to the third sector. The activities and effects of venture philanthropists are underexplored, as are their growing interactions with governments-despite intentional and striking similarities between the evolution of venture capital and that of venture philanthropy. This dissertation addresses these gaps by systematically examining the emergence, evolution, and operational practices of two influential British venture philanthropy funds: the first such fund in Europe (Impetus Trust) and the first fund in the world co-created with the state (Inspiring Scotland). The two venture philanthropy organisations (VPOs)-one with roots in venture capital, the other with roots in the voluntary and government sectors-both conducted the venture capital-inspired operational model of venture philanthropy in similar ways. That said, the VPOs reflected the logics and practices of their founders and funders. Impetus Trust more closely resembled early-stage venture capital, with a reliance on London-based networks, funders, and service providers-and a heavily London-focused portfolio. Inspiring Scotland evidenced the logics of government rather than charity in several instances, with substantial original research into social issues, heavily structured portfolios on set timelines, and regionally-distributed staff. This approach broadened access, allowing support of SPOs and their clients across various (and underserved) geographies, but limited options for opportunity-driven or expressive functions of philanthropy. I surveyed the CEOs of most organisations supported by the two venture philanthropy funds (82 of 98 charities and social businesses), supplemented by interviews of selected CEOs and the founders and staff of the two funds. I find that, overall, the two VPOs each engaged in seven core activities of venture capital, intentionally adapting them to the third sector: sourcing and selection, due diligence, an engaged relationship, provision of funding, provision of non-financial support, creation of network linkages, and intentional exiting of relationships. As in venture capital, this process had broader effects: providing signals of investee quality, preparing investees for subsequent funding, and expanding networks. The combination of long-term relationships and high formal reporting requirements imposed significant costs for SPOs-and also created a virtuous cycle of trust and collaboration between VPOs and SPOs. The venture philanthropy model also had broader societal effects, creating data regarding individual organisations and the efficacy of responses to social issues, which in both cases informed policy. As intermediaries, venture philanthropists decreased power differentials and improved the flow of (oft-anonymized) information amongst funders, statutory bodies, and funded organisations, facilitating several types of collaboration. SPO managers indicated that they received, on average, approximately ten different types of non-financial support-like strategy consulting, human resources support, or legal counsel. These managers reported in interviews and surveys that the non-financial services provided by venture philanthropists were highly valued, on average. Further, managers believed these services provided more value than it cost the VPOs to provide them. Likewise, managers highly valued most forms of new networking connections (though not all services or linkages were found to be valuable). Smaller SPOs valued services and network links more highly than larger SPOs, although all sizes of SPOs indicated both were valuable, on average. Importantly, this data was provided by SPO managers and focused on the SPO-VPO dyad-rather than provided by VPOs and focused at the portfolio or trust level. This filled an important gap in the literature: academics and practitioners often lament that the voices of charities supported by foundations are not often enough heard, which limits our understanding of many aspects of organizational philanthropy and its effects-in particular the burdens and benefits for recipient organisations. I documented the co-creation of the first government-supported venture philanthropy fund through eleven interviews with founding managers and government officials. This model, in which state, private, and civil society actors collectively founded and funded a value-adding capital provider, militates against neoliberal assumptions of an ever-diminishing state, as does the leveraging of private resources in alignment with state aims-though it raises concerns around democratic processes, accountability, and local control. This work helps inform the changing nature of the voluntary sector and its relationship with the state. I focus on the increasing interaction of actors between and across systems-sometimes in new roles and coordinated by new intermediaries-in the allocation of resources and delivery of services in the public interest. These new interactions inform broad bodies of work that seek to understand changing sectoral roles, most notably discourses surrounding neoliberalism(s), financialisation, and public management. Overall, I find privately- and publicly-funded venture philanthropy playing a role in the third sector analogous to the role of venture capital in the private sector, with similar practices and concomitant effects in data generation, network formation and strengthening, facilitating partnerships, and signalling the quality of supported organisations. By examining two such emerging models of capital provision, I contribute grounded understanding of the way such systems are created and function across the private, public, and third sectors.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Linking the new institutionalism to entrepreneurial orientation (EO), my dissertation investigates institutional forces and entrepreneurial forces—two contradicting types of forces—as main effects and moderating effects upon practices and performance of organizations embedded in the institutional duality. The case chosen observes unique hybrid funders that this study collectively calls social investment funders (SIF), which integrate philanthropy and venture capital investment to create and implement a venture philanthropy model for a pursuit of their mission. A theoretical framework is developed to propose regulative and normative pressures from two dominant institutions governing SIFs. Original data collected from 146 organizations are scrutinized by moderated multiple regressions for two empirical studies: Study 1 for effects on SIFs’ venture philanthropy practices, and Study 2 for effects on SIFs’ social and financial performance. Multiple imputations, diagnostic analyses, and several post hoc analyses are also conducted for robustness of data and results from multiple regression analyses. Results from these analyses find that EO and venture capital institutional forces both enhance SIFs’ venture philanthropy practices. A hypothesis postulated for a negative relationship between the nonprofit status and venture philanthropy practices is also supported. Results from moderated regression analyses, along with a subgroup and EO subdimension analyses, confirm a moderating effect between EO and the nonprofit status, i.e., a regulative institutional pressure. A positive relationship is found in EO- financial performance, but not in EO-social performance. While support is lent to hypotheses posited for a social/financial performance relationship with donors’/investors’ demand for social outcomes, and with the management team’s training in business, the overall results remain mixed for Study 2. Nonetheless, this dissertation appears to be the first study to theorize and test EO as a micro-level condition enabling organizations to strategically shape and resist institutional pressures, and it reinforces that organizations’ behavior is not merely a product of their passive conformity to environmental forces, but of the agency, also. As such, this study aims to contribute to scholarly efforts by the “agency camp” of the new institutionalism and EO, answering a call from the leading scholars of both EO (Miller) and the new institutionalism (Oliver).