Archive for June 28th, 2010
Technology, Innovation and Gender
In February we featured a study by the International Council for Research on Women titled “Bridging the Gender Divide: How Technology can Advance Women Economically.” Villgro Fellow 2010, Jeanne Chen takes another look at this piece, focusing on how social enterprises can be more conscientious of the gender gap in innovation.
Technology and innovation are two words that form a pillar of social enterprise – even social enterprise itself is still considered an innovation. Social enterprises seek to develop technologies with the underlying assumption that they will increase productivity or create opportunities for social economic advancement. Some technologies are simple like the treadle pump, and others are complex like solar lanterns, but all of them help the BoP and it’s this latter benefit that we invest in. As social entrepreneurs, we’re obsessed with measuring this benefit and finding new ways to scale the impact further – in short we want to know that everyone who can benefit from this technology is adopting it. All the aforementioned statements are frequently discussed, but what we don’t hear enough about is whether these successful innovations are reaching men and women equally or whether there is a gender gap to adoption of technologies.
The International Council for Research on Women (www.icrw.org) recently published the report “Bridging the Gender Divide: How Technology can Advance Women Economically” (downloadable here: http://www.icrw.org/files/publications/Bridging-the-Gender-Divide-How-Technology-can-Advance-Women-Economically.pdf), which focuses on understanding how technology for the BoP differs in its impact on men versus women and what measures can be taken to ensure more inclusion of women. Four main barriers to adoption were identified:
- Lack of education and technology literacy: women are often excluded from opportunities to learn the new technology
- Time poverty: domestic responsibilities leave limited disposable time for tech exploration
- Social norms: women are often not in the habit of operating technology, or adoption would require women to enter a public arena (i.e., market) outside their customary comfort zone
- Limited economic means: domestic finances are most often controlled by the men of the households, leaving women unable to make a purchase decision to adopt innovations
These barriers can be overcome when developers of the technology or the social enterprise promoting the innovations take efforts to address the root causes, starting with including women in the design process. ICRW gives an example of the the Upesi rural biomass stoves, which were designed with inputs from women and consequently were adopted. I find this point to be one of the strongest recommendations – it addresses a systemic concern that prevents women adoption. As long as technology continues to be designed by men, women adoption will be low, perpetuating social norms that continue to support the existing gender gap. Sometimes, the solution is as simple as making a technology like a cooking stove, a height that women can reach. ICRW also suggests that inclusion of women in the design process can help to overcome many of the technology literacy and social norm barriers.
Other recommendations are centered on customizing the last mile distribution to address the awareness training needs, purchasing financing, and distribution through channels catered to women. By providing financing or bringing the innovation directly to the women, rather than relying on market place distribution, women are enabled to make the adoption. It is only through active efforts of the social enterprise to convert women adopters that this is possible.
ICRW provides the example of Solar Dryers in Uganda, which were financed by a partner NGO, enabling women to dry fruits for commercial consumption. As in the Solar Dryer example, technologies which can either create income generating activities or increase the productivity of women can go a long ways to contributing to their economic advancement. In addition, ICRW cites that the indirect benefits of increased productivity can also reduce the barrier of time poverty.
Overall, what I find most compelling and the most important point to takeaway is the need to examine and reevaluate how we think about the potential impact of a technology on helping the BoP. Social enterprises need to be more conscientious of the gender gap in innovation adoption and need to be vigilant in their efforts to address this gap.
One particular example comes to my mind of an innovative successful business model, who could benefit from thinking about their social impact with respect to an adoption gender gap. VisionSpring (www.visionspring.org), an organization recently partnered with Villgro, uses a high touch-point sales distribution model to bring low-cost reading glasses to the BoP across southeast India. VisionSpring’s customer demographics are heavily skewed towards men even though there are many women who attend the eyecamps and should be customers. There seem to be two primary reasons for the gender divide between VisionSpring’s customers. The first is that eyeglasses are perceived as aesthetically unappealing, which trumps the value of clear vision. The second is that women are less likely to have disposable income and the economic means to make the purchase. Both these reasons are problems that should be and can be addressed by the social enterprise. Awareness campaigns for the importance of proper reading glasses in the preservation of vision, not to mention the benefits of increased productivity, can be conducted to overcome what is essentially a misguided social norm that is a barrier to wearing glasses. Women can also be engaged in sourcing frames that are more aesthetically appealing. Finally, some form of partnership with a microfinance institution to finance the purchases is also possible to overcome the economic concern.
The point I want to emphasize is not how VisionSpring can work to increase its female customers, but rather that it needs to proactively think and evaluate the impact of its technology to identify how to overcome the gender gap. This is true across all social enterprises. Even though many social enterprises have introduced game changing technologies to the BoP, I think if we look closer, we would see a divide in the impact by gender. This gap is one that needs to be overcome if we truly want economic advancement for all of the BoP – of both women and men.
Social Entrepreneurship = Social Transformation?
There is no doubt that entrepreneurship in different forms has lead to social transformation. There is invariably a ripple effect on several spheres, including politics and society. Social enterprises are no exception to the power of transformation.
What are the factors that are commonly associated with social enterprises? Do successful enterprises have anything in common at all? Authors Sarah H. Alvord, David Brown and Christine W. Letts of the Kennedy School of Government take a look at seven social enterprises to establish this.
The findings are presented in their paper, “Social Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation: An Exploratory Study.” The study looked at the following enterprises:
- BRAC, Bangladesh
- The Green Belt Movement, Kenya
- The Highlander Research and Education Center, USA
- Plan Puebla, Mexico
- SEWA, India
- Grameen Bank, Bangladesh
- Six-S, Burkina Faso and France
The study identified several forms of core innovation, including building local capacity, innovative ways of disseminating a group of innovations, and building a movement from grassroots alliances to take on the more powerful. These findings form a part of the first hypothesis for successful social entrepreneurship.
The second hypothesis the study makes is that successful social enterprises involve innovations that mobilize existing assets of marginalized groups. An example of this would be the work of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which encourages its clients to participate more effectively in local economies.
The third hypothesis for a successful social enterprise is that success is built when there is an emphasis on systematic learning in order to operate at scale.
Read more about the study here.
Balancing Value and Markets in Social Enterprise
Columbia University’s Research Initiative in Social Entrepreneurship (RISE), conducted a study in 2006 that compiled the findings of conversations with more than 200 CEOs of social enterprises based with operations in the US and globally. The study was aimed at understanding the kind of social value that was being created by social enterprises, and the associated challenges that they faced. The report, “RISE For-Profit Social Entrepreneur Report: Balancing Markets and Values” is a follow-up on an earlier reports that looked at the double bottom line capital markets.
Some highlights from the report are:
- CEOs mentioned difficulty in raising money from people who may or may not understand the businesses commitment to a social mission.
- Identifying best definitions and labels for the business venture, and deciding when to use the company’s mission to educate and connect with people and when to avoid doing so.
The report also identifies four types of CEOs of Social Ventures. These were classified based on their prioritizing of social and financial priorities. The four classes of CEOs identified are by the report are: Activits (socially oriented, and explicit about this with their customers), Change Agents (socially oriented, but not explicit about this with their customers), Market Pioneers (financially oriented and explicit to customers), Market Influencers (financially oriented and not explicit about this to their customers).
A majority of the respondents of their survey worked towards creating value in environmental issues, followed by health and community development. The most common vehicle to disseminate this social value created was through a product or service offering. However, this varies by sector. For example, advocacy and philanthropy as vehicles for creation of value is widely used by those in the media.
Read more about the survey and its findings here.
Energy Generation for Low-income Customers
Low-income markets are often the most neglected when it comes to access to energy. Traditional energy sources have been firewood, and kerosene stoves. There are recognized health risks that come with these. Not to mention that they are not efficient. A new breed for energy solutions are making their way into these low-income markets. Next Billion, a great resource for information on all things within the development sphere, has put compiled a profile of some organizations that are catering to BoP markets through their innovative products.
For the Public Good
The indicators of a successful social enterprise often go beyond just making a profit. Social impact is increasingly becoming a key indicator of success as well. An article by Parminder Bahra in UK newspaper The Sunday Times, points to other pointers to setting up a successful social enterprise.
1. Be hard-headed. Social entrepreneurs (SEs)need all the qualities of commercial entrepreneurs. They take risks, grasp opportunities and are proactive rather than reactive. Most social enterprises are viable profit-making entities. If you haven’t got a head for business, then you’ll not cut it as an SE.
2. Everything in triplicate please. Social enterprises have a double or triple bottom line. This doesn’t mean that they are overweight, it means that they combine profits with social and environmental objectives, for example, ensuring that an organization is environmentally neutral.
3. Social entrepreneur or social enterprise? The two are sometimes confused. SEs are interested in outcomes, not processes. Their benchmarks will incorporate any of the three bottom lines, but their organization will be value-led and exist for social benefit. Social enterprises are more fixed in terms of process. They make profits, but then reinvest them into the business or into the community.
4. Know your market. Like commercial entrepreneurs, SEs spot a gap in the market and try to fill it. According to the Social Enterprise Coalition, gaps exist where the private and public sectors fail to provide a service or product.
5. Keep it local. Many social enterprises work at a local level, involving the community in which it provides a service. Nick Temple, the network development manager at the School for Social Entrepreneurs, says that because of the nature of social enterprises, people come from diverse backgrounds and SEs must be able to network with a variety of people and communities.
6. Make a change. SEs are change agents in society, creating and sustaining social value by using all the resources that are available to them. They have to be creative and innovative. SEs should be good at spotting and re-using resources that are underused or abandoned, such as buildings and open spaces. Most importantly, Temple says: “SEs must not be afraid to make mistakes but must be able to learn from them.”
7. Challenge propositions. Temple also says that SEs can be difficult to work with: “They are highly motivated people who can be persistent. They change the status quo. They push the boundaries and against traditional barriers.”
8. Don’t want to start your own organization? There are many ways in which you can get involved without starting your own organization. All social enterprises need trustees to make sure that they are fulfilling their objectives.
9. Use your commercial sector skills. Don’t be put off if you have no sector-specific skills. Social enterprises need people who have the skills gained in commercial organizations, such as marketing, finance and accounting.
10. Other opportunities. According to Temple, commercial organisations are increasingly looking at corporate social responsibility and triple bottom line accounting: “There is a tendency for convergence among all organizations to incorporate these ideas.”
Have you started your own social enterprise? Do you have any other pointers for would-be entrepreneurs? Leave us your comments below.
The original article can be found here.