I appreciated the urgency articulated by all panelists, realizing that to address our 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), feed a growing population, and ensure international development doesn’t leave agriculture behind, we must figure out how to combine forces and collaborate for greater efficiencies and effectiveness in agricultural communities (particularly with smallholders). 

I asked a question about infrastructure, and who bears the brunt of the challenges imposed by crumbling roads, disintegrating bridges, limited connectivity and other challenges that smallholders face when trying to sell more of their products into markets, domestic or foreign. An interesting conversation ensued, which I share below generalized and without attribution.

Keep in mind that to make a mark in a developing country, company investments are not without risk, and the returns, both social and financial, do not always compensate for that risk. Partnering with public entities, be they donors or service providers, is a critical and often forgotten element in international development, and one that has evolved as the definition of an economic ‘externality’ shifts. Goods and services once thought of as externalities, where price can’t easily incorporate the true costs and benefit of usability, were often covered by public investment. Think utilities or telecom. Nowadays we may define an externality in relation to climate change, or other factors that cannot easily be valued positively or negatively. As externalities shift, private sector entities are taking on more risk, and relying upon other actors to serve as conduits or to pass-through that risk. The benefits of these partnerships can exceed the cost, and often lead to positive externalities (increased rates of education, better health, more powerful labor force, empowered women and girls, etc.)  Roles between public and private entities in development are not always clear, however.

Generally the messages I heard in today’s conversation were the following:
 

• We need clearer roles between private and public entities. Private sector entities offer goods, but also services like innovation, market development, and training. In many geographies the public sector provided those services in the past. Roles are blurring. Where does the public sector stop and private sector start?
• What is the burden that each partner takes on? How do you quantify it? Do private sector entities always operate with a fee for service model? Do public entities take on that type of work?
• The SDGs force us to blend the roles of the private and public sectors given the focus on private-led development and with SDG17 emphasizing partnerships. How do we maintain clarity around who does what?
• In the poorest countries, donor dollars still matter. Private sector entities will not fill the development gap for a long time. How do public entities keep investments flowing to those most in need, and in a concerted and non-duplicative way?
• Private sector entities want stability where they operate. How risky can they get? Will they ever operate in the most impoverished places on earth? Can we rely on the private sector to solve all our development programs?

The answers to all of these questions are of course context specific. As one panelist said, it’s not about finding A partnership….It’s about finding the RIGHT partnership to advance the needs of communities they serve. That’s exactly what we need. We need the RIGHT partners working on the RIGHT projects together to advance the needs of all constituencies (private, public, civil, community) based on information from the communities themselves.

The conversation today, informative, refreshing and invigorating, is the kind we need to keep us thinking strategically and systematically about solving our world’s most pressing problems. I thank the panelists and hosts for the inspiration.
 

Joanne Sonenshine is Founder + CEO of Connective Impact, an advisory firm working with mission-driven enterprises to address our greatest social and environmental challenges through effective partnership development.

Last week I was lucky enough to attend the 12th annual Social Capital Markets (SOCAP) conference in San Francisco California. Overlooking the beautiful blue bay and the Golden Gate Bridge, I spent three days learning from, talking to and being inspired by social entrepreneurs, impact investors, funders of all kinds, technical experts in a number of different issue areas, NGOs, and so many others who came together to think through tough questions and begin developing collaborative solutions to some of the worlds biggest challenges.



I was a first timer, among hundreds of others who had heard about the powerhouses that attend this conference each year, knowing not what to expect. Truthfully I thought the conference may be attended mostly by braggadocious investor types simply looking to make a buck off of budding entrepreneurs who claim to be doing “good” at the same time.

Wow was I wrong!

The reality of SOCAP was completely the opposite of any preconceived notions that this was simply a boondoggle for venture capitalists. I can’t recall a conference more full of intellectuals, idea generators, creative provocateurs or problem solvers. I prepared for SOCAP with many questions. I left with some answers, and many examples of amazing work that independently could be world changing, and yet collectively, with all other ideas permeating through the conference, could be paradigm shifting.

What questions did I have to begin with?

• What is impact Investing and why is every socially conscious organization seemingly engaged in a version of it in some way or another?
• What metrics are impact investors using to measure social or environmental impact? Is there a single method or does it vary?
• What is the causality between impact and financial returns for impact investors?
• Do recipients of funding see impact investing as a viable solution to changing the world?

 
What did I learn?

• Impact investing is indeed broadly defined, and there seems to be no one way to determine the most effective approach for achieving success. Ultimately impact investors are measuring financial return based on their share of a market-based investment while also evaluating some element of ‘giving back’ at the same time.

• The investors and initiators attending SOCAP are passionate, and we are in good hands if these are the leaders ensuring we are investing in innovation and technology to change the world through market development.

• Entrepreneurs and impact investment recipients want authenticity and transparency from funders. It’s more helpful to know what investors are looking for, and what criteria they are using to ensure success. At the same time, recipients may be closer to the reality, so building relationships and trust is critical to ensuring no one is wasting time or resources.
• Recipients often get mixed messages — do funders want to help? Or are they simply looking for a profit?  Establishing that trust goes both ways.

• Funders see more creative ideas out there than there is funding or capital. I’m not sure where that leaves all of the entrepreneurs with unfunded concepts, but funders have tried to add value by providing other services, resources and extending networks to aid in business development and help advance social impact. 

• Funders are looking to learn and be challenged. Just because a company or initiative doesn’t get funding doesn’t mean the idea is a bad one. New ideas help develop new initiatives that have staying power.

 
I could have attended every session offered at SOCAP and still not have taken advantage of all the knowledge and creativity that was clearly abundant among the 3000+ attendees. I barely made it to the sessions I had planned to attend, and even then, spent much of the sessions among the standing room only crowds trying to absorb what they could. Some sessions were high level and barely scratched the surface of what organizations are doing, and others had more granular approaches. Examples of the dynamic ideas I heard about included:

• Innovative payment mechanisms and investment strategies for agriculture (outside of equity and debt) including payments that go to farmers at each point along the value chain and with every interaction.
• Drying techniques for use in tropical rural, agricultural communities. One includes a drying card that small farmers can use to evaluate how dry their ground nuts, dried chilies or maize (or any commodities that must dry fully to avoid disease) are to ensure the best prices for sale.
• New methods for addressing basic necessities in refugee camps including cooking stoves by Inyenyeri, (watch their tea time video) and evaluating service delivery (the promise that Kuja Kuja brings to refugee communities looking to rebuild, and to ensuring the future of humanitarian aid is truly about development).
• Blended finance (mixtures of grant, debt and equity) seems to be the new norm in sustainability and social impact, and NGOs like The Nature Conservancy (NatureVest) and Mercy Corps (Mercy Corps Ventures) are playing along.
• A new transparency and mobile payments platform that combines GiveDirectly’s model of cash transfers with Celo’s data platform looking to revolutionize humanitarian aid into a more market-driven business model.
• Impact measurement can be streamlined as evidenced by IRIS, a collaborative measurement platform.

 
There were also several big funding announcements* this week including:

• $90 Million Fund to Address Global Climate Change through Catalytic Capital via  MacArthur + Packard Foundations
• $35 Million for Food + Water Access via USAID
• European Investment Bank and Swiss Investment Fund for Emerging Markets joining the OPIC in Africa 2X Initiative
• Rockefeller Foundation's new Future of Food 2050 visioning initiative aimed to adjust how we showcase and design for the next generations’s food system.

I can't wait to attend SOCAP20 (!) and am jazzed to spend the next few weeks following up with the incredibly smart and mission-driven new friends I met at SOCAP19. I have no doubt that world changing action is ahead.

Joanne Sonenshine Is Founder + CEO of Connective Impact, a partnership advisory firm providing structure and methods to mission-driven, socially and environmentally-conscious companies to aid in effective collaboration for lasting impact.

*want to follow these initiatives as they develop? Be part of our funding + partnerships opportunities community.
 
 
 

By Stefanie Kruglik
​

After working with public-private partnerships for over a decade, I’ve noticed one essential ingredient in those that do well: a framework. A framework creates holistic solutions, builds trust among the partners, and makes implementation easy to navigate – ultimately making the partnership more effective.

Yet when I speak about frameworks, I often see dread in my counterparts’ eyes. “Don’t worry,” I tell them – developing a framework doesn’t have to be a huge burden, and it will save you time down the road. A robust framework also helps you develop your key performance indicators (KPIs); more on that later.

Think about a long drive with a new friend. What are you trying to achieve – do you just want to get there ASAP? See the fall foliage? Sample the local cuisine? Discussing these questions in advance will inform your route selection, pace, and choice of diners (it isn’t a real road trip without a diner stop!)

Just like on your road trip, when you establish a framework with accompanying KPIs, and review them regularly, you will be able to avoid roadblocks and stay on track to reach your goals.

It’s easy to get started. Answer these key questions that too many partnerships skip, and your framework will begin to take shape:  
​

1. Have you defined your key terms? Effective partners speak the same language. That means defining your key impact terms (and perhaps even the term “impact”). For instance, “sustainability” is often included in partnership goals. But “sustainability” means something different to every organization and there are many ways to measure it—you want to make sure your partners are aligned. Clearly defining your terms and goals at the beginning of a partnership helps avoid awkward conversations down the road. 
2. What are your spoilers? Each organization has deal-breakers that will sink a partnership, from disagreements on spending to conflicting procedures. Identifying these spoilers at the beginning and noting a few indicators of an approaching spoiler can be the difference between an ongoing partnership and one that collapses at the first sign of trouble. 
3. How? Seems obvious, but when setting up a partnership, “How?” is often the hardest question to answer. How you create impact may be different for each partner. Identifying everyone’s “hows” at the beginning will ensure that each partner compliments the others and is set up for success.Only after answering these questions should you start developing your KPIs. These metrics will prove the ultimate success (we hope!) of your partnership. Reviewing them regularly will provide natural check-in points along the way, allowing you to spot challenges early and get back on track. If you’re new to KPIs, that’s okay, and I promise they can be fun! I will delve into how you develop them in a future post.

Stefanie Kruglik Is Senior Director for Impact + Strategy at Connective Impact. Learn more about our partnership evaluation tool and see how your partnerships shape up!