Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Anne Field
Recent Activity
-
Anne commented on the article |For social entrepreneurs and mainstream entrepreneurs, I think the business plan competition model is fundamentally flawed, sending the wrong message about what's involved in building a company.
Here's something I wrote about it:
I'd like to see a full-scale study of what happens to winners and losers of these competitions.
-
Anne commented on the article |Don't forget such business incubators as BASE at the Flagler School, University of North Carolina, and In Good Company, a venture accelerator in Philadelphia.
Anne Field, Not Only for Profit blog
-
Anne commented on the article |On a related note, I just posted something in my blog (called Not Only for Profit) about the importance of business clusters for small business development and, also, the ever-growing number of interesting business incubators/venture accelerators both for social enterprise and regular startups.
Smart state and local governments should recognize that well-planned clusters combined with incubators are an effective way to spur startup development.
Here's a link:
http://trueslant.com/annefield/2009/12/16/clusters-the-key-to-business-development/
-
Anne commented on the article |This program does, indeed, sound great. But, I thought I'd put my two cents in about some other interesting programs for social enterprise startups.
One is BASE, out of the University of North Carolina, which is a year-long incubator for triple-bottom-line companies. They have access to mentors, classes, an advisory board and MBA students and professors. Also, in Philadelphia, there's a three month long venture accelerator that's sort of like Y Combinator for social enterprises, GoodCompany Ventures.
I've blogged about them both in Not Only for Profit, http://trueslant.com/annefield, my blog about social enterprise and entrepreneurship.
-
Anne commented on the article |I really think Shane's article misses an important point. Sure, there's an impression that the majority of small businesses are sexy, fast growing entrepreneurial ventures, an impression largely fed by media. But, just because many or most companies don't employ a lot of people doesn't mean they also don't contribute enormously to the economy. They pay taxes, right? And not just income tax. They provide employment for the founder. And, a significant number employ at least a few people.
I know that Shane's view is held by other experts in the small business arena and that's a shame.
I wrote about this in my blog, Not Only for Profit,
-
Anne commented on the article |There's a group of 27 heavy-hitters--Warren Buffet, Richard Tumka, etc--that recently met at the Aspen Institute with a mission of fighting short-termism in society and business. They came out with some specific recommendations for how to do this, some of which sound doable. (They've been working on this for several years).
Their underlying philosophy as that an extreme emphasis on the short term has hide dire economic and ecological results.
I wrote about this in my blog. But, I urge everyone to check out the report.
Here's the link to my post:
-
Anne commented on the article |Certainly, the local movement is more complex than meets the eye at first. You stated the rationale well: "support for smallholder farms, a healthier life, less consumption, less detrimental environmental impact, the development of a more sustainable economic framework and an affirmation of the social impact of business"." But, it gets complicated when you're talking about a business that sells, say, coffee, which must be grown non-locally, or that includes locally grown produce among its other wares.
Still, one important element is being honest and I don't think Starbucks is being above board about this move.
Anne Field
-
Anne commented on the article |I wonder if coming up with one overall over-arching term would be a good starting point? A common language is important and helps to move people in one direction. This may sound wierd, but the Republicans coined the term "death tax" and it got the public thinking differently about estate taxes. It was diabolical, but effective.
Anyway, I've written about the language issue--or, lack of common terms--in the social enterprise community.Could be because I'm a writer, but I'm very sensitive to the issue.
Anne Field
http://trueslant.com/annefield
-
Anne commented on the article |I'm glad you wrote about this. Words and a common language are crucial for building a movement of any kind. But there's even another wrinkle when it comes to social entrepreneurship and other "social" terms--the terms intersect with the world of social media. So, that creates even more confusion.
And now some tech companies have started using the phrase "social enterprise" for their products.Here's something I wrote about it:
Anne Field
Not Only for Profit
http://trueslant.com/annefield
-
Anne commented on the article |I'm very glad this is happening. The main problem I see has to do with the size of the loans. One of the things that's led to Kiva's success is that people can make very small loans and entrepreneurs are seeking a few thousand dollars, tops. It's going to take a lot of $25 loans to raise the $10,000 some of the U.S. entrepreneurs need.
http://trueslant.com/annefield/2009/06/10/microlending-kiva-style-finally-arrives-in-the-us/
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits