Friday, May 24, 2013

Dear governments: Want to help the poor and transform your economy? Give people cash.

Chris Blattman

I've just finished a new paper with a clunky title (the kind that economics referees hopefully love), Credit Constraints, Occupational Choice, and the Process of Development: Long Run Evidence from Cash Transfers in Uganda. It's with Nathan Fiala and Sebastian Martinez.

We tackle one of the big questions in development: How to create jobs and speed up the shift from agriculture to industry in developing countries? We look for answers not at the macro level, but with a field experiment and micro-level data in Uganda.

Countries like Uganda have mostly young, poor, populations. No one is unemployed. If you have no income, you're in trouble. So you scrape by doing odd jobs and low return activities. The real problems are underemployment (not enough hours) and low productivity employment (low return, low wage work).

So how do you create "good" jobs and productive work? Another way of asking this question is "what is holding young people back?" or "what constrains them?"

Every government or NGO program has an answer to this question, even when they don't know it. From the vast, vast number of training programs–financial literacy, trade skills, life skills–the default answer seems to be "skills". If you think these programs are worth doing, presumably it's because you think (1) youth lack these skills, (2) they can't otherwise get them, and (3) giving them these skills will produce high returns.

Development economics has a slightly different answer. The evidence is pretty pessimistic about job training programs and financial literacy in poor countries. It's more optimistic about returns to primary and secondary school in poor countries–wages go up maybe 10-15% with every extra year of schooling. Given how much time and money school takes, though, that's not always the best return.

More and more, economists think that the real constraint is capital. Studies show that the poor, on average, have high-earning opportunities if they get a little cash or equipment. Studies with existing farmers or businesspeople have seen returns of 40 to 80% a year on cash grants.

This gels with economic theory, which says that infusions of capital should expand people's choice of occupations, self-employment, and earnings. People can't get access to that capital through loans because credit markets are so broken and expensive. This can be a development trap, or at the very least a drag on growth.

The studies we have, however, overstate what we know. Most of it comes from Asia. Most of it looks at existing businesspeople and farmers only. So we don't know a lot about giving cash to the very poor and unemployed, or how to help people shift from agriculture to cottage industry–the structural change so fundamental to modern economic growth.

Enter our study. We look at a large, randomized, relatively unconditional cash transfer program in Uganda, one the government designed to stimulate this kind of job growth and structural change.

The Ugandan government did what dozens of African governments are doing under the guise of "Social Action Funds" and "Community Driven Development": they sent $10,000 to a group of 20 or so young people who applied for it. This is about $400 a person, equal to their annual incomes.

To many people, this sounds like a crazy development strategy. We don't trust the poor (let alone a bunch of rural 25-year olds) to spend that kind of money responsibly. We want to tie their hands, or make the decisions for them, or at least make them dig useless ditches for three months in exchange for cash.

We wanted to know. So we worked with the government and World Bank to randomize the grants, and followed nearly 2500 people two and four years afterwards.

Here's the "surprise": Most start new skilled trades like metalworking or tailoring. They increase their employment hours about 17%. Those new hours are spent in high-return activities, and so earnings rise nearly 50%, especially women's.

The people who do the best are those who had the least capital and credit to begin with–consistent with the idea that credit constraints are holding back youth. The more tightly coiled the spring, the bigger the bounce on release.

What's more, credit constraints seem to be less binding on men, since men in the control group start to catch up over time. Female controls do not, partly because they have worse access to starting capital. With the grant they take off, further even than men. Without it, they stagnate, even more so than men.

This is not a unique result. Two weeks ago I put out a report on a different program in Uganda, with poor women only. their incomes doubled after getting small grants.

Last, we go beyond economic returns and look for broader social effects. Why? The other belief many people hold dearly: Poor, unemployed men are more likely to fight, riot or rebel.

Because of this, governments and aid agencies routinely justify their employment programs on reducing social instability, or promoting cohesion. Indeed, that was the express goal of the Ugandan program.

Even though we see huge economic effects, we see almost no impact on cohesion, aggression, and collective action (peaceful or violent). If that's true more broadly, we probably can't justify all this public spending on the grounds of social stability. But the impacts on poverty and structural change alone probably justify big public investment.

So is it time to stop giving people skills? Not entirely. Part of the reason these Ugandan youth did well is that they invested some of their grants–maybe a third–in skills training. But mostly they invested the grant in tools and inventory and inputs. It was their choice.

I used to think skills and capital were like right and left shoes: one's not so useful without the other. Now I think of capital like the shoes and skills like the laces: if I have capital, i can jog a good pace, but I can't really run unless I have the skills. But first I need the shoes. (And cash can buy me both.)

The problem is: too many programs just hand out laces. Old, ratty laces that don't even fit people's shoes. I don't know why we do that. Maybe because we academics and NGO workers and elite government officials all live in a world where we ourselves invest in skills because there are things out there called firms and bureaucracies that have capital, and will pay us to use it.

The poorest don't have firms ready to hire them. Perhaps we need to stop projecting our own labor markets and biases and low opinions of our own self-control onto the poor, and show them the money.

Read the full paper, which has some of the backup for my claims and references above, here.

The post Dear governments: Want to help the poor and transform your economy? Give people cash. appeared first on Chris Blattman.

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. Van Stokkom

Where Is the BOP Health Care Fortune?

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

By Andy Thornton

The bottom of the pyramid (BOP) is a big market; that's its appeal. Its allure lies in its potential for social impact, new customers, and profits. But like any big market, it can—and indeed must—be segmented by social enterprises that seek to tap that potential. I saw this put into action first hand in our recent global study of healthcare social enterprises. The market is getting carved up, and early front-runners are accessing the easiest profits, not necessarily serving the highest need. I don't believe this system is intrinsically a problem—quality healthcare services to any part of the BOP are innately valuable. However, market builders and funders must be clear about which segment of the BOP their activities are benefitting, and they should innovate to ensure that those at the very bottom do not get left behind.

An Indian impact investor broke it down for me as follows:

• 50 percent of the Indian BOP live on less than $2 a day.
• 40 percent earn between $2 to $4 per day.
• 10 percent earn more than $4 per day.

The majority of the new wave of social enterprises targets those who live on $2 or more per day. This leaves 50 percent of the market ignored, or at least underserved, by the current social enterprise ecosystem. In one sense, this bias is not a problem, as the much-lauded Lifespring Maternity Hospitals demonstrate. During the last 5 years, it has become "the largest chain of maternity hospitals in South India, treating more than 70,000 patients and delivering more than 7,000 healthy babies." The hospitals' price point is one-third of the private cost at 4,000 rupees (about $70) per delivery. Unit level profitability is achieved through a pioneering public-private partnership, innovative land and building lease agreements, and efficient usage of para-skilled labor.  The model currently operates 25 hospitals, and its potential for greater economies of scale through planned expansion makes them an attractive prospect. In my opinion, Lifespring is an outstanding and groundbreaking social enterprise. It clearly selects a median BOP market and provides high-quality, essential services that were previously unaffordable to the BOP in the private sector. However, it remains fundamentally inaccessible for 50 percent of the BOP.

We encountered initiatives like this time and again throughout our research. The bottom of the BOP are more risk-averse, exhibit less health-seeking behaviors, require a lower price point for services, and are more dispersed, living in more rural areas that are unattractive to healthcare professionals. This is a tough market to serve, and consequently, fewer entrepreneurs try. It is natural for the social enterprise community to seek early successes, but I believe that this incentivises entrepreneurs to "cream off" the easier markets, drawing money and attention away from the more intractable problems in the sector. The enterprises that we did find at the bottom of the BOP—though limited in number—are exciting. Care Hospitals and the Byrraju Foundation are working to make their network clinics in 220 villages financially sustainable through a complex layering of services, including primary care, chronic care, point-of-care tests, micro-insurance programs, diagnostics, and tele-health. Experimenting with and managing this complexity takes time and money that is unlikely to meet conventional impact investing schedules or target returns.

I would like to see more collaboration between grant funders and social enterprise proponents to enable risk-taking in more challenging markets. Without this, natural standard incentives will reduce the potential of social enterprise models to reach those who need it most.

This article is the second post focusing on insights gained from a collaborative project that sought to examine how the Developing Countries and Market Access team of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) could catalyze the replication of healthcare delivery models that have significant social impact, and simultaneously build markets and drive social change. The project was delivered by the International Centre for Social Franchising (ICSF), in partnership with Oxford University's Said Business School. For background on the methodology of the project, read my previous Stanford Social Innovation Review blog post, "Big Business and Healthcare: It's Not About the Money," and the newly released public report on the research.

Sent with Reeder


Met vriendelijke groet,
Best regards,
Henk J.Th. Van Stokkom

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Citizens Against Corruption: What Works? Findings from 200 projects in 53 Countries

From Poverty to Power by Duncan Green

I attended a panel + booklaunch on the theme of 'Citizens Against Corruption' at the ODI last week. After all the recent agonizing and self-doubt of the Citizens against corruption Book-coverresults debate ('really, do we know anything about the impact of our work? How can we be sure?'), it was refreshing to be carried away on a wave of conviction and passion. The author of the book, Pierre Landell-Mills is in no doubt – citizen action can have a massive impact in countering corruption and improving the lives of poor people, almost irrespective of the political context.

The book captures the experience of the Partnership for Transparency Fund, set up by Pierre in 2000. It summarizes experiences from 200 case studies in 53 countries. This has included everything from using boy scouts to stop the 'disappearance' of textbooks in the Philippines to introducing a new code of ethics for Mongolia's judiciary. The PTF's model of change is really interesting. In terms of the project itself:

-          Entirely demand led: it waits for civil society organizations (CSOs) to come up with proposals, and funds about one in five

-          $25k + an expert: the typical project consists of a small grant, and a volunteer expert, usually a retiree from aid agencies or governments, North and South. According to Pierre 'the clue to PTF's success has been marrying high quality expertise with the energy and guts of young activists'. (I've now added 'Grey Wonks' to my 'Grey Panthers' rant on why the aid world is so bad at making the most of older people).

-          The PTF is tapping into a zeitgeist of shifting global norms on corruption, epitomised by the UN Convention Against Corruption (2003). The idea that 'they work for us' seems to be gaining ground.

-          The PTF prefers cooperation to conflict – better to work with champions within the state (and there nearly always are some, if you can find them), than just to lob rocks from the sidelines (although some rock-lobbing may also be required).

-          It also prefers action and avoids funding 'awareness-raising', 'capacity building' and other 'conference-building measures.'

So what works? On the basis of the case studies (chapters on India, Mongolia, Uganda and the Philippines), and his vast experience of governance and corruption work, Pierre sets out a 'stylized programme' for the kinds of CSO-led initiatives that deliver the goods:

  1. Nail down the problem: use surveys, focus groups, right to information laws where they exist
  2. Come up with (and implement) an action plan: get people involved with community report cards, community radio, public hearings and other approaches
  3. Propose ideas for ways to reform the system or reduce the opportunities for corruption, drawing on the results of (1) and (2)
  4. Discuss the ideas with stakeholders and amend
  5. Campaign to persuade officials and politicians to adopt the ideas
  6. Once you've won (bit of a leap, that – see cartoon) monitor the implementation of any measures introduced to reduce corruption.

then a miracle happensThis may look like a bit of a blueprint, but actually it isn't – the PTF fits the model of how to work in complex systems pretty well. It acknowledges that outsiders can't possibly understand the labyrinths of formal and informal power, or identify potential allies and windows of opportunity. Those have to come from within. By breaking funding down into small grants, and using only volunteer experts, it tries to keep power away from the consultancy/donor complex, and stay true to being country-driven. At the ODI, Pierre described the underlying theory of change as 'the aggregation of millions of actions to reach a tipping point.'

He also expanded on the problem of aid institutions. Anti-corruption campaigning is often long-term, over 25-50 year time horizons. That means aid donors can support particular phases, but if they don't have the staying power to see the work through, they need to avoid trying to control it. Unfortunately, 'politicians and officials who think they can make their mark are the biggest menace for this work'.

Despite this critique, the book is a pitch for funding from the aid agencies, although Pierre believes that in the long term CSO anti-corruption work will have to find alternatives sources.

Which all sounds great, but the results debate is obviously getting to me, because I did have some sympathy with DFID's Mark Robinson, who said at the ODI that although the UK Government (which has been a core funder of PTF) 'is increasingly persuaded about the value of citizens' transparency and accountability initiatives', we really can't be expected to judge PTF entirely on the uplifting case studies and stats collected by, errrm, the PTF.

I raised another issue: the rhythm of civil society action is almost always episodic – long periods of tranquillity (people getting on with their lives), punctuated by episodic spikes of protest. Attempts to turn this dynamic into some kind of permanent state of mobilization are probably destined for frustration and failure. Between spikes, the long term work of renewing or changing social capital, social norms and values etc takes place in the more permanent 'grains' of civil society – trades unions, neighbourhood associations, religious communities – that endure between spikes. It wasn't clear that PTF understands and works with this – it seems to have permanent mobilization as its underlying model of how civil society works.

PTF seems to belong to a family of 'post supply side' approaches to governance, which also includes the International Budget Partnership, the research of Matt Andrews or the Africa Power and Politics Programme, as well as Oxfam's own work on governance and accountability.

What they have in common is the need to move from 'best practice' to 'best fit', to identify and support locally driven initiatives, and to support coalitions between champions within the system and those outside. Where they seem to differ is on the prominence of civil society in these discussions – at one end of the spectrum is PTF's perhaps excessive glorification of its role; at the other the APPP's rather contemptuous dismissal of civil society as irrelevant to the 'real' Paul Kagame world of big men and decent chaps sorting out political settlements ('citizen pressure is at best a weak factor and at worst a distraction from dealing with the main drivers of bad governance.') I would love to see APPP's David Booth and Pierre Landell-Mills go head to head on this.

To be continued, I suspect (not least because Matt Andrews is in London this week).

Sent with Reeder


 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

USAID and Dispensers for Safe Water Announce $5.5 million Partnership

Innovations for Poverty Action Blog
Alexandra Fielden

 

Women in the remote village of Markuny in Kenya are taking the lead and treating their families' drinking water. This was not always the case; Markuny used to be one of the many places in the world where waterborne diseases are commonplace. Globally, diarrheal disease is the second leading cause of death in children under five.

To address the global challenge of sickness from cholera, diarrhea and typhoid, Innovations for Poverty Action developed the chlorine dispenser system – a low-cost technology proven to dramatically increase rates of household water treatment, decreasing the burden of waterborne disease. Today, USAID's Administrator, Rajiv Shah, announced an award from USAID's Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to support the scale-up of the Dispensers for Safe Water program. The $5.5 million grant, supported by DIV's WASH for Life partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is DIV's first Stage 3 award. Stage 3 funding is reserved for innovative solutions that have credible and rigorous evidence of development impacts at significant scale. Stage 3 projects transition an innovation from large scale implementation to widespread adoption; this grant will help Dispensers for Safe Water provide five million people with access to dispensers.

Chlorine dispensers are installed next to communal water sources, and supported by community education activities to encourage use, and a consistent supply of chlorine. To treat their water, community members simply turn the valve to release a metered dose of chlorine, then fill their container as they normally would with water from the source. The chlorine disinfects the water and provides ongoing protection from recontamination for up to 72 hours.

The dispenser allows community members to conveniently and easily treat their water, and its physical presence provides a visual reminder to do so.  A randomized trial in Western Kenya found 50 – 61 percent of households in the treatment group adopted the water treatment, compared with only 6 – 14 percent in the control group. Impressively, the program has been able to maintain high usage, seeing 43 percent adoption rates at scale.

Director of Programs for Dispensers for Safe Water, Eric Kouskalis, said "we are thrilled to be partnering with DIV on the scale-up of dispensers. DIV's objective is to find, test, and scale interventions that get the biggest bang for the buck, and at a cost of less than $0.50 per person per year at scale, dispensers fit the bill perfectly."

Dispensers for Safe Water critically evaluates the program to drive improvements throughout the expansion. DIV and Dispensers for Safe Water will measure success along metrics such as the number of dispenser users (by gender), the percentage of households with chlorine present in their drinking water, the percentage of individuals who understand the benefits and correct usage of dispensers, and the dispenser manufacturing and chlorine delivery costs. This data will provide valuable feedback to help the program maximize adoption, sustain dispenser usage, and increase operational efficiencies.

Maura O'Neill, Chief Innovation Officer at DIV, congratulated DSW on the award. "Results based on rigorous evidence is the hallmark of DIV. Through this award with Dispensers for Safe Water, we will avert 3.3 million cases of diarrhea, save 3,200 children's lives and that is just in the first three years."

Read the evidence: http://www.poverty-action.org/safewater/results

Watch a video of how chlorine dispensers work: http://www.poverty-action.org/safewater

Apply for DIV funding:http://www.usaid.gov/div/apply

Sent with Reeder


 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

New service makes it easier to provide direct aid to international charities

Philanthropy Journal - All Articles
NGOsource recently launched a new service that makes it easier for donors and grantmakers to provide international aid. While such philanthropy used to be fraught with risk, there now is increased assurance that funds directed thousands of miles away will be managed by a foreign non-government organization (NGO) that meets the rigorous standards imposed on tax-exempt organizations in the U.S.

read more

The Power of a Simple and Inclusive Definition

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

By Elizabeth Garlow & Rich Tafel

It's no secret that the social entrepreneur movement is characterized by confusing and often-contradictory definitions—for example, nonprofits that charge a fee for service and for-profits that have a social impact. Our failure to adequately define the social entrepreneur movement has made it inaccessible to the very communities where cutting-edge innovation is likely to come from.

Attempts at clear definitions are not new. In Stanford Social Innovation Review's spring 2007 article "Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition," Rotman School of Management's Roger Martin and Skoll Foundation's Sally Osberg made a pioneering attempt at defining the field of social entrepreneurship. It uses apt phrases such as "unjust equilibrium," "transformative benefit," "social value proposition," and "stable state hegemony." But for many people interested in pursuing social entrepreneurship, this language is too abstract and difficult to understand.

In his book Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, Noble Laureate Muhammad Yunus, a hero among social entrepreneurs, defines social business this way: "[It is] a non-loss, non-dividend company designed to address a social objectives within the highly regulated marketplace of today. It is distinct from a nonprofit because the business should seek to generate a modest profit, but this will be used to expand the company's reach, improve the product or service or in other ways to subsidise the social mission."

Definitions offered by leaders like Yunus and Osberg are no doubt useful to entrepreneurs who align with their organizations' approach to social change, but they are not inclusive. Skoll, organized as a tax-deductible organization, resists giving money to for-profit entities. On the other hand, social entrepreneur organizations such as Crowdfunder and The William James Foundation align with the Yunus definition and admit only for-profit social entrepreneurs to their contests. Consequently, those looking to engage in the social entrepreneur movement often get too focused on their organization's legal structure, when they should be focused on vision and impact.

A New Definition for Social Entrepreneurs

Michigan faces difficult social challenges with its two largest cities. Flint and Detroit are ranked as the first and second most dangerous cities in the United States, respectively—a result of myriad of social issues. This is the kind of place where the social entrepreneur movement needs to scale. Michigan recently became the nation's first state to hold a statewide social entrepreneurship contest, in partnership with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). As part of the delivery and training team for the contest, we needed a definition that was inclusive and welcoming to a new generation of social entrepreneurs, and also clear enough for coaches and judges who may have never heard of the concept to understand.

We developed a simple definition, married to a five-point checklist, to describe an excellent social entrepreneur without regard to tax status or a specific approach:

A social entrepreneur is a pragmatic visionary who tenaciously addresses social problems by creating an innovative, sustainable, system-changing solution.

  1. The entrepreneur is a tenacious leader with a pragmatic vision.
  2. The solution addresses a clear social problem.
  3. The solution changes systems, not just symptoms of the problem.
  4. The model prioritizes social impact over financial gain.
  5. The model generates a sustainable funding stream.

We know this isn't the final word on defining social entrepreneurship. But what we discovered was that distilling a clear and simple set of distinguishing characteristics invited greater grassroots participation of contestants, judges, and coaches. It also attracted a broader network looking to support this movement. The response was overwhelming, with more than 250 teams entering the contest.

The ability to scale the social entrepreneur movement is undermined by our collective failure to define it simply and inclusively. What we learned in Michigan is that when we take the risk to be clear, simple, and welcoming, we can unleash the innovative power of an entire new generation of change agents.

Sent with Reeder


 (verzonden vanaf tablet)

Impact Investing: New Enterprises and Collaborations

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

By Jenna Nicholas

Last week, impact investors and social entrepreneurs gathered from around the country in San Francisco, Calif., for Investors' Circle—an early-stage impact-investing network. Hundreds of angels, venture capitalists, and foundations comprise the group, which has invested in a large number of social enterprises dedicated to improving the environment, education, health, and community.

From hundreds of social enterprises that applied to present at the conference, only fifteen were selected to make a formal pitch. Between these pitches and an array of informational booths, investors could learn more about individual projects and companies, then debrief and compare notes.

A few enterprises that stood out were Grampower, which sets up smart microgrids in remote areas to provide on-demand, reliable electricity to telecom towers and rural households with an affordable prepaid purchase model; Runa Tea which creates livelihoods for indigenous farmers in the Amazon by selling healthy tea products; PhilanTech, an online grants management system designed to address inefficiency and help social sector organizations get maximum social impact from their projects; and SunFunder, which provides affordable capital to solar companies around the world.

Along with these inspiring organizations came some inspiring talks. In his keynote, Randy Komisar, a partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer suggested that there needs to be a quantum shift in the way that investors and entrepreneurs approach investment opportunities and that social impact should not be sacrificed for the sake of high returns. Komisar is a great proponent of leading change from within established organizations and framing change by way of asking probing questions rather than always feeling as though you need to have all of the answers.

Ben Thornley, director of Insight, Pacific Community Ventures, argued that great change could also be led from outside of already established organizations. He used the example of the role of the private sector in shaping the work of the public sector. Thornley is a big proponent of public private partnerships for impact investing. He has been involved in setting up the Impact Investing Policy Collaborative, which strives to grow impact-investing markets by building a global network for policy research and innovation.

In fact, this collaborative is just one of a number of initiatives currently underway that are promoting greater interaction between the public and private sectors. Next week, Harvard University is hosting a summit called "Growing the Impact Economy," which will look at ways to advance a national economic development strategy to accelerate the growth of impact investing. Another initiative, the Enterprise Impact Facility (EIF) has evolved from leaders seeking to merge public and private initiatives. EIF would involve a one-time appropriation of $4 billion in equity funding; the government would provide the funding to private sector fund managers in one-to-one matching allocations of $10 million to $50 million. One of the thoughts around this idea is that part of the capital could come from EB5 Visa investments, which provide a method of obtaining a green card for foreign nationals who invest money in the United States. To obtain the visa, individuals must invest $1,000,000 creating or preserving at least 10 jobs for U.S citizens. This capital could be used to invest in low-income communities in the United States.

Another speaker at Investors' Circle was Cathy Clark, founding director of CASE i3 Initiative on Impact Investing at Duke University, which creates resources and activities for MBA students, entrepreneurs, investors, funders, academics, and policymakers to explore and support the field of impact investing. Clark's introduced her recent research report, "Accelerating Impact Entrepreneurs: Lock, Stock and Anchor," at the conference. The research examines how to increase the impact of Impact Enterprises (IEs)—defined as "financially self-sustainable and scalable ventures that actively bring about significant net positive changes in well-being among underserved individuals, their communities, and the broader environment." The research found that when the mission of an impact enterprise could be locked through certification, this had a positive impact, Furthermore, it is important to take stock of the enterprise's impact targets, because it can influence its growth trajectory and help anchor impact enterprises within strong communities of practice.

There were also some broader discussions around establishing an industry association for impact investing, with the aim of coordinating the activities of various groups in the sector and lowering the barrier to entry for others who want to get involved in impact investing. Investors' Circle and other similar gatherings such as SOCAP and the Skoll World Forum are great places to stay up to date with recent trends and developments in the impact investing community. However, there is also a need to reach a broader audience. One project, which I have personally been working on with Wayne Silby, co-founder of the Calvert Fund, is the idea of organizing brainstorming sessions through local salons and providing educational toolkits and other resources to help investors gain an insight into the impact-investing world.

Finally, Paula Goldman, director of Knowledge and Advocacy at the philanthropic investment firm Omidyar Network, suggested that while there have been many developments in the impact investing industry over the years, there is still much more that can be done. Investors' Circle plays a valuable role in the broader ecosystem of activities, and I look forward to seeing more similar activities in local communities all around the world.

Sent with Reeder


 (verzonden vanaf tablet)