Depending on the different development stage of NGO, venturephilanthropy in China has to adjust its implementation. After visiting some American NGO like CfA (Code for America), Chinese scholar ZHU Zhaonan summarized that VP in America has characters like embrace venture & encourage creativity, growth accompany & participate, build up ecosystem and research & practice successful pattern . Meanwhile creativity, long-term supporting, capability cultivation are exactly weak points of VP practice in China. Still remaining some traditional charity donation features, VP in China is always thought as mixed pattern which is adjusted according to reality . For example, the fund of VP always comes from welfare fund or government funding. In order to make sure it’s used safely and effectively, only low-risk livelihood projects could be ap- proved, like helping elderly, disabled people, low-income family & teenager. Ad- ditionally, limited by government funds billing cycle, VP supporting period is always short than 1 year. Except for primary preparation, mid-term & final project evaluation, time for project implementation is really short. Last but not least, relationship between government and funded NGOs is not able to be really equal. Without comprehensive pre-survey for the need of civil society & start-up NGOs, some funded NGOs have to adjust themselves to meet requirements of government. Therefore relationship between government and funded NGOs is not like cooperative governance.
The concept of venturephilanthropy was introduced in April 1997 with the publication of a Harvard Business Review article entitled “Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists.” It asked why the trillions of dollars donated by philanthropy over the previous decades were not having greater impact in addressing the societal problems of the U.S. The article speculated that foundations could glean some useful practices from venture capitalists and recommended that philanthropists consider utilizing some of the methods of venture capital including due diligence, risk management, performance measurement, relationship management, investment duration and size, and exit strategy. The approach was named venturephilanthropy and received a great deal of attention both within and outside the field. Venturephilanthropy takes concepts and techniques from venture capital finance and business management and applies them to
The literature of institutional logics posits that when organizations face multiple logics, heteroge- neous practices are the result (Lounsbury, 2007). Thus, this study assumes that the field of venturephilanthropy exhibits diverse (i.e., philanthropy- focused and venture capital-focused) practices among organizations. The literature of institu- tional logics also suggests that by facing multiple competing logics, organizations adopt a wide range of tactics that mediate constraints from competing demands, such as avoidance of follow- ing certain norms and practices and negotiation between different stakeholders (Pache & Santos, 2010). These tactics are critical for organizations engaging in unconventional practices, such as venturephilanthropy, in order to be accepted by the larger group (Mair, Mayer, & Lutz, 2015). In line with these implications, the subsequent sections discuss results drawn from the descriptive statistics and interviews.
Venturephilanthropy is a relatively new style of philanthropy centering around four primary characteristics: a close relationship between the investor and individual or organization, a long term commitment between the parties, the investor’s commitment to strengthen the organization, and developing an ability to measure the outcomes of the investment (Boverini, 2006). Venturephilanthropy is an ongoing relationship between the donor and the donee, whereas the donor uses his or her expertise to assist in improving the organization’s mission. Venturephilanthropy is also known as high impact philanthropy and the new philanthropy, as a large proportion of venture philanthropists are younger investors who offer a hands on approach to philanthropy. The Lumina Foundation and similar groups tend to focus on grant making with engagement, part of a hands on strategic philanthropy approach (Gose, 2013). Venturephilanthropy builds off of Duncan’s (2004) model of impact philanthropy as the donor making a difference in the final outcome of the mission, rather than simply providing funding for an organization that is pursuing the mission’s end result.
More precisely, according to Grenier (2006), VP tries to follow fives principles that are adapted from financial sector. The first one is to provide expertise alongside financial support. VP usually involves several resources to build institutional capacity of the beneficiary. It provides advices in a range of areas such as human management, accountability, and so on. This leads to the second focus of VP, which is to promote organisational development before specific programs. This is an important difference with “traditional charities” that usually focus more on specific projects than on reinforcing institutional building. Another main characteristic of VP is its focus on performance and impact assessment. VPs want to assess social impact of their action, looking for a social, and sometimes financial, return on their investment. For that, they try to develop methodology and metrics to measure social impact and calculate the cost-benefits of their actions. In addition, VPs will usually develop long- term and close relationships with the supported organisations. Finally, another key aspect of VP is its “exit strategy”. In the VP framework, a supported organisation must at the end become self-reliable. Venturephilanthropy is therefore transitional, the goal being to achieve financial self-sufficiency. Financial engineering could be added to this list of VP specificities, as many VPs try to go beyond pure grant making and develop new financial tools specifically dedicated to NPOs/SE such as loan funding, shared equity and bonds, and so on (Grenier, 2006).
issues, targeting their philanthropy at a range of factors, which contribute to global poverty and include in- accessible and/ or substandard health care in developing countries and education systems that are either accessible to a minority and/ or lack in quality (Dees, 2008). Across this spectrum entrepreneurs are focussing on a variety of problems that contribute to stagnant micro economic environments in developing countries; including a lack of access to finance, poor infrastructure and closed/ restricted routes to market (Brainard, 2008). Typically, the focus of philanthropy falls on developing countries (De Lorenzo, 2007). A common denominator in the entrepreneurs’ approach to philanthropy is the adoption of a model of philanthropy that is heavily influenced by the venture capital model of investment and is often referred to as venturephilanthropy. However, the paper suggests that the influence of venture capital investment principals is not restricted to venturephilanthropy, but has a bearing on other contemporary forms of philanthropy that are not specifically labelled as ‘venturephilanthropy’. The paper suggests that current discourse on venturephilanthropy (Letts, 1997; Pepin, 2005) does not consider the importance of entrepreneurial competencies to undertaking a model of venturephilanthropy.
Once a framework has been agreed between the philanthropy team and investee, a formal contract is drawn up. The contract sets out the joint agreement based on the overall learning from both parties. Importantly, the contract outlines the key stages when economic funding will be released as well as the core reporting and measurement procedures that will be adopted by both parties. This sets firm boundaries and roles for each party and is married with ongoing support, advice and governance from the philanthropy team. This is a mechanism for the philanthropy team to provide the necessary supportive environment that is required to reach the intended outcome, even though that may be far away. Critical to this is the necessary strong levels of communication between both parties that is required. Communication can occur daily or weekly in the early stages of investment depending on how fragile the investment environment is. However, communication often progresses to monthly and quarterly formal reports to the philanthropy team. The long term nature of this type of philanthropic investment entails that communication and flexibility are considered as key components to the development of successful and mutually beneficial working relationships. The interactivity and strong relationship between investor and investee is also relative to the safeguarding of the investment by the philanthropy team, whose ultimate interest is to reach the intended outcome.
This study supports the findings of Du et al. (2013), Maak and Pless (2006) and Perrini and Minoja (2008) reporting on the significant role of directors and managers in shaping the pro-social behaviour of firms. Respondents expressed an altruistic impulse, which was underpinned by the individual’s embodied experience of giving rooted in personal values and feelings. Tour operators’ altruistic intentions are further re-negotiated through the strategic concerns of the company, which were mainly associated with enhancing customer experience, brand reputation and community goodwill. The co-implication of altruism and (enlightened) self-interest in selection processes is consis- tent with the conception of ethical subjectivity by Barnett and Land (2007), though it extends this further by showing that the articulation of values and choice is mobilised through trust and intuition. Through these practises the enactment of ethical frameworks becomes inherently linked with the skills employed in day-to-day management practise. This re-emphasises the importance of under- standing the strategic level of philanthropy, including tour operators’ approach to selecting their charitable acts.
Voluntary action in Britain during the war acted as an integrating mechanism between social classes that helped initiate changes in the relationship between ‘top-down’ philanthropy and ‘bottom-up’ mutual aid and this trend continued into the post-war period. Voluntary action contributed significantly both to maintaining morale at home and overseas with troops and prisoners of war. Contrary to received opinion, through war writers such as Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves and more recently Paul Fussell, the vast majority of troops welcomed charitable efforts on their behalf and were kindly disposed towards benevolence on the home front.
philanthropic tools and embodies an entrepreneurial spirit – has been around for about a decade, although aspects of it are anything but new. The attraction to entrepreneurial approaches is no longer confined to the big philanthrocapitalists who have been its greatest proponents; the search for impact has become an overarching mantra for philanthropy. This is highlighted by the creation of a new asset class of impact investments and by surveys which show that four out of five donors say they pay attention to impact, although only a fraction of them actually use such information to make decisions about their giving (Bagwell et al., 2013). Notwithstanding that a strategic, impact-oriented approach has generated enormous confidence in what philanthropy can do, it also has its limits, as illustrated by many of the chapters in this volume. It does a particular disservice when it obscures the vitally important, yet more modest versions of philanthropy that place community first or that occurs as simple acts: from putting money in the collection plate or spontaneously buying cookies from canvassing Girl Guides. Given that the search for more innovative and impactful
Although the number of companies that are successful in raising venture capital is small they have a disproportionate impact on economic development, for example, in terms of innovation, job creation, R&D expenditures and export sales. The injection of money and support enables venture capital-backed companies to grow much faster than the proceeds from sales revenue alone would allow. Moreover, this superior growth rate is sustained over the long-run. Venture capital-backed companies are faster in developing products and bringing them to market, pursue more radical and ambitious product or process innovation and produce more valuable patents. It is of interest to economic geographers because venture capital investments within countries are highly spatially concentrated, hence the economic benefits which flow from such investments are restricted to a small number of favoured regions . Moreover, venture capital is one of the key drivers in the growth of technology clusters [139, 231, 232]. It is also an area of increasingly active public policy with governments attempting to stimulate or create venture capital funds as a means of promoting economic growth in less favoured regions.
Among religious philanthropic organizations that have made use of Islamic philanthropy are the Dompet Dhuafa Foundation, the PKPU (the National Humanitarian Foundation) and the Rumah Zakat Indone- sia (the Humanitarian and Charitable Foundation). Among corporate philanthropic organizations that have utilized corporate philanthropy are the YMM (affiliated with United Way International) and Dana Mitra Lingkungan (Friends of the Environment Fund). YMM has managed donations from national and multinational companies and has provided grants for smaller NGOs that focus on education and poverty issues. Dana Mitra Lingkungan likewise manages funds from corporate sectors in Indonesia and uses them for dealing with environmental issues.
the number of employees has a positive impact on giving participation. There is a strong difference also in Hypothesis 6, on the international level of operations: we observe higher giving participation of local firms in the Czech Republic, while in Slovakia companies on the international level participate more often in both spon- soring and giving. Interestingly, we do not find strong support for Hypothesis 4, that foreign firms are more active: we observe only weak support for the hypothesis in Czech giving. The remaining results are either not significant or even negative, such as sponsoring participation in Slovakia. In both countries we observe that firms in the capitals are less active in philanthropy (Hypothesis 7). This may be a sign of free- -riding, since there is high concentration of companies and some expect that others will take care of philanthropy, or the anonymity of the city makes it difficult to es- tablish partnerships. We do not observe any strong significant results for Hypothe- sis 5 (the role of industry).
structures. However, the younger generation and especially extremely wealthy entrepreneurs in their 40’s who are first generation money, frequently hold the view that the only philanthropy that is effective is itself entrepreneurial. This is because they want the enterprise to become sustainable and prefer the view that the only true philanthropy is to provide someone with meaningful employment. It is frequently easier to “give” internationally by reducing the taxable income of for profit corporations operated for altruistic purposes by providing additional education opportunities, daycare and medical benefits to employees pursing a socially beneficial purpose rather than by operating under laws governing charities. If one adopts this view, then selecting the best location for philanthropy is a question of determining where you want the beneficiaries of your entrepreneurial activity to be located.
9 “Taxation of cross-border philanthropy in Europe after Persche and Stauffer - From landlock to free movement?”. The aim was to understand whether and how the European Court of Justice non-discrimination principle on the taxation of cross-border philanthropy is being implemented by Member States and to raise awareness of the hurdles that cross-border philanthropy still faces as well as to explore concrete opportunities that exist to improve the situation, at policy and practical levels. This study was combined with the development of 28 country profiles that can be found on the TGE website with practical information about cross-border philanthropy.
While government has clearly signalled the importance it attaches to the growth of charitable giving and philanthropy in building the Big Society, there has been little appraisal of what needs to be achieved through this approach, and how far growth is feasible. This paper identifies current thinking and policy expectations of giving and philanthropy, and the messages which emerge from a review of evidence on current distribution, the donors, donations and emerging demand. It looks at how far philanthropy is likely to take the place of statutory support, and meet new needs. It is concluded that charitable giving is far more driven by donor preference and less socially instrumental than many acknowledge. An increase in the scale of charitable giving and philanthropy may only lead to an expansion in its role if it is accompanied by a new awareness of public need.
As the owner, the board must ask the hard questions, especially about the goal of the venture(make money, training, other). If the goal is to generate monies for the nonprofit, the board must determine the sound- ness of the business plan. Note that it takes most small businesses 3-5 years to break even. And, more than 80% of small businesses fail in their first year.
The Philanthropy Outlook was developed using well-established econometric methods. The models selected for producing each component of The Philanthropy Outlook are composed of a linear combination of the growth rates (or 1-year differences) of key indicators. The produced results point toward linkages between specific economic variables and philanthropic giving. These linkages can be positive or negative (inverse), as well as direct or indirect. With these results, we cannot say that a particular variable caused philanthropy to rise or fall. However, the results presented in The Philanthropy Outlook do point us toward what is likely to happen and why.
2) Interpretation: The development of the organized venture capital industry in India, as is in existence today, was slow and laboured circumscribed by resource constraints resulting from the overall framework of the socialistic economic paradigms. Although funding for new businesses was available from banks and government-owned, development of financial institutions was provided as a collateral-based money on project-financing basis. which made it difficult for most of the new entrepreneurs, especially those who were technology and services based to raise money for their ideas and businesses. Most entrepreneurs had to rely on their own financial resources, their families and well-wishers or private financiers to realize their entrepreneurial dreams.
D. The Bridge between Generosity and ʻAmal Sāliḥ (Good Deeds) Furthermore, we consider it necessary to explore spirit and motive underlying the Lazismu philantrophic movements as described above. The generosity and philanthropy in Islamic ethics are found in the teaching of compassion. The moral of iḥsān describes the importance of a servant of God to mirror the qualities of God Takhallaqū bi akhlāq Allāh is the moral of iḥsān taught by Prophet Muhammad. Two of the qualities of God included in al-asmā’ al-ḥusnā (the best names of God) directly related to generosity and philanthropy are al-Raḥmān (Most Benevolent) and al-Raḥīm (Most Merciful). KH. Ahmad Dahlan referred to it as theology of compassion as explained in previous part. As God is the Most Benevolent and Most Compassionate, the servant of God should also be compassionate to others especially to the under privilege in the community. 54