We have decided to ride this wave of popularity to launch the first ever Social Finance Census. At the risk of stoking further controversy, I will say that this Census is not mandatory. However, although this Census is voluntary, you cannot exercise the Hogan’s Heroes defense for non-completion of the survey. And don’t worry, this census will not ask you intrusive questions such as whether you have a Team Jacob poster in any of your bedrooms, inquire whether you had waffles for breakfast before heading to work, or query whether you actually floss on a daily basis.  These are important details, but altogether irrelevant to our work.

So what exactly is the Social Finance Census?

The Social Finance Census 2010 (#sfcensus) is an initiative to gather vital data on non-profits, charities, social enterprises, and social purpose businesses in order to build a strong profile of the sector. The Census involves a set of surveys with basic and in-depth questions tailored specifically to issues of financing and regulation. The Social Finance Census aims to:

• build a profile of innovative non-profits, social enterprises, and social purpose businesses in Ontario;
• determine the sector’s current sources of capital, its future capital needs, and the challenges it faces in accessing capital;
• determine the potential that exists to provide the sector with new and alternative forms of capital to foster the sector’s growth;
• analyze regulatory and resource barriers for development; and
• conduct a preliminary assessment of the sector’s measurement of its social and/or environmental impact.

As with the national census, the data collected will be confidential. Unless you explicitly state that are willing to have your basic data mapped (name, address, social mission, etc.), it will be anonymously aggregated into the pool with all of the survey respondents.

So why is the Social Finance Census important?

This Census will provide hard facts and numbers to complement the powerful narrative of our collective work. We cannot effectively plan for the future, advance progressive positions to government, or accurately portray the depth and breadth of our work without data. The Census addresses this underlying gap: there is a fundamental lack of comprehensive, universal data on social finance in Ontario, and indeed, across the country.

Accordingly, the Social Finance Census will:

• provide the sector with data to support planning and coordination;
• demonstrate the size and operations of the sector to the public, government, and potential supporters; and
• ultimately, help to attract investment and talent to the sector.

Who is involved in the Social Finance Census?

A strong group of organizations have pulled together for this effort. The Census is a project of the Social Venture Exchange (SVX), a joint initiative of Social Innovation Generation (SiG) at MaRS, the TMX Group Inc., Causeway Social Finance, and the Government of Ontario. A key collaborator on the project has been the Ontario Nonprofit Network (ONN) with grant support from The Law Foundation of Ontario. In addition, we will also be working with SocialFinance.ca on the promotion of the survey and dissemination of results. Many eminent individuals and organizations also have contributed their time and expertise to ensure the project is a success.

How can you help with the Social Finance Census?

The success of this effort will rely on you. There are three easy ways that you can help with the Social Finance Census:

• Fill it out: If you are a non-profit or social purpose business, please take a few minutes to complete the survey that matters to you.
• Promote it on your website or blog: You can post a link to this page on your website, post a blog item with the information above, or even download and post a small button, large button, or banner promoting the Census on your website or blog.
• Promote it on Twitter: Encourage innovative non-profits, social enterprises, and social purpose businesses to complete the survey by promoting the Census on Twitter using the hashtag #sfcensus, and by promoting links to the survey for non-profits (http://bit.ly/bmrp1c) and social purpose businesses (http://bit.ly/a2dnPx).

You do good work. Stand up and be counted.

It’s about a different kind of displacement.

There has been a building level of awareness and literacy on impact investing in the past few weeks, given increasing news coverage from outlets from the New York Times to Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill’s News and Observer.  [We’re still waiting for front page coverage in the Financial Post, or the Globe/Toronto Star’s Business section.]

As we increase awareness, we need to tackle some early concerns right away as we begin to build interest in this space.  One of these concerns is outlined in what could be called the theory of displacement.  Roughly conceived, this theory postulates that:

Individuals and institutions with available funds and an interest in achieving social or environmental improvement will choose profit-generating enterprises over charitable organizations.

Simply put, all things being equal, if someone has the choice between making money and losing money with similar “good” outcomes, they will choose to make money.  So, even if we have a social conscience, we’d still be the good children of Adam Smith and maximize our profits.  I’ve had conversations with folks who share this belief.  They worry that a movement in this direction will only take money away from charitable causes.

But there are many reasons this theory cannot hold water.

1. Strong connections. Canadians will always direct funds to charities because of personal and religious connections to particular issues and causes.  The motivation to give is often founded in a fundamental system of beliefs, or direct personal experience with something that has touched their lives.

The primary target of funding to charities in Canada proves this point.  Over two thirds (70 per cent) of these funds are directed to religious, social services, or health related organizations.  The bonds or requirements of religion, the impact of an illness on a family member, or the experience of a job loss are deeply personal connections that compel Canadians to give.  These connections are extremely resilient and are unlikely to be broken by the potential for a financial return.

2. Practicality. There are very practical reasons that we support charities – they are the only vehicle for some forms of civic activity.  Canadians, and indeed, citizens around the world, direct money to charitable institutions like churches, shelters, humanitarian relief and human rights organizations because they are the only means of providing necessary support to achieve certain social aims.

We simply cannot achieve necessary social and environmental progress solely through enterprise or innovation.  Our aims can only be achieved through effective and progressive public policy and a well-functioning charitable sector functioning in concert with enterprises with a social mission.  Each of these is necessary, but they are not independently sufficient conditions for achieving social and environmental progress.

For example, if we were to examine poverty reduction as a desired social outcome, it requires the combination of good public policy (ie. economic and income security measures, labour protections, and fair wage policies), social enterprise activities (ie. social hiring practices, and enterprises that employ at-risk youth), and charitable endeavours (ie. food banks, employment programs, and shelters).

Arguably, this is a reason that displacement cannot happen, as well as a reason that it will not happen.  It is simply not practical.

3. Finances. There are powerful financial incentives in place for Canadians to donate to charitable organizations and causes.  For many Canadians, it makes financial sense to donate a small portion of their income to charity.

The tax incentives to donate are substantial.   (In particular, there are significant incentives for the donation of securities.  So if you haven’t heard about this yet, ask your financial advisor).  If you don’t believe this, then please learn more from the good folks at TD Canada Trust, the Canada Revenue Agency, Deloitte, or KPMG. For example, the actual after tax cost of a $1,000 donation of securities for an individual in the highest tax bracket (marginal tax rate of 46 per cent) is $536.   Although it does not deliver the potential for a financial return, a donation does not represent a total loss for an individual or institution.

Arguably, it is still not financially profitable, but the first two features (connections and practicality) coupled with these financial incentives will continue to ensure that funds are directed towards charitable causes. 

4. Lack of evidence. The reason that displacement is a theory is because it is just that; a theory.  There is no statistical proof that displacement takes place.

In countries that have witnessed a significant development in their social enterprise and innovation sector, there has not been a commensurate decline in charitable gifts.  In nations with a well-developed and rapidly growing social enterprise sector such as the United Kingdom, there has not been a displacement of funds.  In fact, more Britons make financial donations to charity than Canadians.  According to a recent study, 95 per cent of all UK residents made a financial donation to a charity in the past year.  In Canada, 84 per cent of citizens make some form of financial donation to a charitable or non-profit organization on an annual basis.  [Note that many do not apply for a tax receipt, as they may contribute to a raffle or by some other mechanism that doesn't allow for charitable exemption.]

5. The real target. Perhaps the most important and relevant reason that the theory of displacement doesn’t fly is that the target pool of financing is not charitable donation dollars.  We are targeting a much different and much larger pool of money.  So it’s not really a choice at all.

Certainly, charitable donations represent a very large and important source of funds.  In 2008, according to Statistics Canada, 5.8 million Canadians donated $8.2 billion to over 80,000 charities in the country.  In 2007, the average donation contribution made by individual donors was $437.

The real target is a tiny fraction of total financial assets in Canada and around the world.  Total managed assets in Canada equalled approximately $3 trillion in 2008.  This is part of a much larger (and almost unfathomable) pool of capital that makes up world financial assets.  In 2007, “…the total value of global financial assets reached a peak of $194 trillion, equal to 343 percent of GDP.”

Herein lies the power and potential for impact investing.  Over the past generation, we have witnessed a fundamental shift in the potential and size of financial assets.  Although there has been some slight reversal, world financial assets have quadrupled in size relative to GDP since 1980.

And if we require capital (ie. money) to grow, sustain, or improve our response to social and environmental problems, then we should pursue the largest and most readily available source of that capital. Fortunately, there are many enterprises and individual actors that do (or could) meet the pre-conditions for obtaining that capital: some form of or potential for financial return (even moderate), and a demonstrable ability to achieve certain social and environmental outcomes.  [Following a trajectory in line with the increasing interest of citizens that funds be directed to places that better align with their values.]

So, if even one per cent of Canadian assets were channelled in this direction, this would be equivalent to four times ($30 billion) the amount of money donated to charities in the same year.  This shift would not be unprecedented, as core SRI assets in Canada already totalled $54.2 billion in 2008, according to the Canadian Socially Responsible Investment Review 2008.  All screened SRI investments represent almost 20 per cent of the total managed assets.  The number of investors in this space continues to grow.  Between 2006 and 2008, the total value of assets invested according to SRI guidelines increased by 21 per cent.  Impact investing would be expected to follow this trajectory as a subset of the broader SRI space.

Arguably, this is part necessity and part opportunity.

Government revenues will be increasingly constrained over the foreseeable future as modest economic growth drives modest government revenues, and fiscal pressures from rising health costs, economic security programs, and public pension programs stretch the public purse.  The ability to invest in important programs such as the construction of affordable housing will become even more limited.

And the necessity, or need for capital to provide resources to address increasingly complex and monumental social and environmental problems grows.  A similar thesis was featured in Ralph Nader’s most recent book, Only the Super Rich Can Save Us!  Although a fictional account, it recognizes that we need significant amounts of capital to catalyze the necessary change we require for both survival and success.

There is a significant opportunity to grow the number of individuals who are engaged directly and indirectly in solving social and environmental problems with their available financial resources.  At present, a declining number of Canadians report financial donations to the federal government.  Only 24.1 per cent of all tax filers made donations to charity in 2008, representing a slight decline from 1999, when 25.5 per cent of all tax filers made charitable financial donations.

As we know, these individuals are only donating, on average, slightly over $400 per year.  We need to work to increase the percentage of Canadians who give, as well as the amount of their donations.  The charitable sector requires additional grant and donation dollars to build and sustain operations.  But we must also think of the potential of the savings and investments of current donors.  And imagine the even greater potential of the investments of individuals (retail investors) as well as corporations (and other institutional investors) who do not currently contribute to charity.

The potential is tremendous.  But it will take a lot of work to realize that potential.  Think of what you can do to help move this forward.

In response to some of these critics and to build literacy and understanding at a local level, we need to make impact investing a bit more tangible.

Impact investing opportunities are very real, with living, breathing models in place around the world.  Accordingly, there is tremendous potential for local success through our social venture exchange project.  We are currently exploring the how, but this may give a first glance of what is possible.

There are at least three basic types of potential impact investment product types that could be available on the exchange: bonds, debt and/or equity funds, and stocks.  (covering two of the main asset classes: fixed income [bonds] and equities [stocks]). These products would allow new capital to flow to non-profit and for-profit social ventures in the form of debt and equity.  This helps us meet our key objectives: attracting new capital for social ventures so they can achieve improved social and environmental outcomes.

1. BONDS

One of the simplest and effective means of obtaining debt financing for new capital is through a bond.  For those needing a bit of basic background on bonds, the full definition (as derived from the good folks at Investopedia.com) of a bond is:

A debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (corporate or governmental) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a fixed interest rate (coupon). Bonds are used by companies and governments to finance a variety of projects and activities.  Bonds are commonly referred to as fixed-income securities and are one of the three main asset classes, along with stocks and cash equivalents.

Real World Examples of Impact Investing via Bonds: Affordable Housing Bonds and Impact Bonds

Bonds are also an effective (and increasingly used) means of providing financing for projects/work with positive environmental and social outcomes, particularly related to housing and community infrastructure.  For decades, governments in the US, UK and a number of northern European countries have utilized public housing bonds to finance the repair and construction of affordable housing units.

In the United States, the bond types are have been known as Housing Authority Bonds, “…issued by state or local governments to help finance the construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Under certain programs, the proceeds from Housing Authority bonds may also be used to help low-income individuals and families purchase a home. The interest received by investors in these bonds is generally exempt from federal, state, and local income taxes.”  This investment mechanism was first developed in the late 1930’s, pushed by New York Mayor La Guardia as a revolving state fund.   They are typically issued by local public housing authorities and secured by the net rental revenues.  They may or may not be guaranteed by the state or federal government.

An example of this bond type can be found in California.  As a result of a referendum in 2006, the state issued a, “…$2.85 billion affordable housing bond to produce an estimated 118,000 housing units, 2,350 homeless shelter spaces, and infrastructure projects that help infill housing development such as water, sewer, parks, and transportation improvements.”  One example of a program funded through this bond issue was CalHome, a program designed to enable low and very-low income households to become or remain homeowners.

More recently, innovators in the UK have begun to develop Social Impact Bonds.  These bonds are a contract between a public sector body and Social Impact Bond investors, in which the former commits to pay for an improved social outcome. Investor funds are used to pay for a range of interventions to improve the social outcome.

As obtained from the Social Finance (UK), a description of the pilot bond issue is as follows:

During the Peterborough Prison pilot, experienced social sector organisations, such as St Giles Trust, will provide intensive support to 3,000 short-term prisoners over a six year period, both inside prison and after release, to help them resettle into the community. If this initiative reduces re-offending by 7.5%, or more, investors will receive from Government a share of the long term savings. If the SiB delivers a drop in re-offending beyond the threshold, investors will receive an increasing return the greater the success at achieving the social outcome, up to a maximum of 13 per cent.

In addition, innovators in Australia have developed a Social Impact Property Fund to, “…to provide wholesale investors with direct exposure to risk managed properties accommodating community sector organisations that make a positive social contribution to their communities.  The target return on the fund is 5.5 per cent.”

Our Context: How Could this Apply Locally

In Ontario, we could follow a similar path and create (or advance the development of) public or social housing bonds.  We already know that there have been bond issues by affordable housing providers in Ontario, including the Toronto Community Housing Corporation’s recent bond issue of $200 million.  There is also a clear need for repair and retrofits to existing housing stock, as well as the construction of new units to meet the demand for affordable housing in Ontario.

There are at least two key questions that would need to be answered before this opportunity could be realized.  First, who is the guarantor for the investment?  In the case of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, it is the largest affordable housing provider in the province, within the largest municipality in the country.  It would appear that one or both back the bond.  Second, how can we further incent investors to put capital into these kinds of bonds?  It is possible to make them tax exempt bonds, as they have in some states, but some consideration would need to be made on the cost effectiveness of this strategy (public purse cost of tax exemptions for individual and institutional financing ) versus the provision of capital by the state (interest cost for provincial or federal government).

2. DEBT AND/OR EQUITY FUNDS

Beyond bonds, another investment product type that is possible for impact investing in Canada is debt and/or equity funds.  Debt and equity funds are also very popular financial instruments for investors and investees as a means of pooling investment capital and opportunities.  For those needing a bit of basic background on funds (again, thanks to Investopedia.com), the full definition of debt and equity funds are as follows:

Debt Fund An investment pool, such as a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund, in which core holdings are fixed income investments. A debt fund may invest in short-term or long-term bonds, securitized products, money market instruments or floating rate debt.

Equity Fund
A mutual fund that invests principally in stocks. It can be actively or passively (index fund) managed.

Real World Examples of Impact Investing via Funds: New York City Acquisition Fund and Bridges Social Entrepreneurs Fund
The NYC Acquisition Fund provides local and not-for-profit developers with bridge financing to acquire private property for the construction and preservation of affordable housing.  The $200 million NYC Acquisition Fund provides local and not-for-profit developers with a financial mechanism to acquire private property for the construction and preservation of affordable housing.  Up to 30,000 rental, homeownership, and supportive housing units will be created or preserved through the ALF over the next ten years.

The fund guarantee pool consists of $8 million in Battery Park City Authority revenues and $32 million from various foundations, including Ford Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation, Heron Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Starr Foundation, New York Community Trust, Gimbel Foundation, Open Society Institute, among others.

Senior lender debt of up to $190 million is available from major banks and financial institutions such as JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Fannie Mae, Wachovia, HSBC, North Fork, Mizuho, Merrill Lynch, Signature, and M&T.  The banks have provided $160 million in senior debt indexed to the prime rate, and the impact first investors (City of New York, Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation) have funded $40 million in low-interest subordinated loans.

Loans are made for up to three year terms and the interest rate is approximately prime minus 40-60 basis points.  For-profit developers can receive loans of up to 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio and non-profit developers can receive loans of up to 130 per cent loan-to-value ratio.  There are also cash equity and minimum recourse requirements.

The Bridges Ventures Social Entrepreneurs Fund is an innovative financial solution that is tailored to the needs of social enterprises. The fund invests in the form of equity-like capital, which shares the risks but also the returns of social enterprises. Investments are coupled with hands-on advice and support to help social enterprises realise their potential.  The Fund has already made investments in local ventures, such as Call Brittania.

What is interesting is that this type of investment is paired with the necessary advice that smaller, start-up ventures require to build their business.  The fund model seems to part of the answer to the question of absorptive capacity of capital.  (ie. If there was more capital supply in the space, do social ventures have the absorptive capacity to use the capital to build their operations and their commensurate ability to achieve improved social and environmental outcomes).  This is particularly important in our context, given that there seems to be a large number of start-up/small ventures that require capital; however, it is very difficult to get larger investors interested in such small deals (let’s say sub $1 million for argument’s sake) because of the due diligence (and therefore time) required as well as perceived/potential risk.

Our Context: How Could this Apply Locally

In Ontario/Canada, we could certainly consider the development of a similar fund model.  Imagine [Insert your favourite bank name here] and/or Social Innovation Generation Social Ventures Fund? This type of fund would be in line with the provincial government’s proposed Social Venture Fund, which was originally proposed a few years ago.  Originally, the concept was for the province to begin as the sole investor. However, moving forward, as with the UK’s Bridges Social Entrepreneurs Fund, private investors could also come on board to increase the potential pool of capital.  In addition, in terms of process, the ventures could apply for capital (debt) through the fund sponsor (perhaps jointly managed by a bank and the enterprise catalyst/advisor?) to an established maximum amount.  These ventures could include ventures from consulting firms in the fashion industry that focus on improving the labour and environmental standards of suppliers to start-up print companies that produce zero-impact business cards.

This would have a number of key advantages.  For example, a large potential pool of capital investing in a number of social enterprises would increase the scale of investment, making it reasonable for larger investors to get on board.  In addition, it would allow smaller entrepreneurs improved access to new capital for growth.  Given the nascent nature of a large subset of the social enterprise sector in Ontario, this would be extremely advantageous and necessary for growth.

Beyond these potential models, these products could also be set-up in Canada as sectoral funds in the social and environmental sectors.  For example, there could be a social fund focused on poverty reduction, training and education ventures, and/or an environmental fund focused on energy, waste reduction, and water ventures.

In addition, consideration could even be given to creating an ETF (exchange traded fund.  This would allow bonds to be traded like stocks, thereby increasing potential liquidity.  More study would be necessary on the potential of this product type.

3. STOCKS

The third investment impact investing product type in Canada could be stocks.  They are an easily understood investment vehicle that many Ontarians hold as a part of their investment portfolio.  For consistency’s sake, let’s look at the basic definition of a stock:

A type of security that signifies ownership in a corporation and represents a claim on part of the corporation’s assets and earnings.

There are two main types of stock: common and preferred. Common stock usually entitles the owner to vote at shareholders’ meetings and to receive dividends. Preferred stock generally does not have voting rights, but has a higher claim on assets and earnings than the common shares. For example, owners of preferred stock receive dividends before common shareholders and have priority in the event that a company goes bankrupt and is liquidated.

Real World Examples of Impact Investing via Stocks
There are presently no examples of impact investing via stocks or shares in corporations.  There are a number of stocks that are considered ethical or socially responsible according to negative screening processes (ie. no tobacco, no weapons, no nuclear energy).

There are a number of projects that intend on listing stocks that generate both a financial return and have demonstrable social and/or environmental impact in London (London Social Stock Exchange), Singapore (Impact Investment Exchange Asia) and Nairobi (Kenya Social Investment Exchange ).

The necessary infrastructure to determine whether companies (and therefore their shares) are achieving social and/or environmental impact and financial returns is in its early stages of development.  The B Corporation (or benefit corporation) assessment and certification system would allow an investor to know that a company has an entrenched social mission (within their incorporated statements) and they meet established, “…comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards.”  There are already 285 B Corporations with $1.1 billion in revenues.  Arguably, a company that meets the B Corporation standard with share capital could be considered an impact investing stock.  Beyond B Corporation, the development of the Global Impact Investment Ratings System (GIIRS) also presents an excellent platform to determine whether funds or stocks have demonstrated positive social and/or environmental impact.

Our Context: How Could this Apply Locally

As described above, there are systems that are in place or in development that could be applied to designate impact investment shares.  For-profit ventures would need to meet established standards via the B Corporation designation or a GIIRS ratings threshold.  As an investor, if they had publicly available shares, you could buy stock in a company like CleanFish, DripTech, or Green Light Apparel. Think of the positive impact of your portfolio with these types of stocks in the mix.

So, we now have a better sense of what impact investing opportunities could look like locally.

Imagine the possibilities for our province and our nation.

We could help provide affordable, comfortable shelter for low-income families in Ontario through new housing projects.  We could help start-up or growing small businesses make our communities more sustainable through green products and services, from solar panels to cleaning supplies.  We could secure the sustainability or provide a platform for growth for larger, for-profit social ventures so they can scale their business and their ability to provide solutions to social and environmental problems at a local, regional or global level.

We think there is a great deal of potential for good investments in a better world.

But these are just initial thoughts.  Let us know what you think.  Feel free to email if you have comments, questions and/or ideas.

Impact Investing: A global perspective on an emerging capital market from MaRS Discovery District on Vimeo.

But we cannot forget why we are doing this work.  The why helps to anchor us with a clear purpose and focuses our vision.  It may also help us achieve more than just a few lines in newsprint, a paragraph in a blog, or the full focus of “an interesting magazine article.”  [Note the Bill Young reference.]

So why are we working towards the creation of a social venture exchange?

We have a good idea of some of its moving parts.  At the atomic level, the exchange will be a collection of transactions, an aggregator of progressive metrics, a deriver of cold calculations, and a generator of financial dividends and impact reports.  These are important constituent elements that will require a great deal of time, careful consideration, and constant revision.  In the end, these elements will form the backbone of a progressive exchange or a “just” market.

But our real root purpose is not just to create a nifty, new exchange with an interesting name.

We are faced with tremendous and seemingly intractable social and environmental problems. From climate change and constrained public resources, to the fallout of the global recession and rising inequality, these challenges function at a local, regional and global level.  Weather patterns are changing, governments around the world are billions of dollars in deficit, millions are searching for work, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

Collectively, we are searching for solutions to mitigate the impact of these challenges.   This is not just about making a friendlier, happier world; we work to ensure the very survival and success of our communities and our fellow citizens.  We seek to work towards a better world; one that strives to pursue the aims of environmental and social justice. We want to live in an environmentally sustainable and poverty-free nation (and world) with equality of opportunity for all.

We know this must be achieved through good public policy.  But public policy cannot achieve our aim on its own.  It is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition.  We must apply all tools at our disposal and recognize the role that enterprise and capital must play in achieving the change we seek.  Please note that this is not repackaged Reaganomics (ie. The best social program is a productive job) or a misguided belief that smart guys in business suits can save the world.

There is a growing base of existing and emerging innovative ventures with an ability to have demonstrable social and environmental impact. From affordable housing and green energy to sustainable farming and enterprises that hire and/or retrain at-risk youth, these ventures lack sufficient financial capital to realize scale and their true potential for impact.  As an ancillary but necessary benefit, these ventures can generate financial return alongside demonstrated social and environmental impact.

Fortunately, there is a growing interest from retail and institutional investors to get a financial return as well as a social and/or environmental impact.  If one per cent of total globally managed assets moved in this direction, $600 billion could flow to these ventures over the next ten years. This is the very real premise of the emerging impact investing sector.

We can apply capital to good purpose.  It may have truly transformative effects.  It may help transition the traditional market economy into a more just and progressive economy.  It may even help to transform our current formulization of capitalism from purely shareholder and financial interest to one that values stakeholder and blended benefit interest (social/environmental/economic) as its primary motivators.

But that is a bit less practical than the aim we seek.

At its root, the social venture exchange is about impact.  It is about the impact that current social and environmental problems have on our world, and the impact that we can have to address these challenges through good public policy and innovative social ventures.

And don’t forget the impact it could have on your wallet.  It may not be the true root of why we are doing this work, but it may be the reason why it will work.

Impact investments aim to solve social or environmental challenges while generating financial profit. Impact investing includes investments that range from producing a return of principal capital to offering market-rate or even market-beating financial returns. It is projected that impact investing could expand to a $500 billion industry in the next decade.

Mr. Bugg-Levine’s visit comes on the heels of a number of new global initiatives catalyzed by the Rockefeller Foundation, including the founding of GIIN this past fall, with the goal of developing impact investing into an industry that can give lift and leverage to traditional philanthropy. Mr. Bugg-Levine will be delivering a lecture on impact investing and meeting with representatives from the Social Finance Task Force and the Steering Committee of the Social Venture Exchange Project to learn about local, innovative activities in the sector.

Date: Tuesday, April 6th to Wednesday, April 7th
Time: Full itinerary provided upon request
Location: MaRS Centre (101 College Street)
Representatives: Antony Bugg-Levine, Managing Director, Rockefeller Foundation and Chair of the Board, Global Impact Investing Network

Media representatives are invited to attend the Global Leadership Series Lecture on Tuesday, April 6th at 5 pm at the MaRS Centre. There will also be a dedicated time for media to interview Mr. Bugg-Levine before the lecture on Tuesday, April 6th from 4 – 5 pm at the MaRS Centre.

The Rockefeller Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation fosters innovative solutions to many of the world’s most intractable challenges, affirming its mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of humanity. Today, the Foundation works to ensure that more people can tap into globalization’s benefits while strengthening resilience to risks. For more information, visit www.rockefellerfoundation.org.

About SiG@MaRS
SiG@MaRS is Social Innovation Generation at the MaRS Discovery District. We support social entrepreneurs – those that seek to make money and make a difference. We do this through the MaRS Advisory Services and more broadly by generating educational resources, thought leadership and by fostering multi-sector collaboration with the intention of creating a culture of social innovation within Ontario.

For further information:
Geraldine Cahill, Social Innovation Generation (SiG) National, w: (647) 260-7844, c: (416) 566-5313, communications@sigeneration.ca; Adam Spence, Chair, Social Venture Exchange Project, (416) 543-0897, adam@socialventureexchange.org