Social Media for Non-Profits

Social Media for Nonprofits

For those of you who are more inclined towards social media e.g. Facebook, Twitter etc., especially if you have experience in the third sector or education in this direction, please feel free to send me advice that you think might be useful for the author! All ideas will be put uploaded on this blog for comments from the public, and if possible, structured over time to get handed as a suggestion to Nonprofitorgs for their perusal.

To start the ball rolling, social media impact generally tends to travel faster, and rides on emotionality, making it extremely viral. However, whatever is viral tends to die off quicker too, given that there are an infinite amount of information in cyberspace at any point in time. Impact-wise, there is still much debate on who has a stronger impact, with most people divided on credibility vs. publicity.

Something to think about, feel free to email me your ideas! Looking forward to reading them!

Sustainability and Scale

Harvard Business Review: Social Entrepreneurs' Tricky Issue of Sustainability and Scale

For all the budding social entrepreneurs out there, the Harvard Business Review has pointed out two very important concepts not to be neglected during the planning process: Sustainability and Scale.

Regarding "scale", the article notes that: Therefore, for social ventures, our search for scalability is a search for the definition of what works, for procedures and interventions that can be replicated — perhaps still with high-energy investment, but in a consistent way in each new place to generate consistent impact.

Regarding "sustainability", two definitions: Firstly, "soundness of our organizations' financial footing" and secondly, "the durability of that social benefit".

Note that both definitions point, albeit indirectly, at one thing: the organization's bottom-line.

The importance of "scale" emphasizes the need to "generate consistent impact", which can only be brought about by continuous adaptation to changing circumstances as well as environmental and consumer pressures. Investment must be channeled proportionately to cater to a reasonable estimation of growth. Too high an estimate leads to a losing war against economies of scale, too low an estimate leads to customer dissatisfaction.

The importance of "sustainability" is clearly depicted in the emphasis on the "soundness of financial footing", but not so clearly in terms of "the durability of social benefit". While proper scaling brings about the necessary profit from consumers to carry the business forward, the impact on the targeted community varies from group to group, ensuring the necessity of customization of efforts. Customization is, unfortunately, not free-of-charge, and may require a certain amount of monetary investment to conduct pilot tests, surveys and research to ensure sustained impact.

A little planning can go a long way, and the results of good intentions can potentially be multiplied by spending a little more time considering these two valuable concepts.

Food Production and the Development Issue

Climate threats to the food system: floods in Pakistan have destroyed millions of hectares of farmland. Photo courtesy of Getty images.

The Financial Times Special Report: World Food (PDF)

The Financial Times has just published a special report on the recent hike in food prices around the world and the devastating effects especially on poorer countries. According to the article, the good news is that "while the number of people who will suffer chronic hunger this year has fallen slightly (by 98m) to 925m in 2009, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), that still means a child dies every six seconds as a result of hunger-related problems".

Within the report, the article "Idea of self-help starts to gain momentum" by Harvey Morris relates the problem to the decline in public investment on agricultural research during periods of food surpluses, which was redirected to processing and other technologies geared to consumers in the rich "north". Simply put, during periods of drought and famine in food production countries, Europe and the United States began investing heavily in research to increase supply, and the beneficiaries were mainly third world countries. During periods of high production, these very investments were channeled back to their homelands to reap investment surpluses from local consumers who were willing to spend more on food variety and quality.

A strand of sociological thought e.g. World Systems Theory condemns the idea of development as necessary, arguing that when the rich "north" provides aid to the poor "south" in terms of research investments, infrastructure, capital and advice, the main intention is to plug the beneficiary country into the world economy. When this happens, the receiving country's farms and ranches are turned into production sources that feed not just the locals, but whose surpluses can be exported back to the rich "north", pushing food prices down. In turn, the rich "north" sells advanced equipment and manufactured products back to this poor countries in the name of development, adding on to their already high level of dependency. When periods of drought and famine strike, the rich "north" then offers to pay more for food (by a little bit only, really), and the poorer nations have little choice but to sell because firstly they risk angering the richer nations who are still controlling investment flow, and secondly they need the money to import food to feed their own population.

Immediately, food prices increase tenfold in these poor countries while only increasing by a few cents in the rich "north". A drought in Russia that forces the government to restrict food exports and increase imports causes famine in Malawi (even if there were no droughts there!) Emergency aid from NGOs is quickly flown in to feed the poor, and if food prices continue to maintain at the same level (or worse still, increase) past a critical point, a significant and increasing portion of the populations sinks into chronic hunger, leading to higher government expenditure needed to handle riots, health care and crime.

Besides having a centralized global food coordination system, rich nations need to be run by benevolent governments who are able to convince its population to make sacrifices for the sake of those starving in poorer countries. Despite the positives of capitalism, there is an incredible wastage of food everyday which, if managed properly, can be used to feed hungry mouths on the other side of the globe. Immense obstacles ranging from racism, consumer rights and a basic lack of empathy have dominated political mindsets, pressuring parties to prioritize local preferences over moral stands when it comes to such issues. Unless these are overcome, education and awareness creation have not achieved their goals.

It then leaves the decisions to two groups of people, consumers/voters and for-profits/states in rich countries to do something about it. It would be terrible if it takes a world war to provide a global experience of poverty and hunger, and in so doing, traumatize people all over the world to come to the conclusion of a need to purposefully make sacrifices for their neighbors and brothers of mankind. States and international organizations must do something, but so does each and everyone of us, starting with our very basic choices.

Food.

Food Inc.

Food Inc. (The Movie, approx. 1.5hrs)

Warning: A real eye-opener, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.

Essentially, this movie encapsulates what sociologists would call the "McDonaldization" of food. There is a moral price to pay for "consumer choice" and efficiency on numerous levels from basic food and health to corporate monopolization and global poverty and hunger. What people need to know is not simply where and how their food comes about, but that their demands for "choice" and "variety" have negative resonating impacts on areas as far as the other side of the globe.


The irony of consumer capitalism is that while some people in the world can choose to eat whatever they want to eat, there are others who are unable to have a decent meal, much less ponder between choices. Peaks and troughs in food prices are caused by fluctuating demands in the taste of consumers from the former group, but this has the consequence of affecting imports and exports from the latter countries. The difference of a few cents in the price of 1 kilogram of tomatoes can lead to the loss of livelihood for thousands of farmers, and if severe enough, political and social unrest that only gets 30 seconds of airtime on the 6pm news broadcast.


Although many activists (at least those deemed to be in the right-state of mind) are working very hard to promote organic food or "food with a conscience" in an effort to redeploy consumer choice as a weapon against multinational food corporations, one must understand that unless such efforts are also aimed at narrowing the inequality gap, these movements only have the effect of reproducing and enlarging a cultural divide based on food choices. After all, the consumers purchasing genetically-enhance produce are not from the upper-class who have the additional purchase-power to buy their "integrity" or "moral conscience". It is the lower classes who, in an attempt to save money for other basic necessities, are forced to prioritize cost savings and pick the unhealthier but cheaper alternatives for their family members. If it is truly like they say, that our choices are like votes, then this is little difference from countries like Rwanda and Congo where AK-47s are used at the election polls.


Going to Congress is unlikely to bring about big changes, given that both Republican and Democratic parties and senators are largely funded by these corporations. To be fair, they are indeed facing more short-term pressing issues at home such as high retrenchment rates and revamping their collapsing health-care system. No president can afford to stay in office very long if they are unable to project a positive future for the very citizens who have voted them into office.


With such a background in mind, is there really no hope for the fight against world poverty and hunger? Would it be possible to avert such crises with the establishment of a global food coordinating center with the information and political leverage to dictate production and supply based on knowledge of geographical seasons, transport capacity and unique cultural circumstances? Social scientists and historians may be quick to point to the collapse of Communist Russia and China as evidence that central coordination cannot supersede the power of capitalist markets. But lest we discard the idea too quickly, let us not forget if we continue to ignore this impending disaster, the rise of the proletariat might come bearing national flags.

Ensuring the Future of Food

Mercy and Restoration

Two boys look out over a relief camp. More than 12 million flood victims remain reliant on food handouts.

South China Morning Post: Landlords Show No Mercy

In flood-ravaged Pakistan, one huge obstacle preventing maximum utilization of economic aid from goodwill individuals, organizations and nations is the complex political web that is deeply embedded in the country. The goal of economic aid is not to create a pipeline of funds and resources that maintains the current situation, but to rebuild the necessary infrastructure for resuming progress for the good of society.

As the flood victims are forced by the landlords to evacuate their homes because of their inability to pay rent, they have begun to cluster in relief camps with little opportunity to find work. According to the article, 12 million people are still relying on handouts to survive. The lack of permanence in terms of shelter, nutrition and livelihood only instills fear, anger and desperation that will increase the burden on relief workers as well as the demand for resources.

Democracy is unlikely to take place, given that the country's most power institution is the military. The protocol reward for retired generals is still land ownership, and many of them continue to wield great influence after retirement. From a landowner's perspective, chasing away peasants who are unable to pay rent benefits them in the short-term as market supply and demand dictates that those who can pay will get to use the land. The flood also happens to be an undisputed excuse to displace the peasants and carry on with plans to rent the land out to big capital. Thus, without shouldering any responsibilities in the name of economics, their ex-tenants are now being fed by global organizations while landowners continue to make money from private capital.

With their vested interests and inclination towards profit combined with the lack of moral responsibility, there is no pressure on landowners to do anything about the flood victims. However, the congregating of displaced peasants in relief camps is likely to form a critical mass of dissidence which may bubble into social unrest that will inevitably repel investors and big capital, no matter how much assurance the military gives or how strong they are. If this happens,the landowners will be the ones to lose out. Should among them however, one landowner show mercy to flood victims by providing land for settlement-building while pushing back rent payment to later dates, he stands to reap benefits not available to his neighbors.

Firstly, with the assurance of a home to stay in, the peasants are likely to cooperate to clear away the rubble, and are less likely to come into conflict with the landowners should relocation be required. Such a landowner will actually gain power in terms of dictating who should stay where, which in time will actually become an institutionalized process, unlike the past where folk culture and religion made such issues extremely thorny to handle. With proper planning, the rebuilding of an entire town can be made suitable for the entry of capital.

Secondly, with democracy nowhere in sight, most landowners are inclined to underestimate the power of their people's allegiance. By providing a place to stay and pushing back the rent payments to later dates, such a landowner will be able to "purchase" the allegiance and support of the people, which will eventually root his position in the territory as a leader. Generally, one can expect fewer conflicts to emerge from the territory and this is a big attraction to capital, which will actually raise the demand and eventually the cost of renting out the land. Less land set aside for capital does not necessarily mean lower returns, as demand plays a huge factor in pushing rents up and down.

Nonetheless, the landowners have a vested interest to cooperate with one another to maximize the benefits for themselves, and it is unlikely that one of them will try something different for fear of backlash from the others. It will indeed take a lot more convincing to get them to realize that standing together might keep them strong for now, but should they fall, they will all tumble together. The good news is, should one of them be courageous enough to walk down the lonely road of mercy, circumstances might just force the rest of them to follow suit, with the pioneer reaping the biggest rewards.

Empowering Entrepreneurship

 India: Poor Women Stitch Together New Futures

One of the biggest breakthroughs in terms of economic creativity in poverty-stricken areas is the positive use of micro-entrepreneurship. The case study of "Mahila Sanatkar" or the "women entrepreneur" in India is a positive demonstration of how innovative business people have adapted their ideas to not only help the poor, but also grow their enterprise so as to maintain the impact on the community.

By providing women with jobs, micro-enterprises have brought about more than just gender empowerment. Like some pioneering banks would already know, women are shown to spend money more prudently than men, be it on their families or for long-term investment purposes. Increased spending power provides a demand for basic necessities such as health-care and education, which will benefit the community as a whole in the long-term.

Importantly, entrepreneurs must be strongly conscious that however good their intentions may be, if the enterprise strategy is not directed towards economic development and market presence, and if the balance sheets do not show eventual profits, the endeavor will eventually die out. Most early entrepreneurs are unable to afford the expertise and advice from high-level consultancies, and often, they lack the credibility to attract investors to put money into their "ambitious" projects. There are two possible ways to work around this problem:

Firstly, research on micro-entrepreneurship is still lacking. There is also no basic template to follow, especially since the socio-cultural circumstance of each rural area tend to be more varied in comparison to others as they become highly dependent on things such as natural geography and religious practices. A careful study of the area is necessary, and gaining the trust of locals to act as surveyors and provide in-depth information is crucial. This may seem time-consuming, but if the locals are receptive to the business proposal, the information and advice they provide could be far more valuable than hiring even the finest global consultants.

Secondly, most people think of investments in monetary terms, and in so doing they find it hard to attract outside investors, many of whom are inclined to see such an endeavors as risky and unproven. Entrepreneurs need to direct their resources inwards, such as towards building social capital among the locals. It is also vital to present their projects as feasible, long-term and beneficial towards the community, and once their trust have been gained, they might just chip in with whatever resources that they have. Investments from social capital can be translated into motivational force, financial input and political leverage that could provide a strong edge over huge capital enterprises perceived to be monolith invaders.

In Hyderabad, India, gender differences and cultural circumstances are crux points for entrepreneurs to leverage on, with benefits of social empowerment to be reaped by locals. Perhaps in the future, more of such micro-enterprises will rise up to bring improvements to impoverish communities around the world.