From traditional philanthropy to venture philanthropy

Hehenberger, Lisa; Boiardi, Priscilla; Gianoncelli, Alessia

doi:10.4324/9781351284769-8

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems that greater effort on the part of the VC investor in terms of time and face-to-face interaction devoted to portfolio organizations is directly associated with greater perceived added value (Luukkonen et al, 2011; Sapienza et al, 1996). The intensity of business advisory in terms of frequency and contact level also varies among SVC investors, from 10% of funds being in weekly contact with their investees to 5% having only yearly exchanges (Hehenberger, 2012).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, our interview partners mentioned human capital support (i.e., helping to find and recruit staff) as well as providing contacts to other experts in the field as important network aspects. Generally, SEs are found to appreciate third-party support (Hehenberger, 2012; John, 2007).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simultaneously, new financing approaches have been developed that target SEs as funding objects (Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1997; Moody, 2008). Social venture capital (SVC) represents a well-established investment model in that field and has displayed substantial growth rates (Hehenberger, 2012). SVC investors adopt their investment method from the venture capital (VC) industry (Scarlata & Alemany, 2010): They apply an intense selection process to identify investment targets and pursue a high-engagement approach, including support beyond the mere provision of funds, as well as certain oversight activities once invested (Nicholls, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We apply a change of perspective and ask how social entrepreneurs evaluate the central nonfinancial features of funding by SVC investors. To gain an understanding about the preferences of the investee is of increasing relevance since the bargaining position of SEs has strengthened due to recent developments: Numerous funds have been set up, providing a diverse array of funding offers with an amount of capital committed already surpassing EUR 1 billion in Europe (Hehenberger, 2012). According to estimates by Morgan (2010) and the Monitor Institute, the social investment market will exceed US$500 billion in the next decade (Freireich & Fulton, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar to the practice in traditional VC, where financial support of investees is perceived to be vital but not sufficient to reach the investment’s full potential, SVC funds also aim to add value to their portfolio organizations by providing a variety of nonfinancial activities (Ingstad, Knockaert, & Fassin, 2014): To improve the financial sustainability, organizational resilience or ultimately the social impact of SEs, they offer support in the fields of strategic planning, coaching, access to networks, financial management, or fundraising strategy. At the same time, they introduce certain governance and oversight mechanisms such as advisory boards, reporting systems or establish a system of key performance indicators (Hehenberger, Boiardi, & Gianoncelli, 2014; EVPA, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Social Investing: What Matters From the Perspective of Social Enterprises?

Mayer¹,

Scheck

2018

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to a massive increase in available social venture capital (SVC), social entrepreneurs often get to choose among various financing options. As financial parameters can easily be adapted or replicated, this article analyzes how social entrepreneurs evaluate the central nonfinancial features of these funders. Based on an experiment with 44 social entrepreneurs, we assess their perception of the five most relevant criteria for evaluating investor attractiveness: business advisory, network access, information rights, control rights, and reputation of the investor. Our analysis of 1,056 hypothetical decisions reveals that the investor’s reputation is the single most important criterion and that the positive effect of support provided through business advisory and network access strongly outweighs the negative effect of oversight via information rights and control rights. These findings indicate that social entrepreneurs perceive the behavior of SVC investors as steward like rather than principal like.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Social Investing: What Matters From the Perspective of Social Enterprises?

Mayer¹,

Scheck

2018

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do impact investors live up to their promise? A systematic literature review on (im)proving investments' impacts

Roor,

Maas

2024

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact investing holds the promise to make the world a better place. However, when investors measure their impact only to prove it—without improving—it cannot be expected they will live up to this promise. This systematic literature reviews a sample of 141 academic articles on impact measurement of investments. The results show that measuring impact to prove and to improve is a distinct practice. Measuring to prove impact mainly relates to show accountability to stakeholders and relates to legitimacy, stakeholder and agency theory. Measuring to improve relates to investors understanding impact, acting on envisioned impact in decision‐making, and relates to decision‐making, performance measurement and organisational theory. Investors can improve impacts by integrating impact information throughout an integrated investment process. Although several authors mention improving impact, they provide limited guidance on this. Future research is needed on operationalising impact throughout the investment process, as a practice to improve investments' impact.

show abstract

Gender Sensitivity in the National Roma Integration Strategies of Member States of the European Union

Sanchís-Ramón

Parra‐Casado

Gil‐González

et al. 2022

Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State &Amp; Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large part of the European Roma community faces prejudices, discrimination, and social exclusion. This situation is more visible in Roma women. This study assesses gender sensitivity in the National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) of the Member States of the European Union. To do so, an adapted ad hoc tool was applied to the twenty-seven NRIS documents, making it possible to identify gender sensitivity in its “symbolic dimension”—declaration of principles and values that guide the action and/or proposing reasons of the intervention; and in its “operational dimension”—formal aspects of the intervention. In addition, this tool allowed us to classify the documents according to their gender approach. A low gender sensitivity is observed, which is more developed in the symbolic part. The line of action with greater gender sensitivity is health, followed by employment and education. Gender sensitivity is nonexistent for housing.

show abstract

From traditional philanthropy to venture philanthropy

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Social Investing: What Matters From the Perspective of Social Enterprises?

Social Investing: What Matters From the Perspective of Social Enterprises?

Do impact investors live up to their promise? A systematic literature review on (im)proving investments' impacts

Gender Sensitivity in the National Roma Integration Strategies of Member States of the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About