Search results

This chapter offers a contemporary overview of philanthropy in education as an emerging research field. Although the education sector has traditionally been a popular recipient of philanthropic investment, the scale and scope of funding and policy involvement on the part of philanthropy are growing. In addition, and potentially amplified by COVID-19, big- and in particular tech-philanthropies are emerging as increasingly influential players in national, regional, and global educational contexts. This chapter describes how most existing education research on philanthropy is mainly US- and higher education-focused which has resulted in a narrow geographic and thematic scope whereby contemporary developments remain either overlooked or under-researched. It discusses venture philanthropy inside and outside of the United States, a greater diversity of geographic perspectives, and an increasing dependence of academia on philanthropic funding as emerging research areas that bear great potential to being explored further.

There is no consensus among the experts that welfare can be increased through philanthropy or market is sufficient for the achievement of targeted level of welfare. It is still a main quest that giving visible good to one known fellow is better or market ethos have more positive impact on the society where we have needs of thousands of unknown. Markets, in Hayek’s view, are superior to philanthropy – economically, ethically and epistemologically – because they “confer benefits beyond the range of our concrete knowledge” (Hayek 1988, p. 81) and thus provide “a greater benefit to the community than most direct ‘altruistic’ action”. The same can be expected from the ethical and moral financial institutions having the objective not to only increase their profit but also equally trying to serve the community and society. This paper aims to propose a constructive model in which markets, philanthropy and financial institutions work together to enhance welfare, human freedom, flourishing and voluntary social cooperation.

This paper examines the conceptual dualisms through which commerce – philanthropy relationship (e.g. modern versus Islamic socialism) and the historical–philosophical context in which they were formulated. This helps integrate philanthropy into Hayek’s theory of economic and social order through financial institutions.

This paper explores the foundations of an Islamic view of philanthropic action. This discussion is inspired by the emerging literature of positive psychology and double movement of Polanyi (2001).

Proper data are not available for the Islamic countries.

Without abandoning Hayek’s theory of markets, this study sketches a view of commercial society in which markets and philanthropy (“voluntary giving and association that serves to promote human flourishing”) work together to enhance welfare human freedom, flourishing and voluntary social cooperation under the umbrella of Islam and also explores the different dimensions that how Islamic financial intuitions are becoming the instrument for the incremental change of this integration.

This study guides the policy makers that how social and economic welfare can be increased through the interaction of Islamic financial institutions and philanthropy.

This is an original attempt.

This chapter highlights the roots of corporate philanthropy from Frishkoff and Kostecka's (1991) concern for community, Young and Burlingame's (1996) Paradigm Lost, Saiia's (2001) strategic philanthropy, and Bruch and Walter's (2005) Four Types of Corporate Philanthropy.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate the programme of philanthropy arising from the work of the Shirley Foundation, with particular reference to its impact in addressing issues related to autism.

The paper is based on the 2017 evaluation of The Shirley Foundation 1996–2016 by Aperio Group (Europe) Limited entitled 20 Years of Grant Making Autism and Information Technology: An Overview of The Foundation’s Impact (Pepin, 2017). The evaluation included interviews with Dame Stephanie Shirley CH (the Foundation’s founder), a documentation review and a survey of key grantees.

The evaluation concluded that the funding achieved both grantee purposes and those of The Shirley Foundation. The projects funded generally produced outcomes that made a difference and grant-making and monitoring processes were regarded, on the whole, as efficient.

The evaluation demonstrates the value of an innovative, catalytic, social entrepreneurial approach to funding to achieve impact.

This study of philanthropy donors in Appalachian Ohio was conducted with the purpose of understanding giving within a rural region. The research was initiated with an ultimate goal of increasing endowed assets in communities that are experiencing philanthropic poverty. The data collected from donors utilizing post-positivist qualitative research methods revealed not only donor giving rationale, but also steps community leaders can take to encourage giving communities and build philanthropic assets that will permit communities to help themselves.

Impact investors differ from venture capital firms as they invest to create social and commercial value. This paper pursues the question: how do impact investors select social enterprises? The aim of this study is to understand the selection and investing process of impact investors.

This study developed a database of 115 impact-investing firms across different geographies. Emails were sent to investors associated with each of the impact-investing firms found in the database, out of which 32 replied with consent for a telephonic or in-person interview.

The significant findings presented in the paper are the following. First, this study shows the impact-investing selection process model. The four major steps in the selection process are context, investment focus, venture analysis and decision. In each step, social values and missions become the defining characteristics of the selection process. Second, the findings also discuss the typologies of impact investors as a function of their selection approaches.

This paper discusses the impact investing strategy among social enterprises. It provides a framework for impact investing among investee social enterprises. As an impact investing professional, one learns investment strategy through this paper.

Impact investing is a growing field. It is believed that impact investing could greatly impact sustainable development goals, climate change goals and help in inclusive development. This study helps to further understand impact investing process and hopes to help social enterprises and impact investors make a better match, thereby, creating a greater overall social and environmental impact.

This study helps both practitioners and academics to understand the complexity of impact investing. This study helps develop heuristics that impact investors may use to make investments. This study provides a framework for investing, which the impact investing firms may use to invest.

This paper seeks to address emerging practices of social enterprises (SEs) in China by exploring the institutional context, organisational features and legislative framework of this new phenomenon.

The analysis is based on data drawn from secondary sources (laws and regulations, forum transcripts and news reports) and primary evidence (in‐depth study of six SE cases).

The various kinds of SEs are highly diversified in terms of social mission, organisational nature, legal form, and operational pattern; the institutional context is underdeveloped, providing growing but still limited financial, intellectual, technical, and human resources; although it allows increasing space for diversified development dynamics of SEs, the legislative system regulating SEs is still flawed in several vital ways.

This paper relies heavily on qualitative research methods to make a preliminary assessment of the development of China's SEs. Neither primary nor secondary data sources collected for this paper can be used to draw any general conclusion of statistical significance.

The paper sheds light on the overall landscape of the recent development of SEs in China, providing a descriptive and normative foundation for cross‐country comparative studies and quantitative, explanatory analysis.

To evaluate the potential of social return on investment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) in enabling social enterprises to address the credibility gap associated with their ability to build capacity and to adopt a more commercial/entrepreneurial approach to their activities.

The differences that exist between social and financial returns in social enterprises are discussed. Reports the results of interviews conducted with key informants from the social investment industry in Scotland and England to explore their personal understanding or experience of SROI, the tools they use at present to assess social enterprise sustainability and capacity for growth and potential for investment, their likes and dislikes of SROI, and how they see SROI moving forward in a Scottish and/or UK context.

The results indicated that, should social enterprises find a way to overcome the resource implications of implementing SROI, this would enable them to become the preferred investment vehicle for new sources of social finance.

Presents the findings from an MBA dissertation entitled “Is Measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI) a tool that can be used to raise the profile of social enterprises and help attract investment?” (Flockhart 2004) and includes preliminary findings from a pilot programme conducted by CEiS Ltd on the introduction of an Investment Ready Tool (IRT) for social enterprise.

The paper aims to answer how important institutional actors, such as academic researchers, consulting firms, and foundations, are tracing the boundaries of social entrepreneurship (SE) and how they justify SE as a legitimate form of social purpose organization.

The paper employs a discourse analysis methodology.

The paper finds traces of the legitimacy issues in the literature on non‐profits and, based on this, argue that a new institutional domain is being constructed. The paper concludes that in this new domain not only is the use of market‐based initiatives seen as a legitimate means of funding a social mission, but also it has now become the normative way and one that is promoted by consultants and foundations concerned with social entrepreneurs and their initiatives.

This paper highlights the developing norms of SE.

The growing prevalence of social entrepreneurship has been coupled with an increasing number of so-called “impact investors”. However, much remains to be learned about this nascent class of investors. To address the dearth of scholarly attention to impact investing, this study seeks to answer four questions that are central to understanding the phenomenon. What are the defining characteristics of impact investing? Do impact investors differ from traditional classes of investors and, if so, how? What are the motivations that drive impact investment? And, what criteria do impact investors use when evaluating potential investments?

A partially inductive study based on semi-structured interviews with 31 investors and ethnographic observation was conducted to explore how impact investors differ from other classes of investors in their motivations and unique criteria used to evaluate ventures seeking investment.

This study reveals that impact investors represent a unique class of investors that differs from socially responsible investing, from other types of for-profit investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, and from traditional philanthropists. The varied motivations of impact investors and the criteria they use to evaluate investments are identified.

Despite the growing practitioner and media attention to impact investing, several foundational issues remain unaddressed. This study takes the first steps toward shedding light on this new realm of early-stage venture investing and clarifying its role in larger efforts of social responsibility.