Estimadas/os:
Reciban todos ustedes mi más cordial saludo. Después de varios meses de inactividad, Innovación Social regresa para continuar su labor de difusión y promoción. A todos los visitantes, esporádicos y regulares, les deseo un próspero 2009. ¡Salud!
Homo Innovatus
miércoles, 31 de diciembre de 2008
De regreso
miércoles, 14 de mayo de 2008
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente
Presidente García firma decreto que crea Ministerio del Ambiente
18:11 | El jefe de Estado dijo que el flamante portafolio contará con un organismo evaluador y fiscalizador del ambiente. Entre sus objetivos estará el de preservar la riqueza natural y la biodiversidad del Perú
"Tiene que ser la espuela, el látigo detrás de todos los ministerios". Así resumió el presidente Alan García la función del flamante Ministerio del Ambiente cuya creación firmó hoy en el Salón Dorado de Palacio de Gobierno.
Acompañado del primer ministro Jorge del Castillo, del canciller José García Belaunde, del ministro de Agricultura Ismael Benavides y del titular del Congreso Luis Gonzales Posada, el jefe de Estado indicó que el objetivo del nuevo ministerio será "preservar el medio ambiente e impedir que la riqueza natural se degrade por la incompetencia de quienes actúan sobre la tierra o sobre quienes trabajan económicamente en ella".
García Pérez dijo que el flamante portafolio debe "contar con un organismo evaluador y fiscalizador del ambiente. Vale decir, que participe de todas estas actividades: minera, pesquera, agrícola. En todo esto debe participar este organismo que debe ser tan severo como sea posible para garantizar la riqueza natural".
De otro lado indicó que el nuevo ministerio conserva dentro de sí "al Consejo Nacional del Medio Ambiente (Conam), al Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (Inrena) y algunas funciones importantes de la Dirección de Salud Ambiental (Digesa) del Minsa".
Asimismo García Pérez señaló que era una coincidencia la creación del Ministerio del Ambiente con el inicio de la V Cumbre de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de América Latina y el Caribe-Unión Europea, que tendrá al calentamiento global como uno de sus temas principales. "Ha coincidido felizmente el que promulguemos la ley de creación del Ministerio del Ambiente con los días en los cuales 60 jefes de gobierno concurren al Perú para tratar este tema."
Fuente: El Comercio
18:11 | El jefe de Estado dijo que el flamante portafolio contará con un organismo evaluador y fiscalizador del ambiente. Entre sus objetivos estará el de preservar la riqueza natural y la biodiversidad del Perú
"Tiene que ser la espuela, el látigo detrás de todos los ministerios". Así resumió el presidente Alan García la función del flamante Ministerio del Ambiente cuya creación firmó hoy en el Salón Dorado de Palacio de Gobierno.
Acompañado del primer ministro Jorge del Castillo, del canciller José García Belaunde, del ministro de Agricultura Ismael Benavides y del titular del Congreso Luis Gonzales Posada, el jefe de Estado indicó que el objetivo del nuevo ministerio será "preservar el medio ambiente e impedir que la riqueza natural se degrade por la incompetencia de quienes actúan sobre la tierra o sobre quienes trabajan económicamente en ella".
García Pérez dijo que el flamante portafolio debe "contar con un organismo evaluador y fiscalizador del ambiente. Vale decir, que participe de todas estas actividades: minera, pesquera, agrícola. En todo esto debe participar este organismo que debe ser tan severo como sea posible para garantizar la riqueza natural".
De otro lado indicó que el nuevo ministerio conserva dentro de sí "al Consejo Nacional del Medio Ambiente (Conam), al Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (Inrena) y algunas funciones importantes de la Dirección de Salud Ambiental (Digesa) del Minsa".
Asimismo García Pérez señaló que era una coincidencia la creación del Ministerio del Ambiente con el inicio de la V Cumbre de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de América Latina y el Caribe-Unión Europea, que tendrá al calentamiento global como uno de sus temas principales. "Ha coincidido felizmente el que promulguemos la ley de creación del Ministerio del Ambiente con los días en los cuales 60 jefes de gobierno concurren al Perú para tratar este tema."
Fuente: El Comercio
martes, 13 de mayo de 2008
Impacto económico del cambio climático sobre los países andinos
Lima, 9 mayo 2008.- Las pérdidas por efecto del cambio climático en los cuatro países de la Comunidad Andina podrían alcanzar en el 2025 la cifra de los 30 mil millones de dólares anuales, lo que equivale el 4.5% de su PIB, pudiendo comprometer el potencial de desarrollo de Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú.
Este y otros reveladores datos están contenidos en el estudio “El Cambio Climático no tiene fronteras”* elaborado, a iniciativa de la Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina, por un equipo de investigadores de la Universidad del Pacífico del Perú, con la colaboración de centros académicos y de investigación y autoridades de Bolivia, Colombia y Ecuador y con el apoyo del Ministerio de Ambiente de España y la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID).
Durante la presentación del informe, el coordinador del equipo de investigación, el ex ministro de Agricultura del Perú, Carlos Amat y León, sostuvo que “ el cambio climático ya está ocurriendo” y ello se expresa en la pérdida de glaciares, en la mayor frecuencia de inundaciones, intensificación y mayor frecuencia del fenómeno de El Niño.
“En el quinquenio 2002-2006 las inundaciones, sequías, deslizamientos, heladas, huaycos, aludes, aluviones se han duplicado con respecto al quinquenio 1987-1991, y prácticamente no existe una sola provincia de los países de la CAN que no haya sido al menos afectada una vez por un desastre hidrometeorológico desde 1970”, precisó.
Indicó que el cambio climático viene evidenciándose en la subregión andina por más de tres décadas. “Mientras que desde 1990, a nivel mundial, se registraron cambios en la temperatura global de 0,2ºC por década, ya desde 1974 a 1998 este incremento en la región de los Andes Centrales fue de 0,34ºC; es decir, 70% más que el promedio global”.
Amat y León alertó que si la temperatura aumenta más de 2°C, los países andinos enfrentarán serios problemas. “La Amazonía podría empezar a colapsar y los glaciares acelerarían su retroceso afectando la oferta hídrica”, manifestó
Aseguró que aún sin que ello ocurra, “al 2020, alrededor de 40 millones de personas podrían estar en riesgo de perder la oferta de agua para consumo humano, hidroenergía y agricultura, debido a la desglaciación de los Andes, siendo las ciudades más afectadas Quito, Lima y La Paz.
Advirtió que un dato que debe tomarse en cuenta es que la población que va a ser testigo de los efectos del cambio climático ya está viva y tiene menos de 33 años; constituye el 64 por ciento de la población actual.
Amat y León subrayó que tiene que haber un interés sustantivo de la comunidad internacional para cooperar con el esfuerzo de los países andinos para enfrentar los efectos del cambio climático y aprender de esta experiencia para abordar este desafío común.
Añadió que es indispensable un plan de acción con medidas sustantivas como la transferencia de tecnología para generar energía limpia; compartir conocimientos y capacidades; aportes financieros en proporción a la magnitud de los problemas; adecuar los procesos productivos a los nuevos parámetros que impone el cambio climático; y fortalecer la capacidad de gobernanza, particularmente de los gobiernos locales, para emprender el diseño e implementación de la infraestructura económica y social.
Por su parte, el Secretario General de la Comunidad Andina, Freddy Ehlers, señaló que, en vista de que el actual modelo de desarrollo es incompatible con la sustentabilidad del planeta, es necesario definir un nuevo modelo de desarrollo que garantice el desarrollo integral del ser humano y su relación armónica con la naturaleza.
Asimismo, enfatizó la necesidad de incrementar las acciones concertadas de mitigación y adaptación a este fenómeno, incluyendo los compromisos de reducción de emisiones, así como de desarrollar nuevos mecanismos e incentivos para conservar los bosques y su biodiversidad, de conformidad con el Plan de Trabajo de Bali sobre cambio climático y los objetivos de la Convención de Diversidad Biológica.
Ehlers manifestó que un reciente estudio, basado en datos del Informe Stern, la Huella Ecológica y el Banco Mundial, establece que los países andinos podrían recibir miles de millones de dólares de los países industrializados por los servicios ambientales que los bosques tropicales amazónicos dan al mundo entero. “Constituyen, por lo tanto, una fuente fundamental de negociación de los países andinos con la comunidad internacional”, puntualizó.
El estudio completo puede ser visto en este enlace (archivo pdf.)
Fuente: Comunidad Andina
Este y otros reveladores datos están contenidos en el estudio “El Cambio Climático no tiene fronteras”* elaborado, a iniciativa de la Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina, por un equipo de investigadores de la Universidad del Pacífico del Perú, con la colaboración de centros académicos y de investigación y autoridades de Bolivia, Colombia y Ecuador y con el apoyo del Ministerio de Ambiente de España y la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID).
Durante la presentación del informe, el coordinador del equipo de investigación, el ex ministro de Agricultura del Perú, Carlos Amat y León, sostuvo que “ el cambio climático ya está ocurriendo” y ello se expresa en la pérdida de glaciares, en la mayor frecuencia de inundaciones, intensificación y mayor frecuencia del fenómeno de El Niño.
“En el quinquenio 2002-2006 las inundaciones, sequías, deslizamientos, heladas, huaycos, aludes, aluviones se han duplicado con respecto al quinquenio 1987-1991, y prácticamente no existe una sola provincia de los países de la CAN que no haya sido al menos afectada una vez por un desastre hidrometeorológico desde 1970”, precisó.
Indicó que el cambio climático viene evidenciándose en la subregión andina por más de tres décadas. “Mientras que desde 1990, a nivel mundial, se registraron cambios en la temperatura global de 0,2ºC por década, ya desde 1974 a 1998 este incremento en la región de los Andes Centrales fue de 0,34ºC; es decir, 70% más que el promedio global”.
Amat y León alertó que si la temperatura aumenta más de 2°C, los países andinos enfrentarán serios problemas. “La Amazonía podría empezar a colapsar y los glaciares acelerarían su retroceso afectando la oferta hídrica”, manifestó
Aseguró que aún sin que ello ocurra, “al 2020, alrededor de 40 millones de personas podrían estar en riesgo de perder la oferta de agua para consumo humano, hidroenergía y agricultura, debido a la desglaciación de los Andes, siendo las ciudades más afectadas Quito, Lima y La Paz.
Advirtió que un dato que debe tomarse en cuenta es que la población que va a ser testigo de los efectos del cambio climático ya está viva y tiene menos de 33 años; constituye el 64 por ciento de la población actual.
Amat y León subrayó que tiene que haber un interés sustantivo de la comunidad internacional para cooperar con el esfuerzo de los países andinos para enfrentar los efectos del cambio climático y aprender de esta experiencia para abordar este desafío común.
Añadió que es indispensable un plan de acción con medidas sustantivas como la transferencia de tecnología para generar energía limpia; compartir conocimientos y capacidades; aportes financieros en proporción a la magnitud de los problemas; adecuar los procesos productivos a los nuevos parámetros que impone el cambio climático; y fortalecer la capacidad de gobernanza, particularmente de los gobiernos locales, para emprender el diseño e implementación de la infraestructura económica y social.
Por su parte, el Secretario General de la Comunidad Andina, Freddy Ehlers, señaló que, en vista de que el actual modelo de desarrollo es incompatible con la sustentabilidad del planeta, es necesario definir un nuevo modelo de desarrollo que garantice el desarrollo integral del ser humano y su relación armónica con la naturaleza.
Asimismo, enfatizó la necesidad de incrementar las acciones concertadas de mitigación y adaptación a este fenómeno, incluyendo los compromisos de reducción de emisiones, así como de desarrollar nuevos mecanismos e incentivos para conservar los bosques y su biodiversidad, de conformidad con el Plan de Trabajo de Bali sobre cambio climático y los objetivos de la Convención de Diversidad Biológica.
Ehlers manifestó que un reciente estudio, basado en datos del Informe Stern, la Huella Ecológica y el Banco Mundial, establece que los países andinos podrían recibir miles de millones de dólares de los países industrializados por los servicios ambientales que los bosques tropicales amazónicos dan al mundo entero. “Constituyen, por lo tanto, una fuente fundamental de negociación de los países andinos con la comunidad internacional”, puntualizó.
El estudio completo puede ser visto en este enlace (archivo pdf.)
Fuente: Comunidad Andina
miércoles, 30 de abril de 2008
Social entrepreneurs: Agents of change
Jan 31st 2008
From The Economist print edition
GO to any recent meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), including the one in Davos, Switzerland, last week, and you cannot fail to be struck by the yearning in the corporate world to be a good environmental citizen—provided that it does not cost the earth. Gloomy lectures on climate change are packed, and copies of heartening books on how to turn greenery into gold are in much demand.
Quite what readers will learn, though, from this work by an environmental consultant and a WEF stalwart, is harder to fathom—even if a copy was handed out free to every delegate at Davos last week. The book sketches briefly the activities of many people who have found ways to improve the lives of others. Many have created laudable projects. Some have made money, and a few have become substantial employers, or founded large businesses. But the problems of social entrepreneurship soon emerge.
An obvious one is the difficulty of raising money. If you are setting out to save the world rather than to make a profit, it is perhaps not surprising that financial institutions are less likely to give you money than your friends and family, or trusts and foundations. It is all very well for the authors to point out that “all enterprises—including the most profit-hungry mainstream ventures—start out as nonprofits.” If the business plan does not set profitability as a goal, then investors are likely to see it as philanthropy, not investment.
More worrying, though, is the fact that both for-profit and non-profit social enterprises seem so rarely to grow large or to be replicated on a big scale. One survey found that only 144 of the 200,000 non-profit enterprises founded in America since 1970 had reached more than $50m in annual revenue; another, that 75% of a sample of American for-profit social and environmental enterprises had fewer than 25 fulltime employees.
The solution for which the authors clearly yearn is a different world. “Like it or not [and they clearly like it], the world is in the early stages of powerful, deep-running and pervasive changes that will transform its economics, its cultures and people's understanding of who they are and what they stand for.” Well, maybe. But those changes may not necessarily make life easier for the “unreasonable man” who (quoting George Bernard Shaw) “persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”.
And some of these unreasonable people may succeed in changing the world in ways that nobody at last week's Davos meeting would have advocated. “Increasingly,” say the authors, “small groups of people use multiple kinds of leverage to drive change on a disproportionate scale.” Tucked away in a footnote to that sentence is the name Osama bin Laden, a social entrepreneur who has used his leverage all too effectively.
The greatest agents for sustainable change are unlikely to be the well-intentioned folk described in this book, interesting though they are. They are much more likely to be the entirely reasonable people, often working for large companies, who see ways to create better products or reach new markets, and have the resources to do so. Ratan Tata, with his one-lakh car, may improve more lives than any social entrepreneur has done. And he might even make money from doing so.
Fuente: The Economist
From The Economist print edition
GO to any recent meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), including the one in Davos, Switzerland, last week, and you cannot fail to be struck by the yearning in the corporate world to be a good environmental citizen—provided that it does not cost the earth. Gloomy lectures on climate change are packed, and copies of heartening books on how to turn greenery into gold are in much demand.
Quite what readers will learn, though, from this work by an environmental consultant and a WEF stalwart, is harder to fathom—even if a copy was handed out free to every delegate at Davos last week. The book sketches briefly the activities of many people who have found ways to improve the lives of others. Many have created laudable projects. Some have made money, and a few have become substantial employers, or founded large businesses. But the problems of social entrepreneurship soon emerge.
An obvious one is the difficulty of raising money. If you are setting out to save the world rather than to make a profit, it is perhaps not surprising that financial institutions are less likely to give you money than your friends and family, or trusts and foundations. It is all very well for the authors to point out that “all enterprises—including the most profit-hungry mainstream ventures—start out as nonprofits.” If the business plan does not set profitability as a goal, then investors are likely to see it as philanthropy, not investment.
More worrying, though, is the fact that both for-profit and non-profit social enterprises seem so rarely to grow large or to be replicated on a big scale. One survey found that only 144 of the 200,000 non-profit enterprises founded in America since 1970 had reached more than $50m in annual revenue; another, that 75% of a sample of American for-profit social and environmental enterprises had fewer than 25 fulltime employees.
The solution for which the authors clearly yearn is a different world. “Like it or not [and they clearly like it], the world is in the early stages of powerful, deep-running and pervasive changes that will transform its economics, its cultures and people's understanding of who they are and what they stand for.” Well, maybe. But those changes may not necessarily make life easier for the “unreasonable man” who (quoting George Bernard Shaw) “persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”.
And some of these unreasonable people may succeed in changing the world in ways that nobody at last week's Davos meeting would have advocated. “Increasingly,” say the authors, “small groups of people use multiple kinds of leverage to drive change on a disproportionate scale.” Tucked away in a footnote to that sentence is the name Osama bin Laden, a social entrepreneur who has used his leverage all too effectively.
The greatest agents for sustainable change are unlikely to be the well-intentioned folk described in this book, interesting though they are. They are much more likely to be the entirely reasonable people, often working for large companies, who see ways to create better products or reach new markets, and have the resources to do so. Ratan Tata, with his one-lakh car, may improve more lives than any social entrepreneur has done. And he might even make money from doing so.
Fuente: The Economist
sábado, 19 de abril de 2008
Innovación: predicciones para el 2008
Innovation Predictions 2008
Get ready for … anything. As companies, governments—indeed, entire countries—confront an array of dilemmas, the only constant will be change
by Bruce Nussbaum
Building the next-generation enterprise—and maybe even the next-generation nation—will preoccupy most of us in 2008. The demand for innovation is soaring in the business community and is just beginning to gain traction in the political sphere. Most of the leading Presidential candidates have thoughtful positions on innovation (BusinessWeek.com, 11/15/07). And nearly all CEOs and top managers who have learned the language of innovation are now seeking the means to make it happen. It took the Quality Movement a generation to change business culture. The Innovation Movement is still in its infancy, but it's growing fast.
You can see that in the vast changes taking place within the field. Companies are demanding new tools and methods to execute that change within their existing organizations, as well as for the kind of design thinking that transforms cultures. To take advantage of the opportunities, chief innovation officers in big corporations such as Procter & Gamble (PG) and Harley Davidson (HOG) are leaving to join consultancies or set up shop for themselves. Consolidation is quickening apace as small innovation consultancies try to combine big-picture thought leadership with specific, on-demand Web applications that manage networks, talent, customers, suppliers, and employees around the world. In 2007, consultancy Monitor bought into innovation strategy specialists Doblin, led by Larry Keeley, while another large consultancy, BSG Alliance acquired research firm New Paradigm, led by Wikinomics co-author Don Tapscott.
What's up for 2008? Keep an eye on the business schools. Companies are demanding that their managers be more creative and less obsessed with cost and efficiency. The last revolution within executive education was the introduction of Management Science in the 1950s. Will we see the spread of IM—Innovation Management—in "exec ed"?
Privacy, Mobility, and the Next Big Idea
And expect the whole realm of social networking to change in 2008. Just when you "got it" and thought it was all about open, personal, and casual online relationships, social media will morph into another ecosystem—one with lots of gates. Who your friends are is becoming far more important than how many friends you have. We can probably thank our advertising friends for this. The drive to monetize Facebook and MySpace (NWS) by using members' personal information is alienating many people, driving them to more private networks. Stay tuned, and watch Europe and Brazil for future trends. Social networks are beginning to feel a lot like hot nightclubs—with velvet rope barriers.
As for hot products in 2008, prepare for yet more surprises. The triumph of opening up the cell phone will create an array of new applications we can only dream of right now. GPS may seem old hat by next summer. The mobile Facebook is bound to be fascinating. And the e-book may be just an iteration away from taking off. Want to reduce your personal carbon footprint easily? Read books, magazines, and newspapers on an e-book.
And the Big Idea for 2008? Stop competing against your competitors. Your traditional rivals aren't your biggest worry. Disruptive innovation is hitting corporations from outside their business. Verizon (VZ) was forced to open its cell-phone service because Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) smacked it hard. Verizon's new business model will probably generate 10 times the demand for service. You just never know. That's life, in beta.
Fuente: Businessweek
Get ready for … anything. As companies, governments—indeed, entire countries—confront an array of dilemmas, the only constant will be change
by Bruce Nussbaum
Building the next-generation enterprise—and maybe even the next-generation nation—will preoccupy most of us in 2008. The demand for innovation is soaring in the business community and is just beginning to gain traction in the political sphere. Most of the leading Presidential candidates have thoughtful positions on innovation (BusinessWeek.com, 11/15/07). And nearly all CEOs and top managers who have learned the language of innovation are now seeking the means to make it happen. It took the Quality Movement a generation to change business culture. The Innovation Movement is still in its infancy, but it's growing fast.
You can see that in the vast changes taking place within the field. Companies are demanding new tools and methods to execute that change within their existing organizations, as well as for the kind of design thinking that transforms cultures. To take advantage of the opportunities, chief innovation officers in big corporations such as Procter & Gamble (PG) and Harley Davidson (HOG) are leaving to join consultancies or set up shop for themselves. Consolidation is quickening apace as small innovation consultancies try to combine big-picture thought leadership with specific, on-demand Web applications that manage networks, talent, customers, suppliers, and employees around the world. In 2007, consultancy Monitor bought into innovation strategy specialists Doblin, led by Larry Keeley, while another large consultancy, BSG Alliance acquired research firm New Paradigm, led by Wikinomics co-author Don Tapscott.
What's up for 2008? Keep an eye on the business schools. Companies are demanding that their managers be more creative and less obsessed with cost and efficiency. The last revolution within executive education was the introduction of Management Science in the 1950s. Will we see the spread of IM—Innovation Management—in "exec ed"?
Privacy, Mobility, and the Next Big Idea
And expect the whole realm of social networking to change in 2008. Just when you "got it" and thought it was all about open, personal, and casual online relationships, social media will morph into another ecosystem—one with lots of gates. Who your friends are is becoming far more important than how many friends you have. We can probably thank our advertising friends for this. The drive to monetize Facebook and MySpace (NWS) by using members' personal information is alienating many people, driving them to more private networks. Stay tuned, and watch Europe and Brazil for future trends. Social networks are beginning to feel a lot like hot nightclubs—with velvet rope barriers.
As for hot products in 2008, prepare for yet more surprises. The triumph of opening up the cell phone will create an array of new applications we can only dream of right now. GPS may seem old hat by next summer. The mobile Facebook is bound to be fascinating. And the e-book may be just an iteration away from taking off. Want to reduce your personal carbon footprint easily? Read books, magazines, and newspapers on an e-book.
And the Big Idea for 2008? Stop competing against your competitors. Your traditional rivals aren't your biggest worry. Disruptive innovation is hitting corporations from outside their business. Verizon (VZ) was forced to open its cell-phone service because Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) smacked it hard. Verizon's new business model will probably generate 10 times the demand for service. You just never know. That's life, in beta.
Fuente: Businessweek
VIDEO: Tiruchirappalli Regional Engineering College
http://www.trecstep.com/
Puedes ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí.
miércoles, 12 de marzo de 2008
VIDEO: Se nos va el Ausangate
Ubicado en los Andes cusqueños, el nevado Ausangate (6,372m) no solo se caracteriza por su impactante belleza sino también por ser fuente de vida para miles de familias campesinas. Sin embargo, los nocivos efectos del calentamiento global son irrefutables; durante los últimos 15 años los glaciares se han derretido a un ritmo de 30cm por día, reduciendo los cursos de agua y afectando la crianza de animales, la siembra y cosecha de cultivos y el estilo de vida de las poblaciones afectadas. Expertos del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA) estiman que si los niveles de emisiones y contaminación actuales no son revertidos, todos los glaciares del planeta habrán desaparecido en 20-25 años. El Apocalipsis parece inevitable...
Puedes ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
Puedes ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
viernes, 29 de febrero de 2008
APEC y Responsabilidad Social
El Perú planteará acciones de responsabilidad social empresarial en APEC
13:30 | Se espera que la Declaración Final de la Cumbre incluya la necesidad de implementar medidas para que las empresas contribuyan al desarrollo
(EFE).- Perú planteará a los miembros del Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia Pacífico (APEC) tomar acciones para que las empresas asuman compromisos voluntarios de responsabilidad social y mejora del medio ambiente, anunciaron hoy fuentes oficiales.
El responsable de APEC del ministerio de Comercio Exterior peruano, Julio Chan, explicó que la idea es fomentar un marco de acción para promover la responsabilidad social de las empresas de acuerdo a las políticas nacionales de cada una de las 21 economías miembros del APEC.
"Se trata de hacer una invocación a las empresas a que asuman este compromiso con la comunidad y una serie de principios basados en estándares internacionales", declaró Chan a la agencia oficial Andina.
Según explicó Chan, Perú promoverá este tema dentro del Comité de Responsabilidad Corporativa del APEC, ya que como país minero tiene gran experiencia en ello.
Indicó que espera que la Declaración Final de la Cumbre de Líderes de APEC, el próximo mes de noviembre, incluya la necesidad de implementar medidas voluntarias para que las empresas contribuyan, particularmente en los países en desarrollo, a mejorar su accionar social y su contribución a un medio ambiente más limpio.
"Lo ideal sería que durante todo este año conversemos el tema con todos los funcionarios de las otras economías, de modo tal que a fin de año, en la Declaración de Líderes, tengamos algunas referencias sobre la importancia de la responsabilidad social", expresó.
En este sentido, el funcionario explicó que en el marco del I Reunión de Altos Funcionarios del APEC (SOM-I, por sus siglas en inglés), que estos días se desarrolla en Lima, se dictará un seminario sobre responsabilidad social para que los delegados intercambien sus primeras opiniones.
Chan recalcó que las empresas de la región Asia-Pacífico han avanzado "sustantivamente" en la responsabilidad social corporativa, particularmente en los países desarrollados, por lo que se debe invocar a los líderes los generalicen en toda la región.
Para Chan, la responsabilidad social corporativa es una exigencia conjunta de los países receptores de inversión, particularmente aquellos que se concentran en labores extractivas y de aprovechamiento de recursos.
13:30 | Se espera que la Declaración Final de la Cumbre incluya la necesidad de implementar medidas para que las empresas contribuyan al desarrollo
(EFE).- Perú planteará a los miembros del Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia Pacífico (APEC) tomar acciones para que las empresas asuman compromisos voluntarios de responsabilidad social y mejora del medio ambiente, anunciaron hoy fuentes oficiales.
El responsable de APEC del ministerio de Comercio Exterior peruano, Julio Chan, explicó que la idea es fomentar un marco de acción para promover la responsabilidad social de las empresas de acuerdo a las políticas nacionales de cada una de las 21 economías miembros del APEC.
"Se trata de hacer una invocación a las empresas a que asuman este compromiso con la comunidad y una serie de principios basados en estándares internacionales", declaró Chan a la agencia oficial Andina.
Según explicó Chan, Perú promoverá este tema dentro del Comité de Responsabilidad Corporativa del APEC, ya que como país minero tiene gran experiencia en ello.
Indicó que espera que la Declaración Final de la Cumbre de Líderes de APEC, el próximo mes de noviembre, incluya la necesidad de implementar medidas voluntarias para que las empresas contribuyan, particularmente en los países en desarrollo, a mejorar su accionar social y su contribución a un medio ambiente más limpio.
"Lo ideal sería que durante todo este año conversemos el tema con todos los funcionarios de las otras economías, de modo tal que a fin de año, en la Declaración de Líderes, tengamos algunas referencias sobre la importancia de la responsabilidad social", expresó.
En este sentido, el funcionario explicó que en el marco del I Reunión de Altos Funcionarios del APEC (SOM-I, por sus siglas en inglés), que estos días se desarrolla en Lima, se dictará un seminario sobre responsabilidad social para que los delegados intercambien sus primeras opiniones.
Chan recalcó que las empresas de la región Asia-Pacífico han avanzado "sustantivamente" en la responsabilidad social corporativa, particularmente en los países desarrollados, por lo que se debe invocar a los líderes los generalicen en toda la región.
Para Chan, la responsabilidad social corporativa es una exigencia conjunta de los países receptores de inversión, particularmente aquellos que se concentran en labores extractivas y de aprovechamiento de recursos.
lunes, 25 de febrero de 2008
VIDEO: IBM e Influenza Aviar: innovando sistemas de prevención para preservar la salud pública internacional
Desde el año 2003, la influenza aviar del subtipo H5N1 se ha extendido a áreas densamente pobladas del Sudeste Asiático, Asia Central, Oriente Medio, África y Europa, generando la muerte de seres humanos y produciendo enormes pérdidas económicas en un número creciente de países. Según estimaciones de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimantación (FAO), más de 220 millones de aves de corral han muerto o han sido eliminadas en los países afectados. Adicionalmente, hasta febrero de 2008, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha confirmado la muerte de 232 personas debido a la Influenza Aviar Altamente Patógena (IAAP). Dada la posibilidad real de que el virus se convierta en endémico en las áreas infectadas, el riesgo de infección humana se ha incrementado y el virus podría derivar en una pandemia humana de alcance global.
A pesar de no haberse reportado oficialmente brotes del virus subtipo H5N1 en el Perú, su población humana y aviar se encuentra bajo constante riesgo ante el probable ingreso de la enfermedad. Los diferentes niveles de bioseguridad y desarrollo de infraestructura para la salud pública humana y sanidad animal entre las 25 regiones de nuestro territorio así como las rutas migratorias de las aves silvestres, plantean grandes desafíos para la planificación, implementación y seguimiento de actividades de prevención y control de IAAP; mientras que algunas regiones en las costas central y sur concentran más del 70% de la producción y población aviar orientada al comercio, en la sierra y selva predomina la cría de aves de corral a pequeña escala. Asimismo, el comercio informal de aves domésticas dentro del país y con otros países de la región, principalmente Bolivia, Colombia, Chile y Ecuador, puede contribuir igualmente a la dispersión o extensión de la IAAP.
El gobierno peruano ha intervenido activamente en la prevención y control de la IAAP desde inicios de 2005. Adicionalmente, desde agosto de 2006 hasta octubre de 2007, la FAO implementó el proyecto “Asistencia de emergencia para la detección temprana de la influenza aviar en la Región Andina” – TCP/RLA/3105, para proporcionar asistencia técnica a los gobiernos de Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela. Este proyecto contribuyó a reforzar la capacidad de los paises beneficiarios para generar y compartir información sobre la IAAP, mejorar su capacidad para diagnosticar la enfermedad y consolidar su plan nacional de alerta precoz y reacción temprana ante una eventual introducción de la IAAP.
Sin embargo, a pesar de los avances concretos alcanzados a la fecha y de la condición de país libre de enfermedad, la IAAP aún presenta una riesgo latente para la salud pública humana y veterinaria en el Perú y otros países de América Latina así como potenciales consecuencias de carácter económico (sacrificios de aves domésticas infectadas, merma por disminución de exportaciones, cierre de mercados internos, perjuicio directo para la industria del turismo entre otros); ante estos hechos, nuestro país no se encuentra totalmente preparado para responder efectiva y eficientemente ante una emergencia epidemiológica generada por el ingreso de la enfermedad debido, principalmente, a las siguientes razones:
Otro aspecto importante corresponde al insuficiente control del comercio de aves domésticas y silvestres en puertos y puestos fronterizos terrestres, especialmente en las fronteras compartidas con Bolivia, Colombia y Ecuador lo cual puede derivar en el ingreso y rápida diseminación de la IAAP. Adicionalmente, la debilidad estructural de los mecanismos de compensación financiera y/o in kind existentes frente a las potenciales pérdidas económicas puede desincentivar dramáticamente la notificación (obligatoria) de la enfermedad por parte de los productores - pequeños, medianos y/o grandes - ante el SENASA.
Finalmente, la carencia de información estadística clara y concisa sobre la población de aves, su distribución geográfica, la distribución y proporción de las clases de productores y producción, los flujos/rutas comerciales avícolas y las poblaciones de especies de aves migratorias limitan al país para responder con políticas sanitarias adecuadas frente a una emergencia de IAAP.
Puedes ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí.
Nota: Edición de un reporte preparado por el autor de este blog en septiembre de 2007, durante su participación como Consultor de Enlace Técnico del proyecto FAO TCP/RLA/3105 para la prevención y control de la influenza aviar en la Región Andina.
A pesar de no haberse reportado oficialmente brotes del virus subtipo H5N1 en el Perú, su población humana y aviar se encuentra bajo constante riesgo ante el probable ingreso de la enfermedad. Los diferentes niveles de bioseguridad y desarrollo de infraestructura para la salud pública humana y sanidad animal entre las 25 regiones de nuestro territorio así como las rutas migratorias de las aves silvestres, plantean grandes desafíos para la planificación, implementación y seguimiento de actividades de prevención y control de IAAP; mientras que algunas regiones en las costas central y sur concentran más del 70% de la producción y población aviar orientada al comercio, en la sierra y selva predomina la cría de aves de corral a pequeña escala. Asimismo, el comercio informal de aves domésticas dentro del país y con otros países de la región, principalmente Bolivia, Colombia, Chile y Ecuador, puede contribuir igualmente a la dispersión o extensión de la IAAP.
El gobierno peruano ha intervenido activamente en la prevención y control de la IAAP desde inicios de 2005. Adicionalmente, desde agosto de 2006 hasta octubre de 2007, la FAO implementó el proyecto “Asistencia de emergencia para la detección temprana de la influenza aviar en la Región Andina” – TCP/RLA/3105, para proporcionar asistencia técnica a los gobiernos de Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela. Este proyecto contribuyó a reforzar la capacidad de los paises beneficiarios para generar y compartir información sobre la IAAP, mejorar su capacidad para diagnosticar la enfermedad y consolidar su plan nacional de alerta precoz y reacción temprana ante una eventual introducción de la IAAP.
Sin embargo, a pesar de los avances concretos alcanzados a la fecha y de la condición de país libre de enfermedad, la IAAP aún presenta una riesgo latente para la salud pública humana y veterinaria en el Perú y otros países de América Latina así como potenciales consecuencias de carácter económico (sacrificios de aves domésticas infectadas, merma por disminución de exportaciones, cierre de mercados internos, perjuicio directo para la industria del turismo entre otros); ante estos hechos, nuestro país no se encuentra totalmente preparado para responder efectiva y eficientemente ante una emergencia epidemiológica generada por el ingreso de la enfermedad debido, principalmente, a las siguientes razones:
- El insuficiente nivel de capacitación técnica del personal y el inadecuado equipamiento e infraestructura de sus laboratorios nacionales.
- La débil articulación del Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (SENASA) y los Ministerios de Agricultura y Salud con las instituciones públicas de defensa nacional tales como el Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil (INDECI), las FFAA y la Policia Nacional del Perú.
- La precariedad estructural y la ausencia de mecanismos de compensación ante eventuales pérdidad dirigidos a los pequeños y medianos productores/distribuidores.
- El insuficiente monitoreo y control del comercio de aves domésticas y silvestres en fronteras terrestres y marítimas y;
- La ausencia de información estadística del sector aviar actualizada y confiable que permita informar sobre las medidas de prevención/control a ser planificadas, implementadas y/o monitoreadas.
Otro aspecto importante corresponde al insuficiente control del comercio de aves domésticas y silvestres en puertos y puestos fronterizos terrestres, especialmente en las fronteras compartidas con Bolivia, Colombia y Ecuador lo cual puede derivar en el ingreso y rápida diseminación de la IAAP. Adicionalmente, la debilidad estructural de los mecanismos de compensación financiera y/o in kind existentes frente a las potenciales pérdidas económicas puede desincentivar dramáticamente la notificación (obligatoria) de la enfermedad por parte de los productores - pequeños, medianos y/o grandes - ante el SENASA.
Finalmente, la carencia de información estadística clara y concisa sobre la población de aves, su distribución geográfica, la distribución y proporción de las clases de productores y producción, los flujos/rutas comerciales avícolas y las poblaciones de especies de aves migratorias limitan al país para responder con políticas sanitarias adecuadas frente a una emergencia de IAAP.
Puedes ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí.
Nota: Edición de un reporte preparado por el autor de este blog en septiembre de 2007, durante su participación como Consultor de Enlace Técnico del proyecto FAO TCP/RLA/3105 para la prevención y control de la influenza aviar en la Región Andina.
What am I doing wrong?
Saludos cordiales para todos los lectores de Innovación Social. En primer lugar, les pido disculpas por no haber mantenido activo este blog durante los últimos seis días. Razones personales me impidieron concentrarme en la producción y/o publicación de material interesante. Sin embargo, gracias a Dios, esta situación ya ha sido superada. En segundo lugar, para calentar motores y empezar la semana de manera diferente, les presento un curioso aviso publicado a fines del año pasado en una red de citas por Internet en NY, EEUU. No es una historia nueva, de hecho podrán encontrar varias referencias sobre esta historia en la red pero creo que sale de lo común. Bueno, los comentarios adicionales sobran, léanlo y saquen sus propias conclusiones!-------------------
What am I doing wrong?
Reply to: pers-43917954@craiglist.org
Date: 2007-10-03, 4:29PM EDT
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200-250K. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to Central Park West.
I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level? Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms?
- What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings.
- Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY!
It's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests.
Y aqui va la brutal respuesta...
PostingID: 432279810
Dear Pers-431649184
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it. Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here's why.
Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful! So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset.
Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you! So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation. With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.
Notable.
Fuente
martes, 19 de febrero de 2008
VIDEO: Innovation Nation
"Si innovar es la respuesta, ¿cual es el propósito?" John Kao, gurú en temas de innovación y estrategia organizacional, plantea esta compleja interrogante para posteriormente abogar por el establecimiento de una jerarquía de necesidades que oriente las acciones y objetivos pro-innovación. El expositor cita las positivas experiencias innovadoras en países como Finlandia y Singapur, resalta los aún imperfectos esfuerzos de China y critica abiertamente el pobre desempeño actual de los EEUU en la materia. Finalmente, Kao sostiene que los niveles altamente variables de prosperidad entre países deberían servir como estímulo para la creación de una cultura global de bienestar. Presentación que resume el capítulo introductorio de su best seller "Innovation Nation" .
Puede ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
Puede ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
sábado, 16 de febrero de 2008
VIDEO: Katrinebjierg IT City
Katrinebjierg, ubicada en la dinámica e innovadora región de Aarhus, Dinamarca, se ha establecido como uno de los centros de investigación y desarrollo de Tecnologías de Información más importantes del mundo. Esta pequeña ciudad se comporta como una red abierta conformada por el gobierno local, pequeñas y grandes compañias, investigadores de la Universidad de Aarhus y ciudadanos (usuarios), los cuales, mediante el intercambio de ideas y la colaboración multidisciplinaria, contribuyen a mejorar la calidad de vida de los daneses.
Puede ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
VIDEO: SIP Ltd. Singapore
Penny Low, miembro del Parlamento de Singapur, nos habla sobre los alcances y objetivos del Parque de Innovación Social de Singapur. A pesar del impertinente e irritante comportamiento del entrevistador, Low explica el concepto de las tres "e" con ejemplar paciencia y sencillez.
Puede ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
Puede ver el video (en inglés) haciendo click aquí
miércoles, 13 de febrero de 2008
USMP 2 - River Plate 0
Les pido disculpas por la publicación de un artículo muy poco relacionado con la temática de este blog. Sin embargo, considerando los dichos y hechos antes del partido, creo que corresponde resaltar el resultado final entre la Universidad San Martín y River Plate por la primera fecha de la Copa Libertadores de América. Con mucha sorna y un resto de soberbia, el diario deportivo "Olé" de Argentina publicó en su portada de ayer el sugerente título "Los libros no muerden" para agregar que "Universidad San Martín, rival de River en la Copa, tiene un promedio de 50 hinchas por partido. Para sumar aliento, habrá facilidades en los exámenes para los alumnos que vayan mañana (hoy) al estadio." Ciertamente los libros no mordieron pero Ovelar y Díaz, jugadores del equipo santo, si lo hicieron... y de que manera! El equipo peruano le dió un baile al equipo millonario y - más importante aún - una lección de humildad. Como todo en la vida, los resultados se logran con trabajo; el pedigree ya no es suficiente para reclamar una posición de dominio y liderazgo. Nuestros amigos argentinos, a pesar de su incuestionable calidad, volverán a casa con dos pepas incrustadas en sus hipertrofiados pechos. Mientras tanto, 51 peruanos tenemos varios motivos para sonreir esta tarde. Podríamos ser 52 si cierto personaje del esmirriado peruposibilismo dejase de lado, por lo menos hoy, su virulenta e injustificada animadversión hacia la institución de Santa Anita :). Salud!lunes, 11 de febrero de 2008
CitizenConnect: integrando Estado y ciudadanía en Singapur
Singapur es un país cuya cultura innovadora ya no me sorprende. Desde la calidad y el servicio ultra eficiente de Singapore Airlines hasta la implementación del ambicioso plan iGov2010, la innovación práctica no distingue barreras entre lo público y lo privado. Bien haría nuestro gobierno en adoptar iniciativas costo-eficientes y de enorme valor agregado como CitizenConnect, programa creado para incorporar a las comunidades menos favorecidas de ese país en la construcción de su Estado-Nación. Lograr una versión chola no es tarea tan compleja; con un poco de criterio y mucha voluntad política, bajo la dirección de nuestra desconocida pero entusiasta ONGEI, se podrían incorporar elementos de "Transparencia", Plan Huascarán y cabinas públicas (entre otros afines) para diseñar, implementar y difundir este valioso servicio en todo el Perú.
The CitizenConnect Programme offers free use of computer and Internet facilities, as well as friendly assistance at strategic community locations, which allows all Singapore residents to have access to government online services near their workplace and home, irrespective of any barriers posed by a lack of access to Internet, low Internet literacy or low English literacy.
One of the strategic thrust of Singapore’s iGov2010 masterplan is to “Increase the Reach and Richness of e-Services”. The CitizenConnect Programme is part of this strategic thrust to extend the reach of e-services to our citizens, especially those who are less Internet-savvy. With more than 1,600 government e-services online, it is important to bridge the digital divide and bring the benefits of these e-services to those who may not have Internet access or who need help with these services.
Through the CitizenConnect Programme, every citizen, especially those who are less privileged, not infocomm savvy or non-English speaking, can now reap the benefits of government e-services. Rather than having to visit various government customer service counters, citizens can now access government e-services at no cost at a convenient CitizenConnect Centre near them.
With more citizens increasingly carrying out their transactions at the CitizenConnect locations, the programme may also bring about a reduction of service counters at government agencies.
The proposal for the implementation of the CitizenConnect Programme was first submitted on 16 Jun 2005, which recommended the establishment of CitizenConnect Centres in five community clubs as a pilot project, so as to better assess the feasibility for more Centres to be set up.
The first five Centres for the pilot project were progressively set up and opened between October 2005 and January 2006, and were strategically located in neighbourhood Community Clubs owned by the People’s Association. These Centres are equipped with two computer terminals and peripherals for online transactions. Citizens can also seek assistance from the customer service officers at the Centres.
During the pilot period, the government received strong positive feedback on the usefulness of the Centres. This led to 22 other Centres being added, extending the reach of government online services to more customers. These Centres include an additional 20 Community Clubs and Community Centres, one at the Central Provident Fund Board’s Jurong Service Centre and another at the premises to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. All 27 centres were fully operational by November 2006, and the 28th centre was setup in May 2007 at the Bukit Batok Civil Service College. All these centres are located near/within residential areas.
Yearly reviews are conducted on whether the intended objectives are met and whether the current network of Centres is adequate to meet the needs of our citizens. The operations will be continually fine-tuned to ensure that the centres remain relevant to our citizens. More CitizenConnect Centres will also be set up if there is user demand.
The CitizenConnect Programme was conceived and implemented following the objectives outlined by the iGov2010 masterplan, which charts the future of infocomm and government e-services for Singapore. One of the thrusts of iGov2010 is to increase the reach and richness of government e-services, with the long-term goal of bridging the digital divide.
The use of ICT means that citizens can transact with the government anytime and anywhere. The use of ICT has made it possible for us to replicate and extend e-services into the heartlands and homes at minimal costs. This is true for the CitizenConnect Programme because those who need help in accessing government e-services no longer need to travel to the Central Business District. They can have access to government online services near their homes and workplace.
According to the “2007 e-Government Customer Perception Survey”, the percentage of Singapore citizens who transacted with the government using non-electronic means dropped to 11%, which is a significant improvement from the 26% figure in 2004.
The CitizenConnect Programme is a central initiative that aims to bring government e-services to citizens who do not have access to the Internet or need help with government e-services. Trusted agencies which have the knowledge on government e-services would be able to replicate the CitizenConnect Centres.
Among the 28 Centres currently available, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, the Central Provident Fund Board and the Bukit Batok Civil Service College have successfully replicated CitizenConnect Centres in their offices.
There are now 28 CitizenConnect Centres, 25 of which operate beyond regular working hours. These Centres are strategically located and are readily accessible throughout Singapore, near to where citizens live or work. Citizens can seek personalised assistance at any of the Centres.
Each centre is equipped with two personal computers with Internet access and online payment peripherals such as cashcard readers. Citizens can visit the Centres to transact with the government online. Customer service officers are available to offer help and guidance if necessary. At the same time, the officers will help the citizens seek the necessary coordinated responses from multiple agencies pertaining to their online transactions, thereby assisting citizens with the complexity involved in having to interact with different agencies all at once.
Though the CitizenConnect Programme does not involve building of complex IT infrastructure or applications, it has effectively bridged the digital divide and revolutionised the options available to the Singapore government by breaking down the language and education barriers traditionally associated with online services.
Fuente: Stockholm Challenge
miércoles, 6 de febrero de 2008
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
A humble expression of gratitude to the government and the people of Aotearoa in retribution for their kindness and generosity. Time to celebrate the foundation of a modern, progressive and compassionate nation. God Defend New Zealand!
domingo, 3 de febrero de 2008
La universidad peruana en el contexto internacional
Que duda cabe, en términos macroeconómicos el Perú sigue creciendo sostenidamente. Según información proporcionada por el Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas (MEF), el año pasado nuestro PBI superó ligeramente los US$100 billones. Sin embargo estoy convencido que las siguientes cifras harán pensar a más de uno. Veamos:
Fondos de universidades extranjeras (endowment) en US$ millones, 2007
* Universidad de Harvard, EEUU = US$30,000
* Universidad de Yale, EEUU = US$23,000
* Universidad de Stanford, EEUU = US$17,200
* Universidad de Cambridge, Reino Unido = US$9,000
* Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México = US$1,650
Ha leído bien, la eminente Harvard posee un patrimonio financiero equivalente a un tercio de nuestro PBI mientras que el de Yale alcanza a un cuarto de este total. Asímismo, la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, la institución más grande de Latinoamérica en términos de población estudiantil e infraestructura, administra fondos correspondientes al 44.5% del presupuesto nacional asignado al sector educación para el 2008; de los aproximadamente US$3,650 millones disponibles este año (s/.11,291 millones), más del 65% se destinará al pago de planillas en todas las dependencias públicas (Ministerio, Direcciones Regionales, organismos descentralizados, universidades, escuelas primarias y secundarias, etc.) y solamente un 12% será utilizado en inversión. Ojo que esta inversión deberá ser repartida entre todos los niveles y dependencias educativas.
Universidades peruanas en los rankings globales
Los estadounidenses tienen una eterna obsesión por la competencia y las comparaciones. Tomando como modelo los rankings académicos elaborados anualmente por USNews, han surgido múltiples publicaciones para comparar el desempeño (y prestigio) de las universidades a escala global. Los más populares son aquellos elaborados por la universidad china Shanghai Jiao Tong y por la publicación británica The Times. Los indicadores de evaluación utilizados por cada fuente varían lo que explica diferentes resultados en sus respectivas clasificaciones; a pesar de estas limitaciones, los rankings nos proporcionan una idea sobre el posicionamiento relativo de las mejores universidades del mundo. Apelando a mis preferencias personales, utilizaré el ranking de The Times para observar el desempeño de las universidades latinoamericanas y peruanas en el contexto internacional.
The Times: Ranking de las 500 mejores universidades del mundo, 2007
* (1) Harvard - EEUU
* (2) Yale - EEUU, Oxford - Reino Unido, Cambridge -Reino Unido
* (5) Imperial College -Reino Unido
* (6) Princeton - EEUU
* (7) Chicago - EEUU, Caltech - EEUU
* (9) University College London - Reino Unido
* (10) MIT - EEUU
* (...)
* (175) Universidad de Sao Paulo - Brasil
* (177) Universidad de Campinas - Brasil
* (192) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
* (239) Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
* (264) Universidad de Buenos Aires - Argentina
* (312) Universidad de Chile
* (338) Universidad Federal de Rio de Janeiro
* (403) Universidad de Belgrano - Argentina
* (416) Universidad Austral - Argentina
* (433) ITESM - México
* (444) Universidad de los Andes - Colombia
* (453) Universidad Torcuato di Tella - Argentina
* (466) Universidad ORT - Uruguay
* (475) Pontificia Universidad Católica de Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
* (495) Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP)
El dominio global de las universidades estadounidenses y británicas es incuestionable, ocupando consistentemente los 50 primeros lugares del ranking; no es coincidencia que éstas posean también una (sustancialmente) mayor cantidad de recursos disponibles. A nivel regional Brasil, Argentina, México y Chile confirman su posición de liderazgo mientras que solo una universidad peruana, la PUCP, logra un meritorio pero insuficiente lugar #495.
Considerando estos sombríos antecedentes es evidente que el escaso financiamiento es una de las mayores debilidades del sistema universitario peruano, especialmente en las instituciones del sector público. La mayor disponibilidad de recursos permite a las universidades mejorar su infraestructura, adquirir tecnologías de avanzada y contratar a mejores docentes entre otros beneficios. En conjunto con una moderna gestión, la suma de estos beneficios fortalece su institucionalidad al otorgárles capacidades reales para brindar servicios de mejor calidad. De igual manera, si éstos estándares de calidad son mantenidos e incrementados en el tiempo, las instituciones adquirirán mayor prestigio a nivel nacional e internacional.
Ciertamente crece el consumo interno, nuestras exportaciones aumentan y seguimos negociando TLCs alrededor del mundo pero es poco probable que el gobierno aprista cumpla con asignar el 6% del PBI al sector educación el 2012. Lamentable pronóstico para un país que, independientemente de sus agresivas políticas económicas, parece condenado a convivir con la ignorancia y la miseria.
Fondos de universidades extranjeras (endowment) en US$ millones, 2007
* Universidad de Harvard, EEUU = US$30,000
* Universidad de Yale, EEUU = US$23,000
* Universidad de Stanford, EEUU = US$17,200
* Universidad de Cambridge, Reino Unido = US$9,000
* Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México = US$1,650
Ha leído bien, la eminente Harvard posee un patrimonio financiero equivalente a un tercio de nuestro PBI mientras que el de Yale alcanza a un cuarto de este total. Asímismo, la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, la institución más grande de Latinoamérica en términos de población estudiantil e infraestructura, administra fondos correspondientes al 44.5% del presupuesto nacional asignado al sector educación para el 2008; de los aproximadamente US$3,650 millones disponibles este año (s/.11,291 millones), más del 65% se destinará al pago de planillas en todas las dependencias públicas (Ministerio, Direcciones Regionales, organismos descentralizados, universidades, escuelas primarias y secundarias, etc.) y solamente un 12% será utilizado en inversión. Ojo que esta inversión deberá ser repartida entre todos los niveles y dependencias educativas.
Universidades peruanas en los rankings globales
Los estadounidenses tienen una eterna obsesión por la competencia y las comparaciones. Tomando como modelo los rankings académicos elaborados anualmente por USNews, han surgido múltiples publicaciones para comparar el desempeño (y prestigio) de las universidades a escala global. Los más populares son aquellos elaborados por la universidad china Shanghai Jiao Tong y por la publicación británica The Times. Los indicadores de evaluación utilizados por cada fuente varían lo que explica diferentes resultados en sus respectivas clasificaciones; a pesar de estas limitaciones, los rankings nos proporcionan una idea sobre el posicionamiento relativo de las mejores universidades del mundo. Apelando a mis preferencias personales, utilizaré el ranking de The Times para observar el desempeño de las universidades latinoamericanas y peruanas en el contexto internacional.
The Times: Ranking de las 500 mejores universidades del mundo, 2007
* (1) Harvard - EEUU
* (2) Yale - EEUU, Oxford - Reino Unido, Cambridge -Reino Unido
* (5) Imperial College -Reino Unido
* (6) Princeton - EEUU
* (7) Chicago - EEUU, Caltech - EEUU
* (9) University College London - Reino Unido
* (10) MIT - EEUU
* (...)
* (175) Universidad de Sao Paulo - Brasil
* (177) Universidad de Campinas - Brasil
* (192) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
* (239) Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
* (264) Universidad de Buenos Aires - Argentina
* (312) Universidad de Chile
* (338) Universidad Federal de Rio de Janeiro
* (403) Universidad de Belgrano - Argentina
* (416) Universidad Austral - Argentina
* (433) ITESM - México
* (444) Universidad de los Andes - Colombia
* (453) Universidad Torcuato di Tella - Argentina
* (466) Universidad ORT - Uruguay
* (475) Pontificia Universidad Católica de Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
* (495) Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP)
El dominio global de las universidades estadounidenses y británicas es incuestionable, ocupando consistentemente los 50 primeros lugares del ranking; no es coincidencia que éstas posean también una (sustancialmente) mayor cantidad de recursos disponibles. A nivel regional Brasil, Argentina, México y Chile confirman su posición de liderazgo mientras que solo una universidad peruana, la PUCP, logra un meritorio pero insuficiente lugar #495.
Considerando estos sombríos antecedentes es evidente que el escaso financiamiento es una de las mayores debilidades del sistema universitario peruano, especialmente en las instituciones del sector público. La mayor disponibilidad de recursos permite a las universidades mejorar su infraestructura, adquirir tecnologías de avanzada y contratar a mejores docentes entre otros beneficios. En conjunto con una moderna gestión, la suma de estos beneficios fortalece su institucionalidad al otorgárles capacidades reales para brindar servicios de mejor calidad. De igual manera, si éstos estándares de calidad son mantenidos e incrementados en el tiempo, las instituciones adquirirán mayor prestigio a nivel nacional e internacional.
Ciertamente crece el consumo interno, nuestras exportaciones aumentan y seguimos negociando TLCs alrededor del mundo pero es poco probable que el gobierno aprista cumpla con asignar el 6% del PBI al sector educación el 2012. Lamentable pronóstico para un país que, independientemente de sus agresivas políticas económicas, parece condenado a convivir con la ignorancia y la miseria.
miércoles, 30 de enero de 2008
Día de la República de India
वौल्ड लिके तो कांग्रतुलाते अल माय इंडियन फ्रिएंड्स फॉर ठिर रेपुब्लिक डे। इ हद थे चांस तो विसित यौर अमजिंग कोउन्ट्री इन २००६ ऎंड होपेफुल्ली विल विसित अगं इन थे नार फुतुरे। लॉन्ग लाइफ तो इंडिया, थे गंगा रिवर, थे हिमालायास ऎंड अबोवे अल थे ग्रेट इंडियन पीपुल। विथ देअरेस्ट विशेस.
¡Un afectuoso saludo para todos mis amigos indios en el 58vo Día de la República!
domingo, 27 de enero de 2008
Unleashing the Power of Social Enterprise
Interesante discurso de Paul Martin, ex Primer Ministro de Canadá, sobre la naturaleza, rol y potencial transformador de las empresas sociales. Nótese como éstas expresan los principios liberales con coherencia y claridad. Asímismo me parece muy importante resaltar que las empresas sociales no pertenecen al Tercer Sector; a diferencia de las Organizaciones Privadas Sin Fines de Lucro (OPSFL) las primeras incorporan mecanismos de gestión del sector privado para efectos de autosostenimiento financiero pero sin renunciar a su misión social/medioambiental predominante. De dádivas no vive el hombre...
-------------
-------------
For immediate release
November 8, 2007
Speaking Notes for the Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., M.P., Unleashing the Power of Social Enterprise
Toronto, Ontario
Check against delivery
Toronto, Ontario
Check against delivery
It is a great pleasure for me to be here with you this afternoon and a great honour to have been invited by the wonderful and formidable Janice Stein to give a lecture at the Munk Centre.
Before I begin however – one exculpatory caveat! How I came to be a proponent of social enterprise, I will explain in the course of my remarks. But given that these are to be followed by a period of questions and comments, I would like to point out that there are a number of social enterprise advocates who are among us today and who have been trying to break the shackles of conventional thinking for a long time, certainly long before me. Based on their experience and knowledge, they should be doing the speaking and I the listening, and I very much hope we will be hearing from them before the afternoon is over.
Over the last 150 years, there has been a never ending debate between those who espouse the free market on the one hand and socialism on the other. It is clear now that the free market has won out – and it has won out because, at its core it gives full flower to individual ambition and entrepreneurship and because of this, it delivers best.
That being said, let there be no illusion. It is not the free market in pure form that has emerged triumphant. We do not live in a Darwinian economy, and, no one with any sense would recommend we do so.
The fact is all developed countries depend heavily in one way or another on government for the delivery of public goods: universal primary and secondary school education, and public infrastructure, to cite only two examples.
Thus, few would deny today the importance of the state in providing the social inputs that enable the modern economy to grow. What is less well recognized however is the contribution made by another building block in our social and economic structure - the charitable sector, which plays an essential role in dealing with the unacceptable gaps in equality which arise from an intrinsic disadvantage or often from the fall-out of the free market.
Indeed the importance of the charitable, the nonprofit and voluntary sectors appears to be Canada’s secret, a hidden truth as it were. Yet taken together, as a percentage of the population they are the second largest in the world. They are also a huge employer, with more than two million paid workers. That is almost as many Canadians as the entire manufacturing sector and two-and-a-half times the number of workers in the construction industry. They contribute almost eight per cent of Canada’s GDP — this is more than the retail industry, it is more than mining, oil and gas together.
They represent as well, in so many ways, the social conscience of the country. For all of these reasons let there be no doubt, without the work of Canada’s charities and non-profits we would be a much poorer society morally and economically. The need they fill will continue to grow and so must our support for them.
That being said however, I believe we have barely scratched the surface of what the full potential of the charitable sector in all its permutations and combinations is, and what it could mean to Canada’s evolving society. And that is what I want to talk to you about today. More specifically I want to talk to you about social enterprise; organizations that borrow from the objectives of traditional charities on the one hand and the management principles of the private sector on the other, including in certain cases the need to ensure growth by showing profits and the possibility of providing a financial return on investment.
“Social enterprises,” are like a business in that they trade goods and services and make money doing so. However, the latter is not their primary objective. It is a means to a greater end. Their major return on investment is calculated by their social or environmental return, based on a double and in the best of cases a triple bottom line. It is this emphasis on the deeper return that distinguishes them from the many corporations whose activities may include a social or environmental return but whose principal objective is profit.
Wherein lies the problem, you ask? It lies in the rules and regulations which govern the charitable sector. For example, simplifying its complexities somewhat, the Tax Act sets out rules for three categories of endeavor. First, taxpaying corporations and individuals. Second, non profits which do not pay taxes. And third, conventional charities which do not pay taxes and have the added benefit of being able to distribute charitable tax receipts to donors. These categories have played an important role in the growth of Canadian charitable giving. That being said however, there is now a problem with the historic boundaries they set out, in that they have not kept pace with the evolution of the social domain they seek to serve.
In broad terms, as we seek new ways of serving public needs, quite simply, the traditional limits are a barrier to innovation. More specifically in the case of social enterprise, they do not take into account its potential to attract new forms of capital that would not otherwise be available.
Let me give you two examples of what I mean.
Not long ago, I visited Eva’s Phoenix Print Shop, here in Toronto. It is not a big place, and, frankly, there is nothing about it that makes it stand out from any other small print shop except one thing. To get there, you walk through Eva’s Phoenix, a centre that people as young as sixteen call home. Many of them have suffered family breakdowns and physical or sexual abuse; many have addiction problems; some are young offenders. When they land at Eva’s Phoenix, they are desperate.
But once there, they are offered hope, shelter, and support. And the print shop gives even more: intensive on-the-job training in a field that needs workers. Once the young people have finished the training program, some are hired to work on site; others find jobs in other shops. Others still go on to college or university, most with a scholarship from Eva’s.
The problem is, as in so many cases, the print shop is now ready to expand its ability to help more young people but needs additional capital to do so. Under the current system, its only option is to boost its fundraising efforts. But a different model, one that permitted Eva’s Print Shop, to leverage its base by seeking investors to lend it money or even buy equity shares, would provide a much more sustainable way of raising the needed expansion funds and would still allow fundraised dollars to go to functions that are not part of its business model. In summary if such a system were in place, Eva’s could quickly be in a position to help many more young people, and realize its ambition to replicate its model in different cities across the country.
The second example is one of a different magnitude, in a different part of the country and with an entirely different focus from the Phoenix Print Shop. The Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia is the largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth. Its territory contains more than 8 million hectares, that is one and a half times the size of Nova Scotia.
Last year, a landmark 120-million-dollar deal was struck to save the rainforest. Funding came from private philanthropists and from the provincial and federal governments. But the deal does not simply fence off this magnificent piece of land. The money raised will be spent on conservation management and in developing ecologically sustainable businesses run by Aboriginal Canadians. This project has an environmental objective, a social objective and a business objective. The architects of the Great Bear Rainforest project have designed a made-in Canada model of sustainability, that is worthy of — and has captured — international recognition and support.
The problem is, it is not easy to raise money for Great Bear businesses. First, they are not dissimilar to venture capital investments, yet, unlike venture capital, the investments are not likely to offer a high financial return especially since at the same time, there is the added need to develop a stable and qualified First Nation’s workforce.
The original intention had been to raise a complementary private sector fund to invest in the companies that would flow from the economic development package. Unfortunately while the overall project is a go, that aspect of the initiative, the social enterprise aspect that would create a multiplier effect in jobs has been put on hold – the reason being the tax and other incentives needed to bridge the risk reward gap are not there.
Now at this point in our discussion, some of you are probably saying to yourselves, ‘Wait a minute, this guy may make sense, but why is he lecturing us? He was the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister, why didn’t he act?’ And the answer is – I did but I did not go far enough.
As we cleaned up the national balance sheet we enhanced tax support for conventional charitable activities including the capital gains tax exemption and began to fund the social economy which I had been introduced to years earlier by Nancy Neamtam, one of its pioneers in Quebec. When I became Prime Minister we set aside a further 132 million dollars for the social economy and gave a leading Parliamentary Secretary, Eleni Bakopanos, the nod to push the envelope as far as she could.
What I missed however, was that there was still a major gap in the way government was responding to the real world evolution of the social economy, that of social enterprise in its fullest sense.
This I realized only after I left government and began seeking ways of fostering a sense of economic independence among Aboriginal Canadians. I felt and continue to believe that this can best be done by supporting and mentoring Aboriginal entrepreneurs, doing so through investments in companies which might provide only a below market return but a high social return- a social return which equated to furthering a culture of entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency. Most people I approached supported the concept enthusiastically but some had difficulty categorizing the nature of the proposal. They would say, if it is investment, why is the return below market, or if it is charity, where is the charitable tax deduction: to which the only thing I could respond was it is a hybrid with which the policy makers have not yet caught up.
The fundamental problem is that, in Canada, there is very clear division between charitable giving including non-profits on the one hand and private sector investment on the other and never, it would appear, should the twain meet.
If you want to create employment for people in difficult circumstances and you want to do it solely as a charity or a non profit - that works; non profit disability workshops are an example we are all familiar with. But if you want to raise money from investors to create those jobs and in so doing provide a return on investment, consisting of a high social return and a below market financial return, then in terms of tax incentives, you are out of luck.
Clearly the rigid line of demarcation between charitable giving and social enterprise operates to the detriment of Canada’s social goals, because it severely narrows the pool of capital from which social entrepreneurs can raise financing.
Why do I think this is important? It goes back to my opening statement. The market economy has demonstrated that there is more innovation and more economic growth coming from a system built on the initiatives of individual entrepreneurs than there is in any form of state capitalism.
We recognize that business entrepreneurs are those whose original ideas spark new trends, create new jobs and create the wealth we redistribute. They are those altogether too rare individuals with the drive, energy and passion that is needed to make the economy come alive.
Well, social entrepreneurs come from the same stock. They see problems and they dream about answers.
Like business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs run on vision, energy and passion. Like business entrepreneurs, they come up with solutions that seem perfectly obvious – but only after they have been created.
I have tremendous respect for the public service but there is no way in heaven because of the structure of government, that a bureaucracy or any one else for that matter can match the obsession of someone with an original idea driven to make it happen.
What is the problem? The problem is business entrepreneurs can tap capital markets to support their ideas but social entrepreneurs in most cases cannot because their return on investment is primarily a social good. If they provide a financial return it is by definition secondary and in all likelihood below market. Otherwise they would be no different than conventional businesses.
So what is the answer? It is despite the current problems in capital markets, there is a financial liquidity out there that dwarfs the potential for funding to be found in government and while most of that money seeks quite naturally the highest return possible, a not insignificant percentage will target social goods, if the right incentives are provided. What we have to do, is to create those incentives. What we have to do, is make it possible for social entrepreneurs to tap capital markets the same way their business counterparts can do.
If more money was flowing to Eva’s Phoenix Print Shop, it could grow its business. It could buy new printing equipment which means it would employ more homeless young people, teach more of them a trade, and help them get off the streets. It would also create a pool of talent other print shops could employ, one currently not available. Clearly, that would be of benefit to all of us.
The same is true of Great Bear. If they were available today, incentives to offset lower financial returns and greater risk would help fund new business opportunities right now that could generate as much as 1,400 new jobs, most of them for Aboriginal Canadians.
And the same is true also of the Aboriginal issue that opened my eyes to social enterprise in its fullest sense. Economic growth may not be a sufficient condition for the elimination of Aboriginal poverty, but it certainly is a necessary condition. To that end if you are going to create an entrepreneurial class in an economy where one exists but barely, there is only one way to do it. That is to support the ambitions and the initiatives of those who seek to be entrepreneurs. That backing by definition cannot be charitable, but neither will it be the product of laissez-faire inertia. The status quo in most Aboriginal communities is proof of this. What is required is a leg up, a helping hand, all within the context of the free market.
The question is what should that leg up be? It is here, we begin to enter the area of greatest debate. Clearly an investment that provides a lower than market return but nonetheless a return, should receive a smaller incentive than a straight out gift to a charity.
But because that return is below market, in many cases it still requires an incentive and the question is – What should it be? The good news is we do not have to re-invent the wheel. There is considerable international experience in the field.
For instance unlike Canada, the U.S. now allows a foundation to make investments in social enterprises out of both its endowment funds and its grant making activities and earn income without affecting the foundation’s charitable status. These Program Related Investments – or PRIs- are permitted as long as the primary goal is a social return.
Nor is this the end of the PRI evolution in the U.S. The states of North Carolina and Vermont may be on the threshold of adopting a proposal by the Mannweiler Foundation to create social enterprise companies with PRI eligible characteristics but open to regular investors as well as foundations.
The US has also created, the New Market Tax Credit, which provides up to 15 billion dollars worth of credits for community investments over a 5 year period. These credits are available through competition and could easily be adapted to the concept we are discussing here.
In the UK, new legislation has created Community Interest Companies which, incidentally, are the first new form of business created there in more than 100 years. These “kicks” as they are called are organizations that conduct a business with the purpose of benefiting the community, rather than purely for private gain.
The development of the rules around CIC’s is an ongoing process. Certain tax incentives are provided and consideration is being given to the kinds of further incentives required to accelerate investment. That being said the new business model has proven very popular – it was introduced only two years ago, and already, more than 1,200 CICs have been created.
Having cited American and British examples, the real fact is – we do not have to look offshore to find models that would enable us to fund Canadian social entrepreneurs! We can look to the tax incentives that support Canadian business entrepreneurs.
For example: labour sponsored funds or the Canadian Film and Video Production Tax Credit Program, which offers federal incentives for Canadian productions.
Yet a third example would be flow-through shares that encourage investment in resource-based exploration.
The question I would put to you is quite simple – If we in Canada, are prepared to use these kinds of incentives to enable business entrepreneurs to tap capital markets for the betterment of the economy, why would we not provide similar incentives to social entrepreneurs as they seek to tap capital markets for the betterment of society.
In conclusion then, let me simply say the following. The generation of leaders who came into office in Canada at the end of the Second World War, was dramatically influenced and affected by the Great Depression. As a result they created the social safety net which we now take for granted, but which in their time took great imagination and vision. We must be no less innovative.
Charity has changed. Andrew Carnegie made his money, but waited to give it away until his final years. Today, philanthropists are much more active and much more involved during their lifetimes. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are far from their end, and they are giving away sums that were unheard of in the past, as are many wealthy Canadians.
And there are many more people, who may not have such enormous sums at hand, but who still have considerable disposable income or assets. There are also others of lesser or indeed of little wealth, but who want to make a difference and who want to do so during their lifetimes.
In short, there are many investors who would put their money into social enterprise, if the vehicles and incentives were there. What we need to do is to develop the right mix of risk and reward so that social enterprise becomes attractive to mainstream capital.
Financial experts ought to be developing new cutting edge instruments to make funding available to social entrepreneurs.
Tax experts ought to be thinking about mechanisms that can support social enterprise in a meaningful way.
Legislators should encourage an environment that allows foundations to become more imaginative in support of social enterprise.
And all the rest of us need to raise the profile of the issue and to push for change.
What we need in addition to conventional charitable giving is a new way to think about philanthropy and the achievement of social goals. We are at a point in our nation’s history where we can do this. All the elements are there. We have a history of progressive social policy. We have social entrepreneurs who are already running successful operations. We have a charitable and voluntary sector that is the second largest in the world.
We have had tremendous success in Canada in unleashing business to create wealth. We have learned that entrepreneurship is an unbeatable force. Government unleashed the power of business entrepreneurs when it provided them with the wherewithal to succeed – with needed public goods and functioning capital markets. What I would now ask, is that government unleash the power of social entrepreneurs as well by providing them with the wherewithal to succeed.
We must understand that the social entrepreneur is every bit as much a part of the free market as is the business entrepreneur.
The business entrepreneur improves our quality of life by creating wealth and economic growth. The social entrepreneur improves our quality of life by confronting the inequality that is often the collateral occurrence of free markets. Both kinds of entrepreneurs are necessary. Let us give them both the chance to succeed.
Thank you.
Fuente: Canadian Social Economy Hub
Before I begin however – one exculpatory caveat! How I came to be a proponent of social enterprise, I will explain in the course of my remarks. But given that these are to be followed by a period of questions and comments, I would like to point out that there are a number of social enterprise advocates who are among us today and who have been trying to break the shackles of conventional thinking for a long time, certainly long before me. Based on their experience and knowledge, they should be doing the speaking and I the listening, and I very much hope we will be hearing from them before the afternoon is over.
Over the last 150 years, there has been a never ending debate between those who espouse the free market on the one hand and socialism on the other. It is clear now that the free market has won out – and it has won out because, at its core it gives full flower to individual ambition and entrepreneurship and because of this, it delivers best.
That being said, let there be no illusion. It is not the free market in pure form that has emerged triumphant. We do not live in a Darwinian economy, and, no one with any sense would recommend we do so.
The fact is all developed countries depend heavily in one way or another on government for the delivery of public goods: universal primary and secondary school education, and public infrastructure, to cite only two examples.
Thus, few would deny today the importance of the state in providing the social inputs that enable the modern economy to grow. What is less well recognized however is the contribution made by another building block in our social and economic structure - the charitable sector, which plays an essential role in dealing with the unacceptable gaps in equality which arise from an intrinsic disadvantage or often from the fall-out of the free market.
Indeed the importance of the charitable, the nonprofit and voluntary sectors appears to be Canada’s secret, a hidden truth as it were. Yet taken together, as a percentage of the population they are the second largest in the world. They are also a huge employer, with more than two million paid workers. That is almost as many Canadians as the entire manufacturing sector and two-and-a-half times the number of workers in the construction industry. They contribute almost eight per cent of Canada’s GDP — this is more than the retail industry, it is more than mining, oil and gas together.
They represent as well, in so many ways, the social conscience of the country. For all of these reasons let there be no doubt, without the work of Canada’s charities and non-profits we would be a much poorer society morally and economically. The need they fill will continue to grow and so must our support for them.
That being said however, I believe we have barely scratched the surface of what the full potential of the charitable sector in all its permutations and combinations is, and what it could mean to Canada’s evolving society. And that is what I want to talk to you about today. More specifically I want to talk to you about social enterprise; organizations that borrow from the objectives of traditional charities on the one hand and the management principles of the private sector on the other, including in certain cases the need to ensure growth by showing profits and the possibility of providing a financial return on investment.
“Social enterprises,” are like a business in that they trade goods and services and make money doing so. However, the latter is not their primary objective. It is a means to a greater end. Their major return on investment is calculated by their social or environmental return, based on a double and in the best of cases a triple bottom line. It is this emphasis on the deeper return that distinguishes them from the many corporations whose activities may include a social or environmental return but whose principal objective is profit.
Wherein lies the problem, you ask? It lies in the rules and regulations which govern the charitable sector. For example, simplifying its complexities somewhat, the Tax Act sets out rules for three categories of endeavor. First, taxpaying corporations and individuals. Second, non profits which do not pay taxes. And third, conventional charities which do not pay taxes and have the added benefit of being able to distribute charitable tax receipts to donors. These categories have played an important role in the growth of Canadian charitable giving. That being said however, there is now a problem with the historic boundaries they set out, in that they have not kept pace with the evolution of the social domain they seek to serve.
In broad terms, as we seek new ways of serving public needs, quite simply, the traditional limits are a barrier to innovation. More specifically in the case of social enterprise, they do not take into account its potential to attract new forms of capital that would not otherwise be available.
Let me give you two examples of what I mean.
Not long ago, I visited Eva’s Phoenix Print Shop, here in Toronto. It is not a big place, and, frankly, there is nothing about it that makes it stand out from any other small print shop except one thing. To get there, you walk through Eva’s Phoenix, a centre that people as young as sixteen call home. Many of them have suffered family breakdowns and physical or sexual abuse; many have addiction problems; some are young offenders. When they land at Eva’s Phoenix, they are desperate.
But once there, they are offered hope, shelter, and support. And the print shop gives even more: intensive on-the-job training in a field that needs workers. Once the young people have finished the training program, some are hired to work on site; others find jobs in other shops. Others still go on to college or university, most with a scholarship from Eva’s.
The problem is, as in so many cases, the print shop is now ready to expand its ability to help more young people but needs additional capital to do so. Under the current system, its only option is to boost its fundraising efforts. But a different model, one that permitted Eva’s Print Shop, to leverage its base by seeking investors to lend it money or even buy equity shares, would provide a much more sustainable way of raising the needed expansion funds and would still allow fundraised dollars to go to functions that are not part of its business model. In summary if such a system were in place, Eva’s could quickly be in a position to help many more young people, and realize its ambition to replicate its model in different cities across the country.
The second example is one of a different magnitude, in a different part of the country and with an entirely different focus from the Phoenix Print Shop. The Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia is the largest intact temperate rainforest left on Earth. Its territory contains more than 8 million hectares, that is one and a half times the size of Nova Scotia.
Last year, a landmark 120-million-dollar deal was struck to save the rainforest. Funding came from private philanthropists and from the provincial and federal governments. But the deal does not simply fence off this magnificent piece of land. The money raised will be spent on conservation management and in developing ecologically sustainable businesses run by Aboriginal Canadians. This project has an environmental objective, a social objective and a business objective. The architects of the Great Bear Rainforest project have designed a made-in Canada model of sustainability, that is worthy of — and has captured — international recognition and support.
The problem is, it is not easy to raise money for Great Bear businesses. First, they are not dissimilar to venture capital investments, yet, unlike venture capital, the investments are not likely to offer a high financial return especially since at the same time, there is the added need to develop a stable and qualified First Nation’s workforce.
The original intention had been to raise a complementary private sector fund to invest in the companies that would flow from the economic development package. Unfortunately while the overall project is a go, that aspect of the initiative, the social enterprise aspect that would create a multiplier effect in jobs has been put on hold – the reason being the tax and other incentives needed to bridge the risk reward gap are not there.
Now at this point in our discussion, some of you are probably saying to yourselves, ‘Wait a minute, this guy may make sense, but why is he lecturing us? He was the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister, why didn’t he act?’ And the answer is – I did but I did not go far enough.
As we cleaned up the national balance sheet we enhanced tax support for conventional charitable activities including the capital gains tax exemption and began to fund the social economy which I had been introduced to years earlier by Nancy Neamtam, one of its pioneers in Quebec. When I became Prime Minister we set aside a further 132 million dollars for the social economy and gave a leading Parliamentary Secretary, Eleni Bakopanos, the nod to push the envelope as far as she could.
What I missed however, was that there was still a major gap in the way government was responding to the real world evolution of the social economy, that of social enterprise in its fullest sense.
This I realized only after I left government and began seeking ways of fostering a sense of economic independence among Aboriginal Canadians. I felt and continue to believe that this can best be done by supporting and mentoring Aboriginal entrepreneurs, doing so through investments in companies which might provide only a below market return but a high social return- a social return which equated to furthering a culture of entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency. Most people I approached supported the concept enthusiastically but some had difficulty categorizing the nature of the proposal. They would say, if it is investment, why is the return below market, or if it is charity, where is the charitable tax deduction: to which the only thing I could respond was it is a hybrid with which the policy makers have not yet caught up.
The fundamental problem is that, in Canada, there is very clear division between charitable giving including non-profits on the one hand and private sector investment on the other and never, it would appear, should the twain meet.
If you want to create employment for people in difficult circumstances and you want to do it solely as a charity or a non profit - that works; non profit disability workshops are an example we are all familiar with. But if you want to raise money from investors to create those jobs and in so doing provide a return on investment, consisting of a high social return and a below market financial return, then in terms of tax incentives, you are out of luck.
Clearly the rigid line of demarcation between charitable giving and social enterprise operates to the detriment of Canada’s social goals, because it severely narrows the pool of capital from which social entrepreneurs can raise financing.
Why do I think this is important? It goes back to my opening statement. The market economy has demonstrated that there is more innovation and more economic growth coming from a system built on the initiatives of individual entrepreneurs than there is in any form of state capitalism.
We recognize that business entrepreneurs are those whose original ideas spark new trends, create new jobs and create the wealth we redistribute. They are those altogether too rare individuals with the drive, energy and passion that is needed to make the economy come alive.
Well, social entrepreneurs come from the same stock. They see problems and they dream about answers.
Like business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs run on vision, energy and passion. Like business entrepreneurs, they come up with solutions that seem perfectly obvious – but only after they have been created.
I have tremendous respect for the public service but there is no way in heaven because of the structure of government, that a bureaucracy or any one else for that matter can match the obsession of someone with an original idea driven to make it happen.
What is the problem? The problem is business entrepreneurs can tap capital markets to support their ideas but social entrepreneurs in most cases cannot because their return on investment is primarily a social good. If they provide a financial return it is by definition secondary and in all likelihood below market. Otherwise they would be no different than conventional businesses.
So what is the answer? It is despite the current problems in capital markets, there is a financial liquidity out there that dwarfs the potential for funding to be found in government and while most of that money seeks quite naturally the highest return possible, a not insignificant percentage will target social goods, if the right incentives are provided. What we have to do, is to create those incentives. What we have to do, is make it possible for social entrepreneurs to tap capital markets the same way their business counterparts can do.
If more money was flowing to Eva’s Phoenix Print Shop, it could grow its business. It could buy new printing equipment which means it would employ more homeless young people, teach more of them a trade, and help them get off the streets. It would also create a pool of talent other print shops could employ, one currently not available. Clearly, that would be of benefit to all of us.
The same is true of Great Bear. If they were available today, incentives to offset lower financial returns and greater risk would help fund new business opportunities right now that could generate as much as 1,400 new jobs, most of them for Aboriginal Canadians.
And the same is true also of the Aboriginal issue that opened my eyes to social enterprise in its fullest sense. Economic growth may not be a sufficient condition for the elimination of Aboriginal poverty, but it certainly is a necessary condition. To that end if you are going to create an entrepreneurial class in an economy where one exists but barely, there is only one way to do it. That is to support the ambitions and the initiatives of those who seek to be entrepreneurs. That backing by definition cannot be charitable, but neither will it be the product of laissez-faire inertia. The status quo in most Aboriginal communities is proof of this. What is required is a leg up, a helping hand, all within the context of the free market.
The question is what should that leg up be? It is here, we begin to enter the area of greatest debate. Clearly an investment that provides a lower than market return but nonetheless a return, should receive a smaller incentive than a straight out gift to a charity.
But because that return is below market, in many cases it still requires an incentive and the question is – What should it be? The good news is we do not have to re-invent the wheel. There is considerable international experience in the field.
For instance unlike Canada, the U.S. now allows a foundation to make investments in social enterprises out of both its endowment funds and its grant making activities and earn income without affecting the foundation’s charitable status. These Program Related Investments – or PRIs- are permitted as long as the primary goal is a social return.
Nor is this the end of the PRI evolution in the U.S. The states of North Carolina and Vermont may be on the threshold of adopting a proposal by the Mannweiler Foundation to create social enterprise companies with PRI eligible characteristics but open to regular investors as well as foundations.
The US has also created, the New Market Tax Credit, which provides up to 15 billion dollars worth of credits for community investments over a 5 year period. These credits are available through competition and could easily be adapted to the concept we are discussing here.
In the UK, new legislation has created Community Interest Companies which, incidentally, are the first new form of business created there in more than 100 years. These “kicks” as they are called are organizations that conduct a business with the purpose of benefiting the community, rather than purely for private gain.
The development of the rules around CIC’s is an ongoing process. Certain tax incentives are provided and consideration is being given to the kinds of further incentives required to accelerate investment. That being said the new business model has proven very popular – it was introduced only two years ago, and already, more than 1,200 CICs have been created.
Having cited American and British examples, the real fact is – we do not have to look offshore to find models that would enable us to fund Canadian social entrepreneurs! We can look to the tax incentives that support Canadian business entrepreneurs.
For example: labour sponsored funds or the Canadian Film and Video Production Tax Credit Program, which offers federal incentives for Canadian productions.
Yet a third example would be flow-through shares that encourage investment in resource-based exploration.
The question I would put to you is quite simple – If we in Canada, are prepared to use these kinds of incentives to enable business entrepreneurs to tap capital markets for the betterment of the economy, why would we not provide similar incentives to social entrepreneurs as they seek to tap capital markets for the betterment of society.
In conclusion then, let me simply say the following. The generation of leaders who came into office in Canada at the end of the Second World War, was dramatically influenced and affected by the Great Depression. As a result they created the social safety net which we now take for granted, but which in their time took great imagination and vision. We must be no less innovative.
Charity has changed. Andrew Carnegie made his money, but waited to give it away until his final years. Today, philanthropists are much more active and much more involved during their lifetimes. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are far from their end, and they are giving away sums that were unheard of in the past, as are many wealthy Canadians.
And there are many more people, who may not have such enormous sums at hand, but who still have considerable disposable income or assets. There are also others of lesser or indeed of little wealth, but who want to make a difference and who want to do so during their lifetimes.
In short, there are many investors who would put their money into social enterprise, if the vehicles and incentives were there. What we need to do is to develop the right mix of risk and reward so that social enterprise becomes attractive to mainstream capital.
Financial experts ought to be developing new cutting edge instruments to make funding available to social entrepreneurs.
Tax experts ought to be thinking about mechanisms that can support social enterprise in a meaningful way.
Legislators should encourage an environment that allows foundations to become more imaginative in support of social enterprise.
And all the rest of us need to raise the profile of the issue and to push for change.
What we need in addition to conventional charitable giving is a new way to think about philanthropy and the achievement of social goals. We are at a point in our nation’s history where we can do this. All the elements are there. We have a history of progressive social policy. We have social entrepreneurs who are already running successful operations. We have a charitable and voluntary sector that is the second largest in the world.
We have had tremendous success in Canada in unleashing business to create wealth. We have learned that entrepreneurship is an unbeatable force. Government unleashed the power of business entrepreneurs when it provided them with the wherewithal to succeed – with needed public goods and functioning capital markets. What I would now ask, is that government unleash the power of social entrepreneurs as well by providing them with the wherewithal to succeed.
We must understand that the social entrepreneur is every bit as much a part of the free market as is the business entrepreneur.
The business entrepreneur improves our quality of life by creating wealth and economic growth. The social entrepreneur improves our quality of life by confronting the inequality that is often the collateral occurrence of free markets. Both kinds of entrepreneurs are necessary. Let us give them both the chance to succeed.
Thank you.
Fuente: Canadian Social Economy Hub
viernes, 25 de enero de 2008
7,200 minutos
Cinco días han pasado desde que publiqué este blog. 120 horas han bastado para intoxicarme con feeds, widgets y pings. Solo 7,200 minutos fueron necesarios para convertirme en un nuevo y devoto apóstol del bloguismo.
Mutantur omnia nos et mutamur in illis
lunes, 21 de enero de 2008
CEPAL - División de Desarrollo Social
(11 enero 2008) La Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) y la Fundación W.K. Kellogg nuevamente buscan a innovadores sociales para que participen en la cuarta versión de su concurso anual Experiencias en innovación social. La fecha de cierre para postular es el 25 de enero, 2008.
Se buscan iniciativas con verdadero impacto social en las vidas de los más desprotegidos, modelos sostenibles y fáciles de replicar, donde exista participación de los beneficiarios. Estas son consideradas herramientas claves para la superación de la pobreza, la desigualdad y la exclusión social.
El concurso recoge las experiencias novedosas en ocho áreas: salud comunitaria, educación básica, programas de juventud, generación de ingresos, responsabilidad social corporativa, voluntariado, desarrollo rural/agrícola y seguridad alimentaria/ nutrición.
Gobiernos regionales, departamentales, provinciales y municipales, asociaciones comunitarias, comunidades religiosas, organizaciones no gubernamentales, y otras instituciones del sector privado sin fines de lucro pueden participar. Las empresas privadas pueden participar en la categoría de responsabilidad social corporativa.
Los proyectos participantes deben tener al menos dos años de trabajo efectivo, estar vigentes y desarrollarse en alguno de los 33 países de América Latina y el Caribe miembros de la CEPAL. Las iniciativas presentadas a alguno de los ciclos anteriores del certamen pueden volver a postular.
Los formularios para la postulación están disponibles en el sitio web de la CEPAL, (http://www.cepal.org/), y en el sitio web de la oficina regional para América Latina y el Caribe de la Fundación Kellogg (http://www.wkkf-lac.org/). También se puede solicitar a: innovacion.social@cepal.org
Los premios que podrán obtener son de $30,000 dólares (primer lugar); $20,000 dólares (segundo lugar); $15,000 dólares (tercer lugar); $10,000 dólares (cuarto lugar); y $5,000 dólares (quinto lugar).
Para obtener mayor información haga click aquí.
Se buscan iniciativas con verdadero impacto social en las vidas de los más desprotegidos, modelos sostenibles y fáciles de replicar, donde exista participación de los beneficiarios. Estas son consideradas herramientas claves para la superación de la pobreza, la desigualdad y la exclusión social.
El concurso recoge las experiencias novedosas en ocho áreas: salud comunitaria, educación básica, programas de juventud, generación de ingresos, responsabilidad social corporativa, voluntariado, desarrollo rural/agrícola y seguridad alimentaria/ nutrición.
Gobiernos regionales, departamentales, provinciales y municipales, asociaciones comunitarias, comunidades religiosas, organizaciones no gubernamentales, y otras instituciones del sector privado sin fines de lucro pueden participar. Las empresas privadas pueden participar en la categoría de responsabilidad social corporativa.
Los proyectos participantes deben tener al menos dos años de trabajo efectivo, estar vigentes y desarrollarse en alguno de los 33 países de América Latina y el Caribe miembros de la CEPAL. Las iniciativas presentadas a alguno de los ciclos anteriores del certamen pueden volver a postular.
Los formularios para la postulación están disponibles en el sitio web de la CEPAL, (http://www.cepal.org/), y en el sitio web de la oficina regional para América Latina y el Caribe de la Fundación Kellogg (http://www.wkkf-lac.org/). También se puede solicitar a: innovacion.social@cepal.org
Los premios que podrán obtener son de $30,000 dólares (primer lugar); $20,000 dólares (segundo lugar); $15,000 dólares (tercer lugar); $10,000 dólares (cuarto lugar); y $5,000 dólares (quinto lugar).
Para obtener mayor información haga click aquí.
sábado, 19 de enero de 2008
Lecciones desde la India
Comparto con ustedes un artículo escrito en marzo de 2006 sobre algunas de mis impresiones sobre India (versión editada). Aprovecho este espacio para agradecer al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, ITEC y la Embajada de la India en el Perú por darme la oportunidad de visitar su maravilloso país.
Nota: Se evita el uso de comillas en los diálogos para evitar problemas de publicación mediante los feeds. En futuros artículos éstas seguirán siendo reemplazadas por guiones.
El Ashram Express está próximo a partir desde Nueva Delhi hacia Jaipur y a pesar de ser invierno en la India el día presenta cielos despejados y una temperatura que supera los 30ºC. Después de varios intentos finalmente consigo acomodar mi maleta debajo del asiento al mismo tiempo que ingresa a la cabina mi eventual compañero de viaje. Por su cabello blanco-platinado y los profundos surcos en el rostro deduzco que se trata de un hombre maduro; su sencillo saco café y la maleta Samsonite que lleva consigo también me indican - con absoluta claridad - que este hombre es uno de los 300 millones de ciudadanos indios de pujante y creciente clase media. Intercambiamos un sencillo namaste – saludo protocolar en hindi, el idioma nacional más difundido entre las 18 lenguas oficiales – mientras nos despedimos de la capital de la India.
Nueva Delhi es una ciudad incompatible con la buena calidad de vida. Sin embargo, durante mis escasos tres días de visita, jamás dejé de sorprenderme por sus contrastes extremos. Poblada por más de 13 millones de habitantes y afectada por niveles de pobreza y contaminación alarmantes, Nueva Delhi es también punto de encuentro de diversas etnias, religiones y culturas que la convierten en un destino exótico e incomparable. Nueva Delhi es el fiel reflejo de la India, una megápolis en donde los conceptos de inmensidad, dinamismo y complejidad que caracterizan al país se expresan a plenitud. Desde aquí se rigen los destinos de más de un billón de personas y se planifican e implementan las políticas públicas que han colocado a este gigante asiático entre las seis economías emergentes de mayor crecimiento durante los últimos ocho años a nivel mundial.
Ya ha pasado media hora desde que partimos del Old Dehli Railway Station y mi compañero de viaje no resiste la curiosidad. En un inglés tosco pero perfecto, legado del colonialismo británico, se presenta: -Me llamo Ashutosh Kumar, gusto en conocerlo-. El breve intercambio inicial de palabras rompe el hielo y confirma la auténtica hospitalidad de los indios con los forasteros. Después de las clásicas preguntas y respuestas de cualquier conversación introductoria, Shri (Señor) Kumar y yo ganamos confianza y entramos de lleno en materias más interesantes.
Le pregunto sobre la situación económica del país; -verá usted, desde las reformas económicas implementadas en 1991 por nuestro actual primer ministro, Shri Manmohan Singh, Hindustan ha experimentado un crecimiento promedio anual superior al 6%. Para este año esperamos crecer sobre 8% y debo confesarle que estas cifras nos llenan de optimismo-. En efecto, la tercera mayor economía de Asia – sólo superada en tamaño por Japón y China - emprendió un agresivo programa de liberalización económica con el fin de revertir el severo déficit fiscal y la enorme deuda externa acumulada durante más de cuatro décadas de pasmoso e ineficiente control estatal. Si bien los niveles de corrupción, burocracia y cleptocracia siguen siendo elevados, el mayor flujo de inversión extranjera y políticas fiscales más responsables han permitido mejorar los indicadores sociales, particularmente la disminución del analfabetismo, la mortalidad infantil y la pobreza extrema.
Un elemento clave para explicar este progreso sostenido se basa en el vasto capital intelectual que posee la India; la cuna del sistema numérico, el cálculo y el ajedrez, cuenta con ventajas competitivas decisivas que suponen el conocimiento, la creatividad y la innovación. Los indios se han consolidado como líderes mundiales en industrias tales como las tecnologías de información (IT), la biotecnología y el sector farmacéutico; por eso, ya a nadie sorprende descubrir que reconocidas empresas como Ranbaxy, Infosis o Wipro inundan los mercados globales con productos de bajo precio y excelente calidad. Frente a este fenómeno, hasta los imperturbables alemanes murmuran -Kinder statt inder!-; ¡eduquemos a nuestros niños en vez de traer indios!.
El capital intelectual de los indios no se restringe a personas de clase media y alta; este valioso activo intangible es también el patrimonio de millones de ciudadanos menos privilegiados que con mucho esfuerzo y visión de largo plazo continúan estableciendo pequeñas y medianas empresas en todo el país. A la fecha, la India cuenta con más de 12 millones de PYMES que en 2006 generaron, por concepto de exportaciones, más de US$21 billones. Que duda cabe, los indios están redefiniendo el término de valor agregado.
Obviamente a Shri Kumar le fascina hablar de su querida Hindustan y nuestra entretenida conversación ha superado ya el par de horas. El desértico estado de Rajastan – la Tierra del Rey – nos da la bienvenida y ambos sentimos aún mayor libertad para discutir temas más sensibles; el sistema de castas, la religión y la gastronomía garantizan un fértil monólogo que gustosamente me dispongo a escuchar. Le pregunto a que casta pertenece; -soy Kshatriya responde amablemente, ¡por eso tengo brazos fuertes!-, comentario que por cierto me deja bastante confundido.
Para occidente, el sistema de castas íntimamente ligado al hinduismo - religión profesada por el 83% de la población - plantea complicadas
interrogantes. La milenaria estructura social india, herencia de los Arios desde el año 500 A.C., establece cuatro castas o varnas clasificados según el karma de sus integrantes. La primera casta la componen los Brahmins, reconocidos por los demás miembros de su comunidad como los líderes religiosos y maestros de la sociedad. Sus privilegiados miembros rigen la cabeza y son responsables de educar y guiar espiritualmente al resto de la sociedad. Shri Kumar pertenece a la casta de los guerreros y nobles, los Kshatriyas, encargados de brindar protección y seguridad. Ahora comprenderá el orgullo de mi eventual compañero de viaje.El mozo del tren interrumpe brevemente nuestro diálogo para ofrecernos la merienda. Ordeno un chai (té) y Butter Roti (tortilla de harina con mantequilla) mientras que Shri Kumar se decide por un apetitoso Paneer Masala (queso licuado y sazonado con varias especias). Una vez lista y dispuesta la mesa continuamos. Los Vaishyas componen la tercera casta de comerciantes y mercaderes, regentes del estómago, encargados de proporcionar los alimentos. La última casta, los Shudras, cumple con servir a las castas superiores. Aquí encontramos a los agricultores, artesanos y trabajadores quienes rigen las pantorrillas. La - quinta casta -, los dalits o intocables, conforma el nivel social inferior y sus miembros reflejan los niveles de pobreza extrema más grotescos. Su intocabilidad es de facto; los dalits no son tocados ni tocan – siquiera con su sombra – a los miembros de otras castas porque son considerados elementos contaminantes.
Es difícil tolerar la aparente discriminación impuesta por el milenario sistema de castas pero existen arraigados antecedentes religiosos y culturales que la sustentan. En breve, resalto la palabra aparente, los hinduistas creen en la reencarnación y consideran que su vida presente es consecuencia directa de actos cometidos en vidas anteriores. Por esta razón aceptan su destino sin reproches; los dalits intentarán subsistir decentemente en la pobreza extrema mientras que los brahmins se orientarán hacia una vida ejemplar, todos ellos con el fin de reencarnarse en una vida superior. Asimismo, el sistema social existente impone también severas restricciones de género, mucho más evidentes en los sectores rurales del país, que conforman el 70% de la población total.
A pesar de esta impactante realidad Shri Kumar se apura en aclarar: -el gobierno ha creado leyes e implementado programas de compensación para las mujeres y los más pobres pero el verdadero cambio social proviene de nuestras nuevas generaciones-. Le pido mayores detalles; - por ejemplo, las universidades públicas establecen cuotas de ingreso de 10% exclusivamente para los dalits, mientras que el estado garantiza un 30% de sus puestos laborales para las mujeres-. A pesar de su sereno fraseo, el rostro de mi amigo refleja cierta resignación al finalizar su comentario y yo no puedo evitar reflexionar lo siguiente; superar las enormes brechas impuestas por el sistema de castas le tomará a la India varias décadas pero es evidente que sus ciudadanos nominales y reales, especialmente los más jóvenes, han comprendido que el siglo XXI demandará nuevos códigos y formas de interacción humana.
Estamos a escasos minutos de nuestro destino final y mi mente empieza a enfocarse en las actividades que llevaré a cabo en Jaipur, Jodhpur, Mumbai y Ahmedabad; visitas a PYMES, entrevistas con exitosos microempresarios y las simples caminatas por urbes congestionadas me garantizan inolvidables lecciones personales. Lamentablemente nuestra conversación va llegando a su fin y quedan en el aire múltiples temas pendientes tales como la minoría musulmán de 120 millones de personas, el conflicto en Cachemira, la industria aeroespacial y nuclear, Bollywood y los dabbawallas por mencionar unos cuantos. ¡Que lástima!.
El tren se ha detenido completamente y llega el momento para despedirnos. Tanto Shri Kumar como yo no podemos evitar la tristeza del momento pero agradecemos profundamente la oportunidad de habernos conocido. -Espero que siga disfrutando de su estadía y le deseo muchos éxitos- me dice para luego perderse rápidamente en el caótico tumulto de la estación. Y así concluyo, en medio de una desbordante marea humana, que la India no acepta términos medios; maravillándonos con sus fortalezas y tolerando sus debilidades, los que tenemos el privilegio de visitarla, aprendemos también a respetarla, quererla y admirarla. Con certeza, este maravilloso país dejará marcas imborrables en mi vida. Jaya hai Hindustan!
Just Good Business
Jan 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Corporate social responsibility, once a do-gooding sideshow, is now seen as mainstream. But as yet too few companies are doing it well, says Daniel Franklin (interviewed here)
Illustration by Ian Whadcock
Corporate social responsibility, once a do-gooding sideshow, is now seen as mainstream. But as yet too few companies are doing it well, says Daniel Franklin (interviewed here)
IN THE lobby at the London headquarters of Marks & Spencer, one of Britain's leading retailers, the words scroll relentlessly across a giant electronic ticker. They describe progress against “Plan A”, a set of 100 worthy targets over five years. The company will help to give 15,000 children in Uganda a better education; it is saving 55,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year; it has recycled 48m clothes hangers; it is tripling sales of organic food; it aims to convert over 20m garments to Fairtrade cotton; every store has a dedicated “Plan A” champion.
The M&S ticker says a lot about the current state of what is commonly known as corporate social responsibility (CSR). First, nobody much likes the CSR label. A year ago M&S launched not a CSR plan but Plan A (“because there is no Plan B”). The chief executive's committee that monitors this plan is called the “How We Do Business Committee”. Other companies prefer to describe this kind of thing as “corporate responsibility” (dropping the “social” as too narrow), or “corporate citizenship”, or “building a sustainable business”. One Nordic executive glories in the job title of director, accountability and triple-bottom-line leadership. All this is convoluted code for something simple: companies meaning (or seeming) to be good.
Second, the scrolling list shows what a vast range of activities now comes under the doing-good umbrella. It spans everything from volunteering in the local community to looking after employees properly, from helping the poor to saving the planet. With such a fuzzy, wide-ranging subject, many companies find it hard to know what to focus on.
IN THE lobby at the London headquarters of Marks & Spencer, one of Britain's leading retailers, the words scroll relentlessly across a giant electronic ticker. They describe progress against “Plan A”, a set of 100 worthy targets over five years. The company will help to give 15,000 children in Uganda a better education; it is saving 55,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year; it has recycled 48m clothes hangers; it is tripling sales of organic food; it aims to convert over 20m garments to Fairtrade cotton; every store has a dedicated “Plan A” champion.
The M&S ticker says a lot about the current state of what is commonly known as corporate social responsibility (CSR). First, nobody much likes the CSR label. A year ago M&S launched not a CSR plan but Plan A (“because there is no Plan B”). The chief executive's committee that monitors this plan is called the “How We Do Business Committee”. Other companies prefer to describe this kind of thing as “corporate responsibility” (dropping the “social” as too narrow), or “corporate citizenship”, or “building a sustainable business”. One Nordic executive glories in the job title of director, accountability and triple-bottom-line leadership. All this is convoluted code for something simple: companies meaning (or seeming) to be good.
Second, the scrolling list shows what a vast range of activities now comes under the doing-good umbrella. It spans everything from volunteering in the local community to looking after employees properly, from helping the poor to saving the planet. With such a fuzzy, wide-ranging subject, many companies find it hard to know what to focus on.
Third, the M&S ticker demonstrates that CSR is booming. Whether through electronic screens, posters or glossy reports, big companies want to tell the world about their good citizenship. They are pushing out the message on their websites and in advertising campaigns. Their chief executives queue up to speak at conferences to explain their passion for the community or their new-found commitment to making their company carbon-neutral. A survey carried out for this report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister company of The Economist, shows corporate responsibility rising sharply in global executives' priorities (see chart 1).
None of this means that CSR has suddenly become a great idea. This newspaper has argued that it is often misguided, or worse. But in practice few big companies can now afford to ignore it.
Beyond the corporate world, CSR is providing fertile ground for think-tanks and consultancies. Governments are taking an ever keener interest: in Britain, for example, the 2006 Companies Act introduced a requirement for public companies to report on social and environmental matters. And the United Nations promotes corporate responsibility around the world through a New York-based group called the Global Compact.
Business schools, for their part, are adding courses and specialised departments to keep their MBA students happy. “Demand for CSR activities has just soared in the past three years,” says Thomas Cooley, the dean of New York University's Stern Business School. Bookshelves groan with titles such as “Corporation Be Good”, “Beyond Good Company” and “The A to Z of Corporate Responsibility”.
Why the boom? For a number of reasons, companies are having to work harder to protect their reputation—and, by extension, the environment in which they do business. Scandals at Enron, WorldCom and elsewhere undermined trust in big business and led to heavy-handed government regulation. An ever-expanding army of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stands ready to do battle with multinational companies at the slightest sign of misbehaviour. Myriad rankings and ratings put pressure on companies to report on their non-financial performance as well as on their financial results. And, more than ever, companies are being watched. Embarrassing news anywhere in the world—a child working on a piece of clothing with your company's brand on it, say—can be captured on camera and published everywhere in an instant, thanks to the internet.
Now comes concern over climate change, probably the biggest single driver of growth in the CSR industry of late. The great green awakening is making company after company take a serious look at its own impact on the environment. It is no surprise, therefore, that 95% of CEOs surveyed last year by McKinsey, a consultancy, said that society now has higher expectations of business taking on public responsibilities than it did five years ago.
Investors too are starting to show more interest. For example, $1 out of every $9 under professional management in America now involves an element of “socially responsible investment”, according to Geoffrey Heal of Columbia Business School. Some of the big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, have started to integrate environmental, social and governance issues in some of their equity research. True, the finance industry sends mixed signals: it demands good financial results above all else, and in parts of the financial world—notably the private-equity part—scepticism on CSR still runs deep. But private equity itself is having to respond to public pressure by agreeing to voluntary codes of transparency.
As well as these external pressures, firms are also facing strong demand for CSR from their employees, so much so that it has become a serious part of the competition for talent. Ask almost any large company about the business rationale for its CSR efforts and you will be told that they help to motivate, attract and retain staff. “People want to work at a company where they share the values and the ethos,” says Mike Kelly, head of CSR at the European arm of KPMG, an accounting firm.
Too much of a good thing?
Since there is so much CSR about, you might think big companies would by now be getting rather good at it. A few are, but most are struggling.
CSR is now made up of three broad layers, one on top of the other. The most basic is traditional corporate philanthropy. Companies typically allocate about 1% of pre-tax profits to worthy causes because giving something back to the community seems “the right thing to do”. But many companies now feel that arm's-length philanthropy—simply writing cheques to charities—is no longer enough. Shareholders want to know that their money is being put to good use, and employees want to be actively involved in good works.
Money alone is not the answer when companies come under attack for their behaviour. Hence the second layer of CSR, which is a branch of risk management. Starting in the 1980s, with environmental disasters such as the explosion at the Bhopal pesticide factory and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, industry after industry has suffered blows to its reputation. Big pharma was hit by its refusal to make antiretroviral drugs available cheaply for HIV/AIDS sufferers in developing countries. In the clothing industry, companies like Nike and Gap came under attack for use of child labour. Food companies face a backlash over growing obesity. And “Don't be evil” as a corporate motto offers no immunity: Google was one of several American technology titans hauled before Congress to be grilled about their behaviour in China.
So, often belatedly, companies respond by trying to manage the risks. They talk to NGOs and to governments, create codes of conduct and commit themselves to more transparency in their operations. Increasingly, too, they get together with their competitors in the same industry in an effort to set common rules, spread the risk and shape opinion.
All this is largely defensive, but companies like to stress that there are also opportunities to be had for those that get ahead of the game. The emphasis on opportunity is the third and trendiest layer of CSR: the idea that it can help to create value. In December 2006 the Harvard Business Review published a paper by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer on how, if approached in a strategic way, CSR could become part of a company's competitive advantage.
That is just the sort of thing chief executives like to hear. “Doing well by doing good” has become a fashionable mantra. Businesses have eagerly adopted the jargon of “embedding” CSR in the core of their operations, making it “part of the corporate DNA” so that it influences decisions across the company.
With a few interesting exceptions, the rhetoric falls well short of the reality. “It doesn't go very deep yet,” says Bradley Googins, executive director of the Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship. His centre's latest survey on the state of play in America is called “Time to Get Real”.
None of this means that CSR has suddenly become a great idea. This newspaper has argued that it is often misguided, or worse. But in practice few big companies can now afford to ignore it.
Beyond the corporate world, CSR is providing fertile ground for think-tanks and consultancies. Governments are taking an ever keener interest: in Britain, for example, the 2006 Companies Act introduced a requirement for public companies to report on social and environmental matters. And the United Nations promotes corporate responsibility around the world through a New York-based group called the Global Compact.
Business schools, for their part, are adding courses and specialised departments to keep their MBA students happy. “Demand for CSR activities has just soared in the past three years,” says Thomas Cooley, the dean of New York University's Stern Business School. Bookshelves groan with titles such as “Corporation Be Good”, “Beyond Good Company” and “The A to Z of Corporate Responsibility”.
Why the boom? For a number of reasons, companies are having to work harder to protect their reputation—and, by extension, the environment in which they do business. Scandals at Enron, WorldCom and elsewhere undermined trust in big business and led to heavy-handed government regulation. An ever-expanding army of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stands ready to do battle with multinational companies at the slightest sign of misbehaviour. Myriad rankings and ratings put pressure on companies to report on their non-financial performance as well as on their financial results. And, more than ever, companies are being watched. Embarrassing news anywhere in the world—a child working on a piece of clothing with your company's brand on it, say—can be captured on camera and published everywhere in an instant, thanks to the internet.
Now comes concern over climate change, probably the biggest single driver of growth in the CSR industry of late. The great green awakening is making company after company take a serious look at its own impact on the environment. It is no surprise, therefore, that 95% of CEOs surveyed last year by McKinsey, a consultancy, said that society now has higher expectations of business taking on public responsibilities than it did five years ago.
Investors too are starting to show more interest. For example, $1 out of every $9 under professional management in America now involves an element of “socially responsible investment”, according to Geoffrey Heal of Columbia Business School. Some of the big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, have started to integrate environmental, social and governance issues in some of their equity research. True, the finance industry sends mixed signals: it demands good financial results above all else, and in parts of the financial world—notably the private-equity part—scepticism on CSR still runs deep. But private equity itself is having to respond to public pressure by agreeing to voluntary codes of transparency.
As well as these external pressures, firms are also facing strong demand for CSR from their employees, so much so that it has become a serious part of the competition for talent. Ask almost any large company about the business rationale for its CSR efforts and you will be told that they help to motivate, attract and retain staff. “People want to work at a company where they share the values and the ethos,” says Mike Kelly, head of CSR at the European arm of KPMG, an accounting firm.
Too much of a good thing?
Since there is so much CSR about, you might think big companies would by now be getting rather good at it. A few are, but most are struggling.
CSR is now made up of three broad layers, one on top of the other. The most basic is traditional corporate philanthropy. Companies typically allocate about 1% of pre-tax profits to worthy causes because giving something back to the community seems “the right thing to do”. But many companies now feel that arm's-length philanthropy—simply writing cheques to charities—is no longer enough. Shareholders want to know that their money is being put to good use, and employees want to be actively involved in good works.
Money alone is not the answer when companies come under attack for their behaviour. Hence the second layer of CSR, which is a branch of risk management. Starting in the 1980s, with environmental disasters such as the explosion at the Bhopal pesticide factory and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, industry after industry has suffered blows to its reputation. Big pharma was hit by its refusal to make antiretroviral drugs available cheaply for HIV/AIDS sufferers in developing countries. In the clothing industry, companies like Nike and Gap came under attack for use of child labour. Food companies face a backlash over growing obesity. And “Don't be evil” as a corporate motto offers no immunity: Google was one of several American technology titans hauled before Congress to be grilled about their behaviour in China.
So, often belatedly, companies respond by trying to manage the risks. They talk to NGOs and to governments, create codes of conduct and commit themselves to more transparency in their operations. Increasingly, too, they get together with their competitors in the same industry in an effort to set common rules, spread the risk and shape opinion.
All this is largely defensive, but companies like to stress that there are also opportunities to be had for those that get ahead of the game. The emphasis on opportunity is the third and trendiest layer of CSR: the idea that it can help to create value. In December 2006 the Harvard Business Review published a paper by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer on how, if approached in a strategic way, CSR could become part of a company's competitive advantage.
That is just the sort of thing chief executives like to hear. “Doing well by doing good” has become a fashionable mantra. Businesses have eagerly adopted the jargon of “embedding” CSR in the core of their operations, making it “part of the corporate DNA” so that it influences decisions across the company.
With a few interesting exceptions, the rhetoric falls well short of the reality. “It doesn't go very deep yet,” says Bradley Googins, executive director of the Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship. His centre's latest survey on the state of play in America is called “Time to Get Real”.
There is, to be fair, some evidence that companies' efforts are moving in a more strategic direction. The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, a New York-based business association, reports that the share of corporate giving with a “strategic” motivation jumped from 38% in 2004 to 48% in 2006. But too often corporate strategy is not properly joined up. In the car industry, Toyota has led the way in championing green, responsible motoring with its Prius hybrid model, but it has lobbied with others in the industry against a tough fuel-economy standard in America. Surveys point to a big gap between companies' aspirations and their actions (see chart 2). And even corporate aspirations in the rich world lag far behind how much the public expects business to contribute to society.
According to Mr Porter, despite a surge of interest in CSR, in most cases it remains “too unfocused, too shotgun, too many supporting someone's pet project with no real connection to the business”. Dutch Leonard, like Mr Porter at Harvard Business School, describes the value-building type of CSR as “an act of faith, almost a fantasy. There are very few examples.”
Perhaps that is not surprising. The business of trying to be good is confronting executives with difficult questions. Can you measure CSR performance? Should you be co-operating with NGOs, and with your competitors? Is there really competitive advantage to be had from a green strategy? How will the rise of companies from China, India and other emerging markets change the game?
This special report will look in detail at how companies are implementing CSR. It will conclude that, done badly, it is often just a figleaf and can be positively harmful. Done well, though, it is not some separate activity that companies do on the side, a corner of corporate life reserved for virtue: it is just good business.
According to Mr Porter, despite a surge of interest in CSR, in most cases it remains “too unfocused, too shotgun, too many supporting someone's pet project with no real connection to the business”. Dutch Leonard, like Mr Porter at Harvard Business School, describes the value-building type of CSR as “an act of faith, almost a fantasy. There are very few examples.”
Perhaps that is not surprising. The business of trying to be good is confronting executives with difficult questions. Can you measure CSR performance? Should you be co-operating with NGOs, and with your competitors? Is there really competitive advantage to be had from a green strategy? How will the rise of companies from China, India and other emerging markets change the game?
This special report will look in detail at how companies are implementing CSR. It will conclude that, done badly, it is often just a figleaf and can be positively harmful. Done well, though, it is not some separate activity that companies do on the side, a corner of corporate life reserved for virtue: it is just good business.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
