(Illustration by iStock/Flash vector)
Board Problems
ARTICLE | Does Your Nonprofit Board Need a CGO?
Nonprofit governance is tough and getting tougher. Could designating one board member to serve as a chief governance officer (CGO) be the answer? In this article, Paul Jansen and Helen Hatch from UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business examine some of the many obstacles to board performance and suggest how nonprofits could define a new officer role to address them. “For boards struggling with governance, it is a low-cost, practical solution with significant upside,” the authors conclude.
A Web3 Warning
ARTICLE | Web3 and the Trap of ‘For Good’
As a rapidly growing group of “for good” projects or campaigns seek to capitalize on the momentum and branding of “Web3,” Scott Smith and Lina Srivastava warn that simply applying a “for good” framework to Web3 results in tech solutionism and the imposition of tools on a community that were designed neither with nor by its members. New frontiers of innovation will always include messy failures, but there’s no space to “fail fast.” To fulfill its lofty promises, Web3 needs a value system that is integral to the architecture, not optional or tacked on.
Hybrid How-To
ARTICLE | How to Run Effective Hybrid Meetings in the Social Sector
Concerns about the efficacy of hybrid meetings are valid, but we need to ask: Are the problems inherent in the model, or can leaders overcome them through experience? In this how-to guidance, veteran board chair Mark Zitter explains how to run better meetings through more effective use of technology, careful program design, and intentional facilitation. After all, Zitter reminds us, hybrid meetings have their virtues: “A well-run hybrid meeting can attract more attendees than in-person-only meetings, while making it easier for on-site participants to connect with others than in virtual-only meetings.”
Public Interest Tech
SERIES | Putting the Public Interest in Front of Technology
Marginalized communities often bear the brunt of technology’s adverse consequences, amplifying systemic inequities. The solution to these challenges lies not only in an approach focused on developing tech for good, but in always asking, “Good for whom?” In a new in-depth series sponsored by the Ford Foundation, some of the sharpest minds in the emerging field of public interest technology explore the creation and distribution of technology that works for all across four key sectors: academia, civil society, business, and government.
What About the S in ESG?
ARTICLES | ESG Investing Needs to Expand Its Definition of Materiality and Fixing the S in ESG
The potential benefits of the ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing boom remain limited, argue Tom Adams, Lindsay Smalling, and Sasha Dichter from the impact measurement firm 60 Decibels. How come? “First, because only factors that affect financial returns are considered ‘material’ for ESG investors,” the authors write. “And second, because the S in ESG remains woefully underdeveloped.” Meanwhile, in another article, Jason Saul of the Center for Impact Sciences at the University of Chicago adds, “To be relevant, the ESG field must modernize the way it measures S factors. To do so, we must overcome several key conceptual challenges: standardization, quantification, and reporting.”
Support SSIR’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.
Help us further the reach of innovative ideas. Donate today.
Read more stories by SSIR Editors.