You’re probably sitting on an unrealized venture right now. Startups.co.uk points us to a report from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) indicating approximately seven out of every 10 people doing so.

Though 80% of folks claim they have had an idea that would have a ‘positive impact on everybody’s lives,’ about 72% of those ideas never come to fruition. The report lists what people state they are missing to fulfill their visions:

• available funding (36%)
• confidence (31%)
• direction (25%)

While I would be interested to review NESTA’s methodology (especially its sample parameters), I don’t think the results are surprising. Though the entrepreneurial excuses are obvious, they are also thought-provoking. The major question in response should be, what can we do to support potential social entrepreneurs?

This scenario reminded me of an innovative project I failed to participate in over the summer. In fact, you could say I fell into the third who were not confident about an entrepreneurial idea. I was excited about the concept of the American Express Membership Project, but for some reason was blocked on expressing my idea at the time.

If you made the American Express Membership Project into a Venn Diagram, it would fall in the center of Facebook, American Idol, and a corporate-sponsored giving circle, leveraging online social networking tools and corporate dollars for democratically-chosen ideas. American Express asked its cardmembers to register online, submit ideas, and vote on entries. For each member who joined, American Express committed a $1 donation (with a minimum $1 million) and a total of up to $5 million. Ultimately, the credit card company dispersed $2 million to a UNICEF project for ““Children’s Safe Drinking Water” and four other organizations.

Reflecting upon the results, the real downside is all five recipients were more established NGOs. I would have liked for a real startup project to have won, given smaller social enterprises have more difficulty finding financial support. Even with NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund, a project near to my heart that funds small social ventures through a democratic giving circle model, is restricted to supporting nonprofits or groups seeking 501(c)(3) status.  Current legal forms and tax structures are a major reason for that.

What is great about NYC-VPF is that it does address all three excuses entrepreneurs make for not realizing a world-changing idea.  While providing funding to the Davids (versus Goliaths) of social enterprise, NYC-VPF supplements grants with technical support to help provide the confidence and direction social entrepreneurs need to get their ventures off the ground.

I believe the American Express Members Project and NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund can be good models for supporting social entrepreneurs.  There are a number of other organizations that fund social entrepreneurs, several of which I mentioned here.  I look forward to hearing about more opportunities for everyday people to pursue extraordinary visions.

When I came across NuWire Investor’s article on socially responsible investing, I thought it was an accessible introduction to the subject. Trevor Winnie gives a great overview of the benefits, as well as critiques, of this increasingly popular and influential field.

What particularly stood out to me was the breakdown of the three fundamental approaches socially responsible investment managers use to “invest in a more sustainable and humane society.” I began to think beyond the socially responsible investing of financial capital, and thought about applying these strategies to evaluating investments in human capital. More to the point, I thought these same strategies might be useful to anyone interested in a more socially responsible career.

With that in mind, I’ve listed the approaches and how they could be applied in a career context.

Screening is the practice of filtering possible investments through evaluation of a company’s compatibility with criteria used by a specific fund. Some funds focus on environmental issues and others on labor conditions, while many use a wider scope and require a general history of corporate social responsibility. It is still the job of the manager to achieve desired returns while managing risk, but some promising investments will surely be omitted if they can’t meet the relevant standards.

When making a next step along your career path, you (hopefully) already do a bit of “screening.” For many it’s a matter of evaluating location, salary, benefits, vacation days and work-life balance, among factors. If you’re interested having a career with a triple bottom line, then once salary and the above are considered, you may want to decide to don a socially responsible, green collar career.

Shareholder advocacy takes a proactive line of attack to responsible investing. In contradiction to screening strategies, those practicing shareholder activism often invest in unethical companies, hoping to bring about positive change through shareholder resolutions. This process can raise awareness of specific issues and create dialogue with management that otherwise would be nonexistent.

Maybe you’re already invested in your office, enjoying your role and your colleagues, but the fact your company isn’t working toward a triple bottom line disheartens and maybe even upsets you. If you’re up for a challenge, creating changes toward sustainability for your company can have an even greater impact than finding a job with an existing and exemplary blended value organization. Applying a “shareholder advocacy” approach moves beyond preaching to the choir to spreading the sustainability gospel to those most difficult to reach. With professional relationships already in place, you have greater potential to influence your company, particularly if you can back up your green-colored views with data that preserves or improves the financial bottom line.

Community investing is an effort to direct capital into neighborhoods often overlooked by traditional financial services. This approach focuses on issues such as affordable housing, small business creation and development of community facilities. For individual investors, holding cash with financial institutions dedicated to community development—such as credit unions, local savings and loans and development loan funds—can provide competitive returns while helping support economic growth in areas shunned by capitalism. For institutional investors, participation could come in the form of venture capital funding or ownership of real estate, such as low income housing.

I’ll take some liberty in applying this last strategy. I interpret SRI “community investing” in the career context as starting up your own enterprise where, as a social entrepreneur, you take an innovative approach to solving social and environmental problems. These new and untested ideas often face trouble getting support from traditional philanthropies. With such social ventures or venture philanthropy, you intend to make a return that makes a difference, yielding greater results than more conservative philanthropic efforts.

The strategies of screening, shareholder advocacy, and community investing are representative of different types of workers, which I would classify as green collar workers, sustainability change agents, and social entrepreneurs, respectively. Don’t get caught up in the “green” versus “sustainability” versus “social” terminology–for simplicity within this post, I view all as working toward a triple bottom line. The real distinction among the three is the decision to change a job, a company, or an industry (and community).

Out of curiosity, what kind of a worker are you or do you aim to be: green collar worker, sustainability change agent, or social entrepreneur?

Recently, I was tapped to join the newly formed New York City Venture Philanthropy Fund. NYC-VPF is a giving circle whose members’ pooled funds and professional expertise are granted in support of social entrepreneurial projects within the five boroughs.

My role so far, as part of the Donor/Membership Development Sub-committee, has been to begin planning the organization’s launch party (which actually we have divided into a “soft” and “hard” launch). With a background in advertising, I naturally engaged in a critical discussion on branding with two guidance board members.

In discussing what we wanted to convey through a logo and tagline, it became apparent we would need to choose something short and accessible since the group’s name isn’t exactly that. The irony is NYC-VPF embodies democratic philanthropy, and is probably one of the most accessible philanthropic vehicles out there.

In NYC-VPF, anyone can become a member for $365 a year; members are able to vote on grant recipients; and grantees receive support to undertake innovative approaches to solving persistent social problems. While the level to join is low and the concept is exciting and relate-able for most, the language “venture philanthropy” can be a bit alienating for those not familiar.

When we broke NYC-VPF down into its most basic essence, we determined it was about “small money, big change.” The “small money” contrasts with notions of “big money” and “old money,” characterizing traditional philanthropic entities such as foundations. The “big change” refers to the impact of a large community pooling individual “small money” and professional skills to support results-oriented social entrepreneurial problem-solving. We think it works; what do you think?