Uniting for Impact: A Journey Towards Social Cohesion
Why can't we create a systemic impact for a society that shares the same space, despite the conflicts we face?
This question is a deep-seated problem that organisations and individuals trying to reach social goals face at some point.
This is more than just a question; it's a challenge that beckons me to delve deeper into the intricacies of human collaboration and the fabric of societal structures.
What is 'Impact' in the first place? Ronald Cohen, the pioneering philanthropist and investor referred to as the 'father' of impact investing, defines it as follows.
Effects that intentionally generate positive social or environmental effects in addition to financial returns. This should include intentionality, measurable evidence, ongoing performance management and contribution to social change.
Is a world in which people and organisations with different characteristics spontaneously, inevitably and proactively unite with a common consciousness and purpose, and co-create the 'Impact' that Mr Cohen describes, really feasible?
The Transition of Historical Social Organizations
Before we get down to business, let us first look back at the rich history of human history, which is full of many insights. Because in times long past, people had already invented the art of strategic co-creation. We will explore the secrets and the possibilities of applying them to the modern world.
Throughout its history, humanity has flexibly moved back and forth between different social organisational laws, regularly building and dismantling hierarchies. But as we remain stagnant today, the real question here would be "how did we get stuck?"
David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021) - The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity
Anthropologist James Woodburn’s research (2001) reveals that long before the advent of agriculture, over 10,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer societies strategically utilized chiefdom systems and gender disparities in accordance with seasons and rituals, thereby organically facilitating cooperative relationships within their communities.
In societies of the time, there were usually severe restrictions on individuals giving direct orders to others or claiming private property, and attachment to material possessions was kept to a minimum. We can see an egalitarianism with a decentralised power structure and a weak hierarchical system. However, his research shows that there are interesting exceptions to this. In the realm of ritual, or the sacred, this principle was relaxed and certain individuals and groups were allowed to exercise privileges and ownership.
Specifically, in East Africa, particularly among the Huzzas around Lake Eyasi in Tanzania, and among the pygmy groups that inhabited the rainforest regions of Central Africa, particularly in the Congo Basin, male (or in some cases female) membership of a religious cult often conferred exclusive rights in the form of possession of ritual privileges which meant that they could not be held responsible for their own actions. These privileges were protected by secrecy, deception and sometimes the threat of violence, acts forbidden in normal social life.
Evidence has been presented that the privileges gained from participation in the special community of religious cults gave its members a specific role within society and, in fact, contributed to the maintenance of social order. The functioning of a privileged mechanism that would provide a mechanism for the holes in society that do not work well in the current situation, providing a good merriment to the relationships within the society and promoting cooperation and harmony within the community. At first glance, this may appear to go against the principles of a society based on sharing and cooperation, but in fact it is interpreted as functioning as a means of understanding and managing the complex dynamics within society.
The Huzzas, in particular, are said to have had the ability not only to maintain this balance of internal structure and power, but also to actively accept and incorporate influences from outside society. By deliberately involving biologically different people in the collective life of the village, they were able to reconcile the resentments and power structures that tended to build up within kinship, and by deliberately increasing diversity within the society and introducing new perspectives and skills, they promoted adaptability and innovation throughout the community. Statistics show that biological relatives derived from a common ancestor account for less than 10% of the members of any given residential group. Most members shared no close genetic relationship and their origins were spread over an extremely vast area.
The lesson to be learnt from their lives is that even societies in the distant past had the flexibility and ability to adopt the unique community, rule formation and different norms etc. needed to make society better in different situations. I believe that this principle can be applied to our contemporary societies in political and economic power relations, as well as in co-creation processes between different stakeholders.
What we should learn from their lives is that even societies in the distant past had the flexibility and ability to adopt and accept the unique communities, rule formations, and different norms necessary to make society better in different situations. They were able to hold complex relational societies in mind and recall them through privileged community use and ritualized cognitive work. While hunter-gatherers sometimes act in small groups, they do not live in small-scale societies. This principle could be applied to the co-creation process in today's society, where huge globalism is regrouping with a shrinking number of cooperative stakeholders.
Challenges in Creating Cooperation and Impact in Modern Society
Giorgio Agamben's (2005) concept of the 'state of exception' emerged as a negative term that privileges and abuses different norms and power structures depending on the situation. This central theme revolves a legal concept that allows governments to suspend normal legislation and adopt exceptional measures in times of emergency. In other words, it is a state of affairs in which normal democratic processes and legal constraints are temporarily suspended, allowing certain political institutions and leaders to concentrate power in themselves. Using the concept of 'bare life', Agamben shows the vulnerability of individual rights and existence under the state of exception, but interestingly, this concept is interpreted differently in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. And I believe that this is where the application of flexible and collective co-creation to contemporary society is possible.
You may have heard phrases such as 'Mutual Aid' and 'Conviviality' under the state of emergency: During the COVID-19 emergency, a combination of severe time, resource and budget constraints created opportunities for states and citizens to co-create voluntary, compulsory and necessary activities and policies to achieve common goals in different countries. opportunities arose to co-create activities and policies, spontaneously, compulsorily and out of necessity, to achieve common goals in different countries. Hostile relationships between different people and organisations were reset, creating a new environment in which power dynamics were neutralised, and many examples were created of collective rebuilding of power from scratch.
For peaceful coexistence and conviviality, multiple stakeholders self-organise, rub together the means and objectives of their social contribution, and develop new philosophical and practical forms in a non-hierarchical and democratic manner. Such symbiosis (conviviality) has been going on for 10,000 years in human history and can be seen to a small extent even nowadays under emergency conditions.
For more information on specific examples, please refer to my paper Hirayama (2021).
Ideal Model of Impact Creation
Given the new possibilities for impact creation through 'Conviviality', as demonstrated by the 'use of authority' of hunter-gatherer societies, Giorgio Agamben's 'state of exception' and the COVID-19 emergency, we believe that individuals and organisations from different backgrounds in contemporary society need to work towards a common purpose and that we We believe that we need a 'Dialog for power and flexibility' where individuals and organisations from different backgrounds can join forces towards a common goal in today's society. As a first step, I would like to propose the theme of a 'corporate version of Elon Musk'.
[Idea] To launch a corporate version of Elon Musk.
Let's say a diverse group of individuals and organisations come together and dedicate some of their own time to a common set of issues. High-level officials may bring a vision for the country's future, entrepreneurs may offer innovative ideas, local residents may offer their vision of the area, and local authorities may offer specific local problems.
"Two minds are better than one", this Japanese proverb that says that even ordinary people can come up with unexpectedly good wisdom if they get together and consult with three people, no less than Manjushri, who represents prajñā (transcendent wisdom) of the Buddhas in Mahāyāna Buddhism.
Then, I am eagerly curious what kind of solutions can be generated when dozens of individuals and organisations get together for a few years to discuss? I believe that if we can systematically build and run such a space, we will be on the edge of an unparalleled initiative and take a step towards making a truly impactful contribution to society.
This concept can be applied to the Disruptive Co-Creation Community shown in the diagram below. Usually, when developing a product or service, ideas are refined within a company and KPIs are set to adapt them to the market. However, most initiatives in this world are not necessarily set and tested with a collective strategy and consultation, social vision and impact targets. If the series of processes involved in developing products and services in the world were to be refined at the social level, not only at the individual or organisational level, but also through communities of diverse professionals (assembly → consultation → recognition of needs → collaboration), what kind of innovative services could be created one after another?
The possibilities are immeasurable. We need to return to our roots, to occasionally distance ourselves from the business we are doing now, to face others and deliberate on the path to change.
Another important aspect of the above model is the layering of strategies in a chain towards a vision that you believe is certain. In the diagram above we call the Strategic Chain - Circular -. In the face of a grand vision, the power of one individual is nothing. So it becomes necessary to develop strategies and carry things through a process of trial and error until we have the same aspirations as others.
In this respect, we can learn spectacularly from one of the most transformative figures in this world, Elon Musk. Although the transformation that Musk has created did not start with a consultative community, he has established a chain of unicorns one after the other through his strong vision and his ability to attract and engage people. His vision is simple yet profound. It is essentially to contribute to the future and sustainability of humanity by 'protecting humanity from risks (natural or man-made) on the planet and making humanity a multi-planetary species'.
Elon Musk is found to be building a strategic chain of companies that lead in one direction in the group of companies he is involved in - SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink and The Boring Company, each of which innovates in its own field, yet shares a strong relevance to social goals and share a strong relevance and strategy towards them. This integrated approach demonstrates how Musk is materialising his vision and contributing to a sustainable future.
However, we need to model such a 'thinking collective', which we can call a social dialogue, with more people and organisations and a higher frequency of interaction, about what to deconstruct and what to create, rather than just waiting for individual change agents like Musk to emerge. With dialogue and discussion as a starting point, individuals and organisations with the hope and will for society need to implement a 'strategic vision's alignment' as Elon Musk has done.
What can we do to overcome the challenges of co-creation and impact creation in contemporary society? I hope to draw on my experience in various fields, including community development, evaluation and investment, to think about these ideas together with you.
Appendix
Defining Key Roles in Disruptive Co-Creation and Impactful Change
In the Model of Impact Creation, transitioning from Disruptive Co-Creation to Challenging Leap necessitates the involvement of specific roles, which I believe include:
These roles are not just generic titles but are key players in shaping the collective will born out of dialogue. For example, a Facilitator might be an organization like the Asian Venture Philanthropy Network ( AVPN ), which leads in defining philanthropy, conducting research, and constructing forums.
As for the Investor role, it could resemble the Dream Incubator (DI)'s Next Rise Social Impact Fund, creating pilot projects for social implementation.
A Project Manager, especially in a tourism context, might look towards the Destination Management Organization (DMO) in Setouchi, Hiroshima, known for building collaborative relationships between seven municipalities and ten tourism-related businesses, along with private enterprises.
Recommended by LinkedIn
What role, if any, do you yourself think you can play in the various roles to create an open community capable of social unity and impact creation? This is an unavoidable question as we seek to create meaningful change in society.
Today, I'd like to share my perspectives, admittedly based on my own biases, on the role of Evaluators and DMOs in social impact creation.
The Path to New Social Impact Creation through Evaluation
Social Impact Evaluation has a history of more than 20 years. In Japan, accountability disclosures of SDG-conscious management to Japanese companies through asset owners and managers have been strengthened, especially after the Japanese GPIF (Government Pension Investment Fund) signed the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) in 2016. This has led to an increased history of assessing ESG performance in a social context.
Starting with the Global Compact established in 1999, the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) were introduced in 2006 and the Sustainable Insurance Principles in 2012. In addition, standardised reporting guidelines such as ISO 26000, GRI and IIRC facilitate the assessment of corporate social, environmental and governance performance. ESG metrics such as the DJSI also support investment decisions that take into account both a company's sustainability and social impact, and this overall trend has driven valuations that make companies more responsible towards society and demonstrate positive impact.
Social Impact Evaluation is not in itself a technical concept, but it is extremely rare for evaluations to be carried out for impact creation. The reason for this is that without criteria that are agreed upon in interactive consultation, are well considered and have room for verification, evaluation loses its significance. Evaluation without purpose is simply complacency.
However, instances where evaluation truly aligns with the creation of impact, adhering to this conceptual pyramid, are exceedingly rare. Why is this the case? It's largely due to the factors mentioned earlier: without goals that are agreed upon and thoroughly deliberated at a dialogical base, evaluation loses its significance. Evaluations without a purpose are merely self-satisfying.
"If you measure the wrong thing, you will do the wrong thing,"
quoted by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Economist, in 2021 at Social Outcomes Conference
Social Impact Evaluation:
Purpose: To reveal how programs and policies are addressing societal issues and the magnitude of their effects. This includes understanding the overall impact, encompassing both positive and negative effects, as well as unintended outcomes.
Evaluation Metrics: To assess social impact, concrete metrics and standards are necessary. These include various societal goals such as improving the quality of education, reducing poverty, enhancing health status, and environmental protection.
So what are the evaluations carried out for impact creation? The indicators and criteria required for impact creation evaluations have been categorised into eight distinct types and are represented in the diagram below. We will not go into the details of each type, but many companies and consultancies focus primarily on indicators and guidelines, which are mostly adopted in an ad hoc evaluation approach. We have seen almost no examples of 'impact management' in listed companies, where frameworks such as Theory of Change or logic models are continuously re-evaluated and constantly adjusted based on principles, norms and objectives.
Understanding the pyramid model of evaluation takes time. Initially, I would like to introduce five principles I've formulated, drawing inspiration from Joseph Stiglitz and Andy Stirling's 3D theory (2009):
The above are points I gathered from listening to Stiglitz. His views likely reflect Hungarian economist Karl Polanyi's notion of preventing the 'disembedding' of the formal economy (industrial society) from the substantive economy and the need to ensure the health of the economic system by balancing market and non-market relationships.
For example, Payment for Ecosystem/Environment Services (PES) in various countries, including Japan, has been a subject of debate regarding financial rewards. PES, which translates non-market values related to the environment into financial incentives for local actors providing ecosystem services, is a neoliberal approach to nature conservation. Ostensibly implemented to preserve species and landscapes, PES has led to several adverse effects, such as the collapse of markets set up for ecosystem services or the diversion of resources designed for the impoverished to the elite, thus unbalancing environmental conservation and poverty reduction goals
5. Always Consider Sustainability from a 3D Perspective: Directionality, Distribution, Diversity
I utilize this framework proposed by development scholar Andy Stirling (2009), Democratising Innovation - towards more accountable institutions, which emphasizes:
No matter how decentralized the operation, a management system that overlooks the 3D perspective is not worthy of a favorable evaluation.
In various studies applying Andy Stirling, examples are given of the failure of the UK health system in COVID-19. The UK healthcare system, which was intricately built through public-private partnerships (PPPs), required significant government intervention to function effectively during the pandemic.
However, leadership without sustainability targets and a system with no clear locus of operational authority has led to a prolonged paralysis of the healthcare system. Despite efforts by consultancies like McKinsey and Deloitte to optimize key areas, the lack of integration between the 3D approach and methodology resulted in the failure of national public policy.
The Role of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) in My Vision for 'Time for Origin Regression'
One organizational form in the tourism sector that has captured my attention in the pursuit of 'Time for Origin Regression' is the Destination Management Organization (DMO). This model transcends traditional tourism development by fostering a unique blend of local engagement and collaborative governance. By integrating diverse stakeholders – from local businesses to government entities and community members – DMOs act as catalysts for communal unity and shared purpose.
DMOs play a crucial role in this regard. As the command centers for developing tourist areas, they collaborate with local businesses and government stakeholders to lead in attracting both domestic and international tourists and in disseminating regional information.
Originally starting in the West, the importance of DMOs has been recognized globally, especially since the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) clarified their roles and missions in 2007. In Japan, DMOs can receive financial support such as subsidies, grants, and loans from the Cabinet Office and various ministries.
Individual shops and businesses operating in a tourist destination only provide products and services, but in promotion and attracting visitors to a region's attractions, not only individual efforts are required, but the region as a whole must work together. Therefore, DMOs need to draw out the 'earning power' of the region while nurturing pride and attachment to the region, formulate tourism development strategies based on clear concepts and coordinate the implementation of the strategies as a hub for various stakeholders.
The roles of DMOs can be broadly classified into four categories:
Although there are successful cases of DMOs in Japan, their presence is still relatively low even after a decade. Many DMOs are led by either government-driven initiatives or private businesses with a strong public character, often resulting in conservative approaches to stakeholder consensus. Even before project implementation, power imbalances between stakeholders may have resulted in the undermining of the original role of the DMO.
Steve Hindle from the Elton John AIDS Foundation AIDS Foundation responded thoughtfully to my inquiry.
Many regional development and town-making DMOs still operate top-down systems. It's worth noting how 1) higher-tier stakeholders like governments and investors can functionally provide incentives for cooperation with local parties, and 2) the will and opinions of citizens and communities can be secured even before tendering and bidding processes.
Co-creation, as defined, goes beyond superficially catering to service beneficiaries' culture and needs, and actively promotes their participation.
Co-creation is "the provision of services through regular and long-term relationships between professional service providers and service users, along with other community members, where all parties make substantial resource contributions."
Defined by Bovaird (2007), Tragedy of the commons or the commoners’ tragedy.
I believe the DMO model has more potential to champion the concept of 'co-creation,' where every participant, regardless of their role, contributes to and shapes the collective vision. The inclusive and participatory model drawn below can not only bolsters local economies but also strengthens the social fabric, creating a sense of belonging and shared identity.
DMOs are linked to disruptive co-creation, but they are not yet strong enough to create companies like Mask. We feel that we can play a role in launching DMOs in several regions at the same time, and create a model that not only ignites change in individual DMOs, but also promotes collaborative change between different DMOs.
In doing so, it could act as a gateway for innovative technologies and ideas from domestic and international start-ups, or it could work with external financial institutions to incorporate 1) blended finance, 2) design stage grants and 3) technical assistant investments, which are classified as impact investments.
It is also useful to have the DMO itself as a fund, which could incorporate external evaluation and set financial returns linked to results, with the DMO also playing the role of investor and project manager.
Envisioning a United World
My dream is to create a 'United World' (UW), not a United Nations (UN). It is not simply about creating a large global organisation. I aim to create a 'good and privileged place' where individuals and organisations 'can come together, connect and have meaningful discussions, sometimes loosely, sometimes with a willingness to make sacrifices for the good of society'.
Many of the problems society faces today stem from the failures of governments and civil societies, and the notion of corporations filling these gaps poses a risk to liberal democracy. This is equally true for market failures being rectified by governments and citizens. We tend to make short-term decisions, but the challenges the world faces require long-term solutions, necessitating as many players as possible to compensate for failures and strive for new goals.
This perspective is shared by Kartik Ramanna, Professor of Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford , and Baroness Dambisa Moyo , an economist at the Social Outcomes Conference