For the past six years the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship has brought the who’s who in the field together in the famed university town. The theme of this year’s gathering from March 25th to 27th was “shifting power dynamics.” Coverage of this topic would be incomplete without taking into account the changing web landscape. One session, held on March 26th, that related squarely to Web 2.0 dynamics was titled “(Financial) Power to the People.”

The panelists included three Web 2.0 social entrepreneurs: Premal Shah, President, Kiva.org; Mari Kuraishi, President, GlobalGiving.org; and Mads Kjaers, CEO, myc4.com. Each of these social entrepreneurs is having a positive impact in the world, but each with different business models: online micro-lending for Kiva, online giving for GlobalGiving and online investing for MYC4. The moderator was Tom Watson, Managing Partner, CauseWired Communications, who also operates www.socialedge.org for the Skoll World Forum.

The Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship featured a session, held on March 26th, that related squarely to Web 2.0 dynamics was titled “(Financial) Power to the People.” One of the companies participating in the panel was www.globalgiving.com, which I have covered previously in this blog.

Mari Kuraishi, President, GlobalGiving introduced her company by noting “they have been called the eBay of philanthropy,” although they are a non-profit organization. Amidst the cluttered landscape of giving options, Kuriashi explained that the core uniqueness of GlobalGiving is that donors can hear back directly from the field as to how their contributions have made a difference. Thus far, GlobalGiving has funded almost 1,300 projects through the contributions of 40,000 donors for a total of US$20m.

One apparently similar portal is www.networkforgood.org that opens the door for individuals to donate to all registered charities in the US. The difference from GlobalGiving is its project approach. They focus on opportunities for people to accomplish something when they donate. Another uniqueness is that individuals who are not registered charities can raise money for causes.

The Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship included well-known non-profit Kiva.org in a panel discussion titled “(Financial) Power to the People.” Non-profit Kiva has generated widespread attention for its innovative online approach to giving. Permal Shah, President, recounted that the company is only 3 1/2 years old.

Kiva provides an internet marketplace for microfinance. A person can choose an entrepreneur in the developing world and lend $25 or more and repayment usually occurs within 10 months. Shah stated that the payback to lenders is 97.7%. Thus far, they have raised US$65m from over 500,000 people in more than 100 countries. Shah noted that in spite of all the positive press they received for their pioneering efforts, they are still an extremely small part of the overall micro-lending market worldwide.

Shah explained that it took Kiva an entire year to solicit their first US$1 million in loans. At present, they process that much per week. They now work with 115 micro-finance institutions (MFIs) in order to source worthwhile projects. Shah suggested that this is probably the largest microfinance network in the world. The MFIs are in 45 countries, ranging from young non-governmental organizations with little finances to large MFIs that resemble banks. They are constantly looking for reputable MFIs to help handle the overload of would-be lenders

Tom Watson, of CauseWired.com, the moderator of the panel, asked about whether they have widespread demographic support or if they rely on a core of do-gooders. Shah suggested that they presently appeal to a general rather than a segmented demographic, just like Amazon would. Shah’s view was that the market exists, but it is an awareness issue especially in comparison to well-established brands for giving. On a more general note, he lamented that “The big enemy is apathy; you have to get people engaged; it must be two times better than alternatives so that people will tell friends of friends”.

I will be blogging and tweeting this week from the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship at Oxford University. This annual event has evolved over a few short years to become arguably the most important event in the world for social entrepreneurs. Financed by the first President of eBay, Jeff Skoll, the Forum attracts the who’s who of the social entrepreneurship sector. Consider it the Davos World Forum for social entrepreneurs.

The speakers usually comprise leading politicians, academics and social entrepreneurs from throughout the world. Last year some of the headliners included former President Jimmy Carter and former Vice President Al Gore. Carter spoken movingly about the various causes he is involved in, such as eradicating various diseases in Africa. Gore, meanwhile, focused on climate change and the catastrophic implications that lay ahead unless action is taken soon.

Have you been at a party lately where some one asked, “What is your “carbon footprint?” Or have you been asked, “What is your “offsetting” gap?” It is coming. What is your answer? It is time to figure that out.

Climate change and global warming are constantly in the news. Environmental disaster is apparently looming. Governments are taking action. But, what can individuals do to make a difference? And what can companies do through the collective actions of their employees?

A person’s “carbon footprint” is the total carbon dioxide emissions they create when they drive, go on a flight or use electricity.” An oft-cited statistic is that each individual in Canada and the US emits around 5 tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere from their day-to-day activities.

A straight-forward way to reduce your carbon footprint is through conservation – drive less, turn down the thermostat, buy locally produced goods. But these actions alone may not reduce all 5 tons of emissions.

This gap has resulting in the concept of “offsetting” the emissions that a person can’t reduce. An offsetting program reduces the emissions that a person cannot reduce by funding clean energy and efficiency projects such as wind farms. Here are four organizations that will assist individuals and companies in the offsetting process.

The other day I was sitting at one half of a circular boardroom table in Manhattan; the other half of the table was projected onto three panel screens. I was sitting next to Carlos Dominguez, Senior Vice President, Office of the Chairman, Cisco, who leads the charge on collaboration and innovation.

He was demonstrating Cisco’s TelePresence technology. I noted in a previous blog post that Cisco’s TelePresence delivers “a unique ‘in-person’ experience with remote participants—you can interact and collaborate with others like never before, moving faster and more effectively.

Carlos dialed in one of his associates in Silicon Valley. In short order, she appeared and took her place at the table; that is, at one of the chairs across the table that was projected onto one of the flat screen panels.

The experience is unique as it provides much more of a real life meeting experience. You can hear their voices and movements of individuals from other locations quite clearly. Whenever someone was demonstrating something on their computer it was displayed on a screen for all to see.

The intent is to facilitate communication and meetings. We have all heard the general rule that much of communication is beyond content and voice, but also body language—in other words, ways to help you read between the lines.

With TelePresence technology you are able to simulate more of a real life meeting and derive similar benefits. What are the benefits of this type of technology?

One issue that regularly arises in a discussion of corporate social responsibility relates to the motives of companies. Are they really trying to “do the right thing?” Or, are they pursuing good solely for marketing reasons?

Critics scoff at the practice of social responsibility and particularly when incongruent with the company’s overall actions. They call it greenwashing, a decoy, a façade, a deception, and the like. In other words, selective actions are not reflective of what the company is doing, but rather a superficial ploy to mask the fact that the company is indeed unethical or socially irresponsible. Enron, for example, had a great code of ethics and was a contributor to many community projects.

Are these individual examples of “doing the right thing” actually wrong? Of course, society generally and stakeholders specifically should examine the approach of companies, especially when these companies are trying to present their actions as reflective of an overall approach to business. The public has a right to scrutinize actions and point out inconsistencies with the messages being presented.

I think it is important, however, to distinguish the value of the overall concept of social responsibility and the inability of all specific companies to carry through on its execution. Just as there are examples of shortcomings there are many examples of companies doing well.

Crowd power may be the most useful tool in order to use social media for the benefit of social responsibility. The basic idea behind crowd power is to effectively tap into the wisdom and power of a large group of people with an outcome that would be superior to the efforts of any single individual

There are a number of crowd-related terms that all have an element of the power of the crowd, from “crowdsourcing” to “crowd clout.” At its root it is a means of building a community. Without a community there will not be a crowd to source.

As a result, crowd power is built on engagement and interactivity. In relation to social responsibility, creating positive change requires the engagement and motivation of people.

The concept of crowd power has been applied in a variety of commercial ventures: Cambrian House sources software and business ideas; Fluevog is home to the crowdsourced shoe; NowPublic has crowd-power journalism; Threadless taps the crowd for T-shirt designs, and on it goes.

The principles of crowd power can apply equally as well to companies that wish to practice social responsibility. I will explain the principle and then how it can be applied to social responsibility.