Trust, communication, and risk: 3 takeaways on social impact from the Marmalade festival

Last week, I was lucky enough to attend the Marmalade festival in Oxford. It was brilliant day, with the chance to meet people from across the impact sector – as the organisers put it, people who ‘want to influence change’. (It was even worth the early-morning start!)

After attending discussions on risk in philanthropic giving, challenges in impact management and measurement, and the impact investing ecosystem my three key takeaways were:

• Funders and grantees need to trust and challenge each other.
• We need creative ways to communicate impact outside our bubble.
• We need to recognise the risks of not funding.

Funders and grantees need to trust and challenge each other.

When we talk about measurement and evaluation of social impact, we no longer have to explain why it’s important. The conversation has moved on.

Now discussion centres on value for money, getting the most out of our data, how and when we share results, and making sure people have the right skills and resources to get started.

The impact sector is still learning. Often, both funders and grantees do not fully understand why they are collecting certain types of data or how they are being used in evaluating impact. There are still too many examples of evaluating programmes just for the sake of evaluation.

If we imagine impact evaluation as a journey then funders and grantees are heading to the same destination. If they are going to share the metaphorical car or train carriage for the whole trip, they need to get on with each other.

Importantly, this includes challenging each other when necessary. Setting clear outcomes, being realistic and transparent about the data that is feasible and affordable to collect, and balancing the measurement responsibilities with day-to-day operations are the key parts of building this trusted relationship.

If you’re interested in exploring the role of equity and trust in measurement and evaluation, check out our free guide with practical steps for how this can be done.

We need creative ways to communicate impact outside our bubble.

If you’re passionate about creating and measuring social impact like me, we probably speak the same language. However, there is a world out there of people we have yet to reach.

The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) 2024 report estimates the global impact investment market at $1.57 trillion in 2024. A big number. But, according to The Thinking Ahead Institute’s research, the world’s largest 500 asset managers managed $128 trillion of assets in 2023. Clearly, there is more potential.

There is still a need for the impact sector to come up with creative ways to tell our story and attract more investment. I’ve heard this consistently in my conversations with social enterprises, foundations, charities, and impact investors

For example, I’m currently working with two charities operating nationwide in the UK to develop their impact dashboards. These are excellent examples of how organisations can track outcomes based on their theories of change and communicate the impact with internal and external stakeholders.

My clients are also thinking about using the dashboards in board meetings to assess their strengths and areas for improvement.

Dashboards are only a way of communicating social impact to people outside of this world, but they are certainly one of the most digestible and affordable ways of doing that.

If you’re interested in finding out more about our work on dashboards, please get in touch below.

We need to recognise the risks of not funding.

I was very struck by how one Marmalade panellist described risk: ‘risk is semantic’.

Whether you work for a funder or a charity, I’m sure you find yourself in conversations where people mention that they or their board members are ‘risk-averse’. But what does that actually mean?

Our perception of risk is shaped by our previous experiences, together with economic orthodoxy. These systems influence us to have built-in biases in how we describe risk.

For example, one of the things we hear from many funders is that they don’t fund unincorporated organisations or community groups. Why? What is the risk of funding unincorporated organisations? Are we afraid that the money will not be used as effectively as other charities? Are we afraid of creating less impact? How can we judge is less important?

I think it’s time for the conversation in philanthropic giving to shift from the risk of funding to the risk of not funding.

What would that look like? Instead of thinking about the risk of funding unincorporated groups or communities, we would think about the impact of not funding. Are any other organisations able to provide a similar service? Would communities still be left facing huge problems, such as food insecurity?

Thanks to Skoll for making the Marmalade Festival possible. I’d love to continue the conversation – please get in touch with your thoughts.

Image: Marmalade Festival, designed by Freepik