簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
史泰磊 Taylor John Scobbie |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
社會企業募資實務 Fundraising as a social enterprise |
| 指導教授： |
尚孝純
Shang, Shari |
| 口試委員: |
陳宇紳
Chen, Vincent 冷則剛 Leng, Tse-Kang |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
商學院 - 國際經營管理英語碩士學位學程(IMBA) International MBA Program College of Commerce(IMBA) |
| 論文出版年： | 2019 |
| 畢業學年度： | 107 |
| 語文別： | 英文 |
| 論文頁數： | 51 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 社會企業 、募資 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | Social Enterprise, Fundraising |
| DOI URL： | http://doi.org/10.6814/NCCU201900678 |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：86 下載：23 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
無
Fundraising as a modern startup is hard. Although more funding than ever is flowing into new companies from venture capitalists (VCs), angel investors, and governments, the bar is higher than ever for securing that capital. Modern VC funds are designed with one purpose: creating “unicorns” - companies with $1B USD+ valuations. To be under consideration for VC funding startups must be able to tell a growth story that achieves this kind of valuation within 3-5 years. This represents a vanishingly small subset of all new companies created. Fundraising as a social enterprise is another thing altogether. Investors look upon unfamiliar “for-purpose” companies with skepticism - as charities in disguise. Their purposes are viewed as cash consuming cost centers that may adversely affect the ability to scale. With few true venture scale social enterprises existing in the marketplace, social enterprise startups have few peers to point to as success cases. This makes progress in a fundraising context that values doing more of what has worked in the past extremely challenging. This paper explores the nature of the modern social enterprise - their key features, different types of impact models, and their benefits and drawbacks in the marketplace. Understanding how social enterprises differ from traditional companies is a key component of our ability to craft compelling fundraising stories to traditional equity investors.
One such story will be examined through a real-world case study: impctcoffee. As founder and CEO of impctcoffee, the author has just successfully closed a new round of funding from leading San Francisco/Bay Area angels and VC investors. This case study will outline impctcoffee’s social enterprise model, actual due dilligence questions from investors, and the answers to those questions that ultimately led to successfully being funded. This will be followed by an extrapolation of the strategy found within those answers to advice for social enterprises who wish to follow this fundraising path.
1. Introduction 1
2. The Social Enterprise 2
2.1. Introduction 2
2.2. What is a Social Good? 3
2.3. Necessary Features of a Social Enterprise 4
2.3.1. Explicitly built to create some social good. 4
2.3.2. A Positive Feedback Loop Between Impact and Revenue 5
2.4. Optional Features of a Social Enterprise 5
2.4.1. Impact be measurable, measured, and in-line with commonly accepted impact outcomes. 6
2.4.2. Negative externalities be controlled for/minimized. 6
2.4.3. Legal structure. 7
2.5. Types of Social Enterprise Impact Models 7
2.5.1. The product sold creates impact through its use. 7
2.5.2. The product allows consumers to create impact through their consumption. 8
2.5.3. The model and/or operations creates the impact. 9
2.6. Drawbacks and Benefits of the Social Enterprise 10
2.6.1. Drawbacks 10
2.6.2. Benefits 12
3. Case Study: impctcoffee. 15
3.1. Company Overview 15
3.2. Real-world Investor Due Dilligence Questions/Answers 16
3.2.1. Business Model and Product Questions 16
3.2.2. Expansion/Scale-up Questions 30
3.2.3. Platform Questions 33
3.2.4. Company History and Impact Questions 37
3.2.5. Fundraising Questions 43
4. Fundraising as a Social Enterprise 45
4.1. Know your investor, context matters. 45
4.2. Investors aren’t going to tell you what you’re doing wrong. 45
4.3. You’re doing everything wrong. 46
4.4. Investors want to do more of what has made them successful. 47
4.5. You need local traction and local stamps of approval 47
4.6. Investors are going to think you’re a charity 49
5. Conclusion 50
6. Bibliography 51
Bloomberg.com. (2019). Bloomberg - Are you a robot?. [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-15/tyson-s-quest-to-be-your-one-stop-protein-shop [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Fast Company. (2019). Inside San Francisco’s Deaf Owned And Operated Pizzeria. [online] Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3043126/inside-san-franciscos-deaf-owned-and-operated-pizzeria [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Forbes.com. (2019). A Better Way To 'Buy One, Give One'. [online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2014/10/08/a-better-way-to-buy-one-give-one/#2dfce3cb485e [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Ha‐Brookshire, J. and Norum, P. (2011). Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(5), pp.344-353.
Inc.com. (2019). Report: 75% of Venture-backed Start-ups Fail. [online] Available at: https://www.inc.com/john-mcdermott/report-3-out-of-4-venture-backed-start-ups-fail.html [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Linnane, C. (2019). Beyond Meat goes public with a bang: 5 things to know about the plant-based meat maker. [online] MarketWatch. Available at:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beyond-meat-is-going-public-5-things-to-know-about-the-plant-based-meat-maker-2018-11-23 [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
London Business School. (2019). Most millennials will only work for purpose-driven firms | London Business School. [online] Available at:
https://www.london.edu/news-and-events/news/most-millennials-will-only-work-for-purpose-driven-firms-1431 [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Sustainabledevelopment.un.org. (2019). SDGs .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [online] Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
Vox. (2019). Warby Parker is valued at $1.75 billion after a pre-IPO investment of $75 million. [online] Available at: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17115230/warby-parker-75-million-funding-t-rowe-price-ipo [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
