Impact Curious?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Excerpt of book by Priya Parrish: “My journey to impact investing began when I was an undergraduate studying economics and entrepreneurship and couldn’t find any examples of people harnessing the power of business to improve the world. That was 20 years ago, before impact investing was a recognized strategy. Back then, just about everyone in the field was an entrepreneur experimenting with investment tools, trying to figure out how to do well financially while also making positive change. I joined right in.

The term “impact investing” has been around since 2007 but hasn’t taken hold the way I thought (and hoped) it might. There are still a lot of myths about what impact investing truly is and does, the most prevalent of which is that doing good won’t generate returns. This couldn’t be more false, yet it persists. This book is my attempt to debunk this myth and others like it, as well as make sense of the confusion, as it’s difficult for a newcomer to understand the jargon, sort through the many false or exaggerated claims, and follow the heated debates about this topic. This book is for the “impact curious,” or anyone who wants more than just financial returns from their investments. It is for anyone interested in finding out what their investments can do when aligned with purpose. It is for anyone who wishes to live in alignment with their values—in every aspect of their lives.

This particular excerpt from my book, The Little Book of Impact Investing, provides a history of the term and activity in the space. It addresses why now is a particularly good time to make business do more and do better—so that the world can and will too…(More)”.

Silencing Science Tracker

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It is intended to record reports of federal, state, and local government attempts to “silence science” since the November 2016 election.

We define “silencing science” to include any action that has the effect of restricting or prohibiting scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information. We divide such actions into 7 categories as follows…(More)”

CategoryExamples
Government CensorshipChanging the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information.Making scientific data more difficult to find or access.Restricting public communication by scientists.
Self-CensorshipScientists voluntarily changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information, potentially in response to political pressure.
 We note that it is often difficult to determine whether self-censorship is occurring and/or its cause. We do not take any position on the accuracy of any individual report on self-censorship.
Budget CutsReducing funding for existing agency programs involving scientific research or scientific education.Cancelling existing grants for scientific research or scientific education.
 We do not include, in the “budget cuts” category, government decisions to refuse new grant applications or funding for new agency programs.
Personnel ChangesRemoving scientists from agency positions or creating a hostile work environment.Appointing unqualified individuals to, or failing to fill, scientific positions.Changing the composition of scientific advisory board or other bodies to remove qualified scientists or add only industry-favored members.Eliminating government bodies involved in scientific research or education or the dissemination of scientific information.
Research HindranceDestroying data needed to undertake scientific research.Preventing or restricting the publication of scientific research.Pressuring scientists to change research findings.
Bias and MisrepresentationEngaging in “cherry picking” or only disclosing certain scientific studies (e.g., that support a particular conclusion).Misrepresenting or mischaracterizing scientific studies.Disregarding scientific studies or advice in policy-making.
Interference with EducationChanging science education standards to prevent or limit the teaching of proven scientific theories.Requiring or encouraging the teaching of discredited or unproven scientific theories.Preventing the use of factually accurate textbooks and other instructional materials (e.g., on religious grounds).

Grant Guardian

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “In the philanthropic sector, limited time and resources can make it challenging to thoroughly assess a nonprofit’s financial stability. Grant Guardian transforms weeks of financial analysis into hours of strategic insight–creating space for deep, meaningful engagement with partners while maintaining high grantmaking standards.

Introducing Grant Guardian

Grant Guardian is an AI-powered financial due diligence tool that streamlines the assessment process for both foundations and nonprofits. Foundations receive sophisticated financial health analyses and risk assessments, while nonprofits can simply submit their existing financial documents without the task of filling out multiple custom forms. This streamlined approach helps both parties focus on what matters most–their shared mission of creating impact.

How Does It Work?

Advanced AI Analyses: Grant Guardian harnesses the power of AI to analyze financial documents like 990s and audits, offering a comprehensive view of a nonprofit’s financial stability. With rapid data extraction and analysis based on modifiable criteria, Grant Guardian bolsters strategic funding with financial insights.

Customized Risk Reports: Grant Guardian’s risk reports and dashboards are customizable, allowing you to tailor metrics specifically to your organization’s funding priorities. This flexibility enables you to present clear, relevant data to stakeholders while maintaining a transparent audit trail for compliance.

Automated Data Extraction: As an enterprise-grade solution, Grant Guardian automates the extraction and analysis of data from financial reports, identifies potential risks, standardizes assessments, and minimizes user error from bias. This standardization is crucial, as nonprofits often vary in the financial documents they provide, making the due diligence process more complex and error-prone for funders…(More)”.

From social media to artificial intelligence: improving research on digital harms in youth

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Karen Mansfield, Sakshi Ghai, Thomas Hakman, Nick Ballou, Matti Vuorre, and Andrew K Przybylski: “…we critically evaluate the limitations and underlying challenges of existing research into the negative mental health consequences of internet-mediated technologies on young people. We argue that identifying and proactively addressing consistent shortcomings is the most effective method for building an accurate evidence base for the forthcoming influx of research on the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on children and adolescents. Basic research, advice for caregivers, and evidence for policy makers should tackle the challenges that led to the misunderstanding of social media harms. The Personal View has four sections: first, we conducted a critical appraisal of recent reviews regarding effects of technology on children and adolescents’ mental health, aimed at identifying limitations in the evidence base; second, we discuss what we think are the most pressing methodological challenges underlying those limitations; third, we propose effective ways to address these limitations, building on robust methodology, with reference to emerging applications in the study of AI and children and adolescents’ wellbeing; and lastly, we articulate steps for conceptualising and rigorously studying the ever-shifting sociotechnological landscape of digital childhood and adolescence. We outline how the most effective approach to understanding how young people shape, and are shaped by, emerging technologies, is by identifying and directly addressing specific challenges. We present an approach grounded in interpreting findings through a coherent and collaborative evidence-based framework in a measured, incremental, and informative way…(More)”

Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Toolkit: “By exploring 25 evidence-based potential disruptions across environmental, technological, economic, social, and geopolitical domains, the Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy helps anticipate challenges and opportunities that could reshape the policy landscape between 2030 and 2050. These disruptions are not predictions, but hypothetical future developments identified through extensive research, expert consultations, and workshops. The Strategic Foresight Toolkit features a five-step foresight process, guiding users to challenge assumptions, create scenarios, stress-test strategies, and develop actionable plans. It includes facilitation guides and case studies to support effective implementation. Each disruption is accompanied by insights on emerging trends, potential future impacts, and both immediate and long-term policy options to ensure resilience and preparedness. Designed for policymakers, public administrators, and foresight practitioners, this publication is designed to promote holistic, strategic and evidence-informed decision-making. It aims to support countries and organisations in using strategic foresight to design and prepare robust and adaptable public policies for a range of possible futures. With its practical methodology and forward-looking approach, the Strategic Foresight Toolkit is a vital resource for building sustainable, resilient, and effective public policies…(More)”

Problems of participatory processes in policymaking: a service design approach

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Susana Díez-Calvo, Iván Lidón, Rubén Rebollar, Ignacio Gil-Pérez: “This study aims to identify and map the problems of participatory processes in policymaking through a Service Design approach….Fifteen problems of participatory processes in policymaking were identified, and some differences were observed in the perception of these problems between the stakeholders responsible for designing and implementing the participatory processes (backstage stakeholders) and those who are called upon to participate (frontstage stakeholders). The problems were found to occur at different stages of the service and to affect different stakeholders. A number of design actions were proposed to help mitigate these problems from a human-centred approach. These included process improvements, digital opportunities, new technologies and staff training, among others…(More)”.

The disparities and development trajectories of nations in achieving the sustainable development goals

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Fengmei Ma, et al: “The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a comprehensive framework for societal progress and planetary health. However, it remains unclear whether universal patterns exist in how nations pursue these goals and whether key development areas are being overlooked. Here, we apply the product space methodology, widely used in development economics, to construct an ‘SDG space of nations’. The SDG space models the relative performance and specialization patterns of 166 countries across 96 SDG indicators from 2000 to 2022. Our SDG space reveals a polarized global landscape, characterized by distinct groups of nations, each specializing in specific development indicators. Furthermore, we find that as countries improve their overall SDG scores, they tend to modify their sustainable development trajectories, pursuing different development objectives. Additionally, we identify orphaned SDG indicators — areas where certain country groups remain under-specialized. These patterns, and the SDG space more broadly, provide a high-resolution tool to understand and evaluate the progress and disparities of countries towards achieving the SDGs…(More)”

Suspense and surprise in the book of technology: Understanding innovation dynamics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Oh-Hyun Kwon, Jisung Yoon, Lav R. Varshney, Woo-Sung Jung, Hyejin Youn: “We envision future technologies through science fiction, strategic planning, or academic research. Yet, our expectations do not always match with what actually unfolds, much like navigating a story where some events align with expectations while others surprise us. This gap indicates the inherent uncertainty of innovation-how technologies emerge and evolve in unpredictable ways. Here, we elaborate on this inherent uncertainty of innovation in the way technologies emerge and evolve. We define suspense captures accumulated uncertainty and describing events anticipated before their realization, while surprise represents a dramatic shift in understanding when an event occurs unexpectedly. We identify those connections in U.S. patents and show that suspenseful innovations tend to integrate more smoothly into society, achieving higher citations and market value. In contrast, surprising innovations, though often disruptive and groundbreaking, face challenges in adoption due to their extreme novelty. We further show that these categories allow us to identify distinct stages of technology life cycles, suggesting a way to identify the systematic trajectory of technologies and anticipate their future paths…(More)”.

Big data for decision-making in public transport management: A comparison of different data sources

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Valeria Maria Urbano, Marika Arena, and Giovanni Azzone: “The conventional data used to support public transport management have inherent constraints related to scalability, cost, and the potential to capture space and time variability. These limitations underscore the importance of exploring innovative data sources to complement more traditional ones.

For public transport operators, who are tasked with making pivotal decisions spanning planning, operation, and performance measurement, innovative data sources are a frontier that is still largely unexplored. To fill this gap, this study first establishes a framework for evaluating innovative data sources, highlighting the specific characteristics that data should have to support decision-making in the context of transportation management. Second, a comparative analysis is conducted, using empirical data collected from primary public transport operators in the Lombardy region, with the aim of understanding whether and to what extent different data sources meet the above requirements.

The findings of this study support transport operators in selecting data sources aligned with different decision-making domains, highlighting related benefits and challenges. This underscores the importance of integrating different data sources to exploit their complementarities…(More)”.

Developing a Framework for Collective Data Rights

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Jeni Tennison: “Are collective data rights really necessary? Or, do people and communities already have sufficient rights to address harms through equality, public administration or consumer law? Might collective data rights even be harmful by undermining individual data rights or creating unjust collectivities? If we did have collective data rights, what should they look like? And how could they be introduced into legislation?

Data protection law and policy are founded on the notion of individual notice and consent, originating from the handling of personal data gathered for medical and scientific research. However, recent work on data governance has highlighted shortcomings with the notice-and-consent approach, especially in an age of big data and artificial intelligence. This special reports considers the need for collective data rights by examining legal remedies currently available in the United Kingdom in three scenarios where the people affected by algorithmic decision making are not data subjects and therefore do not have individual data protection rights…(More)”.