A few months ago, a group of small foundations, charities and other actors from German civil society gathered at a conference in Cologne to discuss one of the most important topics currently being talked over in strategic philanthropy: how can we transfer ideas for social projects and at the same time avoid funding duplicative projects?
Achieving a higher impact with less effort and a minimal use of financial resources seems to be one of the most important issues for philanthropic institutions nowadays. The idea of collective impact is being discussed in various articles and approaches to expand the work of non-profits. Institutions like the Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA) in the UK or Phineo in Germany, which emphasize the need for reliable and effective funding strategies, are trying to measure the impact of philanthropy. In Germany, debates with foundations and non-profits aim to take collaborations between different civil society actors to a new level. It we want to increase collective impact and transfer project ideas more efficiently, funding institutions and non-profits alike need to do more field scans and think strategically before supporting projects – otherwise they run the risk of funding duplicative ones. To avoid this, organizations have to build alliances and join forces in their fields of action; they also need to improve communication between organizations about old and new projects.
Establishing continuous communication is one of the five conditions for greater collective impact. According to the concept of collective impact, communication is needed to build trust, reach an agreement on common goals and create motivation. Why should this be important only within projects already initiated? It could also be used to foster a constant dialogue between actors in advance. About 16 actors from various civil society organizations like the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Stiftung MITARBEIT, and also smaller charities like 2aid.org, an organization that fights poverty, participated in a so-called blog-parade that took place prior to the conference. Such blog-parades ask the contributors to write a blog post on a joint topic. A summary of the blog-parade provided by Lisa Fedler of openTransfer offers an informative overview over the range of issues organizations have to tackle when building partnerships for collective impact or transferring project ideas. A follow-up chat with participating organizations on Twitter on 27 August used the identified barriers on the structural, cultural and individual levels of organizations to continue the discussion.
Structural barriers are at the forefront of the factors standing in the way of creating collective impact and hindering the transfer of social project ideas. Most notably, the current funding of projects rates the innovation of projects more than the possibility to be transferable and hence offer an opportunity to grow in the future. Consequently, foundations have to work more closely together to offer a denser knowledge framework and exchange results from field scans, and thus to minimize the risk of funding duplicative projects. Organizations should also stop thinking inside the box and open up. This is clearly one of the biggest challenges, but it could be tackled by the creation of national and transnational networks.
The three challenges that arise from cultural barriers are the fostering of trust between foundations and organizations, learning to share knowledge, and arriving at the conclusion that information advantage should no longer be associated with striving for power in the third sector. The blog-parade participants observed it to be one of the biggest challenges at the individual level to let knowledge float freely between different actors instead of fencing off innovation solely to a single organization.
Although the participants in the blog-parade don’t have one single answer to solve all problems at once, several contributors stated that regular meet-ups, offline as well as online, might be a first step to help spread information about the idea of collective impact and to change the way strategic philanthropy is approached in the near future. Internet platforms and social media are an important part of this strategy – to guarantee and support a continuing debate and also to provide a growing database of projects already in place; they are a resource to identify opportunities and places to step in. The next conference of the openTransfer Camp will be in Munich in mid-October. It is already clear that collective impact, social entrepreneurship and the value of communication are going to be dominant topics at this conference.
Tobias Bürger is social media fellow at the Stiftung Mercator in Germany.
Sunny San Diego was welcoming to the roughly 1,100 participants of the Council on Foundations’ 2013 Fall Conference for Community Foundations, held on 22-25 September. Conference committee chair John Kobara, COO of the California Community Foundation, stressed a learning agenda for participants. And so it was an unusual beginning compared to other such conferences. The opening plenary was actually an evening dessert reception during which we had an overview from Chicago Community Trust CEO Terry Mazany, co-editor of the newly published volume Here for Good, which offers great insights and case studies on US community foundations in their current state while also contemplating their future. This was followed by an inspirational presentation by Gina Rudan of Genuine Insights, Inc, who gave a short motivational talk about unlocking one’s genius.
The following morning, participants fanned out throughout the city on 11 Learning Tours, visiting various projects and neighbourhoods, covering topics from homelessness to environmental conservation to veterans. We were given some opportunity to share our learnings in a plenary during which sociologist Manuel Pastor also gave a good picture of the shifting demographics in the US, encouraging community foundations to get ahead of the curve on them. At another plenary, Council on Foundations CEO Vikki Spruill reaffirmed the Council’s strong commitment to community foundations even as the Council restructures to break down internal silos between constituency group services. She also described some of that transition, emphasizing that the Council will be much more proactive in getting to know its members’ needs so it can become a better facilitator of connections between its members and other philanthropic actors – while still maintaining strong legal services, government relations and professional development. I also enjoyed a well-attended, productive session by CFLeads, where attendees delved into the recently released Engaging Residents: A new call to action for community foundations.
Throughout the conference, I was a bit uneasy with some of the congratulatory, ‘you’re so important and doing such great work’ cheerleading tone of many of the speakers, which was why Monitor Deloitte’s Gabriel Kasper was such a welcome voice. In a plenary session advancing his project called ‘What’s Next for Community Philanthropy’, Gabriel thoughtfully and respectfully challenged community foundations to shift from a threat-based to an opportunity-based narrative for change. In other words to move away from seeing themselves as almost ‘under attack’ – facing stiff competition from commercial gift funds, online giving platforms and technology that can do away with intermediaries – to seeing these challenges as an opportunity to move forward and ‘get ahead of the curve’. He suggested that community foundations’ new narrative might be described as ‘combining stability and constancy with diversity and adaptation’, and exhorted them to do the following four new things:
After Gabriel finished his excellent presentation, each table in the plenary room had fun playing cards. We all dealt out a card deck of 40 ‘orthodoxies’ (eg ‘donor-advised funds are growing and will continue to grow’; ‘we give in a specific geographic area’; ‘our role is to “lead”’; or ‘we make grants’) and selected one to see whether it needs to be ‘flipped’ – and if so, why and how. This exercise really opened up the space for critical thinking – important as the US community foundation field, marking its 100th anniversary next year, is reflecting on what will it take for it to be relevant, successful and sustainable in its second century.
Although the centennial was mentioned from time to time throughout the conference, more could have been done to lead into next year’s conference. Nonetheless, as a program officer from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, which has been supporting the community foundation movement for more than three decades, I was very pleased at the final plenary when the Cleveland Foundation set the stage nicely to invite people to next year’s conference in Cleveland in October. This event will mark the centennial not only of the founding of the nation’s first community foundation in 1914, but also of the starting point of an institutional form which has spread, thus far, to around 2,000 communities around the world.
Nick Deychakiwsky is program officer – civil society, C S Mott Foundation.
SoCap2013 brought together 1,600 of the world’s keenest and most inspirational social entrepreneurs, philanthropists and social investors for a week of ideas sharing and deal making. Founded in San Francisco, SoCap is an exploration of what its founder, Kevin Jones, calls the ‘intersection between money and meaning’. Attending for my sixth year, SoCap has evolved from its first steps of a few hundred social investment doers and diehards and is now confidently striding forward making its distinctive mark in the impact investing field.
Top of my list in the week is the ‘pre-event’ collaboration between The Hub, Halloran Philanthropies and the Transformative Action Institute which convenes 100 social entrepreneurs with 50 leaders from global ‘impact accelerators’ in an intense programme of training, discussion and mentoring. These ‘impact accelerators’ bring together leaders so that they can discuss their mutual capabilities and synergies and create deeper relationships that will allow them to work together in accelerating what can be readily summarized as the ‘good economy.’
In practice, this mean sessions with social entrepreneurs ranging from ‘elevator pitch practice’ on how to present to investors; advice on ‘successfully closing the equity fundraising process’; and ‘testing your business strategy as you grow’ through to ‘selling equity, not selling your soul – lessons for the early seed stage’. Youthful energy met with experienced wisdom, with sessions from groups such as HUB Ventures, the Unreasonable Institute and Echoing Green. Conversations and sessions were not set up to be one-way, rather recognizing that funders have much to learn from the diversity and insight of entrepreneurs. One session from Village Capital focused on ‘What Should Entrepreneurs think of Accelerators?’
A number of philanthropic organizations, including Halloran Philanthropies, are focused on how to ‘accelerate the accelerators’ – by which they mean, how to ensure that the advisory services and capital are most available to the entrepreneurs at the most critical time. With more later-stage capital being available from impact investors, often with a financial return goal, it is now recognized by many that incubator funds and business accelerators which focus on the hardest part of the business growth cycle are vital in ensuring the success of ventures addressing the needs of the base of the pyramid.
So where can readers find out more about this distinct community? SoCap saw the launch of a major new tool that brings together the impact funds and accelerator funds in one place
Mark Campanale is an adviser to Halloran Philanthropies.
New York has been abuzz this week with the reconvening of the United Nations General Assembly and the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, and in the streets, cafes and restaurants you can hear people from all over the world taking about ‘the MDGs’. Those who circulate in the acronym-laden universe of international development know that ‘MDGs’ are the Millennium Development Goals – the ambitious blueprint developed by the United Nations in the year 2000 to make serious progress on the pressing challenges of global poverty, health, education and environment.
By one measure, ‘MDGs’ is hardly a buzz phrase among America’s philanthropic foundations. I just did a quick keyword search of three years’ worth of 990-PF tax returns for close to 90,000 foundations and found just seven in which the term ‘millennium development goals’ appeared. Then I tried an ‘only foundations’ Google search on Glasspockets and got 3.65 million results!
But what people usually want to know about foundations is how much money they have spent on a cause or issue. It says a lot that only once in the years since the Millennium Development Goals were established has the Foundation Center been asked to map foundation funding to the eight goals. So this being a week where the MDGs are being discussed everywhere, we decided to pull some very quick data for 2011.
No. of grants
No. of fdns.Eradicate extreme poverty
318Achieve universal primary education
80Promote gender equality
56Reduce child mortality
54Improve maternal health
38Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, other diseases
48Ensure environmental sustainability
224Develop partnership for global development
These data come with important caveats. They are based on grants made in 2011 by a sample of more than 1,000 of the largest US foundations. Some of the grants are associated with multiple goals and have been counted more than once. But they also whet one’s appetite to know more. Beneath the numbers next to each of these goals there are layers of sub-categories that could be explored to understand better how philanthropy is helping to achieve, for example universal primary education. And the totals could be de-duped so that everything could be more easily added up.
Perhaps now is the time to go back and trace philanthropy’s contribution to the MDGs since their debut in 2000. That could give us a far better picture of the role our field has played to date – and can play in the future – as the world community engages in the process to define a revised set of goals for the post-2015 era.
In the meantime, we’re offering a small slice of data. In 2011, the year on which the above data is based, America’s foundations gave a total of $49 billion. Did they spend too much, or too little, to further the MDGs? We’d like to hear what you think.
Bradford Smith is president of the Foundation Center. This article was first published on the Foundation Center’s Philantopic blog
تحض إسرائيل سراً كلاً من تركيا وقبرص للاختيار ما بين المصالحة بغية زيادة حصتهما من ثروات الغاز الطبيعي في شرق البحر الأبيض المتوسط، وبين بقائها على الحياد والاستمرار في خلافهما المسدود الأفق والقائم منذ عقود إلى ما لا نهاية
Earlier this year, my esteemed colleague Moukhtar Kocache engaged me to take on a small supportive role in a major project he was working on for the Peace and Social Justice Philanthropy Working Group. The project aimed to examine where social justice and the arts converge, and how they support one another in the process by conducting research and interviews, culminating with a convening of experts for further reflection and planning. I was fascinated by the interviews with experts which I helped document, adding a new perspective to my work. Despite having spent much of my life around art (with my parents being active collectors) and most of my professional career in the social justice field, I had never quite connected the dots. Yet listening to how creative and expressive arts connect with social justice issues and agendas brought about a new level of awareness.
This awareness was converted to experience last week in China, at the 4th BMW Foundation Young Leaders Forum. More than 319 participants from 42 countries and a variety of sectors gathered to discuss issues of sustainability and qualitative growth in China and the world. Individual expression, sharing experiences and group dialogue are critical for addressing issues of social injustice, and many of us spend quite a bit of time in various conferences, seminars and forums. New forms of technology and media have helped to optimize and capture the engagement of participants; yet BMW Foundation took this to a new level by incorporating the dimension of creative arts.
Canadian digital artist Baruch Gottleib was commissioned to develop an interactive visual digital art project which, in real time, displayed the inputs (140-character messages) of participants which were analysed, categorized and colour-coded by theme and reflected on a screen with various graphic figures. On constant display for participants to see, this installation created another platform for interaction and reflection in real-time messaging. The screen was most active during the pitching session of six Young Leaders who described their initiatives and need for support. Fellow Young Leaders expressed an overwhelming and very moving response of commitments shared verbally and through the interactive screen (nearly 50 messages per pitch) offering up their connections, visibility, consulting, coaching and much more. In analysing the data, which is still in progress, it will be interesting to see what was ‘trending’ most during the forum.
Optimizing engagement and interaction in forums is only part of the challenge. In the foundation sector, our most valuable work is quite frequently the most difficult to assess in terms of impact: bringing people together. BMW Foundation once again turned to artists and the creative dimension to tackle this challenge. A stack of postcards with a graphic design by artist Eugenia Flores de la Torre were prepared for participants to answer questions about personal and professional impacts of the forum on the blank side. Each card was assigned a location on the wall (at the closing event in the 798 Art Space) and pinned up accordingly, eventually taking the form of a ‘Mural of Impact’.
When I asked Ilsabe von Campenhausen, senior manager at BMW Foundation, about this approach, she claimed it was one way to collect stories of impact from Young Leaders. The results of the 200+ cards filled out are yet to be fully analysed, and it will be interesting to see the outcome, but I informally surveyed some of the Young Leaders I know. One said: ‘This programme makes me feel encouraged and obligated to maximize the social impact of my businesses and to actively implement CSR measures in order to contribute and “give back” to the communities I operate in.’ Yet another, working in the social sector, said that the programme expanded her horizons to explore new approaches and strategies for development initiatives.
Personally, this programme enabled me to see my work in philanthropy and social investment through the eyes of those working in other sectors. And in this particular event, the BMW Foundation’s approach offered me yet another lens – one of arts and creative expression – and allowed me to personally experience how this approach can build and nurture communities of leadership and practice.
Filiz Bikmen is a philanthropic consultant and chair of the International Center for Not for Profit Law
I had the good fortune to be called out by name a week and a half ago by celebrated Economist columnist Matthew Bishop for having put together his ‘dream conference’ combining his ‘two favourite themes: privatization and philanthrocapitalism’.
The occasion for this comment was a conference hosted by the Volkswagen Foundation in Hanover, Germany, to review the results of an unlikely project I have carried out in cooperation with a superb team of colleagues. The aim is to explore the potential for capturing in charitable endowments at least some of the proceeds of the sales of state-owned enterprises or common-use resources now under way around the world ‒ a phenomenon I have been calling ‘Philanthropication thru Privatization’, or ‘PtP’ for short.
We have so far identified over 500 foundations that have emerged from such privatization transactions around the world, and the Hanover conference was convened to review a report on how this came about, what it has achieved, and what the prospects are for using this approach to build charitable endowments in other areas, particularly in the global South.
A wide representation of foundation, civil society, government and business leaders from Western Europe, Central Europe, Asia, Africa and South America took part in the event, and most participants were intrigued by the idea even while acknowledging some of its difficulties.
Conference and PtP project advisory committee chair Dr Wilhelm Krull, secretary general of the Volkswagen Foundation, kicked the conference off by pointing to the record of the Volkswagen Foundation, itself the beneficiary of a PtP transaction, as evidence of the value and workability of the PtP concept.
Piero Gastaldo, secretary general of Compagnia di San Paolo, noted that this ‘philanthropication’ was only natural in the case of the Italian foundations of banking origin because ‘in Italy we really had “banks of foundation origin”’. Alessandro Carpinelli of KPMG-Italy, while acknowledging that PtP might not work for all assets, felt that it could certainly work for some, and offered the social housing estates in Italy as one possible application.
Ezra Mbogori of the African Grantmakers Network saw PtP as providing an ‘important’ opportunity to free African civil society organizations from sole dependence on external funding and create meaningful, local sources of revenue. He saw particular value in the PtP Project’s emphasis on tapping into mineral rights payments from Africa’s vast mineral and petroleum resources, the true birthright of the continent’s peoples. ‘There have been too many lost opportunities already’, he noted.
Jenny Hodgson of the Global Fund for Community Foundations echoed this observation and agreed that there are important possibilities to use the PtP concept to buttress a number of promising but still struggling community foundations in the South.
Tao Ze of the China Foundation Center saw great opportunities for PtP in China because the government is pushing for the privatization of some 200,000 state-owned companies and is encouraging the formation of foundations by the rich. The big question is whether it will be willing to share meaningful power with civil society and foundations. He suggested convening a next PtP conference in China to promote the idea.
Chet Tchozewski endorsed PtP as a ‘faster, better, cheaper’ way to generate philanthropic resources. Prof William Megginson, an international expert on the privatization process, assured participants that privatization is by no means over, that a new wave just seems to be forming, and that PtP could be attractive to governments as a way to overcome the opposition that privatization has recently been encountering. Marcos Kisil of IDIS in Brazil agreed that PtP could usefully be extended to Latin America, where a number of huge privatizations have recently taken place.
Others voiced various cautions. Diana Leat was perhaps most skeptical, raising questions about the whole idea of shifting public assets into foundations, since foundations are far from ideal institutions and it is not at all clear that what they do is truly in the ‘public interest’. Franz-Karl Prueller of the Erste Foundation, another PtP institution, was unhappy with the term ‘philanthropication’ and suggested using something like ‘privatization for the common good’. Marco Demarie of the Compagnia di San Paolo called PtP ‘a brilliant concept’ but also ‘a difficult one that will have to be adjusted to local realities’. Nick Deychakiwsky of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation reminded participants that community-based philanthropy is not just about the money, and that it will be important not to lose sight of the citizen engagement and empowerment aspects. He also urged that as PtP goes forward consideration be given to building on existing institutions rather than necessarily creating entirely new ones. Attorney Brigitte Weitemeyer noted that some of the rationales for supporting PtP transactions in Germany are spurious.
Expressing some frustration, Gerry Salole of the European Foundation Centre urged participants not to lose sight of the importance of this PtP concept as one of the few concrete ways to build philanthropic assets in locations where wealthy individuals are simply not present and will not be for a generation. He further reminded participants that concerns about whether Africa is ‘ready’ for PtP fail to take account of the vast, informal credit networks that span the continent and the bonds of trust on which they rest.
At the end of the day, Matthew Bishop seemed to sum up the session well, noting that neither ‘privatization’ nor ‘philanthropy’ is an unmitigated good. But both are capable of good if designed and carried out properly. And in a sense, one may be a corrective of the other. PtP could therefore end up being ‘a big idea’, he concluded. Or, as Pier Mario Vello of the Cariplo Foundation put it: ‘Philanthropication through privatization – despite its difficult name – is a way worth going on’.
To download the exposure draft of the report, Philanthropication thru Privatization: Building assets for social progress, by Lester M Salamon and Associates, go to http://bit.ly/1brWDcL
Join the conversation. Do you know of cases of PtP in your country or region? Is privatization or mineral rights development under way? Does PtP seem a possible way to capture assets built up by the sweat and toil of local citizens for long-term charitable endowments dedicated to the strengthening of civil society or the improvement of local living conditions? Are you willing to be involved in such an effort? If so, contact Naomi Hansen (firstname.lastname@example.org) at East-West Management Institute to discuss your experiences and thoughts about PtP.
Lester M Salamon is the Director, Center for Civil Society Studies, Institute for Policy Studies, Johns Hopkins University
This question will be on everyone’s mind when the European venture philanthropy and social investment community gathers once more for the annual conference of the European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA) on 26 and 27 November. 400 delegates are expected in Geneva, Switzerland, to converse on this year’s principal theme: “Responsible Leadership: Inspire and Act!” But what exactly makes a responsible leader? And how can we ensure that those leaders are supported and promoted thus allowing them to contribute to solutions to current and future societal challenges? We have asked some of EVPA’s members and conference speakers these questions. Here are their reflections on responsible leadership.
Olivia Leland, director of the Giving Pledge and one of the keynote speakers of the EVPA annual conference, focuses on the importance of pooling different interests and knowledge in order to act responsibly. Olivia says: ‘Similar to EVPA, we at the Giving Pledge believe that bringing together people from different backgrounds, with very different areas of interest, can accelerate learning and drive bolder, more effective philanthropy – which is just what we need to solve today’s most difficult problems. So I look forward to sharing our experiences with a European audience – and to entering into a dialogue with European philanthropists and social investors.’ The Giving Pledge is an effort founded by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett to help address society’s most pressing problems by encouraging billionaires to commit the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.
Our second keynote speaker is Rodrigo Jordan, an acclaimed mountaineer from Chile and an expert on leadership. He argues that leaders are not born, but need to learn to connect to the societies they serve in order to contribute responsibly to the common good. He explains: ‘I do not believe in innate conditions of leadership. Nobody is born with a “leadership genetic magic wand”. Leadership is an exercise and thus it can be done by anyone with proper knowledge, mindset, social skills and a devoted heart.’ He adds that ‘no leader is going to be successful if he or she does not empathise with the people he intends to serve. Through empathy a true leader can stand in the shoes of the poorest in this world. Present leaders will have a greater chance of success if they allow their mindsets to reframe problems proactively as opportunities. And they also need to exercise their innermost empathy. This means being empathetic with their teams, with their clients, their end-users, their suppliers, and every human being in their surroundings.’
The BMW Stiftung Herbert Quandt, based in Germany, supports a programme of Young Leaders Forums that take place in Europe, North and South America, Asia, and Africa. Bringing together leaders from different geographies and sectors to discuss economic and social changes as well as political transformations, the forums allow participants to exchange experiences and learn from each other, something that becomes increasingly difficult in times of high social mobility, as Markus Hipp, executive director of the BMW Stiftung, explains. ‘It is a hallmark and a problem of modern societies that the interaction – and thus the mutual understanding – between members of different social groups is on the decline. Highly mobile leaders in particular often do not feel like “citizens” where they live and are said to retreat into privacy. Yet given their know-how and their role as thought leaders, they in particular could make a difference and a special contribution to social cohesion and become responsible leaders. When leaders recognize that their experiences, knowledge and networks are in demand also outside of their personal and professional environments, and that they are able to shape society by working for the common good, they get involved. By abandoning their usual ways of thinking and reasoning, they also broaden their professional horizons and their leadership skills.’
For Suzanne Biegel, senior adviser to ClearlySo and member of the advisory board for Investors’ Circle in the US (where she was previously CEO), responsible leadership comes with an obligation to question situations and activities and if necessary change them. She says: ‘Responsible leadership for venture philanthropists means asking questions and being prepared to face the consequences of the answers. For example, are we looking at diversity (gender, racial, ethnic) in the board, staff, and suppliers of our enterprises? Are we holding ourselves accountable to all relevant stakeholders? Are we looking at the most relevant metrics for each organization, but then also looking at subsidiary metrics appropriately?’ Suzanne also co-chairs the values-based investment group of Women Donors Network, and runs Women in Social Finance in London. She is thus looking at the topic with a gender lens: ‘I think that responsible leadership among both investors and investees is to notice where we are having unintended consequences. And where we are not looking clearly at issues and opportunities of governance, of workforce, of environmental impact. “Responsible” to me also means speaking truth to power, or speaking up when it is uncomfortable. As venture philanthropists, I believe that if we are working to create a better world, by supporting the best and brightest stars amongst the entrepreneurs and enterprises we care about, we need to both support responsible leadership amongst ourselves as a community as well as our investees. It might incur costs, it might incur more risk-taking to discover what works, and it might incur balancing the need for action and the need for thoughtfulness.’
Even though the above answers vary, what becomes clear is that the ability of leaders to recognise their own strengths and use these to serve the sector and its beneficiaries is essential in acting responsibly. This remains true whether we are talking of leaders on the investor level or leaders on the investee level.
What does responsible leadership mean for you? Do you agree with the definitions above? Join us on 26 and 27 November and let us know! In addition to plenary sessions and in line with EVPA’s mission to support venture philanthropy and social investment organisations, participants will also have the possibility to choose from 24 breakout sessions on lessons learned, tools and best practices.
Confirmed speakers of the conference include André Hoffmann, private philanthropist and vice president of WWF International; John Kingston, senior advisor at Social Finance Ltd and chair of the Association of Charitable Foundations; Caroline Mason, COO at Big Society Capital; and Kristian Parker, chairman of the board of trustees of the Oak Foundation. We will also hear from social entrepreneurs such as Dai Powell, chief executive of HCT Group, and Jürgen Griesbeck, founder and CEO of streetfootballworld.
Julia Meuter is communications and events coordinator for EVPA