April 23, 2009 | Read Time: 2 minutes
The development of innovative clean-energy businesses in poor countries could, in 15 years, be “rivaling where the microfinance sector is today,” Christine Eibs-Singer, co-founder of the nonprofit group E+Co, told donors assembled at the Global Philanthropy Forum.
Ms. Eibs-Singer, whose organization supports clean energy projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America said such efforts are poised to grow quickly, just as microfinance has done over the last decade or so. She encouraged people with experience working in microfinance to share what they have learned, particularly with respect to the importance of providing long-term philanthropic investments.
“We can take a lot of lessons learned that went into growing microfinance to growing this space,” she said, “and we can recognize that there are a lot of benefits of linking these sectors together.”
Ms. Eibs-Singer described the successes of her nonprofit group in identifying and expanding green businesses. The organization supports 32 businesses in the developing world and has helped to attract $180-million in additional capital for those companies.
As of June of last year, the businesses supported by her nonprofit group, which was started by the Rockefeller Foundation, had offset 4.6 million tons of carbon and brought clean energy to 4.8 million people. Her group now returns 3 percent on capital.
But she says that having a sustainable business model, one that returns a profit, has put her organization in a sort-of “nowhere land.”
“For those on the charitable side, many say our job is done. You’re a self supporting. Go off and do good,” Ms. Eibs-Singer recounted. “You go over to the private-sector side and they say 3 percent, please. We’re looking for more than 3 percent.”
There is a commercial opportunity for clean energy, she said, but philanthropic investments are still needed to develop small businesses and make them sustainable.
“That’s a quandary of public-private partnerships,” she said. “When do you need to be fully private and take the risk of losing social innovation and diluting your mission, versus when should you stay in the public or philanthropic side?”
