Measuring Social Impact: Standardizing and Quantifying Outcomes ft. Lauren Ott (Impact Genome)

One of my very favorite things about hosting The Resilience Report is that I (along with you our listeners!) get to learn directly from experts in their respective fields. And while I have over a decade in the environmental impact space, social impact is an area that I have less exposure to. Which is why I am so excited to bring our next guest on: Lauren Ott.

Lauren truly brings the “S” to ESG as a social entrepreneur who teaches organizations how to maximize their impact on the causes they care about. After spending time teaching at a public high school in Ecuador, Lauren returned to Canada and turned her passion for community into a career of driving impact across North America and beyond. She has worked on Parliament Hill, one of the largest education boards, for an international development organization, and as a Director of Business Development, building national partnerships with General Mills, Siemens, and KPMG, to name a few. In 2018, Lauren launched the social enterprise, Kits for a Cause, driving meaningful employee engagement. Lauren was honored as a nominee for Canada’s Top 40 Under 40 and recently, she joined the team at Impact Genome leading strategic partnership development and Canadian expansion.

In this episode, we talk about the critical role of centralizing, standardizing and quantifying social impact, how such a repository can help create a more equal playing field for social programs, charities and non-profits, the reality of cause-washing, the value of an impact marketplace, and what the future of this space might look like in Canada, the US and beyond.

So whether you are working for an impact producer, an investor or a sustainability leader at your organization deciding where to partner within your community, this is such an informative episode. What Lauren and the team are doing at Impact Genome is truly inspiring, and Lauren herself is just a ray of sunshine to chat with. With that, please help me welcome Lauren to the show!

*

[Host: Lauren Scott] I'm so excited for today's episode because admittedly I work very deeply in the E of ESG, so in the environmental social and governance, deep in the E, and today we have an expert who really puts the S in ESG. And a little note for our listeners, one maybe slightly confusing thing is we almost have the exact same name. So today, we have Lauren Ott. joining the episode, so oddly enough, I put the S in our name, but she puts the S in ESG. So welcome to the episode.

[Guest: Lauren Ott] Thank you, Lauren. Now we just need to find a G. We have ourselves a girl band.

We really do. So, we talked about the S, but could you help our listeners, maybe they're like me and they're more in the environmental or more in the governance side, could you help us understand what is kind of this classic idea of a social program?

So the way that I describe social impact or social programs is when you think about what is the impact that's having on an individual or on a community, even in the behavior change, as you think of the co-benefits of E and S, social is really in a change in a person, in an organization, it could potentially be amongst an animal welfare type program, but when you think about the impact that's being made outside of the direct impact on the environment, that's the social implications of what a program and how it's compiled. So when we look at an individual organization, they're made up of many social programs within, so it's not just one big organization and one mission statement and that's it, but instead, the way that we approach the social of it all is looking at the individual programs that are helping them to achieve outcomes within the community. So again, could be on an individual organization, an animal, or an overall structure of policy.

And because that is so, I guess, broad in scope, has there historically been a one-stop shop or a location where let's say if I as an individual or maybe I'm representing the sustainability program of my company, has there historically been one place for people to go see all of the different social impact programs out there?

There are no standards on social programs to date, so beyond what we've created through Impact Genome’s impact standards, there have not been this standard body or registry. And in order to actually understand what's happening or how have we been doing when you think about the SDGs, you can think about all of these beautiful colorful squared tiles, but you can't think of an individual organization in a CSR type role or an individual foundation that could be working within the community or in the public space or even private. They're never going to be able to achieve an individual SDG. SDGS are determined based on population statistics in most cases. So when you think about how do we understand what is actually happening, we need a standard common language in order to be able to be able to communicate what are the outcomes being achieved. And so to date, that's why the Impact Genome registry exists. We actually started as consultants ourselves. So as consultants, we were evaluating and reviewing social impact programs for funders, and we kept evaluating the same programs over and over again because this organization wanted to hear it in this way, this organization had a slightly different nuance in terms of how they approach it, but when it comes down to it, that organization in terms of the impact producer, the charity creating the outcomes, they were not creating different outcomes. They had the same outcomes that were being created. And so what we realized was there's an opportunity to create this central registry or depository of social impact but help to be this organic body that we can continue to learn from. So it's not just verifying a social impact program, it's actually going beyond and figuring out what works. If we want to solve the housing crisis, let's look at the outcomes that are being achieved, but let's also look at what creates an outcome and what makes a program successful. And now that we have that common language, we can benchmark and compare in order to figure out what is it that's happening and how is it that we can shift the world to funding programs like this.

Which definitely makes sense, and I don't to downplay how complex it is on the environmental side to measure success, but if you take something like emissions reporting or water conservation, it feels like it can be a little bit easier, quote unquote, to standardize and define those metrics. As someone who works in emissions reporting, it is not that easy. However, I can imagine it's even more complex as you're saying, since we haven't historically had these standards. So what would maybe some examples of those metrics look like, and is this something new in terms of the standardization, just to give our listeners a bit of an idea as to what success could look like and how you would measure that?

Right. I oftentimes hear from people, isn't it really hard to report and verify social impact? And I think about your world, and I think if we can report on the ozone layer, surely we can. And looking at programs like social emotional learning, skill development, or you know, supports to young people who are beginning their journey within the academic world and becoming prepared for college or postsecondary school, there are specific outcomes that we can identify that are being achieved, and we can understand, you know, what's connected in order to create our ultimate goal. But in order to get to that ultimate goal, we need to know what needs to be happening along the way. So when I think about what's possible and, you know, how difficult is it, or is it going to be possible into the future, thinking more long term, because what we've done, so to create our standard, we essentially gathered tens of thousands of articles of evidence from the academic space and any type of literature that we could get our hands on, and we physically hand-coded it, hand-coded it to understand what outcomes are being achieved. And because we know, and you would know this in the environmental space, you know, in the academic world and then in seeing it in practice, there isn't necessarily always that direct connection or agreement. So what we said was, we need to create a system or a standard that's peer-reviewed but also based within evidence. So we created that evidence base and input it into our registry, and then from there, we created a peer review board to actually go to practitioners and say, you're an expert in housing, you’re an expert when it comes to mental health supports for young people, etc., and say “tell us, does this academic research in terms of how they're reviewing it and refining it to actually communicate those outcomes, does this make sense to you, is this how you would apply it?” So that's how we initially began that journey of creating an organic standard. And I call it organic because it's continuing to grow. This does not mean that, you know, we were created in 2017, we don't stop there, but instead, we continue to build in that registry.

And what also happens is we now have this third entry of data points or validation in our verification process because we have the academic research, we have our peer review board, and then the third point of data that's coming in is directly from the organizations that are being verified themselves. So now what we have is this constant feedback loop to hear from them directly. "Well, Lauren, right now, your outcomes in housing are X, Y, and Z. I don't see myself in this, either help me understand how I'm applying to these outcomes, or I'm actually creating a new outcome." And so what we call that is an emerging outcome, and as soon as we get enough feedback from other organizations who are, you know, equally calling that out, well then maybe perhaps we're establishing a new outcome that's being determined and a new standard that can then be reported on. So it's really this organic body that continues to grow.

And what's really powerful in that is the outcomes that are being achieved, they're being communicated. What also comes forward are the actual interventions or what we would call a core component. So what are the activities that need to happen in order for these outcomes to be achieved? Many programs are taking different approaches, so we've standardized as well. And why that's really powerful and important is we can actually look to what outcomes are being achieved within benchmarks and then say, "well, we're seeing trends, programs that are successful, and have a high efficacy rate and are within benchmark in terms of the cost per outcome, they oftentimes have these two core components." And so now what we can say within those trends is, "okay, well, if the government is about to dish out a whole lot of money towards housing, and we know what makes a program successful, well then let's ensure that programs that are going to receive that funding have those core components” because then essentially what we're doing is we're forecasting and de-risking the investment that we as the public are making through the government funds.

And it's so important, what you're talking about, this information and understanding of data, especially in the world of ESG. I think it's super natural that there is an emotional component that brings with environmental social impact. However, what we are seeing, I would say, amplified maybe in certain geographic markets, but what we are seeing around the world is that there's a little bit of a polarization or even politicization in terms of environmental and social impact, which is why I personally believe that data is so important in kind of bridging that gap. Because I think at the end of the day, most people want to do less harm, want to bring everyone up a level, protect our planet, but what is maybe important is to pull out a little bit of the subjectivity and be able to bring in more of that data and those numbers.

So, it sounds like what you're doing with your organization plays into that. Could you speak a little bit more about how you validate and are able to kind of compile all of this information? At the top of the call, we talked about historically there hasn't been one central place with all of this information, all of this data, but it sounds like you're able to do that.

That's right, and so essentially what's happening is yes, there's, there's not just a little bit of polarization, there's a whole lot of polarization around the framing of ESG, these three very polarizing letters. But ESG for us, as we see it, is not actually reporting on the S of an organization. The S right now is really more of a risk mitigation checklist of, did you harm to your employees, maybe perhaps reporting your volunteering hours and your dollars that you've given, but it's not actually getting into what does that mean? You gave $3 million to 3,000 organizations, did that move the needle in any way? That's not actually coming forward in the way that ESG ratings are currently set up. So we're working tirelessly to actually change the way that ESG is being reported to date. As we're doing that, we still recognize that folks are being called out and need to have something to back things up with. Short of doing a full audit on every single investment, what programs instead are doing is they're coming to us and saying, "we need validation and verification of the impact that's being created." But what we don't want is we don't want to create more burden, and we don't want to, you know, sink some of these organizations just in paperwork for the sake of us as a business. And in some cases, what we're hearing from charities and nonprofits is it ends up being more work for them than they ever would have received in donation.

So what does that mean? It means that there's now this burden and this, you know, shift in terms of power dynamic, and that's inappropriate when we think about what ultimately wants to happen. We know that there's good work happening, and can we actually invest in that work and instead help to support them in capacity building and doing more, becoming more sustainable, rather than sinking the ship just because we need all of the according paperwork? So what we've been able to do is through what we call our impact verification, we're able to help support nonprofits and social enterprises, as well as charities, report their impact through the standard. So they come into the registry and they answer the questions based on their program. It's the simplest model, and for my brain, it's like a Turbo Tax model, choose what speaks closest to you, and we'll guide you along the way. You'll upload any supporting evidence that you have in order to prove these claims that you're making. And what this is changing is, it's not that individual organization reporting to the individual corporation because what we're shifting is now they own their impact data. So what we've done is, I would say, we've learned from kind of the E space being 10 years ahead of us.

We've been able to learn from what's worked and what hasn't worked, and we've been able to call out and say, you know, I think we all can collectively agree that we want this social impact in a positive way to continue to happen, but we can also agree on is that maybe it hasn't been stellar in the past, and the dynamic that we've had hasn't necessarily supported programs in becoming more sustainable. So instead, what we can do is we can shift that burden to understand, well, if funders need strengthened impact data for their ESG reporting or their impact reporting or any type of de-risking situation, if they need investor-grade data, but charities and nonprofits also could benefit from that data too. Imagine if it wasn't just a slick market deck or glossy photos that were helping them to gain more funds, but instead, it was investor-grade impact data to show actually, we're producers of a product, and the product is impact. Imagine if we could shift that dynamic, the power that that would then be in almost establishing a marketplace of impact, rather than it being this constant dynamic of begging for what you need in terms of just getting by in the next 6 months to 12 months. But instead, if we can shift using the registry similar to what the carbon market has done, we'll shift it to be able to say, actually, you can go and you can purchase impact through our impact marketplace. Now imagine the power in terms of how we can approach the space and really shift the conversation isn't, do you adhere to ESG reporting or not, but instead, you as an organization want to create this impact for your business because it makes good business sense, and it also will help to further you and your social mission. Well, now you can come on to our registry, find programs that are doing so, and then you can go to an impact marketplace like Outcomes X and actually purchase those credits, and you have all of that validation, all of that investor-grade data, and you haven't created this additional burden on the impact reducer, which is super powerful.

It's so neat. I hadn't realized that it is very much following the model of what we've seen work and starting to work better and better in the environmental side with the carbon market.

Who then are the end users of the data? It sounds like it's charities, nonprofits, social programs that are inputting the data, and then are the end users more those corporations? Is it funders, foundations, like who is ultimately using the information?

I would say it's a bit of both because now the impact producer, so when I say an impact producer, I'm meaning anyone who is creating social impact and benefit in the world. So, it could be a nonprofit, a charity, a not-for-profit, social enterprise, you name it, anyone who's creating good in the world under that kind of S space. The social impact producers to date, just like I said earlier, there's been no way of having a standard previously, so they have been kind of making up their own metrics based on the data and the resources that they have. And in most cases, you look at all of the charities that exist, some of them are so small, they're one-man shops, they're diverse-led grassroots. We don't have the time, the resources, the space to be able to create investor-grade data that would allow a program like Moody's or S&P to look at that and say, yes, this is, this is good enough. So when we think about what impact data would provide to an organization like that, that's powerful, and it really shifts the narrative and them being able to lead forward with impact data backing up any claim that they're making. And when you also think of it, if they're going up against a big guy like the Red Cross, United Ways of the world, and we've had all of those programs report into our registry, so I'm not picking on anybody, but think about these small organizations, what does this allow them to do? It allows them to level the playing fields. They now have the ability to compete against the big guys because it's not a popularity contest. It's not a marketing department question. It's not the ability in terms of are you telling the right stories and are you paying the most amount of dollars towards marketing, but instead, it's, are you creating the impact? And yes, if you're creating the impact, then you deserve the credit. So they're able to get that credit and kind of lead with that. And we've had so many organizations say to us, “Lauren, this is now my pitch deck. I don't need to worry”.

We've heard from organizations directly that this is helping them to lead with their best foot forward. And a great example is Big Brothers Big Sisters Toronto. They came to us and said this is now their exclusive pitch deck when they're approaching prospective donors, when they're looking to speak with their existing donors about the impact that they're creating. They don't need to tell the story of “we think we're really awesome, please trust us”, but instead, they have their third-party verified data to be able to show the impact that they're creating. That's super powerful. And then when you shift it and think, okay, well, what about a corporation who's being called out, or thinking of organizations who are in the EU, they're being called and said, yeah, now with the implementation of the CSRD, so essentially what it's avoiding or trying to avoid is “cause-washing”. We've now seen this, you know, shift from greenwashing in the E space to now coming forward with companies like H&M, etc., who've had really bad press around cause washing. We just saw this recently with Lululemon in the E space, but now if we can say, well, how do we help support these organizations to ensure that they feel like they can make claims and speak about the good that they're creating? We don't want people to be afraid about doing good, but what we do want is to back them up and support them with the resources that they need in order to show the impact that they're creating. So that same data that that social impact producer has, the funder has access to it as well. So, what that does is it really shifts, so it shifts the conversation because it's not a did you do good, you told me you did good, why aren't you able to show it?

But instead it's actually showing directly the investments that you've made and being able to communicate based on those investments, well, here's my social impact investment portfolio. This is the impact that I've created across all of my programs because we have that common language. So it's not the separation of, well, my employee giving program is separate from my employee volunteer program is separate from my community investment program is separate from my grants program. It's actually all connected now because you have this common thread or this common language and being able to use the standard. So what you can communicate instead is, we created this impact, and here are all of the business units underneath that that helped us to do that, and making these investments in dollars, in time, and perhaps in skill-based volunteering too.

Two pieces that I love so much about that. The first, I hadn't heard the term “cause washing”. I think it's appropriate, absolutely, and I do see the flip side of some organizations feeling very cautious, almost like it's just not worth it, let's just do the good work and not talk about it that way we don't have to worry about it. So I think this is such a great opportunity to still do the good, still be able to inspire others to do good, but without the fear of maybe overstating and making sure that you have that third-party validation. So I love that.

And I also love, as someone who has supported really small charities in the past trying to do good work, and they just didn't necessarily have the big name that was as well known, but they were doing phenomenal work, I think it's just beautiful that you're able to level set that a little bit further so it's an even playing field. So you're really truly going after impact versus maybe just access to marketing funds. So that's awesome. For the organizations that are part of this, the different impact organizations, how often do they have to update their information? Is it on an annual basis, monthly basis, what does that look like?

It's on an annual basis. And, when you and I originally connected, Lauren, I was a fundraiser at the time, so I'm a recovering fundraiser. And I think about putting that hat on for a second and thinking about the input or the outputs that I would have needed in order to apply for grants, in order to beg for money amongst other organizations and funders. The time that goes into that is days-worth of investment of time and resources. So the good news is that really when we think about, you know, leveling that playing field, leveling the playing field is meant in a few different ways. It's meant to, you know, bring everyone to a more equitable state, but it's also meant to remove that burden. And if you're applying for a grant amongst 20 funders, imagine the power and getting the time back of doing that once with one report versus 20 times in a slightly different way that really doesn't allow you to just copy and paste. So when I put my old fundraising hat on, I'm like, oh my gosh, you're like serving up of this time and effort that I could have had on a silver platter to allow me to do other things.

When also think about it from a funders' perspective, in many cases, funders have had to become grant or essay writing contest reviewers because they're just simply looking through page after page. And yes, there are incredible grants management systems that help to kind of compile that, but there really is no perfect system in a custom grant application. And so our kind of next step and through our partners like Benevity and working with other grants management systems, what we're doing is we're looking to tap into the existing systems and think of, well, where is there an opportunity to be able to remove that burden to be able to help communicate the impact that's being created so that way folks do feel the confidence and not afraid, like you mentioned, of afraid of communicating because no one wants their hand slapped.

And then what the interstate is, is what if we can shift it, what if we can shift the behavior in approaching not just saying, well, who's the charity that I already know, but instead who's the charity that's creating the desired impact that I want to see in the world. So being able to create that behavior shift is going to be so powerful. And when you think about an individual donor experience up to a large corporate foundation or a large public body like the government who's giving out tens of millions of dollars to different impact areas, imagine if they were making those decisions based on the impact they wanted to see and not just the headline that they're looking for.

And a question I meant to ask you earlier too just kind of popped up was, are you seeing any regulations coming in at all that might impact this space, for example, maybe supply chains, that sort of thing? Would that directly impact maybe some of these social organizations that are out there?

I was on a call recently with a program in Portland, and they work all around local economic development, and what was really interesting, and they shared this with me, and I think this is just one small example of this kind of trickling down to a small business up to a large corporation like Nike, who's based in that area. Nike has implemented a change within their program supply chain that they've said that every vendor that they work with has to communicate the social impact that they're creating. And what's really interesting about that is now you have small mom and pop type organizations who have never to date reported in a sophisticated way that might be appropriate for a group like Nike, but now what this is actually calling out is, well, there's a great opportunity. There's a great opportunity to be able to say we can help support you with making the claims that you're making and actually helping you get business out of it because you're not having to kind of cause-wash, but instead, you'll be able to show your direct impact that you're making in the community and to be able to have that investor-grade data along with your answer to a tender or an RFP. Imagine how powerful that could be. So this just a small example that, yeah, previously the HVAC guy didn't have the means to be able to communicate to Nike why he's different or why he should be able to get the business, but now with this type of reporting, he would have that ability to be able to do so and help actually in being able to get more business.

One term that I heard last week, I was at this phenomenal conference in the environmental space called GreenBiz, and there was a whole section on the next generation coming in, and I would love to hear if there is a difference that you're seeing between generations in terms of social impact because on the environmental side, a term I had never heard until last week was, we've heard of “quiet quitting”, but they were saying that Gen Z is “climate quitting”, and they're leaving organizations that they feel are not having a good environmental impact.

Actually, we've seen that in a few different stats. So we've seen that from a social perspective. I don't think it's called social quitting, but I will try and coin a term that makes sense as well. What we've seen is that not only will Gen Zs as well as Millennials choose organizations in terms of working, they'll choose organizations that show that they have a social purpose. So that's really important, but they'll also choose these organizations over the glitz and the glam type benefit. So what we've seen is that the stats actually show that they're willing to take pay cuts, up to 7% of what they were getting paid previously, they're willing to take pay cuts when they know that the organization that they work for has a social purpose that they're committing to and achieving and continuing to achieve. So that's powerful. Like, you know, there's a lot of power in terms of where the dollars and cents are coming forward. So that is something that, you know, makes me feel good in terms of the next generation coming forward into the workplace and being in charge of that.

I think what's also important, and what we've seen in terms of the shift, it's not just a where are you going to work, but it's also how are you going to support local and, you know, we live in a very polarizing time, so being able to feel that you can work for an organization that has this social commitment but also understanding that there is this ability to be able to give back to your local community. And we've seen that through programs, so through employee giving programs and volunteering programs, we've seen that come forward. And what's really powerful is through partnerships like we have with Benevity, as an example, folks want to see beyond the output data. They don't just want to see X amount of dollars given to X amount of organizations. They want to understand what the impact actually means because it's not motivating to an employee to hear we gave $6 million last year. I don't see my $50 donation in that $6 million, but if I understood what outcomes I was potentially achieving, well, that's powerful to me, and that's going to motivate me to be able to do more. So we're really motivated by that and being able to work with a platform like Benevity and helping to inform employee-giving decisions. That's really the ultimate goal, is how can we help to shift behavior, but behavior isn't just going towards a couple of individual organizations. The behavior is really in understanding what impact you're creating, and when you have that information, it's powerful. And we have studies, I'll send you in the follow-up, we did a study a year or so ago that showed that donor behavior will always choose digestible impact metrics over marketing, and that's really exciting and really verifies and validates the work that we're doing because we can see that people want to make an impact, but they just don't necessarily have the information in order to do so.

Well, I'll be sure to link those reports. I think it's going to be really important for everybody to see. And even though I have a background and still work part-time in marketing, or part of my job is in marketing, I get it. I mean, you need to have both, right?

Yes, it’s important. But I think marketing, marketing without the data to back us, that is what is really missing, right? And I think like the most strategic marketer is one that can share the impact of a program that goes beyond just a headline or goes beyond just a hook of we changed 10 million lives. What does that actually mean? Because why do I care about it? I care about it because I understand what changing someone's life means. And then there's the flip side of that of well, we changed 10 million lives, well, did you actually, or did you have a program that had a reach of 10 million, and maybe perhaps you didn't change their lives, but you connected with them in some way. And that's equally as powerful, but you're not necessarily communicating in the correct way.

Totally agree. And it sounds like there's so many different amazing things you're working on. Are there any specific projects that you're really excited and energized about that you're working on right now?

I'm really motivated to see impact data across Canada, and I joined Impact Genome just under two years ago, and we're originally founded, and we're Chicago-based organization, and when I started, I said “we have to expand across Canada”, and we've done a great deal of that already, which is very exciting, but we're creating a Canadian coalition to help bring not just funders but impact producers, associations, really the voice of the sector forward in being able to show that we haven't solved these big issues across Canada, but actually it is possible. And because just the concentration of the organizations that we have across the country, we don't have that many social impact producers. We have 80,000 or so who are actively creating social impact, and when you think about what that means when you divide it out by different impact areas, like housing or critical human needs or education or public health, what that allows us to do is to really analyze, imagine if we had every organization in Montreal who's working on housing support, if they reported into the registry, we were able to understand well, who are creating what outcomes, and then when investments are coming forward from the provincial government or from local government or feds, we're able to actually say, well, here are the organizations that are going to help us to move the needle in the way that we want to see, and we can figure out what works. So we can take model what's worked in Montreal to then apply that to perhaps Toronto or Vancouver, Calgary, etc. So what I get excited about, kind of what's ahead for us in the next year, it's really looking at standardizing impact data across Canada, and we have a lot of big announcements that are coming forward with that. So more to come.

Very exciting, and we started at the top of the call saying you bringing the S to ESG. Have you always known that this was an area you wanted to be involved, and maybe walk us through a little bit about the journey? You mentioned you were in a fundraiser role when we first crossed paths, which we were trying to calculate we think is about seven or eight years ago. So, I'd love to hear more about that.

I would say that, and I think most people in this world, I originally thought, you know, I stumbled upon this, but I didn't stumble upon it. I've always been very passionate about social impact, and impact at its core has always been the compass that's guided my career. So, I've spent time in different spaces and sectors but always kind of coming back to this impact space. So, I spent time working on Parliament Hill, I spent time working for the largest education board here in Ontario, and what kept driving me towards the next choice was really in where can I create the biggest impact in the social impact sector because what I understand is that there is such power in community, and there's such power in being able to connect, and so being my superpower connecting worlds together and figuring out how can we really partner to be able to implement change as well as drive the impact, that's been my constant guide as I move place to place. But I've always spent a great amount of time focusing on the impact producers themselves and then connecting them to the world of funding as well as being able to really scale the impact that they're creating.

And I'm sure so much of that impact energizes you, and maybe outside of that, what have you found - and I love asking this question because I think when we're in either the environmental or social space, we give so much because we're so passionate about it - have you found any tips or tricks that work for you to recharge your own battery along the way?

Yeah, that's a great question. I think, especially on the impact producer side, there's so much burnout in the sector, and that's really sad because it's really those folks who are helping to allow us all to get the work done, right? We could not create the work. We could have the most amount of funds, but without the impact producers themselves, we can't get the job done. So, that's a big piece that I think about often in terms of, you know, how do we eliminate that burden and how do we help support those folks who are doing the work on the front lines.

For me, myself, in terms of recharging and re-energizing, I am most kind of energized in having conversations like this and connecting with like-minded people who are interested in applying other methods that have worked in other spaces. You've been kind of an expert for quite some time in the E world, and can we learn from what E has done and be able to learn from those mistakes too and be able to apply that. But separate from that, in terms of my personal life, I recently said I need to do something creative and completely separate from the world that I live in, and I signed up (this is really funny that I'm sharing this) I signed up for our local community theater's musical, and I just completed that musical with them. And so for me, it was really interesting to kind of strip away all of the jargon and all of the world in which I'm consumed by and stand up on stage and sing my heart out. And so it was really fun and a really great way to remember that life doesn't always have to be so serious, and these are really serious issues that we're constantly talking about and thinking about improving and systems that have been entrenched in so many different issues and to just kind of remove that and connect with something creative, I think, was really helpful. So, I'm re-energized and excited to make a bigger impact.

You are so brave. I don't even sing in front of my husband. You are so brave. But it makes so much sense too because I know when I feel that maybe some of the actions of humans in the world can kind of be bringing me down or it just feels a little bit heavy, I think what's so important and what's worked for me is seeing on the opposite side all of the beauty that humans can create, and so much of that lies in the arts, including music. So, I think that a very natural fit.

It has no direct connection to the conversation. I think it's important to stay humble and also remember that, like, life doesn't have to be so serious.

Absolutely, and if we have listeners, and I know we do, who maybe since 2020 in particular, have been thinking about a career pivot and just trying to get more in line with their own set of values, what advice would you have for a listener who's thinking about making a transition maybe from a more traditional role into this space that is more emphasizing the S of ESG?

I'd welcome them. I think what the space could benefit from is being able to have new ideas and new approaches, and what we've been able to see is that the shift doesn't need to be that charities and nonprofits have to act exactly like a business because oftentimes that's been the narrative. Of, “well, if you were more business-focused or if you acted like a business, then we wouldn't have this problem of constantly needing funds”. But instead, if we can take different skill sets and different innovations that have worked in other sectors and other fields and apply that, not in a way of changing it all, but instead infusing what's existing, imagine the power that that could create. So even in the example that I gave of Outcomes X in an impact marketplace, we are not the first ones to see an impact marketplace come forward. It's just simply a different product. The product being impact is the new innovative idea, but marketplaces have existed for hundreds of years, thousands of years. So being able to take that idea and apply it, I think that's really what's going to be so powerful in having people who are willing to think differently and approach things differently. I'd welcome kind of fresh and new blood because I think this sector needs it, and I think what we've done to date has really not allowed us to be able to solve the big issues of the world. We've had a lot of incredible insight and innovation, but I think now is the time to really move things forward in a very different way because now we actually have the spotlight, which is exciting.

And if our listeners also want to learn more about your incredible work at Impact Genome, where should they check out?

Sure, ImpactGenome.com, and if they want to reach out to me directly, it's Lauren Ott, not Lauren Scott. And I'm happy to have a conversation, and if you have any nonprofits, charities, anyone who's an impact producer you think can benefit from being a part of the registry, we would love to have them report into the registry and start to gain the benefit of being a part of that. And on the flip side, if you're a funder and you are looking to understand what your impact is and optimize and maximize the dollars that you're investing, we would love to have that conversation too.

Well, thank you so much for all that you do and for elevating all of the voices in the space. We do like to end every episode with the same question, which is, what do you think it will take for businesses and leaders to be resilient going forward?

Resiliency is such an important piece of so much of the work that's happening, and think for me, what I think is necessary in order for business leaders, in order for anyone who's in this sector of social impact to be able to move forward with resiliency, I think it's going to be an openness to change, an openness to innovation, and a piece of humble pie in understanding that we haven't solved these issues, so perhaps we should pivot and take a new lens in being able to apply what's worked elsewhere to the sector as well. So, it's an exciting time.

Well, thank you so much, and a note to our listeners, if you are a Lauren G, we are looking for someone to complete our girl band. Thank you so much. This has been so great catching up with you, and you're doing incredible work, so thank you so much, Lauren.

Thanks, Lauren.