Sustainable Conservation Case

Frank Boren formed Sustainable Conservation in 1992 with in aim to employ unconventional practices in getting stakeholders to support environmental conservation initiatives (Rosenthal and Siegelman 1). He understood that firms, the government, its various agencies, communities and individual needed to come together as natural resources stewards and employ innovation towards sustainable development that is not only economically viable but also environmentally friendly. Other than conforming to traditional avenues for attending to environmental challenges, Boren saw a viable opportunity in collaborations with organizations whose practices led to environmental degradation as opposed to land acquisition, regulations, and litigations (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2). This paper presents a case study assessing how the nonprofit entity leveraged innovation to achieve growth, its successes, and the role of major benefactors to its objective.

Innovation

Ashley Boren joined the environment conservation outfit and injected renewed commitment to its basic objective, sustainable conservation through innovative operational practices that were also economically rewarding (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2). In issues like water and air pollution, Sustainable Conservation acknowledged the dire need to integrate diverse stakeholders in a proactive manner and through engagements that allowed for measurable results. For instance, it targeted dairy farming practices in California while engaging in collaborations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address water pollution issues (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2).

Sustainable Conservation’s initiative targeting the Californian dairy industry emerged as one of its most successful in motivating stakeholders to employ innovation farming techniques. Runoffs from dairy farms into the state’s groundwater and waterways contained huge quantities of liquid cow waste which in most cases was poorly treated thereby risking offering Californians with contaminated water. Conversely, dairy farms contributed up to 2% of the state’s greenhouse emissions, a situations which could be quickly arrested through innovative technology that transformed methane derived from cow manure into electric power (Rosenthal and Siegelman 3). This was a very successful program that innovatively introduced methane digesters to farmers as a way to handle manure waste through a process which also translated to tangible economic benefits.

Major Benefactors

As nonprofit entity, Sustainable Conservation managed to run its internal operations and outreach programs via funding sourced from four critical benefactors. These included government agencies, foundations, corporations as well as individual donors (Rosenthal and Siegelman 4). This was not only an onerous task but one that served as a major determinant into this entity’s chances for successful implementation of sustainable environmentally positive initiatives. For instance, foundations as a major avenue for acquiring funds directly intimated that financial resources could only be availed to Sustainable Conservation if it provided well defined programs initiatives that also aligned to foundation missions. Similarly, government agencies demanded that funds given went to specific projects as was the case with foundations. The nonprofit entity was able to finance non program expenditures through organizational capacity building monies given by some proactive foundations. It was more difficult for Sustainable Conservation to gain finances from corporations simply due to the fact that many failed to identify with environmental conservation as a priority area. Individual donors though only contributors of 20% of its annual budget played a pivotal role in ensuring it had greater “flexibility in funding innovative pilot projects” (5). The individual donors therefore emerged as a critical funding source since they did not wish to impose restriction on Sustainable Conservation as to which projects to handle in a specific manner.

In conclusion, this paper has provided that Sustainable Conservation leveraged innovation to achieve growth, its successes, and the role of major benefactors to its objective. It initiatives targeting the Californian dairy industry were indeed notable successes given that outcomes it presented measurable outcomes. This not only encouraged the diverse stakeholders to commit support for further initiatives but also ensured it attracted for funding future projects. Having different benefactors enable for flexible utilization of funds to the effect that foundations, corporations and government agencies funded already proven projects while individual donors enable it to work on pilot projects.

Work Cited

Rosenthal Sara and Russ Siegelman. Sustainable Conservation. Stanford Graduate School of Business. 2012.

Frank Boren formed Sustainable Conservation in 1992 with in aim to employ unconventional practices in getting stakeholders to support environmental conservation initiatives (Rosenthal and Siegelman 1). He understood that firms, the government, its various agencies, communities and individual needed to come together as natural resources stewards and employ innovation towards sustainable development that is not only economically viable but also environmentally friendly. Other than conforming to traditional avenues for attending to environmental challenges, Boren saw a viable opportunity in collaborations with organizations whose practices led to environmental degradation as opposed to land acquisition, regulations, and litigations (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2). This paper presents a case study assessing how the nonprofit entity leveraged innovation to achieve growth, its successes, and the role of major benefactors to its objective.

Innovation

Ashley Boren joined the environment conservation outfit and injected renewed commitment to its basic objective, sustainable conservation through innovative operational practices that were also economically rewarding (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2). In issues like water and air pollution, Sustainable Conservation acknowledged the dire need to integrate diverse stakeholders in a proactive manner and through engagements that allowed for measurable results. For instance, it targeted dairy farming practices in California while engaging in collaborations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address water pollution issues (Rosenthal and Siegelman 2).

Sustainable Conservation’s initiative targeting the Californian dairy industry emerged as one of its most successful in motivating stakeholders to employ innovation farming techniques. Runoffs from dairy farms into the state’s groundwater and waterways contained huge quantities of liquid cow waste which in most cases was poorly treated thereby risking offering Californians with contaminated water. Conversely, dairy farms contributed up to 2% of the state’s greenhouse emissions, a situations which could be quickly arrested through innovative technology that transformed methane derived from cow manure into electric power (Rosenthal and Siegelman 3). This was a very successful program that innovatively introduced methane digesters to farmers as a way to handle manure waste through a process which also translated to tangible economic benefits.

Major Benefactors

As nonprofit entity, Sustainable Conservation managed to run its internal operations and outreach programs via funding sourced from four critical benefactors. These included government agencies, foundations, corporations as well as individual donors (Rosenthal and Siegelman 4). This was not only an onerous task but one that served as a major determinant into this entity’s chances for successful implementation of sustainable environmentally positive initiatives. For instance, foundations as a major avenue for acquiring funds directly intimated that financial resources could only be availed to Sustainable Conservation if it provided well defined programs initiatives that also aligned to foundation missions. Similarly, government agencies demanded that funds given went to specific projects as was the case with foundations. The nonprofit entity was able to finance non program expenditures through organizational capacity building monies given by some proactive foundations. It was more difficult for Sustainable Conservation to gain finances from corporations simply due to the fact that many failed to identify with environmental conservation as a priority area. Individual donors though only contributors of 20% of its annual budget played a pivotal role in ensuring it had greater “flexibility in funding innovative pilot projects” (5). The individual donors therefore emerged as a critical funding source since they did not wish to impose restriction on Sustainable Conservation as to which projects to handle in a specific manner.

In conclusion, this paper has provided that Sustainable Conservation leveraged innovation to achieve growth, its successes, and the role of major benefactors to its objective. It initiatives targeting the Californian dairy industry were indeed notable successes given that outcomes it presented measurable outcomes. This not only encouraged the diverse stakeholders to commit support for further initiatives but also ensured it attracted for funding future projects. Having different benefactors enable for flexible utilization of funds to the effect that foundations, corporations and government agencies funded already proven projects while individual donors enable it to work on pilot projects.

Work Cited

Rosenthal Sara and Russ Siegelman. Sustainable Conservation. Stanford Graduate School of Business. 2012.