Community Contribution Companies and Access to Social Finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is widespread agreement that innovative funding solutions are necessary to address capital requirements of social enterprises, social purpose businesses and not-for-profits in the social economy. The community contribution company (C3) is a legal organizational form for social enterprise, introduced in British Columbia, Canada, in 2013. In creating this legal form, the British Columbia government intended to provide social entrepreneurs with a recognized legal structure designed, in part, to assist social enterprises in gaining access to investment capital. Drawing on interviews from 14 of the 35 registered C3s and a review of filing data, this study provides information to help understand what attracted organizational founders to the C3 model, what challenges are experienced by C3s engaging with investors and financial institutions, and what opportunities there are for improvement to the C3 legal form. This study found that reasons outside a motivation to access investment capital are key driving factors for incorporating as a C3; there is currently a low level of engagement from impact investors; financial incentives may have a role in increasing investment in C3s; and there is an expressed need and opportunity to enhance education about the model to further support C3s. While the consensus from interview respondents was that benefits of incorporating as a C3 outweighed disadvantages, we found that the model has not helped organizations attract social finance and investment. As this model is in relatively early stages of implementation, the lessons learned in this study can inform investors, social finance intermediaries, entrepreneurs, and policy makers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".