220
opportunities for raising donations, credit and loans abound. Given the credit crunch
in certain contexts, some of these online platforms offer more favourable interest
rates than traditional lending mechanisms. Certain fi nancial platforms are ‘business
as usual’, facilitated by new technologies; however, some of these online services
could fall under the umbrella of the social and solidarity economy. In Sahakian and
Servet ( in press ), the distinction is made between crowdfunding that aims towards
‘communal sharing’ versus self-interest. Related to the former defi nition, crowdfunding that tends towards solidarity implicates people coming together to address
a broader need, serving either social or environmental aims.
Certain crowdfunding platforms attempt to achieve these aims (e.g., SPEAR and
Kisskissbankbank), while others focus specifi cally on promote investments in
renewable energies (e.g., Solar Mosaic and Wiseed).
7 Certain platforms propose
both ‘business as usual’ projects as well as projects that aim at a social good. Take
for example Kickstarter: raising funds for the customizable smart watch ‘Pebble’
8
does not aim towards achieving a greater environmental or social common good
(although this may be a matter of perspective), whereas raising funds for favela
painting does aim to transform an under-privileged area of Rio. In the case of Smart
Angels or Unilend,
9 the projects fi nanced tend to fall in the ‘business as usual’ category and these platforms are also based on capitalistic notions, in that they are
privately owned and seek pecuniary gains. The type of institutional framework governing a platform does not determine its mission of purpose. There is currently very
little information publicly available on how such platforms operate in practice,
including their governance systems, and this merits further study, particularly in
relation to notions of democratic governance systems.
Assessing the level of ‘communal sharing’ and ‘solidarity’ that takes place
through crowd-funding entails considering a range of factors, including the motivations for setting up such a platform, for proposing projects and contributing funds.
Such projects would need to be evaluated over time, to ensure that they deliver on
their promises. Crowdfunding could benefi t the industrial ecology community in
one obvious way, in raising funds for interesting and novel projects. In other sectors,
crowdfunding has been used to test the viability or public support for certain initiative. Crowdfunding for a new biogas facility for example could demonstrate the
interest and acceptance among the general public for such a project.
There is yet another way in which crowdfunding could work in synergy with
industrial ecology: as an investment tool. The economic gains made through reducing consumption and via effi ciency measures can lead to decreases in consumption
that are lower than expected through a direct rebound effect (Hertwich 2005a ).
More challenging to measure is ‘indirect rebound’, where for example money saved
through reduced energy or material consumption in one consumption area (e.g.
7 See associated websites: www.spear.fr , www.kisskissbankbank.com , joinmosaic.com, www.
wiseed.com
8 See Pebble project page on the Kickstarter website: www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/
pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android (Retrieved March 3, 2015).
9 See: www.smartangels.fr , www.unilend.fr
M. Sahakian
opportunities for raising donations, credit and loans abound. Given the credit crunch
in certain contexts, some of these online platforms offer more favourable interest
rates than traditional lending mechanisms. Certain fi nancial platforms are ‘business
as usual’, facilitated by new technologies; however, some of these online services
could fall under the umbrella of the social and solidarity economy. In Sahakian and
Servet ( in press ), the distinction is made between crowdfunding that aims towards
‘communal sharing’ versus self-interest. Related to the former defi nition, crowdfunding that tends towards solidarity implicates people coming together to address
a broader need, serving either social or environmental aims.
Certain crowdfunding platforms attempt to achieve these aims (e.g., SPEAR and
Kisskissbankbank), while others focus specifi cally on promote investments in
renewable energies (e.g., Solar Mosaic and Wiseed).
7 Certain platforms propose
both ‘business as usual’ projects as well as projects that aim at a social good. Take
for example Kickstarter: raising funds for the customizable smart watch ‘Pebble’
8
does not aim towards achieving a greater environmental or social common good
(although this may be a matter of perspective), whereas raising funds for favela
painting does aim to transform an under-privileged area of Rio. In the case of Smart
Angels or Unilend,
9 the projects fi nanced tend to fall in the ‘business as usual’ category and these platforms are also based on capitalistic notions, in that they are
privately owned and seek pecuniary gains. The type of institutional framework governing a platform does not determine its mission of purpose. There is currently very
little information publicly available on how such platforms operate in practice,
including their governance systems, and this merits further study, particularly in
relation to notions of democratic governance systems.
Assessing the level of ‘communal sharing’ and ‘solidarity’ that takes place
through crowd-funding entails considering a range of factors, including the motivations for setting up such a platform, for proposing projects and contributing funds.
Such projects would need to be evaluated over time, to ensure that they deliver on
their promises. Crowdfunding could benefi t the industrial ecology community in
one obvious way, in raising funds for interesting and novel projects. In other sectors,
crowdfunding has been used to test the viability or public support for certain initiative. Crowdfunding for a new biogas facility for example could demonstrate the
interest and acceptance among the general public for such a project.
There is yet another way in which crowdfunding could work in synergy with
industrial ecology: as an investment tool. The economic gains made through reducing consumption and via effi ciency measures can lead to decreases in consumption
that are lower than expected through a direct rebound effect (Hertwich 2005a ).
More challenging to measure is ‘indirect rebound’, where for example money saved
through reduced energy or material consumption in one consumption area (e.g.
7 See associated websites: www.spear.fr , www.kisskissbankbank.com , joinmosaic.com, www.
wiseed.com
8 See Pebble project page on the Kickstarter website: www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/
pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android (Retrieved March 3, 2015).
9 See: www.smartangels.fr , www.unilend.fr
M. Sahakian