In this blog post, I describe what brafe.space currently offers and represents for non-profits, activists and social entrepreneurs. The first part explains how our board, our culture and our funding process came about. I discuss the kind of support we aim to provide, where our limits lie, and the direction in which our structures are currently evolving. I also address a sore point: that more money flows into for-profit ventures than into organisations focused on the common good. Following on from this, I ask what potential we can already be tapping into. In this section, I speak mainly from the organisation’s perspective. However, this description is inevitably interwoven with my personal view. 

In a second, this time explicitly personal section, I put forward the thesis that brafe.space is a space where we, as public-good-oriented founders, can become radically future-proof. The social sector is under systematic political and technological pressure, driven by mistrust, funding cuts and the AI revolution. It will have to fundamentally reinvent itself. For me, this is precisely where the true value of brafe.space lies. Not as a better world, but as a space in which we can practise those inner capacities that crises and new beginnings demand: reflection and the fluidity of our identity and activity, the ability to endure tension, and the capacity to maintain connection across differences.

Our starting point: an inclusive definition of the term ‘entrepreneurship’

Exactly five years ago, in June 2021, I accepted an invitation from Rolf to meet him and his co-founders of ‘Leadership Sprouts’. Leadership Sprouts was the name of a project designed to bring together for-profit founders and investors on a personal development journey, and the small team (Rolf and Anna, Wilfried, Holger and Sven-Oliver) had invited me and Waldemar to a two-day exchange at the Michelberger Hotel in Berlin. I had come without any great expectations and was very surprised to find, by the end of this meeting, that I was an integral part of a group that had renamed itself brafe.space and was on its way to organising a first major meeting within three months.

What had tipped the balance and convinced me? It was above all the group’s openness and curiosity to pursue an inclusive definition of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. Waldemar’s and my proposal to to treat for-profits and non-profits as equals and to give socio-political issues a role within the entrepreneurs’ network, was taken up as an essential part of the brafe.space DNA. Those two days marked the start of a venture that has since been characterised by emergence and learning.

Our first three-day event was attended by a number of non-profit founders, including Emilia, Raul, Anne and Kristina. They helped shape the programme’s content, bringing topics to the agenda that were unusual and, in some cases, challenging for investors and for-profits: marginalisation, privilege, systemic change. The mix of our guests created a (mostly constructive) tension.

The participants sensed that this event differed from conventional networking events. It was not about roles and functions, business and success, but about relating the most diverse perspectives to one another in a personal, reflective way. Not about finding quick solutions, not about building superficial bridges. But about enduring the tension that defines our society. ‘Staying with the trouble’, to borrow Donna Haraway’s striking phrase. 

Since then, I have been closely connected to brafe.space – as a participant, as a Circle Host, as a board member and currently as deputy chair of the brafe.space Foundation, which we founded in 2024 together with 84 brafers. For just as long, the question has occupied us as a board and as a team: How can brafe.space be a good home for all those who place social and ecological transformation at the heart of their work – non-profits, activists, social entrepreneurs and others? 

The second step: A multi-perspective board, thinking through individual development and collective structures together

Like the whole brafe.space dynamic, our start was iterative and emergent. Instead of devising new structures and processes on the drawing board – which, if anything, would have been heavily influenced by our past and habits – we first wanted to build a cultural field with human connections and thus get to know the different interests and needs of our members. On this basis, suitable, innovative structures were to emerge.

As founders, however, one thing became clear to us very early on: We had to broaden our core to reflect the desired diversity of perspectives and life circumstances within our carefully growing community. With Lisa and Corinna, we brought in expertise in the non-profit sector and critical engagement with power structures. Within this now more diverse board group, we have since been exploring, drawing on our own network of relationships, the question: How can brafe.space become a connected community within a fragmenting society that adequately meets the diverse needs of our participants and enables them to bring something new into the world?

A cornerstone of this was our decision not to follow the hyper-individualised start-up scene and place individual personal growth at the centre of brafe.space, but rather to consciously embed collective dimensions within brafe.space. In other words, to actively incorporate cultural influences such as gender, background, class, disabilities, etc., into our methodology and reflections. To make it clear that our respective identities and lived experiences are significantly shaped by historically formed (oppressive) systems. We consciously seek to incorporate these factors—often invisible and frequently normalised—into our interactions. For example, through the mandatory ‘Responding to Difference’ Core Competency Workshop by the Held Collective, which all participants must attend. Because we believe that this awareness is an essential foundation for relating to one another with respect—in our similarities, but also in our differences.

The power-critical inclusion of collective structures is enriching for everyone, as it reflects reality more accurately than a fictional hyper-individualism. This sets brafe.space apart from other spaces where founders and investors meet today.

This focus is a contribution from our non-profit and activist participants, as many of them have experienced such discrimination. For many, this also serves as the motivation for their work. This makes it all the more important that participants at brafe.space do not have to constantly explain the collective dimension of their own lives and work, nor do they have to constantly assert themselves against resistance. At the same time, these fundamental principles are equally valuable for many for-profit founders and participants. For among them, too, there are people who are disadvantaged by collective structures of oppression. And all our business models become more inclusive the more they incorporate reality.

Another element of our focus on the broadest possible participation is the Enabling Pot. Although participation in brafe.space is free of charge, some members would still be unable to afford it due to a lack of time or loss of income. From the Enabling Pot, we pay an additional grant available to less privileged participants. This element, often associated with non-profits and activists, is equally essential for some profit-oriented founders.

The funding process within brafe.space

One of the central brafe.space principles is “no-outcome”. By this we mean: brafe.space is a place before action. A place of self-discovery, reflection and authentic human encounter. Our meeting spaces can generate deep connection, new insights and moments of realisation. Here we encounter ourselves and one another beyond our socially defined roles. Not just as thinking, but as feeling human beings. It is precisely through this, according to our hypothesis, that new answers can emerge: experiences, sensations and insights that do not merely prolong the past, but are truly innovative and emergent – that is, arising from the moment and the connection.

Alongside this, however, we also offer formats that focus on action. We see them as spaces for experimentation: here, participants can translate insights gained in brafe.space into concrete behaviour. The most important of these spaces is the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Here we develop formats and resources that contribute to our members’ entrepreneurial activities. The most visible element to date is brafe.funding.

In this process, founders – both for-profit and non-profit – organise a fundraising campaign together with a lead investor from the community. In the early years, much of the energy went into contracts and processes for for-profit investments that align with the brafe.space principles, i.e. leaving as much ‘space’ as possible for the development of the founders and the business. However, alongside the for-profit cases, a number of non-profits have also been funded. 

The basic process is the same for all types of organisation. We decided on this following discussions, including with brafe.space members who have many years’ experience as non-profit funders.

It works as follows: 

A founder seeks out a lead investor within the community. This investor is so convinced by the (1) founders potential and (2) the potential of their venture that they are prepared to make a significant financial contribution themselves, within the limits of their means. They then prepare the funding case together with the founder, e.g. a pitch deck and video.

These materials are disseminated by the lead investor (usually with the founder’s involvement) via Slack, at dedicated funder meetings within the community, and by specifically approaching potential investors.

To find a lead investor and start the process, founders can now present their venture in the dedicated Slack channel “brafe- funding-feedback”. Users of this channel have committed to providing prompt feedback. From my experience – and I know both sides of the divide between investors and non-profit founders – this is a valuable opportunity that non-profit founders rarely get otherwise.

For for-profits (and social businesses), we have developed an investment agreement specifically tailored to brafe.space principles targeting shareholder dynamics and creating more space for founders to develop themselves and their organizations. For donations to non-profits, there is (as yet?) nothing of the sort since these investments do not involve a change in shareholder.

Following successful funding – again, the same applies to both non-profits and for-profits – there is collegial support from the lead investor. This support – and here I must switch to the future tense, as we have not yet implemented this – is intended to be continuous and reflective: it strives to be mindful of the power dynamics between funder and recipient. In my view, this standard is also rare in the social sector.

Regarding the ‘contribution fees’ that enterprises pay to the brafe.space Foundation for funding, we differentiate according to legal form. Organizations, non profit and for profit alike, pay a contribution fee of 5%. The additional 20% carry payable by for-profits in the event of a successful exit do not apply to non-profits, as these are generally not geared towards profit distribution. Such is the current process logic in specific financing cases.

In addition, brafe.space offers all founders formal and informal forums for exchange, research and support. Those involved in non-profit work can launch a Lab or a brafeTuesday on their topics and specifically bring together the various groups, investors and founders, the core team and the board. We can offer corresponding spaces for reflection and sharing experiences at the annual Camp. The team is open to suggestions for content, which you can contribute as self-reflections within the Circles. And as the further development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem is a particular focus for the team this year, there is scope for co-creation here too.

For several months now, we have been investing increasing energy in this very entrepreneurial ecosystem, where support services are being developed that go beyond financing. We see a great need in areas such as communication, AI or mentoring. Many of these are relevant to all legal forms. Others must reflect the differences between for-profits and non-profits. For the current status, check the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Notion page.

As brafe.space, we are agnostic on the question of what characteristics an organisation or a company should have. Of course, we do make a preliminary selection through the choice of our members. Thus, an organisation that is seriously committed to the brafe.space goal of “creating more space” – i.e. managing its own organisation in a more reflective and holistic manner – is likely to have better chances of securing funding than one with a purely functional focus. At the same time, we leave the selection to our members.

Less money for non-profits

I have reached a point that concerns numerous non-profits within the brafe.space community: they observe that significantly more funds are flowing into for-profit enterprises than into their own organisations. Over the last five years, around 5.7 million euros have flowed into enterprises.

A total of 18 official investments were made, which we can divide into the following categories:

For-profit (11): Keen, Guud, Teethlovers, Tebalou, Kiyo, Shiftspace(x2), Dingdong Pingpong, Bookie, Inju, Inne

Non-profit (7): Project Tres (x2), Hamburg tests basic income (x2), eeden Hamburg, statefree, VSSL

Three comments on these figures: 

1. All the for-profits listed here have a social or environmental dimension (of varying degrees). Contractually, they are also free to convert to community-owned status (Verantwortungseigentum). This sets them apart significantly from the majority of conventional start-ups in Germany. 

2. There were also a great number of unofficial donations from brafers to non-profits that took place outside the official process. In future, we will endeavour to include these in brafe.funding as well. This however also depends on the transparency of our members.

3. In other cases, including the majority of non-profits, the full target amount was not raised: Disruption Network Lab, SocialBnB, for people who care, einhorn Energy, Two and a Half Film. 

Whilst all the organisations have, to differing degrees, pro-social aims, there is a real disparity in the figures and the sums involved: around €5 million went to for-profit companies, compared with €700,000 to non-profits.

As a team and board, we consequently receive requests and suggestions on how to improve funding opportunities for non-profits within brafe.space. This is often accompanied by a desire to give social transformation issues even more space on brafe.space.

From an organisational perspective, we can note that access to funding has become more difficult for all founders in recent years. Many for-profit fundraising efforts are failing, too.  At the same time, non-profits (both within and outside brafe.space) face specific hurdles that for-profits do not encounter in the same way. These include the fact that most funders in brafe.space are more familiar with for-profit enterprises, their standards and their logic. Likewise, non-profits are currently grappling with sector-specific threats, such as delegitimisation and legal uncertainty, which for-profits do not face in the same way. 

More on this in the following second part of my blog post.

PART 2

When I discuss some of the theories and ideas that concern me regarding our non-profits below, these do not represent our organisation’s perspective, but my own. brafe.space itself has deliberately no position on most of these issues. Where the organisational perspective is concerned, I will explicitly state this. Some of my remarks, particularly the following ones on donor education, have also drawn on a discussion paper written by a group of non-profit founders on the topic “Exploring how funding, impact and relational support for non-profits could evolve within brafe.space”.

Donor Education: Different impact logics and success criteria

As already described, most investors on brafe.space come from the for-profit sector. They are not always familiar with the specific characteristics and challenges of organisations dedicated to social and environmental transformation. These include different assumptions about impact and investment logics. Whilst the success of a for-profit enterprise can be gauged by measurable scalability, growth, profit, etc., impact in the non-profit sector is often less quantifiable and “objective” to determine.

This is because goals such as equal opportunities or democracy, and the fight against homelessness and racism, are highly complex. We rarely approach them through market-based means, but rather through relationship-oriented factors: trust, care, empowerment, advocacy. Admittedly, there are areas here too where product innovations and key performance indicators play a role. But impact is often far less tangible, for example when organisations facilitate participation, protect vulnerable groups, shift power dynamics or work on systemic levers in the long term. 

At this point, however, I would also like to mention that non-profit approaches are generally broader in scope than those represented on brafe.space. Many associations or gGmbHs are less campaign-focused than the majority of brafe.space organisations. A philanthropic approach such as Effective Altruism pursues themes and methods that are largely quantifiable. A discussion of EA goes beyond the scope of my post. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to discuss this philanthropic approach, which is particularly popular and well-received in tech circles. Get in touch.

The organisational realities also often differ from those of for-profit start-ups. For instance, in terms of (significantly lower) wages, (often exploitative) working hours, a (high) risk tolerance, and the time-consuming involvement of volunteers. In the current political climate, new uncertainties are emerging: growing mistrust of civil society engagement, which is labelled as ‘woke’ or ‘radical’; greater legal uncertainty, even leading to criminal prosecution; massive cuts in public funding; and a shrinking market for private donations. More on this below.

When non-profits meet investors on brafe.space who are unfamiliar with these sector-specific realities and instead apply the standards and expectations of their for-profit world, this leads to frustration – and to lower levels of investment.

The desire for more support

As a social entrepreneur and investor in civil society organisations, I can empathise very, very well with the desire for stable funding. I remember sleepless nights, years of internal pressure and constant adjustments to our business models in order to get the funding for betterplace.org, the betterplace lab and other organisations off the ground.

At the same time, I have repeatedly found that far more money is available for financing profit-oriented companies. This reflects the current values of our society, in which material values count for more than idealistic ones, and extraction and self-interest are not only tolerated but even celebrated.

Despite this, the approach of brafe.space is that no one is forced to fund ventures, regardless of their legal form. Nor do we wish to exert any subtle moral influence on people’s investment decisions. In the few instances where there has been some pressure from individuals, this has tended to work to the detriment of the funding case and us as an organisation.

A lack of funding for public-interest causes is usually not due to a lack of information. It’s not a case of: ‘If we just inform funders better, they’ll support us.’ No. It is rather a matter of attitude and values, shaped by an individual’s relationship with money, security and identity – a relationship that is usually formed early in childhood. Gaps in information can be filled quickly. But beliefs and emotions regarding material resources and investments are closely intertwined with our hormonal balance and nervous system and, as such, change only slowly and in unpredictable ways. 

This is where our No-Outcome Principle comes into play: We (the team, the board) do our work at brafe.space not ‘to achieve something’. Not to change anyone or to achieve a specific result. But to create a space in which the most diverse, latent developmental steps can take place. Some processes of change may lead people who have not previously been explicitly interested in the common good or social justice to discover this for themselves. Equally, however, it may be that someone who is very committed to social causes realises that their next step lies in a completely different direction.

Since the start of our work, we have heard time and again from participants: ‘The potential of this community is enormous. Let’s use it to tackle the shift to the right in Germany, combat racism, counter online hate, and save the climate.’ And time and again, we as a team and board counter this and declare brafe.space to be a space BEFORE action. brafe.funding is an exception to this rule. Here, we are specifically trying to create conditions that enable entrepreneurs and their organisations to make more space for the reflection that lies at the heart of brafe.space. But this space, too, is characterised by voluntary participation.

brafe.space is the real world, plus more reflection

brafe.space is about creating space and holding space. Every individual learning journey within the community follows its own rhythm and pace. That is precisely what we, as a team, founders and board, wish to respect. This means: we strive to foster a sufficiently open and safe culture, and sufficiently reliable yet flexible structures and processes, within which every participant can learn something about themselves, their organisation and the world. We are not concerned with nudging investors to change their decisions. For some, this has been the case, and for many others it may be so in the future. But for others, it won’t. 

Many Brafers, myself included, probably wish for a transformation: away from the current, extractive logic of the economy and life, towards a world that places the well-being of as many sentient beings as possible at its centre. But as an organisation, we do not align ourselves with any of the particular interests of our various participant groups, be it redistribution, profit maximisation or the healing of one’s own trauma.

Sometimes I think I hear from conversations with members that they wish for brafe.space to be a better world. As a place where a highly potent group collectively creates a better, safer, fairer world. But we are not a better world. ‘In here’ we have the same inequalities, distorted attitudes and challenges as ‘out there’. The only thing we claim for ourselves: We reflect a little more on dysfunctional “normality” and try to tweak individual aspects. And we have agreed to judge one another less – instead, we explore our relationships, including our differences and incompatibilities, and perhaps even learn from one another.

From five years of Circle experience and many conversations in brafe.space, I take away the following: in some needs we are very similar, in others we differ greatly. Everyone wants deeper self-connection, more intimate exchange, support and inspiration. But there are also many differences. Some have a strong agenda for social transformation, some very little. Some would have left the community long ago had we not actively woven an (initial) awareness of collective inequalities into our DNA, particularly through our collaboration with Held, but also via the Enabling Pot. Others are uninterested in the topic, or even annoyed or triggered by it. These differences and inequalities exist, and any change occurs as a result of an individual learning process.

This heterogeneity is also reflected in participation in our optional formats, from the funding groups and labs to the reading circles and brafe.Tuesdays. 

How do we design our offerings so that they appeal to as many participants as possible?

Participation in most of our formats is voluntary. That is why we need to find out how to get the different groups excited about them. Because, at least in my view: overall, our founders, regardless of their legal form, participate much more actively in the community than the investors. And when the latter do participate, it is often the ‘usual suspects’ who are already heavily involved anyway.

An important question is therefore: How do we design our offerings so that they appeal to as many different participants as possible? 

This is where the multi-perspective approach comes into play: every group within the community has its own needs and communicates these to the operational team. The experiences of for-profit founders are very similar to those of non-profits. They, too, want clearer pathways to funding, networks and expertise. And they, too, have had to face the reality that a number of for-profit fundraising rounds failed to materialise, despite committed lead investors. That is why it strikes me as misguided to debate whether the need and relevance of non-profits outweigh those of for-profits. Instead, a brafe.space-style approach might be to endure together the shared pain of uncertain funding and business sustainability.

There are unmet needs amongst investors too. These include the desire not to be seen as a ‘walking wallet’ in brafe.space and to be reduced to material resources. Some experience a dilemma here: on the one hand, in brafe.space, beyond their role and within a multi-perspective group, they can explore themselves more deeply as human beings. On the other hand, they repeatedly feel pushed back into their investor role during Funder Zoom calls or in informal conversations. 

The role of non-monetary contributions

I see the hurdles and inequalities that public-good-oriented founders encounter at brafe.space.

At the same time, I am constantly surprised and delighted by the many unusual connections that arise through the various, unconventional points of contact. I see how people from different sectors support one another by joining advisory boards, recommending talent, securing office space, advising on legal, financial or strategic matters, or stepping in as organisational developers or coaches.

A new network of relationships is emerging here, which we as a board or team often only notice by chance and in an anecdotal way. Nobody here is planning or organising anything. The relationships and exchanges simply arise from human encounters, from curiosity, interest and generosity. The support flows in all directions; it involves material resources and concrete assistance, as well as inspiration, meaning and connection.

As is usually the case, there are people who receive more and are more connected to others than others. People who find it easier to present themselves and their work in an appealing way. Who are more extroverted, are working on a currently trending topic, or have a well-connected friend acting as an advocate within the community. We try to counteract these inequalities in our formats. For example, by using methods that give quieter people the same speaking time as more dominant individuals. By creating neutral communication channels that can be used by everyone. But interests, charisma and convening power are unevenly distributed, and this is reflected in brafe.space too. However, I hope that as trust grows, we can discuss these factors more and more openly amongst ourselves, thereby stripping them of their ‘normality’ and ‘invisibility’ and enabling us to consciously engage with the common dimensions of influence and success.

Finally, I would like to address an aspect that strikes me as more important for non-profits on brafe.space than networking and funding. These observations are my own; that is to say, they do not claim to describe the organisational perspective. I believe that the greatest benefit of brafe.space lies in its role as a well-equipped training ground for the inner capabilities demanded by crisis and new beginnings.

A sector under pressure

In my view, the civil society sector is facing massive upheaval. The social sector will undergo fundamental change. I believe we will see a significantly smaller group of adequately funded organisations in the future. These are often organisations whose impact assumptions fit the current situation, which are in tune with the spirit of the times, have functioning business models, are favourites with donors, and/or use new technologies in interesting ways. Many initiatives that were still adequately funded until recently, or which were only just managing to keep their heads above water, will, by contrast, shrink, merge or close. I have written about such a process in one of my own organisations here.

There are external and internal reasons for this.

Externally: the radical cuts in funding from foundations and public funds, as well as declining donations. From many conversations with institutional funders, particularly grant-making foundations, I gather how many grants are being terminated currently and in the near future. How many foundations are withdrawing from areas such as migration, diversity, democracy and climate change. How many are suspending or closing their application channels because they are being inundated with AI-generated applications (Postcode, Aktion Mensch, etc.).

Developments in the public sector are even more stark. The new government, particularly the CDU/CSU, has sown mistrust from the outset and is following the playbook of autocratic regimes: first delegitimise civil society, then defund it, then ban it. This includes the CDU/CSU’s parliamentary question on the political neutrality of state-funded organisations, the scrutiny of NGOs by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and the overhaul of the ‘Demokratie Leben’ programme by the BMFSJ, including the current Family Minister’s directive to no longer write the word ‘diversity’ but merely to take it into account. The trend towards ‘securitisation’ (in German Versicherheitlichung). In the wake of the war in Gaza, we are witnessing how politicians and institutions are portraying legitimate protests against Israel as an existential threat in order to justify extraordinary, repressive measures in the name of security and “anti-Semitism”, and to intimidate, cancel and silence critical voices from civil society. A civil society that is predominantly funded by the state makes itself vulnerable.

The funding cuts from grant-making foundations and state institutions cannot be offset by private donations. It is true that we are currently witnessing the largest transfer of wealth in the post-war era. Hundreds of billions are bequeathed annually. But the wealthy are participating, as Angela Ullrich and I describe in the article Having More, Giving Less, less and less in civil society initiatives. The willingness to donate is also at a record low in Germany, with a participation rate of around 24%.

Yet not all the causes lie outside ourselves. Internally, we contribute to the problem ourselves: through ineffective work and a lack of evidence of impact, through fragmentation and competition between individual organisations, and through an inadequate systemic understanding of impact. Added to this are self-righteousness, feelings of moral superiority and demands for purity. Outdated organisational and business models are also part of the problem. And a work culture that exploits rather than builds up. Much of this is described by Anthea Lawson in her new book How not to save the world.

Overarching all this is the AI revolution, which will once again shift a great, great deal.

Many organisations will not survive. And not all of them should. Even within civil society, there is a competition of ideas. At the same time, around 30 million people are actively engaged in Germany. Many people want to get involved. The only question is what forms this will take in the future.

We are already seeing how these trends are reflected in discussions and new practices. More and more people are engaging with sunsetting, the deliberate winding up of organisations. Not only in the social sector, but also at brafe.space, where last week I moderated a sunsetting session with the founders and brafe.space investors from Tebalou, following the dissolution of the venture. To take this step, we need to develop new formats and rituals that consciously value what is coming to an end and learn from it for the future. brafe.space member Gauri is also addressing a similar topic in her recent posts for Dear Money, namely how we deal with terminations. 

Civil society work, but in a completely different way

Against this backdrop, new questions arose for me. The tried-and-tested approach is: organise funding for your own ideas. But what if that no longer works? Because there is no funding. Or because far too many are competing for too little money. Or because founders and staff have long since burnt out. Then we must break new ground. And then not only material, but also very existential, identity-related questions arise: Who am I without my mission? Without my activism? Without my ‘making the world a better place’?

We need less of the ability to push through old ideas in a tougher climate. We need the ability to recognise truly new paths – new ideas of what an active, positive social contribution can look like.

Some of these paths are radical. The activist Dom Hunter articulates one such radical idea: perhaps the NGO isn’t the place at all? Perhaps those committed to the cause, especially those from the middle class, should take a perfectly ordinary job for a few years? A bus driver, a shop assistant, a plumber, whatever. And get involved on the side, in their own neighbourhood, at the community centre. Asking: where can I help? What needs to be done? Drawing on this lived experience, they could then contribute their analytical skills and develop strategies from within. Instead of coming in from the outside with a ready-made strategy, along the lines of: “I’m being paid to implement this.” Hunter would like to see committed individuals return to where they come from and organise themselves there with their peers. (I would like to mention here that this very approach is one of the distinctive features of many of the non-profits represented at brafe.space, which operate from their own life experience rather than ‘from the outside’ or ‘from above’. )

Whatever form these new approaches and paths may take, I believe that the skills we champion at brafe.space – such as presence, fluidity, relational skills and multi-perspectivity – are extremely helpful in bringing truly new values, attitudes, structures and processes to life.

What have I learnt as a social entrepreneur at brafe.space?

When I look back on my own learning journey, I have learnt many surprising things at brafe.space that have enriched my social entrepreneurship enormously. These, too, have less to do with money than with how I position myself in the world, how I understand and shape my own work and approach.

Trapped in my own bubble – looking beyond the horizon
Close encounters with people who have little or no interest in activist or world-improving work allow me to step out of my own social bubble, where almost everyone is preoccupied with change and transformation. I gain insight into other people’s motivations. And I see: they are not ‘bad’. I find many of them to be empathetic, caring, hurt and vulnerable. But because of their different life experiences, they set different priorities. This broader view of “society” helps me to develop new, more appropriate strategies for my own work. My work becomes more accessible and resonates better.

My own entanglement in the “system” and fragmentation – working on myself
I have also learnt how intimately I am (involuntarily and mostly unconsciously) connected to the “system” that I want to criticise and change. How strongly cultural constructs, such as achievement, success and productivity, influence me, even though I believed I had long since overcome them intellectually. This has prompted me to first explore these outdated structures within myself:

Where, without realising it, am I part of the patriarchy? Where do I perpetuate a work ethic that leads to exhaustion and burnout? Where do I find it difficult to let go of behaviour that actually harms me?

Today, I also understand better – particularly through my work with the Held Collective – how, through my own othering, I myself contribute to the very social fragmentation that I lament. My strategies in this regard: arrogance – I am better because I (unlike people who pursue profit) stand up for other people and the common good. And reductionism – I reduce others to their roles and superficial identity markers, be it as an ‘old white man’, a ‘selfish investor’, or even an ‘idealistic do-gooder’.

Clinging to the identity of the changemaker – more space for new approaches
A key point: at brafe.space, I’m learning to keep my own identity more ‘fluid’ and ‘diverse’. To define myself less by my work and instead give space to more facets of my personality. There was a time when I wanted to – and could – talk to others almost exclusively about my social issues. I had forgotten how to take an interest in many other things. In doing so, I cut myself off from many facets of my own being, failed to build bridges with people with different interests, and lost both joy and friends. Today I understand better how important and enriching it is to maintain connections that go beyond mere likes and dislikes, beyond shared worldviews and values.

This narrowing of my professional and ideological identity has personally harmed me. I felt constricted and rigid. And it has limited my effectiveness. For I could no longer see clearly and align my work with what actually is. I had to cling to structures, ideologies and business models that were increasingly out of step and out of resonance with the changing environment. But change requires flexibility, letting go, learning, and starting afresh. In my view, these skills are more important than ever for civil society organisations today.

A Change of Perspective: Investing
Ultimately, I find the opportunity within brafe.space to invest and donate small sums to other companies and organisations myself to be an enriching change of perspective. I step into the shoes of an investor, experiencing the demands and expectations I place on founders when wearing this ‘hat’. I learn to compare metrics from the for-profit sector with those from the non-profit field. I see the many similarities both types of entrepreneurs share, particularly when, like Tebalou – my first investment at brafe.space – they have a strong, progressive focus on their mission.

What brafe.space can contribute

The skills the sector needs right now are, first and foremost, internal in nature. Flexibility. Letting go. Learning. Starting afresh. The willingness to endure tension rather than resolve it. And the ability to see things from multiple perspectives: not viewing other ways of life as a threat, but as a source of new alliances and ideas.

We need alliances across different milieus, classes and issues. At the same time, research into social movements shows that these are difficult to build and difficult to maintain. The difficulty lies in not othering. We do not have to agree with one another on everything. But we can learn to hold onto both relationship and difference at the same time. We practise this every day at brafe.space.

As people committed to the common good, we at brafe.space can pilot the human capacities necessary for crisis, transition and new beginnings. In a space where we learn to keep our identities more fluid. Where we explore which facets and values are truly essential to us and which we can let go of, as they tend to be part of our patterns and compensations.

In which we experience that we are more than our mission. In which we practise maintaining connections across differences, rather than severing them. In which we stand by one another in solidarity, both ideologically and materially. In which we untangle the difficult knots that stand in the way of our material and inner wellbeing. The value of brafe.space for non-profits would then lie in creating a resilient space amongst sufficiently diverse allies, where answers and actions can emerge that truly create a new future.