Document Actions
Is Social Entrepreneurship too business focused?
Mike hears murmurs that the field is missing some important voices.
I'm sitting in on a "consultancy clinic," a cool innovation this year at the SWF where fledgling social entreprenuers pitch their ventures and get feedback from a diverse panel of experts.
The ideas: attracting capital to social ventures in Latin America, films that promote reconciliation in other conflict societies, and developing young artists and writers in the Philippines.
The experts: the CEO of IDEO, an experienced social investment financier, Bunker Roy, the founder of Barefoot College, and the CEO of the Institute for State Effectiveness.
The major theme: Everyone's talking about money--how to earn it, how to raise it, and how to make raising it more efficient.
The larger observation here is that it's hard to avoid impassioned dialogue about money and finance at the SWF. This may be social entrepreneurship, but the inescapable reality is that it takes a lot of cold hard cash to sustain and scale these ideas.
I've heard some people from non-business backgrounds actually express frustration that the field has become too business-focused. I tend to agree but wonder if it reflects the youth of a field that is still trying to establish its credibility, rather than a willful ignorance of these other perspectives. After all, social entrepreneurship has always been multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural, and multi-sector. Yet, I'd like to see more voices from anthropology, sociology, spirituality, and policy represented here. I suspect that in the next few years, as the thorny question of money gets smoothed out, the conversation will expand.
But I'm curious if others agree. Is the field adequately multi-disciplinary? If the answer is no, then what is at stake?
The ideas: attracting capital to social ventures in Latin America, films that promote reconciliation in other conflict societies, and developing young artists and writers in the Philippines.
The experts: the CEO of IDEO, an experienced social investment financier, Bunker Roy, the founder of Barefoot College, and the CEO of the Institute for State Effectiveness.
The major theme: Everyone's talking about money--how to earn it, how to raise it, and how to make raising it more efficient.
The larger observation here is that it's hard to avoid impassioned dialogue about money and finance at the SWF. This may be social entrepreneurship, but the inescapable reality is that it takes a lot of cold hard cash to sustain and scale these ideas.
I've heard some people from non-business backgrounds actually express frustration that the field has become too business-focused. I tend to agree but wonder if it reflects the youth of a field that is still trying to establish its credibility, rather than a willful ignorance of these other perspectives. After all, social entrepreneurship has always been multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural, and multi-sector. Yet, I'd like to see more voices from anthropology, sociology, spirituality, and policy represented here. I suspect that in the next few years, as the thorny question of money gets smoothed out, the conversation will expand.
But I'm curious if others agree. Is the field adequately multi-disciplinary? If the answer is no, then what is at stake?
Too Business Focused
Isn't it by definition that social entrepreneurship should have a business focus. Otherwise, isn't it just innovative social solutions? I think the driver for social entrepreneurship is the idea of sustainable social impact that can only be had through an economic model that rewards and returns capital investment with more capital AND social impact. I am currently working on a social venture, MortgagePledge.com, that could have enormous sustainable impact, and the only thing that is holding it up is lack of capital. If there was adequate sources for seed capital, I think social entrepreneurs would be able to have more sustainable social impact.