Since the launch of Social Edge several years ago, this community has debated over definitions of the term social entrepreneurship.  Most recently, I have heard it debated at the Skoll Forum, and I began to ask myself, “does definition really matter if people are doing good work?”  While the practice of social entrepreneurship has been around for a while, the discussions of how to define this field are nascent and often include wide ranging activities.  The visionary and founder of Ashoka Innovators for the Public (the leading network of social entrepreneurs), Bill Drayton, announced last week at the Skoll Forum that he considers a new article written by Sally Osberg and Roger Martin to be one of the best pieces ever written. Sally and Roger argue that as the field attracts more talent and money, it is time for a more rigorous definition of who a social entrepreneur is and what he or she actually does.  Their main concern is that by not defining it tightly, “serious thinkers will overlook social entrepreneurship, and that the indiscriminate use of the term may undermine its significance and potential importance to those seeking to understand how societies change and progress.”

They distinguish social entrepreneurship from social activism and from social service provision.  A social entrepreneur is one who “targets an unfortunate but stable equilibrium that causes the neglect, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity who brings to bear on this situation his or her inspiration, direct action, creativity, courage and fortitude and who aims for and ultimately affects the establishment of a new stable equilibrium that secures permanent benefit for the targeted group and society at large.”  Social activists also look to create and sustain a new equilibrium in society, but they are often indirect in their nature of action (Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Vaclav Havel) and therefore not considered social entrepreneurs.  Social service providers are just the opposite; they are maintaining and improving an extant system and their nature of action is direct (someone who sees the problem of AIDS orphans in Africa, so begins one school to address it).  I found the article a very well written piece that clarified my own thinking.  To read the article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, click here.