Defining Social Entrepreneurship

My first instinct says that definitions are absolutely necessary. Even if we don't agree with the definition, having a definition gives us a marker to define against or in relation to. But we do have to realize that language by definition has limits... I wonder if we almost need a "parable like analogy story" that can capture the essence of social entrepreneurship that defines it and yet can "customize" the definition according to the context of each person who strives for social entrepreneurship.

To the question of whether they are only found in non-profits...no, social entrepreneurs are found in ALL contexts.

As for corporations.. mmmm.... need to think more about this. I think individuals within corporations... (and that includes founders) can be social entrepreneurs... I don't know if corporations in general fit that category.

---continued later....

Clara

I'm a big believer in non-profits turning to earned income to establish greater financial stability. But I think these are "social enterprises" vs. social entrepreneurs whose "financial" status whether they are for profit, non-for-profit, or a hybrid really doesn't matter nor does it matter where their funding comes from. My friend Karen runs a npo for tortured Chinese prisoners... how do you turn that into earned income? So in some instances, earned income doesn't make sense. Or people who are doing hospice work or work with Alzheimer's patients... they are not going to make money for you. Ain't going to work. But I do leave room for "creative" thought.. I suppose you can write stories and sell "books" on their experiences for earned income.

I like the term "intrapreneurs" and do think they are a different category from social entrepreneurs. I also think intrapreneurs can have a much greater difficult time than social entrepreneurs. If you've left an org and start your own... at least you can surround yourself by hiring/firing people who share your values and build a community that way, albeit slowly but nevertheless. But intrapreneurs... well, even Nelson Mandela recognized that those individuals who fight against their OWN-kind... have a much tougher road to walk. Why? Because often, because they choose to fight within the system, they are often isolated at least at first - I remember Russell Crowe in the movie about fighting the Tobacco industry... now that's an intrapreneur who had it rough. Whistleblowers.. I also count within this category. Those are some courageous individuals. To stand alone in a crowd of people. That takes guts!

It's not to discount the work that social entrepreneurs do. They have it rough too.

I guess.. it's a question of choice. My spiritual director once said something to the effect that every choice brings with it a negative. The question is which kind of pain do you wish to choose for the walk you take. Well, even then.. that doesn't work.

What unites all categories is that we often walk the path, not out of choice, but because there comes a time when choice becomes secondary, and we become so one with those who suffer, that we take that dive, not knowing how or where or when we will land safely. That - is definitely a uniting factor for all three categories.

Clara

Every choice does not bring a negative. Choosing to work toward a triple bottom line has no negative - unless you count consuming less as a negative. And actually, many firms with triple bottom lines make plenty of money - look at Aveda, Ben and Jerry's, Smith and Hawkins.

You're right - there are corporations that exemplify social entrepreneuship. Perhaps I've seen too much evil within my prior for-profit corporation to believe goodness to be the norm. And actually & unfortunately, I don't believe I'm alone in that belief.

As for no negative.. if you've found a path that doesn't - that's great! I haven't found one in my line of work.

Clara

First, let me thank Clara for very thoughtful and useful posts. The time you have taken is appreciated and your points deserve examination. My apologies for my short response regarding negatives in choices.

I understand from your previous posts that at some point you worked in the for-profit world and were not completely pleased with the values you found there. Many people with the impulse to serve recoil from for-profit experiences because they perceive that corporate values are negative. Actually, they are not. Corporations are not people, have no values, and are legally, structurally and financially constrained to operate with one single goal - make profit for the investors. A corporation can actually be sued by its stock holders for actions that they feel detract from profits, including philanthropic work. This is why development staff from non-profits who raise corporate money often must justify their requests in terms of how it will improve the firm's bottom line.

But corporations are also individuals, who can be philanthropic and can be social entrepreneurs. And privately or closely held firms, like the old Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, can establish a triple bottom line and stick to it, know that they answer to their customers and their customers support them. Even larger public companies are discovering that triple-bottom line policies are attracting more customers and in some cases are demanded by customers. In other words, being socially entrepreneurial meets their legal and fiscal requirement.

But are they really socially entrepreneurial or are they just going where profit can be greatest?

Tough question. My answer is that, technically, they are not, but actually they are. Technically, these firms just follow the profit motive when they behave in an environmentally or socially positive manner that brings in customers. But, making these changes is not easy. As you point out, intrepreneurs have a hard time changing culture. There are risks involved. Risk-taking is the essence of entrepreneurship and when it is done to help society – even if it helps the bottom line – it is social entrepreneurship.

Patrick, Thank you for educating me. I am reminded of Packard's words- profit is what makes it all possible.

For me, social entrepreneurship is about creating organisational structures in which the participants are willing to extend themselves for the purpose of nurturing their own and another's well being, personal and spiritual growth at the same time as earning a fair reward for their services.

That stems from my practice of the Japanes martial art, aikido. So, it's about taking a personal/spiritual development practice into the work place.

Until the world develops an alternate economic system, there is a necessity for organizations to become "profitable" in order to exist. In that regard, it only makes sense that maintaining profitability is essential to enabling change. Ben & Jerry's, Aveda, Smith & Hawken, are all working to effect change in a way that makes sense in today's world.

They provide employment (essential livelyhood for others,) while acting as role models for improving the workplace and the environment. Their advertising campaigns provide awareness and education. Small changes over time working within the current system and appealing to a large segment of the population... I would argue that yes, these companies represent social entrepreneurship. They made corporate decisions for positive societal change. Perhaps the ideas originated with an individual, but the fact that they are carried out through the corporation is valuable. As large profitable companies they can "afford" to expand their reach and sphere of influence across the globe.

My personal definition of social entrepreneurs would be expansive, not exclusive. Broad enough to include individuals as well as organizations that are working to improve human conditions. If the term gets overused, so be it, that means that it has reached a saturation point and perhaps is universally recognized... not necessarily a bad thing, If needed, a new term could evolve to take it's place.

And as with all martial arts, it involves seeming contradiction that at a deeper level is no dispagreement at all. A great definition. How would you apply it to a public corporation?

I am thankful for those who are giving up “the comfortable life” to aid the starving, sick, and dying people in third world societies. For whatever the reason, my passion is to do something about a crisis our society has never faced in its history. People are being indicted, convicted, and sentenced for up to life in prison and even to death for crimes they did not commit.

Former Illinois Governor commuted the sentences of all 167 of his state’s death row inmates because of “. . . the demon of error in determining guilt”. A few months ago the citizens of Ada, Oklahoma had their taxes increased in order to pay millions to a man wrongfully convicted.

“The demon of error in determining guilt” is not limited to criminal matters or those of little or no formal education, or any specific ethnicity. A retired, engineer (a magna cum laude graduate of Rice University) has been fined over a quarter of a million dollars which stemmed from beavers building a dam his farm that flooded his upstream neighbor’s hay meadow. That highly educated, white man may lose his farm.

After nearly 3 decades of working deep within the bowels of the legal system I am putting together a unique institution called, “The Documentation Institute” (TDI) . TDI will not only teach individuals how they can protect themselves but hopefully some students will see this as such a laudable undertaking that they will provide their new learned service to those who desperately need it.

Whether a truth issue comes from being ripped of by an insurance company, a physician, a cop, a lawyer, any of the long list of predators, the market for our service is primarily for those who believe, “this can never happen to me or my family.”

So, what business am I in? “Effectively Presenting The Truth” business. I have never had a deeper sense of satisfaction and peace of mind than seeing the results of our technique of collecting and presenting “truth” to decision makers. Why would my service not qualify as that of a “Social Entrepreneur”?

Why shouldn't standing up and speaking the truth not qualify as that of a social entrepreneur?

Speaking of Aveda (in response to prior blogs here) I recently learned that Juut, a hair salon, that carries Aveda - well "Juut" is an Indian word for truth. Now, that's a hair salon I like. Perhaps it's no coincidence that they represent Aveda.

Thank you ClaraJ. You are very kind.

It should and is Juut a national chain or a single salon?

Hi Patrick,

Juut has 7 other salons in Minneapolis. Not quite a national chain yet.

You did not tell us if TDI is a for-profit or a non-profit. Either way, you are to be applauded, commened and consgrtulaated. The name implies an NPO but comments imply a FPO. Can you post a little more informtion about TDIand a url where we can go to support it?

Does it really matter what you are called? Or referred to as? Or whether definitions are narrow or broad?...

NO! I don't believe it does! So long as you can have an overall understanding of what it means. Interestingly ... all explanations agree on "THE OUTCOME" ... doing good for society, ... doing good for people and planet!

So why change what is working? ... Why not let the explanation / interpretation be results driven? ...

End of the day ... if there is a common vision and goal ... why change what is now becoming a known term? Be it individuals, organisations or businesses (in the traditional term) ... so long as they follow a comon vision and goal ... (Triple bottom line integration into the core)

Regards

Laurinda Seabra

You are correct that in general it does not matter - the good tht is done is the same. But in giving grants, awarding prizes, writing books, etc. for and about social entrepreneurs, a definition helps greatly.

Agree - but SE is becoming more and more known. I also like the term coined by Ashoka of a ChangeMaker. (This I can totally relate to)

Our (Empowerment Gateway's that is posted on our web site) definition of SE is:

They are women and men who possess the vision, creativity, and extraordinary determination of the typical business entrepreneur – but who devote these qualities to introducing and implementing innovative solutions to systemic social problems.

They are visionaries who develop innovative ways to fundamentally change how societies operate. They find what is not working in society and address the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

Social entrepreneurs are path breakers with powerful new ideas, combined with visionary and “real-world” problem solving creativity, who have strong ethical fiber and who are totally possessed by their vision or idea for change.

And I haven't found yet a better one!

and yes this debate ... is an ongoing one at our board meetings ... so this debate is welcome.

Laurinda

Definition:

Social entrepeneurs are individuals that are tired of the way the world is being managed today (by business, by people, by goverments and even by some NGO's or any combination thereof). That individial wants to see change; wants to see positive impact occurring through his/her efforts! It does so using whatever tools, systems and principles are available, and when none are available,creates new ones ... or reingeneers old ones ... so long as it enables that individual to make a positive contribution to society, to people and to the planet. (Even if it is just a small contribution)

And they can be found anywhere ... inside and outside organisations! Working alone or with teams. We find them in hybrids, in SE's, in large corporates, goverments and NGO's.

So what is my definiion? (The Elevator version) ... they are individuals that promote and make changes that will have a positive impact on society, people and environment. They integrate the principle of sustainability into everything that they do. They follow a balanced process! They take into account the economic, environmental and social aspects of everything thing and of every situation into account. They create the platform needed for "balance"

Laurinda Seabra

I think that everything in your elevator version is correct, but it leaves out the part about revenue. Entrpreneurs create revenue to sustain the operation. A great institution that does good things but crates no self-sustaining revenue is a chairty (not a bad word) not an SE

Sorry ... economic platform is so integrated into our model as a foundation that I only looked at the impact.

But you are totally correct. You need an economic framework as well ... the doing well ... whislt doing good...

laurinda

(I am told that I am in the tree hugging band ... fortunetelly we have a few hug the wallets 2 to keep us on track) -: )

Laurinda

Let me first introduce my institution.

Our institution, Centre for Social Initiative and Management (www.csim.org), is trying to promote Social Entrepreneurship (SE) awareness and education in different parts of India for the past few years.

We feel that SE is an approach for solving social and environmental problems. We also recognize that this field is valuable for achieving sustainable development of communities and society.

We define SE broadly as application of entrepreneurial mindset and methods for solving social and environmental problems.

For identifying Social Entrepreneurs, we apply a qualitative set of criteria consisting of 8 points :

1. Passion for the chosen social cause 2. Ambition 3. Leadership 4. Innovation 5. Resourcefulness and application of planning methods 6. Sustainability of the organization 7. Collaborative linkages 8. Achievements in terms of Social Impact

By scoring the attributes and achievements of an individual on the 10 point scale, we try to assess whether she or he is more of a ‘Conventional Social Worker’ or a ‘Social Entrepreneur’.

This framework helps us in motivating the students to aim for getting higher score in their proposed social work or organization, so that they can be called Social Entrepreneurs.

Earned income is one of the several available tools for achieving the sustainability of organizations. Social Entrepreneurs should aim for creating sustainable organizations for the larger purpose of achieving their social mission.

Thanks, KL

Thanks for hosting this discussion Patrick. It once again illustrates the difficulty in defining a social entrepreneur, and the difficulty a social entrepreneur has in succeeding at h/her vision. I'd also like to thank KL for introducing his organization and invite you and others to identify "tipping points", or actions, if implemented, which would help effective social benefit strategies be in more of the places where they are needed. Note, I did not say effective Social Entrepreneurs, because I feel that these are just catalysts, and leaders, who are trying to create strategies.

In all of the various discussions the "struggle, persistence, and luck" needed by an individual to bring a vision to reality are reported in various ways. What if a system existed to identify people working to create social change, and to identify what they are doing, and where they were doing it? Such a system, if web based, could enable investors to shop for who they support, based on the investor ability to differientiate between different organizations, and the city, state or neighborhood where the investor wants to make a difference.

If such a system were to lower the costs of acquiring resources, and improve the distribution of resource providers in more places where a problem exists, it would help social entrepreneurs be more successful at building strategies that make a difference.

I'm piloting this in Chicago via the http://www.tutormentorconnection.org. I've used a concept map to illustrate the many related actions that need to happen over and over in order for me to be successful. You can view this at http://cmapspublic.ihmc.us/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1180992855988_1452846006_54245&partName=htmltext

In this role I'm an intermediary and a social entrepreneur. I need to find resources to support what I do, but I recognize that everyone else leading a tutor/mentor program, or supporting the growth of such programs, or the needs of inner city kids as they grow from pre school to first job, also need to have funding, volunteers, leadership, etc. Thus, I feel a tipping point would be achieved as more leaders begin to think of ways they can support multiple organizations, using the type of maps and database and web library that I'm hosting from my own web site.

Are any of you mapping your strategies or trying to identify tipping points that would enable more social entrepreneurs to be successful? Please share your maps if you have them.

That's very nice. We make the most change through our ontologies - by becoming the change we want to see.

.........

Thank you ClaraJ for your comments about the personal qualities of SE.

Earlier Laurina and others have argued for focusing on results produced by SE.

In case of a Social Entrepreneur, the Social Impact is the main bottom line. But we feel that focusing on social impact alone is not enough. Firstly, it is often difficult to make an objective assessment of social impact in many cases. We all recognise that social impact is a complex and long term process. Secondly,we find that it does not always capture important aspects like continuity of social benefit and innovation.

Keeping this in view, we recommend assessment of social impact along with personal qualities of SE and other supportive factors like innovation, sustainability of organization, collaboratve linkages etc. This framework helps us in assessing the social entrepreneurship process and achievements of social entrepreneur from many different perspectives.

Thanks, KL

Clara, Thanks for both posts.

I understand that many people in the NPO world have a problem with seeing corporations as "social" when their focus by law and by design is to make money. However, so many people have started corporations that combine social good with profit, and then give some of the profit away, that I feel they belong in th social entrepreneur catagory.

Your point about mulitple definitions is a good one. Perhaps we need a def. for non-profits and a def for for profits.

Working on the staff of an organization in fund raising or project management is a wonderful opportunity to innovate for good, andit is more difficult because the innovation has to work within the goals and objectives of the organization or firm, and it must collaboarate with other people at the institution who have their agendas and responibilities.

A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture affecting human welfare.

If the person is already within a non-profit then they are a Social Intrapreneur - A person within a large corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a viable finished product through assertive risk-taking and innovation.

Risk is fundamental for either.

In my humble opinion the phrase Social Entrepreneur should be reserved for business ventures overtly improving human welfare.

I have used this definition for several years for entrepreneurs (social and anti-social?). It seems to stick with people.

I find it ironic that some are trying to use the definition of "social entrepreneurship" to exclude, and in some ways, devalue, new approaches to solving problems.

Private enterprises (Patagonia, SELCO, GrameenPhone, Wizzit) can, of course, be social entrepreneurs... in fact, if we want to see scaleable solutions to many of the world's problems, they are going to have to be. I doubt we'd see as many cell phones in Africa and rural India if that were a UN or Oxfam program.

We prefer to call it a "Maverick"

Laurinda

Maybe we must consider the definition of Social Entrepeneurs as a "People" definition rather than applied to another type of legal entity?

If we follow that process, we are identfing a state of being at an individual level. Thus they may be found and visible in all the sectors.

Regarding organisational definition: We use the IVO (Integrated Values Organisation) as a definition to position Empowerment Gateway.

Think of the following for a minute:

You can not have sustainability in nature unless you are grounded. You can not be grounded withou any form of support if you are standing in only one leg? There is no balance ...

will continue this later

Laurinda Seabra

Laurinda,

Would you tell me more.. I like what you said about...

You can not have sustainability in nature unless you are grounded. You can not be grounded withou any form of support if you are standing in only one leg? There is no balance ...

Hi all, my take is that Ashoka has come up with the best definition for a socil entrepreneur: "Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change." The basic notion here is the concept of innovation in the citizen sector and how innovations can bring social change at a large scale.

We are all already social entrepreneurs, whether we know it or not. Knowingly or not, the actions of every one of us is already transforming our world. It's high time we enable all of us to know this, lest we keep blundering toward the extinction of our current form.

Humanity is already a SINGLE, DISTRIBUTED and NETWORKED MULTIVIDUALITY composed of individual human nodes through which the Universe gets feedback on Itself (hence Oneself), and responds with actions and communications that effect transformation within Our physical form that accelerate One's own development (evolution).

This acceleration of Our evolution has become possible with the unique FEEDBACK-PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION INTERFACE that is layered between our ineffable feedback-generating CONSCIOUSNESS and all Our temporary nodes in the physical human species.

This interface is composed of conceptual and linguistic content that is perpetually flowing among Us, through every experience, every transaction, every conversation, every news story, every entertainment, through all the kinds of media that are proliferating among us.

The local configuration of this interface at each human node determines both Our local interpretations of local experiential feedback, and therefore also Our local outputs in the form of intents, communications and actions.

These outputs from each human node of the single distributed and networked multividuality that we already are - generate the condition of Our world at any point in time - thus transforming Ourself.

So, every human node is already de facto a social entrepreneur, a co-self and co-agent of the Universe, whose every intent, communication, and action both unleashes change upon Our common body, the physical universe, whether the local interpretive subsystem at the node is as yet capable of interpreting this reality - or not.

When Our interface is able to interpret accurately, at more and more of Our human nodes, that we are already a single intradependent social being that is already the accelerating, and increasingly self-conscious instrument of evolution, we will increasingly recognize one another as unique operating facets of Oneself, and also recognize Nature as our common body.

We will thus, as the single distributed and networked social entrepreneur we already are, also increasingly work collaboratively together, increasingly know what needs to happen and how to accomplish it, and begin to evolve in an increasingly healthy way.

I like what you said - whether we know it or not - I think everyone has the potential to be a social entrepreneur. But some of us.. actually.. all of us.. have to keep "waking" up... with a conscious choice in order to do so and "know."

Exactly, Clarajo.

And here's the crux. Those who have already WOKEN UP have to recognize it is Our responsibility to apply all our resources finding ever smarter ways to enable the rest of Us to WAKE UP.

And it is not enough for us to wake them up to their highest individuality, they have to be woken up to their common multividuality with the rest of us, as the single, distributed, networked, and intradependent social being we already are.

As our social conceptual interpretive interface is is still dominated by the prevailing identity code as DISCRETE, SEPARATE, AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUALS, most of Us are already infected with this identity before adulthood, which outdated identity then informs and distorts Our feedback obtained through them, and consequently misdirects our output through them as well.

We have to work hard together to become ever more creative and effective at enabling our DORMANT fellow co-selves to update their identity code to be consistent with our true nature as a single, distributed and intradependent multividual. Only with this identity code upgrade can we expect those who wake up, to stay awake.

Until we can get more accuracy into the conceptual content that is delivered through schools, we must continue to use training resources of corporate and organizational HR departments, and the creative communications capabilities of our novelists, playwrights and movie-makers to penetrate the prevailing resistance that keep this outdated identity code secure among us.

To keep us trucking on, let us not lose sight of the danger we face as a species, that comes mostly from social entrepreneurs who have not yet awakened to their Unity with the rest of Us as such.

You can not have sustainability in nature unless you are grounded. You can not be grounded withou any form of support if you are standing in only one leg? There is no balance ...

What geometric form gives the most balance? A pyramid ... it has three legs, it can stand in unenven territory ... even if anyone leg is shorter than the others.

SE's as individuals ... are all about bring balance back to mankind ... to the planet ... to life!

In Empowerment Gateway's site (www.empowerment-gateway.com) ... we use the seven triads of sustainability as a framework to all that we do as "individuals and as an organisation" ... Does it define me as an SE? or Empowerment Gateway as an SE?

We don't believe it does, SE is an integrated concept into a wanted outcome! ... we don't just want to CHANGE the world we want to be part of the thousands that think like we do and want to SAVE the world from self-destruction caused by a section of mankind!

Organisations do not do anything. PEOPLE DO!

So we need to get back to basics ... to people ... to the human beings that populate organisations and the world ... and we need to create sustainable tools and processes that will assist all of us in living our dream ... at the same time we need to be able to quantify the impact of our actions ... both positive as well as negative. Once we do that we are truly on the road to sustainability, because we will be able to gain strenght from the successes and gain insigth from the failures so as to take corrective action.

We need to stop talking ... and start doing! ... and we need to support each other along the way!

It is not an easy path ... but if we all share and live our experiences through others and see encouragement and growth ... together, one by one ... it can be done.

How do you eat an elephant?

A bite at a time ...

How do we facilitate change?

Laurinda

Dear all,

Social - help for the community, development of community, target needy people, stable ourself into the community and cultural aura.

Social entrepreneurs is, who live for the social development like education, employment generation, community welfare etc. this type of ability he should have then we can say him and social entre..

Todays world we have 4 billion population living under $2 a day earning (world bank). So dear friends and colleagues look at that side where need is arising. In the world we have lots of NGOs who work for poor people, in which some are of them maintaining their social standards giving services on not-profit basis.

a social entrepreneur should look at this edge of poverty.

Thank You ---- Perwinder Singh Indian Institute of Management - Bangalore India

There are myriad ways to build a better world; in my opinion, not all of them should fall under the name of social entrepreneurship. I am in favor of a narrower definition which keeps clear the relevance of a business model. My reasons for supporting such a narrow view are entirely pragmatic and grow out of my experiences with the business which my husband and I, as co-founders, have been working on getting off the ground for the last two years. Our company, Preciva Incorporated, exists to develop and market screening and diagnostic tests for cervical cancer which would provide cheaper tests with immediate results and without the laboratory infrastructure which current tests require. These qualities mean our technology would greatly improve access to screening for women in the low income countries where the overwhelming majority of fatalities from cervical cancer occur. At the same time, the advantages of our products would also mean increased personal health autonomy for women in high income countries (where, let’s not forget, income disparity also often leaves many women underscreened).

Are we a for-profit company? Yes; we want to make a living from our intellectual property rights. But we also feel that our real “bottom line” is social, not financial. We will not develop our products with maximizing profits as our main goal; ideally, we would like to develop in conjunction with extensive input from partners in low income countries in such a way that we kick-start a local biotech industry and help loosen the wealthier nations’ near monopoly on medical technology, a reality which causes severe strains in national Ministry of Health budgets lacking access to foreign currency. When we think about market share, we are most concerned with reaching the people who need our product, regardless of what they can pay for it.

This combination of goals makes investment fundraising hard. We’re not a not-for-profit, so that closes many doors for potential funding (although we’re now looking into the “hybrid” model discussed on these pages). Many investors, however, seem to be turned off by the genuine weight we give to goals which are not purely financial and which are part of an ecological approach to societal change – and thus often hard to measure. I’m certain that a large part of my lack of success in fundraising is due to my own inexperience, but I’m also pretty sure that part of the problem is that there are few clearly defined venues for investment in businesses which seek to promote global social equity (equity being my main touchstone for what we're working towards) and which can somehow be “qualified,” through agreed upon standards, as social entrepreneurs.

Such venues would serve both the interests of social entrepreneurs and investors who are looking for them. The founder of the Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus, has put forward the idea of the “social business,” with its own “social stock exchange” (read more about this in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize last year). This is the kind of concrete context which I think the term social entrepreneur needs in order to be as useful as it can be.

I assume that part of your costs, if you want to market in the US, include FDA trials, etc, which can be very expensive. But it sonds like you have a huge profit potential as well as social potential.

Dear Aanaistuepker,

Our Green Stock Exchange is defining social business as "a company that makes a profit, but also benefits society".

We are setting up North America's first social stock exchange connected to a green social network, called the Green Stock Exchange (GREENSX) at: http://greensx.com, which will be launched in the Summer of 2008 to begin trading. It will trade shares in social businesses. A social business is a business that makes a profit, but benefits society as well. We have a triple bottom line (economic + social + environmental).

Since all the listed companies on the exchange are pre-screened, evaluated, and audited according to social and sustainable guidelines set by the exchange, it will make it much easier for green investors to find and support social businesses. The GREENSX provides opportunities for small green Issuers to access public equity capital efficiently, while providing early stage investors, angel investors, and venture capitalists with greater liquidity. This includes a eBAY.com trading system for carbon credits.

We have been working on this project even before Yunus's book came out. It is still in the beta stage testing. Check it out at: http://greensx.com.

I have read the comments with great interest.

Many seem to feel that definition or naming is not important, simply stating a goal or aspiration is enough. I disagree very strongly. If we believe that social entrepenurship is a part of a global movement and that movement is by its nature revolutionary, naming and defining is important. Very simply change/revolution occurs in response to the status quo. If the change has no name or definition and we as change agents accept any version of change we face the very real threat of subversion by the status quo. Remember what we try and achieve threatens the livliehood of a great many.

In my view there are two tests/definitions, the social and the economic. Social entrepenurs need to establish their credentials in both spheres. They need to demonstrate economic viability and meet social expectations. Each of these are interdependent, economic success without social success is meaningless. Thus the new owners of Ben and Jerrys simply own an economic unit the "social" definitions will have to be earned not confered.

Simply to confer ownership of social economy through a function of the monetary economy will never work and simply allows the existing economic powers to subvert the movement.

Clara's advisor was right in a way, every choice brings a negative BUT they also bring a positive. Our choice is to live with the negative and follow the positive. This is a revolution and history teaches us that they are not comfortable.

luke

Nicely put, but I think yo have to add risk-taking to the definition. That is what entrepreneurs do.

for clarifying. Of course, our choices of following a social entrepreneurial vocation brings with it a positive. Without it, we couldn't bear the negatives (or more accurately costs that we incur in bringing about social change.)

I like your statement... "live with the negative and follow the positive." Thank you for clarifying my thoughts. And yes, with any revolution, it is often not a "comfortable" journey.

Another saying that I've been told by a spiritual director... "The greater the good, the greater the evil (or resistance) that arises." What thoughts/experiences do you have to bear on this assumption?

Hi Clara

I agree with your spiritual director! ... there are major resistance movements everywhere ...

People's aversion for change and apathy to change are major draw backs on the progress of social initiatives. Most individuals agree that something needs to be done ... (By others) ... there is fear that if they participate it will affect their environment negatively! (whatever the environment is)

One of the main reasons why there is SO MUCH TALK and not much action!

Fortunetely the group of DOERS is increasing ...

Laurinda

I don't have to tell anyone ... we all know that when we selected this life path ... the challenges that comes with it can at times be perceived as to high!

What has your experiences been?

laurinda

Laurinda, I would argue that if it's not costing us "un poquitito" or at least "a little" we're not sufficiently attentive to our growing edge. Social entrepreneurs need to be at the "edgy" part of social change. That said, if the cost is too high - then I would say that perhaps the timing of that social change is premature and to postpone taking action for that social change, at least until when a similar like-minded community of people surrounds you to support you.

Action and results beat academic discussions every time.

A couple of guys committed to advancement and innovation in micro-enterprise, primarily in the United States, establish a 501-c3 based Donor Advised Fund, and simultaneously a for-profit corporation. They prefer to NOT create any bureaucracy so they carry out their objectives through others.

They invest the assets of the for-profit corporation, pay taxes on those profits, and use those profits to either make contributions to their Donor Advised Fund for further distribution to non-profit organizations involved in micro enterprise.

Additionally they might use for-profit corporate resources to do things that they might not be able to do through the Donor Advised Fund which restricts the use of its resources to other non-profits. For example. They might spend $50,000 to develop a website portal for micro businesses, and generate some small income from that as well as providing business directories, web pages, and product promotion to micro businesses. They might use for-profit corporate resources to hire interns to research innovative approaches to lending and then use Donor Advised Funds to provide loans or grants to non-profits. They might use for-profit corporate resources to provide working capital or venture capital, or loan guarantees to micro businesses that have exhausted the borrowing resources of non-profit micro lenders, but are not yet fully bankable, even though they are profitable.

Are these guys social entrepreneurs? I think so! And it seems to me that too much energy is being focused on finding some precise definition when the same energy would be better spent enlarging the tent and inviting everyone to engage in social entrepreneurship, however they choose to define it.

Doing is far more powerful than talking.

Thanks John! Well put.

Stop talking and start doing and channel your energy to deliverables!

Regards

Laurinda

i agree with NYU Professor Paul Light.social entrepreneurship should not be defined narrowly.i think any one with ideas about how to help people in social edge is a potential social entrepreneur.if he or she got it,namely he or she really help many people improve themselves own conditions,we can call he or she a social entrepreneur.

At some point I will try summarize all these answers and add in formation from the podcasts.

Hi all,

I've recently started a project which is helping women micro-entrepreneurs in the developing world by finding markets for their products.

I call it a project b/c I have not yet labeled it a non-profit or for profit. The project is currently volunteer run, with some great possibilities. Please view at www.connecther.ning.com. It would be great to know in what realm people would place connecther as an organization.

I think the vision of a social entrepreneur must be filled with meaning, purpose and drive/passion to change a social ill. And, I think it's an important conversation to have as long as it doesn't stand in the way of getting the work done!

Clara & everyone else this has been a most interesting series of discussions...THANK YOU. Just thought I'd clarify the meaning of the word "Juut". If by Indian you are mean "from India", then "juut" actually means a lie!

So did the person who explained the term to me lie???? I'm confused! :()

A person who's business purpose is to be life giving and help others through their enterprise, be it for profit or nonprofit. Social entrepreneurs strive to achieve excellence and profitability to meet their mission of being life giving. Profitability is defined from three perspectives values, social and economic.

I do agree it. Profitability in the sense of making people profitable in all aspect such as values/ spiritual, social/political and economic/ ecological.

I believe that defining social entrepreneurship goes beyond simply providing some tangible or intangible benefit to humanity, and is also more significant than the "for-profit / non-profit" categorization.

Social enterprise is defined by two elements of an organization - its mission, and its strategy for carrying out the mission.

First... the mission. A true social enterprise is founded and operated purely for the alleviation of human suffering in one form or another.

The question often arises of "socially conscious" companies, in which the "consciousness" is a byproduct of the first mission - which is to generate revenue. Not to be mistaken, social enterprises also strive to generate revenue and create value. However, it is done for the purpose of advancing the social objective of the enterprise.

Social enterprises produce wealth to assist in helping others; for-profit enterprises help others to assist with producing wealth.

The other defining characteristic of social enterprise is the idea of using the creative process to deliver new or unexpected solutions which are more effective than traditional solutions. The concept of innovation.

Organizations that do not innovate are, by definition, not entrepreneurial. A nonprofit may be very effective, but non-entrepreneurial in the same way that Microsoft and Merrill Lynch are quite successful and effective, but hardly entrepreneurial. There is an element of social entrepreneurs that distinguishes them from the mainstream.

Dear Jon

I agree with most of what you have stated, except for "The Mission" definition ... it sounds like it is for a NGO (and many will agree with me on this one)

The debate of what defines Social Entrepreneurs will be an on-going one for a long time.

To much focus is still linking it to the NGO silo (no-one is linking it to he "for-profit" silo)

The original explanation created by Ashoka is for me still the best descrition out there.

The focus should be on going well ... whislt doing good ... and as you all know ... I favour "The hybrid" structure ... integrated values and outcome approach.

Regards

Laurinda Seabra

Some of the definitions here relate to these three viewpoints:

1. What's in it for me?
2. What's in it for all of us?
3. What can I do for others?

My personal belief is that these viewpoints are best integrated, partly because each of them reveals one person or group's pov and does not make room for true interdependency (as distinct from co-dependency).

As an example of why I believe that each of the 3 is potentially exclusionary in practice, consider these examples of subviews:

1. I'm just a little guy trying to keep up, feed my family, etc.
2. We're on the side of the good guys.
3. Martyrdom makes you morally superior.

My own background was in commercial real estate development. The press loves to portray developers as the epitome of the big bad capitalist, cigar and all. Yes, I have known ruthless and shameless entrepreneurs who cared little about others. Interestingly, I actually know more who really care about their end customers, their community, and society in general, and put their resources (including time and money) where their mouth is. I can't say the same about my experience of businessmen. The biggest distinction between the two is usually made in terms of risk taking, but I have come to see it more in terms of personal responsibility. If we all take responsibility for ourselves and each other all the time, chances are we'll personally succeed in making our portion of the world a better place, regardless of our occupation.

Embracing risk, respect, and responsibility (my three Rs) would describe the entrepreneurs I know who have contributed the most to society.

Vera

I believe you have not defined social entrepreneurs correctly. You indicate that social entrepreneurs have to depend on others financing their projects. I know of two cases were this is not totally true. The frist was the formation of a humanitarian organization to collect specific human tissue needed to correct sight. The expendatures were covered by those member who formed this organization. 33 years later everything is still working fine and many individuals have normal sight because of this organization. The second organization was formed because of Government inappropriate actions. This organization used the power of the people to get notice of what was happening within their Government. The people increased thier voices, the news (radio) services and talk shows ,then news papers joined in and the light of justice took hold. 55 new legislators replaced those who tried to advance their financial agenda, A sitting Superior Judge was defeted (first time this had happened). The battle is still going on and the outcome will benefit the people of the State. All of the funds spent came from the board of directors. By definition,social entrepreneurs, are people who see the need and fulfill it. People who have freedoms often loose them because they fail to look beyond their personal needs.Social entrepreneurs are those who give the necessities back, find ways to to make life better and in some cases cause a new product or service to increase human comforts with a pay check.Best example of social entrepreneurs I know of were the people who formed and fought for our Freedom.

After reading this lengthy discussion, I'm compelled to place it in context rather than add to the excellent definitions, any of which seems valuable within it's own SE universe.

At the risk of stating the obvious: Shakespeare's "What's in a name?" comes to mind. The rose first smelled sweet. Later came the name.

Social entrepreneurs haven't needed a name to create social entrepreneurial ventures. This naming business (pardon the pun) follows like the cart after the ox. And like the cart, it has a purpose. But the cart is not the ox; it's an entity unto itself with its own reason for existing.

In the naming, we gather ourselves into a community and we figure out where the community's boundaries are. It's important to recognize this is a process of inclusion/exclusion as we discuss who the social entrepreneurs are and aren't. Therein lies the danger.

In this digital age, it's easy to grasp that, narrow or broad, the name and definition are virtual. And it's the work that's matter.

George

Thank you George, for placing this discussion in context. From time immemorial there have been people who have been addressing social issues. A number of them, have, in the process, developed entrepreneurial establishments. Therefore, you are correct is as much as, irrespective of the definition such visionaries will continue to sprout and grow. However, in todays emancipated society there a lot more people who would like to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate and cast about looking for established ways and means of doing so. Current perceptions of profit making organizations as fundamentally exploitative drive them to go the non-profit way. It is, therefore, necessary to define social enterprise and unstigmatise profit making.

I would like to place social enterprises on a continuum. At one end are non-profit organizations, with external funding, that are required to diversify their funding stream to include the creation of earned income for sustainability of the organization and its services. At the other end are profit making corporations that involve themselves in socially responsible activity as a program that toes the social responsibility requirements, or as a marketing or public relations exercise. In either of the above cases, money and mission are intertwined but not always equal partners and in practice, financial and social objectives are in conflict with each other.

True social enterprises, on the other hand, seamlessly integrate social values with business practices. They fall in the middle of the continuum and are business ventures created for a social purpose. They balance money and mission, profits and purpose. They invest equally in social programs and business systems and practices to develop the programs. The challenge in managing such enterprises is the melting pot of assumptions, beliefs, biases, and understanding that is created by a mix of committed and motivated founders, employees committed to the cause, employees seeking livelihood, volunteer labor, and community participation. It is therefore necessary to recognize that social enterprises are a breed apart and to study such organizations and develop specific business models and management techniques for them.

Dr. Gauthamadas

I have adapted Wikipedia's definition for the charter of the International Network of Social Entrepreneurs that I have created on Linkedin: "Social Entrepreneurs recognize a social problem and use entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social changes that are sustainable and for the highest good of humanity".

I have started a group on Linkedin: the "International Network of Social Entrepreneurs" with the intent to create a platform for Social Entrepreneurs to connect globally and collaborate on a number of key projects. Hopefully, a number of new synergies will come into existence out of it, my vision is to have different stakeholders combining their expertise and talents and working in a highly collaborative fashion to contribute to the eradication of poverty and the restauration of peace on Earth.

In 2002, the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed by all 191 UN member states, set a target to halve world poverty by 2015, and to end world poverty altogether by 2025. It is our common responsibility to fulfill this promise.

I intend to advertise the Skoll Foundation and Social Edge to the hundreds of people who have already joined the International Network of Social Entrepreneurs on Linkedin.

Let's all remember what Gandhi used to say: "You have to be the change you want to see in this world".

All the best, Christophe Poizat Professional Dreamer http://christophepoizat.com

PS: I sincerely hope you join the International Network of Social Entrepreneurs: http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/31412/17C49C0D64D1

I think social entrepreneursh should be defined by what they do and not what their structure or characteristics are. Hence it doesn't matter which bucket they lie in as long as there is a similarity in approach and end goal

One of the major differences I have found between social entrepreneurs and nonprofits is that from day one, social entrepreneurs are trying to work themselves out of a job whereas nonprofits are trying to become "sustainable."

A SE's goal is to take society, government and community to such a level that his/her services are no longer needed in that field. For instance Florence Nightingale did not establish a nursing training institute to provide nursing services forever... the profession got absorbed by the larger society. Similarly, Muhammad Yunus doesn't need to travel the world over advocating for microfinance... increasingly it's getting adopted by commercial banks and other FIs as a natural service offered to consumers.

A social entrepreneur working in human rights may provide support services to victims but thei goal is not to expand the service to more people but reduce the number of victims and ultimately eradicate human rights violations.

I agree that maybe the focus should be on the outcome. Maybe there is no clear definition and I question whether there needs to be. If an individual or organisation is contributing to social change, does it really matter what their financial model, company structure or size is? Or whether they are located inside a company? I think what is paramount is that these individuals and organisations are adequately recognised, supported and rewarded for their activities and efforts.

I think having a definition on SE can also be useful as a framework or point of reference for entrepreneurs that resonate with it. I don't take definitions too literally, maybe lawyers have to, but all of the previously posted definitions and thoughts have been helpful for me in three ways: 1) connecting with the term, 2) defining my entrepreneurial style, and 3) making peace about owning a for profit company with a social mission.

I started TDI Corporation (tourism development international - www.tditourism.com) in 2000 because I wanted to give advice to Ministries of Tourism in emerging countries on how to design sustainable tourism to alleviate poverty. I am originally from Mexico and at that time had been living in the US for seven years working as a diplomat for the Mexican Tourism Board in Washington, DC and New York. In order to stay in the US to pursue my dream of developing sustainable tourism around the globe my immigration lawyer advised me to start a Corporation to get an "investor visa". I got my visa and have been working with it successfully for seven years. However I remember in the early days when talking to a senior consultant and mentor about TDI's mission he said, "Is this your mission? Then you should start an NGO?!" I felt bad and ignorant about it and since then the issue has been bugging me. I got too busy running the business, and I actually enjoyed the challenges and got very much into the entrepreneurial side of the business, but I have always have conflicting feelings about TDI not being an NGO, or better said, feeling wrong about having a for profit business with a social mission.

Legally my company is a corporation and has to create profits, however, my vision and drive is to alleviate poverty with profitability through tourism. Can I be considered or identified as a social entrepreneur? I guess it depends, but to me personally, it has been a relief to make peace with the idea that TDI is a for profit company but with a social mission. It brings clarity and strength to see successful companies and business models out there that do work. I get inspiration and hope from them and all of you. Tatiana

Yes, if for the benefit of the common good and for the promotion in delivering sustainable economic services that will upgrade the quality of life and provide neccesary education that will develop their awareness and skills for the greater change of life towards total human development- a person who works for social enterpreneurship

sayings that "there is no permanent in this world rather than changes". Yes it is... that persons' essence of his/her existence is to change things for common welfare- its simply justice to live thus every human being is being called as agent of changes as social enterpreneur.

I personally like a definition that supports those with entrepeneurial spirit and business sense using their skills to support positive social change within the organizations of social services or with the delivery of social services. This definition would make a corporation that provides donations and specialty loans a Philanthropy or Foundation. This definition would also make a corporation that supports social services through employment and vocational training a Social Enterprise, while the person that developed the social enterprise a Social Entrepreneur ( unless it was unsuccessful and the person would be called something else...... )

I personally like a definition that supports those with entrepeneurial spirit and business sense using their skills to support positive social change within the organizations of social services or with the delivery of social services. This definition would make a corporation that provides donations and specialty loans a Philanthropy or Foundation. This definition would also make a corporation that supports social services through employment and vocational training a Social Enterprise, while the person that developed the social enterprise a Social Entrepreneur ( unless it was unsuccessful and the person would be called something else...... )

Based on our experience in building up a system to provide healthcare and other services related to the essentials of living with a group of unemployed rural youth in India few practical observations may be presented for all in the backdrop of SE - its definitions, practices etc.

1. A large percentage of the ordinary folks living in rural India are totally oblivious of the facilities and offerings of the present day Modern World 2. These include subjects related to the day to day life & living requirements of a human being 3. Unemployment, related to the youth mainly, seems to be growing in leaps & bounds despite the efforts of various institutions like the government, UN, World Bank etc. --- So we have Critical Problems and little or no systems to address such malfunction of the system. Donations & Charity, Healthcamps, Advertisements etc., cannot be the answer to this speedily growing problem

What we did, as a pilot system with amazing results -

1. highlighted to a group of local youth the problems existing (the negative aspect) and the major opportunity it could provide them if we could approach the same professionally (the positive aspect) 2. with little bit of money that we had we started the system of these young people termed as Work Force Team Member (WFTM) visiting each and every house in selected localities to survey needs, message and enlist them for services, starting with healthcare related needs 3. the problem that came up related to OWNERSHIP CRITERIA - we have a company & NGO working on the project the WFTMs could not effectively relate positively with the project - questions - am I an employee ? what if I am sacked ? who is to pay my fees ? etc., and many such questions naturally came up 3. in came the concept of community participation - management by the WFTM community under the guidance of professionals 4. next question related to the management of funds and 'what if these people manipulated the entire funds for their own gain ? and many such questions. To address this issue we have designed a system where every financial transaction will be through the Bank. Cash collected are deposited into the bank and payments are transferred from to the receivable account. The company & NGO have surrendered all rights regarding issue of cheques, drawal of cash, drafts etc., to the bank. Operations are to be carried out by a body known as Execution & Operations Management Committee (EOMC) who would issue instructions to the bank after the necessary audits & sanctions. 5. bank will issue two type of ATM cards with limits prescribed by the EOMC - plastic money. One of them will be forpersonal use the other for use on project work 5. all costs of the personnel will be paid by the project funds by using the ATM card as per requirement & sanctioned limits

These steps have been explained to them in great details in the presence of local bankers and have been able to generate enormous confidence in them. Thsi has led to a spurt in ideas for developing newer activities, services and businesses all for the creation of WEALTH - whose ownership will not create any confusion. After all money is the associated power that can be utilized when the requirements arise. New ideas and initiatives will take just a few hours for the project to sanction and help to grow. the fund base has been termed DIGHI - a practice dating back to the days of landlords in India - system of storing water in large ponds which would not dry up even during the peak summer days and would provide the locals with their requirements of water continuously. So our DIGHI would keep growing never to dry out for these budding young entrepreneurs with dream in their eyes.

Will this be classified as a Social Development initiative for profit - not for profit or a Social Entrepreneurship program ?

Thanks

SBR

I liked one of the posts that described social enterprise as a continuim, with one side of the spectrum being non profits that receive donations and grants but engage in earned income activities and the other end of the spectrum being for profits that enageg in socialy beneficial practices as part of their business model. However, I have read on many of the posts below the idea that a social enterprise must be self-sustaining. Do people mean that the social enterprise must be 100% self sustaining? Does this mean that if a non profit engages in an earned income activity related to its social mission, and this self sustating activity generates 50% of the non profits annual income, with the rest of the income supported by grants and donations, it is not properly defined as a social enterprise? If that is what some believe, I think that definition of social enterprise is far too limiting.

Additionally, I think there may be some non profits enagged in social enterprise without any earned income component. For example, my father is working with the One Laptop per Child organization on a pilot project in Nepal. The Nepali Organization, which my father works with, is handling the distribution of hundreds of thousands of lap tops. This requires using best business practices, supply chain management, and a true entrepreneurial focus. However, this organization has no self-sustaining feature. I think that it is still a social enterprise. I think the focus should be on the sustainability of the social impact, not on the sustainability of the organization.

Just my two cents...

We've been involved in basic economic development in South Africa since 1987. We started as a NGO, totally depndent on donor-support. Made an astounding number of "mistakes." Paid a LOT of "school-fees" as a result. (Details available on request) Since the year 2 000 we've (www.micro-mba.com) been operating as an FPO. Surprisingly, we're still around - and growing. Last year I agreed to submait an application to the Schwabb Foundation's "Social Entrpreneur of the Year" award, hardly knowing what SE meant! Their definition helped: "Social entrepreneurs and their organisations transform traditional ways of thinking and practice in their societies. They combine their in-depth knowledge in a field such as health, environment, or education with a completely new way of approaching the problems in their field. They manage to transform traditional practices." MMmmmm I'm wondering.....in those NGO days were we SE? Was that something we became in 2 000 when we decided in the interests of congruity to become more sustainable... Any comments? Irrespective of the definition one most appreciates, it's wonderful to find a fellowship of people who are interested in discussing these issues. I'm totally facinated by the contributions I've read for the first time today

Reading this discussion I was struck by, among other things, the term "intrepreneur." I work for a large public company that is in the process of making major changes that will likely revolutionize the way business is done w/in its industry. That being said, I've felt more and more that there is an opportunity for the company to give back in unique ways that leverage the company's existing assets. If executed properly, aligning w/ a specific cause (or causes) can only generate positive PR and a project a positive image among the company's customers. However, the first question that will likely be asked by a public company('s board of directors) is... How will this contribute to our bottom line/increase profits/raise our stock price? A fair question of a public company...a question I don't have the answer to... Involving a FP public company in cause related efforts needs to provide measurable results. Essentially, it needs to fit w/in its current biz model that the company can track (quantitative, not just qualitative). There may be obvious solutions to this hurdle I'm unaware of... I'm all eyes...

Reading this discussion I was struck by, among other things, the term "intrepreneur." I work for a large public company that is in the process of making major changes that will likely revolutionize the way business is done w/in its industry. That being said, I've felt more and more that there is an opportunity for the company to give back in unique ways that leverage the company's existing assets. If executed properly, aligning w/ a specific cause (or causes) can only generate positive PR and a project a positive image among the company's customers. However, the first question that will likely be asked by a public company('s board of directors) is... How will this contribute to our bottom line/increase profits/raise our stock price? A fair question of a public company...a question I don't have the answer to... Involving a FP public company in cause related efforts needs to provide measurable results. Essentially, it needs to fit w/in its current biz model that the company can track (quantitative, not just qualitative). There may be obvious solutions to this hurdle I'm unaware of... I'm all eyes...

After reading the comments in this thread, I was brought back to a conference on Social Entrepreneurship that I attended in Copenhagen last summer. I thought it would be worth attending, as we provide a lot of support for women entrepreneurs with a social mission (not realising that the definition, as I understand it now, applies to me as well -that is assuming my intent to make a profit as well doesn't disqualify me) . After two days of listening to presentations (and providing my occasional input as a "social entrepreneur") I felt betrayed by the academic practice of definition. Don't get me wrong, I think definitions are good, as they help us all to understand the meaning of expressions (especially when we often are coming from different mother tongues to start). That said, by defining narrowly what constitutes social entrepreneurship, do we not discourage the practice for those who might have the ability to create sustainable (and profitable) businesses that can have a great social impact? Our organisation has the potential to support women as change agents around the globe and be profitable, allowing us to channel some of that back into the organisations we support. Not that I need to be defined to continue my efforts, but I do not like the assumption that if we intend to make a profit, we are not longer socially motivated.

Hi Heidi

I agree with you in that there's to much emphasis placed on definitions of an SE.

If there is a REAL NEED for balance ... income generation and profit making must be included into the mix. NGOs are often out of balance and their founders burn out because they focus all their efforts on others and often forget about themselves. (Been there ... and got a couple of t-shirts to show for that) ... the challenge is in identifying the proper balance and the proper mix.

When you bake a cake ... you need all ingrediants ... why must some of the ingrients be left-out of SE initiatives?

The problem really arises when "large organisations and some individuals" want access to the whole cake instead of just a few slices of it and distribute the balance.

So, Heidi, continue on your path ... you are on the right road ... and don't allow yourself to be derailed by some societal belief that you can't be successful, make money and do good at the same time.

The secret is to balance your income and the distribution methodology and principles applied by you.

Suggestion: Go back to nature for inspiration. We found it in the Golden Mean, the Fiboranaci series and the Steiner tree.

Take care Laurinda Seabra

We are starting a business that will designate a significant portion of our net to "vetted and innovative" social causes. Where do we fit in the "social entrepreneurs" arena?

Share with us a bit more about you and your business ... your vision, values and reason for being ... that should then "tell you" ...

Definitions can at times be misleading ... You have read our discussion ... so where do you fit in?

Take care Laurinda Seabra

Thank you for the definition that frames a very comprehensive explanation of what a social enterpreneur/enterprenuership is.

A social enterprise is one that addresses a social problem and operates with income generated from an enterpreneurial activity with the purpose of making it sustainable. I think "sustainability" is a key word because the profit generated from the undertaking is more like a revolving fund that will continue to finance growth and operations of such a business while continuously solving a social problem.

A social enterprise may work from time to time (and espeically in the early stages)under contracts, grants etc provided from sources whose mandate is to address development issues (eg. educational grants from development banks). Such an enterprise will have to become self sustaining eventually and grow like commercial businesses do but then again the policies for spending the profit will not be the same like in a normal enterpreneurship

Dear Aminath

You said that the spending of profits will not be the same as in a normal entrepreneuship process. I beg to disagree with you.

For example:

Traditional business distributes profits to shareholders - SE's distributes the same profits to stakeholders (including shareholders). Whether you distribute profits to one individual or for a combination ... the process is the same! The outcome and impact is although different.

There is no reason that you can't apply the best systems and processes used within a traditional business in an SE. The fact that as an SE you have a passion for social upliftment is neither here no there. As a business owner you could technically give all your profits to a charity (and some do).

Take care

Laurinda Seabra

Hi everyone! My name is Francis N. Osorio from Manila, Philippines. I have been a profit- oriented businessman for as long as I can remember until one day I was a witness to a "shocking" experience that changed my whole outlook as a businessman. And this is when I embraced the definition of a social entrepreneur as given by the Skoll Foundation. I internalized in myself all the values of a social entrepreneur and then set about organizing a social enterprise. And I would like to share the very enriching experience I have had so far in actually engaging in a social enterprise venture.

1. I changed personally. I do not look on my workers as employees but rather as partners in the business. Therefore, this radically different outlook towards people naturally brings about in myself a totally different management style. I do a lot of consultation on business policies not only with my managers but even with ordinary workers on the production floor. This constant consultation has resulted in better products and services for our customers. And for the workers, this has resulted in a job enrichment program complete with merit increases, incentive bonuses, etc.plus an educational program for all workers and a day care room for children of our working mothers. Please do not think that I have become a saint all of a sudden. Remember, I have been a profit-oriented businessman. I discovered that being people-oriented in your management style can dramatically increase productivity, can cut down costs and can bring in profits. This is good business sense. Therefore, I have experienced that there need not be conflict between people-oriented business policies and profits. The two can be complementary and give meaning to each other.
2. The definition of social entrepreneurship gave me a definite direction in life. It is a general direction: to create social change. But for me, this direction (creating social change) has become a mission which I believe would preoccuppy me for the rest of my lifetime. Because it is a goal that I can never satisfy. It is like a thirst that can never be quenched. And so it has become a very strong driving force that arouses all my entrepreneurial instincts and energies to such as extent that even surprises me. Before, profit taking was the end-all and be-all of all my business undertakings. And after a while, I must admit that it can be quite boring. So profit-taking is not a very potent driving force for an entrepreneur. Because it can be satisfied. When an entrrepreneur feels he has made enough profits, he retires. But given the direction of a social entrepreneur, SE is one business you would never want to retire from.
3. I believe that social entrepreneurship is a worldwide process that is just beginning and will definitely gain momentum in the next years to come. And perhaps the goal of creating social change will eventually be achieved. I do not expect to see the fulfillment of this goal within my lifetime. But I am happy to be part of this process.

I hope I had given you some enlightenment.