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.