From Social Entrepreneurship to Social Interpreneurship

Hi Peter,

Although I know this is not the subject of your topic above, I am struggling to find the correct channels to contact the appropriate people with regards to the following:

I work with a not-for-profit organisation based in Australia (Palmera Projects Australia), and we are currently investigating social business as a viable initative to deliver upon our goal of addressing poverty in South and South-East Asia. We provide extensive funding for an orphanage in Cambodia, and run two major programs delivering education and financial assistance there and in Sri Lanka. My role is to investigate then establish a social business model.

Therefore, I am contacting you (and anyone else reading this) as part of the investigation phase.

Palmera has a small number of ideas in terms of a product that could be the vehicle for a social business, but has no expertise in forging ahead with establishing one. As such, do you know of resources available that I could refer to? Do you yourself have information or advice? And do you know of anyone else I could contact who would be a valuable connection?

Apologies for throwing many questions at you and in this forum, but your (or anyone's) help would be greatly appreciated.

Prateek Mathur
Palmera Projects Australia

Hi Prateek,

As you'll see from my comment further down we've taken a social business path in our work focussed on orphans in Ukraine, A small revenue stream derives from a software pruduct.

A couple of web resources I can point you to are the Social Business Group on Linkedin and Social Business Entrepreneurs on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7282004546

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7282004546

Jeff
    

Hi Prateek,

You may also find this article of interest:

"Ten Nonprofit Funding Models"
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/1230

It contains several models for non-profit earned income.

All the best,
Peter

I think you just stumbled across a terra incognita called social innovation. So no need to invent another jargon word. Just recognise that social innovation happens in all sectors including the household and is not owned by any of them. Not even by the social entrepreneurs.

Peter, my title is ripped from the cover of the 2000 book by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. Its an essential primer to your conversation. The Internet has done a lot for us, and amid all the buzz about recently released smaller, lighter, faster tools for accessing information, its important to remember that one thing it is not doing is changing the fundamentally social characteristics of information.

I see your 2-5-10 formula with a few cautions:
- A "field" should be characterized by its outcomes, not the tools employed to accomplish them. In the same way we wouldn't characterize the field of teaching by chalkboards and textbooks, I would not characterize a "field" by open platforms and peer-to-peer communications. Furthermore, to distinguish the "field" by these two characteristics is to not distinguish it at all. These are changes that are taking place all around us, transforming politics, teaching and learning - even the way we share "culture."
- Interaction goes back to the social life of information. There has been a constant, steady, wonderful stream of social experimentation around ways to maximize people's ability to experience connection and the exchange of information. Someone should do a case history on the way real-time chat has transformed the experience of, and the thinking behind, gatherings of all kinds. We crave interaction as human beings, and again I wouldn't use this to characterize a subgroup that happens to share a preoccupation.
- Interdependence is viewed, by some, as a fundamental organizing principle of the universe. Its heartening to read that the principle was raised as a reminder.

In writing the above, I realize that I may have cut your cloth: the challenge for you Peter will be to distill what you've experienced at Skoll into truly meaningful insights that clarify the contributions of your network.

You've got a recipe so far that serves as a multi-purpose reduction for the 21st century: it can be applied generously to many entrees. Where's the Skoll beef?

Have you as a community evolved? Probably not. In fact, you're probably still wresting with fundamental changes to the way we do business; catching up as it were. Welcome to the club. Inventing new language is fun, but the hard work of learning from outcomes that stick and transform fundamental architectures in society - equality, justice, fairness - has barely begun.

A new paradigm? The first (Internet) is new environment; approach it as such. Interaction and interdependence are ages old. Its good to get religion; the hard work is to discover the organizing principles that can be applied, embedded, scaled.

Which would I choose? None. The only reason these labels have any credibility or salience is because there is money behind them - too much money. If one is not concerned about the money, but is concerned about achieving fair and just outcomes - where you live or where others live - what value are the labels?

Hi Lars,

Thanks for (eloquently) pushing back on *everything* about my post... If I didn't know you personally, I'd think you were naturally dissenting. (Which you're not.) I must have tapped a nerve of some kind.

Let me add some more context to the discussion intro above... this was the second Skoll World Forum I had the privilege of attending. Compared to the last one, the 2010 edition was much more aligned with what excites me most about laboring to change the world (let's not give it a label beyond that).

Personally and professionally, I get excited about the Internet as a vehicle for creating change. I celebrate Interaction, particularly at conferences (which often limits interaction to the hallways). And the complex Interdependence of all things is a detail often overlooked in venues like this one.

That all three of these elements were headlined at the Skoll World Forum 2010 was simply a beautiful thing (for me) and a sign that the giant redwoods were beginning to swing in alignment with the grassroots. My discussion intro attempts simply to draw attention to that change.

As for the label social interpreneur, please take it for what it is... a provocation. That said, you may find it interesting to Google the term with quotations around it. I'm not the first to use it...

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for being open to my comments. I'm glad the forum was exciting for you, and that is has inspired your creativity - we can never have enough of that! You've got a great platform here from which to speak; I hope my provocation to push these ideas a little further will be helpful.

I can't respond to the context pieces, though they are much appreciated and I take them as instructive. I hope the forum will continue to be one of learning and advancement for all of you.

Warmest personal regards,

your (*un*naturally dissenting) lars

Hi Lars,

Good to see you here. You're right-on with me. The tools will keep changing, but we've yet to find a way where we're getting all of the people who care about the same issue, into the same space, where everyone has a voice, and where we're linked out to a world of ideas that people are hosting on millions of web sites.

If anything, the speed in which the tools evolve, and information grows, makes it even more difficult for people with common goals to find and connect with each other, or stay connected long-enough to build relationships and find ways to put shared ideas into action.

You and I met more than 4 years ago and I've been fascinated by Peace Tiles, as I've said on many forums, many times. Yet, I've still not found the manpower to put this concept to work in my own efforts in ways that I think would really be exciting, and that would connect more people with each other and draw more attention and resources to the tutor/mentor programs in Chicago that I'm trying to help.

How many more people are "bumping into each other" in internet space, or forums where the rich and famous meet, but never staying connected long enough, or never finding the resources, to turn these connections into something that leads to a benefit for one, or many, persons in the world.

The only difference today, than 15 years ago, is that we're all talking to each other from different places. We never would have met in the past. Thus, this offers great potential for the future.

We've much to learn, and much to do, to harness these tools.

Hi Dan,

Indeed, we to continue to cross paths, which is nice. We both have a visual attunement - you with visualization of place and resources, me with stories. In our work as much as the "social entrepreneurship" space, the tools are changing, and I very much feel your sentiment, that they may be creating far more opportunities to "bump off each other" than actually get down to work. Its hard to figure out the metrics.

I can say that, since I've become much more attuned to family and place over the years, the Internet has created opportunities for me to provide concrete support to very distant places that might otherwise have had administrative costs simply too high for me to be of much service in the past.

We've much to learn indeed.

Best,

lars

Hi Peter,

To me the expression social entrprenueurship has come to represent the concept of a heroic lone individual leveraging tradiional philanthropy to apply a business approach to acchieve a social objective.

We derive from a different school of thought that proposes this new paradigm to be a modification of the output of capitalism , such that a new kind of business with a primary social objective could co-exist in the free market deploying its profit for social good.

In the paper which put forward this idea as a theoretical model, the case for using the web as the vehicle to replicate this new paradigm locally and globally, as Alvin Toffler had predicted in Power Shift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik[…]ntered_Economic_Development

With the assertion in this paper of a causal relationship between poverty and conflict which had been delivered in the same month 5 years before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, the approach has been to leverage social investment by government.

What we now describe as a profit-for-purpose approach was first deployed in 1999 to source a microfinance based development initiative in Russoa and since being backed by a UK based business in 2004, to leverage social change in Ukraine with the concept of a social business based 'Marshall Plan' designed to mix profit-for-purpose business with less than full cost recovery social objectives such that social and economic development could be achieved at nil overall cost.

In that strategy paper a strong case is made for affordable broadband access to not only empower the potential of economic development but also the embryonic democratic movement in a society hamstrung by corruption.

The mechnanism proposed was a new national faculty for social enterprise and a social investment fund overseen by civic leaders.

The milestones in this effort will be found in the links on this page which offers a potted history of the P-CED model.

http://people-centered.net/About.aspx

In a few weeks founder Terry Hallman returns to Sumy State University to follow up on his last year's presentation for the Economics for Ecology conference.

http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/sumy/


Jeff

Peter,
Great topic for discussion. We, in the field of social enterprise, should be very careful and wary about social interpreneurship, which you define as “two parts Internet, five parts Interaction, and ten parts Interdependence.”

Internet, interaction and interdependence can lead us far afield from what we're trying to accomplish, if we're not alert. We have not yet evolved as a field or a practice to fast track to being inclusionary and welcoming of everyone who flirts with social enterprise.

We need to be gatekeepers for the field and ensure that the DNA of social enterprise, “doing good while being sustainable and making money” is not replaced by “making lots of money through this quaint thing called doing good.” Heroic, inspirational, high profile and yes, very sexy social entrepreneurs like John Woods, Premal Shah, Scott Harrison, Matt Damon and others have attracted a lot of ambitious business people to the field. It’s a trend thing now taught in B-schools everywhere, the next big chase. Now that their stock portfolio and CD interest rates are not yielding the return they want, these masters of the universe are looking at “entering the social enterprise space.” There’s no social conscience that accompanies the interest, no view about the social problems that need to be addressed, no knowledge of the pressing needs of the dispossessed, it’s about entering what they see as the latest business trend.

I found this out as I was interviewing candidates for CFO for my company, Rainworks OmniMedia LLC -- see www.rainworksomnimedia.com and www.ariaiq.com
-- a producer of expositions and events for the family market that benefits girls literacy and clean water programs in Asia and Africa.

I interviewed a parade of CFOs and senior VPs of Finance all wanting to “enter the social enterprise space.” Why did they want to enter the field, I asked each one? Candidate 1, “It’s a hot field right now.” “What do you know about clean water?” Response: Silence. “What’s the Girl Effect?” Response: A leer and uncontrollable laughter. “What is your opinion of social enterprise?” “It’s really hot right now.” “What’s the accomplishment you’re most proud of?” “I invested in African bull semen very early and did really, really well.” “What would you like as compensation?” “I'm looking at starting at $285,000 a year, stock options and future considerations.”

I came to the dispiriting conclusion that these were ambitious people looking for the next, latest, sexiest, most rewarding business opportunity. They see no distinction between selling stocks, making sausages, and social enterprise. It can be anything as long as it makes them money, and as they made clear, social enterprise is … “you know, real hot right now.”

So, we in the field should consider ourselves writers of the DNA code for social enterprise and guardians and keepers of the social enterprise flame, so that pure capitalism and financial self-interest do not become part of the DNA of our field.

Here are some interesting articles from McKinsey & Company about the DNA of social entrepreneurs.http://whatmatters.mckinsey[…]aign=SE_pre_Q_alert1_genaud

E-mail me as the spirit moves at founder@rainworksomnimedia.com

Hi Gail,

I appreciate your attention to the 'gatekeeping' role, particularly as it relates to those who would seek wealth primarily and only nominally do good. We should all be aiming to maximize the latter, in fact with a custom and precise definition around what we mean by 'doing good.'

For some people, the prospect of becoming extremely wealthy through social entrepreneurship will remain a primary motivation. Personally, I am less concerned with the motivation, and more interested in the outcome. If some folks become rich by launching a social enterprise that does great things, plays well with others, and responds effectively to the complexities of the world, then more power to them.

Social entrepreneurship thrives on its heterogeneity. Let's keep it that way.

All the best,
Peter

Unfortunately this is something I observe all too often, particularly here in the UK where politicians and venture capitalists appear to be trying to grasp the mantle of social enterprise.

One local cabal came unstuck recently when a whistleblower raised the alarm over them dipping into public funds to pay a consultant for failure, having declined the offer of local expertise. There are those building their reputation and careers on being seen as champions of innovation by excluding the genuine article.

We've been putting the B-Corps philosopy into practice for 11 years, since leveraging a microfinance initiative in Russia and describing it here on Social Edge for the last 5. It's been about making a profit to deploy for social outcomes, such as the impact on adoption in Ukraine I've described before.

We'd entered former soviet territory in the wake of 'disaster capitalism' and this was what founder Terry Hallman had to say in an interview later.

"The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource. When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then there is no great problem with some people having far more than they need. But, that's not the case, and there are no rules in the previous capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience, and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable aspect of capitalism."

He then describes the hypothetical model he'd put forward.

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html

In the context of salary payments, having signed up for the scrutiny of See What You Are Buying Into, I now that one criteria for approval is the differential between director and employee pay. If you approve or disapprove of any organisations practices, it may be worth nominating them to join up.

http://www.seewhatyouarebuyinginto.com/



  
  
    

In the new paradigm Peter, people wouldn't want to seek wealth creation over doing good. If by doing good it means that, even though the private sector (where most likely social interpreneurs reside) is perfectly primed to profit, the paradigm ensures that the planet and people are considered with it, with a newer outcome all round.

Also, for connection and the exchange of information, the world has definitely shifted along like a tide, with waves spilling over into the social entrepreneurial space, via the internet and interaction etc. But I think there's a select group of people, like Bill Drayton, who would argue the term social entrepreneur describes only a chosen few. But hey, the term social interpreneur sounds like a good thing, and as the flame is an old one - in that it's a fundamental organizing principle of the universe - in choosing the right path, it goes without saying, worry is interest paid in advance for a debt you never owe (unless you are in entropy) and even then it's good to remember, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

I think what's going to support social interpreneurs is the pattern of challenging the existing business power structures, that has led work for so many, to become empty and unfulfilling, so the acceptance of the hypocrisy of that, is what is going to help shift the culture ( of profits before people) in sparking even more complex interdependence and interconnectedness.

Coincidentally, there's a rumor going round, that a solar event at the same time, is what sparked the volcano rising...

...at least you have the first 3 numbers to the game; 2-5-10

Jo, Peter,

It's this challenge to conventional business structure and outcomes that we aim to convey with this statement about doing things a different way.


"Enterprise profitability and economic success cannot be fairly measured in terms of gains of money capital alone. Profit is redefined in human terms rather than pure quantitative analyses that remove human and social concerns in the name of profit."

Above where I describe the "heroic individual" I'm allding to the Ashoka approach which has come to be known as social entrepreneurship. The perception of a 'chosen few' creating a trend toward the egopreneur and pursuit of celebrity.

I'm not sure about this intrapeneur label, another form of branding which avoids admission that many don't want to engage or collaborate in what has been described as a social stock market. We assert that:

'Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day.'

There are still few who seem to understand this, one who seemed to grasp it better than most was CK Prahalad, when he related in this interview with Microsoft how CSR and philanthropy cannot resolve the problem of poverty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhkq_6HERe0

Hi Jo,

I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on "challenging the existing business power structures, that has led work for so many, to become empty and unfulfilling."

Would you say it's the way that businesses manage their employees that makes the experience empty? Or is it something about the business's reason for being that makes it less than fulfilling?

Based on my definition of social interpreneurship, a business with creative uses of technology, high rates of interaction among employees, owners, and customers, and a deep appreciation for our hyper-interdependence could be a great place to work, with or without a 'social' mission.

(Thinking out loud here).

All the best,
Peter

Yeah Jeff, the gatekeepers are those institutions (and others) who are 'changing the way business is done' so the way's clear for others to follow. I'm sorry to hear about CK Prahalad's recent death, he's right, core competence is definitely about doing well by doing good.

Like Dario's peer-to-peer giving in GIVINGGETTING, or for effective cost and effort measures, the Internet itself is a vehicle for creating change. And it's not an egopreneur either, so it can be a gatekeeper in giving access without restriction. What goes round comes around, so I guess, the key is motivation (with expanded awareness, and without autocratic control.) It's good for institutions to remember that as 'partners in building the capacity for transformational change', they are there to serve people, not themselves.


Hi again Peter, it's precisely because of the Internet our world is so hyper interdependent eh. Like the early Internet entrepreneurs who were motivated to leave their corporate lives etc, to forge new pathways with business models online, from stories I hear it was people being unsatisfied and empty in their working lives, that motivated them to make the changes they needed, to create what they have, that in turn have benefited so many others. Together, actions add up to something...

I'm thinking out loud too, and in thinking of the problems of society at large, it will require all hands on deck eh. Unlike an 'oversized financial industry hurting the broader economy', an oversized social entrepreneurial industry is only going to broaden, the broader economy. You're right though, to make a distinction between players. I would just say to anyone though, do your thing...

You know, with the field opening up, the challenge to the business structure isn't anti establishment (although the flower power of 1960's hippies didn't die, it just morphed into the indigoes and turks of today.) Anyway the bottom line is, for change to happen everyone needs to be involved, including egopreneurs and those adopting branding for self promotion, which was pretty much the business model from the 1980's on, yeah? Even if some are grasping at the mantle for self-promotion ( like greenwashing as a corporate strategy?) for the right energy to break through, to change social behavior, the Internet has provided the tipping point, of the turning point, for the sea change yeah.

It's good to remember too, if people are successful in changing themselves, reality mirrors the changes. And like anything, if it's about achieving a mutual response - when the goal is to level the playing field - it's a cosmic plan. And if I was to blow the metaphor out, it would be, that it's a cosmic battle between the forces of light and dark, in that, here on earth it's a battle to vanquish, out-of-control corporate power (think big Oil etc,) to rescue our small planet for humanity.

That scenario is only likely if corporate power won't come to the party. So like they say, 'aim for the impossible' because you never know, corporate power could come to the party - and do well by doing good - so there'll be no need for any battles. I think, what has resonance for everyone though, is that current behaviors are unsustainable, so change is inevitable, but only with global cooperation.

Hi Peter:

As you said "I am less concerned with the motivation, and more interested in the outcome."
I have the motivation to help others and I want to get results. I created a website where everyone can helps other wiht minimal cost and minimal effort. Also I belive in internet as a vehicle for creating change.
GIVINGETTING allow people to give and get stuff they no longer need or to get what they need and don´t have, donating or getting it for reuse, achieving longer product cycle and also keeping useful stuff out of landfills.
www.givingetting.com

Hi Peter,
Great discussion. It was nice seeing you again at Skoll. I do like the concept of social interpreneurship as it can include more people in this space (as Jo said that social entrepreneurs are sometimes limited to a selected few).BUT I also like the gatekeeping thought of Gail and I also fully agree to Lars and Dario on the importance to outcomes. So what about adding to the 2-5-10 another "I" word which is Impact so that we include the notion of outcomes. Naoko (www.socential.org)

Hi Naoko,

Great to see you here, and I'm glad we (re)connected at #swf10.

Personally, I struggle with the term impact. I prefer the concept of resonance. If all of our organizations and projects were designed to resonate with one another and with the communities they seek to serve, and we were asked to report on the resonance of our activities, then the incentives to collaborate would increase.

When the conversation is about impact, then one organization can claim to create more than the other. When the conversation is about resonance, then both organizations seek to contribute to the whole in a meaningful way.

I think a strong case could be made that positive outcomes without overall resonance will generally fail to result in long-term solutions.

This distinction between impact and resonance is an interesting one, and probably worthy of a separate discussion. What do you think?

All the best,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I find the concept of resonance very valuable and certainly it would promote collaboration which is crucial going forward. I also think though that impact is important in evaluating the effectiveness of the projects. So I think both of these concepts should be included. To your question I think it would be worth a separate discussion.
very best,
Naoko

Peter, thought you might enjoy the following article by Raj Kumar, founder of Devex. He nicely frames the case for social enterprises to connect up: http://whatmatters.mckinsey[…]terprise-it-takes-a-network

Cheers!

Hi Lars,

Great article. It's incredibly relevant to this discussion. Thanks for sharing it here.

All the best,
Peter

I recently read a great review of the #swf10 and #oxfordjam events on the School for Social Entrepreneurs blog (http://bit.ly/bBjJDV) which alludes to something I feel is missing in your paradigm, Peter. I call it the mystery of sharing air.

I think it could be the deeper global trust networks that we are able to build at face2face events like this that will catalyze us to evolving beyond social entrepreneurship.

Hi Christina,

Great to see you here. Yes, networks of trust are at the heart of what can take the field to the next level. In person events (particularly for those of us who spend a lot of time online) are critical to confirming and amplifying the trust that develops through the Internet. Nathaniel Whittemore made this point in one of his blog entries leading up to the forum... ie, that in an internet, interactive, interdependent world we need more offline events not fewer. I hope to run into you at the next event. :-)

By the way, thanks for pointing to Nick Temple's reflections on #SWF10 and #OxfordJam. I definitely recommend that others give it a good read.

In the end, this whole discussion may be more about the nature of events that service our field, then about the field of social entrepreneurship itself.

All the best,
Peter

Peter, thank you for this discussion about the Skoll World Forum and new trends in social entrepreneurship. What I’m gleaning from your post is an increased emphasis on people—-on connecting—-whether through social media or in person during a discussion-based session, or by forming an extended partnership.

Personally, I find it exciting to see this focus placed on people. I think it’s important to invest our resources and time in people. It has always amazed me that entrepreneurs are seen as such solo beacons of light in starting an organization. But that isn’t true. The amount of people who have helped; the right timing of a venture; the hard work and diligence of so many, many team members is what got an organization, or even a sector, to where it is today. We have to be cognizant of this. We built together.

I’m pleased to see a shift towards increased awareness of Interdependence and Interaction…

Sincerely,
Pamela Hawley
Founder and CEO
UniversalGiving™

phawley@universalgiving.org
www.universalgiving.org

Living and Giving blog
www.pamelahawley.wordpress.com

Hi Peter

This discussion is particularly relevant for me at the moment as I've been taking part in a discussion on the Mowgli Foundations LinkedIn group about this very subject.

As usual, and as is apparent in this discussion too, there is no conclusion to any of the subjects, questions or topics raised; but one thing that has been raised as an issue for the budding Intrapreneur (whether social or otherwise) is that in order to operate effectively they need to be a change-maker within their organisation; yet many organisations are frightened to give such people too strong or loud a voice out of fear.

In an environment where those that propose change may be marginalised, can anybody really bring the qualities and characteristics that mark out those who have an entrepreneurial bent to the fore. In other words, can an entrepreneur/social entrepreneur really operate within a large organisation where structure and order is the name of the game.

Given that this is often the case, I think I'd be a social entrepreneur any day as I couldn't live within the confines of someone else's rules.

I also happen to believe that we'd love to be seeing a new paradigm developing, but that we delude ourselves by believing that the pace of technological change represents a concurrent social change. In reality it doesn't, we still operate in the same way, we just use a different technology to enable it. Our conversation and communication might be speeding up, but it isn't changing the essential topics we talk about or the fact that it's a conversation we're having.

The real social change that can come about as a result of Internet, Interaction and Interdependence has yet to be seen and will be something we never expected or saw coming at all and it won't be as simple as a change of technology. Unfortunately, I have no idea what it might be either ...!

Linda