Hi Meng, I enjoyed reading your article on social enterprise’s evolution in China and it was very helpful in pointing out how important culture and language in the ultimate definition of the term social enterprise.
There are probably many other important events that you had to leave out, but I want to share 2 with you that i am aware of.
First, in early 2010, the book “10 Stories of Social Enterpreneurs in China” was published in Chinese and English by the KK Tse (Hong Kong Social Entrepreneurship Forum) and Li Fan (Global Links Initiative). Their book offers additional insights into the development of social entrepreneurship and its impact in transforming the society and also recognizes and highlights the work of these entrepreneurs.
Secondly, Since 2008 Mercy Corps has been conduction a Social Innovator Leadership Program with the senior leadership of the All China Youth Federation, who already hold fairly senior political positions and whose members often become top echelon leaders of the PRC government. This two week program exposes an annual delegation to new ideas for innovatively addressing social issues, working to build a new cadre of risk-taking leaders that have skills and knowledge to work collaboratively with communities. and introduces social innovation, social entrepreneurship,impact investing and community led governance. It is led by luminaries such as Greg Dees, Paul Dudley Hart, Andrew Wolk, David Williams and has strong participation from corporations including Nike and Starbucks and local and national US non-profits.
Each participant leaves the program with a work plan for introducing social innovations / entrepreneurial activities into their organization and there is significant follow up to help ensure that these initiatives are actually implemented.
Reading this piece reminded me of an article that was recently in the NY Times Magazine on the NBA in China. It is interesting to see what emerges in China vs. what is imported. As we look to engage in philanthropic work in China it seem important to understand the lesson the NBA learned the hard way: “an ethos that has prevailed since China opened itself to the outside world in 1978: foreigners are not invited to China to profiteer; they are invited to make the Chinese better.”
We have been working with BSR and Ci Yuan on the evolution of philanthropy and China. Next month we are looking at what US social sector practices are worth exporting to China. Really provoking question. Which of our practices could really make the Chinese better?
Thanks for a very interesting article about the inner workings of social enterprises in China! Especially 3 takeaways stood out to me:
1) I most appreciated the elaboration on language and its various meanings that cannot be taken for granted by any means. Even if today’s youth or mid-career professionals understand the term better from western standards, it was fascinating to better understand from you the context in which this has to be interpreted.
2) Another highly interesting area of your article is about the weakness of the nonprofit sector. You called it a critical barrier to the spread of social enterprise. On the other hand, I would be curious to see what happens in a country with no strong history or culture in NGOs but which instead has seemingly invested more in social enterprises first.
In the US and Europe, the opposite seems to have been the tradition.
What could this mean to the development of socially innovative ventures if there is no strong domestic influence of the “pro-mission” based NGOs and is instead directly attacked by a larger contingent of the “business with purpose” group of entrepreneurs? What will this do to the mix of “pro financial return” vs. “pro social mission” seekers?
3) On the other hand then, what are the ramifications for making impact investing work and grow beyond the initial venture philanthropy funds?
In a country where people appear to strongly prefer the duality of “either financial profit or social good, but not both”, it would seem the term and concept of “impact investing” may lose its appeal unlike what it has done for excitement elsewhere. That or it may take significantly longer to find domestic “impact investors” that actually WANT to get some money back in an asset with a social mission.
I saw the same problem in Brazil a few years back and am not sure if it still holds true there today between for-profit focus vs. charity/religious giving and a lack of in-between.
Hope to learn more about developments in China going forward!
COMMENTS
BY dlehr
ON March 15, 2012 03:52 PM
Hi Meng, I enjoyed reading your article on social enterprise’s evolution in China and it was very helpful in pointing out how important culture and language in the ultimate definition of the term social enterprise.
There are probably many other important events that you had to leave out, but I want to share 2 with you that i am aware of.
First, in early 2010, the book “10 Stories of Social Enterpreneurs in China” was published in Chinese and English by the KK Tse (Hong Kong Social Entrepreneurship Forum) and Li Fan (Global Links Initiative). Their book offers additional insights into the development of social entrepreneurship and its impact in transforming the society and also recognizes and highlights the work of these entrepreneurs.
Secondly, Since 2008 Mercy Corps has been conduction a Social Innovator Leadership Program with the senior leadership of the All China Youth Federation, who already hold fairly senior political positions and whose members often become top echelon leaders of the PRC government. This two week program exposes an annual delegation to new ideas for innovatively addressing social issues, working to build a new cadre of risk-taking leaders that have skills and knowledge to work collaboratively with communities. and introduces social innovation, social entrepreneurship,impact investing and community led governance. It is led by luminaries such as Greg Dees, Paul Dudley Hart, Andrew Wolk, David Williams and has strong participation from corporations including Nike and Starbucks and local and national US non-profits.
Each participant leaves the program with a work plan for introducing social innovations / entrepreneurial activities into their organization and there is significant follow up to help ensure that these initiatives are actually implemented.
Keep the good work,
David
BY Aaron Hurst
ON March 19, 2012 02:33 PM
Reading this piece reminded me of an article that was recently in the NY Times Magazine on the NBA in China. It is interesting to see what emerges in China vs. what is imported. As we look to engage in philanthropic work in China it seem important to understand the lesson the NBA learned the hard way: “an ethos that has prevailed since China opened itself to the outside world in 1978: foreigners are not invited to China to profiteer; they are invited to make the Chinese better.”
We have been working with BSR and Ci Yuan on the evolution of philanthropy and China. Next month we are looking at what US social sector practices are worth exporting to China. Really provoking question. Which of our practices could really make the Chinese better?
The article on the NBA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/magazine/NBA-in-China.html?pagewanted=all
BY Thien Nguyen-Trung
ON March 22, 2012 11:42 PM
Meng,
Thanks for a very interesting article about the inner workings of social enterprises in China! Especially 3 takeaways stood out to me:
1) I most appreciated the elaboration on language and its various meanings that cannot be taken for granted by any means. Even if today’s youth or mid-career professionals understand the term better from western standards, it was fascinating to better understand from you the context in which this has to be interpreted.
2) Another highly interesting area of your article is about the weakness of the nonprofit sector. You called it a critical barrier to the spread of social enterprise. On the other hand, I would be curious to see what happens in a country with no strong history or culture in NGOs but which instead has seemingly invested more in social enterprises first.
In the US and Europe, the opposite seems to have been the tradition.
What could this mean to the development of socially innovative ventures if there is no strong domestic influence of the “pro-mission” based NGOs and is instead directly attacked by a larger contingent of the “business with purpose” group of entrepreneurs? What will this do to the mix of “pro financial return” vs. “pro social mission” seekers?
3) On the other hand then, what are the ramifications for making impact investing work and grow beyond the initial venture philanthropy funds?
In a country where people appear to strongly prefer the duality of “either financial profit or social good, but not both”, it would seem the term and concept of “impact investing” may lose its appeal unlike what it has done for excitement elsewhere. That or it may take significantly longer to find domestic “impact investors” that actually WANT to get some money back in an asset with a social mission.
I saw the same problem in Brazil a few years back and am not sure if it still holds true there today between for-profit focus vs. charity/religious giving and a lack of in-between.
Hope to learn more about developments in China going forward!
Thien
Goodgeneration.org