This is interesting but unfortunately just completely wrong. The vast majority of entrepreneurs are small. This does not stop them from being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. The vast majority are small. This does not stop them from being social entrepreneurs. How big or influential they become is entirely irrelevant to their status, as it is with entrepreneurs generally. Treating the extent of their growth or influence as an indicator of their status is a category error, like saying only large buildings with penthouses are really buildings, and my house therefore doesn’t count as a building. Similarly many entrepreneurs fail. This doesn’t stop them being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. Many will fail. This doesn’t stop them being social entrepreneurs. The above argument applies. There may be some conceivably valid reasons for wanting a definition, such as the one given at the end of the article - that people will be confused if you don’t - but this reason has nothing to do with the size or influence or success of social entrepreneurs.
Sorry I’m a bit late to this.
I thought the article was very interesting and loved its clarity and willingness to make judgements. There is way too much wooly, pink and fluffy group hug thinking around this subjcet.
But I’m with Jon. I think you’re mistaken. If Skoll Foundation only wants to fund people who can go big, that’s fine. It’s your money. You will need to find and refine ways of better guessing (and that’s all it can be) which of your applicants can get to the scale you want. Fine.
But to then so limit the defintion of ‘social entrepreneur’ that it only applies to people who get to the scale you define as appropriate is, as we say in London, well out of order mate! Funders have a long track record of wanting to impose their agendas often believing in good faith they know best. To want now to even set limits around the language people use to define themselves is futile and counterproductive.
Social entrepreneurship is a continuum and people who get to scale dont always have this as their priority when they start out. They are no less socially entrepreneurial when they start than when they have created mature big impact agencies.
Be careful Skoll Foundation. Your world forum in Oxford is already beginning to feel like a self congratulatory gathering of the big foundation backed elite. That’s how capital and power works. Surely, we need to be very different.
This is a helpful contribution to the debate, and captures some of the variation between traditional (economic) entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. I am, however, with the other commentators in thinking the article only scratches the surface. Speaking as a social entrepreneur for over a decade, followed by academic life of almost a decade (to date!), the article resonates with my motivations and research findings in only a partial way.
My view is that the article has three shortcomings. Firstly, it is a hopelessly romantic view of entrepreneurship itself. As both Roger Spear’s and Molly Cato’s recent journal articles argue, traditional definitions of entrepreneurship deny major aspects of most entrepreneur’s lived experiences. In particular, a significant amount of entrepreneurial activity (around 50%) takes place in conditions of adversity that is not actively sought by the entrepreneur. Many people don’t set out to be entrepreneurs: instead they are faced with specific life problems that are navigated by adopting entrepreneurial responses as a matter of survival. Secondly, as Roger / Molly / Morrison / Pam Seanor and myself have argued ad infinitum, the collective aspects of entrepreneurship in the social economy are denied or ignored by the individualistic orientation articulate above. Lastly, the article fails as the most fundamental level - social entrepreneurship has a different philosophical root for many of those adopting the term that departs significantly from traditional thinking about economics.
It helps to navigate this argument if we prefix entrepreneurship appropriately. If we put the word ‘economic’ in front of it to describe traditional entrepreneurship we get some clarity. “Economic entrepreneurship” draws on “economic rationality” and focuses on task efficiency. In the above article, even though the authors attempt to modify the value proposition so that it is driven by a social mission rather than capital accumulation, the ideological superstructure they retain draws on economic rationality (efficiency savings in the way that social benefits are delivered to the poor and marginalised). This does capture the motives of some people calling themselves “social entrepreneurs”, but misses the motivations that incline many others.
For me (and those I used to work with) social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality - a completely different philosophical perspective that priortises human relationships above task-efficiency. In short, there are times we can justifiably performing a task less efficiently if the upside of doing so is the strengthening of a social and community relationships. Ultimately, doing so internalises the social costs of trading and does not externalise them where they have to be picked up by governments and charities.
To illustrate the thinking, it is worth considering the comments of Father Arizmendiarietta, who helped establish the Mondragon co-operatives in the 1950s. He maintained that capitalism was grounded in economic rationality, and this produced a system in which economic outcomes were prioritised, with education and human relationships organised to help achieve economic goals (i.e. subordinated to capital accumulation). In contrast, co-operativism was grounded in social rationality. This produces a system in which social outcomes are prioritised, with economic action is deployed as a means of educating people in the skills needed to sustain their communities. In short, economic activity is selectively chosen entrepreneurs where it supports the development of human relationships and human life, not the other way around.
This changes not just the value proposition of entrepreneurship, but also the ideological and institutional superstructures needed to support it. We see this in phrases such as “capital subordinated to the needs of labour” rather than “labour subordinated to the needs of capital” (see the definition of “social enterprise” that fronts Wikipedia’s take on the concept). These phrases still permeate the employee-ownership and co-operative movements, but less so in the charity approach to social enterprise.
Following on from this is the communal, rather than individualistic, orientation of many social entrepreneurs. It is a ‘relational’ philosophy in which rationality that focusses only on task efficiency is secondary whenever this conflicts with the relational needs of human beings. Once the social is placed before the economic, many activities that might be seen as efficient from an economic perspective don’t stack up. The product (outcome) of social entrepreneurship is framed to positively affect social relations (and these need not be confined only to those who are poor, disadvantaged or marginalised politically). Community buidling, therefore, is a product of social entrepreneurship. It’s product goes well beyond products or services delivered in a market to the internal relations created within the enterprise, and also the relations created between the enterprise and its stakeholders.
All the best
Rory Ridley-Duff (Dr)
Senior Lecturer
Sheffield Hallam University
Here in Texas where social entrepreneurs characterized by any of the intricately defined qualities discussed above are about as rare as a snowstorn in July, I’ve spent a good deal of time over the last few years trying to educate people ranging from small startup business owners to Fortune 1000 executives on what the term means and more importantly, why they should care. Having ultimately settled for the concept that social entrepreneurs are simply people who use principles of business innovation and management to create and advance social change by generating their own financial sustainability, I’ve finally concluded that social entrepreneurship is a lot like porn;
I’m not sure I can always define it, but I know it when I see it.
This discussion frames qualifying characterisitcs in terms of impact and scale, the finer points of which I won’t debate since others have done so already. Perhaps the true value we should be seeking however, is not rooted in overly wooden definitions, but rather in looking for ways we can motivate and empower more people who don’t have MBA’s from Stanford or Harvard to become change agents in the soical landscape. To that end, Arthur C. Brooks from Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Business has noted that denomination of returns is the primary difference between social and economic entrepreneurs, adding that the United States has approximately 1.5 million registered NPO’s and an estimated 9 million grassroots business enterprises generating social impact that are not formally contructed as social enterprise businesses. The vast majority of these people have probably never heard the term, let alone able to define it.
All the MBA’s in the world can not touch the impact created by the humble Base of Pyramid economic participants pursuing small ventures and utilizing their economic influence to change the communities they live in because these visionaries are bred through the hunger for meaning that usually only comes to those who are motivated to change their own reality as well as that of others. In Dallas I focus on drilling into the business communities where passion pursuits play out in social change as the resulting quotient of financial profit, and seek to empower with resources the people most likely to be using their businesses to help others. If you’re truly looking for scale…look no farther than the millions of African American women who are starting new business ventures 5 times faster than the rest of the US economy and making a tangible social difference with the financial returns they generate. Since 2004 I’ve spoken to over a thousand of them and have yet to find one who was not a change agent at heart.
THAT is what I call fertile soil for impact.
Mark Lewis
CEO
Strategic Business Intelligence Group
Dallas
I am a returning graduate student trying to write a paper on this very topic—Defining Social Entrepreneurship. There are 2 differences is your definition in the article that I am finding in conflict with other definitions that I’ve found. It seems that an organization such as the Skoll Foundation should certainly carry significant weight in the defining this movement, but I know that the movement itself started long before the Skoll Foundation. In any case, I am in hearty agreement with the notion that Social Entrepreneurship really does need to be distinctly defined and for all of the good reasons that you cite in your article.
As Mark Lewis mentions above, there is also wide perception that Social Entrepreneurship can extend to for-profit enterprises in addition to nonprofit. As far back as 1977, in Chamberlain’s Remaking American Values, he uses the term in reference to the idea that for-profit businesses should re-think the way they do business to more positively affect social and environmental purposes. There are now widespread efforts for “Green” business practices, and socially responsible trade and manufacturing, etc. Do these efforts not fall into Social Entrepreneurship? If not, perhaps we should coin a better term for them to distinguish them from nonprofit social entrepreneurs?
Secondly, one criterion that you did not specifically mention as a characteristic of Social Entrepreneurship, which Lewis also alludes to, is financial sustainability. I have always understood financial sustainability to be a defining factor in Social Entrepreneurs, but perhaps I am wrong? If so, please clarify why this is not a defining criterion.
For me social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality - a completely different philosophical perspective that priortizes human relationships above task-efficiency. In short, there are times we can justifiably performing a task less efficiently if the upside of doing so is the strengthening of a social and community relationships. Ultimately, doing so internalizes the social costs of trading and does not externalize them where they have to be picked up by governments and charities.
To illustrate the thinking, it is worth considering the comments of Father Arizmendiarietta, who helped establish the Mondragon co-operatives in the 1950s. He maintained that capitalism was grounded in economic rationality, and this produced a system in which economic outcomes were prioritized, with education and human relationships organized to help achieve economic goals (i.e. subordinated to capital accumulation). In contrast, co-operativism was grounded in social rationality. This produces a system in which social outcomes are prioritized, with economic action is deployed as a means of educating people in the skills needed to sustain their communities. In short, economic activity is selectively chosen entrepreneurs where it supports the development of human relationships and human life, not the other way around.
We kill 4 million animals in our Shelters each year. I believe I can end that tragedy and so created an organization to accomplish that. Am I a dreamer or a social entrepreneur?
payday loans
Since both articles and Roger Spear last stand Molly Cato Journal, traditional definitions of entrepreneurship to deny the main aspects of the experience of most contractors. In particular, a significant amount of business activity (50%) takes place under conditions of adversity which is not actively sought by the contractor.
As we move forward into what I predict will be a long period of world-wide economic strife and social unrest, the corporations and businesses that survive will need to be more responsive their the world around them. Corporate greed will be viewed for what it is, and with any luck we’ll bring back public floggings.
One of the big questions, irrespective of scale, that I keep hearing about in India and Australia is real impact measures. There are existing frameworks for measuring social impact, some of the look like versions of economic CBA and that’s ok. But whatever more robust focused evaluation tools and methods are required, including to explain when things have failed why.
Beautiful introduction to Social Entrepreneurship!
Social Entrepreneurship is indeed the way forward!
For a thorough presentation of Social Entrepreneurship and the impact it will have on the future of humanity,
I strongly recommend a recent book, Social Entrepreneurship, The Secret to Starting a Business Worth Living For.
I have seen coaches in social media refer to themselves as social entrepreneurs, which is weird. I would think of Social Entrepreneurship as the act of using a for profit business model to solve some social, planetary or environmental problem. The bottom line is not just measured in profit for the social entrepreneur, it’s measured in terms of the triple bottom line – People, Planet & Prosperity.
My concern would be that financial institutions will try to exploit Social Enterprise & entrepreneurs. To prop up their failing global monetary system, that is un-sustainable.
Despite all the definitions, there were few mentions to NGO’s and non-profits that work on a donation-based system - therefore, NOT social entrepreneurs (but potentially change-makers, as Ashoka defines, i.e.).
The main threat to social entrepreneurship is the idea that we are now calling non-profits and NGO’s something else just because these types of organizations already “saturated” their markets (low credibility).
Well the goal of Social Entrepreneurship is to make the society a better place and much needed in under developed countries where government policies are not so effective. Organization like Ashoka are doing great work.
The interesting thing is we come to see new and interesting innovations because of limited resources. Such innovations can help to change the society. I saw ayoung entrepreneur on TEDx from India evolved a instant testing machine for some flu which saved lots of lives across the world. Such can only happen when you see the need of it and when you are involved in problem solving. Social Entrepreneurship definitely takes you into problem solving instead of just watching and cursing governments.
Its a great article as a case of establishing a definition and offshoots of socially motivated ventures. i disagree with all those who have commented as in their responses, they have criticized aspects irrelevant with the article. The writers are going East, and the comments heading West. They have cited examples to create a demarcation between three concepts: social entrepreneurship, social activism and social service providers….I have all three ingredients in my business as they represent three different mentalities, and I deal with them, monitor them, and lead them according to the perception of the targeted market segment.
Its a great article as a case of establishing a definition and offshoots of socially motivated ventures. i disagree with all those who have commented as in their responses, they have criticized aspects irrelevant with the article. The writers are going East, and the comments heading West. They have cited examples to create a demarcation between three concepts: social entrepreneurship, social activism and social service providers….The interesting thing is we come to see new and interesting innovations because of limited resources. Such innovations can help to change the society. I saw ayoung entrepreneur on TEDx from India evolved a instant testing machine for some flu which saved lots of lives across the world. Such can only happen when you see the need of it and when you are involved in problem solving. Social Entrepreneurship definitely takes you into problem solving instead of just watching and cursing governments.
entrepeneurship, be it driven by economic factors,or otherwise, become social in nature,and hence it is very difficult to categorise the term into two distinct categories.a private owner of a small business, motivated by the quest to make profits to sustainhimself and family and probably with the expectations of expanding, becomes social , since his business will be dependent and linked to other,social forces within society, customers, consumers,tax officials etc.It is the entrepeneur obligation, not by his own will, to interact within this sphere.It therefore means that he will be compelled to produce goods or service of a suitable standard, to satisfy the people they are designated for,giving it more social meaning ,in the real world.However social entrepeneurship, can be singled out as a person or group of persons, whose intention to set up an operation,is not wholey and fully profit based, but also fullfills an equilibrum in society that caters for persons and individuals who otherwise may not be inclusive of such.Social entrepeneurship then,can be defined as being entrepeneurial in nature but the results of ventures cannot be judged by profitability in monetary terms alone, but the level of social impact it has on society.
Really wonderful article this is. It gave me insight about the real aspects of entrepreneurship with the name of the living legends. Social entrepreneurship is the only way we can serve humanity without the greed of any profit and through honest focus on the human service, profit will start multiplying by itself, we have not to be worried about the profit itself like in the case of real entrepreneurship. So, social entrepreneurship is the only option, I will pursue in the future.
Fascinating and a thought provoking article. Social entrepreneurship is really the way forward. It is a new order for the hope of the world. Nevertheless, it must not necessarily be a big affair. Entrepreneurial is for profit making and Social entrepreneurial is for impacting the society.
Its makes a any business model socialized and established a good social relationship in an organization and in social community , every one get a chance to involved in this types of yong entrepreneur programs and get benifted.
In trying to elicit a definition - you made clear distinction which can be validated reduce the intent of the social entreprenuer who ab initio is burden with the need to solve or effect a change without first analyzing the extent. However, I appreciate the effort but I believe it is prejudiced by the scale in mind. Small is beautiful and can be sustainable.
Really great clarification about social entrepreneurship, we really liked to read it. We just finished and published our new article about 26 Crazy Short Stories About Eccentric Entrepreneurs. We think you would enjoy reading it. Please go through it if you are interested in it!
Social entrepreneurship is an approach by start-up companies and entrepreneurs, in which they develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues. This concept may be applied to a wide range of organizations, which vary in size, aims, and beliefs.
The biggest missing piece here for defining SE was the leveraging of market approaches and dynamics to create a financially sustainable and (often) scalable model for change. SE’s may start small with donor funds, grants, loans etc. but eventually if they want to scale with a self-sustainable model they need to have a business model that drives income with impact as well. Without that it’s just another non-profit giving away money i.e., transferring wealth from those who have it to those who don’t. There is a role for non-profits to play of course and they create impact where market forces (reimagined) cannot, but that is not social entrepreneurship. A definition of SE that misses this crucial piece of leveraging market forces misses a crucial aspect.
RAFI Micro-finance, Inc. provides micro-finance services to underprivileged entrepreneurs. It currently operates in the provinces of Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte with 216 branches and serving more than 63,000 households.
RAFI MFI has since empowered more than 360,902 micro-entrepreneurs in underserved and vulnerable communities across the country. In 2019, it has supported the livelihood of 258,040 micro-entrepreneurs and maintained a 2.37% portfolio at risk. It also provided medical assistance through its Community Outreach Program, assisting 6,203 clients through performance incentives, mobile doctors, and medical services.
This article was very good. I really inspired by the social work of Sir Muhammad Yunus that he provided $27 from his own pocket to support 42 women and helped them to start their own business.
COMMENTS
BY Jon Griffith
ON March 22, 2007 01:37 PM
This is interesting but unfortunately just completely wrong. The vast majority of entrepreneurs are small. This does not stop them from being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. The vast majority are small. This does not stop them from being social entrepreneurs. How big or influential they become is entirely irrelevant to their status, as it is with entrepreneurs generally. Treating the extent of their growth or influence as an indicator of their status is a category error, like saying only large buildings with penthouses are really buildings, and my house therefore doesn’t count as a building. Similarly many entrepreneurs fail. This doesn’t stop them being entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. Many will fail. This doesn’t stop them being social entrepreneurs. The above argument applies. There may be some conceivably valid reasons for wanting a definition, such as the one given at the end of the article - that people will be confused if you don’t - but this reason has nothing to do with the size or influence or success of social entrepreneurs.
BY Liam
ON May 5, 2007 03:47 AM
Sorry I’m a bit late to this.
I thought the article was very interesting and loved its clarity and willingness to make judgements. There is way too much wooly, pink and fluffy group hug thinking around this subjcet.
But I’m with Jon. I think you’re mistaken. If Skoll Foundation only wants to fund people who can go big, that’s fine. It’s your money. You will need to find and refine ways of better guessing (and that’s all it can be) which of your applicants can get to the scale you want. Fine.
But to then so limit the defintion of ‘social entrepreneur’ that it only applies to people who get to the scale you define as appropriate is, as we say in London, well out of order mate! Funders have a long track record of wanting to impose their agendas often believing in good faith they know best. To want now to even set limits around the language people use to define themselves is futile and counterproductive.
Social entrepreneurship is a continuum and people who get to scale dont always have this as their priority when they start out. They are no less socially entrepreneurial when they start than when they have created mature big impact agencies.
Be careful Skoll Foundation. Your world forum in Oxford is already beginning to feel like a self congratulatory gathering of the big foundation backed elite. That’s how capital and power works. Surely, we need to be very different.
BY Rory Ridley-Duff
ON August 30, 2008 02:57 PM
Roger/Sally, and Jon and Liam,
This is a helpful contribution to the debate, and captures some of the variation between traditional (economic) entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. I am, however, with the other commentators in thinking the article only scratches the surface. Speaking as a social entrepreneur for over a decade, followed by academic life of almost a decade (to date!), the article resonates with my motivations and research findings in only a partial way.
My view is that the article has three shortcomings. Firstly, it is a hopelessly romantic view of entrepreneurship itself. As both Roger Spear’s and Molly Cato’s recent journal articles argue, traditional definitions of entrepreneurship deny major aspects of most entrepreneur’s lived experiences. In particular, a significant amount of entrepreneurial activity (around 50%) takes place in conditions of adversity that is not actively sought by the entrepreneur. Many people don’t set out to be entrepreneurs: instead they are faced with specific life problems that are navigated by adopting entrepreneurial responses as a matter of survival. Secondly, as Roger / Molly / Morrison / Pam Seanor and myself have argued ad infinitum, the collective aspects of entrepreneurship in the social economy are denied or ignored by the individualistic orientation articulate above. Lastly, the article fails as the most fundamental level - social entrepreneurship has a different philosophical root for many of those adopting the term that departs significantly from traditional thinking about economics.
It helps to navigate this argument if we prefix entrepreneurship appropriately. If we put the word ‘economic’ in front of it to describe traditional entrepreneurship we get some clarity. “Economic entrepreneurship” draws on “economic rationality” and focuses on task efficiency. In the above article, even though the authors attempt to modify the value proposition so that it is driven by a social mission rather than capital accumulation, the ideological superstructure they retain draws on economic rationality (efficiency savings in the way that social benefits are delivered to the poor and marginalised). This does capture the motives of some people calling themselves “social entrepreneurs”, but misses the motivations that incline many others.
For me (and those I used to work with) social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality - a completely different philosophical perspective that priortises human relationships above task-efficiency. In short, there are times we can justifiably performing a task less efficiently if the upside of doing so is the strengthening of a social and community relationships. Ultimately, doing so internalises the social costs of trading and does not externalise them where they have to be picked up by governments and charities.
To illustrate the thinking, it is worth considering the comments of Father Arizmendiarietta, who helped establish the Mondragon co-operatives in the 1950s. He maintained that capitalism was grounded in economic rationality, and this produced a system in which economic outcomes were prioritised, with education and human relationships organised to help achieve economic goals (i.e. subordinated to capital accumulation). In contrast, co-operativism was grounded in social rationality. This produces a system in which social outcomes are prioritised, with economic action is deployed as a means of educating people in the skills needed to sustain their communities. In short, economic activity is selectively chosen entrepreneurs where it supports the development of human relationships and human life, not the other way around.
This changes not just the value proposition of entrepreneurship, but also the ideological and institutional superstructures needed to support it. We see this in phrases such as “capital subordinated to the needs of labour” rather than “labour subordinated to the needs of capital” (see the definition of “social enterprise” that fronts Wikipedia’s take on the concept). These phrases still permeate the employee-ownership and co-operative movements, but less so in the charity approach to social enterprise.
Following on from this is the communal, rather than individualistic, orientation of many social entrepreneurs. It is a ‘relational’ philosophy in which rationality that focusses only on task efficiency is secondary whenever this conflicts with the relational needs of human beings. Once the social is placed before the economic, many activities that might be seen as efficient from an economic perspective don’t stack up. The product (outcome) of social entrepreneurship is framed to positively affect social relations (and these need not be confined only to those who are poor, disadvantaged or marginalised politically). Community buidling, therefore, is a product of social entrepreneurship. It’s product goes well beyond products or services delivered in a market to the internal relations created within the enterprise, and also the relations created between the enterprise and its stakeholders.
All the best
Rory Ridley-Duff (Dr)
Senior Lecturer
Sheffield Hallam University
http://www.roryridleyduff.com
BY Mark Lewis
ON November 12, 2008 11:38 AM
Here in Texas where social entrepreneurs characterized by any of the intricately defined qualities discussed above are about as rare as a snowstorn in July, I’ve spent a good deal of time over the last few years trying to educate people ranging from small startup business owners to Fortune 1000 executives on what the term means and more importantly, why they should care. Having ultimately settled for the concept that social entrepreneurs are simply people who use principles of business innovation and management to create and advance social change by generating their own financial sustainability, I’ve finally concluded that social entrepreneurship is a lot like porn;
I’m not sure I can always define it, but I know it when I see it.
This discussion frames qualifying characterisitcs in terms of impact and scale, the finer points of which I won’t debate since others have done so already. Perhaps the true value we should be seeking however, is not rooted in overly wooden definitions, but rather in looking for ways we can motivate and empower more people who don’t have MBA’s from Stanford or Harvard to become change agents in the soical landscape. To that end, Arthur C. Brooks from Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Business has noted that denomination of returns is the primary difference between social and economic entrepreneurs, adding that the United States has approximately 1.5 million registered NPO’s and an estimated 9 million grassroots business enterprises generating social impact that are not formally contructed as social enterprise businesses. The vast majority of these people have probably never heard the term, let alone able to define it.
All the MBA’s in the world can not touch the impact created by the humble Base of Pyramid economic participants pursuing small ventures and utilizing their economic influence to change the communities they live in because these visionaries are bred through the hunger for meaning that usually only comes to those who are motivated to change their own reality as well as that of others. In Dallas I focus on drilling into the business communities where passion pursuits play out in social change as the resulting quotient of financial profit, and seek to empower with resources the people most likely to be using their businesses to help others. If you’re truly looking for scale…look no farther than the millions of African American women who are starting new business ventures 5 times faster than the rest of the US economy and making a tangible social difference with the financial returns they generate. Since 2004 I’ve spoken to over a thousand of them and have yet to find one who was not a change agent at heart.
THAT is what I call fertile soil for impact.
Mark Lewis
CEO
Strategic Business Intelligence Group
Dallas
BY SueEllen Lorene Lawton
ON January 5, 2009 05:58 PM
I am a returning graduate student trying to write a paper on this very topic—Defining Social Entrepreneurship. There are 2 differences is your definition in the article that I am finding in conflict with other definitions that I’ve found. It seems that an organization such as the Skoll Foundation should certainly carry significant weight in the defining this movement, but I know that the movement itself started long before the Skoll Foundation. In any case, I am in hearty agreement with the notion that Social Entrepreneurship really does need to be distinctly defined and for all of the good reasons that you cite in your article.
As Mark Lewis mentions above, there is also wide perception that Social Entrepreneurship can extend to for-profit enterprises in addition to nonprofit. As far back as 1977, in Chamberlain’s Remaking American Values, he uses the term in reference to the idea that for-profit businesses should re-think the way they do business to more positively affect social and environmental purposes. There are now widespread efforts for “Green” business practices, and socially responsible trade and manufacturing, etc. Do these efforts not fall into Social Entrepreneurship? If not, perhaps we should coin a better term for them to distinguish them from nonprofit social entrepreneurs?
Secondly, one criterion that you did not specifically mention as a characteristic of Social Entrepreneurship, which Lewis also alludes to, is financial sustainability. I have always understood financial sustainability to be a defining factor in Social Entrepreneurs, but perhaps I am wrong? If so, please clarify why this is not a defining criterion.
Thank you for all you are doing.
SueEllen Lawton
BY Sam Amernton
ON February 2, 2011 10:32 PM
For me social entrepreneurship was grounded in social rationality - a completely different philosophical perspective that priortizes human relationships above task-efficiency. In short, there are times we can justifiably performing a task less efficiently if the upside of doing so is the strengthening of a social and community relationships. Ultimately, doing so internalizes the social costs of trading and does not externalize them where they have to be picked up by governments and charities.
To illustrate the thinking, it is worth considering the comments of Father Arizmendiarietta, who helped establish the Mondragon co-operatives in the 1950s. He maintained that capitalism was grounded in economic rationality, and this produced a system in which economic outcomes were prioritized, with education and human relationships organized to help achieve economic goals (i.e. subordinated to capital accumulation). In contrast, co-operativism was grounded in social rationality. This produces a system in which social outcomes are prioritized, with economic action is deployed as a means of educating people in the skills needed to sustain their communities. In short, economic activity is selectively chosen entrepreneurs where it supports the development of human relationships and human life, not the other way around.
BY Steve Monahan
ON May 3, 2011 08:14 AM
We kill 4 million animals in our Shelters each year. I believe I can end that tragedy and so created an organization to accomplish that. Am I a dreamer or a social entrepreneur?
BY monaq
ON September 26, 2011 12:28 AM
payday loans
Since both articles and Roger Spear last stand Molly Cato Journal, traditional definitions of entrepreneurship to deny the main aspects of the experience of most contractors. In particular, a significant amount of business activity (50%) takes place under conditions of adversity which is not actively sought by the contractor.
BY Ron
ON February 12, 2012 09:15 PM
As we move forward into what I predict will be a long period of world-wide economic strife and social unrest, the corporations and businesses that survive will need to be more responsive their the world around them. Corporate greed will be viewed for what it is, and with any luck we’ll bring back public floggings.
BY Parvin
ON March 20, 2012 10:43 AM
I have written the definition of the social entreprenuriealship, my question is existing of social
enterprise applying the tools
Parvin esmail.
BY Nikki
ON March 25, 2013 03:12 PM
A compelling and thought provoking article and certainly one which requires bookmarking for future reference. Many thanks for the contribution.
BY Felix Oldenburg
ON February 2, 2014 08:26 AM
Increasingly, I find that social entrepreneurs are defined (mostly by investors) by their income strategy, which is severely limiting. Read http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2012/07/20/define-social-entrepreneurs-by-their-impact-not-their-income-strategy/
BY Gavin Melles
ON September 3, 2014 08:51 PM
One of the big questions, irrespective of scale, that I keep hearing about in India and Australia is real impact measures. There are existing frameworks for measuring social impact, some of the look like versions of economic CBA and that’s ok. But whatever more robust focused evaluation tools and methods are required, including to explain when things have failed why.
BY Alain Kongo
ON October 12, 2014 11:22 AM
Beautiful introduction to Social Entrepreneurship!
Social Entrepreneurship is indeed the way forward!
For a thorough presentation of Social Entrepreneurship and the impact it will have on the future of humanity,
I strongly recommend a recent book, Social Entrepreneurship, The Secret to Starting a Business Worth Living For.
A good review of the book can be found Here.
BY Nicola Grace
ON November 25, 2014 11:39 PM
I have seen coaches in social media refer to themselves as social entrepreneurs, which is weird. I would think of Social Entrepreneurship as the act of using a for profit business model to solve some social, planetary or environmental problem. The bottom line is not just measured in profit for the social entrepreneur, it’s measured in terms of the triple bottom line – People, Planet & Prosperity.
BY Ross D. Hopkins
ON December 8, 2014 01:00 AM
My concern would be that financial institutions will try to exploit Social Enterprise & entrepreneurs. To prop up their failing global monetary system, that is un-sustainable.
BY Bruno Sterenberg
ON January 5, 2015 11:26 AM
Amazing article, but one concern:
Despite all the definitions, there were few mentions to NGO’s and non-profits that work on a donation-based system - therefore, NOT social entrepreneurs (but potentially change-makers, as Ashoka defines, i.e.).
The main threat to social entrepreneurship is the idea that we are now calling non-profits and NGO’s something else just because these types of organizations already “saturated” their markets (low credibility).
BY Linda Robins, [url=http://msxboxlivegoldcodes.com]http://msxboxlivegoldcodes.com[/url]
ON February 22, 2015 02:42 AM
Well the goal of Social Entrepreneurship is to make the society a better place and much needed in under developed countries where government policies are not so effective. Organization like Ashoka are doing great work.
The interesting thing is we come to see new and interesting innovations because of limited resources. Such innovations can help to change the society. I saw ayoung entrepreneur on TEDx from India evolved a instant testing machine for some flu which saved lots of lives across the world. Such can only happen when you see the need of it and when you are involved in problem solving. Social Entrepreneurship definitely takes you into problem solving instead of just watching and cursing governments.
BY dr.zaar
ON September 30, 2015 02:58 PM
Its a great article as a case of establishing a definition and offshoots of socially motivated ventures. i disagree with all those who have commented as in their responses, they have criticized aspects irrelevant with the article. The writers are going East, and the comments heading West. They have cited examples to create a demarcation between three concepts: social entrepreneurship, social activism and social service providers….I have all three ingredients in my business as they represent three different mentalities, and I deal with them, monitor them, and lead them according to the perception of the targeted market segment.
BY talent bara
ON October 4, 2015 05:24 AM
Its a great article as a case of establishing a definition and offshoots of socially motivated ventures. i disagree with all those who have commented as in their responses, they have criticized aspects irrelevant with the article. The writers are going East, and the comments heading West. They have cited examples to create a demarcation between three concepts: social entrepreneurship, social activism and social service providers….The interesting thing is we come to see new and interesting innovations because of limited resources. Such innovations can help to change the society. I saw ayoung entrepreneur on TEDx from India evolved a instant testing machine for some flu which saved lots of lives across the world. Such can only happen when you see the need of it and when you are involved in problem solving. Social Entrepreneurship definitely takes you into problem solving instead of just watching and cursing governments.
BY bhoj tharay
ON October 5, 2015 07:35 AM
entrepeneurship, be it driven by economic factors,or otherwise, become social in nature,and hence it is very difficult to categorise the term into two distinct categories.a private owner of a small business, motivated by the quest to make profits to sustainhimself and family and probably with the expectations of expanding, becomes social , since his business will be dependent and linked to other,social forces within society, customers, consumers,tax officials etc.It is the entrepeneur obligation, not by his own will, to interact within this sphere.It therefore means that he will be compelled to produce goods or service of a suitable standard, to satisfy the people they are designated for,giving it more social meaning ,in the real world.However social entrepeneurship, can be singled out as a person or group of persons, whose intention to set up an operation,is not wholey and fully profit based, but also fullfills an equilibrum in society that caters for persons and individuals who otherwise may not be inclusive of such.Social entrepeneurship then,can be defined as being entrepeneurial in nature but the results of ventures cannot be judged by profitability in monetary terms alone, but the level of social impact it has on society.
BY Umair Nabeel Ahmad Qureshi
ON October 5, 2015 06:08 PM
Really wonderful article this is. It gave me insight about the real aspects of entrepreneurship with the name of the living legends. Social entrepreneurship is the only way we can serve humanity without the greed of any profit and through honest focus on the human service, profit will start multiplying by itself, we have not to be worried about the profit itself like in the case of real entrepreneurship. So, social entrepreneurship is the only option, I will pursue in the future.
BY Emmanuel Virgillio Yusuf
ON October 5, 2015 09:02 PM
Fascinating and a thought provoking article. Social entrepreneurship is really the way forward. It is a new order for the hope of the world. Nevertheless, it must not necessarily be a big affair. Entrepreneurial is for profit making and Social entrepreneurial is for impacting the society.
BY Azmach Abera
ON October 15, 2015 03:25 AM
It is A wonderful training b/c i get may things and new sights from the reading
BY Cassandria White
ON October 15, 2015 12:14 PM
I think this course should taught in high schools
BY Walter Okyere - Donkor
ON October 17, 2015 01:31 PM
I’m very happy to read this and I’m now with much insights on how to tackle new challenges socially, I love the course its a great help for me.
BY Kimanzi Muthengi
ON November 15, 2015 03:49 AM
Very interesting article -the distinctions made are clear
BY an and mishra
ON February 11, 2017 07:04 PM
Its makes a any business model socialized and established a good social relationship in an organization and in social community , every one get a chance to involved in this types of yong entrepreneur programs and get benifted.
BY TAIWO ADEPOJU
ON May 9, 2017 12:00 PM
In trying to elicit a definition - you made clear distinction which can be validated reduce the intent of the social entreprenuer who ab initio is burden with the need to solve or effect a change without first analyzing the extent. However, I appreciate the effort but I believe it is prejudiced by the scale in mind. Small is beautiful and can be sustainable.
BY Sorenson Impact Center
ON October 1, 2017 12:50 PM
Change w/ outcome-based financing & PFS in disadvantaged communities: John Grossman & Andrea Phillip
BY Patrik Nagypal
ON August 30, 2018 02:29 AM
Really great clarification about social entrepreneurship, we really liked to read it. We just finished and published our new article about 26 Crazy Short Stories About Eccentric Entrepreneurs. We think you would enjoy reading it. Please go through it if you are interested in it!
https://valuer.ai/blog/26-crazy-stories-on-eccentric-entrepreneurs/
BY Manoj Prasad
ON November 17, 2018 12:03 AM
Nowadays Social entrepreneurship is very important to all of us. Social media are playing a very major role in our life.
I have written one blog that tell you how to share your topic on social media.
https://trendinwealth.com/content-marketing-tips/
BY SmmPoint
ON November 28, 2018 02:43 AM
Wow, this is very interesting reading. I found a lot of things which I need. Great job on this content. I like it. https://smmpoint.com/buy-instagram-views/
BY Manoj
ON January 30, 2020 01:54 PM
Social entrepreneurship is an approach by start-up companies and entrepreneurs, in which they develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues. This concept may be applied to a wide range of organizations, which vary in size, aims, and beliefs.
BY reena kapoor
ON June 29, 2021 11:37 AM
The biggest missing piece here for defining SE was the leveraging of market approaches and dynamics to create a financially sustainable and (often) scalable model for change. SE’s may start small with donor funds, grants, loans etc. but eventually if they want to scale with a self-sustainable model they need to have a business model that drives income with impact as well. Without that it’s just another non-profit giving away money i.e., transferring wealth from those who have it to those who don’t. There is a role for non-profits to play of course and they create impact where market forces (reimagined) cannot, but that is not social entrepreneurship. A definition of SE that misses this crucial piece of leveraging market forces misses a crucial aspect.
BY Dr. Sharon Arrindell
ON July 9, 2021 01:41 PM
An amazing post with great tips as always. Anyone will find your post useful. Keep up the good work.
BY Carl Gutierrez
ON October 11, 2021 06:34 PM
RAFI Micro-finance, Inc. provides micro-finance services to underprivileged entrepreneurs. It currently operates in the provinces of Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte with 216 branches and serving more than 63,000 households.
RAFI MFI has since empowered more than 360,902 micro-entrepreneurs in underserved and vulnerable communities across the country. In 2019, it has supported the livelihood of 258,040 micro-entrepreneurs and maintained a 2.37% portfolio at risk. It also provided medical assistance through its Community Outreach Program, assisting 6,203 clients through performance incentives, mobile doctors, and medical services.
https://rafi.org.ph/focus-areas/micro-finance/
BY Bhavneet Singh
ON October 29, 2021 04:55 PM
This article was very good. I really inspired by the social work of Sir Muhammad Yunus that he provided $27 from his own pocket to support 42 women and helped them to start their own business.