I've come across social entrepreneurship being defined as a "'third way' – income-generating charities that did not depend wholly on public coffers but dealt with the increasing number of social problems that defied government solutions." [source]
Some random thoughts:
- Hong Kong's definition of social entrepreneurship is relatively narrow. This link to the government's funding projects shows that the government is only interested in poverty alleviation, help for the disabled and (gasp) heritage preservation. These are hugely crucial issues for sure, but it also leaves a lot untouched.
- Heropreneurship. I like this term a lot, because it describes a crazy new aspiration for high-achieving individuals - instead of becoming a just a regular CEO, high-income investment banker or the like, many now want to be social entrepreneur "rockstars". Walking in the shoes of those one's company is supposed to help is important advice.
- Social entrepreneurship awards, groups, media attention and so on. It's not that I don't feel that people should be awarded for their work, but the ego element can be too much. Exchanging, socialising with groups of likeminded people is important and often a source of energy and support when you feel burned out, but can sometimes feel like some kind of elitist club where everyone is patting each other on the back for being so virtuous. The media attention is also good for promoting your cause, but the other edge of the sword means the entrepreneur, not the people s/he is helping, is in the spotlight, again highlighting the heropreneurship syndrome.
- Funding. How does a business, whose main goal is to provide social impact, make enough money to attract investors? If the investors are not interested in returns, then isn't it practically a charity? And like a charity, when your funds run out, you have to go out asking for more. This model seems warped and totally against the idea of a social enterprise, which should be financially self-sustaining. Perhaps one can start with just one initial bundle, and aim to be self-sustaining from then on, but isn't the initial injection just philanthropy then? Can social businesses be kickstarted without philanthropy? The only solutions I can see, is that perhaps social start-ups can take a page out of the bootstrapping book, or take a look at the crowdfunding model (and deliver a small good/service that is of value to its funders - the "small" part is how it would be different from VC capital, since traditional VCs would want sizable returns) and other start-up models that don't involve VCs or angels. I really dislike that the start-up ecology is so centred around VC these days - there are so many other ways to start a business, and the idea that a valuation and/or capital raised is the holy grail is just so unsavoury to me. But that's another story for another day.
- There is a huge difference between a business that maximises profits by any and all means - exploitation, destruction etc. - then gives to charity, and a businesses that is for-profit and ensures that social benefit is integral to the process. The former is what a lot of huge corporations in our current model of capitalism think is fine to do, and the latter is what I would see as social entrepreneurship.
- The term "social entrepreneurship" has been overused. Like any overused term, we need to go back to the core of what it means and not try to drag in anything and everything vaguely related into it. We could give it another name, but wouldn't the same happen down the line?
