Sunday 26 July 2009 4:32:43 pm

All, found this excellent article from Stanford University about Social Entrepreneurship which distinguishes social entrepreneurship from other kinds of action people can take to solve social problems. It contrasts well-known examples in the business world (Apple) and social entrepreneurship world (Grameen Bank) to try and come up with a proper definition of what's new about the way people like ourselves are acting today:

http://www.skollfoundation.org/me...docs/2007SP_feature_martinosberg.pdf

Anyway, if I understand it correctly they argue that social entrepreneurship - as they define it - has the dual benefits of both:

(i) acting directly at the cause of the problem, and
(ii) disruptively creating a new way of doing things.

They also include both for-profit and not-for-profit in the definition of social entrepreneurship, which seems right to me.

What does everyone think?

 Alert moderator

Tuesday 28 July 2009 7:21:56 pm

I like the "disruptive" part of the definition - that for me is what social entrepreneurship is all about (or any "real" entrepreneurship). You have to break the model.

 Alert moderator

Tuesday 11 August 2009 5:26:21 pm

By the way, here's a definition from the great entrepreneur Guy Kawasaki's blog:
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/09/social-entrepre.html#axzz0NtNAPvLB

PS to all you fellow entrepreneurs, try following him on http://twitter.com/GuyKawasaki - or read "The Art Of The Start" - top guy.

 Alert moderator

Thursday 13 August 2009 11:23:19 am

Luke, that definition's pretty accurate as well I'd say. By the way, good luck with the competition and nice to see another Barcelona entry.

Re doing something to maintain the sustainable/ethical/green nature of such enterprises, I think there's certainly a need there. The question is also how that need should be met. On the one hand, for green social enterprises, for example, it's clear that some level of governance is required if we are to reach an adequate standard to meet the needs of the environment (e.g. ISO 14000, or carbon emissions targets for companies). As any economist might tell you, the environment is a prime example of market failure, so without concerted intervention at an international level, you get nowhere. (Hence the need for this competition...)

However, at the same time, I would be keen to avoid the heavy hand of interventionist governments - and we have a lot here in Europe, let's face it - strangling startups with red tape at that very delicate time when they're trying to grow. Governments haven't got a very good history when it comes to defining key elements of corporate strategy.

So on balance, my vote would be for some basic structure around the "social entrepreneur" concept, particularly if it were to qualify for public grants. But - light!

Comments anyone?

Regards

Rob

 Alert moderator