The meaning of social entrepreneurship (The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship)
From the translator . For three years now I have been engaged in the development of the Internet-service of gratuitous gift - giving. And all this time I am trying to understand what the essence of our “business” is, is it normal that the basis of the motivation of our activity is a persistent desire to realize our mission , and not to create a successful commercial enterprise? Everyone is talking about business startups, investment rounds, business strategies. And when you tell someone about how the Internet can change society, its traditions and culture, without resorting to violence, no one finds a response, you still need to be asked "where's the money?". At some point in time, I learned that there is such a thing as “social entrepreneurship.” This is my translation - one of the attempts to figure out what it is, how to live and work with it.
Publication author: J. Gregory Dees, director of the Center for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University (USA). The original text was written on October 31, 1998, edited on May 30, 2001.
The idea of ​​"social entrepreneurship" has touched the hearts of many people. This phrase is the best suited for our time. It combines a passion for social mission with business-like discipline. It is also quite often associated with innovators, for example, such as high-tech pioneers from Silicon Valley. It is definitely time for an entrepreneurial approach to social issues. Many government and charitable efforts are far from meeting our expectations. The basic institutions of the social sector are often incompetent, ineffective and unresponsive. And today we need social entrepreneurs to develop new models for the new century.
The language of social entrepreneurship may be new, but this phenomenon itself has long been known. Social entrepreneurs have always existed, although they were never called. These people originally built many of those institutions that we now take for granted. Nevertheless, the new name plays an important role, because it implies the erosion of the former boundaries of different fields of activity. In addition to innovative non-profit enterprises, social entrepreneurship can also include socially-oriented businesses (such as the development banking community), or various kinds of hybrid organizations that combine commercial and non-commercial elements (for example, shelters for homeless people, in which the business is based on training and employing their wards). The new language allows social entrepreneurs to expand the former field of activity and find even more effective methods for realizing their social mission.
')
While the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is gaining popularity, different people interpret this phrase differently, causing confusion. Many associate social entrepreneurship exclusively with non-profit enterprises that become commercial or begin to make a profit. Others use this term to describe only the activities of those who organize non-profit enterprises. Thirdly, this phrase means the business that integrates the principles of social responsibility into its business processes. So what does “social entrepreneurship” really mean? What does it take to be a “social entrepreneur”? To answer these questions, you should refer to the origins of the word "entrepreneur".
In common parlance, becoming an entrepreneur means starting a business. But this is a very loose application of a term with a rich history and endowed with a much deeper meaning. The word "entrepreneur" (interpreter) originates in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In France, they begin to call those who undertake a significant project or business. More specifically, this concept is used to denote brave souls who find new and better ways to do things, thereby stimulating economic progress. The introduction of the word “entrepreneur” with this particular meaning to the lexicon is most often attributed to the French economist Jean Baptist Say. At the beginning of the 19th century, he spoke as follows: "The entrepreneur moves economic resources from a lower productivity area to a higher productivity and income area." Those. The entrepreneur is the one who creates value.
The economist most associated with this term in the 20th century was Josef Schumpeter. He described entrepreneurs as innovators moving the "constructive-destructive" process of capitalism. According to him, "the function of the entrepreneur is to reform or revolutionize the structure of production." And they can do it in a variety of ways: “by applying any inventions in production, or speaking more generally, by using untested technological possibilities for the production of new goods or for the production of old goods by new ways, opening new sources of raw materials or new distribution channels , reorganizing the production process itself, etc. ”Schumpeter’s entrepreneur is an agent of change in the economy. By opening new markets or creating new ways of producing things, they are moving the economy forward.
It is true that the entrepreneurs described by Say and Schumpeter performed their function starting a new, profit-oriented business, but in itself the discovery of such a business is not the essence of entrepreneurship. Although other economists may use this term with different variations of meaning, the tradition of Say-Schumpeter, describing entrepreneurs as catalysts and innovators of economic progress, is the basis for the modern use of this term.
Modern authors of books on management and business demonstrate a wide range of theories of entrepreneurship. However, many of the leading thinkers remain faithful to the tradition of Say-Schumpeter, offering their own variations on this subject. For example, in his attempt to understand what is most important for an entrepreneur, Peter Drucker begins by defining Say, but then focuses the thought on the notion of opportunity. Drucker does not require entrepreneurs to be the cause of change, but sees in them those who use the opportunities that change (in technology, consumer preferences, social norms, etc.) create. He writes: “This is what is key for the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur is always looking for change, reacting to them and using them as an opportunity. The concept of “opportunity” has become central in many modern definitions of entrepreneurship. This is how today's management theorists interpret Say’s thought about moving resources to higher-income areas. In this sense, “opportunity”, apparently, means the ability to create value. Entrepreneurs have a mindset that sees opportunities rather than problems created by change.
For Drucker, starting a new business is neither necessary nor sufficient for entrepreneurship. He unequivocally asserts that: “not every new small business is an enterprise”, and cites as a confirming example “the business of a husband and wife who open another grocery store or another Mexican restaurant in some American suburb”. Something especially innovative or somehow oriented to change is not here at all. The similar logic is true for the created non-profit organizations. Not every new organization will necessarily be entrepreneurial. Drucker also makes it clear that the mercenary motive is not a prerequisite for entrepreneurship. In his book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker states: “For the history of entrepreneurship, you cannot find a better example than an example about the creation of a modern university, and in particular, a modern American university.” He then explains how important this innovation was at one time. A little later in the same book, he devotes a chapter to entrepreneurship in the field of public institutions.
Howard Stevenson, a leading theorist in entrepreneurship at the Harvard Business School, added an additional element of ingenuity to the definition of opportunity-based entrepreneurship. At the same time, he relied on his research, in which he tried to determine what distinguishes entrepreneurial management from the more common forms of administrative management. After he revealed a few key differences, he proposed to describe the essence of entrepreneurial management as “chasing the opportunity without taking into account the resources that you currently have”. He found that businessmen not only see and pursue opportunities that elude administrative management, they also do not allow the resources given to them to restrict their freedom of choice. Borrowing a quote from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, we can say that their aspirations exceed their capabilities (their reach exceeds their grasp). Entrepreneurs mobilize the resources of others to achieve their business goals. Administrators, on the other hand, allow their existing resources and their job descriptions to determine their vision and behavior. And again, we have another definition of entrepreneurship, which is not limited to the notion of a business startup.
The ideas of Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson are attractive because they are easily applicable both in the social sector and in business. They describe the way of thinking and the type of behavior that can be proclaimed anywhere. In a world where the boundaries of business areas are blurred, this is a great achievement. And we should build our understanding of social entrepreneurship based on this strong tradition of research and theories about entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are one of the types of entrepreneurs. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. Because of this mission, they encounter some special problems. And this should take into account the definition that we, as a result, will give to such entrepreneurs.
For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is always clearly expressed and is at the center of their activities. This clearly affects how social entrepreneurs perceive and evaluate opportunities. Influencing the world through the attainment of their mission becomes for them the main criterion, and not the acquisition of wealth. Wealth is only a means to achieve the ultimate goal. For businessmen, acquired wealth is a way to measure value created. This is because businessmen are subjects of the market system, which for the most part determines whether they create value. If they do not move resources into an area of ​​more economically productive use, they can be pushed out of business.
Markets are imperfect, but in the long run they work quite well as a test for creating individual value, especially for creating value for consumers who are willing and able to pay for it. The ability of a businessman to attract resources (capital, labor, equipment, etc.) in a competitive market is certainly a good indicator that the company offers more productive use of these resources than those with whom it competes. The logic is simple. Businessmen who can pay the most for the same resources are usually the ones who can use these resources to produce more value determined by the market. Value is created by a business when consumers are willing to pay more than the cost of producing a given product or service. The profit (revenue minus costs) that an enterprise brings is certainly a good indicator of the value it creates. If a businessman cannot convince a sufficient number of consumers to pay an adequate price to make a profit, this is a reliable sign that insufficient value is created that does not justify the value of resources invested in production. The redeployment of resources occurs naturally, because firms that do not create enough value cannot then buy enough resources and attract capital. They leave the business. Firms that create the greatest economic value, have the money to attract the resources necessary for growth.
But markets do not work well for social entrepreneurs either. In particular, markets cannot measure the value of social improvements, public goods, and benefits for people who cannot afford to pay. All these elements are often inherent in social entrepreneurship, and they are what make it so. As a result, it is much more difficult to determine whether a social entrepreneur creates enough value to justify the resources invested in its production. The survival or growth of a social enterprise is not proof of its effectiveness or an indicator of its success in improving social well-being. As a rule, this is only a very weak indicator.
Social entrepreneurs operate in the markets, but these markets are often not an adequate environment for them. Many socially-oriented organizations charge fees for their services. They also compete for donations, volunteers and other types of support. But the organization of these “markets” is often in no way connected with the mission of a social entrepreneur. It all depends on who pays the contributions, who provides the resources, what are the motives of these people, how well they can measure the social value produced by the organization. The social value created is generally difficult to measure. How much social value is created when pollution of a given water stream decreases, when a spotted owl escapes from extinction, when a service for communicating with old people is created? Counting is not only complicated, but also debatable. Even if improvements can be measured, it is often difficult to attribute them to a specific effect. Has the crime rate decreased due to public patrols, thanks to new police techniques, or simply because of improvements in the economy? And even if improvements can be measured and attributed to a given specific impact, often social entrepreneurs cannot translate the value they create into an economic form to pay for the resources they used. From whom should they demand payment for cleaning the water flow or for organizing a national patrol? How can they make everyone who gets some benefit pay? To compensate for this problem of accounting for the value produced, social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies, donations and volunteers, but this will only cloud the water of the market environment in the future. The ability to attract all these charitable resources may be a kind of indicator of the value produced for the suppliers of these resources, but relying on this indicator is also not very good. The mental satisfaction of people who donate or offer their help as a volunteer is very poorly connected with real social impact, if at all.
In order to define social entrepreneurship, we must take into account that in this definition we need to replace with something a market system that works well only for business entrepreneurs. We cannot assume that the market system will automatically sift out social enterprises that use resources inefficiently. The following definition focuses on discipline and responsibility, combining it with the concept of Say's value being created, the innovations and agents of change of Schumpeter, the pursuit of Drucker's capabilities and the inventiveness of Stevenson. So, we can briefly formulate the definition of a social entrepreneur as follows.
A social entrepreneur plays the role of an agent of change in the social sector, thanks to the fact that he:
Social entrepreneurs are reformers and revolutionaries, as Schumpeter described them, but with their own social mission. They make fundamental changes in how things are done in the social sector. They boldly look to the future. They act on the true causes of the problems, rather than treating the symptoms. Often they reduce needs, rather than just satisfy them. They aim to create system changes and sustainable improvements. Although they can act locally, their activities have the potential to provoke global improvements in their chosen areas, be it education, health care, economic development, ecology, art, or any other social sphere.
This is a key moment that distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs and even from socially responsible business. For a social entrepreneur, a social mission is at the core. This is a mission of social improvement, and it cannot be seized in the name of producing individual values ​​(financial gains or consumer benefits). Making a profit, creating wealth, or satisfying consumer desires can all be part of a model, but only a means to achieve a social goal, not an end in itself. Profit is not a measure of value creation, nor is consumer satisfaction; such a measure is social impact itself. Social entrepreneurs are looking for a long-term social return on investment. Social entrepreneurs want more than a quick result, they want a lasting and sustainable improvement. They think about sustained exposure.
Where others see problems, social entrepreneurs see opportunities. Their behavior is due not so much to the perception of social need and compassion, but to the fact that they have a vision of how to achieve improvement, and they are determined to make their vision work. They are stubborn. The models that they develop and the approaches that they apply can make changes and often do create them, because entrepreneurs learn what works and what does not. The key element is perseverance, combined with a willingness to make amendments along the way. And when there is an obstacle on the way, entrepreneurs do not give up what they have begun, but ask: “How can we overcome this obstacle? How can we make it work? ”
Entrepreneurs are innovative. They discover new lands, develop new models and apply new approaches. However, as Schumpeter observed, innovation can take many forms. Innovation does not have to be something completely unknown, it can be a simple application of an existing idea in a new place or in a new situation. Entrepreneurs do not need to be inventors. They just need to be able to creatively apply what others invent. Their innovations can manifest themselves in how they structure their core program, or how they attract resources, or how they finance their work. On the financial side, social entrepreneurs seek innovative approaches to ensure that their business has access to resources as long as it creates social value. This willingness to be innovative is part of the entrepreneurial mode of action. This is not just a one-time burst of creativity. It is a continuous process of learning, learning and correction. And of course, innovation always comes with uncertainty and the risk of failure. Entrepreneurs tend to be highly resilient to uncertainties and learn to manage their own and other people's risks. They perceive failure in the project as an educational experience, and not as a personal tragedy.
Social entrepreneurs do not allow their limited resources to restrain their vision. They have the skill to make a lot of small means, to attract the resources of others. They effectively use their own scarce resources and multiply them by attracting partners and collaborating with others. They explore all the possibilities for attracting resources: from pure charity to commercial business methods. They are not limited to the norms and traditions of their field of activity. They develop a variety of strategies to attract resources that can support and strengthen their social mission. They carefully weigh all the risks and manage the weaknesses of the case to reduce the harm that can cause failure. They understand how willing to risk each of the participants in the case and use their understanding to transfer risks to those who are better than others to cope with them.
Since the market system does not automatically screen out inefficient and worthless social enterprises, social entrepreneurs make additional efforts to make sure that they really create value. This means that they seek deep insight from those for whom they work. They monitor how correctly they were able to assess the needs and requirements of the people to whom they provide their services, as well as the communities within which they operate. In some cases, this implies a close relationship with these communities. They also need to understand the expectations and attitudes of their investors, including all those who invest their money in them, time and also who help them. They strive to provide real social improvements for their clients and their communities, as well as attractive social and financial benefits for their investors. Finding a balance between investors' expectations and the needs of the community is an important part of their complex business. When possible, social entrepreneurs create a kind of market feedback mechanisms to reinforce their responsibilities. They measure their progress in terms of social, financial, and managerial outcomes, and not just in terms of their size, performance, and ongoing processes. They use this information to adjust their own course, if necessary.
Social entrepreneurship describes quite uncommon principles of behavior. These principles should be encouraged and nurtured in those who have the ability and temperament for this kind of activity. Then we could achieve much more. Should everyone strive to be a social entrepreneur? Not. Not every good social worker is well suited to being an entrepreneur. And also in business. Not every good businessman is an entrepreneur described by Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson. While we might want more entrepreneurial behavior in both sectors, society needs different types and styles of leaders. Social entrepreneurs are just one of the breeds of leaders, and they should be taken as such. Our definition is intended to emphasize their distinctive features and to show that being a social entrepreneur is not so easy. And we need social entrepreneurs to help us find new ways of social improvements on the threshold of a new century.
Publication author: J. Gregory Dees, director of the Center for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University (USA). The original text was written on October 31, 1998, edited on May 30, 2001.
The idea of ​​"social entrepreneurship" has touched the hearts of many people. This phrase is the best suited for our time. It combines a passion for social mission with business-like discipline. It is also quite often associated with innovators, for example, such as high-tech pioneers from Silicon Valley. It is definitely time for an entrepreneurial approach to social issues. Many government and charitable efforts are far from meeting our expectations. The basic institutions of the social sector are often incompetent, ineffective and unresponsive. And today we need social entrepreneurs to develop new models for the new century.
The language of social entrepreneurship may be new, but this phenomenon itself has long been known. Social entrepreneurs have always existed, although they were never called. These people originally built many of those institutions that we now take for granted. Nevertheless, the new name plays an important role, because it implies the erosion of the former boundaries of different fields of activity. In addition to innovative non-profit enterprises, social entrepreneurship can also include socially-oriented businesses (such as the development banking community), or various kinds of hybrid organizations that combine commercial and non-commercial elements (for example, shelters for homeless people, in which the business is based on training and employing their wards). The new language allows social entrepreneurs to expand the former field of activity and find even more effective methods for realizing their social mission.
')
While the concept of “social entrepreneurship” is gaining popularity, different people interpret this phrase differently, causing confusion. Many associate social entrepreneurship exclusively with non-profit enterprises that become commercial or begin to make a profit. Others use this term to describe only the activities of those who organize non-profit enterprises. Thirdly, this phrase means the business that integrates the principles of social responsibility into its business processes. So what does “social entrepreneurship” really mean? What does it take to be a “social entrepreneur”? To answer these questions, you should refer to the origins of the word "entrepreneur".
The origin of the word "entrepreneur"
In common parlance, becoming an entrepreneur means starting a business. But this is a very loose application of a term with a rich history and endowed with a much deeper meaning. The word "entrepreneur" (interpreter) originates in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In France, they begin to call those who undertake a significant project or business. More specifically, this concept is used to denote brave souls who find new and better ways to do things, thereby stimulating economic progress. The introduction of the word “entrepreneur” with this particular meaning to the lexicon is most often attributed to the French economist Jean Baptist Say. At the beginning of the 19th century, he spoke as follows: "The entrepreneur moves economic resources from a lower productivity area to a higher productivity and income area." Those. The entrepreneur is the one who creates value.
The economist most associated with this term in the 20th century was Josef Schumpeter. He described entrepreneurs as innovators moving the "constructive-destructive" process of capitalism. According to him, "the function of the entrepreneur is to reform or revolutionize the structure of production." And they can do it in a variety of ways: “by applying any inventions in production, or speaking more generally, by using untested technological possibilities for the production of new goods or for the production of old goods by new ways, opening new sources of raw materials or new distribution channels , reorganizing the production process itself, etc. ”Schumpeter’s entrepreneur is an agent of change in the economy. By opening new markets or creating new ways of producing things, they are moving the economy forward.
It is true that the entrepreneurs described by Say and Schumpeter performed their function starting a new, profit-oriented business, but in itself the discovery of such a business is not the essence of entrepreneurship. Although other economists may use this term with different variations of meaning, the tradition of Say-Schumpeter, describing entrepreneurs as catalysts and innovators of economic progress, is the basis for the modern use of this term.
Modern Theories of Entrepreneurship
Modern authors of books on management and business demonstrate a wide range of theories of entrepreneurship. However, many of the leading thinkers remain faithful to the tradition of Say-Schumpeter, offering their own variations on this subject. For example, in his attempt to understand what is most important for an entrepreneur, Peter Drucker begins by defining Say, but then focuses the thought on the notion of opportunity. Drucker does not require entrepreneurs to be the cause of change, but sees in them those who use the opportunities that change (in technology, consumer preferences, social norms, etc.) create. He writes: “This is what is key for the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur is always looking for change, reacting to them and using them as an opportunity. The concept of “opportunity” has become central in many modern definitions of entrepreneurship. This is how today's management theorists interpret Say’s thought about moving resources to higher-income areas. In this sense, “opportunity”, apparently, means the ability to create value. Entrepreneurs have a mindset that sees opportunities rather than problems created by change.
For Drucker, starting a new business is neither necessary nor sufficient for entrepreneurship. He unequivocally asserts that: “not every new small business is an enterprise”, and cites as a confirming example “the business of a husband and wife who open another grocery store or another Mexican restaurant in some American suburb”. Something especially innovative or somehow oriented to change is not here at all. The similar logic is true for the created non-profit organizations. Not every new organization will necessarily be entrepreneurial. Drucker also makes it clear that the mercenary motive is not a prerequisite for entrepreneurship. In his book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker states: “For the history of entrepreneurship, you cannot find a better example than an example about the creation of a modern university, and in particular, a modern American university.” He then explains how important this innovation was at one time. A little later in the same book, he devotes a chapter to entrepreneurship in the field of public institutions.
Howard Stevenson, a leading theorist in entrepreneurship at the Harvard Business School, added an additional element of ingenuity to the definition of opportunity-based entrepreneurship. At the same time, he relied on his research, in which he tried to determine what distinguishes entrepreneurial management from the more common forms of administrative management. After he revealed a few key differences, he proposed to describe the essence of entrepreneurial management as “chasing the opportunity without taking into account the resources that you currently have”. He found that businessmen not only see and pursue opportunities that elude administrative management, they also do not allow the resources given to them to restrict their freedom of choice. Borrowing a quote from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, we can say that their aspirations exceed their capabilities (their reach exceeds their grasp). Entrepreneurs mobilize the resources of others to achieve their business goals. Administrators, on the other hand, allow their existing resources and their job descriptions to determine their vision and behavior. And again, we have another definition of entrepreneurship, which is not limited to the notion of a business startup.
The difference between business and social entrepreneurship
The ideas of Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson are attractive because they are easily applicable both in the social sector and in business. They describe the way of thinking and the type of behavior that can be proclaimed anywhere. In a world where the boundaries of business areas are blurred, this is a great achievement. And we should build our understanding of social entrepreneurship based on this strong tradition of research and theories about entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are one of the types of entrepreneurs. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. Because of this mission, they encounter some special problems. And this should take into account the definition that we, as a result, will give to such entrepreneurs.
For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is always clearly expressed and is at the center of their activities. This clearly affects how social entrepreneurs perceive and evaluate opportunities. Influencing the world through the attainment of their mission becomes for them the main criterion, and not the acquisition of wealth. Wealth is only a means to achieve the ultimate goal. For businessmen, acquired wealth is a way to measure value created. This is because businessmen are subjects of the market system, which for the most part determines whether they create value. If they do not move resources into an area of ​​more economically productive use, they can be pushed out of business.
Markets are imperfect, but in the long run they work quite well as a test for creating individual value, especially for creating value for consumers who are willing and able to pay for it. The ability of a businessman to attract resources (capital, labor, equipment, etc.) in a competitive market is certainly a good indicator that the company offers more productive use of these resources than those with whom it competes. The logic is simple. Businessmen who can pay the most for the same resources are usually the ones who can use these resources to produce more value determined by the market. Value is created by a business when consumers are willing to pay more than the cost of producing a given product or service. The profit (revenue minus costs) that an enterprise brings is certainly a good indicator of the value it creates. If a businessman cannot convince a sufficient number of consumers to pay an adequate price to make a profit, this is a reliable sign that insufficient value is created that does not justify the value of resources invested in production. The redeployment of resources occurs naturally, because firms that do not create enough value cannot then buy enough resources and attract capital. They leave the business. Firms that create the greatest economic value, have the money to attract the resources necessary for growth.
But markets do not work well for social entrepreneurs either. In particular, markets cannot measure the value of social improvements, public goods, and benefits for people who cannot afford to pay. All these elements are often inherent in social entrepreneurship, and they are what make it so. As a result, it is much more difficult to determine whether a social entrepreneur creates enough value to justify the resources invested in its production. The survival or growth of a social enterprise is not proof of its effectiveness or an indicator of its success in improving social well-being. As a rule, this is only a very weak indicator.
Social entrepreneurs operate in the markets, but these markets are often not an adequate environment for them. Many socially-oriented organizations charge fees for their services. They also compete for donations, volunteers and other types of support. But the organization of these “markets” is often in no way connected with the mission of a social entrepreneur. It all depends on who pays the contributions, who provides the resources, what are the motives of these people, how well they can measure the social value produced by the organization. The social value created is generally difficult to measure. How much social value is created when pollution of a given water stream decreases, when a spotted owl escapes from extinction, when a service for communicating with old people is created? Counting is not only complicated, but also debatable. Even if improvements can be measured, it is often difficult to attribute them to a specific effect. Has the crime rate decreased due to public patrols, thanks to new police techniques, or simply because of improvements in the economy? And even if improvements can be measured and attributed to a given specific impact, often social entrepreneurs cannot translate the value they create into an economic form to pay for the resources they used. From whom should they demand payment for cleaning the water flow or for organizing a national patrol? How can they make everyone who gets some benefit pay? To compensate for this problem of accounting for the value produced, social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies, donations and volunteers, but this will only cloud the water of the market environment in the future. The ability to attract all these charitable resources may be a kind of indicator of the value produced for the suppliers of these resources, but relying on this indicator is also not very good. The mental satisfaction of people who donate or offer their help as a volunteer is very poorly connected with real social impact, if at all.
Defining "social entrepreneurship"
In order to define social entrepreneurship, we must take into account that in this definition we need to replace with something a market system that works well only for business entrepreneurs. We cannot assume that the market system will automatically sift out social enterprises that use resources inefficiently. The following definition focuses on discipline and responsibility, combining it with the concept of Say's value being created, the innovations and agents of change of Schumpeter, the pursuit of Drucker's capabilities and the inventiveness of Stevenson. So, we can briefly formulate the definition of a social entrepreneur as follows.
A social entrepreneur plays the role of an agent of change in the social sector, thanks to the fact that he:
- Undertakes the mission to create and maintain social value (and not just individual value)
- Is in constant search and realization of new opportunities to achieve this mission.
- Involved in continuous processes of innovation, adaptation and learning
- Acts decisively, not limiting itself only to those resources that are currently available.
- Demonstrates the highest responsibility towards its customers and for the result of its activities.
Agents of change in the social sector
Social entrepreneurs are reformers and revolutionaries, as Schumpeter described them, but with their own social mission. They make fundamental changes in how things are done in the social sector. They boldly look to the future. They act on the true causes of the problems, rather than treating the symptoms. Often they reduce needs, rather than just satisfy them. They aim to create system changes and sustainable improvements. Although they can act locally, their activities have the potential to provoke global improvements in their chosen areas, be it education, health care, economic development, ecology, art, or any other social sphere.
Acceptance of the mission to create and maintain social value
This is a key moment that distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs and even from socially responsible business. For a social entrepreneur, a social mission is at the core. This is a mission of social improvement, and it cannot be seized in the name of producing individual values ​​(financial gains or consumer benefits). Making a profit, creating wealth, or satisfying consumer desires can all be part of a model, but only a means to achieve a social goal, not an end in itself. Profit is not a measure of value creation, nor is consumer satisfaction; such a measure is social impact itself. Social entrepreneurs are looking for a long-term social return on investment. Social entrepreneurs want more than a quick result, they want a lasting and sustainable improvement. They think about sustained exposure.
Continuous search and implementation of new features
Where others see problems, social entrepreneurs see opportunities. Their behavior is due not so much to the perception of social need and compassion, but to the fact that they have a vision of how to achieve improvement, and they are determined to make their vision work. They are stubborn. The models that they develop and the approaches that they apply can make changes and often do create them, because entrepreneurs learn what works and what does not. The key element is perseverance, combined with a willingness to make amendments along the way. And when there is an obstacle on the way, entrepreneurs do not give up what they have begun, but ask: “How can we overcome this obstacle? How can we make it work? ”
Involvement in continuous processes of innovation, adaptation and learning
Entrepreneurs are innovative. They discover new lands, develop new models and apply new approaches. However, as Schumpeter observed, innovation can take many forms. Innovation does not have to be something completely unknown, it can be a simple application of an existing idea in a new place or in a new situation. Entrepreneurs do not need to be inventors. They just need to be able to creatively apply what others invent. Their innovations can manifest themselves in how they structure their core program, or how they attract resources, or how they finance their work. On the financial side, social entrepreneurs seek innovative approaches to ensure that their business has access to resources as long as it creates social value. This willingness to be innovative is part of the entrepreneurial mode of action. This is not just a one-time burst of creativity. It is a continuous process of learning, learning and correction. And of course, innovation always comes with uncertainty and the risk of failure. Entrepreneurs tend to be highly resilient to uncertainties and learn to manage their own and other people's risks. They perceive failure in the project as an educational experience, and not as a personal tragedy.
Decisiveness of action, not limited by resources, that is now
Social entrepreneurs do not allow their limited resources to restrain their vision. They have the skill to make a lot of small means, to attract the resources of others. They effectively use their own scarce resources and multiply them by attracting partners and collaborating with others. They explore all the possibilities for attracting resources: from pure charity to commercial business methods. They are not limited to the norms and traditions of their field of activity. They develop a variety of strategies to attract resources that can support and strengthen their social mission. They carefully weigh all the risks and manage the weaknesses of the case to reduce the harm that can cause failure. They understand how willing to risk each of the participants in the case and use their understanding to transfer risks to those who are better than others to cope with them.
Responsibility to our customers and for the result of their activities
Since the market system does not automatically screen out inefficient and worthless social enterprises, social entrepreneurs make additional efforts to make sure that they really create value. This means that they seek deep insight from those for whom they work. They monitor how correctly they were able to assess the needs and requirements of the people to whom they provide their services, as well as the communities within which they operate. In some cases, this implies a close relationship with these communities. They also need to understand the expectations and attitudes of their investors, including all those who invest their money in them, time and also who help them. They strive to provide real social improvements for their clients and their communities, as well as attractive social and financial benefits for their investors. Finding a balance between investors' expectations and the needs of the community is an important part of their complex business. When possible, social entrepreneurs create a kind of market feedback mechanisms to reinforce their responsibilities. They measure their progress in terms of social, financial, and managerial outcomes, and not just in terms of their size, performance, and ongoing processes. They use this information to adjust their own course, if necessary.
Social entrepreneurs are a rare breed.
Social entrepreneurship describes quite uncommon principles of behavior. These principles should be encouraged and nurtured in those who have the ability and temperament for this kind of activity. Then we could achieve much more. Should everyone strive to be a social entrepreneur? Not. Not every good social worker is well suited to being an entrepreneur. And also in business. Not every good businessman is an entrepreneur described by Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson. While we might want more entrepreneurial behavior in both sectors, society needs different types and styles of leaders. Social entrepreneurs are just one of the breeds of leaders, and they should be taken as such. Our definition is intended to emphasize their distinctive features and to show that being a social entrepreneur is not so easy. And we need social entrepreneurs to help us find new ways of social improvements on the threshold of a new century.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/135078/
All Articles