Entrepreneurship and Social
Why those two words matter but not necessarily together
We want those two words to be together so badly that we create new categories and definitions. We write and discuss what entrepreneurship is and what social is in order to make them fit. Is it so important?
Yes, it is important
It is really important to have social linked to entrepreneurship. Any new venture must have the social context embedded in its core model not just in order to succeed but in order to matter. Sooner rather than later any entrepreneur discovers it.
It is also necessary to have entrepreneurship closely related to ‘social’, especially when by that we are in fact referring to some values and skills necessary in tackling social issues, such as decision, resilience or being able to bootstrapping resources.
But maybe not so much together
Is ‘social entrepreneurship’ necessary as a formal concept? Authors such as Kickul, Lyons, Dees, Haugh, Tracey, Austin, and many, many more have devoted inspiring pages — quite a few — to define and explain ‘social entrepreneurship’. And still we cannot agree on an universal definition of the concept.
Furthermore, that concept is also usually paired with innovation as in ‘social innovation’. It is not just part of ‘entrepreneurship’ but a category by itself. It seems here the main point is pairing social with concepts closely related with the firm and the market: new, efficient ways of dealing with social challenges but with a cool twist.
In brief, we want to add a halo effect of efficiency, having it surrounding the efforts towards social goals. We need to tackle social challenges — even when their own definition is a bit murky — but then we just want to make sure it is not just charity or a waste of resources. We need to be sure somebody is ‘serious’ about it. And we need a tag for all that.
A name comes with a price
Most of the media echoes such a view and it has been kind of an ‘academia darling’ for a while. But is it necessary to use entrepreneurship and social in the same phrase? If we are true to the meaning of words, we are infusing such a tag with concepts we may not be aware of.
For instance, entrepreneur in Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus is a noun related to business and its synonyms are all linked to it. It has nothing to do with abilities or skills, although of course we can pour any we choose in it. But the business part is always present. It also has a private versus public tone in its definition.
Business is usually good because of the profit it brings — as an increase in total social welfare — or the competition it endures in a market — and the efficiency it must achieve — and both are closely related. So then we need whether profits or a market in our concept. But do we really need them in ‘social entrepreneurship’?
Most people working in the ‘social area’ as defined in literature about ‘social entrepreneurship’ are mostly concerned, resourceful, resilient, decided people, with many other qualities. We can call them — or at least part of them — entrepreneurs if we think we are praising them. But probably we are not defining them or their activities accurately.
Let’s have them both but maybe not together
Any entrepreneur should have ‘society’ in their mind — well, nothing new here, Bowen already said so back in the 1950s — when launching his venture. But we must be aware that any successful entrepreneur usually bends market rules and so they create an anomaly that lacks most of the good qualities and attributes we look for in an enterprise. Precisely those which are in the market and not in the organization or processes.
On the other hand, social challenges must be faced with decision, fresh ideas, resiliency and commitment. But it does not mean necessarily we must call it ‘social entrepreneurship’. Not if we are not willing to use it with all the baggage it carries with it.
