This is a place for the people in the Social Entrepreneurship Course at Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany to explore and discuss issues revolving around social enterprise. We hope you, esteemed reader, can join us in our exploration of this relatively new and exiting field. Any comments, reflections and contributions are very welcome.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
An Interesting Article about Entrepreneurship in General
I read that article yesterday and it somehow relates nicely to the things I'm currently reading for my thesis (and to random conversations with business-minded friends). I'm ok with a broad definition of social entrepreneurship and I’m also ok with a broad definition of “regular” entrepreneurship. And it could be that the one really evolved from the other and that they have innovation as a common core. But they are NOT the same.
This article sounds to me like another very lame excuse/justification for the business world as we know it today for doing business-as-usual. The examples are very telling. He refers to the good old times when some nerdy inventor would just need to come out of a garage (or whatever) with something the world has never seen before, throw it on the market and let it decide about what happens with it, lean back and get rich. We know that it can work like that and that the capitalist system has done a lot of good things but I don’t think that anyone doubts that, especially not social entrepreneurs. They have a different point (and a different reason of existence for that fact). They turn to those people who are, for whatever reason, not part of that system and can therefore not enjoy its benefits. I think in the course we have pointed out many times how they derive their strength from being in between (what we currently define as) the for-profit and non-profit world and what they really do: get things done.
If it is true that all entrepreneurship is “social” we wouldn’t have any problems anymore and live in paradise. I could create a long list of innovations by “normal” entrepreneurs that definitely have done more harm than good to the world. Take Jamba for example ( it’s my favorite!). These guys discovered the unmet need of underaged to pay insane amounts of money to download senseless bullshit to their mobilephones. I mean, come on! Tell me what is social about that. It’s criminal. But it is considered to be one of the most innovative and successful start-ups Germany has seen the past couple of years. (The founders have become the idols of a whole generation of business students, I heard… ehemm...) Okay maybe that example was a bit too extreme but I hope you get my point ;)
Although I can't say I'm terribly surprised at Shinta's response, I (also unsurprisingly) have to disagree.
First and foremost I don't think that the claim "if it is true that all entrepreneurship is 'social' we wouldn't have any problems and live in paradise" has any grounding whatsoever. I do think that this kind of argument may be an opportunity for the definition of social entrepreneurship, though. It's possible that the niche for social entrepreneurship is where consumers or skeptics would not expect "cold-blooded capitalists" to do honest business. I think this is based on a false impression of "regular" entrepreneurs, but nevertheless... could be useful if we're only after definitions.
Shinta also raises another point that I'd like to turn back on itself, which is that equating "regular" entrepreneurs with social entrepreneurs is a "lame excuse/justification for the business world as we know it today for doing business-as-usual". To me this raises the more important question of why labelling someone a social entrepreneur would be an excuse at all. Why would the "social" label mean that any business should be inspected less closely? Evil capitalists may exist, but if we're going to pretend that social entrepreneurs are all shining paragons of virtue and proper business practice, I'm out.
I read that article yesterday and it somehow relates nicely to the things I'm currently reading for my thesis (and to random conversations with business-minded friends). I'm ok with a broad definition of social entrepreneurship and I’m also ok with a broad definition of “regular” entrepreneurship. And it could be that the one really evolved from the other and that they have innovation as a common core. But they are NOT the same.
ReplyDeleteThis article sounds to me like another very lame excuse/justification for the business world as we know it today for doing business-as-usual. The examples are very telling. He refers to the good old times when some nerdy inventor would just need to come out of a garage (or whatever) with something the world has never seen before, throw it on the market and let it decide about what happens with it, lean back and get rich. We know that it can work like that and that the capitalist system has done a lot of good things but I don’t think that anyone doubts that, especially not social entrepreneurs. They have a different point (and a different reason of existence for that fact). They turn to those people who are, for whatever reason, not part of that system and can therefore not enjoy its benefits. I think in the course we have pointed out many times how they derive their strength from being in between (what we currently define as) the for-profit and non-profit world and what they really do: get things done.
If it is true that all entrepreneurship is “social” we wouldn’t have any problems anymore and live in paradise. I could create a long list of innovations by “normal” entrepreneurs that definitely have done more harm than good to the world.
Take Jamba for example ( it’s my favorite!). These guys discovered the unmet need of underaged to pay insane amounts of money to download senseless bullshit to their mobilephones. I mean, come on! Tell me what is social about that. It’s criminal. But it is considered to be one of the most innovative and successful start-ups Germany has seen the past couple of years. (The founders have become the idols of a whole generation of business students, I heard… ehemm...)
Okay maybe that example was a bit too extreme but I hope you get my point ;)
Although I can't say I'm terribly surprised at Shinta's response, I (also unsurprisingly) have to disagree.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost I don't think that the claim "if it is true that all entrepreneurship is 'social' we wouldn't have any problems and live in paradise" has any grounding whatsoever.
I do think that this kind of argument may be an opportunity for the definition of social entrepreneurship, though. It's possible that the niche for social entrepreneurship is where consumers or skeptics would not expect "cold-blooded capitalists" to do honest business. I think this is based on a false impression of "regular" entrepreneurs, but nevertheless... could be useful if we're only after definitions.
Shinta also raises another point that I'd like to turn back on itself, which is that equating "regular" entrepreneurs with social entrepreneurs is a "lame excuse/justification for the business world as we know it today for doing business-as-usual".
To me this raises the more important question of why labelling someone a social entrepreneur would be an excuse at all. Why would the "social" label mean that any business should be inspected less closely? Evil capitalists may exist, but if we're going to pretend that social entrepreneurs are all shining paragons of virtue and proper business practice, I'm out.