Our lecture on social entrepeneurship as well as the readings we were given prior to class got me thinking about the best way to define social entrepreneurship. As the class went on, it seemed like what I had been reading before class in the Stanford Social Innovation Review contradicted what was taught in class. Is social entrepreneurship different from a non-profit, is it always for-profit, is it different from a charity, what are its inherent characteristics?
During our lecture, speakers argued that social entrepreneurship was very different from other non-profit organizations with social goals, and from regular businesses. The main differences pointed out were different motivations — social benefit instead of profit and personal gain — while keeping a business-like, sustainable revenue model. Meanwhile, the authors of the Review’s article argued that the inherent difference was based on the value proposition itself, focused on social gain rather than profit (to make it simple).
Who’s right? I believe speakers in class put form over substance, and it should be the other way around. Mozilla is a good example of a social entrepreneurship, and it actually combines a non-profit foundation with a for-profit corporation, the latter being fully part of the former, and revenue never leaving the association. It has a sustainable business model, makes money from contracts with Google… but accepts donations and never provides any money to its owners. That is substance over form: social entrepeneurship cannot be opposed to non-profit or for-profit, or other criteria ; it all depends on our evaluation of whether that business’s first and foremost goal and motivation is social benefit, or not.