A blog post by a fellow classmate, “Building a Business for Making a Better World,” introduced TOMS shoes and defined it as a social enterprise. The author’s criteria was that it is “a for-profit company driven primarily by a social objective.” Going against the opinion of many, I didn’t quite feel that TOMS shoes was nailing the criteria for being a “true” social enterprise. Why?
In an interesting article on Stanford Social Innovation Review, Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg voices concern for the fact that the definition of “social entrepreneurship” is vague. A social enterprise, in their words, must take direct action to create a “new equilibrium” in transforming a society, in which it pushes a society to a stable higher level. Anything that does not satisfy this criteria is either a social service provision or social activism, or a mix of the three
forms. Arguably, I feel that the concept of “One for One” makes TOMS more similar to a charity being funded by a business rather than a pure form of a social enterprise. While I see the aims of the company to be noble, donating shoes does not address the root of the problem of poverty or dramatically transform an entire society. In my opinion, TOMS is a hybrid of a social enterprise and social service.
Perhaps I am too agnostic and picky on connotations of terminology. On the other hand, failure to establish a firm definition of social entrepreneurship would leave the term almost worthless. I am not claiming that TOMS is a charity, but social entrepreneurship should not be confused with charitable organizations, since the boundaries are difficult to point out in the current state.