Do you find it hard to describe to people around you what Social Entrepreneurship Forum is all about? Or is it the concept of social entrepreneurship that is new and confusing?

In the meetings with people there is always a moment when more information or simply a good definition would make life much easier. This we know and that is one of the main reason why we have developed a leaflet that not only defines social entrepreneurship but also resumes most of our organization’s activities.  You find it here.      

Between the 2nd and 5th of June, over 1700 people from all over the world gathered in Leksand, Dalarna for the 5th Global YES Summit ”Rework the World”, a collaboration between the Tällberg Foundation and Yes Inc. Participants ranging from grassroots organizations and top politicians to representatives from global corporations. The conference was meant to serve as a forum between world leaders and smaller entrepreneurial organizations – social entrepreneurs – from all parts of the world, with a focus on sustainable strategies and actions needed to create work and employment through entrepreneurship.

To be honest, it was an overwhelming experience! An event like this holds so much potential and therefore also certain risks for disappointment if expectations are not met. And there were some non-substantial speeches echoing “Yes, let’s change the world”, and “this is the time for change”. Words and slogans that tend to have little practical meaning, which is why I think they should be avoided to give room for more constructive conversations.

But there were many moments of true clarity, coming from real life-examples of people who already have achieved exactly what the whole event was about. With their words in my ears, I left inspired and eager to get back to work, because that – I believe – is the only thing that truly makes a change. If anything, this conference reminded me of the value of action.

Two of these stories really stood as they illustrate how intertwined action is with learning and how many strong ideas come from facing obstacles and difficulties. The first was that of Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistanian woman who survived being raped by four men in a society that condemn the women, and not the rapist. Rape is considered so shameful that there are even women who commit suicide as an option rather than bear the disgrace.

Mukhtar chose to live and decided to take her attackers to court. At her first encounter at the police station she was asked to write her name, but as she was illiterate, she had to give them her fingerprints instead. She was humiliated, but also struck by the realization that knowledge is power. Mukhtar continued to fight for her rights and in the end she was offered a bribe, as a compensation for the suffering she’d been put through. She didn’t want to trade money for silence but just as she was about to turn the bribe down, she heard herself say; “I don’t want the money; I want to build a school”.

Today she runs several schools and the Mukhtar Mai Women’s Welfare Organization, teaching boys and girls to be free and equal. She wants to provide them with knowledge and education, so that they too, can act.

A similar story is that of Majora Carter, founder of the Majora Carter Group. She’s an extremely accomplished force who devoted herself to changing the unsafe areas of Bronx, enabling people to be proud of their homes and feel safe on the streets. Her mission included engaging the local community through creating jobs and training programs for people.

My point is this; you need to learn to be able to act and you need to act in order to learn. Mukhtar Mai didn’t need an education to realize the power of education. She started a school to provide people the skills and education that she felt she was lacking to be in control of her own life. Majora Carter understood that action leads to knowledge, that learning by doing is education in itself. The people she chose to employ for her city-planning projects were not technical experts, but they learned through their work and as she phrased it while defending the local’s rights to be involved in the actual execution of the makeover; “We live here, we are experts too…”

Mukhtar Mai and Majora Carter have two more things in common; persistence and courage. Maybe these are characteristics that one cannot be trained in, they’re simply choices that you have to make when facing traumas and challenging situations.

So I say be brave, and don’t give up. And make sure that all your learning opportunities are focused on building skills that promote action. Words and slogans are great, but action is everything!

Josefin Uhnbom
SE Forum

Du som  inte kunde delta på frukostseminariet den 2 juni om hur sociala entreprenörer kan stödjas kan du ta del av sammanställningen som Maja Forslind från Sida delar med sig av nedan:

Sociala entreprenörer – vilka är de och hur de kan stöttas?

Sidas B4D-grupp bjöd tillsammans med SE Forum in till frukostseminarium med Paul O’Hara, chef för Ashoka norra Europa. Uppslutningen var bra; 39 deltagare från olika organisationer och företag, samt fem deltagare från Sida.

Sida har för avsikt att inom ramen för B4D-programmet hitta former för att stötta socialt entreprenörskap men är än så länge i inledningsskedet. När det gäller att formulera Sidas roll i detta var seminariet en bra fortsättning, inte minst vad gäller kontakter med intressanta framtida samarbets- och dialogpartner. Genom Innovations Against Poverty-programmet (inom B4D) kommer förhoppningsvis många företagare som identifierar sig som sociala entreprenörer kunna erbjudas stöd.

Vad är socialt entreprenörskap (SE)?

Paul O’Hara lyfte inledningsvis fram att en social entreprenör är någon som har som främsta utgångspunkt att lösa ett socialt problem (exempelvis gällande utbildning, miljö eller mänskliga rättigheter). Drivkraften är att göra social nytta snarare än att generera vinst. Ur Ashokas perspektiv är det inte avgörande om företaget är vinstdrivande eller ej utan vilken social utvecklingseffekt företagsidén har. Självfallet blir en idé mer uthållig och kan bidra till större nytta ju mer ekonomiskt hållbar den är.

Ett praktexempel på en social entreprenör lyftes fram – Steve Collins, en läkare som utvecklat ett sätt att motverka och förebygga undernäring. Konceptet bygger på lokal produktion av en nutritionsprodukt, framtagen av enbart naturliga råvaror som odlas, produceras och förpackas lokalt tre fabriker i Malawi.  Det unika produktionssättet har lovordats som ”community based treatment” och förespråkas nu av internationella organisationer däribland Läkare utan gränser.    

Enligt Ashoka kan sociala entreprenörer och socialt entreprenörskap framförallt bidra till att

• förändra marknadsdynamik och värdekedjor
• förändra normer för företagande (och myndigheter)
• skapa kongruens mellan företagande och sociala mål
• främja ”full citizenship” och empatisk företagsetik

Allra störst påverkan menar Paul O’Hara att sociala entreprenörer har genom att föregå med gott exempel och vara inspiratörer för andra större organisationer och företag – genom detta kan de få med sig stora grupper som i sin tur motiveras att arbeta för förändring.

Ashokas koncept

Ashoka har förgreningar i Asien, Afrika, Europa, Nordamerika och Sydamerika. Nu finns de även representerade i Sverige. Ashokas tillgång är organisationens förfinade urvalsprocess för vilka idéer som man väljer att satsa på.  Förutom att idén bedöms utifrån dess potential till social förändring, etiska och kreativa aspekter så granskas, synas och värderas framförallt kvaliteten på drivkraften hos entreprenören själv. Ashokas internationella nätverk träffar kandidaterna och värderar dem – är de tillräckligt motiverade och kommer de att fortsätta brinna för sin idé?

Ashoka erbjuder entreprenörerna  

• finansiering i startskedet  
• professionella tjänster såsom rådgivning i utveckling av affärsplaner, internrevision, kommunikationsstrategi mm.  
• varje social entreprenör får en specialkomponerad rådgivningsgrupp med kompetens ur Ashokas internationella nätverk, där personer är beredda att bidrar med sin tid och specifika kompetens.

Paul framhöll vikten av att ge frihet åt entreprenörerna att arbeta för sin idé. Ashokas roll är att bidra med att bredda perspektivet och underlätta för processen att skala upp idén och nå ökad effekt.

Hinder och utmaningar för SE

Finansiering är förstås det återkommande hindret. Men mycket beror på attityder när det gäller vad som är en hållbar affärsmodell – om någon startar en verksamhet som genererar mervärde så finns det någon som är villig att betala för det – tids nog. Många idéer blir ekonomiskt hållbara så småningom – men kräver tid, vilket oftast inte accepteras av konventionella investerare. Synsättet att avkastning kan ske i form av social och miljömässig utveckling och förbättring är därför avgörande. I detta avseende kan SE-konceptet ha en viktig roll.  

Följaktligen menar Paul att inkubationscenter med tillgång till finansieringsmekanismer är viktiga för sociala entreprenörers utveckling.  De kan bidra med tillgång till större kapital och olika typer av finansiering (debt finance, grant finance och equity finance) som är avgörande för expansion. Centren kan dessutom bidra till att sätta samman rätt grupp och nätverk av personer för lyckad expansion.

Social Entrepreneurship Forum

Eliza Kücükaslan, ordförande för SE Forum, berättade kort om nätverket. De förmedlar kunskap om svenska sociala entreprenörers framgångsfaktorer och resultat samt fungerar som mötesplats och plattform för seminarier mm. De stödjer också sociala entreprenörer konkret genom att erbjuda tid och kompetens via SE Forums nätverk, denna rådgivningsverksamhet är något de planerar att utöka.
Maja Forslind

Tom Suddes is the founder of For Impact /The Suddes Group, a consultant movement that raises money with the aim to consult, train and transform nonprofits. Below he gives his advice on how to be a social entrepreneur. Let yourself get inspired but above all, get started!  

GUEST ENTRY

________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a public call for tax relief and policy changes in Sweden to motivate corporations, as well as private donors, to support donations for research and charitable organisations (Regeringskansliet SOU 2009:59). Tax relief on charitable giving is the most important funding driver for the third sector in the UK and in the US.

Personally, I believe it would open up a tremendous opportunity also in Sweden to better integrate business with all of its stakeholders in society. It would be an important aspect of encouraging businesses to develop a broader and more efficient CSR strategy, in particular the SMEs, who currently may not think they can afford to do so.

Several high profile people have written articles in the daily newspapers to urge the government to vote for the proposition in order to stimulate the growth of social entrepreneurship. Among them is the director of the Fondation de Luxembourgh, Tonika Hirdman, in Dagens Industri on January 16^th. 

As much as I appreciate the proposal, in the debate things do get mixed up.  As a social entrepreneur, business is my focus. Not charity. The “social” aspect of my enterprise is that I wish to use my business acumen and my capital not only to generate a profit, but to actively strive to make a positive social change. It is in the mission of the company, in its measurements and affects all aspects of managing costs and income. It would also confuse the purpose of my operations, if what I do is labelled philanthropic, since I wish to reach a level of self-financing and profit where I can grow and develop just like other entrepreneurs.

In my role as consultant I have both started several social enterprises and guided other organisations that wish to contribute financially, but also with their products and services. They always want to make clear upfront that they do not wish to see these projects as philanthropy. They point out that they see it as taking their social responsibility.  Even so, in practice it is common that companies encourage employees and customers to fund raise for example, and that could benefit from the proposal.

For long-term engagement with the third sector though, I see two problems. First, the donor cannot expect anything in return. How do we then have a dialogue about the impact? Second, donations are an easy, but over time not very effective way for a business to engage with the third sector.

We need to call for additional economic incentives that consider the whole picture – today social enterprises often operate more like business than charity.

/Ruth Brännvall, Founder Njord Management Consulting Ltd

Socialt entreprenörskap är benämningen på företagande där affärsidén direkt härrör ur ett samhällsproblem (socialt eller miljömässigt) vilka man löser med innovativa och affärsmässiga metoder. Företagen existerar alltså för att skapa samhällsnytta samtidigt som man ställer krav på finansiell avkastning. Grundförutsättningen för socialt entreprenörskap är att alla dimensioner av verksamheten – såväl den sociala som den ekonomiskt självförsörjande – ska vara värdeskapande. Detta skiljer sig från s k Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) som går ut på att göra befintliga processer och verksamheter i ett företag ansvarsfulla.

Vilka exempel och vilken potential finns i socialt entreprenörskap?
Det mest framstående exemplet på socialt entreprenörskap är nobelpristagaren Muhammad Yunus och Grameen Bank, som ger mikrolån till de mest utsatta och behövande i Bangladesh. Andra exempel är den svenske entreprenören Björn Söderbergs två företag Watabaran inom pappersåtervinning och WebSearch Professional som jobbar etiskt med webbutveckling och programmering i Nepal. Det danska företaget Specialisterne anställer personer med autism som konsulter i mjukvaruindustrin där deras siffer- och mönsterseende blir en unik kompetens.

Gatutidningen Situation Stockholm är ett exempel på ett försök att minska utslagning genom företagande. Andra sociala entreprenörer är DEM Collective, ett etiskt klädföretag som visar på möjligheten att producera kläder utan att utnyttja människor eller miljö för ren vinst, Blatteförmedlingen som jobbar med mångfaldsrekryetring och Ekobanken, en etisk bank som huvudsakligen ger lån till verksamheter som skapar ett socialt, miljömässigt eller kulturellt mervärde.

Vilket stöd behövs för att främja socialt entreprenörskap i Sverige?
Forskaren Karl Palmås* har visat att det i Sverige saknas en fungerande struktur för organisationer med sociala mål drivna med kommersiella verksamhetsprinciper, och har jämfört det svenska samhällsklimatet med det mer socialt företagsvänliga brittiska.

I en uppsats från Stockholms universitet förra året** konstateras att det i Sverige råder en kontroversiell syn kring sammanflätningen av områdena kommersiellt och ideellt i jämförelse med andra länder som exempelvis USA och Storbritannien. Det råder en misstro mot företag som tjänar pengar samtidigt som de har en social agenda. I samma studie tas följande exempel på stöd som kan främja socialt entreprenörskap upp:

• Skräddarsydda finansieringslösningar för sociala företag (lån, bidrag, donationer och självfinansiering har varit former de använt sig av)
• En etablerad struktur för kunskapsinhämtning och spridning av kompetens inom socialt entreprenörskap, en motsvarighet till Almi för personer som vill starta sociala företag
• ”Starta-eget-kurser” för sociala entreprenörer på Arbetsförmedlingen
• Sociala företag som befinner sig i startskedet skulle kunna dra stor nytta av rådgivning i bland annat skatteregler, lagstiftning och tillämpbar ”best practice”
• En bolagsform som skulle kunna göra det lätt för de sociala företagen att verka, samt ge dem en välbehövlig ”auktorisation”.

SE Forum ser även att det finns behov av arenor där sociala entreprenörer kan möta finansiärer och andra samarbetspartner, och verkar för att skapa mötesplatser och forum för socialt entreprenörskap (något som kan utvecklas till att t ex bilda inkubatorer för socialt entreprenörskap).

Läs mer:
*) Den barmhärtige entreprenören, Karl Palmås, Agora 2003
**) Do well and do good – en studie av affärsklimatet för sociala företag i Sverige, Celeste DeCasas & Hanna von Schantz, http://www2.fek.su.se/uppsats/uppsats/2008/Magister/0253/Magisteruppsats_socialt_foretagande_HT08.pdf

The meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, J. Gregory Dees, Professor in Public Service at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, http://www.se-forum.se/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/social_entrepreneuship_dees1.pdf

By Karin Larsson, SE Forum

That I was going to get a chance to see and listen to Muhammad Yunus for real during my study semester abroad was definitely nothing I’ve expected when I about two years ago was sent to Monterrey, Mexico’s absolute business centre, to study economics. But then one day he was actually invited, with much pomp and ceremony, to a university known for its success in entrepreneurship and leadership development. During about two hours a lecture hall full of university students was acquainted with what this man, founder of the Grameen Bank and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, had achieved within the field of social entrepreneurship. 

It was after this meeting with one of my biggest role models that I seriously started to think about the concept of social entrepreneurship and what its actual meaning is. As an economics student you rarely get a chance to learn more about this type of entrepreneurship for the simple reason that its results are not measured in usual manner, namely in the form of financial return. A social entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurship that seeks social change why it doesn’t necessarily has a direct connection to the economic sphere.  Instead, it may be about improving the living conditions for the poor, empowering women in conflict-areas or increasing the environmental awareness among young people.

However, the fact that social entrepreneurship is principally social and not economic does not mean that this excludes principles, objectives, and in some cases even profit generation. When all is said and done, we are dealing with entrepreneurship, no matter if its effects are social, economic or something else. I have personal experience from both the social and economic sector and I have seen that in cases where there has been a strive for social development, this strive has pratically always been directly or indirectly related to the economic sphere.

As an economics student, I’ve chosen to investigate the link between the social entrepreneurship and economics, more thoroughly and my personal drive to reconcile the economic entrepreneurship with the social entrepreneurship made me take a seven months study break from my international economics study programme. Thus, since four months ago I live in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, where I’m carrying out an internship at a NGO that primarily works with vulnerable women, youth and internally displaced people (IDP’s). Social entrepreneurship is often associated with just the voluntary sector where voluntary efforts around a common goal or objective in the long run are supposed to lead to a social change, smaller or bigger depending on the impact of the entrepreneurship.

Now then, what is it that determines the impact of a social entrepreneurship? Taking my own experience into consideration I would say that it is the uniting of the voluntary efforts with those elements, preferably from the economic entrepreneurship, that gives the maximum multiplier effect on the social sphere. Those who are harsh and choose to ignore the fact that there are entrepreneurs that contribute equally to the economic and the social spheres, gladly state that it is the economic entrepreneurs that create the money while the social entrepreneurs are the ones that improve the welfare. Although there might be some truth to this assumption I personally mean that there is a clear link between these two types of entrepreneurship and that they, in greater or lesser extent and whether we like it or not, even rely on each other.  Perhaps foremost as an economist but also as a volunteer I dare to say that this connection is to be found in the economic relationship.

Anyone that has been working on voluntary basis knows that this isn’t an activity free of charge or as most economists would choose to put it, “time is money”. Now, if this expression is true, it means that also the social entrepreneurship partly depends on financial resources; resources that are usually not generated by the social worker himself, something which by definition is self-evident. Instead, the social enterprise relies on fundraising, the collection of funds from actors such as aid agencies, embassies or foundations; external actors, which in their turn are entirely dependent on the profit-generating sector for their survival. An example of this could be the application we made for a larger project on reproductive health that would be implemented with grants from a British aid organization. It was a mere sum of USD10 000 that might seem small from an economic entrepreneur’s point of view. However, for us as a single organization, a rejection of this application would imply a huge difference. If we don’t find a new donor there will be no project and furthermore no social improvement when it comes to reproductive health in Azerbaijan.

Consequently, that the social entrepreneur depends on the economic entrepreneur’s generation of profits seems quite natural but when we talk about the link between these two types of entrepreneurs it is also important to highlight the reverse dependency. Whether this dependence is direct or indirect is difficult to determine but personally I am of the view that social development can, over time, also lead to economic development. Most economists would argue that my reasoning is incorrect since they mean that it is the economic development that enables the social development. I am not saying that this statement is wrong but I do believe that it is a vast mistake to exclude the possibility that the achievements of the social entrepreneur also can  be of great use for the economic entrepreneur.  

A wealthier society contributes to a wealthier consumer, freer to make his own choices and freer to consume whatever he decides necessary to consume. Thus, according to me the key to a well-functioning social entrepreneurship is a better understanding of these positions of dependence. Our society is a sum of private, public and non-profit activities that collaborate directly or indirectly or in some situations even undermine each others. If we dare to believe that we are actually economically interconnected, whether it is through consumption, social development, or fundraising, we should also be able to enhance the effectiveness of our respective businesses. The social entrepreneur has a lot to learn from the economic entrepreneur and vice versa.

After this long discussion I can’t help to recall my meeting with Muhammad Yunus, the man who linked the bank’s money to welfare and social development in Bangladesh. It wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

Debra Dunn talks about how the skills that she has acquired in a traditional company like Hewlett Packard will be useful in solving social problems in non-profit ventures.

By Alejandra Fuentes, SE Forum/Sprong kommunikation

Lately, through work, I’ve had reason to think about what we are taught going through the school system. For decades young people have studied roughly the same subjects, taught roughly in the same way. Moreover, the underlying logic of the importance of learning from history turns the pupils eyes to the past, rather than opening them up to the future. This creates an illusion that development has runned it’s course and society has reached it’s final shape.

Still, the Swedish curriculum aims at creating good citizens with democratic values capable of questioning the current state of things, but does it provide the necessary tools? Considering the above the answer would be no.

What is it then, that we should teach future generations? Probably the same subjects but from different perspectives and partly another purpose. Young people need to realize that all great thoughts have not been thought, history has not ended, the choice is not between our ways and the ways of the past – but between different possible future paths. Some of these paths might be mergings of seemingly contradictory ideas that in fact benefit from each other, one such example being social entrepreneurship.

So, let’s promote an education that inspires to new ways of thinking, that respects the past but always looks forward and lets us fully explore what possibilities lay ahead of us that can lead us to a better future.

Here is a quote worth considering on the subject: ”There is an old joke about a drunkard who explains that although he lost his keys in the park down the street he is looking for them here under the lamppost because the light is so much better. A lot of our theoretical and empirical work has a taste of this logic and it’s not entirely crazy because our toy models do give us useful insights and the empirical work gives us some views of the data that might surprise and so inspire us. We hope, though, that we have made the case that in this untidy world of ours it might make sense to spend some time in the dark, on our knees, groping for the keys.” From Globalization and Poverty, edited by Ann Harrison

By Svenne Junker, SE Forum

Climate change can only be reversed through national and intergovernmental regulations. At least, that is the opinion of Christian Azar, Professor of Physics and leading climate change ambassador, also former member of the IPCC. The key point in his statement is that it cannot be an individual responsibility to fly less, not drive cars, not eat meat etc. First it has to become profitable to act sustainable.

The point is: Human people need to be regulated. Think about all systematic standards that regulate our lives: work time, property rights, time, money, pension, education etc. Socially constructed life standards are the nuts and bolts of modern life. Conclusion: humans are regulated from tip to toe. This is a way of normalizing specific behavior, while excluding other type of behavior.

For me, social entrepreneurship is a way of running profitable business that puts a strong focus on sustainability and solving societal issues, e.g. climate change. The only way to normalize this type of entrepreneurship is to create legislation that removes incentives for non-sustainable business. One suggestion is to construct economic measurements that hold bad business accountable. Another is approving green tax-switching policies.

With this type of regulation we would have a new dichotomy.
Not: Entrepreneurship vs. Social entrepreneurship
But: Entrepreneurship vs. Bad entrepreneurship

Keep on fighting for a better world!

Svenne Junker, green lobbyist