What is a "Social Enterprise" and Why do they Matter?

It must be stated up front that there is a popular libertarian view that only self-interested functions exist in earnest.  That is not the view taken in this blog.  We are more than happy to debate the point with those who challenge on it, but there is loads of evidence to support our view and almost none supporting the contrary view except angry old white man talk.  We are not against angry old white men.  We get it.  But let's just be honest who we all are (written by a mildly angry old white man.)

A social enterprise is one whose purpose is not purely to aid the weak, needy or deserving (a charity.) Charities do vital work and it is hard to speak in general terms against nearly anything they do.  They are integral to healthy societies.

But ecosystems that are rich have many hybrid functions.  Some are crosses between conventional creations and some are de novo--or to use an even more 6th form Latin phrase--sui generis--of their own type.

Social enterprises combine the ethos of commerce with the focus of community.  In a sense they are less profit focused, and more public focused.  Those things are continuums, and we should want all our enterprises to be "social."  They will not be.  Some will create "negative externalities."  A negative externality is an outcome that is net poor for others caused in making wealth or something positive for someone else (e.g. pollution.)

Social enterprises are often "pooled" functions that have elements of broad public support including funding.  An example is a tourist board in a town.  It is in the town's interest to have such a board.  The board probably has no sensible charge back scheme that would make it self-sustaining, yet it is obvious to all involved that there is benefit in having such a locus and such a function.

Social enterprises are the glue of place.  Done right they cause explosive goodness including growth. Done poorly, they are bureaucratic bastions of protective jobs for the frightened and defensive.  Social enterprises need to "attack".  Their boards should insist not on business plans but action plans.  They must try things...engage, venture and experiment.  They must not rest on laurels and any successes should be spun out if possible to their own life stream.  Beware the social enterprise that becomes the captive of the long standing director or board chair--or a collaborative co-dependency between the two.

Social enterprises must periodically fail.  They must incur wrath.  If they do not, then they are not engaged.  Engagement is their metier.  Their purpose is to combine the go-getter nature of commerce with the prayerful hope for a possible public good.  They are never standing still.