In various discussions (a.o. in the Social Entrepreneurship debate at GIBS, ImagiNation 2008) the distinction arises that an entrepreneur is intent on keeping profits for himself and a social entrepreneur funnels the profits into the social environment where he generated the revenue in the first place. If we follow this distinction than what kind of an entrepreneur is the entrepreneur who builds his business on an opportunity in the social environment but keeps the profits for himself? And what about the entrepreneur who puts the profits from his “mainstream” venture into the social environment, instead of “in his own pocket”? Are they entrepreneurs or social entrepreneurs?

What is the point of trying to define what a Social Entrepreneur is? Shouldn’t we rather focus on the underlying trends and developments and then see whether a new name serves or defeats the purpose of what these trends are pointing at?

The emergence of the term Social Entrepreneurship for me is one of the consequences of a larger worldwide trend, a trend where people and organisations are slowly starting to realise that they are part of a bigger world and that ignoring social and environmental problems in that world is not viable for anyone in the longer term. Within corporates this trend has seen the emergence and growth of Corporate Social Responsibility as well as the discussion on the Triple Bottom Line of Profit, People and Planet. The ISO is planning on publishing a standard for sustainability which will measure how corporates embed social responsibility practices within their core activities rather than the amount of money they spend on philanthropic activities. We have seen CK Prahalad’s book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Eradicating Poverty through Profits which presents interesting case studies where applying sound business principles to developing markets brings about amazing business endeavours as well as social change.

And that is what is happening: more and more business thinking, practices and skills are being applied to areas that previously were considered the domain of Not-For-Profits and governments.

At a higher level this all points to a process and purpose of inclusion: to include previous excluded parts of society and markets into the mainstream society.  And this purpose is served by respecting and understanding people in poor markets. Respect them as potential customers and make a point of addressing their needs and requirements by providing adequate services and asking reasonable prices in return.

Social Entrepreneurship should be about bringing entrepreneurial skills and passion to new markets, seeing and actualising opportunities that bring change in a profitable way. Where the entrepreneur could be guided by the Triple Bottom line, but decides for himself how to spend the profits, pay out dividends to his shareholders, put it “into his own pocket”, funnel it back into his venture or start a new venture, just like any other entrepreneur would do.     

The process of inclusion is not served by giving new names to existing phenomena. It creates a divide between Entrepreneurs and Social Entrepreneurs, a “them” and “us” which defeats the purpose of inclusion. Why create another divide where none is needed, why can’t we accept that entrepreneurship in itself presents a great opportunity for poverty alleviation and empowerment?  Shouldn’t we rather focus on unleashing entrepreneurial zeal and skills in people working in these new markets and on bringing understanding of the potential of these markets to a larger audience?