Don’t be an Activist, be an Entrepreneur

March 22, 2006 by Bernard Leong  
Filed under Social Entrepreneurship

Contributed by BL

Sometime back when I was a JC student, I spent a period of time working as a volunteer. Unlike the students today, I don’t have to clock twenty hours of social service. That experience in social work shaped a lot of my views about life.

That incident left a deep impression in my life and it shaped how I operated as an entrepreneur. I was working for a old folks home which is not funded by government aid but by a Christian group. One day, the sanitation on the top floor of the home, where most of the sickly old folks are situated, broke down. To fix that, it would cost the home a considerable amount of fortune. There is no way which we can seek help quickly because it would take us months to apply for grants and charity from the Community Chest. One of the older volunteers who share a love in astronomy like myself, came up with an idea. He suggested to me that both of us will gather a group of local astronomers down to the home. We will line our telescopes in the evening for a viewing. Since he is connected pretty well with rich people, his idea is to bring them here to let them have a night viewing and through that, we can get them to donate to get the sanitation unit repaired. I thought that the idea is far-fetched but nevertheless gave it a try. On that night, he managed to get the entire home filled with wealthy people that night. Together with a group of friends, we gathered our telescopes and showed them the beautiful planets and nebulae, in exchange for donations to the home. In the end, we managed to raise that amount of money through donations of the kind people who came to the event.

That was my first experience in social enterprise. It taught me how to use existing resources and adopted the concept of value proposition to raise funds. Hence here is the summary of this entire blog entry into one simple line, “Don’t be an activist, be an entrepreneur.” What do I mean by that? In order to put myself on the non-aligned movement, I will distinguish the difference between them with a simple example. Let’s use the recent example of the white elephants and bears. In the former case, some students took advantage of that situation and started selling t-shirts. They took a disclaimer that they are not politically motivated. In the case of the bear, you see the protestor standing outside the Istana, campaigning to save bears. Actually, imagine you can take the best out of both situations, you want to protest against an injustice and raise money to address that injustice. The way to do it, is to sell t-shirts saving bears and channel the money into saving bears. I never sympathize with the green peace activists because they are doing more to destroy their cause than to help it, similarly with the eco-terrorists, the tree huggers and the animal rights militants in the west. An activist only knows how to protest and makes things worse, but an entrepreneur knows how to bend a corner and solve the problem in small steps that lead to a big change down the years to come.

A social entrepreneur usually recognizes a social problem and uses traditional entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to bring about a social change that is both innovative and sustainable. If you think a little harder about my story, you will know that our venture using telescopes to raise money for a home is not a sustainable venture. Historical examples of leading social entrepreneurs are Florence Nightingale (UK), the woman who founded modern nursing and helped to improve hospital conditionl; Jean Monnet (France) who is responsible for the reconstruction and modernization of the French economy. In modern times, we have the Big Issue in UK, which helps to publish street newspaper so that you can buy it and help the homeless.

There are also interesting organizations that work on social entrepreneurship, for example, Ashoka, whose mission is to “shape a citizen sector that is entrepreneurial, productive and globally integrated and develop the profession of social entrepreneurship in the world“. In the realm of business plan competition, the Cambridge University Entrepreneurs 3P competition (which I was involved at one point of time) is set up to promote business plan entries that brings about social innovation and change.

The term “social entrepreneurship” can be misleading if you confined it to just solving social problems with entrepreneurial methods. In UK, the term also means that you are creating a new technology that will institute a social change of attitude, for example, creating a car engine that will use environmental friendly fuels and reduce less carbon dioxide emissions. An example of such a type of social entrepreneur is Jeremy Leggett, CEO, Solar Century, who is touted to be one of the key players in putting the climate issue on the world agenda.

In Singapore, we find that social entrepreneurship is only restricted to social change, environmental lobbies and charities. I believe that there should be also focus on getting the technologists and scientists to come in to solve problems for the society. There is more to be done, but the first thing is to change your mindset from convincing you not to be an activist or cynic, but an entrepreneur who can make a difference in people’s lives.

References:
1. Social Entrepreneurship

Technocrati Tags: ,

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • email

No related posts.


triplepoint-job-board-ad-wanted-developers-500x

Comments

  • evisionary
    I agree with you to a certain extend, but I believe there are different roles required to change a society.

    Without the communist, China will not be what it is today. I'm against communism.

    So what did the RGS gals achieve selling those T-shirts?

    I agree to you comment about Green Peace. I used to donate money to them as a teenager, and even join a few of their protest in Australia. One against Seas World. Someof their protests are just protesting for the sake of protests.

    However, without crazy bunch of people like greenpeace, the Corporate world, Govt & media will never take global warming seriously.

    When you are trying to create awareness in major issue and your key people are taken down with via bribe or threats by hired hands, what can you do? You have not choice but to swing to the other extreme.

    There will be no protestants if nobody started protesting and we will all be stucked in RC politics.
  • BL
    Hi Han,

    That is why there has been a movement in the academic world and even with the people working in this area to rebrand "social entrepreneurship" to sustainable development. In that definition, the enterprise is used to provide sustainable development for a certain social cause in developing countries, for example, a company which is involved in transporting water from one part of India to another.
  • When I hear phrases like "how the profits are distributed" I feel like I'm transported into a worker's union meeting.

    I think people have this tendency to construe the 'social' in social entrepreneurship as the 'social' in 'socialist'. A simple fact of the matter is that the social responsibility of business is to make profits, whether the purpose is 'social' or not.

    To be honest, the concept of 'social entrepreneurship' is just a marketing strategy, at the end of the day. When you think about it, every single form of business is social entrepreneurship. Businesses provide the food we eat, the homes we live in (ok, apart from Singapore), the clothes we wear, the entertainment we enjoy. Every single form of business is social entrepreneurship.

    What we call 'social entrepreneurship' is no different from any other business. There is a need for a service or a product that is not being served, and someone comes up with a solution to provide that service or product.

    To require 'social entrepreneurship' to be altruistic or non-profit oriented would be a terrible mistake.
  • BL
    Hi OneKell,

    Interesting thoughts. The "profit motive" problem is greatly debated within the social entrepreneurship circle. That is why in the US and UK, most academics are now rebranding social entrepreneurship to sustainable development.

    To me, the problems posed by profit motive in a social enterprise is a cultural issue. What do I mean by that? In the Asian culture, we perceive social service workers to work under a lower wage and assume their motives to be altruistic. Whereas in the western culture, it abandoned that assumption by adopting the "invisible hand" argument: if the charity hires someone competent to manage, it dissociates the altruism issue by paying the person at market rate. In simple sense, for the charity, it does not matter whether the person is an activist for some issue, but you pay this person at the market rate to manage this movement.

    It is blurring because there are not enough case studies to show that paying people at market rates are producing returns for the social enterprise. However, we do see the abuses of such an enterprise and quoting the famous example of NKF. NKF failed not because the concept of social enterprise is wrong. It failed because to be a social enterprise and if you want to pay market rates, you have to open your books to audit and scrutiny. But they exploited the loophole that they can block auditors using the notion of being a charity group. Their problem is that they want to have it both ways so that they can exploit the system.

    Let me use this example which I often use to argue for social enterprise. Lord Jeffrey Archer is known to fundraise for charity foundations, but for every dollar the charity gets, he will take 10 cents out from them. The public and charity did not have a problem with that, because it is a win-win situation. For that fact, he can raise million pounds at the snap of the finger. So, do you think that it is unethical to pay him at 10% because you started off thinking that he should be altruistic to offer his services for fundraising.

    I still advocate checks and balances for social enterprises, and their accounts must be transparent to the public so that the public be assured that their funds donated to the needy are not abused. I make no qualms that we should pay the people at market rates, because it is a win-win situation for both sides.

    Asians are often thinking in a win-lose situation, rather in a win-win situation. It will take a cultural overhaul. Let's take an example, some offices are particular nitpicking on the employees' punctuality to work and as long as they exploit the employees to the fullest, the employer feels that he won the day and vice versa, the employees manage to "eat snake" will feel that they have won. What is the win-win situation here? It's okay to have flexible working hours so that your employees will have the incentive of producing the work you want without being micromanaged. But then again, why no one think of that? The answer is in our cultural DNA.

    Hope to hear from you again.

    yours sincerely,
    BL
  • BL
    Hi Han,

    As one of the commentators in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor conference put it clearly to most of us there, Singapore has this tendency of molly-coddling the people towards entrepreneurship. Honestly, Singapore favours entrepreneurs for two things: lower taxes (we should call the Republicans in the US) and easy access to grants and equity funds.

    Somehow, these people must understand where the problem is and how they should go about finding the solution to the problem. It's like the fundraising situation, most people do not really understand what their value proposition is before meeting the sponsor or investor.
  • BL
    From: OneKell

    Hi BL,

    I think you're right that the unease culturally-rooted. But I think that is a perception which needs to change if social enterprises are to succeed in the long run.

    First, let us specify what is meant by 'profit motive'. I see it as a way of ensuring that the enterprise is sustainable. A simplistic example would be to have revenue exceed expenditure, so as to produce savings, which could then be invested. To this end, the profit motive helps an organisation become sustainable. The same principles which make a business sustainable, could be applied to a social enterprise. Sustainability is a major issue otherwise.

    Where it gets ethically ambiguous is for example, the level of pricing for social services if there are to be charges.

    I think an essential question is how the profits are distributed. To me, this partly distinguishes a business from a social enterprise. The majority of a social enterprise's profits, if there are any, goes back to the community or stated beneficiaries.

    If a business is ethical, for example, it employs local staff at fair wages, protects the environment, competes fairly, then it is contributing to the community too. That is what I meant by the 'line between social enterprises and socially-responsible businesses is blurring'.

    I think whether or not the pay scale is reasonable is a subjective matter. Personally, I feel that assuming paying someone less for his talents or products, just because he works for a social enterprise, could be seen as a kind of exploitation, as I mentioned earlier in my previous post.

    The best practice would be to be transparent in terms of your administrative costs and expenditure and to remain publicly accountable.

    Note: Reposted by BL to the board
  • I agree with you completely. Complaints are one thing, but if one can see a problem somewhere, why not come up with a solution rather than depend on other people (i.e. the gahmen) to try and fix things for you?
blog comments powered by Disqus