Social Enterprise - Define or Describe?

One of the perennial questions that hangs around the world of Social Enterprise is "What is it?"

Often this is answered with a not very helpful, "It's very hard to define!"
Those that try and answer often cite the various definitions dreamed up by Government, or some Social Enterprise body.

But is a definition the best way of answering the "What is Social Enterprise" question?

Almost by definition, a definition excludes. It limits what a social enterprise can, or should be.
If something is clearly defined, it rules out the fuzzy edges.
But those of us working as Social Entrepreneurs know that it is surrounded by fuzzy edges.

Some definitions rule out Sole Traders; some dismiss profit making companies; some forbid charities to call themselves Social Enterprise.

Why? Why would we do this?
Do we want to create a super-ethical world in our own image? To claim that only we are Social Enterprises?

Perhaps a more fruitful way forward, to encourage the growth of Social Enterprise and bring more people and companies into the fold is to use description, rather than definition.

A description doesn't need to be a full description; it even can appear contradictory with another description - as a pyramid can be described as a square, or a triangle, depending on perspective.

So how would we describe Social Enterprise?


Firstly we would look at its 3 bottom lines:
People, Planet, Profit.
And ask the business to describe where they sit on a continuum from doing harm , through neutral, to doing good.

Then look at 3 aspects of their business:
Product/Service, Company Management, Profit Destination.
And ask again where they would position their business from doing harm, through neutral, to doing good.

If a company exploits people and the environment, but makes loads of profit
by offering a product that harms its users, and they treat their staff badly to keep all the profit for themselves
Then it would be hard to describe them as a Social Enteroprise.

Likewise, if an organisation does wonders for people and the environment, treats their staff graciously but makes no profit as it is simply grant funded; then it too would find it difficult to be taken seriously as a social enterprise.

Between these 2 extremes we have a myriad of companies, individuals and organisations that would all describe themselves differently.

And if, after looking at where they are from these various perspectives, they want to describe themselves as a Social Enterprise, who are you, or I to argue?

Cameron

But is it an elephant?

"If you want to eat an elephant, do it one bite at a time"

This is very wise advice, for to try and stuff the whole thing in your mouth would indeed be impossible.

This is the advice given when tackling a large job, and it is just so self-evidently true that it is hard to argue against.

However - inherent in the advice is an assumption that big jobs always equal big animlas that require eating.

But what if some big jobs don't equate to elephants?
What if some big jobs equate more to the Grand Canyon that requires leaping.

You can't jump the Grand Canyon 1 metre at a time.
You have to do it all in one go, or not at all.

So while the elephant eating analogy is often true, we should remember it is not always the case.

The question to ask before apporaching any big job is therfore, "Is it an Elephant or a Canyon?" That will determine whether to do it methodically bit by bit, or with a huge run up and single leap.

Cameron