The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship
J. Gregory Dees
1998 – 2001
As an introduction to the definition of social entrepreneurship, I would largely agree with the main definitions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Dees combines definitions from leading theorists to arrive at a definition that addresses a need for social responsibility, constant innovation and accountability to the original social responsibility and constituent group. I find little to disagree with this definition, but I might add that it seems even more essential for social entrepreneurs to remain accountable to their social contract in both methods of accountability (to the cause), and profit or value. I believe this type of enhanced accountability focuses and accelerates innovation in a way that adds even more value to the enterprise.
Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship
Paul C. Light
2006
Paul C. Light explores current perceived definitions of social entrepreneurs as a group of people that persist toward “pattern breaking” ideas and solutions. Light challenges the current perception that we only prescribe the status of pattern breaking social entrepreneurs to single extraordinary people with motivation, tolerance, intelligence, change, success, etc… He asserts that we do not value the idea or institutional resource as much as we value the contributions of single visionary people. At the same time Light does not want to define social entrepreneurship too broadly as to construe it as “business as usual” or what every business person with a conscience does, but instead broaden the definition to include pattern breaking ideas and solutions put forward by more than singular individuals.
I would agree that this sort of broadening of the perception of effective social problem solving is necessary, but at the same time not as stringent as Light constructs his argument to assume. The fact that we often times ignore the non champions of an idea is more a fact of the nature of business than how we intentionally marginalize novel ideas without discernable or even effective champions. We inherently respond to ideas by a someone/something rather than an idea that floats around on a conversation without substance. We should strive to increase the identity of ideas to include more than singular individuals and attempt to shift the focus to the value of a particular venture and not a salesperson.
Social Entrepreneurship, The Case for Definition
Roger Martin and Sally Osberg
2007
This article achieves a wonderful balance between the previous two. It begins with defining entrepreneurship in the words and manor of singular individuals that challenged markets and created value etc, but then asserts the primacy of the idea, system and set of resources that entrepreneurs use to create viable ventures. I would argue that the best part of this analysis and case for defining social entrepreneurship falls within an attempt to discern typical nonprofit business ventures from the truly entrepreneurial. He justifies this quality with various examples, but distills with by saying that the difference between a nonprofit that helps a specific population in a finite manor, pales in comparison to a solution that allows for the sustainment, expansion and empowerment of that solution.
The other aspects of this argument mirror the first two articles in that it strongly lobbies for the empowerment of example and definition to include more than individuals, and also to consider the larger social contract of an enterprise in terms of new thinking, problem solving and concerned leadership.
