Managing a Social Enterprise

(Note: Link to a social enterprise where I sometimes contribute to below.)

You may think that the only social good companies should do is to earn a profit. However this is missing the point.

These days, firms not just have to make a profit, they have to fulfill at least an indirect social change. They have to be socially responsible corporate citizens.

Some companies choose to be organised as a social enterprise. A social enterprise aims to improve not just financial, but also social and environmental well-being. Although firms still have to make money, at least firms have to be perceived to exist to do social good.

It is the muddy and hazy perception of social good that make it so hard to define a social enterprise. Often they may pass off as a charity that aims to make money. However, my experiences with social enterprise, more than typical enterprises, is that they are very pushy. Yet, public funds are often disbursed to social enterprises because they are able to do some things that the private market alone may not fully achieve. They direct enterprising people to do some things that are seen as 'beneficial'.

I consider myself very familiar in the social service sector currently. Almost everywhere I turn, there is always someone from a social enterprise who keeps asking for more funding, even with profitable businesses.

It seems to me that social enterprise is not just about the triple bottom line of profits, people and planet. It is about the triple aims of profitability, credibility (competition among social enterprises grants and awards is keen among social enterprises) and capacity to make the most out of the inputs of social enterprises.

I am skeptical of many social enterprises. They are like wannabes. They talk about achieving dreams or betterment, but work like (sometimes even worse than) conventional firms. Plus, some social enterprises are funded by government monies. We taxpayers might as well just pay for the social programmes provided by communities, rather than by private enterprises.

Time and again I hear: if I do not hire you, no one else will - in countless social enterprises out there. It is very demeaning and insulting to the people in the social enterprises. They are treated not as full human beings, but beneficiaries, to be pitied at. Where is the truth and love in these social enterprises?

The worse is that social enterprises are critiqued on 'sustainability'. That being, how their operations can sustain. If they fail, tongues wag around 'this firm should have a sustainable financial model, they can't keep relying on grants'. If they succeed, they are rewarded the spoils, they are celebrated and they get the positive media attention and spin without asking.

I strongly believe that to do social good, even with all the nastiness in social enterprises, there should at least be decency and authenticity. A social enterprise must be honest with its stakeholders, employees and clients: we are not a non-profit organisation and we work for profits. A social enterprise has to be real. Be honest, the social enterprise is just one out of the many firms crowding the do-gooder space, what differentiates the different social enterprises, even if they are almost all cut of the same cloth of desire and want, should be the connection to one's life stories.

For all the negative things I harbour about most social enterprises, as I am impressed by the honesty and authenticity of the boss of AbleThrive. As an autistic individual, I may not fully understand spinal cord injury and the effect of the people. However, I believe if I were to be that someone who is on the seed fund-seeking circuit and go getting, AbleThrive's Brittany Dejean would be my role model. I love the focus in AbleThrive to showcase abilities, celebrate rehabilitation every step in the way towards recovery, and the thematic approaches to the different aspects that improve the quality of life for people with the injury.