A definition of social innovation

“We contend that social innovation is the best construct for understanding and producing lasting social change. We redefine social innovation to mean: A novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.”

Source: Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008)

A definition of social entrepreneurship

• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value
• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission
• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning
• Acting boldly without being limited to resources currently at hand
• Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be many ways of solving a social problem.

1) NGOs / Government - Mission Driven Way

Funds can be raised, the government can set up departments and fund social projects

Government usually like large scale projects, focusing on equity, and the funds used should be accountable to voters. Generally slow moving and takes a long time to implement.

NGOs are often shaped by beliefs and values and the projects tend to be responsive to the board, community, donors and the public. It is also mission driven and operate under a non-distribution constraint.

2) Social Entrepreneurs

4 main criteria:

• Innovation
• Financial Sustainability
• Impact
• Scale

Mission and money are balanced Takes the best of “both worlds”

Goal: to create innovative, sustainable, effective, and scalable solutions to social problems

“Not just businessmen who see that something has to change…” 

M. Yunus

"As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need… To provide…for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way….I like to call this system creative capitalism…."

B. Gates

"Social entrepreneurs are…the practical dreamers who have the talent and the skill and the vision to solve problems [and] to change the world….Social entrepreneurs have a unique approach that is both evolutionary and revolutionary, operating in free markets where success is measured not just in financial profit but also in the improvement of the quality of people’s lives."

Skoll Foundation

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For social entrepreneurs, the starting a business with a social cause is not enough. Taking an Entrepreneurship approach brings innovation up front is key. I strongly feel that problems should be tackled at the source.

For example, instead of giving homeless people food and shelter (which many other NGOs are doing) A social entrepreneur should focus on how to prevent people from getting to that point of homelessness. Or ways where homeless people can get back on their feet and eventually rent / own a home.

Getting the beneficiaries choices and empowering them to solve their own problems should be key as they should feel more involved in the solution that will directly affect them. I've met many brilliant social entrepreneurs who would "think for" their beneficiaries, and for many cases, it works after much iteration. However if the beneficiary is a person, shouldn't they be engaged be part of the solution, instead of being seen as the problem?

I always have a quote which I deeply believe in. 

"Poor people are NOT stupid people." 

M. Yunus.

And I feel that engaging them from the start, and empowering them to be part of the solution should be the first start of any social enterprise. 

-- Robin Low

State of Social Enterprise in Singapore

I went for a talk on ACSEP Social Entrepreneurship (SE) Series: Landscape of Social Enterprises in Singapore by Asia Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy (ACSEP)

There was some insight on the state of social enterpreneurship in Singapore.

The seminar will address current issues surrounding social enterprise, focusing on: —

• Core principles underpinning a social enterprise — 
• Public perception of the social enterprise model — 
• Challenges and opportunities facing the sector

With some comparisons with the UK, South Korea, the SE in Singapore does not seem to do as well as other developed countries.

There was some talk about the ambiguity of definition of Social Enterprises, and how some organizations identified themselves as social enterprises but there were only about 150-300 SEs in Singapore compared to 1000+ in South Korea where the government started the SE initiatives later but seems to have more SEs in the country.

There was a little focus to talk about how NTUC is one of the largest social enterprise, but during the Q&A, many people questioned why NTUC is considered a social enterprise.

There seems to be very little support from the government on social entrepreneurship. Back in 2008, there was a lot of talk on Social Entrepreneurship, much funding and training provided. However, even with NTUC and various other companies like Grab Taxi identifying themselves as Social Enterprises, there is 150-300 of them in Singapore?

Many questioned on why NTUC is considered a social enterprises and the response was "NTUC is a cooperative which gives a % back to the members"

I asked if Unilevel and SAP, companies who partnered Grameen Creative Labs on several social initiatives for social impact can be considered social enterprises, the reply was they only donated a small % of their profits as CSR.

Then a model was shared and according to the Social Enterprise Association in Singapore, an organization that gives 10% of the profits to a social cause can be considered a social enterprise. So can Marina Bay Sands or Resorts World Sentosa be considered a social enterprises if they donated 10% of their earnings to Gamblers Annoymous?

Currently, there is no legal structure for a social enterprise in Singapore. An organisation can choose to either be registered as a charity (in which case it forgoes doing business) or be registered as a full commercial company (where the profits can, but need not, go to charity). In UK, there is the CIC organizations, in the US, a L3C, and in South Korea, a Social Enterprise enjoys different tax structures and funding. Nothing here in Singapore.

With NTUC labeled as a social enterprise, I feel that it opens the door for all sorts of companies to be considered social enterprises. I have heard about some social enterprises hiring ex-convicts, handicapped people and the elderly, getting a tax break and underpaying the people they hire, and yet still considered social enterprises.

I disagreed with several NUS business school professors who say that it is important for a company to do well before doing good, and a social entrepreneur has to juggle with decisions whether to make less profits or to exploit the employees.

When profits is the primary focus of a company, I feel that that company should not be called a social enterprise. Some of these companies are merely companies with a CSR program. Giving 10% of your profits to say that you are doing social good is not bad, but it does not make you a social enterprise.

A social enterprise should not pay a handicapped person or a marginalized person less, just because they can, and still call themselves a social enterprise. Sometimes, that is the only reason these companies can be considered social enterprises in the first place, and using the faces of these marginalized people for marketing purpose is definitely worth not exploiting them. They are the marketing material.

There is much to progress as a nation and I hope people do not do things for the sake of doing. But first, stop white washing your company's name. NTUC by itself is a good brand without being a social enterprise. Perhaps you can be more competitive in your pricing and pay more decent wages for better service.

-- Robin Low