Sajida Rahman —A Recent 2018 Ashoka Fellow

Another example of a ‘pure’ social entrepreneur Sajida Rahman —a recent 2018 Ashoka Fellow. To more clearly see Dees’s ideas in practice, we will again walk through his six aspects of a social entrepreneur using Danny as the model.

1) Danny is a local change agent by working in her home community of Bangladesh to change the way that the Autism Spectrum Disorder  community exists within her society. Danny reduces need by tackling multiple roots of the problem. She achieves her goal—allowing ASD individuals to live ‘full’ lives—through a system of steps (paralleling the backbone of the theory of change. She needs to integrate ASD individuals into society and to do this she needs to reduce the stigma of an ASD status and to do that she needs to change society’s viewpoint around ASD and finally to do that she decided to educate and enable the parents/caretakers of ASD individuals.

2) Danny makes profit through donations, training programs, and various products made by ASD individuals. All this money is invested back into her social mission .

3) Danny’s son was born with Autism. As a result of her son’s diagnosis, her family alienated her, doctors ignored her, the public refused to support her, schools rejected her son, and her son was harassed/bullied. As a single mother, Danny severely struggled to support herself and her son. Instead of accepting her situation she decided to be the instigator of change.

4) Danny created the Parents Forum for Differently Abled (PFDA) which is a platform for parents/caregivers of ASD individuals to come together, empower their voices, and figure out how change can/should be made. Danny never gave up.

5) Danny did not have the power to make the change herself, so she came up with the idea to find parents/caregivers, like her, and have them come together, brainstorm, and vocalize their need for change.

6) Danny’s own son is affected by how much she is able to change the lives of ASD individuals in Bangladesh .

The success of her mission is very close to her heart. One can see that Danny is also that special breed that Dees considers a social entrepreneur. Entrepreneur—Three schools of thought: Although Dees definition is widely accredited, there is still much debate surrounding the concept of a social entrepreneur. There have emerged three different schools of thought aimed at classifying the social entrepreneur. The Ashoka model, known as the Social Innovation School, claims that social entrepreneurs are ambitious, persistent, and innovative individuals able to provide effective solutions to severe social problems with the goal of wide-scale change. Another definition comes from the Emergence of Social Enterprise in Europe stating that social enterprises are organizations, created by citizens, that exist with the explicit aim to benefit a community and have a limit on material capital interest Janssen. Notice here that, although both mention the aim for positive change, the Social Innovation School’s definition centers around the individual while the EMES model focuses on the collective organization. The third model, which I find the most compelling, is the Spectrum School, which promotes the idea that social enterprises exists on a spectrum that ranges from pure non-profits to pure for-profits with hybrids throughout the middle. The SE School’s definition provides a very interesting implication that at what point on the spectrum is a social business a commercial business—is it the midpoint, close to the pure non-profit?

I align most with the SE School’s model because it recognizes the need to compare social and commercial entrepreneurs—to find where on the spectrum does one become the other. Combining the Spectrum model with Dees’s definition of social entrepreneurs allows for effective comparison with commercial entrepreneurs. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs—Similarities: The mission of a social entrepreneur is “not just an idea, but the central logic of  life—as it is for every great entrepreneur”. Bill Drayton in his 2006 paper ‘Everyone a Changemaker’ likened the entrepreneur to a “smart white blood cells coursing through society, will stop with pleasure whenever they see that something is stuck or that an opportunity is ripe to be seized”. One main thing that the commercial and social entrepreneur have in common is the ability to recognize and even desire a problem which they believe they can solve. Although their ends goals are very different, their core willpower and curiosity are the same. Both entrepreneurial types are complex mosaics that can grow to take form in many different combinations. Another interesting way to look at social versus commercial entrepreneurs is through various analogies. The two entrepreneurial types can be defined as “two sides of the same coin”.

Both have a similar shape, form, and material, but the faces they portray are widely different. Looking at it from another perspective, the relationship between the two is sometimes equated to that of a parent-field to a child-field. This alludes to the fact that commercial entrepreneurship has more research associated with it and is more developed than social entrepreneurship; however, the latter has been following a similar path of growth, popularity, and clarity. Both entrepreneurial types are phenomenon driven and neither, originally, had a very clear definition. In addition, both the commercial and social entrepreneur can be compared as two ‘sub-species’ in an entrepreneurial evolutionary tree. This alludes to the idea that the two have similar roots but have since branched off and taken their business missions in opposite directions. The goal of a commercial entrepreneur relies on personal and employer funds, while the goal of a social entrepreneur relies on donors and change agents. Although both also generate revenue to invest back into the business, the social entrepreneur will reinvest all of the profit. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs—Differences: Commercial and social entrepreneurs share several fundamental differences as well as the aforementioned similarities. All entrepreneurs want to move the economy forward and see opportunity in change. However, a social entrepreneur’s main goal when doing this is to fulfill a social mission while a commercial entrepreneur’s main goal is to make money.

In fact, “wealth creation is just a means to end for social entrepreneurs” and the only reason they create wealth at all is because the market forces them to do so to exist. As such, markets do not work alongside the social entrepreneur as it does for the commercial entrepreneur. Markets were built for profit not for social improvements, public good, or be the benefit of low-income groups. Markets were also built to force competition which bodes well for a monopolizing commercial enterprise. However, social businesses are forced to fight each other for donations, volunteers, grants, and other fee assistance resources. Thus, the first main difference between social and commercial entrepreneurs is the reason they desire money and thus their place within the market system. Although analogies shed light on the differences and similarities between the social and the commercial entrepreneur, there is no one clear and perfect parallel to illustrate this. Another approach to take is systematic comparison. Sophie Bacq, a professor from Northeastern University, writes in her paper ‘The Multiple Faces of Social entrepreneurship’ about four variables used to assess the entrepreneurs; market failure, mission, resource mobilization, and performance measurement. Most of these can be seen in individual analogies above; however, they can be understood in a new light with methodical representations.

The type of market failure will affect the mission opportunities of social and commercial entrepreneurs in very different ways. The mission, as either profit oriented or positive change oriented, is a main distinguisher between the two entrepreneurs. The approaches the two entrepreneurs take to achieve that mission will vary in terms of the funding they can access and mobilize. Lastly, the way they measure their mission success will change in necessity and importance depending on the funding they have received. From this analysis it is seen that the mission is a key factor affecting all aspects of the possible differences between social and commercial entrepreneurs. Summary—Mission as the overarching difference: Going deeper into the idea of the mission difference, Social and commercial entrepreneurs share a similar empowerment ability. They both must have a focused vision and seek out the opportunity to promote their central mission. This mission—whether it be the social entrepreneur’s change or the commercial entrepreneur’s profit—will have the ability to mobilize people. The empowerment drive is either one of passion or one of business.

The passion comes from a desire for a social return on investment or a desire for a financial return on investment. The SROI of social entrepreneurs is the way that they ensure they achieved their social mission of positive change in society for a disadvantaged group of people. The FROI of commercial entrepreneurs is the way they make sure they have returned a profit potentially affording them more opportunities for increased profit in the future. While the overall type of mission the two entrepreneurs employ are different, their desire to seek measurable outcomes that give them the ability to empower others to promote their mission is similar. Although there are many differences between social and commercial entrepreneurs, it seems that all of it points to one main component—the mission. It is the mission of the social entrepreneur to find a need within society and fill it while it is the mission of the commercial entrepreneur to find the need within society and exploit it. That is the main distinction—filling need versus creating it. While the social entrepreneur remains focused on creating positive social benefit the commercial entrepreneur remains focused on profit.

This idea combined with the representation presented by the SE School’s model is shown in  I believed the two sides of the same coin analogy above makes the most sense. Their starting material and strength is all the same, but it is the face that they put on that makes them distinct. Unfortunately, unlike a coin, the faces of social and commercial entrepreneurs are not always one or the other. Many commercial entrepreneurs can mask themselves as social entrepreneurs to tap into novel resources that do not belong to them thus creating a grey area. Two Examples of Entrepreneurs in the Grey Area: Blake Mycoskie founded TOMS Shoes in 2006. The mission of TOMS Shoes is to break the poverty cycle that the families from undeveloped countries are trapped in. This mission fits the bill to be a social venture; however, there might be something more to this business than meets the eye. Mycoskie claims to achieve TOMS Shoes mission by implementing a one-for-one model. When someone from the developed world buys one of TOMS Shoes they give another one free to someone from the undeveloped world. However, if you look at the cost structure of his platform you see a major problem. Mycoskie sells his shoes from anywhere between 44 to 60 US dollars. However, it costs the company 5 US dollars to make the shoes and another 1.5 US dollars to make the extra donated shoe. This begs the question, where does the rest of the money made go—profit. Mycoskie’s company makes him a massive profit. In fact, he exploits his fake social mission to increase the sale of his shoes by misleading his buyers—making them think they are doing good. Now even if you want to make the claim that he should still be considered a social entrepreneur because, although he is turning a profit, he is still creating social change then let’s look at this supposed social good he is doing. Will his model really break the poverty cycle like he claims? No, in fact it is doing more harm than good. By providing the free shoes he is taking business away from local shoe makers thus increasing their poverty.

Mycoskie is making the communities he provides shoes for reliant on him while he should be trying to make them independent if his goal is to get them out of poverty. Another interesting fact about Mycoskie is that he wrote a book called Start Something that Matters, in which he uses his own story to explain the power of incorporating giving into a business. However, that is not how a typical social entrepreneur would think. Giving is not incorporated into the business but rather is the business. Somaly Mam created the Somaly Mam Foundation in 1996. The mission of the organization is to eradicate sex slavery and empower its survivors in Southeast Asia. Somaly Mam achieves this social mission by rescuing women and putting them on a path to health and economic independence. She runs shelters, training programs, and spreads her message though activism, education and radio. She is working slowly towards a cultural shift in the way women are viewed and in the way that women view themselves. Unfortunately, although her foundation is successful in starting to create social change, there has been some controversy. Mam claims she created her foundation because she herself had been a sex slave in a brothel, but she escaped. However, additional information has come out that all this a lie. Sources have shown that she grew up in a comfortable home and received a good education. Mam had been using her background to gain fame for the issue, sympathy and promote her work. Many people are understandably furious; however, can we still consider her a social entrepreneur?

I think yes, because Mam has a central social mission that she is achieving. Mam is creating positive social change through her business. Maybe what she did was wrong and that speaks to her character, but it does not change her social entrepreneur status because she has worked to maintain and progress her social mission. In fact, to save her foundation from severe backlash she has stepped down because the continuation of her mission meant more to her than overseeing the business itself. Conclusion: The main difference between commercial and social entrepreneurs are whether their mission is about profit generation or social change. However, because of the grey area social entrepreneurs, one cannot just look at the mission itself to distinguish between the two—now the implementation of the mission matters. Claiming to have a social mission is not that same as it being achieved and/or central to the business. Blake Mycoskie and Somaly Mam are grey area social/commercial entrepreneurs because their classification depends on how deeply you view their situations. You need to understand the whole picture to really flesh out grey area entrepreneurs. When you google Blake Mycoskie, you find countless articles of admiration and praise, while if you google Somaly Mam you find more articles ridiculing her. However, did Blake ever ask the people he was helping what they wanted, if they had told him they wanted something besides shoes would he have done it if the potential for profit was lower?

Somaly Mam asked the people she was helping what they needed. She dug deep within her community to find where she could create effective social change. Then when it came time for her to choose between her business and her social mission she picked the latter. The true mark of a social entrepreneur is not fame, success, or a heart wrenching back story, but rather a positive social mission that they would give up everything to achieve. The “mission becomes their raison D’être to pursuit profit,” which is the reason Somaly Mam lied—to get money for her social mission. This is the reason I personally put the type of mission and implementation of that mission as the deciding factor between social and commercial entrepreneurs. Both social and commercial entrepreneurs can lie, but it is not their character that makes them social or commercial—it is their mission.