Dean's Breakfast 12/6/06
Points of interest:Bruce Buchanan, Professor of Marketing and Ethics, at NYU's Stern School of Business humored by saying that the terms, "social entrepreneurship" and, "corporate social responsibility" could be oxymorons (i.e., "military intelligence"). Paul Light, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at the Wagner School at NYU recently challenged, in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article, that the modern definition of the term “social entrepreneur” was too narrowly focused on the individual – the driver or creator of an idea or an organization. Bill Drayton, the founder of Ashoka, encourages us to stop using the term "non-profit organization" and instead focus on terms such as "citizen organization." Why so much attention to semantics? Both the private and the public industries are responding to internal and external pressures to redefine themselves – with good reason. And with this redefinition comes a need for creating labels. One sentiment expressed at the breakfast was that the work being done is more important than what we decide to call it. I agree.
The truth is that the private sectors are responding, as they always have, to a new customer - a customer that is now more conscious of the negative repercussions that often result from the production of such goods or services. Customers want to buy cosmetics that are not tested on animals. People want to buy clothes that do not support sweatshops, or even give back some of the proceeds to development causes, such as the Gap and Amex RED campaign. Is this wrong that such companies use these ideas to extract further profits? Should they give all of their proceeds away and not just a small percentage? Why not do a little good as opposed to no good at all? What is the level of responsibility of a company? At the end of the day, as Buchanan pointed out, it is legally mandated that a business create value for its shareholders. If they don’t do that, they crumble, jobs are lost, spending decreases, and poverty increases. Is this worth it? Where do we draw the line between intentions and actions?
On the other side of the coin, the not-for-profit sectors are responding to a public that is more demanding than ever. Watchdog groups want money being spent wisely, they want accountability, and outcomes. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations realize more and more the value of infusing business concepts into their strategies and operations (e.g., financial management, accountability, measurable outputs, employee retention plans) in order to improve the services that they provide. Capitalists could argue that while these organizations do provide valuable services, they do not provide the same financial stability or other employee benefits (tangible anyway) as do private firms. And those things too are significant in creating happy, healthy communities.
Now, if it is mutually beneficial for both ends of this traditional continuum to gravitate towards the middle, in terms of their actions, do we even need to continue to make the semantic differentiation? Why not simplify the equation and just call every organization or company a "Good Venture" or a "Bad Venture." Good ventures being the ones that provide a greater benefit to society than a cost. Bad ventures being of course the opposite. Period. It’s all about the outcomes anyway, right? Now, go buy a Red shirt.
- Jason Solle
posted by Sesha @ 11:24
0 comments
