A discussion about SE and its application to the charity sector has many levels; some distinct, some nuanced. Trying to summarize it neatly is almost as challenging as writing the series of articles. Hopefully an objective perspective on potential concerns has been impressed upon the reader and any sense of obstruction to social good has been alleviated by the manifestation of the article’s secondary theme - the prospect of achieving the fundamental changes envisioned by the SE community within the current regulatory environment.
There are a number of concepts and intentions in which goods and services can be sold in and outside of the marketplace, with or without an element of social good. For practical reasons, the sale of a good or service by a registered charity does not automatically open the door to unrestricted revenue or present an opportunity for investment capital; it is important registered charities become familiar with the specific circumstances in which revenue can be generated before committing resources to an initiative. The same can be said for sector organizations and agencies to ensure their efforts in support of charities are also strategically focused.
In a similar vein, I believe there is a need for SE promoters and other interested parties to better understand the legal environment for charities and, more importantly, its practicality in stewarding assets towards public benefit. This would lead to effective direction of resources for socially-minded intentions without introducing unnecessary financial risk and inefficient use of social capital (funding, donations, and volunteerism).
The mechanisms of the marketplace and business also need lucidity. While there are no regulatory barriers preventing a ‘social’ entrepreneur from operating a for-profit entity with a public benefit purpose, it is strategically impractical and stated intentions do not necessarily guarantee social impact. Likewise, traditional entrepreneurship and private shareholder distribution does not necessarily guarantee materialization of social issues.
The challenge in my mind is to find a thread that can connect the many different interests who seem to be part of the SE conversation. A leading authority on the legal environment relating to SE offers the opinion there likely is not one organization or individual that could bring all these different missions and mandates to the same conceptual understanding. To this sentiment I would add as long as for-profit motive is given a direct role in SE activity, a singular conceptual understanding likely cannot be established, and with billions of dollars of social funding and donations potentially in play, should not be attempted.
Similar to social entrepreneurs, while I do not question the aspirations of SE promoters and supporters, they need to be tempered in order to facilitate an impartial view of the for-profit/public benefit conflict dynamic. Through a lens free of cause-themed colouring, I believe there would be a better understanding of the potential concerns outlined in this article. I also believe there would be a raised consciousness of the opportunities already available to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability for marginalized persons and communities; to improve accessibility to essential goods and services; to enable ‘social’ consumerism and investment. With measured objectivity, interest in social issues and a passion to ‘do good’ can be effectively directed to affect positive change.
http://www.oylerconsulting.ca/articles.html
Oyler Consulting works with registered charities and non-profit organizations to increase their effectiveness and capacity to deliver their programs and services. Services include practical guidance on Canada Revenue Agency policy for registered charities, helping organizations build successful fundraising programs, program and service development, and social enterprise. Visitwww.oylerconsulting.ca; contact David Oyler by email.
