Sir Ronald Cohen was recently praising, in the Daily Telegraph, the virtues of the innovative social impact bond and predicting the rise of social finance.
Along with it, he emphasises both the importance of attracting the best people to social enterprise and the commitment that many people feel towards this field:
"Some of the most talented people are being drawn to it [social finance and social enterprise]. We are appealing to peoples' sense of social obligation and of social mission.
"About a fifth of recent Harvard Business School graduates have been drawn to social enterprise type organisations."The social enterprise field is, of course, already populated with hugely inspirational and talented people. Like all industries though, it will only continue to be as good as the talent it is able to attract, develop and retain.
Social enterprises need to offer the career prospects, development opportunities and salaries that compete with other top employers, not only during a recession, but also once the big private and public sector guns start hiring again.
Managing a social enterprise is a difficult undertaking. It requires not only solid commercial skills but also well-honed social sector know-how. Developing leaders who spend significant amounts of time in social enterprise from an early age, who know and can manage the tensions, quirks and intricacies that are unique to these organisations has to be a priority for the sector.
Neglecting to develop the next generation of talent risks social enterprise delivering on its promise; bringing in the best and brightest minds will mean that innovations like the social impact bond will be but the first steps towards a brighter, fairer and more inclusive economy.
HI OnPurpose,
ReplyDeleteAs a business we can reasonably claim to be pioneers of the for purpose or cause related business, having delivered the proof of concept project to source microfinance in Russia 10 years ago, in the wake of the 1998 economic collapse of top down econ dev stewarded by HIID.
When I'd read the into to the social impact bond, there was one example listed that we'd been tackling and making progress on, in making the case for removing children from institutional care. This was in Ukraine where we'd redirected our effort 6 years ago and one of the reasons was that social finance wasn't then available.
But would it be available to us now? It would seem that becoming visible is very difficult, even though I've managed to attract 472 people to join 'social business and for benefit corporations' on Linkedin.
There's a perception it seems, that this all happened yesterday after social finance has been conceived.
Social enterprise in our perception has so far, avoided the difficult issues of government corruption and organised crime. it can't be disregarded for ever.
We called ours People-Centered Economic Development and what we focus on is the plight of children discarded into institutions where organised crime siphons perhaps 80% of resources. it should go without saying that that requires a certain tenacity and involves risk.
What's difficult to understand is why any initiative to establish ethical cause driven business has not to-date shown any support for those long active in it.
Jeff Mowatt
P-CED UK
A quote now from the critique of Western Capitalism and theoretical social purpose paradigm published online in 1997.
ReplyDelete- Clearly, profits can be used very effectively in ways other than traditional investment and profit outcomes. Moreover, this is not charity, it is business--good business. One P-CED firm could be expected to spin off dozens of new firms and businesses, all of which create new jobs and all of which operate under traditional free-enterprise practices. That is, if a spin-off business were to profit a million dollars a year, the owners can bank the money for themselves and their stockholders as is the normal practice. There is nothing wrong with individuals becoming wealthy. It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day.