Links

Though many links appear throughout the pages of this website, this section introduces several additional sites that give a glimpse into personalities, such as William Drayton of Ashoka and Jeff Skoll of the Skoll Foundation, who have done much to shape the recent history of social entrepreneurship. It may be useful to read through these websites with an eye to what they mean for a) community-based social entrepreneurial initiatives, b) young entrepreneurs, and c) "orphan" issues likely to be acknowledged and addressed by visionary outsiders in partnership with informed local leaders. The intellectual history of the field of social entrepreneurial work in communities is told in these websites and indicates why it is difficult to sustain community-based social entrepreneurial work.

One message that is clear from these websites is that grants from foundations and venture capitalists are hard to come by. Both groups want ideas that can be leveraged, replicated, and scaled up. In short, sources with the greatest amounts of funding want to see startups in social entrepreneurship the same way they see initial efforts in the business world. Startups are thus often seen as R&D-research and development--operations. Funders want to learn from them which ideas are most likely to go well in larger markets and thus lend themselves to replications, franchising, and scaled-up possibilities.

This situation in funding poses special difficulties for community initiatives that see gaps and needs for local-often specialized--services-especially those related to education, health, and environmental reform. To spread or multiply these community-based social entrepreneurial startups beyond their geographic point of origin becomes highly difficult-though not impossible. Consider, for example, the fact that some diseases are niched or "orphaned," that is, confined in large part to one region and therefore not likely to be of interest to multinational pharmaceutical companies. The social entrepreneurship One World Health (of San Francisco, CA) took this idea and went with it. The narrative of Dr. Victoria Hale, founder of the Institute of One World Health, offers lessons on what it takes to spread services and products unlikely to attract huge numbers of clients or consumers.

Moreover, this case demonstrates the frequent need for social entrepreneurial efforts to turn to governments and corporations as partners. Because the patients in need of an "orphan drug" often cannot afford the drug, the government may have to be the provider. But governments want proof of effectiveness in order to be assured that by offering the needed drug, they will benefit in the long run through a healthier labor force and citizenry that will not need costly medical treatment. And corporations and businesses want guarantees of a sure market. [See One World Health for an example of government-corporate collaboration; see Child Line for an instance of social entrepreneurial services being taken over by the government. See Cinepop for a case of business partnership in an entertainment-focused social entrepreneurship.]

Doing a survey of foundations that fund ventures in social entrepreneurship will help build a sense of where values, definitions, and directions for the future now stand. Who is being acknowledged? Where do youth social entrepreneurs stand in the broad picture? And what do the years ahead hold for changes in the long-standing division between for-profit and nonprofit goals?

Before undertaking jumps from link to link, it is worthwhile to understand British and North American distinctions in definitions and uses of the terms social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. [A good place to start on the matter of definitions is the Spring 07 issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review in an article entitled "Social Entrepreneurship: The case for definition" by Roger L. Martin and Sally Osbery; see this article on the website of The Skoll Foundation. ]

It is also useful to think about the role of individuals as social entrepreneurs and collaborative ventures as social entrepreneurships. In general, most of the attention goes to individuals as key founders and ongoing inspiration. Fellowships from Ashoka, the Skoll Foundation, the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, and the Goldman Prize honor individuals-sometimes called "heroes." It is far less common for a group to be recognized for its social entrepreneurial creativity. What does this distinction mean for the future, and to what extent is the focus on individual genius influenced by the "star" quality of CEOs who lead for-profit organizations? As community-based social entrepreneurships work to sustain their operations and grow their constituencies, an informed awareness about the benefits and pitfalls of corporate models can boost creative thinking around some tough issues related to infrastructure, markets, and self-representation.

Summary of links:

The Ashoka Foundation
Youth Venture Ashoka
The Skoll Foundation
The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
Institute for One World Health
Goldman Prize
Youth Social Enterprise Initiative