A Smart Moneyarticle 'Launching a Business With a Cause' features our dear friends at Madécasse. In the US the social enterprise infrastructure is way ahead of the UK's - and I say this having just been invited to give a major keynote speech on the very subject.
Pertinent point from the article - Many social entrepreneurs already have a deep familiarity with the community or population they are trying to serve, but need to beef up business skills.
Such an infrastructure is lacking in the UK.
What I love about Brett and his colleagues is their sheer determination to make their project work for themselves and for the communities that they represent and work with.
Getting the local communities to add the real value to the product (at source) enables them to keep the profits rather than allowing the First World manufacturers and distributors to take all the profits.
Theirs is a great achievement when we compare some of the debate that Fairtrade has created (see Does FairTrade Do More Harm Than Good?). Look at Equitrade as an alternative(?) or complementary(?) model.
RELEVANT LINKS
Madécasse - and you can get their chocolate in the UK!Ashoka provides three-year living-wage stipends to entrepreneurs "who have an innovative, cutting-edge or system-changing idea or solution for solving critical social issues,"The Skoll Foundation invests in social entrepreneursSchwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
Investors' Circle the investor network that Madécasse worked withAcumen Funds funds enterprises that address povertyCalvert invests in high-risk, socially and environmentally responsible enterprises.Does FairTrade Do More Harm Than Good? by Cris Sholto HeatonEquitrade
6 comments:
Yes, the US does have an older, larger, more tax friendly SE structure. I don't seek to denigrate the sterling efforts of those who run them, but one has to consider the reasons behind the movement in the US, (tax breaks and religion). Indeed one should also consider how ineffective SE tends to be here, especially for the general population within the US, whom, one would have thought, most of the benefits would be directed towards.
There are 1.5 million nonprofits and other social ventures her in the US. They have combined revenues of $700 billion and control assets valued at $2 trillion. Ostensibly, these funds are formed and continue to exist to tackle problems in crucial areas such as education, poverty, and health care. Yet they fail dismally. In fact, a significant number of these SE's are actually Christian organizations. Mention the "C word" on your non-profit, and not only will you never have to submit a tax-return, but you'll also receive free dosh from the God-Squad crusaders on Capitol Hill. This goes some way towards explaining why there is so much money, with so few tangible, lasting results.
But, just consider the 47 Million US citizens with no health insurance and further 28 Million who are under-insured. What about the 25 Million who have to ask for federal hand-outs for emergency food? Imagine being one of these nearly 80 million, who go for cancer screening, usually by an NGO, and who are unlucky enough to be diagnosed with malignant tumors, only to be informed that now you've been diagnosed, there is no treatment available for you, as you are, essentially, a "non-person," an "untouchable" with no access to medical care or drugs.
Consider the 10% illiterate that live here (30 Million,) and those without homes, clothes, food, jobs etc.
Chocolate bars are very nice, but, the US system is hardly a model to champion. Nor does it seem to serve the local population very well. Without question, the social sector has contributed in ways to addressing major societal problems, yet traditional approaches are still falling short, especially as the intensity and complexity of social problems has grown.
Call me cynical, but there is even a theory that, as the US system is geared up for strictly corporate, big-box/big-business, and and as such usually strangles SME's with regulatory costs and nonsense, (10-20 times more expensive for a small company to operate it's regulatory structure than the big boys) it's far easier to make one's enterprise a non-profit.
The UK may not be as tax-return friendly as the US for donating, but it is well known that US citizens and corporations would not give as handsomely if there weren't significant tax benefits, (think Gates/Buffet,) in fact they recently had to change the regulations on donating cars to non-profits, as “good citizens” were consistently exaggerating the values of their donations. This meant huge tax-breaks, but the recipients were often left with scrap metal, and an over valuing of their own receipts for the year, hardly what one call philanthropy. I put it to you that the foundational structures oriented towards localised benefits are far more effective in Europe.
People just need to be encouraged to do more by starting more non-profits there. Cravenesque business training needs to be far more available (SE's absolutely need to be entrepreneurial to be successful,) and the government and banks need to make it easier to do something good for one's country. Finally, would-be social entrepreneurs have to be told that starting and running a non-profit doesn't mean no pay, as it perhaps used to. Fair earnings can easily mean the same as running a for-profit these days.
Good luck with the Keynote Robert, I hope you can convert some of the masses to do more.
I agree with vsbe, the US is wasteful and the uk charities have a better impact on the national/societal level. It may not be as large as the US but it certainly is something to be proud of!
I was not trying to make any real statement about US vs UK apart from the fact that Brett and his colleagues found a wealth of resources and support in the USA; I haven't been aware of such an infrastructure in the UK.
Robert
I agree with vsbe, the US is wasteful and the uk charities have a better impact on the national/societal level. It may not be as large as the US but it certainly is something to be proud of!
Yes, the US does have an older, larger, more tax friendly SE structure. I don't seek to denigrate the sterling efforts of those who run them, but one has to consider the reasons behind the movement in the US, (tax breaks and religion). Indeed one should also consider how ineffective SE tends to be here, especially for the general population within the US, whom, one would have thought, most of the benefits would be directed towards.
There are 1.5 million nonprofits and other social ventures her in the US. They have combined revenues of $700 billion and control assets valued at $2 trillion. Ostensibly, these funds are formed and continue to exist to tackle problems in crucial areas such as education, poverty, and health care. Yet they fail dismally. In fact, a significant number of these SE's are actually Christian organizations. Mention the "C word" on your non-profit, and not only will you never have to submit a tax-return, but you'll also receive free dosh from the God-Squad crusaders on Capitol Hill. This goes some way towards explaining why there is so much money, with so few tangible, lasting results.
But, just consider the 47 Million US citizens with no health insurance and further 28 Million who are under-insured. What about the 25 Million who have to ask for federal hand-outs for emergency food? Imagine being one of these nearly 80 million, who go for cancer screening, usually by an NGO, and who are unlucky enough to be diagnosed with malignant tumors, only to be informed that now you've been diagnosed, there is no treatment available for you, as you are, essentially, a "non-person," an "untouchable" with no access to medical care or drugs.
Consider the 10% illiterate that live here (30 Million,) and those without homes, clothes, food, jobs etc.
Chocolate bars are very nice, but, the US system is hardly a model to champion. Nor does it seem to serve the local population very well. Without question, the social sector has contributed in ways to addressing major societal problems, yet traditional approaches are still falling short, especially as the intensity and complexity of social problems has grown.
Call me cynical, but there is even a theory that, as the US system is geared up for strictly corporate, big-box/big-business, and and as such usually strangles SME's with regulatory costs and nonsense, (10-20 times more expensive for a small company to operate it's regulatory structure than the big boys) it's far easier to make one's enterprise a non-profit.
The UK may not be as tax-return friendly as the US for donating, but it is well known that US citizens and corporations would not give as handsomely if there weren't significant tax benefits, (think Gates/Buffet,) in fact they recently had to change the regulations on donating cars to non-profits, as “good citizens” were consistently exaggerating the values of their donations. This meant huge tax-breaks, but the recipients were often left with scrap metal, and an over valuing of their own receipts for the year, hardly what one call philanthropy. I put it to you that the foundational structures oriented towards localised benefits are far more effective in Europe.
People just need to be encouraged to do more by starting more non-profits there. Cravenesque business training needs to be far more available (SE's absolutely need to be entrepreneurial to be successful,) and the government and banks need to make it easier to do something good for one's country. Finally, would-be social entrepreneurs have to be told that starting and running a non-profit doesn't mean no pay, as it perhaps used to. Fair earnings can easily mean the same as running a for-profit these days.
Good luck with the Keynote Robert, I hope you can convert some of the masses to do more.
Great profile of our friends at @madecasse! @fastcompany :great slideshow! http://bit.ly/e1GMc4
Post a Comment