Conclusions and the Future of Social Enterprise

 

Social enterprise appears a promising tool for mitigating the problems of the state and the market to offer a solution to deprived areas around the world. However, where the problem is rooted in politics, then it becomes problematic to offer a solution (Cho, 2006) to the deprived. 'Social Enterprise is a means to an end; it is not itself capable of defining social needs or assessing whether the burdens of meeting these needs are being shared equitably' (Cho, 2006). This idea is rooted in the problem of defining what is to be social, as the Ecotourism case study shows. Similarly we run into problems in defining a social enterprise, as both the double and triple bottom line seems to encapsulate too many organisations. Teasdale (2011) relates this to governments expanding the constructs of social enterprise to accommodate other organisational forms so the state can claim it is addressing a wide range of social issues through the means of social enterprise. This simultaneously explains the rise of social enterprise and why there is a belief that social entrepreneurship reaches the parts of society other policy initiatives do not reach, that social entrepreneurs are unsung heroes and alchemists with magical qualities who can build things from nothing (Dees 2004).

 

Despite this, social enterprise offers potential, however it must be seen as an instrument rather than the solution (Cho, 2006). This is inextricably linked to Institutional Theory where 'over time social enterprises will adopt the favoured practices of their dominant funder' (Teasdale, 2011). Similarly, 'another way of thinking about social enterprise is as an activity, carried out by a variety of organisations within civil society' (Kane, 2008: 1). What this means is that social enterprise, rather than offering the solution, offers a mechanism by which organisations can adopt to help provide social value to deprived areas both within communities and around the world. It is not the be all and end all to the deprived but a tool amongst many, now used by the state, market and third sector to mitigate their failures as opposed to situating it between the state and the market to fill a gap, which could generate unexpectedly perverse outcomes (Cho, 2006). Taking this back to the question in hand: Is Social Enterprise the solution to the deprived around the world? One would argue that it is not but instead it is part of a solution. Note the use of 'the' and 'a' when talking about the solution. We posit that it is not the solution but a mechanism in which a number of solutions could be founded upon. It could even be argued that there are solutions outside the bounds of social enterprise, but it can be stipulated that social enterprise has shown its potential and it deserves the attention that it is being given in the context of deprivation.

 

What marks the future of social enterprise? Catherall & Richardson (2014: 7) posit that they will be 'where they should be; working at the margins but no longer marginalised; creating and shaping markets; pushing boundaries; building nations; and creating the space for governments, charities and for-profit businesses to follow'. Although this may overstate their ability, it supports the idea that social enterprises will complement the different sectors as opposed to creating their own entity (Cho, 2006). However as Southern & Parkinson (2011: 303) posit that 'using enterprise as a tool for addressing deprivation, without critical understanding of specific contextual and structural factors or the unmeshed nature of causation, is likely to be ineffective in changing the circumstances for people in those communities'. This stance is paramount in understanding the potential of social enterprise becoming a solution to something that is unsolvable by a single entity alone. It appears then that social enterprise in the future will be enmeshed within the 3 sectors to provide a model of business that contributes to civil society in order to help the deprived. What must be stressed in the future though is that there may be other solutions available and by 'locking into this narrow, particular view of enterprise the social regenerative potential from initiatives that manifest in new forms of social or local enterprise may be lost' (MacDonald et al, 2011: 235).