Social Enterprise:

 

'The label social enterprise has been applied to a range of phenomena. It has been used to refer to earned income strategies by nonprofits; voluntary organisations delivering public services; democratically controlled organisations blending social and economic goals; profit-orientated businesses operating in public welfare fields, or having a social conscience; and community enterprises addressing social problems. The only defining characteristics central to each of these definitions are the primacy of social aims and the centrality of trading' [Dees; Di Domenici et al; Defourny and Nyssens; Kanter and Purrington; Harding; Williams; Peattie and Morley in (Teasdale, 2011: 3)]. Similary, Teasdale (2011) notes that the state deliberately leaves the definition of social enterprise open as to depict them as addressing a multitude of social issues through as many avenues as possible under the umbrella of Social Enterprise. This has had a number of repercussions for the definition itself over context, space and time:

 

‘In continental Europe (with relevant differences between countries and organizations), the idea of social enterprise tend to be linked to an autonomous and collective process (rather that individual), with a strong focus on the democratic control and participatory involvement of the stakeholders (rather than based on hierarchical organization structures), with decision making-power not based on the capital ownership, drawing on multiple resources from private or public origin (not just market income), with a limited distribution of profits (not-for-profit), and with an economic activity directly linked to their social mission’ (Castresana, 2013)

 

‘A social enterprise definition which is gaining ground especially in the USA tends to qualify social enterprises as organizations running commercial activities, not necessarily linked to the social mission, with the goal of collecting incomes to fund a social activity’ (Galera and Borzaga, 2009)

 

'Social entrepreneurship clearly aims at a double (if not triple) bottom line, combining social and economic value creation' (Cho, 2006) However, Dart et al., (2010) try to scope down the definitions to find a possible frame for what truly constitutes a social enterprise. The frames they posit endeavour either too many organisations or none at all. By using the double bottom line of social and economic value, this could encapsulate almost any organisation as they all seek to make profit while providing social value through employment or other CSR-like initiatives. Similarly, it is posited that organisations that follow the triple bottom line will not all be social enterprises, e.g. not all green organisation can be constituted as a social enterprise.

 

So what makes a social enterprise?

 

Parkinson & Howorth (2008) decidely take an interpretive approach, rather than a problematic approach, when defining the term social entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial discourse has been dogged by attempts at defining this phenomena. This sees social entrepreneurship being defined as 'the use of entrepreneurial processes for social purpose, is itself the site of ideological and power struggles at root' (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008).

 

 

Defining the Social in 'Social Enterprise'

 

A large area of recent discourse has tried to uncover what is meant by the term social in social enterprise.

 

'The prevailing definitions in the field generally fail to explain or investigate the concept of the ‘social’, treating it as a predetermined and exogenous concept, or one so patently obvious as to require no further explanation' (Cho, 2006). Similarly, 'The charge is that in the rise of the social enterprise agenda, community has been side-lined discursively and complex values and meanings behind the social ignored' (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008: 291)

 

A contextual approach must be made for this, as what is socially good for one person may be the adverse to what another person believes:

 

'SE 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). In this sense, social enterprise is inherently political (Cho, 2006), and a single definition cannot be defined, but instead an existential ideology is proposed that posits the social in social enterprise as a complex paradigm that exists between different individuals, communities and groups across both space, time and context (Teasdale, 2011).

 

 

 

Deprived Communities:

 

Recent discourse has place the social enterprise agenda into deprived communities:

 

'A major body of literature has looked at the problematic connections between entrepreneurship and deprivation, particularly in regeneration and economic development policy terms' [Lloyd and Mason 1984, Nolan 2003, Haywood and Nicholls 2004, Southern 2006 in (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008: 287)]

 

Again, what is meant by deprived communities varies on the basis of context. Castresana (2013) makes use of the development agenda in comparing social enterprise as being the panacea to deprived communities. Similarly "The encouragement of social enterprises is viewed as a central tenet of regional development strategies in the UK, particularly in areas of deprivation" (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008: 285).

 

This begs the question that Castresana (2013) posits when asking whether social enterprise is 'Opening a new road map or just a new vehicle to travel the same route?' This argues that social enterprise is simply the reformation of existing business models that are being applied to solve a number of social issues. As a result, this emphasis on replicating existing business models restricts the potential for social enterprises to develop new or innovative models that combine the best of social and enterprise (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008).

 

What can be defined though is that deprived communities are dependent on context and can exist over both space and time. A simple dictionary definition defines being deprived as: “Suffering a severe and damaging lack of basic material and cultural benefits” (Oxford Dictionary, 2015)