a speech on social entrepreneurship

Social Entrepreneurship: What It Is and Why Everyone's Talking About It

Published: July 28, 2022

Entrepreneurs used to be enterprising, savvy founders who started businesses for one reason: to make money. But times have changed — and with the emergence of something known as social entrepreneurship, several founders' motivations have shifted from profit margins to social responsibility.

Here, we'll review the concept of social entrepreneurship, get some perspective on what a socialpreneur is, take a look at some examples of successful social entrepreneurship ventures, go over some social entrepreneurship ideas, see how to pick a social entrepreneurship idea of your own, and check out some key statistics on the subject.

Let's dive in.

What is social entrepreneurship?

What is a socialpreneur, social entrepreneurship examples, social entrepreneurship ideas, how to pick a social entrepreneurship idea, social entrepreneurs, hbspt.cta._relativeurls=true;hbspt.cta.load(53, '32f9dbf1-275f-4e21-bbed-238f0923e637', {"usenewloader":"true","region":"na1"});.

The phrase 'social entrepreneurship' refers to a brand of entrepreneurship rooted in funding or implementing solutions to cultural, social, or environmental problems. The term is something of a catch-all that covers virtually any type of private organization that uses business as a means to socially conscious ends.

Social entrepreneurship is a relatively fluid concept that covers a broad variety of organizations. There's no definitive mold that says, "A socially entrepreneurial business generates X amount of revenue within the confines of a Y organizational structure for a Z type of cause."

For instance, both a mutual aid fund dedicated to assisting small businesses in marginalized communities and a corporation that uses its proceeds to support education for women in third-world countries could both be considered socially entrepreneurial outlets.

Some social enterprises might not follow any sort of typical organizational structure — they can be run entirely by volunteers who do not receive a paycheck or individual contributors that participate of their own accord.

A socialpreneur is a person that sets out on an entrepreneurial venture with the intention of addressing social issues and contributing to the social good. These businesses can have a for-profit, non-profit, or hybrid model, but funds are typically used to support operational costs and develop programs to support target markets.

While socialpreneurs still abide by most core tenets as conventional entrepreneurs, there are key differences between the two groups.

Socialpreneur vs. Entrepreneur

The most significant difference between a socialpreneur and an entrepreneur is the end goal. The former is less interested in defining their successes through high profit margins. Instead, they're guided by how their operations benefit their causes and communities of interest.

While social entrepreneurs typically engage in standalone ventures, entrepreneurs can start for-profit businesses that fund programs to support social issues.

Let’s go over some real-life examples of small business social entrepreneurship, as well as larger enterprise businesses that engage in social ventures.

• Books to Prisoners
• Tranquiliti
• Surfrider Foundation
• Ben & Jerry's
• Warby Parker
• Uncommon Goods
• Pipeline Angels
• United By Blue
• Shea Radiance
• LSTN Sound Co.
• Love Your Melon
• Better World Books

Some businesses are founded for and dedicated to contributing to social good, and we’ll discuss some of them below.

1. TranSanta

TranSanta is a unique, community-led social entrepreneurship venture. It runs an Instagram account that features and highlights stories from transgender youth in need.

These individuals create Target wish lists of items that they need — and interested community members can anonymously purchase and send them what they need.

          View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by @transanta

2. Books to Prisoners

Books to Prisoners is a traditional non-profit organization — operating out of Seattle, Washington — that helps tackle the issue of prison recidivism in the United States.

The organization accepts book donations from both community members and established bookstores to be repackaged and sent to incarcerated individuals — promoting education and literacy in the interest of making prisoners' transitions back into society simpler and more seamless after they're released.

The program also accepts monetary donations to support operational costs — including rent for office space, packaging for books, and shipping costs.

3. Cracked It

This London-based smartphone repair service is staffed by "at risk" and formerly incarcerated youth. The organization teaches life skills and provides income and employment opportunities for these disadvantaged and typically discriminated-against community members.

🚀LAUNCHING REPAIR RESCUE! 📱⁣ ⁣ Same-day phone and tablet repairs without having to move a muscle!⁣ ⁣ 📦We collect ⁣ ⁣ 🔧We fix ⁣ ⁣ 🚚We return⁣ ⁣ 💙We support young people ⁣ ⁣ Book now: https://t.co/WpQOSwUNfD ⁣ ⁣ #blackownedbusinesses pic.twitter.com/J4WxOvuhmY — Cracked It (@CrackedIt) June 11, 2020

4. 734 Coffee

734 Coffee is a social venture dedicated to supporting Sudanese refugees. The business works with local co-op farms in Gambella to grow and harvest coffee. It then sells its products to U.S. retailers and allocates a portion of its profits to fund scholarships for Sudanese refugees.

Belu is a British, environmentally conscious organization that sources and provides water to hotels, restaurants, and catering businesses with a minimal carbon footprint. 100% of its net profits are donated to WaterAid — a business that provides clean water solutions to underserved communities.

          View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by Belu (@beluwater)

6. Tranquiliti

Tranquiliti is an organization dedicated to improving, supporting, and promoting the mental well-being of young people in The United Kingdom. Since 2018, the organization has worked with teachers, students, and mental health professionals to provide mental health services in schools.

The organization aims to improve students' psychological well-being and educational performance by creating positive, supportive learning environments.

7. Surfrider Foundation

Surfrider Foundation is a volunteer and activist-driven organization dedicated to environmental stewardship — backed by chapters and communities across the United States. The program supports campaigns to raise awareness for issues like pollution, marine life protection, clean water, and coastal preservation.

Sustainable, Organic, Integrated Livelihoods (or SOIL) is a nonprofit research and development organization that works to implement sustainable, low-cost solutions to the sanitation crisis in Haiti.

The organization supports community employment by staffing locally, and it donates 92% of every dollar it receives to support and enact its environmental improvement efforts.

TOMS might be the world's preeminent social entrepreneurial outlet — in a lot of ways, it put the concept on the map. The company started on a one-for-one model: A consumer would buy a pair of shoes, and TOMS would give a pair to a child in need.

But the business has evolved since its inception. Now, buying a pair of TOMS shoes or sunglasses helps provide shoes, sight, water, safe birth, and bullying prevention services to people around the world.

#WellnessWednesday Samuel Woo, 66, has had borderline glaucoma for years & was unable to get new glasses. He discovered that if he got glasses from Venice Family Clinic, the frames would be free, thanks to a donation last year of 3,700 pairs from @TOMS . 😎👏 #HealthVisionMonth pic.twitter.com/PZXhRyARy7 — Venice Family Clinic (@VeniceFamClinic) May 26, 2021

10. Ben & Jerry’s

Most people know Ben & Jerry's for its elaborate ice cream, but there's much more to the organization than its product. The business is also dedicated to using profits for good.

The company's stated mission is "to create linked prosperity for everyone who's connected to our business — suppliers, employees, farmers, franchises, customers, and neighbors alike."

The business proactively promotes social progress — whether that be by supporting environmentally friendly farming and manufacturing, racial justice, LGBTQ+ issues, or a host of other causes.

For example, Ben & Jerry's ice cream is priced significantly higher than other brands, but that model isn't strictly for increasing profit margins — that extra revenue supports the company's ability to pay its workers a livable wage.

          View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys)

11. Warby Parker

Warby Parker is an American prescription glasses, sunglass, and contact lens retailer. The business employed a "Buy a Pair, Give a Pair" program — similar to TOMS' model. By 2019, the company had donated over 5 million pairs of glasses to underserved communities.

12. Good Eggs

Good Eggs is an online grocery and meal kit delivery service that sets itself apart by stocking its kits with fresh, local produce. Its mission is to ensure that over 70% of its food, wine, and spirits are locally sourced — and every item must meet a strict list of sourcing standards.

All employees also have a stake in the business — promoting transparent business practices and reinforcing the company's commitment to the health and safety of the businesses and communities it works with.

Lush, a socially conscious British cosmetics retailer, cites environmental awareness and ethical consumerism as its priorities. Those principles are the bedrocks for how it operates — from its packaging to its charitable endeavors.

All Lush cosmetics are free of packaging, and the company gives millions to environmental causes each year.

14. Uncommon Goods

Uncommon Goods offers creatives a marketplace to independently sell products — all while considering the implications it might have on people and the planet.

The company makes a conscious effort to minimize its environmental impact and works with the artists who populate its marketplace to use sustainable or recycled materials when possible.

15. GoldieBlox

GoldieBlox is a multimedia company committed to disrupting what it refers to as "the pink aisle in toy stores" by using storytelling to make the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field fun and engaging for young women — a demographic that is systematically underrepresented and underserved in the industry.

They create toys, books, apps, videos, animations, and other merchandise to empower girls to build confident, empowered futures.

16. Pipeline Angels

In 2017, only 30% of U.S. angel investors were women and only 12% were minorities. Pipeline Angels aims to disrupt that statistic and commits to creating capital and investment opportunities for trans women, cis women, nonbinary, two-spirit, agender, and gender-nonconforming founders.

The organization runs a signature boot camp that educates investors, offers mentoring opportunities, and even hosts a pitch summit for entrepreneurs seeking funding.

The warmest, most joyous welcome to the spring graduates of our angel investing program, and, our VC-in-Residence program. This photo includes forty-five more reasons why we're so passionate about our mission--forty-five more sparks of inspiration that energise this work. pic.twitter.com/k3cCCP1O8J — Pipeline Angels (@PipelineAngels) March 23, 2021

17. United By Blue

This is not your ordinary outdoor apparel store, as United By Blue commits to removing one pound of trash from the world’s oceans and waterways per every product purchased. At the time of publication, they’ve removed over four million pounds of trash.

18. Shea Radiance

Co-founder Funlayo Alabi and her husband started making soap to solve their family’s dry skin problems. What started as an experiment to heal their sons’ eczema-prone skin morphed into a clean and effective product line for hair, skin, and body.

Alabi sources all Shea Butter directly from women-run cooperatives in West Africa, which ensures revenue ends up "in the hands of the women who have earned it."

Werk believes the future of work is not unchangeable, it’s adaptive to each employee’s skills, motivations, and needs. By helping people find their Flextype, Werk believes they can make work flexible for everyone.

Did you know? Take a look the #ageism report done by @werk_labs here: https://t.co/GM1ou03jDZ pic.twitter.com/29hfzAAx90 — The Mom Project (@The_Mom_Project) June 28, 2021

20. Olibert é

In 2013, Oliberté became the world’s first Fair Trade Certified™ footwear manufacturing factory. The company is a sustainable brand supporting workers’ rights in sub-Saharan Africa.

It launched its own factory in 2012 and makes every pair of Oliberté shoes in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — creating jobs and bolstering the local economy.

21. LSTN Sound Co.

LSTN Sound Co. is a speaker and headphone manufacturer that takes an approach to social entrepreneurship that fits its industry — the company has partnered with The Starkey Hearing Foundation and uses its proceeds from its sales to provide hearing aids to those in need.

FIGS produces comfortable, high-quality, ethically sourced scrubs for healthcare professionals. The company also donates hundreds of thousands of scrubs to providers across more than 35 countries.

          View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by FIGS (@wearfigs)

23. Love Your Melon

Apparel brand Love Your Melon supports and donates to nonprofit organizations dedicated to battling pediatric cancer. 50% of net profits from all products help to create therapeutic experiences and create charitable programming initiatives for families affected by childhood cancer.

Helpsy is an American textile collection company dedicated to addressing and minimizing the environmental implications of clothing waste. 95% of the clothing the company collects is reused, upcycled, or recycled — and ultimately distributed to thrift shops and second-hand markets around the world. Since the organization's inception, it has eliminated 320 million pounds of CO₂ emissions and saved 20 billion gallons of water.

25. Cape Clasp

Cape Clasp is a Massachusetts-based, mission-driven, affordable jewelry retailer that donates 15% of its profits to support marine life organizations. Since it was founded in 2013, the business has raised over $200,000 for the non-profit organizations it works with.

26. Better World Books

Better World Books is an online secondhand bookstore. Shoppers can purchase books at a significant discount, and a portion of the company's profit goes towards initiatives that promote equitable literacy.

So, you want to do some good, but you’re not quite sure where to start? Here are a few social entrepreneurship ideas and some guidelines for how to develop an idea that's all your own:

1. Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is a way for businesses to raise money for a cause, usually for equitable and socially conscious organizations, like non-profits. Small businesses can launch crowdfunding ventures independently, donate money afterward, or partner with specific groups before creating a campaign.

2. Baking for a cause

The idea behind "baking for a cause" is pretty self-explanatory — it means raising money to support socially responsible causes by selling baked goods.

This idea has a pretty low barrier of entry. You don't have to be a skilled baker to do it — if you can follow a recipe on the back of a box, you can bake for a cause.

All you have to do is pick your cause, communicate with a relevant organization, and start baking. While it might not move mountains, it's still a fun venture for young entrepreneurs to get some valuable charitable experience.

3. Conflict-Free or Fair Trade Goods

Selling conflict-free or fair-trade goods is a considerably less accessible, more complex venture than the previous one. It requires extensive business acumen and connections to relevant organizations to help with every stage of the process.

Still, all of that intricacy generally translates to a much wider-reaching impact than a lot of the other ideas listed here. If your business has the capacity to manufacture its product ethically and sustainably, you should at least consider trying this avenue.

4. Educational Travel

Educational travel involves having hands-on learning experiences that broaden perspectives and help people understand different world views. If you’re a social entrepreneur, educational travel is worth considering.

Understanding the various environmental, economic, and social circumstances in countries that contribute to your business allows you to create genuine connections and ethically structure your operations.

5. Employment Services

Assisting with employment services provides a solid avenue for aspiring socialpreneurs to give back. Providing help with resume writing, job training, mock interviews, or finding career opportunities allows you to impact meaningful, practical change in disadvantaged or marginalized communities.

6. Crafting for a Cause

Crafting for a cause is fundamentally similar to baking for a cause — it involves taking on creative DIY projects and selling the products that stem from them.

It involves very little overhead and doesn't necessarily have to be some massive-scale effort. You just have to put together unique crafts, distribute them through forums like Etsy , and donate the proceeds to a charity of your choice.

7. Microlending

Microlending is giving small loans to people or businesses that don’t have access to typical lending sources — individuals and outlets that might not have the credit, background, or resources to reliably procure loans.

This kind of social enterprise can impact meaningful systemic change by opening up economic opportunities for promising businesses and entrepreneurs to expand their operations, find their footing in their competitive landscapes, and ultimately give back to the communities they come from.

8. Sustainable Housing and Development

Sustainable housing and development rests on real estate developers' ability and commitment to using environmentally sound practices and materials to construct eco-friendly buildings.

While this social entrepreneurship idea can be more impactful than most, it's also tougher to breach than virtually all of the concepts listed here — as you probably have to have a significant industry footing, extensive resources, and considerable experience to pull it off.

Still, if you're involved with housing and development, you should at least consider making your efforts more sustainable — you have the potential to do a lot of good by making this kind of commitment.

9. Mentorship or Funding for Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries

A sound sales mentorship program can go a long way in supporting economic progress in developing countries. By working with aspiring entrepreneurs in parts of the world that lack the resources and guidance to support their learning and development, you can aid their individual career development and ability to ultimately give back to their communities.

Those contributions to both personal well-being and broader societal change make this social entrepreneurship idea particularly impactful.

10. Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives in the Classroom

Diversity and inclusion initiatives in the classroom use resources that represent all groups of people, helping students learn about people that may be different from them. This is a socially conscious venture as it helps people understand everyone for who they are and give people the respect they deserve.

11. A Cooperative Marketplace

Creating a cooperative marketplace can involve selling products crafted in a socially conscious and ethical manner in an attempt to not contribute to fast fashion, unethical working conditions, or environmentalism.

Although not an exhaustive list, the ideas above are worth considering. If you’re unsure what to pick, read on to discover how to decide on a venture that works best for your business.

Define your passions and areas of interest.

Do you firmly believe every child in America should have a pillow? Do you volunteer at a food pantry on the weekends? Are you an activist for certain local charities? Define what you’re passionate about and proceed to step two...

Identify existing market the gaps.

Once you know what you’re passionate about, it’s time to decide what the gaps are in existing products or services and determine how you can fill them.

If the food pantry you volunteer at can’t distribute fresh, donated fruits and vegetables before they spoil, think about how you could provide a service that makes it faster and easier to get fresh produce to the underserved communities in your area.

Identify your key strengths and skills.

Are you an excellent writer or a salesperson extraordinaire? List your strengths and skills, and define how they can serve your mission. This is also an excellent time to identify your weaknesses — so you know who to call upon for help.

Decide on a business model.

Being a social entrepreneur is not always the same as starting a nonprofit. Determine whether and how you’ll monetize your idea — and design a fitting business model.

Whether you’re interested in a cross-compensation model like TOMS and Warby Parker or complete stewardship like Books to Prisoners, it’s important to understand how your business will be structured.

If you’re still feeling stumped, don’t worry. Starting a business is a tedious, involved process, but there are various, successful social entrepreneurs that you can refer to as inspiration.

1. Jazzmine Raine

Raine is the founder of Hara House , the first zero waste guest house in Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. The area is a tourist destination with a vibrant environmental scene.

Of the house’s profits, 20% go to helping local youth get involved in economic opportunities, social justice, and environmental education. The youth help run the guest house, tours, and a community center.

2. Muhammad Yunus

Yunus is the founder of Grameen Bank . This Bangladesh-based institution provides small loans to those living in poverty. 97% of their borrowers are women — and 97% of those women have paid back their loans.

The bank manages a net income of over $10 million, has 2,568 branches, and covers 93% of all villages in Bangladesh. Yunus' work has also earned him a Nobel Prize. See his Talks at Google session on “The New Economics of Zero Poverty” below.

3. Scott Harrison

Charity: water CEO and INBOUND speaker Scott Harrison founded his nonprofit to bring clean, safe drinking water to people in developing countries.

It tracks every dollar raised to the project it funds, and private donors cover its operating costs — so 100% of the money it raises can fund their water projects.

To date , it has funded 91,414 water projects, helped almost 15 million people get clean water, and work with local partners in 29 countries. Check out Harrison’s INBOUND 2018 keynote below.

4. Vava Angwenyi

Kenyan coffee entrepreneur Vava Angwenyi started with one small coffee bar in her town, but she was soon helping farmers improve the quality of their coffee, their brand, and their sales.

Soon, Vava Coffee was born. Angwenyi’s company now serves as an exporter, roaster, and consultative partner working with more than 30,000 smallholder farmers who earn 18% more by working with Vava.

Angwenyi’s first company has been so successful, it inspired her to start Gente Del Futuro , a cross-cultural coffee training program in Tanzania, Kenya, and Columbia. Hear more about Vava’s work in her recent presentation at the Re:co Symposium.

5. Durell Coleman

Coleman is the founder and CEO of DC Design , a social impact design firm putting design thinking to use, solving some of the world’s biggest problems. His firm has addressed challenges in the criminal justice and foster care systems in the United States.

It has also designed solutions for refugee camps, and the organization has worked with executives at global enterprise organizations like Sony, Oracle, and Santander.

6. Emily Kirsch

Kirsch started Powerhouse after working with solar startup Mosaic to put solar panels on houses in Oakland, California. Today, Powerhouse supports clean energy entrepreneurship through a network of energy-focused co-working spaces.

It also offers venture backing for early-stage energy startups. Powerhouse also facilitates a series of signature events, from the Suncode hackathon to Powerhouse Circle and even a monthly podcast called " Watt it Takes. "

7. Tony Weaver Jr.

Weaver is the founder and CEO of Weird Enough Productions , a media company focused on creating stories that inspire positive media images of black men and other minority groups.

With every piece of content they create, they also produce a lesson plan for teachers to introduce media literacy to their students. Check out Weaver’s recent TEDx Talk below.

Now that we're well acquainted with the subject of social entrepreneurship, let's take a look at some key statistics that could shape how the concept evolves, going forward.

Social Entrepreneurship Statistics

According to a survey — conducted by HubSpot — of over 1,000 consumers:

• 45% say brands should do more when it comes to advocating for social issues
• Racial justice (52%), climate change (50%), and income inequality (43%) are the most important issues respondents want to see companies take a stance on.
• Ages 18-35 are more likely to purchase based on social issues and identity than older groups.
• All age groups are similarly more likely to purchase from companies reducing their environmental impact, making corporate donations, treating employees well, and to support small businesses.
• 56% say companies should donate a portion of their profits to charity
• 66% say they are more likely to purchase from a company that donates a portion of its profits to charity.
• 66% say companies should actively try to reduce their environmental impact
• 46% say they are more likely to purchase from a company that actively tries to reduce its environmental impact

Social Entrepreneurship Is Here To Stay

When we were researching our book, Inbound Organization: How to Build and Strengthen Your Company's Future Using Inbound Principles , my co-author Todd Hockenberry and I called out several examples of how social responsibility is an important component of having a competitive advantage in today’s marketplace.

In the age of heightened competition, social responsibility is a differentiating factor that allows many companies to appeal to specific buyer demographics. The idea of “Conscious Capitalism” gained mainstream attention when Whole Foods founder John Mackey published a book by the same name.

In addition, consumers — now more than ever — put their trust in brands that they believe are committed to taking action. For example, consumers are 80% more likely to trust a business that they believe is committed to solving societal issues, especially when it comes to racial justice.

So, if you’re still interested in becoming a social entrepreneur — you couldn’t pick a better time. Formulate your plan today and make the world a better place.

Don't forget to share this post!

Related articles.

3 Ways to Build for The Rise (And Fall) of Businesses

8+ Opportunities to Capitalize on The Legal Tech Boom

Top Industries for Entrepreneurs in 2024 According to Our Trends Team

3 Lucrative Ways to Help Seniors Live That Fit and Fabulous Lifestyle

How Canva Founder Melanie Perkins Found The Secret to A Winning Pitch

Want to Build A Subscription Business? Ask Yourself These 3 Questions

How to Cash in on The Rise of ‘Antisocial’ Foodies

How A Small Ice Cream Business Pivoted in Tough Times

The Billion-Dollar Opportunity to Help Women Navigate Menopause with Grace

3 Lessons from A Founder of 2 Million-Dollar Companies

2 Essential Templates For Starting Your Business

Powerful and easy-to-use sales software that drives productivity, enables customer connection, and supports growing sales orgs

How social entrepreneurship will change the world

Everything that you need to know to start your own business. From business ideas to researching the competition.

Practical and real-world advice on how to run your business — from managing employees to keeping the books.

Our best expert advice on how to grow your business — from attracting new customers to keeping existing customers happy and having the capital to do it.

Entrepreneurs and industry leaders share their best advice on how to take your company to the next level.

• Business Ideas
• Human Resources
• Business Financing
• Growth Studio
• Ask the Board

Looking for your local chamber?

Interested in partnering with us?

Good company » growth studio, 4 must-watch ted talks for any aspiring social entrepreneur.

Social entrepreneurs want to make positive changes within their communities through their for-profit businesses. Here are four inspiring talks that speak to this topic.

Social entrepreneurship is on the rise across America. Purpose-driven startups that aim to solve the world’s social and environmental problems through revenue-generating enterprises are championing innovative solutions more than ever before, coast to coast.

“It is really a growing trend for ... entrepreneurs to say, ‘Hey, I also want to have social impact,’” said Sean Greene , of the Case Foundation. The former entrepreneur says this is, in large part, because many individuals desire to make a positive impact on their communities through for-profit businesses, seeking to “be the change” they want to see in the world while also earning a living.

To begin to make that change, there are certain steps any aspiring social entrepreneur would be wise to follow. The first is to dream big. This means carefully plotting out practical, actionable entrepreneurial goals, then mapping out a clear path to achieving them.

While being thoroughly prepared is essential, so is being inspired to greatness by the successful social entrepreneurs of the past and present. TED Talks , popular video speeches featuring inspirational speakers imparting a variety of “ideas worth sharing,” offer a wealth of inspiration for people seeking to change the world for the better through profitable, purpose-driven enterprise.

To help your on your way to doing well by doing good — and to save you time searching through TED’s library of thousands of videos — we’ve put together a quick roundup of five moving TED Talks about solving some of the world’s biggest challenges through innovative business solutions.

"The case for letting business solve social problems"

By michael porter.

Business strategist Michael Porter, a veteran Harvard Business School professor, makes his compelling case for more for-profit enterprises enlisting their resources to solve global problems, such as poor nutrition, food insecurity and lack of access to water — instead of leaving the tall task to governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and nonprofits alone. "Why?” Porter asks. The answer is simple: “Because when business solves a problem, it makes a profit — which lets that solution grow."

Top Takeaway: “Profit is that small difference between the price and the cost it takes to produce whatever solution business has created to whatever problem they're trying to solve. But that profit is the magic. Why? Because that profit allows whatever solution we've created to be infinitely scalable. Because if we can make a profit, we can do it for 10, 100, a million, 100 million, a billion. The solution becomes self-sustaining. That's what business does when it makes a profit.”

"Profit’s not always the point"

By harish manwani.

This speech, passionately delivered by Harish Manwani, serves as a clarion call to look beyond boosting the bottom line alone. Rather, he urges companies big and small to set their sights on being “at the forefront social change” through broadly scalable business models. Manwani urges businesspeople to deeply weave social purpose and environmental sustainability into their business decisions, not just because it’s smart business, but also because companies “have to play our part in the communities in which we operate.”

Top Takeaway: “It's not about selling soap, it's about making sure that in the process of doing so you can change people’s lives. Small actions, big difference.”

"The $80 prosthetic knee that’s changing lives"

By krista donaldson.

Krista Donaldson, engineer and CEO of Palo Alto, Calif.-based tech startup D-Rev , discusses in detail the remarkable development, marketing and scaling of the ReMotion Knee . The low-cost, high-performance prosthetic device for above-knee amputees is largely targeted at disadvantaged populations. The former Stanford University lecturer and former U.S. State Department Iraq Economic Officer explains how the latest assistive technology often only benefits those who can afford it. Through D-Rev’s innovative offerings, she aims to change that all-too-common reality through centralized manufacturing, as well as an affordable $80-per-prosthetic price point with built-in profit margins and economic sustainability for the long haul.

Top Takeaway: “We really, truly believe that if a product is going to reach users at the scale that it's needed, it needs to be market-driven, and market-driven means that products are sold. They're not donated. They're not heavily subsidized. Our product needs to be designed to offer value to the end user. It also has to be designed to be very affordable. But a product that is valued by a customer is used by a customer, and use is what creates impact.”

"How I harnessed the wind"

By william kamkwamba.

When William Kamkwamba was 14, he built his own windmill to provide electricity to his family. Piece by piece, while suffering from extreme poverty and famine in the Southeast African country of Malawi — and in the face of others saying he was “crazy” to attempt such a feat — he handcrafted the rudimentary yet transformative device from a tractor fan, PVC pipes, a bike frame and other found parts. The ambitious young engineer and inventor went on to create many more unique and marketable inventions, most all designed with the overarching social mission of helping people in need. Some of the social entrepreneur’s subsequent inventions have assisted people in accessing clean water, preventing the spread of malaria and much more.

Top Takeaway: “I looked at my father and looked at those dry fields. It was the future I couldn't accept … I say to you, trust yourself and believe. Whatever happens, don't give up.”

CO— aims to bring you inspiration from leading respected experts. However, before making any business decision, you should consult a professional who can advise you based on your individual situation.

CO—is committed to helping you start, run and grow your small business. Learn more about the benefits of small business membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, here .

Subscribe to our newsletter, Midnight Oil

Expert business advice, news, and trends, delivered weekly

By signing up you agree to the CO— Privacy Policy. You can opt out anytime.

See more inspirational stories

Marimekko ceo on how the finnish design house is betting on its 73-year-old ‘anti-fashion’ ethos to win over nex-gen u.s. consumers, new tech helps j.c. penney meet its workers’ financial and scheduling needs, this black-owned startup landed walmart and costco by tapping into the $400 billion breakfast market.

By continuing on our website, you agree to our use of cookies for statistical and personalisation purposes. Know More

Welcome to CO—

Designed for business owners, CO— is a site that connects like minds and delivers actionable insights for next-level growth.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062

Social links

Looking for local chamber, stay in touch.

David Parrish

Speech on Creative and Social Entrepreneurship

David Parrish gave a speech in Jeonju, South Korea, about job creation for youth through the creative industries and social entrepreneurship.

He spoke about worldwide economic changes that mean there are fewer ‘jobs for life’. At the same time there are new opportunities for young people, and others. It has never been easier to set up a business in the creative industries or the social enterprise sector. It is easier than ever to trade internationally.

David spoke about how we can be creative not only in the studio but also in the office, giving examples of creative approaches to business that can be used in the creative industries and social enterprise sectors.

The full text of his speech is below.

At the conference, David presented a copy of his book ‘T-Shirts and Suits: A Guide to the Business of Creativity’ to the Mayor of Jeonju, Mr Kim Seung-Su.

David also presented a copy of his book to Bernadia Irawati Tjandradewi, the Secretary General of UCLG-ASPAC, the United Cities and Local Governments, Asia Pacific.

David’s book has been translated and published in 13 countries worldwide . At the conference there was some discussion about translating it for publication in South Korea.

Job Creation for Youth through Social Economy and Social Entrepreneurship 

Jeonju, South Korea. 30 August 2018

Young people around the world are adapting to new economic realities more quickly than the institutions of government. Young people are taking control of their futures by being more entrepreneurial and creating new jobs. Our job is to help them!

Friends: It is an honour and a pleasure to be a part of this forum. We have a lot to learn from each other and to share with each other. I am looking forward to continuing this dialogue, both during the rest of today and in the future. Working together, sharing our international experiences, we can achieve great things.

The nature of work is changing; there are fewer ‘jobs for life’  Economies around the world are changing profoundly. Here in Korea, in my own country (the United Kingdom), and globally. As economies change, so does the nature of work. There are fewer ‘jobs for life’ than there were in previous decades. Employment is less certain and people are more likely to change jobs during a lifetime, or make a career from a ‘portfolio’ of jobs. The ‘Gig Economy’ is growing as more people take on freelance work and become self employed. Whilst parents want their children to have safe and secure jobs, young people know that the world is now different for them. Around the world, young people know that they have to be versatile and agile in finding work. Compared to earlier generations, they are more comfortable with the idea of having a portfolio of part time jobs, hobbies, projects and enterprises. They are the new entrepreneurs.

Barriers to entry are low; it’s never been easier to start up 

Whilst finding a lifelong job is becoming more difficult, the good news is that it has never been easier to become self employed or to set up a business. The internet makes it easier to trade globally. With a laptop and an internet connection, a young person can set up and run a business from their bedroom. Although the situation is different in every country, I think it is fair to say that setting up a small company is becoming easier for individual citizens, including of course young people. There are more opportunities than ever before to become an entrepreneur, not least in the creative industries and the social enterprise sector.

Micro businesses and Social Enterprises make a big economic impact 

In my international experience of having worked around the world in many countries, I have found that governments, policy makers and economic development institutions tend to focus on creating jobs in the old fashioned way. Their policies and mindsets are more appropriate to the last century. They expect jobs to be created hundreds at a time, in factories and offices, but the reality is that jobs are being created by micro businesses, in twos and threes and fours. These are often regarded as insignificant by economic departments, yet thousands of jobs are being created by small businesses in this way. This phenomenon led me to write an article about the situation in Liverpool, England. I called it the ‘Invisible Sector’ of the economy, meaning the small businesses creating lots of jobs, yet not making the news, each of them too small to attract the attention of the media, politicians and bureaucrats, yet collectively having a huge impact on job creation and economic development.

Social Purpose + Smart Business Thinking = Social Entrepreneurship 

Below the government’s radar, thousands of young people around the world are creating jobs for themselves by setting up small companies, especially creative businesses and social enterprises.

The motivation for setting up a social business is always a passion for a social purpose. This is necessary but not sufficient. To be successful in both social and economic terms, there needs to be another ingredient, which is ‘Smart Business Thinking’. My message to young entrepreneurs, in my books, my speeches, my training workshops and my website is that we should embrace business and use the techniques of business for our own purposes, according to our own values and objectives. There is sometimes a reluctance to engage with business methodology or even a suspicion of business. There is often a feeling that business is not cool, especially in the creative industries and the social enterprise sector. We mustn’t let business control us; we should instead be clear about our mission, our values and our definition of success. Then use the tools of business to achieve that success.

Smart Business Thinking, Creative Business Models and Good Practices 

We can be creative about the way we do business. We don’t have to follow the traditional rules. We can be creative, not just in the studio, but also in the business office. Let me share with you, briefly, just a few examples of this creativity in business. These are just some of the creative business models I have seen work successfully, in my own enterprises or with the hundreds of businesses I have worked with around the world.

Co-opetition 

In Vietnam, two competing art galleries in Ho Chi Minh City decided that they could co-operate with their rivals by joining forces to sell their art online on a joint website: Vietnam Artist. This combination of co-operation and competition can be called “Co-opetition”. Sometimes, in the right circumstances, even though it is counter intuitive, it can make sense to collaborate with competitors.

Organisational structures 

Sometimes startup businesses come to me and ask my advice about what legal structure they should use to set up their social enterprise. Although legal formats differ from country to country, there are often several options. Often they ask their question assuming they can only choose one format, but sometimes my advice is to set up two different legal entities through which to undertake business. For example a non-profit enterprise plus a separate profit-making business. There are many opportunities for joint ventures, subsidiary companies, franchise arrangements, licensing deals, the use of networks of freelance contractors, etc. In my book ’T-Shirts and Suits: A Guide to the Business of Creativity’ I also write about Network Organisations and even the Club Sandwich Organisation.

‘Freemium’ business models 

The word ‘Freemium’ is a hybrid of two words: Free and Premium. Sometimes it makes sense to give something away in order to make more money indirectly. There are many examples of this in the commercial world. And it makes sense for social enterprises especially. We can serve the many for free and at the same time generate income from a smaller number of paying customers. Here’s an example: I choose to give away, free of charge, the eBook version of my book ‘T-Shirts and Suits: A Guide to the Business of Creativity’. Why? Am I stupid? No, because in doing that I achieve two things. Firstly, I share my knowledge about entrepreneurship with many thousands of people around the world who simply download the eBook from my website. That fulfils my social mission: to empower entrepreneurs. At the same time, the book acts as my advertising, showcasing my expertise in business, and my style of communication, so that paying customers come to me to buy business advice, training workshops, conference speeches and paperback books.

All three examples above show that we just have to use our creativity to think differently, to be innovative about business, to be smart.

More information plus Free Resources for Entrepreneurship: 

There is a lot of information about creative and social entrepreneurship on my website, much of which is free to download, including my eBook, other publications, videos, online courses, articles and blog posts. Please download them and share them.

In conclusion, the world is changing and young people are at the forefront of that change. They are empowering themselves as entrepreneurs and in doing so creating new jobs.

We can choose to think in out of date ways about how jobs should be created. Or we can choose to accept the new realities that young people already understand.

Let’s use the energy and enthusiasm of their youth; let’s help to empower young people; let’s use the momentum of their initiatives to create jobs in new ways.

I wish you every success in helping to create jobs for youth in the social economy through social entrepreneurship.

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online
• Business Journal Articles
• Entrepreneurs & Leaders
• Student Essays

Exploring Social Entrepreneurship: ‘My Generation Is Full of Activists and Humanitarians’

Share Article:

Google Classroom:

Knowledge@Wharton High School first met Fiorella Riccobono in 2015 when she was a senior in high school. We featured her in a story about a business class project to promote fair trade practices among Haitian coffee farmers. Now Riccobono, who is 19, is a college student studying finance and interdisciplinary social science with concentrations in economics and social entrepreneurship. In this personal essay, Riccobono talks about how and why she is embracing her calling to become a bold and tenacious change maker.

I just completed my freshman year of college at Florida State University (FSU), and in many ways I am feeling transformed. When you first step foot onto your college campus, the feeling is incredible. You have a sense of personal freedom that you have never experienced. In college, you start to explore your major based on your passion and build the necessary classes and curriculum to earn your degree. Now imagine that the major you chose is an emerging field in the business world. Imagine that it is a new program at your school, and imagine just how much room for growth that opportunity means for you.

That chosen field for me is social entrepreneurship. I fell in love with social entrepreneurship a few years ago when Mrs. Zocco, my business teacher at Edward A. McCarthy High School in Florida, showed me a video of the most genuinely happy and grateful man I had ever seen. He was one of the farmers participating in a fair trade coop in Haiti that our class was helping to run, and his smile was amazing. He was thanking us because now, through fair trade – which in this case was helping coffee farmers in Haiti’s poorest region earn a just wage for their very hard work — his children had enough money to go to school. Since that moment, I have been driven to learn all I can about social entrepreneurship and how to make it my life’s work.

Leaving the World a Better Place

Many of us want to be extraordinary, to be change makers and to make positive and influential contributions to society. I have discovered that my generation is full of activists, humanitarians and philanthropists. No matter our passions — education, health, environment, economic development — many of us share a common goal: to leave this world a better place than how we found it. I’ve gathered inspiration from the stories of famous social-justice advocates around the world, like Muhammad Yunus, who created the concept of microfinancing, and Malala Yousafzai, who advocates for women’s education. Both Muhammad and Malala are recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Social entrepreneurship is such an emerging concept that it is still not clearly defined. Most importantly, though, it is not charity. Although social entrepreneurs may need to rely on donations to launch their endeavors, they can’t create a business model based on donations, because charity is not sustainable. How can you build a business when you don’t know where your next dollar is coming from – or when?

In my experience, social entrepreneurs are individuals who draw on innovative business tactics to create solutions to societal issues. Social entrepreneurs combine government, nonprofit and traditional business practices in order to create a sustainable business model that is not only profitable, but also beneficial to the social sector. These innovators create large-scale, systemic and sustainable models by addressing a societal issue at its foundation – poverty, climate change, pollution, whatever it may be. Social entrepreneurs do not have an idea and then apply it. Instead, they go directly to the source of the issue and ask what is needed. Based on that answer, they build their business plans. Social entrepreneurs are often empathetic, bold, open-minded and tenacious.

So, that first day I stepped onto campus, I was more than ready to begin the next phase of my social entrepreneurship journey. The social entrepreneurship culture at Florida Sate University is growing rapidly. Early freshman year, I met Valarie Rodriguez, who wanted to start the Social Entrepreneurs and Innovators Club at FSU. I was the first person to join the team, and since then two of our board members have created social enterprises that are thriving within the Tallahassee community. Ramon started Unhoused Humanity, which uses crowd funding to help working homeless citizens make the down payment to get into a home. Often, the working poor do not have enough money saved up to make the hefty down payment needed for renting living space — typically first and last month rent and security and utility deposits. But they do generate enough income to pay their monthly rent once they are in. Unhoused Humanity helps the homeless get over that initial down-payment hurdle.

Another one of our members, Nikolas, has started Qultur. Qultur’s purpose is to use art to decrease crime in communities. Qultur creates and finds financing for events that bring together local artists, businesses and community members with the premise, “When we support and trust each other, we can live in harmony.”

Launching a social entrepreneurship club feels a bit like starting your own business. You have to find funding, promote your mission, explain the concept, and get people invested in your passion. I recruit local entrepreneurs to come speak at our events, plan those events, find funding and sponsors, and educate people on all aspects of social entrepreneurship.

I am getting hands-on social entrepreneurship experience in other ways, as well. The spring semester of my freshman year, I interned with a local fair trade coffee shop in Tallahassee. During that time, my team of interns created a micro social enterprise using the coffee shop’s food truck. We were trained as baristas and innovators and were responsible for creating a business model that would be profitable, while also maintaining a social mission.

We researched local areas and events and chose where to take our “fair trade” truck, what beverages we should make, and handled the actual food truck operations . We were the first group of interns to ever break even and create profit for this program. Our business model – like many other social enterprises — addressed a triple bottom line: people, planet and profits. The model had three key features: first, the coffee we brewed was purchased from small farmers who were paid a fair price through certified organic cooperatives. The coffee farms were bird-safe and shade-grown to ensure the organic coffee was environmentally sound. (Coffee farmers sometimes take strides to grow coffee in sunnier settings because it is faster; however, this often damages the biodiversity of the region.) And finally, the coffee shop placed all our profits in local and global humanitarian causes, truly addressing the triple bottom line.

Helping the Homeless

It is immensely inspiring to be part of a community where social justice is a priority. It is motivating to be surrounded by young individuals who are not only incentivized by profit, but by creating systemic change. I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. People are no longer seeing global poverty as a call for charity, but as a place of economic and cultural growth. Young business minds no longer want to exploit our natural resources, rather build business models that protect our environment.

The best advice I can give to incoming freshmen at any school is to be empathetic, bold, open-minded and tenacious. You are about to be exposed to a world of information, opportunity and incredible curiosity. I am as passionate as ever about my social entrepreneurship future. This fall, with the help of my club members, I will be starting a research project at a local homeless shelter. My plan is to speak personally with members of the homeless community in Tallahassee in order to better understand their backgrounds, prior education, work experience and willingness to rejoin the workforce. I want to use this quantitative data to possibly identify a pattern in homelessness. By pinpointing the need, I can create meaningful solutions.

My ultimate goal is to launch a program that rehabilitates the homeless community and reengages homeless people as active, contributing members of society. My heart tells me that many of them want to improve their circumstances, but need the proper channels for lasting change. I’m not sure how this will all play out, but I have little doubt that we are laying the foundation for something truly extraordinary.

Related Links

• RedEye Mobile Cafe
• NY Times: The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur
• K@W Video: Muhammad Yunus: Lifting People Worldwide Out of Poverty
• FSU Social Entrepreneurship
• Unhoused Humanity

Conversation Starters

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction?

Using the “Related KWHS Articles” and “Related Links” tabs, find out more about Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunus. How have they made an impact on the world? Can you think of any other social-justice champions whose missions inspire you?

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

200 comments on “ Exploring Social Entrepreneurship: ‘My Generation Is Full of Activists and Humanitarians’ ”

Fiorella Riccobono stressed that social entrepreneurship is not charity. She wanted the readers to understand the difference between social entrepreneurship and social services, which I believe readers should give certain importance. As a reader, I feel that I have understood the relation between social entrepreneurship and charity. This distinction plays a role in opening the minds of the readers in defining other facets of social entrepreneurship.

I agree, because many people don’t know the difference between social entrepreneurship and social service. In the social entrepreneurship, you gain money and it is very different than a charity

Social entrepreneurship is where you start companies and develop a fund for some type of environmental issue. Fiorella Riccobono does gain money, but it is for a cause. Fiorella Riccobono donates money to the homeless community because they want to improve their circumstances. I agree as well, that many people don’t know the difference between social service and social entrepreneurship. Unhoused Humanity helps the homeless get over that initial down-payment hurdle. When you are in Social entrepreneurship, you are exposed to a new world of information and technology.

Social entrepreneurship and charity overlap in many fields (helping the homeless, for example); however, charity fosters a feeling of dependence in its recipients. Knowing this, many are scared away from the field. If social entrepreneurs are looking to make a difference, they must set themselves apart from well-established foundations and philanthropy.

1. Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. She is correct. Social Entrepreneurs run a business. While they are more empathetic because their helping the social sector by solving global and humanitarian issues, they ask what is needed and then base their business plan around that. They make a profit while contributing to society. 2. Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel prize for founding the Grameen bank which aided a lot of people with financial structure. Malala Yousafzai fought for women’s education in Pakistan. 3. I agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business because it builds a good reputation, which is important for an enterprise, while simultaneously making a profit.

1. Fiorella believes that donations are essential, however it can’t create business models because charities are not sustainable. A sustainable business is not only profitable, it has to be beneficial. They want to solve issues and make the business better. Businesses want to fix social issues as well as enviornment issues.

2. Yuman won the noble peace prize and helped people with finances, Malala wanted education for women in Pakistan

3. I agree with social entrepreneuership because it builds a businesses reputation

1. Fiorella Riccobono believes that it is not charity because she is trying to point out to the reader that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, as a charity is not sustainable, because you can’t control the influx of money. She means that social entrepreneurship can last over a long period, and has to be sustainable in order to help the most people possible.

2. Malala and Muhammad inspire the world. Malala inspires women to be educated, even in countries where women are not educated. She wrote a book of her injury, when she was shot by an Islamic group. Muhammad inspires young leaders globally. Also, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on social entrepreneurship. Another social justice champion that I admire is Oprah. She broke barriers by being one of the first black female millionaires in the United States. She also established an empire.

3. I believe that entrepreneurship offers a hopeful way to guide society. This helps people who have less money and in third world countries.

1) Fiorella Riccobonno stresses that it is not charity because she is trying to point out to the reader that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, as a charity is not sustainable, because you cant control the influx of money. She means that social entrepreneurship is different than charity because social entrepreneurship can last over a long period, and has to be sustainable in order to help the most people possible.

2) Malala and Muhammad inspire the world. Malala inspires women to be educated, even in countries where women are not educated. She wrote a book of her injury, when she was shot by an Islamic group. Muhammad inspires young leaders globally. He also won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on social entrepreneurship. Another social justice champion that I admire is Oprah Winfrey. She broke barriers by being very successful in her field of work, and her work in helping those less fortunate.

3) I believe that social entrepreneurship offers a hopeful way to help rehabilitate the community of people that are less than well off when it comes to their financial situation. Social entrepreneurship is a great way to give back to the less fortunate.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because because charity is not sustainable it cant support. she means that how can you build a buisness not knowing when your next pay is. she makes this important distinction so that she can inform the reader so that she gives a guideline. Malala Yousafzai is a pakastani actavist that emphasizes on women empowerment and how a group of people can make a change.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because although entrepreneurs may rely on donations they cant really create a business model based on it. She makes this important distinction because people may think that entrepreneurship is based on charity and donations when they are basically innovative business tactics to create solutions to social issues.

I Believe Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship isn’t charity so much because of how she wants to impact the world. If Social entrepreneurship was a charity, the problem would only at best get monetarily fixed. However, Social entrepreneurship targets to change the actual problem rather then just throw money at it.

I agree with Fiorella’s statement that social entrepreneurship is the future. Based on the information in this article it appears as though the goal of social entrepreneurship is to help fix the world’s problems. However, instead of simply creating a solution social entrepreneurship also finds ways tranform the issue into an opportunity for economic growth.

Social Entrepreneurship is not a charity because the business still makes money. They do help the community, but making money is a priority. This is an important distinction because she needs to stress the fact that the business still needs to make money. Fiorella does not want people to think that the are a charity that donates all their money.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity she means that its also a business and she makes money off it. This is an important distinction because she needs to stress the fact that its a business and she still needs to make money at same time as helping.

The way in which Fiorella explained how social entrepreneurship is not a charity is very educated and clear to understand. It is easy to agree with her statement on social entrepreneurship not being a charity even though it, in some cases, acts like one. For example when a business receives money from investor, it is similar to a charity receiving money from people to support the business. She makes a very good point in saying that a business cannot operate not knowing where they will get their next dollar. Another good point she makes that not everybody would think of is that if a business is running on donations, and donations alone, the business would not be able to create a business model since charity is not sustainable.

I do agree with her thinking, thanks to our generation of young people getting more interested in social matters and being more open minded. Nowadays, people is more intereste in social, environmental, and economical matters, therefore, making them more eager to get involved with our society . Social entrepreneurs will help in developing abetter society for our people

When Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship is not charity she means that social entrepreneurship is its own thing. She recognizes it as being something that can help many people, in many different places, for many different causes. As opposed to charity which is something that helps one cause, or raises money for something in specific. She makes this important distinction because she also realizes that the topic could be confusing for some who do not necessarily know the exact difference between the two.

Malala Yousafzai is a true hero, a legend, who will be remembered forever. She is a courageous leader who fights for women to be able to get an education. On October 9, 2012 she was shot by the Taliban and left in critical condition. She pushed through and from this tragic event that happened to her, she made her voice heard. Her story is touching and she now has her own foundation that advocates for womens’ rights worldwide. Muhammad Yunus is a social entrepreneur from Bangladesh. He is known for founding the Grameen Bank and developing the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. His objective was to put an end to poverty by giving out loans that were suitable to the people and teaching them some financial principles to help themselves. Not only did these two icons earn a Nobel Peace Prize Award, but they will also have an everlasting legacy for their keen, creative, and unique minds. Some other social-justice champions that I admire are Eleanor Roosevelt and Oprah Winfrey.

Fiorella Riccobono explains that social entrepreneurship is not charity. She goes on to clarify that social entrepreneurship is, in essence, using traditional business practices to create a sustainable business model that is not only profitable, but also beneficial to the social sector. Fiorella makes sure to note that charity is not sustainable and that a business model cannot run on donations alone.

Social entrepreneurship is definitely the future of business and policy making because it is a business enterprise not only focused in profitable gains and societal claims. Its significance is reflected on the demand of customers for business to have grater social objectives.

Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is not charity because it can’t create a business based on donations. Social entrepreneurship creates solutions to societal issues. This is an important distinct because social entrepreneurship should be it’s own business/its own work. It is not a charity where anyone can help, social entrepreneurship helps other businesses to thrive.

Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunus are both huge figure in the world for what they are and what they accomplished. The impact that they had on the world is different from one to another but both helped the humankind to be better. Another social-justice champion that had a mission that inspire me is Nelson Mandela, for what he forgive and what he accomplished.

3. I do believe social entrepreneurship is the future. It allows to have a business that is self sustainable and driven to help the community/planet without having this motivation for self gain. More and more people will start to realize that if we help the planet as a whole, then we will all benefit from it. Not only does it feel great to know that you’re helping people but also you get the satisfaction of helping the whole entire planet.

Personally, I believe that there is a quote that fits this article.

“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you give him an occupation to feed him for his lifetime.”

Charity can be given to someone and yes, it can help them, however it does not provide something long lasting. Giving people jobs, and a way for them to work in just conditions is how you can truly help people. A sustainable company that can support the people, support the environment, and still make a profit for more investment is a company that can help people. That is how you can truly help and make a impact. That’s the difference between social entrepreneurship and charity. One is sustainable and can sustain others.

Malala Yousafzai is Pakistani activguist who publicy campaigned for girls to go to school and won a Nobel YouthPeace Prize. Due to her popularity and exposure, the Taliban were after her. On October 9, 2012, a Taliban masked gunman boarded her school bus, and asked for her by name. The gunman shot her in the head, neck and shoulders. Malala survived the attack and is now a world famous activist for peace and girls in school.

Muhammad Yunus is a Bangladeshi entrepreneur that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for founding the Grameen Bank and creating microcredit and microfinance. He is working hard to help advocate a world without poverty.

According to “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” as Fiorella said, I agree that social entrepenueurships is the future of bussines annd policy making since entrepeneurs are going up and being more involved in the future policies as well as business

As far as social entrepreneurship being the future of business and policy making, yes, I agree with Fiorella. She has definitely made some interesting and realistic points. She believes that, given our generation and what that all have made a living out of, we all want to leave the world a better place than how we found it. Social entrepreneurship is saving poor regions with solutions such as fair trade and I agree that if you work hard to make that a part of your life work that it can make a difference.

Yes I do agree that, “social is the future of business and policy,” because not only does the entrepreneur make a profit, he or she also supports and helps local, small businesses which in turn helps all the people in a community. Social entrepreneurs need to be smart and innovative to find ways to make money, but still support the community. This benefits the social entrepreneur and the people they are helping. This can build innovative skills and social skills making are world communicate and making our world be together.

I agree with Fiorella when she says “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” because we are moving towards a more socially and environmentally cautious world. More and more companies are starting to deal with environmental issues. I t is likely that most future companies or enterprises will be helping raise money to help solve global problems from the start

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because charity is not sustainable and relies on donations from people. Social entrepreneurship is when individuals use a variety of tactics and strategies to tackle societal problems. She makes this important decision because although they overlap in some areas, social entrepreneurs need to find ways to make their business profitable.

1. Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because in a social entrepreneurship, making money is part of the goal. It does help the community. However, unlike a charity, social entrepreneurship can be sustainable. They don’t base their business plan off of the donations they received but they use innovative ideas and plans. I believe she addressed the difference between the two to clarify that they are separate concepts and emphasize the difference between them.

Throughout the article, Fiorella Riccobono emphasizes on the idea that social entrepreneurship is not charity. Fiorella realizes many young people are willing to help but prevent them self from doing so due to the dependent nature of charity. Through using social entrepreneurship, one is not dependent on others to create a sustainable and reliable network to help those in need. This entices future business students who want to help while still utilizing the skills they have learned.

When Forella says “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making,” I agree with this statement because nowadays the world of business is becoming based off of networking and social elements. It is becoming more common that people want to go out and work on social projects and participate in the community. As this becomes more popular it will begin to become a business. It takes knowledge to turn social work into a business. However if done right, it can make the world a better place.

Social entrepreneurship and charity are two different businesses models. As Fiorella Riccobono says, charity is not a viable business plan that can make money. Social entrepreneurship triple bottom line is people, planet, profits. They want to help the world while making a positive change in the world while making a profit.

I agree with Fiorella’s statement that “social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making” because it gives companies the opportunity to give back to their community while making a profit. The upcoming generation of business owners want to leave the world better than they found it, and social entrepreneurship is the perfect opportunity to make a difference. I believe this is extremely beneficial to society and its members as it will also help shape the future generations to become successful leaders through international connections and job opportunities.

Fiorella, in the article, stated that social entrepreneurship is not charity. By stating this she means that charities will help gain money for a cause, but as a social entrepreneur, you have the opportunity to take your knowledge and make money and business. In the article, Fiorella states that “People are no longer seeing global poverty as a call for charity, but as a place of economic and cultural growth. ” If more people are able to gain that knowledge and share it, many people would be able to help more people at a constant rate. Charity is for one cause while social entrepreneurship can be for many.

Fiorella believes that social entrepreneurship is the future to business and policy, and I agree. Although, I would also argue that it is fundamental to today’s business and policy. This is so important because social entrepreneurship in other words is networking. These skills are important to meet others in the business world and expand upon your knowledge. If you have a wide range of connections you will have more opportunities to get jobs, knowledge in every field of business, and create a supportive business network in your working environment. After all you are not working next to computer all day, but next to people that are similar to you!

Fiorella makes the distinction between social entrepreneurship and charity. This is an important distinction because money in a charity flows in one direction. Conversely, money in a social enterprise flows both ways. Social enterprises cannot be charities because they are businesses, and need money to operate. Compared to traditional businesses, though, social enterprises are conscientious about the environmental and social impacts of their actions.

I agree with Fiorella when she claims that social entrepreneurship is the the future success of business and policy making. It doesn’t only help people who already have good conditions of life but it also financially helps those in need and who can’t afford much money. Entrepreneurs can make a lot of profits and invest their money on themselves and the community on where they which can benefit everyone.

The reason Riccobonno made the distinction between social entrepreneurship and charity is because some people don’t understand that social entrepreneurship is in fact a business and relies on more than just donations. In any business it is important to know where and when your money is coming from. Without the knowledge of when you will have money you can not make financial investments or take risks. If your business is not sustainable and it goes bankrupt it will not be able to help anyone.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because you cannot created a business based off of donations. Social entrepreneurship makes solutions to social issues.

I agree with Fiorella that social entrepreneurship because it will help many people.And to help the environment and the community.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. She focuses about this topic because she wants the reader and society to have the understanding of the difference between entrepreneurship and charity. An entrepreneurship may help and change many people, with different causes or problems, at different situation. A charity is help for a certain person or situation. She wants to make a change not throw money at it and have the problem fixed momentarily.

1. Fiorella Riccobono believes that social entrepreneurship is about making the world a better place. Charity is a completely different subject. Though, they do share a common goal. Malala Yousafzai held a campaign for girls to get an education at school. Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for social entrepreneurship. They are an inspiration to society. I believe in Fiorella’s point of view. Social entrepreneurship is the future of business. It well help us grow and develop as a person. As well as create opportunities for many in creating a difference.

What Fiorella Riccobono stresses about social entrepreneurship not being charity is that it doesn’t have the ability to launch a business solely based from donations. This is not able to support a fully working business. The charity people give is meant to last a bit, it does not have the ability to make a business work for a long period of time. She makes this important distinction so readers can see the difference between a business that can support itself vs a business that runs on charity.

I agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business. I believe this because we need to look out for others. There are many people in this world that are self centered and don’t think about others. We need to make sure we take care of others and make sure no one is left behind.

Business entrepreneurship is not charity basically because social entrepreneurs may need to rely on donations to launch their endeavors and making money is part of the goal.

When Fiorella Riccobono states that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means to create the idea that social entrepreneurship is stable and a dependable new business worth taking part in. She makes this distinction because she wants it to be clear that although it shares a similar idea with charity, it is not only about helping the people but also the planet and business world of the future.

There definitely is a big difference between social entrepreneurship and charity. What Fiorella Riccobono means when she makes this distinction is to not think of social entrepreneurship as the same because of the many differences it has with charity. For example, charity can be looked at as a way to help one specific problem only one time. What she tries to make out of social entrepreneurship is that it helps more than one cause, it is more of a broad way of helping. Also it can shape a better lifestyle for people while charity can only help in one specific way. Giving someone money is not as big of a deal as giving a person a job to consistently earn money. Fiorella makes the distinction so readers know the way that she helps people, by setting a better road for the rest of their lives.

Social entrepreneurship is the future of the business and policy making because it is a way for entrepreneurs to not only make a profit but helps out the community and support their new ideas. And it is a smart way for people to come together as a community and do many great things together.

Fiorella Riccobonno stresses that it is not charity because she wants the reader to be aware that a charity isn’t sustainable because you don’t know where your next dollar comes from, in contrast with social entrepreneurship that is the process to earn profits while helping other people.

[3.] When considering Ms. Riccobono’s statement, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.”, I am reminded of the importance of working with non-profit, government, and traditional business, when working towards startling a successful and innovative business. I agree that social entrepreneurship is an important aspect thats importance will become increasingly apparent as time goes on. Using the policies and beliefs that fall under this category, I believe these thing will change the future of business management and development.

Fiorella Riccobono emphasizes a difference between social entrepreneurship and charity. She highlights that in a social entrepreneurship, the owner cannot solely depend on donations in order to maintain the business plan and model to a profitable amount. She makes this distinction because all social entrepreneurships create profit, whereas charities, specifically non-profit organizations, do not.

Ms. Riccobono had her opinion about the meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, in which she thought that it is not charity at all. She stated that making money is the desired outcome, while as compared to charity it is also stable and/or sustainable. She wanted to clarify the actual difference between the two, explaining it through the expression of her own opinion.

-Fiorella Riccobono believes that it is not charity because, she is trying to tell the reader that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, as a charity is not sustainable, because you can’t control the influx of money. She means that social entrepreneurship can last over a long period, and has to be sustainable in order to help the most people possible.

-Malala and Muhammad inspire the world. Malala inspires women to be educated, even in countries where women are not educated. She wrote a book about the injury that she had injury, when she was shot by an Islamic group. Muhammad inspires young leaders globally. Also, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on social entrepreneurship. Another social justice champion that I admire is Oprah. She broke barriers by being one of the first black female millionaires in the United States. She also established an empire.

-I do believe social entrepreneurship is the future. It allows to have a business that is self sustainable and driven to help the community/planet without having this motivation for self gain.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction? She wants the distinction to be clear that social justice in businesses for employees isn’t a charity, and that it’s an obligation for workers to be treated/paid fairly. She strives to make a community where social justice is a priority. Using the “Related KWHS Articles” and “Related Links” tabs, find out more about Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunus. How have they made an impact on the world? Can you think of any other social-justice champions whose missions inspire you? Malala aimed for the education of all women in the world, even in countries where they aren’t educated. Muhammed inspired young entrepreneurs around the world. Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Do you agree? Why or why not? I agree, social justice calls for fairness in business with helping the homeless, being able to assist those in need, and policy wise making work better/ more efficient for employees/

I agree with Florella in believing that social entrepreneurship is the future. Social entrepreneurship is a useful tool to help the community while still making money in the proccess. Being a social entrepreneur allows said entrepreneur to help the people with less money while being able to maintain profit in the proccess.

Fiorella stresses a good point about social entrepreneurship because the businesses that are focused on being run like this are also making an enormous impact on different societal issues while benefiting as a business as well. That being said, theses businesses are definitely not like charities. She makes the distinction between the two because i’m sure the first thing many people think of when they hear about “social entrepreneurship” is charity. Social entrepreneurship is definitely going to take over in the future because it is a great way for businesses to thrive while also having a positive impact on society and the world.

Fiorella Riccobonno stresses the fact that social entrepreneurship is not charity because she wants the reader to understand the difference between social service and social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are also businessmen and run a business that also helps others.

Social Entrepreneurship is not a charity. It is not a charity because the business still makes money. They do help the community, but making money is the main/top reason. This is an important because she needs to continue stressing the fact that the business still needs to make money. Fiorella helped the people because she paid them more than what they were getting paid.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that the business cannot rely on donations. It would obviously help the business if donations come to them, but the business model cannot be built by just donations. Charity is not sustainable, which means that a certain business can’t survive on donations. Social entrepreneurships are meant to solve societal issues and that is what she is trying to do.

I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making because the world is becoming more and more social. Whether it is through social media or just talking to people, people get ideas from other people who get ideas from other people. Nowadays so many people believe they want to be an entrepreneur and its possible because there are so many places to start a business.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses about social entrepreneurship not being charity and that it is not going to be able to launch a business solely based from donations. This is not able to support a fully working business. The charity people give is meant to last a bit, but it does not have the ability to make a business work or last for a long period of time. She makes this important distinction so readers can see the difference between a business that can support itself vs a business that runs on charity.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction? She means that she believes a business is not sustainable by donations. On the other hand, charities are 100% sustained by donations. A business is very costly and it cannot be held by a thread or sustained by chance or luck. Starting a business, one wants to know that his or her business has an opportunity of thriving and growing. When one finds out someone is donating, the donation most of the time arrives that same day. In businesses, one has to know where the next dollar is coming from ahead of time. If a business is failing a backup plan needs to be formed, it cannot just sit around and hope for a miraculous donation.

I agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business because it is a great way to give back to the people that are struggling financially, and it builds a good reputation which is very important for a business.

When Fiorella stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that charity is not sustainable, because the influx of money isn’t not controllable, and a social entrepreneurship has to be sustainable so most involved benefit. I agree with Fiorella that social entrepreneurship is the future of business, and where relationships are built while making profit.

Fiorella stresses the difference between social entrepreneurship and charity. A business model can’t be made in a charity, due to charities not being sustainable. Both of these help the community in many ways but you can make money also in social entrepreneurship as it is sustainable.

Fiorella says,”I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making” I agree with this statement because I believe that people now a days are trying there best to make this world a better place so being a social entrepreneur is not only helping yourself but also helping your community.

I really find this idea of “social entrepreneurship” to be very defining because this allows people with somewhat experience with the business world to get to experience real life. Many people don’t think business is that hard but this thought of having social entrepreneurship I feel will actually make the image of the business world easier to understand. Social Entrepreneurship is the future and is actually happening already, the reason is because being able to interact with customers and consumers will allow the buyers to have more confidence in the product. Interactions also allows the business to have good credit and good credit to a company means that they are worth more and are recognized as a company that has good stuff. Another reason why social entrepreneurship is the future is because it is easier to start than that of an actually big name company, so I predict that there will be more social entrepreneurs than companies trying to sell small products (that is the job of a social entrepreneur).

Fiorela Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship because it is still a business even though it helps people in need. People know the charities are basically just giving money to people and that is not what social entrepreneurship is about. Social entrepreneurship is a business so it still makes a profit but it also helps people. These businesses are all about making a profit while still maintaining a social message. They follow business plans and make a sustainable business while still making an impact with the social sector of the world.

Fiorella Riccobono states that social entrepreneurship it’s not charity. Social entrepreneurs run a business from which they want to take profit while they are contributing to society. She states that they practically show emapthy and use society to make money, which in a way, making money or not, at the end they are still helping people.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. She wants to show that social entrepreneurship isn’t charity because it isn’t to get things for people in need. Social entrepreneurship is to develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues. She makes this important distinction because social entrepreneurship uses techniques and has ideas behind funding solutions to social culture, while charity is to do for the good of the people in need. Also social entrepreneurship looks to find solutions for issues, when charity just helps a certain cause.

I believe strongly in the idea of Social Entrepreneurship and the benefits it can bring to many people. I think that is great for college campuses to have social entrepreneur ship clubs so that college students can be exposed to all of the problems that the world has, I love how the article stresses how its important to be open minded and expose your self to new experiences because the world changes every day and it is key for young people to know that because they are the ones who have the most power to change things for the better

Fiorella strongly stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. This means that it is still business, that means that it is for profit. I think this is a good thing because the best way to support social programs is by money from companies that still have profit. Fiorella also must believe this because she is sure to emphasize the fact that social enterprises are making money and not bankrupting themselves for their programs or relying heavily on inconsistent and unreliable donations like a charity.

Riccobono emphasizes that charity is different from social entrepreneurship by expressing that charity works with donations and social entrepreneurship handles profits. She makes this distinction to help realize that everyone can win; farmers receive just payment for their goods and vendors of these goods can make a profit. This has definitely made an impact on the world by allowing almost any person attain a fair an income at little to no expense. I don’t completely agree with Fiorella’s belief because today many giant corporations, such as Monsanto, benefit greatly at others’ expense and won’t easily change. Yes, it is a great concept and should be adapted all over but it doesn’t seem like something that will truly happen.

What Fiorella Riccobono means by social entrepreneurship not being a charity is that they are totally different concepts. She makes this important distinction because a charity depends on people donating money for their cause. While social entrepreneurship do accept donations, they don’t rely on it. They use a business model to plan it out like a business.

3: I don’t necessarily disagree or agree with the statement that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making, because there are many other business fields that can have a larger effect on society, for example, the economy keeps the world turning by trading goods to other nations and providing everyone with the funds they earn. The economy also provides storage units known to most as banks, to store any earned money that was not to be spent, this being the opposite of in-wallet or in-pocket money.

But, social entrepreneurship is a very crucial business, and as time goes by, this will get more important. In addition, social entrepreneurship is interconnected with the economics, because with social advantages, one might have a vast connection, thus leading to a higher chance of getting advertised, hired, or partnered with another company.

Firoella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not a charity. Social entrepreneurship is a business that is profitable and is indeed not a charity because then it wouldn’t be sustainable. Instead it is comprised of individuals who want to make the world a better place.These individuals try to make the world a better place by using business tactics to try to create solutions to some of the societal issues that we face today, like poverty, climate change, and pollution. So, not only is it not a charity, it is profitable and at the same time it helps make the world a better place.

1.Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity even though they receive donations, they can’t create a business model, charity is not sustainable. 2.Malala Yousafzai fights for gender equality, and Muhammad Yunus help the poor and poverty worldwide. This inspires me to leave my mark on the world and change the world for the better. 3.I agree when Fiorella said ” I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Because this will help the poor and raise charity.

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I agree with Fiorella because it will help give back to those who do not have the resources that they need. It will not only make provide good reputation to the business, but it will give you such a good feeling to know you are being involved in the community and helping others.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity, because it’s not possible to create a business model based on donations, because charity is not sustainable. Malala inspires the education of all women in the world, even in countries where they are not educated. Muhammed inspires young leaders globally, and he has also won a Nobel Peace Prize. I agree that entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making, because it gives hope to those who need help.

What Fiorella means when she says that entrepreneurship is not a charity is that in the business you have to know when your money is coming not just to wait around for a donation, which is what charity does. I do agree with Fiorella when she says “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making” because it helps keep the community going to a better place.

She means that you still make profit off of social entrepreneurship, as it is what is desired because charity is not sustainable. She makes this important distinction to show that social entrepreneurship is not charity and needs to have a constant influx of cash to help as much people as you can. I do agree because it is a good way to help people who are less fortunate with their situations.

Fiorella Riccobono affirms that all related with social entrepreneurship is not charity, by that you can extract that corporations or business don’t live related with donations or charity. Business must grown from experience, hard working and good ideas and not from donations. Donations can surely help, but a business concept doesn’t not relate to that.

Malala and Muhammad had a big participation with the world. While Malala made the education available for womens she wrote a book that affected the globally society. Muhammad inspired young leaders over the world. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for his social entrepreneurship, which had successful results. I agree with her when saying that the social entrepreneurship is the future of business, because the social entrepreneurship allows a business that self-survive to help the good causes without having this motivation for self gain.

What Fiorella Riccobono means when she says that social entrepreneurship is not a charity is that it does not involve raising money for a cause. Charities also do not have enough money to sustain them for a long period of time without donations. Social entrepreneurship aims to solve problems while still having the ability to make profit, although they do accept donations. It is a business that at the same time makes a huge impact on society.

When Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is not charity she means that social entrepreneurship is its own thing. She recognizes it as being something that can help many people, in many different places, for many different causes. As opposed to charity which is something that helps one cause, or raises money for something in specific. She makes this important distinction because she also realizes that the topic could be confusing for some who do not necessarily know the exact difference between the two.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that social entrepreneurship is not focused on raising or donating money. Social entrepreneurship is a business that benefits when money is used. Of course you are going to need to raise money from somewhere, but the purpose of social entrepreneurship is to run a business not to collect money. Clearly, Fiorella makes this important distinction because she wants to show the readers that social entrepreneurship and charity are two separate things.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. When Fiorella said this, she meant that a social entrepreneurship does not just base solely on donations. Of course, donations can help, but a social entrepreneurship thrives from people working hard to help others. In addition, a charity, unlike a social entrepreneurship, is not sustainable She shows that it is more about creating a work place than a place just collecting money.

When Fiorella Riccobono says it is not charity she means that these companies are not run on donations and not ran by volunteers in their free time. She is saying these companies are real businesses that have to compete in the real world. They too have the goal of making money however, they also make businesses that help a society as well as protect the environment. She mentions this because often times they have no idea where there next check is coming from and when. This is a important distinction because these are people who are interfering with their career or salary to make the world a better place and not doing it on extra time.

Riccobono emphasizes that social entrepreneurship isn’t charity. The difference between a charity and social entrepreneurship is that in a charity, funds received are dependent on the contributions of donors. Profit generated from social entrepreneurship are directly correlated with the economic aspects that entrepreneurs find themselves confronted by, such as competition as well as supply and demand. Because of this, the defining aspect at the core of social entrepreneurship is that success is defined by the financial decisions that entrepreneurs choose to make within the current state of the market in which the entrepreneur operates. Au contraire, running a charity would rely on sporadic donations that prove to be a less reliable source of money than the profits and economic stimulus caused by small businesses and lower-class workers.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because even though some social entrepreneurs do rely on some charity to start their business, social entrepreneurship aims to solve problems and create a sustainable business that doesn’t rely on others to make profit.

1.I believe that Fiorella Riccobono had the need to express that social entrepreneurship is not charity, rather that relies on donations because she felt the need for the individuals that read the article to understand that this project is so innovative and new that the majority of the people don’t really know about it. Charity is defined as an organization that wants to help and raise money for those in need. Instead, what Fiorella Riccobono is doing relies on donations because although she is helping the needed and businesses, she needs resources and wants to improve the ideas she has for individuals to take on their business as soon as she sets them up for success with her unique innovated plan. This makes an important distinction because it may not always be for free that Riccobono may be doing her job, rather to create a change with an imaginative job that helps improve the world.

3. When Fiorella says, “ I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I somewhat agree with what she said. Due to the fact, that her job might be one of the ones that may help a large amount of people as it has economic and balanced strategies to make a business start or grow exponentially. However, I don’t coincide with it being the essential future of business rather social entrepreneurship taking on a branch. As it will only help an specific business that are in certain conditions. In addition, it may be a good and productive job, but not the overall future.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship isn’t charity to emphasize that it isn’t an organization that runs on donations. Social entrepreneurs create real businesses that make a profit. Although their objective is to improve issues in society and assist people, their goal at the end of the day is also to earn a profit. I think Fiorella makes that important distinction to show that although social entrepreneurs are there to help people in need, they also create thriving business. It shows that there’s a lot more to social entrepreneurship than most people are aware about and how it’s different from any other non-profit organization.

Malala was shot by a takin when she was 14 years old, since then she fought for the rights of young women to study and gender equality. She became the youngest nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and won it in 2013. Muhammad Yunnus created the Grammen Bank, it researched to study how to design a credit delivery system to provide banking services to the rural poor, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Another social-justice champion is Martin Luther King Jr, he is best know for his role in the advancement of civil rights using nonviolent civil disobedience based on his Christian beliefs. On October 24, 1964, King received the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through nonviolence.

Malala Yousafzai is a Pakistani women’s right and children’s activist, who is also the youngest-ever Nobel Prize laureate. Muhammad Yunus is a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur ans economist, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for founding the Grameen Bank, in which he developed a micro loans and credit system that helped poor Bangladeshis ‘borrow’ small amount of money. Paulette Meyers mission inspired me because she founded and chaired the Women’s Initiative for Self Employment in San Francisco, for 15 years, which helped to train and finance low-income women to start their own businesses.

Fiorella Riccobono is saying that social entrepreneurship is not a charity because they are very different. For instance, charity needs people to donate money to succeed while social entrepreneurship does not rely on donations even though they do accept money to help their concept. Instead, they use innovative business tactics to create solutions to social issues.

Fiorella says “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I believe this statement is very accurate to the future of the business landscape as large corporations are increasingly searching for ways to give back and help out society. Social entrepreneurship also opens up new possibility to those who enjoy philanthropic work while still utilizing their business skills. Through creating self-sustaining businesses that help out society, more individuals will be open to the idea of entering a field which help people as it eliminates the feeling of charity and volunteer work.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social enterpreneurship is not charity because although enterpreneurs may rely on donations they can’t really create a business model based on it. She makes this important distinction because people may think thet enterpreneurship is based on charity and donations when they really are basically innovactive business tactics to create solutions to social issues.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because charity is giving to those in need with nothing in return, which is similar to social entrepreneurship in the helping side but social entrepreneurs are looking for a profit and the thing that differ them from most of the entrepreneurs is that besides a profit they are looking to help, they are trying to make an impact in their community for the good. Making an impact is clearly really important to her and that’s why she distinct what social entrepreneurship to encourage people to also make an impact and show them they can make a profit out of something that will benefit the social sector.

Social entrepreneurship IS the future of business and policy making. The world is full of hunger, poverty, pollution, etc. What would be more successful than making a profit while helping to make this dirty filthy world a better place?

I agree with Fiorella Riccobono’s statement that social Entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. Based on the information her article is giving us, the goal of social entrepreneurship is to help fix the world’s issues or problems. To her, instead of a simple solution, social entrepreneurship can also finds ways to transform the conflict into an opportunity for economic growth.

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Do you agree? Why or why not? I don’t think it is the future, yes it is helpful to the world and is good and helps people in need, but this can not be the future of business. If a business wants to be successful in the world they can’t be nice, they can’t just go around helping. A business needs to make a profit, needs to be able to pay all its employees, and all its assets. If a business ever hopes of progressing in this world it has to be heartless, or it will be taken advantage of. It cant have a soft spot it it will be open and it will be used. I understand why she would say this but that is in a dream world, but the business world is far from a dream. It is ruthless and has no heart, its all about the money.

Hi Sebastian. Fiorella, the writer of this essay, read your comment and wanted to respond. Here are her thoughts:

Although I do agree that a business needs to make a profit, I disagree with you on the point that the only value a company can generate is revenue. That is an outdated perception of the value modern day corporations and financial institutions are trying to generate. Social entrepreneurship does not exist to be charitable, it exists to create systemic social impact at the core of it’s day- to- day operations, while simultaneously generating profit.

The modern business structure is steering away from a profit-driven model, to a strategy that systemically addresses the triple bottom line. This is not a dream world perception, but rather the new trend and business models of all corporations are trying to adapt in order to stay competitive. But, you do not have to take my word for it, let’s use a modern-day example of investment banking. The young individuals who are entering the banking industry are increasingly making investment decisions that focus on sustainable growth. In order to learn more about impact investing, a form of social entrepreneurship, I have attached an article recently published by Morgan Stanley:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/sustainable-socially-responsible-investing-millennials-drive-growth?cid=sm_smsp_LINKEDIN_MorganStanley_20170831

This generation is demanding socially minded products and companies are responding to this in order to stay competitive and relevant.

When Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making I could not agree more. Many people in this generation are empowered to make a change in there society and around the globe. Social entrepreneurship is a great way for both a way to make a lot of money , and help the change that you want in the world. Also, social entrepreneurship is a great way to gain customers, because people that believe in your platform will want to buy your product and goods. Social entrepreneurship is a great way to not only help yourself succeed but also a great way to help other succeed and get through there struggles.

2- Muhammad Yunnus founded the Grammen Bank and pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. He gave loans to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. by this Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development.

Malala Yousafzai is an activist for female education. She is known for human rights advocacy, especially education of women in her native Swat Valley in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Yousafzai opened a school in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon, near the Syrian border, for Syrian refugees. The school offers education and training to gils aged 14 to 18 years.

A social enterprise is not a charity because is organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being. They basically combine business with social concerns; they ensure that the society can have access to opportunities to grow in the business environment and be able to sustain themselves.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What Fiorella means by this is that entrepreneurship is not runned by money or even sustained by money like a charity is. Although she says that here and there money will be involved but really and truly its not based on donations at all. Her making it a important distinction lets everyone know that its a innovative business.

Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship isn’t a charity. She emphasizes that is not a business that simply runs on donations, which is similar to a charity. Social entrepreneurs create certain businesses to make profit. These businesses do not rely on others to make profit. An important distinction made is that charities are run totally on donations. Real businesses simply can not last on just donations. Social entrepreneurs have actual businesses that make money that is used for social, cultural, or environmental issues. The important distinction is that charities are run on donations while social entrepreneurs create businesses that make money.

When Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is not charity she means that social entrepreneurship is its own thing. She recognizes it as being something that can help many people in need, in many different places, for many different causes. As opposed to charity which is something that helps one cause, or raises money for something in specific. She makes this important distinction because she also realizes that the topic could be confusing for someone who does not necessarily know the exact difference between the two.

Freshman need to join college already thinking of a way to change the world. By being innovative in the beginning, it opens your mind to greater things in the future. By joining entrepreneurship clubs, you can discover a whole new world of chances to help homeless people and poor communities. These people are in the need of a shelter and income, and if you somehow can manage to help those communities, they may even increase their business, earning well deserved money, and help other communities too.

I agree with Fiorella that, social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making because, to start a business people have to have technics and know how to talk face to face with other company CEO’s or to talk to banks so they know they will get a profit off you if they lend you their money. Those are the reasons why people have to be socially ready.

I agree when Fiorella says that she believes social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. In a growing age where successful businesses are known for their high rates of pollution, many advocate for business techniques that are more environmentally friendly. Not only does social entrepreneurship promote profit while keeping detrimental environment effects to a minimum, but it also reaches out to the community to aid and improve the lives of those in need. Business thrives off high profit and the ideals behind social entrepreneurship (such as eco-friendly techniques and public aiding) are essential to good policy making and an excellent community of people. Thus, future business and policy making would greatly benefit from this.

Fiorella Riccobon stressed about social entrepreneurship not being a charity so much since the idea of a social entrepreneurship does not want to be labeled as a charity, because their approach to the problem can be very different. Charity solely depends on donations and uses the money the get to first have their business then give back. This distinction is very important since what social entrepreneurship wants to do is give back and make sure their purpose is directly served and is not based off on only donations.

Fiorella stresses about social entrepreneurship not being charity because it is not an organization that runs in donations, social entrepreneurs create real business that make a profit although there goal is to improve the issues in society and help people but at the end of the day there goal is to make a profit out of there business, I think that fiorella makes that important distinction, to show that social entrepreneurship is there to help people in need, and create a working business that are able to create profit at the end of the day.

I think what Fiorella meant by social entrepreneurship not being charity was that people actually have to put a lot of work in to their business and not just rely on donations. She states, ” charity is not sustainable.” Which means that entrepreneurs should not run a business if they do not know who is giving them money; especially off of donations.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. Social entrepreneurship is not charity because you cannot create and run a business in which you, the entrepreneur, do not know when or where the donations to your business are coming from. Social entrepreneurship is also not charity since it is a business, and the entrepreneur and his or her business earns a profit while helping others. Fiorella makes this important distinction so that people do not think that a social entrepreneur’s business is a charity to the homeless, it is a business that earns a profit while helping the community and the homeless.

Social entrepreneurship is indeed not a charity. While a charity is reliant on donations, a social entrepreneurship cannot create a stable business model without having a stable source of income. Instead, a social entrepreneurship finds an underlying problem such as pollution or poverty and then creates a business model that does not only solve the underlying problem, but also makes the business model profitable. Fiorella Riccobono stresses the distinction between a charity and a social entrepreneurship in order to highlight the fact that a charity only helps people, whether it be through financial or material means; while a social entrepreneurship continuously helps people by creating a profitable business model that not only solves a social issues, but also creates a profit. The distinction between a charity and a social entrepreneurship can be seen in the analogy where, “If you give a man a fish he will be fed for one day, if you teach that man how to fish and he’ll never be hungry.” A charity can be seen as simply giving a man a fish, while a social entrepreneurship can be seen as teaching a man how to fish.

Fiorella is right/wrong when she claims that entrepreneurship is not charity even though some business do help our community. Most of the business have a goal of making money and benefiting themselves, that’s the main goal of most entrepreneurship, they are sometimes too ambitious and don’t care about society. On the other hand some do care about our society and help our community by investing on something using their profits that will benefit not only them but everyone else in the community. She makes that important distinction because charity relies on donations and money support for those in need, she is trying encourage more people and other business that thrive in order to be more charity and help those in need.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity she means that you can’t create a business model based on donations, because charity is not sustainable. She says this to make it clear that it is not a charity.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurs is not charity and I agree. She means that social entrepreneurs create a business and make profits. They can’t create a business on donations. Social entrepreneurs create solutions to societal issues. She makes this important distinction because she wants people to understand that social entrepreneurs is not about donations, it’s about assisting and helping ours and your community.

I do not agree with Fiorella when she says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Although social entrepreneurship will continue to grow and thrive in western businesses, saying it will be the future of all business is impossible. In places like the United States and other similar countries people generally have more money than those in third world countries, so when people start businesses they are more likely to have enough money to use sustained practices to create there products.we have also seen a shift in what consumers want. More and more consumers are looking for ways to make themselves feel like they are helping society in what they buy, so shifting to social enterprise might actually benefit your business more. Although this is true for first world countries in most other second and third world countries this business method would not work. In these countries people make a much smaller income than they would in first world countries so when consumers are looking for products to buy they will most likely pick a cheaper product that does not give back to society rather than spending more money for the same product with the difference this one will give back to society. These business also have less start up money making it harder for them to produce products in a sustainable manner. For reasons like this social enterprises will grown in first world countries or rich people but is no a viable option for people of lesser income. this is why I do not believe social enterprises will be the future business of the world but rather of the first world.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity even though it has some analogous needs and events. For example, social entrepreneurship may need to rely on donations to launch their endeavors. However, like charity is not sustainable, it is futile to create a business model. It is crucial to express that social entrepreneurs try to solve societal issues by combining government, nonprofit, and traditional business practices.

Social Entrepreneurship is an emerging concept and, as any concept that is new, some people don’t really know what it means. Although it relies sometimes on donations, a business can’t sustain itself just by charity. Social Entrepreneurs main purpose is to help needed business to succeed and creating innovative plans in order to do that.

I believe that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making due to a great deal of social entrepreneurs looking toward the future and building business models that favor our environment. These innovative minds see harsh problems like global poverty and world hunger as a new slate for growth in areas like economy or cultural growth. In the end, the positive minds of social entrepreneurs will be those of the future in business and policy making.

Fiorellla Riccobono is constantly stressing that social entrepreneurship is not similar than charity, because both overlap in many things. But what people don’t realize is that compared to charity social entrepreneurship is a business looking to make profit. Malala Yousafzai is a Pakistani activist for female education and the youngest to ever to receive a Nobel Prize, also survived a shot to the head once and is now a bounty. Muhammad Yunus is a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur who was awarded the Noble Peace Price for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. I agree seeing the benefit of social entrepreneurship just as many others.

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

I disagree with her. I found social entrepreneurship a very respectable cause and i loved the idea, but i don’t think it is the future of business because since now there weren’t social entrepreneurship, so entrepreneurs can create their company without that help.

I agreed with what Fiorella Said about the future or entrepreneurship. I think that these newer generations are more biologically aware of what is going on with our planet and communities, specially with the current science they have more knowledge and a better understanding of the problems on this world. So judging by the way these generations are more aware and having more knowledge they would lean more towards businesses that can help the world and our communities.

“Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction?”

She means that its not a charity because a charity is not sustainable. She make the important distinction because a lot of people confuse it for a charity. She wants to make sure that they know the definition of social entrepreneurship is.

Fiorella is making points that social entrepreneurship can make a difference in people’s lives. Social entrepreneurship can help build of jobs and businesses. It also is helping other people that aren’t working in those businesses and improving their community around them. She wants to make a difference in this world I think that this is the key to change the future and what is soon gonna be the next generation of entrepreneurs.

When Fiorella said “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I agree because social entrepreneurship is very important in the business world. People have to be able to communicate with people face to face. In todays millennials everyone uses phones and in the future could have a hard time communicating with people face to face. So I think that social entrepreneurship will be very important in the future.

Fiorella stresses that using social entrepreneurship isn’t just a charity and it is a way to make money. Even though it isn’t charity way of working it can contribute to the advancement of others or addressing problems injustice in the world. The social side promotes it to which the business can grow off the help of others it needs a source of revenue like any other business to thrive. Though the company’s can take in donations to work and run this helps things and what they need and to do at the same time promoting problems.

I agree with Fiorella. Social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. As time goes on, more and more people are becoming aware of the state of our world and the people who live in it. Social entrepreneurship finds the source of a problem, and not only fixes it, but helps to make the world a better place in the process. I believe that this generation, as well as generations in the future, will want to help our world and people in need. More people are wanting to leave the world in a better state than we found it, and some people are already trying.

Fiorella Riccobono is saying that the Social Entrepreneurship is not a charity at all. The whole Social Entrepreneurship point is to help fix the worlds problems but making money is still a priority for the Social Entrepreneurship.This idea still finds ways to transform the issues for an economic growth. So Fiorella basically wants us to know that they’re not a charity that donates all their money.

Yes I do agree with Fiorella, social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making and the idea of it, is a great idea to help young entrepreneurs that are lost in the world of business, this would be a very good and helpful tool for them, and we can’t escape from that, because the technology is growing every second of our lives so i wouldn’t be a surprise if technology take over the world of business, many companies are successful and they did it without that help, but now it can be a very good addition for young kids with great ideas this can help them start and i believe they can be very successful with their projects and new businesses

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction? she means its not charity because it cant create a business model, based on donations, because charity is not sustainable, because charity is mot sustainable. you cant build a business when you don’t know where your next dollar is coming from or when.

I agree with what Fiorella thinks about social entrepreneurship. The program is related to charity but is not the same thing as she had stated in the article. This program has a potential strong base for jobs in the future. The course deals with societal problems by matching them with economy issues as well as financial issues like a business. This sets it as a powerful candidate for future employments and jobs in my opinion as it has an extravagant amount of potential.

I agree and believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making because one of its main purposes is to make the environment and future businesses successful and better.

I agree with Fiorella because it’s true that in the future we need to socially communicate with different people. Some people are working and are not getting paid enough for the work that they are doing. It’s good that she and other people are making a change to this problem in the world. With the homeless Fiorella and other people are trying to make a difference helping the people that are in a finacial crisis or are in need of help

I agree with Fiorella. I find that social entrepreneurship does a good balance between profit and helping the community. They are not dependent on outside source like charities and are not focused on massive profit like the big enterprises. I believe that more of those kind of business will start to appear and be successful on the near future.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What does she mean by this? Why does she make this important distinction? Fiorella means that social entrepreneurship is forced to donate and charity is your choice to donate money to charity.

Social entrepreneurs can only do so much to help people out. Being a social entrepreneur cannot be anything like a charity because you need to guide yourself and get yourself out there. Like she said, we all want to leave the world a better place than it was before yourself, so yes you can help out but if you just keep helping someone, they are constantly going to keep asking for help. Give a man a fish and he can eat that day but teach a man to fish and he can now provide for himself. She makes this important because people need to understand it, too many people guide others around and can help them for that time but not later on in life. It’s similar to the first 18 to 20 years in your life, your parents provide for you with food and a roof over your head but they cannot support you forever.

I agree with Fiorella. No person, for their entire lifetime, is going to want to be bossed around by someone. Everyone eventually wants to become their own boss and be the founder or CEO of their own company. Everyone can do it, and there are many opportunities down the road, whether you’re getting right out of college (or even high school) or you’re in your later years and have some money to work with and want to make a change in today’s society.

As Fiorella Riccobono said, Social Entrepreneurship is not a charity. It is easy to think that, however it is important to recognize the difference between the two. A Social entrepreneurship is financial and business organization that combines aspects of a running business while helping social problems in the world advance.

I agree with Fiorella because Fiorella wants to make a charity to help homeless people and I think that’s great because she understand that Homeless people needs help and I like to help people that needs help.

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I agree with her because as people grow up they are starting to realize the real world and businesses and businesses techniques are changing

The student explained what social entrepreneurship is. She explained that it is not a charity and that it is made to last. In social entrepreneurship you have to think how to make the idea work so the idea doesn’t fall apart and you give money for specific things which will help the idea to develop.

Fiorela has stressed that social enterprise is not at all a charity, it makes money. She means that it is not a charity because then it doesn’t sustain itself well at all. It cannot create a good business model with donations, or nothing at all. She wants people to know that they are not a charity that donated all their profit away.

Fiorella Riccobono is correct because social entrepreneurs is a business. In social entrepeneurs people is more empathetic because of their helping the social sector by solving global and humanitarian issues, they ask what is the problem and then base on that they plan their business around that. They make a money while helping the society.

Social entrepreneurship is truly the future in my opinion because of business and policy making, it is a business enterprise not only with a focus in profitable gains and societal claims. Its meaning is reflected on the demand of clients for business to have grater social goals or targets.

When Riccobono thinks “social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making”, I support her opinion. For me, I think as young adults develop, they establish beliefs on how they can have a positive impact on the Earth. Of course, one of these ways is by social entrepreneurship. With young innovative minds, they can think of things they can create. These people need passion and commitment. They also need to develop skills that persuade other passionate and committed people to join their cause. Social entrepreneurship is about helping the world, and an increasing number of people are constantly trying to do that. As a result, global issues, like poverty, will decrease.

A social entrepreneurship is not a charity because all of the proceeds do not go to other organizations. A part of the revenue goes towards organizations but some goes towards the business to keep it running. A social enterprise is sort of a hybrid between profit business and non-profit charity. What she means to say is that the social enterprise’s goal is not to just give away money but instead to create money for its own needs while giving money to organizations that need it. She has to make this difference clear because many people know about charities and often do not want to donate, but since this is a charity/business in disguise it generates money while also providing a service and good.

Yes I agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. I believe that social entrepreneurship can do a lot of good in the world and benefit people both the ones being helped and the ones helping. It will open many doors for many people that need help.

1.Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because it makes profit and it is not a situation where someone receives money once, and slips back into trouble. When profit is made, the organization is clearly no longer a charity and social entrepreneurship helps people get back on track. This is an important distinction because it helps people realize that unlike a charity, this organization makes profit and helps people at the same time.

2. Malala Yousafzai has made an impact on the world by advocating for young girls to go to school, and Muhammad Yunus has made an impact on the world by providing small loans to the poorest people in the world. The most inspirational social justice hero to me, is Mahatma Gandhi because he liberated an entire country from England in peace and in friendship.

3.I do not believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making, because there are certain businesses that this won’t work with (Ex: car companies) and there are many people in the corporate world that will not support this type of organization.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because while both aims to aid those in need, social entrepreneurship makes a profit. Charities may give money to those in need, but unless these people are able to regain an income, they will return to their original conditions. It is impossible for charities to keep on giving money to support these people for the rest of their lives since charities relies on donations and the people working in charities also needs an income to support themselves and their own families. Social entrepreneurship tries to address the root of the problem and create a solution. As Fiorella Riccobono has mentioned, instead of giving small coffee farmers money, they bought their coffee for a fair price and sold it at their trucks. This not only helps the farmer, but also helps the people running the business to keep going and continue making contributions to the world.

I do agree that social entrepreneurship will be the future of business and policy making. Social entrepreneurship helps develop, fund, and implement solutions to many different social and environmental issues around us. With different aims and sizes of this concept, it can apply to almost any organization or job. So it can pretty much help out others who work in different industries.

1. Fiorella Riccobono is stressed that entrepreneurship is not charity because they are both different from each other, entrepreneurship helps us make the world a better place by making ideas. Charity is people helping others by giving them money to be successful in life.

2. I agree that entrepreneurship can be helpful in our future because of how helpful it can be for the country and for us living a better and healthy life style. It can also impact others and convince them too work for entrepreneurship to help our grow even bigger then it was suppose to be.

Fiorella Riccobono stress es that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, because charities are not sustainable and can not control the influx of money, in the contrary, social entrepreneurship is a business that is expected to make a profit and relies on more than just donations. Although social entrepreneurship is not a charity, it was also invented in order to help people, businesses and helping make the world a better place. Social entrepreneurship is the future to business and policy making and it is supposed to make enough money to keep the business going, with profits included, and help other businesses that may need financial help.

I think it was very wise for Fiorella Riccobono explain to us that social entrepreneurship is not charity because it makes us understand that you can do the right thing and still get revenue from your work. I think that now I understand way more about social entrepreneurship and I think is a great thing. I feel that It helps the community to improve in many ways. I’m glad she wrote this, I think she may have changed the point of view of a lot of people about entrepreneurship that thought it was like a charity.

Firoella Riccobono explains that social entrepreneurship is not charity because since its just emerging as an idea, she thinks that charity is not sustainable enough to do the job. You can’t build your business on not knowing when or how much money you are gonna receive from charity. They combine government, non-profit, and traditional business in order to create a sustainable business. These innovators create large sustainable models by addressing an issue in the world like poverty, pollution etc.

Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” I agree with her statements beacuse I think that future and presents Entrepreneurs are thinking in ways to make the world a better place. This impacts lots of people by the fact that they are attracted to make the world a safer and healthier place for everyone, especially for the people in need, like the homeless. While lots of people are getting involved in business, the majority will want to start their own social Entrepreneurship campaing which gives a high income and helps the world to be a better place.

I agree with Fiorella because the next generation of Entrepreneurs are trying to find new ways to make the world a better place. This has a huge affect on people today, For example the more unfortunate people.Now a days everyone want their own business where they can do something for money. But Fiorella addressed social entrepreneurship is like a charity where you get a profit from. This is another way we are trying to develop something new to make the world a better enviroment to live in.

I forgot to add that either most or all charities don’t profit, and that this is why she talks about the topic this way.

Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity because for the business to thrive and grow it must have a stable amount of money behind it. The business can use help from donations but it cannot purely be charity. If it were to rely only on donations, it would not be sustainable over a longer period of time. Social entrepreneurship is for the benefit of important causes like the homeless. Having financial support ensures they can do their job.

When Fiorella Riccobono stressed that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she meant that social entrepreneurship although helping people, helps the person who made it generate income, while charity is straight up giving people or organizations money or aide without getting profit. This is an important difference because charities rely on donations and volunteers more than anything, and you never know how much you’ll get over relying on others. In a social entrepreneurship, you are responsible and you make money.

1. Fiorella Riccobono explains that social entrepreneurship and charities are different from one another: A charity is a nonprofit action that is made to see some sort of change in the world, for the better. However, it is made quite clear that social entrepreneurship is a business. Even though it receives donations, it is a business that generates some sort of profit; but, nevertheless, a business with a goal in mind, one that is to make the world better than how we found it. It’s important to make the distinction because a social entrepreneurship is better able to maintain itself without having to purely rely on external sources and donations.

When Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship is not charity work, I attatched that to the fact that it is strictly enterprises for a social change. The business owners in the social enterprise industry understand that they are not being given money for a cause nor are they raising awareness. Social enterprises are not charities because charities are given donations by others. Social enterprises on the other hand can be funded, but can not be donated to. This is a important distinction to make so that other do not get confused and make mistakes when they are starting their own businesses. It is crucial to make this distinction for the sucess of other businesses to come.

When Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that if you want to start a business, you have to have stable money behind it to produce it. Social entrepreneurship is a business that makes profit. In charities, you only get money for volunteers, not knowing if you will make lots of profit. Fiorella expresses this because she wants people to know that in entrepreneurship, you have to work or your business and get profit, not getting money from charities.

When Fiorella state that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, she is referring to the fact that charity relies only on founds specific for one cause, which may not be sustainable for a long enough time. Mean while social entrepreneurship, focusses on founding multiple things like homeless, and is not exclusive to one major cause, but is open to a variety of major causes.

What Fiorella means when she says that social entrepreneurship is not charity is that charity is when you raise money or objects for a cause or for a specific person or place. It for people and places that are less fortunate and cant afford a lot fo things. A social entrepreneurship is when you are making a profit out of something. You also focus on many different thing, not just one cause.

i agree because a lot of people don’t know the difference of social entrepreneurship and charity the difference is that in entrepreneurship you gain money in charity you donate money which means you’re losing money.

I agree with Fiorella’s statement on how social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy, I agree with it because it is changing the way by how people see things. For example, the article states, “People are no longer seeing global poverty as a call for charity, but as a place of economic and cultural growth.” New students will exposed to social entrepreneurship and soon enough, there will be plenty of individuals who will use innovative business tactics to create solutions.

Yes, I agree with what Fiorella states. It is the future of business and policy making because you need to “promote your mission” and find funding for it, all while getting other people involved in whatever you may be promoting. These are essential paarts of growing your business.

I do agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making. Many people in the world have the desire to make it a better place for everyone; however, they don’t know how or where to start. With social entrepreneurship, the goal is help and contribute while still making a profit. By doing this, both sides have the ability to grow and prosper. The best part is that you are making the world a better place.

I agree that social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making because companies would have a steady flow of income to them instead of a charity which will have money coming in for one specific cause. Social entrepreneurship will be successful considering how many young minds we have for the future, bringing it to a new level and presenting fresh new ideas into the social entrepreneurship world, changing it completely, allowing success. This is the successful future we have.

I believe that it is stressed that social entrepreneurship is not charity because the organization does not only depend on donations to succeed, they have had a stable amount of money behind them in order to strive as the organization they are. Unlike charities, social entrepreneurship make a profit. This is important and stressed because social entrepreneurship’s need to work for their money and sell instead of relaying on donations and charity events to become a better organization. Social entrepreneurship’s are businesses; they do not depend on donations and they also make a profit. The business also can not be continued if they are not making money on their own.

When Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that when you volunteer for charity, you only give. There is no economic balance if you always give, and don’t get anything back. We need to do charity when there is crisis. If not, the economic balance would go down. What Firorella states, makes a lot sense because social entrepreneurship has a economic balance circle that goes around and you make profit in one way or another, but charity does not have a profit if you only give.

When Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, she means that social entrepreneurship is a force used to help people. She states that charity is not a sustainable money flow for a business. Social entrepreneurship, however, is something that people use to (not exclusive to) helping the homeless, sustaining the planet’s resources, and finding ways to make profits for a business. She makes this important distinction because she wants to differentiate between between charity and the work that her and social entrepreneurs do. Charity is an unsustainable source of business, and that is not the goal for social entrepreneurs; social entrepreneurs work to aid people in growing a sustainable economic system.

When Fiorella Ribccobono says that a social enterprise is not charity, she believes that an entrepreneurship that seeks to gain a profit, fails to create a sustainable charity. Therefore, a social enterprise uses specific causes to aid in its operations. For example, rather than giving coffee farmers a percentage of the profits, the coffee food truck buys its coffee beans from farmers who use sustainable methods of farming. This allows the farmers to get a profit and be able to live off their work rather than relying on charity. This distinction helps Fiorella argue the benefits of being a social enterprise for the business and the cause, rather than the charity that does not allow the cause, in this case the farmer, to grow at all. Charity promotes a stagnant, one-way economy that has no advances of any kind. Although charity is important in a crisis or catastrophe, a social enterprise is beneficial in aiding the economic growth of two bodies of work.

when Fiorella says that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she means that if you want to start a business, you have to make stable money behind it to produce it. Social entrepreneurship is a business that makes profit. In charities, you only get money for volunteers, not knowing if you will make lots of profit. Fiorella expresses this because she wants people to know that in entrepreneurship, you have to work or your business and get profit, not getting money from charities.

In the article, the author, Fiorella Riccobon, stresses that social entrepreneurship is not a charity. She uses two important distinctions to explain this. The first is that it’s a more stable business format. Charities rely on donations for their income and funds. Social entrepreneurship sells goods and uses the profit to help others. The second is the way they help. Social entrepreneurship teaches people to support themselves by getting fair wages like the Haitian coffee farmers. Charities give money or food which only helps people when they are there.

It is important, social entrepreneurship is more than just a charity. Even if the businesses your talking about or involved in a nonprofit business, it will sustain its self better than a charity. All charities come to a soon end. you must have a bullishness plan when it comes to whatever your collecting profit for. Charity does not have a foundation like a businesses does. An innovative business will help you make a better profit.

Fiorella is stating the social entrepreneurship is not like charity. Shes saying the for charity it doesn’t last for a long time, entrepreneurship is not on one major thing. Malala has won the Nobel prize inspiring woman and helping the communit

Giancarlo amazing statement

I believe that when Fiorella mentions social entrepreneurship isn’t charity that she is referring to the fact that charity is something that is done for the sake of a devastating event or in other words a single reason but on the opposing side of things , she is saying that social entrepreneurship is for a diversity of necessities including for example as one of the subtitles in the article says “helping the homeless.”

The details given by Fiorella in the article on what a social entrepreneurship does and its functions is truly brilliant. The new level that these social entrepreneurship are achieving is remarkable as they create a business that benefits small businesses, helping in the community, and produce a profit. It’s a truly beneficial business for all aspects included.

As far as the article goes, Fiorella did a really good job distinguishing between charity and social entrepreneurship. Before reading this article, they were both the same thing in my mind. She makes this distinction for exactly this reason, so people are more educated about social entrepreneurship and her business. The way I see it, social entrepreneurship is an equilibrium between charity and the economy. Charity isn’t a sustainable lifestyle, but a social enterprise is. In my opinion, a social enterprise uses the efficiency of the United States economy to benefit the person in charge of the business and others.

When Fiorella said that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, she is stating that charity relies on other founds for only one cause. When you start a business, you need some money to put behind it to support the business. Charity relies on other people to give money. With a business, there is an economic flow of money. Even though donations are involved in a business, its gains some sort of profit. You cannot build your business not knowing where or when your money is coming from. Charity doesn’t generate profit, this is why she said it that way.

I agree with Fiorella, that social entrepreneurship is not charity. What she means by that is charity is when you give to a cause if there is something horrible occurs, such as hurricane Harvey, you would give money to charity to give the people of Houston. But in this case, social entrepreneurship is when you teach someone how to do stuff like make their own food by people teaching them how to farm or raise cattle so they won’t need to be so dependent for others to give them money.

Fiorella stresses that social entrepreneurship is not charity. Even though social entrepreneurs and charity both rely on donations and are similar, social entrepreneurs can’t create a business of it because charity is not sustainable. She wants readers to understand the difference between social entrepreneurship and social services because most people think they are similar.

When Fiorella Riccobono says that social entrepreneurship is not a charity she means that charity is just giving away without gaining any profit out of it. A social entrepreneurship is different because social entrepreneurship makes a profit; it helps a community in some ways but it also benefits the entrepreneur in other ways. There’s a saying that Ms. Zocco said “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime.” This saying explains much about what social entrepreneurship. An example of a social entrepreneurship is, you put a business in a poor town, you teach all the poor people in that town how to do the job and hire them. You pay them a wage that is going to allow them to live comfortably and they are good. An example of a charity is going to a poor town and just give them money. That will only help them for some time. She makes this important distinction because social entrepreneurship is much better than charities. It helps the people, it makes them work, and it helps the entrepreneur make a profit. Charity helps society but it doesn’t improve society as much as social entrepreneurship. This is important to know because the more people make social entrepreneurship, the less poverty will be in the world.

When Fiorella states that social entrepreneurship is not charity, she is referring to the fact that charity relies only on founds and specific for one cause.

It’s not the same because , although social entrepreneurs may need donations to launch their endeavors, they are not going to be able to create a business based on donations. Charity is not continuous. Just imagine building a business when you don’t know where your next dollar is coming from or when, you can’t. This is actually important because social entrepreneurs are individuals who draw on innovative business strategies to create solutions to societal issues. So, this is what I think.

Fiorella stresses that social entrepreneurship isn’t a charity because it isn’t. In order to start a business and have it flourish you need more than just donations to do that. Even though the two have their similarities (meaning they both rely on donations), they are different. You can’t just base your business on a “maybe”, because there’s no 100% that there will be more donations. That’s worry-some for your clients and yourself. Entrepreneurs may use the donations to start off but later own they’re going to have to make better decisions so they gain money instead of receiving it form anonymous or known doners.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not a charity, she’s referring to the fact that a charity is when people give without getting anything out of it. Rather, she wants people to understand that in social entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurs are helping with societal issues but they are building a business not a charity.

When Fiorella said that social entrepreneurship is not charity, charity rely on donations for only one cause but charity isn’t sustainable. All charities will help for some time and come to a soon end. But social entrepreneurship is an equilibrium between charity and economy because makes people work and help the entrepreneur make profit and improve de community. Malala Yousafzi and Muhammad Yunus are positive and influential contributions to de society. Malala advocates for women education and Muhammad created the concept of microfinancing. I agree when Fiorella says, “I believe social entreneurship is the future of business and policy making.” Because the more people who make social entreneurship with innovative business tactics the more solutions to social issues.

When Fiorella Riccobono stresses that social entrepreneurship is not donated, she means that social entrepreneurship is not focused on raising money. Social entrepreneurship is a business that benefits when money is used. Of course you are going to need to donated money from somewhere, but the purpose of social entrepreneurship is to run a business not to collect money. Clearly, Fiorella makes this important distinction because she wants to show the readers that social entrepreneurship and donating are two separate things.

Florella says “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy making”, which I have to totally disagree on. I’m surprised that no one has talked about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is mandatory in many countries, as a % of the net profits made by the firm. Why are firms doing this? Well, if they make a difference (e.g. build a school for a rural place in a country), they gain good publicity. As consumers are getting richer now, they may choose to buy a good or service from a firm with good reputation. By enacting CSR, firms have a better brand image as they are seen to be kind, caring, and giving back to the community. Is this the truth? No. Firms are doing this for more profits and revenue. They can gain more demand and consumer loyalty by CSR.

Now back to social entrepreneurship. This is different from CSR as CSR can be donating money to a major firm. Right now, businesses focus on whether their acts are moral and ethical, as they may be creating lots of external costs e.g. pollution which decreases health of the labour force. Most businesses are for profit – only non-profits will focus on social entrepreneurship. Trust me, it isn’t highly profitable.

I have a social enterprise myself, from the club I created. I’ll talk about the club and distinguish between social entrepreneurship and donating / charities. They are different, but are similar in some respects. Both need money to operate. How do charities get money? They ask people to donate, which is usually tax deductible if they are a 501c3. How do social entrepreneurs get money? They have to get it themselves, which is a very proactive process. Most people get investors. However, I’m only 15, so I gain money by starting a business and profiting. I use those profits to operate my social enterprise.

Florella continues with “Social entrepreneurs do not have an idea and then apply it. Instead, they go directly to the source of the issue and ask what is needed. Based on that answer, they build their business plans. Social entrepreneurs are often empathetic, bold, open-minded and tenacious”. I totally agree on this, but as I am a student, I’m working with a 501c3, and together we are developing a model on how to alleviate poverty and hunger in a part of rural China. We’re working on small ‘life packages’, containing different proportions of food, sanitation, clothing, etc. and we’re finalising the model. Our solution is very meaningful and may bring a whole village out of the absolute poverty line. However, similar to a charity, we need funds to operate and purchase the food packages. I am the social entrepreneur, while the 501c3 is the charity. The charity of course has more funds as they are tax deductible, and a trusted organisation. On the other hand, I have less funds because I’m gathering it myself, but together we make a good group to help fight against the 1st and 2nd UN SDGs!

Finally, I’d like to comment on Malala, a true inspiration. There is a club at my school based off Malala’s vision, providing more education for girls. Although we live in a rich district in the metropolis Shanghai, there are rural places in China (places which need food packages) where girls don’t go to school. Malala’s story has made the whole world realise how inequality still exists, and keeps reminding us to fight against it. I’m so happy that service learning has just been approved at our school as a mandatory academic subject :).

Also, commenting a little more on Malala – her life has a “conveyor belt” image, as she was brought up in an elitist family who trained her to be the voice for many women. Her success would not have been possible without her father. Of course, she was very determined herself as she was stronger than before after being shot and fortunately surviving. Malala wasn’t a social entrepreneur, but more like a political ambassador / representative. Her Noble Peace Prize win raised more awareness of the issue of inequality, to empower women for education.

In the mere chance anyone stumbles by my post nearly 1.5 years ago, I’d like to make a correction after learning much more about impact investing and creating a business with impact. My previous viewpoints still remain the same (well, CSR is mutually beneficial for both the firm’s publicity and those who are supported by the received money/projects – it’s a win win!). However, social enterprises can be for profit. There are many impact investing firms, mostly venture capitals that invest in businesses that will both generate profits and a positive societal impact. Hence, social enterprises can definitely be profitable.

Also, update to the social enterprise I founded. Co-organised event with Rise Against Hunger where 220000 meals were packaged and distributed in Oct 2018!

Great. This article is excellent. I have read many articles with this topic, but I have not liked. I think I have the same opinion with you. ATTITUDE QUOTES

As stressed by Fiorella Riccobono, Social entrepreneurship is different than charity. I feel the same here as charity is merely done for compassion towards humankind and measured by the donations acquired, social entrepreneurship is done for social change and welfare.

When Fiorella says, “I believe social entrepreneurship is the future of business and policy-making”, I completely agree. The concept of innovative thinking is lacking in this world and by social entrepreneurship, such skills are highlighted.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Beware of scammers lurking online, 5 truths about microfinance.

Your Article Library

Social entrepreneurship: short speech on social entrepreneurship.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The word ‘entrepreneur’ once missing in economic literature has become a buzzword in the present times. In fact, few terms have been discussed and debated so much during the last two decades as much entrepreneur and entrepreneurship development. The reason is not difficult to seek.

A cross­-country and cross-region comparison within the same country shows that entrepreneurship plays a premium mobile role in the industrial and economic development of a country. Some thinkers have appreciated its role in economic development as “an economy is the effect for which entrepreneurship is the cause.”

Of late, a new term ‘social entrepreneurship’ referring to a new breed of entrepreneurs has emerged in the economic literature and has been receiving increasing attention in the socio-economic context. Being a concept of relatively new emergence, our understanding about social entrepreneurship has so far been far from satisfactory and systematic.

It is against this background, the present article makes a modest attempt to clarify the meaning of social entrepreneurship by distinguishing it from business entrepreneurship, delineate the perspective and practice of social entrepreneurship in India. Boundary of social entrepreneurship is also drawn to make our understanding more clear and convincing on the subject.

That our understanding about social entrepreneurship will be better strengthened by looking into its roots, let us begin with defining the original term ‘entrepreneur.’ Economic literature reveals that the term ‘entrepreneur’ has a rich history and has been used loosely to mean different meanings from time to time.

For example, Richard Cantillon who used the term ‘entrepreneur’ for the first time in economics during the seventeenth century, associated it with the function of ‘risk-bearing’; Jean Baptiste Say, during the nineteenth century, associated his definition of entrepreneur with the function of coordination; and in the twentieth century, Joseph A.

Schumpeter described entrepreneur as the ‘innovator’ who drives the creative-destructive process of capitalism. According to Schumpeter, entrepreneurs can perform the function of innovation in many ways: “by exploiting an innovation or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.” In the Schumpeterian sense, entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy.

By introducing innovations, they move the economy forward. Though other economists have also used this term with various connotations and nuances, the Schumpeterian sense of entrepreneur as innovator has so bar been serving as the foundation for the contemporary use of this term in economic context.

Very recently, the National Knowledge Commission of India has defined entrepreneurship as “the professional application of knowledge, skills and competencies and/or of monetizing a new idea, by an individual or a set of people by launching an enterprise de novo or diversifying from an existing one (distinct from seeking self-employment as in a profession or trade), thus, to pursue growth while generating wealth, employment and social good.”

Now that we have defined the original term ‘entrepreneur’, we can profitably describe and define the term ‘social entrepreneurship.’

Related Articles:

• Social Entrepreneurship: What is the Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship?
• Speech on Developing Women Entrepreneurship in India

Entrepreneurship

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement

On the Discursive Construction of Social Entrepreneurship in Pitch Situations: The Intertextual Reproduction of Business and Social Discourse by Presenters and Their Audience

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 10 June 2022
• Volume 179 , pages 1071–1090, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Karin Kreutzer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1089-5309 1  

3879 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study explores the discourse of social entrepreneurs and their audiences in pitch situations. Adopting a practice perspective on social entrepreneurship, we videotaped 49 pitches by social entrepreneurs at five different events in two incubators in Germany and Switzerland. Our analysis of the start-ups’ pitches and the audience’s questions and comments as well as of interview data elucidates the nuances of social and business discourse that social entrepreneurs and their audiences draw upon. Our analysis shows how many social entrepreneurs mobilize a discursive repertoire that is familiar to their business-oriented audience while others predominantly draw on a social discourse. We identify separating, mixing, and combining as key strategies that allow social entrepreneurs to dance between the two. We discuss how the intertextual reproduction of concepts, objects, and subject positions contains both enabling and constraining elements, which results in an ethical dilemma for social entrepreneurs: Should they re-package their social impact story in a business discourse to connect with their audience?

Similar content being viewed by others

Local Content Producers: Co-Creating Communal Stories and Community in the Big Stories, Small Towns Participatory Documentary Project

Social Entrepreneurship

Framing Perspective on Entrepreneurship

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

It is complex for social entrepreneurs to convince potential supporters, resource providers, and investors in a pitch situation since many are not familiar with the concept (Dacin et al., 2011 ; Parhankangas & Renko, 2017 ). Social entrepreneurship combines potentially contradicting elements of social and commercial logics in unprecedented ways to address social problems (Battilana & Dorado, 2010 ) and it creates positive impact for society (Stephan et al., 2016 ). Previous research has focused on various aspects that influence the process of resource mobilization such as signaling the competences of the founding team (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990 ; Shane & Cable, 2002 ; Shane & Stuart, 2002 ; Stuart et al., 1999 ), the network that the entrepreneur is embedded in (Hall & Hofer, 1993 ; Higgins & Gulati, 2003 ; Steier & Greenwood, 1995 ) and the social competence of the founder (Baron & Markman, 2003 ). A recent turn toward linguistics (Hjorth & Steyaert, 2004 ) has called attention to the role of pitching (Clarke et al., 2019 ) and storytelling (Garud & Giuliani, 2013 ; Martens et al., 2007 ) in the entrepreneurial process. In this study, we explore how social entrepreneurs present their venture to the audience in a pitch situation. In doing so, we intend to shed light on the specific dilemmas and tensions that social entrepreneurs face.

Zacharakis et al. ( 2007 ) found that early stage investors are to some extent intuitive decision makers. This may apply even more to the context of social entrepreneurship since the decision to support social entrepreneurs could also be a gut decision instead of a purely analytical one (Achleitner et al., 2013 ; Hehenberger et al., 2019 ). The existing research on pitches by social entrepreneurs is limited (Clough et al., 2019 ). Two studies on social ventures that presented on the online micro-lending platform Kiva offer contradictory findings on the question of whether business or social discourse in the pitches tends to convince potential funders (Allison et al., 2015 ; Moss et al., 2015 ).

While the nascent field of impact investing and resource mobilization for social entrepreneurship is attracting increasing scholarly attention (Buckland et al., 2013 ; Hehenberger et al., 2019 ; Höchstädter & Scheck, 2015 ; Sparkes & Cowton, 2004 ), we do not yet fully understand how social entrepreneurs pitch and how resource providers react to those pitches. While there is a presumption that the motivation to support and invest in socially oriented ventures is likely to be an ethical act to serve a larger social cause (Dees, 2012 ), we know little about how such processes unfold.

Specifically, current research falls short in investigating the dialogic nature of a social entrepreneur’s pitch (Bakhtin, 1986 ; Langley & Tsoukas, 2010 ). Texts are often constructed with co-authorship where others are asking questions or giving comments (Ochs, 1997 ). Intertextuality captures the idea that every utterance is inevitably linked to what has been said before (Bakhtin, 1986 ). The text of a pitch is thus constructed as a mosaic of quotations since any text is the absorption and transformation of others (Kristeva, 1980 ). Creating such a mosaic is a process by which different words, phrases, and speech acts are selected and combined when constructing the meaning of a phenomenon such as social entrepreneurship. We presently lack an understanding of how a pitch is connected to macro-discourses and how the audience may intentionally or unintentionally co-author the texts produced (Fairclough, 1992 ).

Adopting a practice approach to social entrepreneurship (Bruder, 2020 ; Dey & Steyaert, 2016 ), we analyzed videotapes of 12 (data collection I) and 37 (data collection II) of pitches by social entrepreneurs (or entrepreneurial teams), their audiences and the interaction between both groups in the subsequent Q&A sessions.

The main contribution of our paper is that it advances our understanding of social entrepreneurial pitching as a dialogic process in which both presenters and their audience draw from larger discourses. This interdiscursive perspective allows us to highlight the power dynamics involved in the construction of social entrepreneurship in pitch situations. Our study offers two key contributions to the literature. First, we offer detailed insights into the discourses social entrepreneurs and their audience mobilize in pitch situations. We highlight how powerful gatekeepers predominantly drew on a business discourse offering a “taken-for-granted” understanding of what social entrepreneurship is which goes largely uncontested. Second, we highlight how aligning their presentations with the powerful business discourse has enabling and constraining effects for social entrepreneurs.

Pitching in Social Entrepreneurship

Storytelling and resource mobilization in social entrepreneurship.

Resources such as financial, physical, human, as well as intangible resources (Starr & MacMillan, 1990 ) are central to venture creation (Clough et al., 2019 ). Since social entrepreneurship as a concept is new to many providers of resources and does not conform with well-known categories of business or not-for-profit (Hockerts, 2010 ), founders still have to do significantly more convincing. Social entrepreneurship is defined as individuals and organizations that “use a business logic in a novel and entrepreneurial way to improve the situation of segments of the population that are excluded, marginalized, or suffering and are themselves not capable of changing this situation.” (Saebi et al., 2019 , pp. 70–71). Even though the term itself was coined more than two decades ago (Dees, 1998 ), resource providers have discovered the field only recently (Buckland et al., 2013 ) and many investors face uncertainty in a fragmented field that still lacks standards and oversight.

Early research on impact investing suggests that often the audience of social entrepreneurial pitches is torn between an ideal–typical charity logic and an investment logic (Moody, 2008 ; Nicholls, 2010 ). Hehenberger et al. ( 2019 ) show how a dominant “field ideology” has emerged among experts in impact investing, which emphasizes “head” over “heart” decisions, impact measurement over storytelling, tools over needs of beneficiaries, and picking the best (“winners”) over nurturing the social entrepreneurial ecosystem. Despite these significant advances, our knowledge about the pitch process itself as well as the interaction between social entrepreneurs and their audience remains limited. Such an audience may consist of actors as diverse as wealthy private individuals or investment advisors (Paetzold & Busch, 2014 ; Paetzold et al., 2015 ), representatives of venture capital funds, institutional asset owners (Wood et al., 2013 ), supporting organizations, foundations, and other experts in the field of social entrepreneurship.

A recent turn in entrepreneurship research has shifted the focus from entrepreneurial characteristics (MacMillan et al., 1986 ; Muzyka et al., 1996 ) to entrepreneurial behaviors (Clarke, 2011 ; Zott & Huy, 2007 ). In this research stream of entrepreneurial behavior, a group of authors investigates the role of stories in resource mobilization (Cornelissen et al., 2012 ; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001 ; Martens et al., 2007 ; O’Connor, 2002 ). Storytelling has been suggested to be of specific importance for social ventures (Clough et al., 2019 ). While research on “live pitches” in social entrepreneurship is scarce, evidence from studies on texts of crowdfunding presentations is also “meager” and “inconsistent” (Clough et al., 2019 , p. 19). Using a different text analysis dictionary led to contradictory results in two studies on the same crowd-based micro-lending platform (Allison et al., 2015 ; Moss et al., 2015 ). Thus, to date we lack a coherent understanding of the discourses used in social entrepreneurial pitch situations. We need to learn more about the discourses social entrepreneurs (and their audience) draw upon in live pitches, which may differ from the presentation of a start-up to “laypersons” on an online crowdfunding platform.

Pitches in the Entrepreneurial Process

Research on pitches in commercial entrepreneurship found the pitch to be a critical component in the funding vetting process conducted by resource providers. A pitch is often the initial introduction to and presentation of the venture to potential investors and resource providers (Chen et al., 2009 ; Clark, 2008 ; Wiltbank, 2005 ). Resource providers use this forum to evaluate both the potential of the venture and the entrepreneur’s capabilities to lead and grow the venture (Fried & Hisrich, 1994 ). It provides a critical opportunity for the entrepreneur to articulate the venture’s business propositions to create interest (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001 ; Mason & Harrison, 1996 ). If resource providers form negative impressions of the entrepreneur’s abilities to lead the venture during these presentations, it is improbable that access to funding will later be secured (Martens et al., 2007 ; Mason & Harrison, 1996 ; Mitteness et al., 2012 ).

In pitches, connecting with the audience is especially important in the process of mobilizing resources as it helps to frame the nature of the business in such a way that its potential value becomes believable (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994 ; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001 ; Martens et al., 2007 ; Smith & Anderson, 2004 ). For example, Allison et al. ( 2017 ) found that characterizing the venture as a personal dream in a pitch narrative positively influenced inexperienced, first-time funders. Moderate accounts of narcissistic rhetoric enhance crowdfunding performance; however, the impact of narcissistic rhetoric becomes detrimental to performance when used extensively (Anglin et al., 2018 ). Drawing on text, speech, and video metadata of crowdfunding campaigns, Kaminski and Hopp ( 2019 ) found that linguistic styles that aim to trigger excitement or are aimed at inclusiveness are better predictors of campaign success than firm-level determinants. While we know from existing research about the pivotal role of pitches in the entrepreneurial process (Clarke et al., 2019 ), “the interactions between entrepreneurs and different resource provider audiences’” in live pitch situations of social entrepreneurs warrants further scholarly attention (Clough et al., 2019 , p. 20).

Intertextuality

To date, it remains unclear how social entrepreneurs and their audience connect the texts that they produce in pitch situations to larger discourses. Work on discursive devices (Whittle & Mueller, 2012 ), interaction analysis (Schegloff et al., 2002 ) or psychonarratology (Bortolussi & Dixon, 2003 ) take readership and response into account and point toward the dialogic nature of texts where “readership and interpretation are as important as structure or authorship” (Barry & Elmes, 1997 , p. 431). The notion of intertextuality holds that every utterance is inevitably linked to what has been said before in other texts (Bakhtin, 1986 ; Fairclough, 1992 ; Langley & Tsoukas, 2010 ). All utterances are populated and constituted by snatches of others’ utterances, more or less explicitly (Fairclough, 1992 ). Besides capturing the idea that each text connects to earlier texts, intertextuality furthermore draws on a social connection between the author and the reader. To communicate effectively, speakers have to draw on “commonplaces” (Bourdieu, 1998 ): “the more the communicators’ cultural worlds overlap, the more effective their communication is” (Brannen, 2004 , p. 599). Intertextuality also highlights the anticipation of reading (Boje, 2001 ). Consequently, social entrepreneurs are consciously or unconsciously influenced by the audience they address.

The existing research on storytelling in the entrepreneurial process has not sufficiently accounted for intertextuality, that is, the role the audience plays in co-producing texts in pitches. This study aims to expand the existing work by analyzing the discourses that social entrepreneurs and their audience employ in live pitches. Therefore, we ask: What discursive repertoire do social entrepreneurs and their audience draw upon in pitch situations?

Methodology

To analyze the dynamic and interactive processes that occurred between the presenters and audience in real-time, we chose a qualitative research design (Lee, 1999 ). We studied live events at popular incubators to explore how social entrepreneurs pitch and how the audience reacts to these pitches. Our research was guided by a focus on the “doing” of social entrepreneurs and their audiences in line with previous research that has conceptualized social entrepreneurship not as an inherently ethical concept “per se” but calls to investigate the concrete practices at play (Bruder, 2020 ; Dey & Steyaert, 2016 ). According to the entrepreneurship-as-practice literature, those practices encompass the meaning-making, identity-forming and order-producing actions performed by multiple actors in the entrepreneurial process (Chia & Holt, 2006 ; Sklaveniti & Steyaert, 2020 ; Thompson et al., 2020 ). We videotaped the pitches and the subsequent Q&A sessions to capture the multitude of human actions and interactions which unfold so quickly that they would otherwise have been lost (Christianson, 2018 ; LeBaron et al., 2018 ). These videos provided a detailed and permanent record of the events from a perspective that captured both the presenters and their audience.

Data Collection I: Research Setting

We were initially guided by our general interest in pitches by social entrepreneurs. For this reason, we conducted a first study in an incubator in Switzerland in 2013. In that setting, we had the unique opportunity to record live pitches on video and conduct interviews with social entrepreneurs and jury members. The Swiss incubator was founded in 2011 in Zurich and pursued the following mission: “we are committed to creating a thriving innovation ecosystem where people across organizations, cultures, and generations work together to solve the great challenges of our time.” The pitches that we filmed took place at the end of a 6-month training program for social entrepreneurs. The pitches lasted approximately 10–15 min, followed by a 10-min Q&A session with questions from the jury. The jury consisted of three members from the incubator team, among whom was a university professor. This event was a unique opportunity to gain first insights into live pitches and the discourses that the teams drew upon. However, the data collection at this pitch event presented us with a decisive disadvantage: Although the pitches were evaluated by the jury, this evaluation had few to no direct consequences for the founders. For this reason, we approached a large incubator in Germany for an additional data collection and were granted access to the selection process there 2 weeks later. We were thus able to include pitches where the teams were then either given access to resources or not.

Data Collection I: Sources of Data

In total, we videotaped 12 pitches and the subsequent Q&A sessions. The interaction of the audience with the presenters was especially important for our research design, as it allowed us to investigate co-authorship and the dialogic nature of the production of texts (Bakhtin, 1986 ).

Additionally, we conducted 15 interviews (with each presenter team and the three jury members) during the pitching event (see Table 1 ). The interviews with the three jury members lasted about 60 min and were tape-recorded, the informal interviews with each presenter team about 10–15 min. We asked the jury members to explain their written evaluations of the pitches and which parts of the pitch they remembered best. In the short interviews with the presenters, we asked how the teams had prepared for the pitches and why they had decided to present their start-up in the precise manner in which they did. The recorded interviews and the pitches were transcribed verbatim.

The questionnaire that the jury and the other presenters filled out asked them to evaluate the pitch according to the following criteria: comprehensibility, innovation and effectiveness of the idea, expertise and credibility of the founders, financial viability, and feasibility. While the survey did not meet scientific requirements, we were surprised by the results, which showed how negatively the jury and the other presenters ( N  = 31) rated “social impact stories” compared to pitches framed around a business discourse. After finding only partial confirmation and inconclusive explanations of this finding in the interviews, we collected additional data to gain more insights.

Data Collection II: Research Setting

In our data collection II, we videotaped 37 live pitches in four pitching events at one incubator organization in Germany. The incubator was originally founded in 1994 to guide marginalized young adults in starting up their own business and becoming self-employed. In 2011, they expanded their program and started an incubator for social entrepreneurs. The organization’s mission is to “foster social equality and promotion inclusion through the support of social start-ups.” At the time of data collection, the incubator had 90 employees and offices in eight German cities. To be accepted to the program and receive a scholarship, a start-up must apply and then present their business idea in a pitch.

Each start-up has five minutes to present their idea and seven minutes for discussion with the jury and the audience. All pitching events are public; thus, approximately 20–50 interested individuals attend and also ask questions. However, the majority of questions are asked by members of the jury. The jury decides which start-ups will be awarded the “social impact start” scholarship. Once a start-up is accepted, it can take advantage of several services including the use of a co-working space, coaching and mentoring, legal consulting and access to a network of investors. Taken together, the basic services that the incubator offers to their scholarship holders correspond to a total value of approximately 20,000 Euros.

Each pitching event that we attended consisted of a different composition of jury members; however, two members were part of the jury in all four pitching events observed. Jury members included, for example, representatives from a government-owned German development bank and a leading organization to support social entrepreneurship as well as from commercial start-up incubators. In addition, successful commercial entrepreneurs, a head of CSR from a German car manufacturer, a marketing director of a large firm, the chief digital officer at a multinational IT company, a private impact investor and a journalist from a national newspaper rounded out the jury. A number of jury members either directly invested in start-ups or supported start-ups in the process of resource mobilization while the program was running and beyond. To be invited to the pitching event, the founders submit a short written application that is checked for comprehensiveness and consistency by a team from the incubator. A staff member of the incubator, who is also a member of the jury, conducts a short informal interview with the applicants. However, the other jury members decide without prior information solely based on the pitch and the subsequent Q&A session.

Data Collection II: Sources of Data

We attended four pitching events, two in Berlin and two in Hamburg, and collected data on 37 social start-ups. All pitches, including the seven-minute follow-up interaction between start-up and jury or audience, were videotaped. Furthermore, we collected all presentation slides and handouts created by the start-ups to support their talk. As a third source of data, we conducted in-depth interviews with three jury members from the incubator, including the organization’s founder, to deepen our initial understanding of the audience’s discourses gained from the question-and-answer sessions of the pitches. The interviews lasted on average 60 min. In those interviews, we asked how a typical pitch unfolded and what elements determined a successful pitch, including examples. We then discussed several pitches with them and asked them to elaborate on why they were accepted into the program or not. We also asked our intervieweees to explain their evaluation of the pitch. In addition, we had informal conversations with social entrepreneurs and jury members right before or after the pitches, during coffee breaks, and after the events.

In the four pitching events that we attended, 37 individuals and teams presented their ideas. Twenty-two were accepted to the program, and 15 were rejected. In each of the four events, the start-up that convinced the highest number of audience members received the “audience award”: “Soccer for Everyone” in Berlin in February, “Fair Handbags” in Hamburg in May, “Urban Bees” in Berlin in June, and “Blindmap” in Hamburg in August (see Table 2 for an overview of the pitches).

In early 2020, 7 years after the pitches, we conducted an internet search to determine whether the start-ups from the second data collection were still alive (Table 2 ). Eighteen ventures were still active. One venture still existed, but a commercial mission had replaced the social mission. Of the 23 “winners” that had entered the program, 10 were still alive in 2020 (before the Covid-19 crisis hit). Of the 15 rejected start-up teams, 8 were still active—even though they had not received support from the incubator. Interestingly, only two of the four start-ups that had received the “audience award” survived.

Data Analysis

We transcribed the text of all pitches and the respective Q&A sessions as well as the interviews verbatim, resulting in 370 pages of text. Informed by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we began our analysis with a fine-grained reading of the data and wrote “story sheets” for each pitch. The videotapes allowed us to watch and re-watch each pitch and subsequent Q&A session numerous times during data analysis. We first coded the text authored by the jury and the audience and the text produced by the pitchers each individually using the coding software MAXQDA. The cross-case analysis of both incubators in Germany and Switzerland allowed us to identify the key themes of audience and pitchers. We aggregated the themes into two broader discourses, namely business and social. We were surprised to discover how the first-order codes of “using a business language” were similar for both groups. Interestingly, though, we found differences in how social entrepreneurs and their audience mobilized the social discourse. For example, our data show how the concepts of beneficiary, fair remuneration, and scaling a solution to a social problem (without immediate profit interests) were almost exclusively used by pitchers.

For each discourse, we identified concepts, objects, and subject positions (Phillips et al., 2004 ). Concepts are the very means through which social entrepreneurs and their audience make sense of phenomena such as a start-up. They constitute the vocabulary necessary for meaning-making. Discourses not only describe but also construct objects such as a new social venture. Different discourses may produce different objects, thus offering differing and even contradicting conceptualizations of one and the same start-up (Hardy & Phillips, 1999 ). Discourses also construct subject positions for the actors involved, as they “give the subject different, and possibly contradicting, positions from which to speak” (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002 , p. 17). Such positions determine which social roles and functions as well as their affordances can legitimately be adopted within each discourse. For example, some social entrepreneurs may emerge as business people and others as social changemakers. In mobilizing a specific discourse, powerful actors shape our understanding of social entrepreneurship, which in turn reflects their power to do so (Foucault, 1980 ; van Dijk, 2008 ). In this sense, discourses are performative; they accomplish things (Vaara & Tienari, 2002 ).

We held focus-group-like presentations of our findings with team members from both incubators to clarify our observations. After completing data collection, the first author became a member of the German incubator’s jury to deepen her contextual knowledge on the selection processes. We also used the interview data to challenge our findings, to learn more about the way the presenters prepared for the pitches and about the invisible reactions of the audience to the presentations.

Based on our analysis, we highlight the similarities and the differences between the texts produced by social entrepreneurs and their audience in pitch situations. In drawing on prior texts, both groups mobilized elements of larger discourses—albeit in different ways. We show how they “borrow” concepts, objects, and subject positions from a business and social discourse.

Discourses in Social Entrepreneurial Pitches

We elucidate how pitchers and their audience select bits and pieces from prior texts, giving their language an intertextual dimension, whether or not the speakers intended to do so. Our analysis suggests that in the actual pitch situations, the questions and comments of the audience drew to a large extent on the discursive repertoire of the business discourse. The presentations of most social entrepreneurs, in contrast, involved elements of both the business and the social discourse.

The Business Discourse of Social Entrepreneurs and Their Audience

The business discourse is based on a managerialist ideology that emphasizes profit-maximizing strategies, efficiency and profit (see Table 3 ). The main concepts of the business discourse include a unique selling proposition , customer , pricing , marketing, and commercial growth. In addition, the financial viability of the business model was a popular concept used by the audience and, to a small extent, some social entrepreneurs. “How are you going to finance that?” was the most frequently asked question during the Q&A sessions. In responding to the question, social entrepreneurs were forced to elaborate on their business model. Some were well equipped to answer those questions by drawing on a business vocabulary; others struggled. A member of the jury explained his reaction to the pitches as follows:

I’m a businessman and - to be honest - I’m looking for people with business acumen who can make things happen. If it cannot be financed, it remains a naive illusion. [observation, pitch event].

In contrast, many social entrepreneurs did not refer to a “business model” at all in their pitches. Those who did emphasized revenue streams and financing options . The founder of LoveClothes later explained her choice not to use “business language” as follows:

The term “entrepreneur” was new to me. I have never written a business plan. To be honest, I don’t even know exactly what it is. I studied international labor rights. I live and breathe for the cause and want to empower the seamstresses in India. [interview, social entrepreneur]

Although the pitch was evaluated negatively and there were some critical queries about the financial viability by the jury, the start-up was accepted in the end. It still existed and was operating successfully in 2020.

In contrast, a jury member stressed the importance of solid business models :

Between us, there are the tree huggers in social entrepreneurship. They celebrate themselves so much, and you see little progress. We think like business people, and when I speak out in favor of a social enterprise, it’s not because a few naive do-gooders think they have a good idea. The thing has to finance itself. Period. [interview, jury member].

Associated with such business thinking was the concept of a unique selling proposition to the paying customer. Social entrepreneurs highlighted the unique features of the product or service and how it differed from existing offers : “We see an added value in our offer in contrast to others because the features of the IT solution are unique.” [pitch]. The start-up Medical Backpack, for example, elaborated in-depth on the viability of their business model and their unique selling proposition. They presented their product as more efficient than existing solutions. The audience reacted very positively to this aspect, congratulating the founders on their unique idea: “This is truly a unique product.” [comment, jury member] Directly after the Q&A session, in which many questions focused on the unique selling proposition of Medical Backpack, the next team—before their actual pitch—repeated the same concept: “We differentiate ourselves from other offerings […].”

Interestingly, the audience members used in their questions on the unique selling proposition the term “competitor” to refer to other offers: “Who are your competitors?” [audience question]. The notion of “competitor” portrays social entrepreneurs as trying to compete with others, for example by making bigger sales. The term was rarely used by social entrepreneurs, and if at all, in answers to jury questions.

In addition, we identified the notion of “customer” as a key concept in the business discourse:

It is very important to me that they have an idea of what the customer looks like. Who’s buying this and why? The worm must taste good to the fish, not to the angler, or the story won’t pay off. [interview, jury member].

In the presentation by Blindmap, the founders explained how one of the team members belonged to their customer group and had inside knowledge of their needs. The start-up Sustainability Game presented extensive research on their potential customers including a number of informative figures and statistics. Similarly, the team from “Emissionfree Food” stated:

Let’s look at our primary customers. Our customers are adults between 25 and 45 years, they possess a smartphone, and they live in German- or English-speaking countries. This would be 78 million. Out of those 78 million, 80% say climate change is a serious or very serious problem. This means we may have 62 million potential customers. [pitch]

Many start-ups explicitly referred to customers , whereas other social entrepreneurs did not address the concept of customer at all during their pitch. The pitchers mostly spoke about the needs and expectations of (potential) customers ; the audiences’ questions revolved around the number and characteristics of customers and their ability to pay .

Many pitchers also made use of other concepts originating in the business discourse, for example, marketing , addressing topics such as how to present and advertise the product or service . One team described their sales channels as follows: “We plan to work with classic retailers, and, of course, organic supermarkets are at the top of our list.” [pitch]. One of the jury members also emphasized the importance of marketing targeted toward the paying customer:

They must be able to demonstrate where they want to get the paying customer. How do they plan to advertise and sell the products or services? [interview, jury member].

Unlike the social entrepreneurs’ presentations, the audience questions were often targeted at “sales” or “sales channels.” Some pitchers had difficulty responding.

Furthermore, jury members asked questions about the pricing if the concept had not been mentioned in the pitch: “Can you tell us more about the price? […] How does this cover your costs?” The audience repeatedly emphasized the important of a pricing strategy and whether it matched the costs and the willingness to pay. Pricing was much less referred to by the social entrepreneurs, or only when asked about it.

In addition, the concept of commercial growth was frequently referred to in pitches and the Q&A sessions: “You have to identify new markets to be successful.” [comment, jury member]. The start-up Blindmap explained their strategy for revenue growth as follows:

Our next challenge is to gain automation. As M. explained, we are currently doing everything manually. With each successive step, we want to automate everything so that our maps will become more and more affordable. This has a large impact on our business model. Our maps need to be financed. [pitch].

The audience asked about the potential for growth in revenues and sales while some social entrepreneurs also mentioned how they planned to grow the business beyond the core . The founder of LoveClothes was very skeptical about growth as such:

I don’t want investors who will reduce our impact and only want a quick profit. If anything, we will grow organically: Slowly and steadily. [interview, social entrepreneur]

These concepts of the business discourse used by the pitchers and their audience bring an object into being, namely the social start-up as a business . The social cause that the venture aims to address is framed as a business opportunity rather than as a societal challenge: “We saw a market here.” [pitch]. Urban Vegan Farming chose not to speak about the problem but rather focus on the business opportunity:

We observe a trend that hip, urban people want to feel a connection to their food. This is our target group. We offer harvesting stations; we create a world of experience and a meeting place. [pitch].

Instead of describing the various sustainability problems of the food industry, the founders illustrated the untapped market potential that they wanted to address with their offer. Thus, they presented the opportunity in a social problem . The jury rated their pitch as very convincing in the questionnaire. In the interview, the presenters explained their choice as follows:

This is supposed to be a business. We need to convince potential investors of our business model and our potential. […] We have learned to stop boring people with our litanies about the scandalous food industry. No one wants to hear that. Some people know that and the others do not want to hear about it. [interview, presenter]

In line with a business ideology of profit-maximizing strategies and an emphasis on efficiency, conceptualizing the start-up as a business also included the conviction that a market-based solution is superior:

There is a significant difference between the work public agencies or nonprofits do. The laws of the market ensure that social enterprises are efficient. [interview, jury member]

The subject position as a legitimate position to speak from in the business discourse portrays the social entrepreneur mainly as an entrepreneur, i.e., as a person who takes risks and makes money:

This is our co-working space, where our entrepreneurs really take off. For example, Alpha, they just made a six-figure sum with a crowdfunding campaign. [observation, employee from Impact Lab guides the jury members through their office space]

Founders described themselves as a “business person” with “strong implementation skills.” Their audience voiced how social entrepreneurs should be “entrepreneurs” and “self-starters.”

Social Discourse of Social Entrepreneurs and Their Audience

In contrast, the social discourse centers on the main goal of the start-up: working toward a social mission. In the Q&A sessions, only a small fraction of the questions by the audience referred to concepts of the social discourse. Social entrepreneurs drew to varying degrees on the language and concepts of this discourse.

Firmly rooted in a social ideology , the social discourse is shaped by values such as justice, inclusion, and responsibility and emphasizes social impact (see Table 3 ).

A central concept is the notion of the theory of change and social impact, that is, how and why a desired social change is expected to happen. To our surprise, only a few questions of the jury referred to the concept and if so, then only to the reach of the offer .

By contrast, many social entrepreneurs explained the social or environmental problem they intended to address in detail, e.g., the challenge of improving the lives of disadvantaged groups or fighting climate change: “This is challenging. How can I present such a complex problem in such a short time?” [pitch]. The description and analysis of the problem ranged from stories the social entrepreneurs had experienced to more abstract presentations of facts and figures. The social cause is framed as a problem that needs to be addressed, emphasizing the drive of the venture for social change. A central part of the pitch was describing the solution idea for the problem, i.e., how the founders planned to achieve the intended social impact. The pitchers explained how their innovative idea would bring about social change, promote justice, and responsibility and foster the inclusion of beneficiaries.

For example, the founder of Children’s Bus explained her theory of change as follows:

I know, it’s challenging to explain such a complex social problem in 60 seconds, but I’ll try. […] I’d like to introduce you to Dorusch, Vanessa, and Abdul Kabir. They live in this house, they go to school, they have the soccer field, and that’s what their lives look like – every day. […] They say: ‘I am going to do what mom or dad does.’ Or, even worse: ‘I am going to live on social security.’ They are influenced by what they see. […] I have this bus, 75 square meters with a kitchen. I am going to take them on simple day trips. […] And I am going to run a small restaurant on the bus to finance the trips. [pitch]

Also, social entrepreneurs used the notion of value-added for society [“Gesellschaftlicher Mehrwert” in German] to describe the potential impact of a venture:

If we stop hooligans from becoming violent, we save the government money. We contribute to peace and security and show these people a new way. [pitch].

The founders of Children’s Bus, Multi-Generation house, Local Community, and World Music Concerts used their pitch time exclusively drawing on the social discourse and received unfavorable feedback from the jury members, who questioned “the lack of a business model.” However, in a few cases the "theory of change" was explicitly questioned by the audience: “How are you going to work with the kids?” [audience question].

Other concepts that formed an inherent part of the social discourse included beneficiary , fair remuneration, reaching beneficiaries , and scaling . In the social discourse, the concept of a beneficiary was used instead of customer . While the term customer in the business discourse is associated with a certain “willingness to pay,” the concept of beneficiary puts the in-depth knowledge of the needs of a marginalized population center stage:

Annett is 14 years old and grew up in one of the biggest slums in Kibera (Kenia). Every month when she has her menstruation, she is afraid to ask her father for money because money is always scarce. This leads to Annett not going to school when she has her period for fear of bleeding through her clothes and embarrassing herself. Annett is not an isolated case. Every month, more than a billion women struggle to afford pads. Out of fear of embarrassment, they stay away from school or work. UNICEF and UNDP state that menstruation is the main reason why girls do not go to school regularly. [pitch]

Even though the start-up made it clear that their idea is a menstrual product primarily for use in developing countries to help women in need, the first question from the audience was:

I’d be interested to know, I know this from the US and I think it’s also available in Denmark. What is the growth potential in Germany? [audience question]

In almost all pitches, the beneficiaries were explicitly mentioned, and often presented in detail using figurative language and introducing a specific persona. In the social discourse, the beneficiary is portrayed as a disadvantaged and/or marginalized person who needs (and receives) help and support and who deserves justice . In some instances, the terms “client” or “patient” was also used.

In contrast, the characteristics of beneficiaries were almost never a topic during the Q&A sessions. The term itself was not used at all. An incubator staff member commented on our observations as follows:

One aspect that many on the jury pay far too little attention to is that we should be looking for founders who know their stuff. You don’t just turn a jobless migrant into an entrepreneur overnight. That would be naive. Social change does not happen like that. [interview, jury member]

This is interesting since the concept of beneficiary could be viewed as less empowering than customer (a person with the right to choose rather than the beneficiary of benevolent giving). Thus, the term beneficiary could actually undermine key values of the social discourse ifself such as inclusion and responsibility.

Reaching the beneficiaries was another key concept of the social discourse. In contrast to the marketing concept of the business discourse, the notion of reaching the beneficiaries is concerned with the accessibility of their offer and ways to include beneficiaries to increase the social impact. It was not a frequent topic in the pitches, but the few who referred to reaching the beneficiaries described how they planned to tailor their offer to meet the needs of the target group: “Our App will be easy to use. The gamification will allow users to have fun.” [pitch]. The founder of “Multi-Generation house” explained their choice to dress up with an old curtain over her head as the “ soul of the building which attracts people from all age groups” as follows: “That’s where we come from. We see the spirit of the building. That’s what invites different people.” We got the impression that the founder felt right at home in her costume as the “soul of the building.” Several jury members, however, made disparaging remarks about it (“ridiculous”) and missed “a business perspective.” In the pitch, the team of “Multi-Generation house” had detailed their track record of how they had consistently brought very different people together. However, as with the vast majority of pitches, the topic was not addressed by the audience in the Q&A sessions. One exception was as an audience member who asked after the pitch of Children’s Bus: “Why should the children want to join your activities?” [audience question] to point to the number of users needed for (social) success .

Some social entrepreneurs drew on the concept of fair remuneration in their pitches (instead of pricing )—but it was also never addressed in the Q&A. A comprehensive pricing model was concerned with setting a price that would allow for sustainable production and fair wages:

Our price should reflect the true costs. We do not want somebody else (e.g., the victims of water pollution) to pay the price. [pitch]

Finally, the concept of scaling was used by pitchers to depict a vision of how the new idea could be replicated by others in different contexts or expanded to other countries to grow its social impact : “This project could be implemented in any city” [pitch]. Unlike commercial growth , the notion of scaling is about spreading the word about a solution to a social problem without any immediate profit interest. Thus, the “scalability” refers to the possibility to grow and adapt the idea in other contexts to meet greater needs in future, and it is an often-quoted concept used by supporting organizations in social entrepreneurship. However, no audience question referred to the concept.

These concepts from the social discourse bring an object into being, namely the social impact as the key feature of the start-up , emphasizing the development of fresh ideas that meet social needs more effectively than existing solutions. The view of social entrepreneurship as an ethical concept draws on an ideology which emphasizes social impact , justice , inclusion , and responsibility . A jury member described his preference as follows:

To me, financing, marketing, that’s completely uninteresting at the time of the pitch. You can address that, but you don’t have to. The innovation is important. What is important is the social impact. So what is the problem I want to solve? [interview, jury member]

The rest of the audience co-constructed a slightly different picture of a business with social side effects :

It’s a great product and I believe there is a market. […] And I think people will benefit. [comment, audience]

The subject position as a legitimate position to speak from sees social entrepreneurs as activists and changemakers: “Our vision is the reintegration of former forced prostitutes back into society with the help of fashion.” [pitch]. In an interview, a social entrepreneur described herself as a “deeply moral person” and as a social innovator :

I want to change the way we look at others. Each person has unique talents - and can give something that no one else has to give. Every person has unique talents and abilities. My aim is to value strengths and not to judge people by their weaknesses. [interview, presenter].

The audience emphasized how social entrepreneurs should bring new ideas to the table : “What’s new about this approach?” [audience question].

Separating, Mixing, and Combining Business and Social Discourse

Most social entrepreneurs included elements of the business and the social discourse in their presentations. Some drew to a large extent on the business, and others put more emphasis on the social discourse. A third group scarcely referred to either of the two discourses. One presenter described her dilemma in preparing for their pitch as follows:

It’s a difficult choice. You just have so little time. We thought it over and rehearsed it very well beforehand. The problem is, which points should we address? I wrote my master’s thesis on [social problem], so I can already say a lot about that, you know? But there is also - let’s say - a certain community here, so... they want to know where the start-up capital comes from and so on. That’s a certain way of thinking, yes. [interview, social entrepreneur]

Our analysis finds that social entrepreneurs use different ways to separate, mix, or combine the business and social discourse in their pitches. The first group of presenters clearly split the “business” and the “social” part of their presentation, as indicated, for example, by the titles on their slides: “The problem,” “The solution,” “Monetization” [slides pitch presentation].

The second group of pitchers mixed the two discourses—even potentially contradicting concepts. For example, a founder spoke about the “target group,” the “beneficiary,” and the “customer” while referring to the same group of people. The start-up “Live your Dreams” ironically picked up elements of a business discourse to explain their social mission: “Our customers: Dreamers and Storytellers.” [slides pitch presentation]. In several instances, we observed such a use of business vocabulary, which resembled the use of buzzwords without a deeper connection to the rest of the text. Paradoxically, one start-up was expressly fighting against “capitalism” as their ideological opponent; however, they told their anti-capitalism story by drawing on business concepts and a managerialist vocabulary, ignoring apparent contradictions.

A third group set out to combine and thus reconcile potentially contradictory elements of both discourses. The start-up “Upcycling Design” explained how their idea integrates both ideologies:

We are split into two things. Idealism meets realism. We started with our company and said we’d make money and do something social. […] We know our customers. […] Our marketing strategy […]. There is a demand for sustainable products, and it is a trend in the market. Our revenue model […] We wish to include our producers and empower them. It is our way to contribute. It’s about self-realization and recognition for the producers. They can generate an additional income and this is how. […] Our offer is unique since there is no competitor that we know of and because we support our producers and educate our customers. […] On the next slide, this is our business model, and we combine it with idealism. [pitch]

In a story that the audience described as “coherent,” the pitchers combined elements of the business discourse ( company, business model, demand, customer, marketing strategy, revenue model, competitor, unique selling proposition ) with elements of the social discourse (idealism, sustainable products, include, empower, contribute, self-realization, recognition, support producers, educate customers). Unlike those who mixed the discourses, potential contradictions between the two discourses in this example did not become apparent in the presentation or were turned into mutually reinforcing combinations as, for example, the idea of “sell by educating, educate by selling.” After their pitch, there was an unusually high number of questions, and the Q&A session was extended. All but one of the questions asked by the audience related to the business discourse.

Our analysis advances prior research on (social) entrepreneurial pitching by offering a sorely needed intertextual perspective that highlights the discursive repertoire social entrepreneurs and their audience mobilize. The conventional view would be to see social entrepreneurs who are trying to a convince a jury which in turn is seeking to choose the best. Such a view would be limited because it does not capture how gatekeepers define what a social entrepreneur is (and is not) in that moment. We highlight the nuances of the potentially contradicting discourses that social entrepreneurs choose from and how those connect to the discursive repertoire that their audience uses. Our detailed analysis of 49 videotaped pitches revealed that many social entrepreneurs align their text—intentionally or not—with the audience’s dominant (business) discourse. Others predominantly focused on social impact stories while neglecting the business discourse except when they had to answer questions from the audience.

Uncertainty and Power in Social Entrepreneurial Pitching

Despite important advances in research and practice (Saebi et al., 2019 ), the concept of social entrepreneurship is still contested. Actors in the field and investors face uncertainty in light of the different understandings and definitions of the term (Bacq & Janssen, 2011 ). In the absence of clear selection criteria, the jury members in our study were largely left on their own to collectively make sense of the presentations. Borrowing from what they knew, they asked questions within the realm of the business discourse familiar to them. Some social entrepreneurs attempted to distance themselves from the powerful business discourse and—in drawing primarily on the social discourse—acted as if they were independent from the audience’s judgements. However, the jury members forced those presenters into the discursive space of the business discourse in the Q&A sessions.

In our study, gatekeepers exercised subtle and nuanced forms of power (Fleming & Spicer, 2014 ; Lukes, 1974 ) by normalizing our understanding of what social entrepreneurs are supposed to say and do. In focusing their questioning of the pitchers predominantly on business aspects, they offer a “taken-for-granted” understanding of what social entrepreneurship is (and what it is not), which goes largely uncontested; representing the ultimate exercise of power (Hehenberger et al., 2019 ; Jacobs et al., 2020 ).

Our study extends the existing research on the behavior, gesture and language of entrepreneurs (Clarke, 2011 ; Clarke et al., 2019 ; Zott & Huy, 2007 ) since it also deals with the language their audience uses. We offer a critical perspective on the role of gatekeepers, who control access to resources or own financial assets and are more familiar with a business discourse. Thus, the business-oriented field ideology of impact investing (Hehenberger et al., 2019 ) plays an active role in shaping and influencing the fragmented concept of social entrepreneurship (Saebi et al., 2019 ). In our case, the jury members decide which social enterprises are legitimate and gain access to resources (or not). In such situations, the extent to which the gatekeepers themselves are dependent on social entrepreneurs can readily be forgotten.

Previous research has suggested that the “content of entrepreneurial stories must align with the audience’s interests and normative beliefs” (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001 , p. 550). Bourdieu ( 1998 ) calls this alignment of interests “commonplaces,” something the audience and the author have in common. Research in this field has investigated this connection, for example, in the context of journalists who reproduce commonly held ideas and ideologies to gain the attention of their audience (Kuronen et al., 2005 ) or how entrepreneurs adapt their dress to fit the specific audience they are addressing (Clarke, 2011 ). Our analysis extends current research since we elucidate the dialogic nature of texts (Bakhtin, 1986 ; Fairclough, 1992 ) including pitchers and their audience. We highlight the intertextual reproduction of the business-driven “field ideology” of their audience (Hehenberger et al., 2019 ) which seemed to be a process through which entrepreneurs could connect and engage on the basis of a common language and shared concepts. For example, in a few instances, social entrepreneurs repeated words or phrases they had heard from the jury just a few minutes earlier. We show how some social entrepreneurs opened a shared space with their audience by mostly mobilizing the business discourse, which was familiar to the jury. Others resisted—intentionally or not—and were rather forced into this space by audience questions.

The Discursive De-construction of the “Social” in Social Entrepreneurship

The concept of social entrepreneurship emphasizes the creation of positive social impact for society (Mair & Martí, 2006 ). Existing research has mainly viewed social entrepreneurship as being “at the service of the common good, thus exhibiting a thoroughly synergetic relationship with ethics” (Dey & Steyaert, 2016 , p. 2). However, our data suggest that powerful gatekeepers in the social entrepreneurship community construct a more business-dominated view on how to solve complex societal challenges that has important implications for the distribution of resources for start-ups. Interestingly, experts on the social or environmental challenges that the social entrepreneurs wanted to address were absent from the jury. The jury made decisions on ventures working in the field of female empowerment, education, health, or crime prevention without involving professionals in the respective area.

If “success” in the field of social entrepreneurship is constructed primarily in business terms (e.g., number of customers, profit margin, or revenue growth), the original social purpose will be backgrounded. Thus, while social entrepreneurs have been argued not to be inherently moral beings who do the right thing in contrast to the rest (Dey & Steyaert, 2016 ), the same may apply to their supporters and investors. Therefore, we argue that gatekeepers may need to re-focus their attention on categories of “social success,” e.g., the theory of change, the quality of programs, the satisfaction of beneficiaries, and the social change accomplished (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008 ). Thus, our study offers a fresh view on the practice of social entrepreneurship as a movement in which gatekeepers and investors may—unintentionally—suppress the social discourse that they intend to support.

Our study points to a specific ethical dilemma for social entrepreneurs themselves: Which discourses should they align their presentation with? Our study elucidates how social entrepreneurs have to juggle the tension between emphasizing one discourse or another (i.e., customer vs. beneficiary) within the tight time limit given. Including both discourses in the presentation resulted in being able to go less in depth. Some social entrepreneurs used the discourses sequentially and separately, others mixed them while ignoring apparent contradicitions, and a third group attempted to hide contradictions or find mutually reinforcing combinations.

Some social entrepreneurs felt uncomfortable with a business discourse they were not familiar with, but were nevertheless maneuvered into that discursive space by the audience in the Q&A session. Thus, the question arises as to the consequences of such a push toward the business discourse. Conformity with the powerful business discourse enables the pitching team to disguise potential contradictions and conflicts inherent in many hybrid enterprises (Battilana, 2010 ; Pache & Santos, 2010 ). By actively hiding the complexity of hybridity, business stories helped the presenters simplify reality and create convincing cause-and-effect chains. Our findings illustrate how the social impact logic is “repackaged” in business vocabulary (Mauksch, 2017 ). In business-oriented pitches, serving beneficiaries and aiming for a social-mission-oriented goal were turned into stories of attracting customers and pursuing commercial growth. Such rationalism implies that by applying managerialist practices and an entrepreneurial mindset to social issues, complex realities may appear well-ordered and manageable to the audience (Dey & Steyaert, 2010 ). The subject position entrepreneur offered the social entrepreneurs a simple, unequivocally legitimate position to speak from. Such “entrepreneurial stories” seemed to have resonated with a business-oriented audience since the discursive repertoire was familiar to them. In contrast, social impact stories enabled presenters to emphasize the problem, their solution to it and their inherent intrinsic motivation, which may appeal more to the emotions and gut feeling of their audience.

On the other hand, the adoption of the available concepts and “ready-made” elements of the business discourse may also constrain the social entrepreneurial community in important ways. The business discourse offers only a limited repertoire, and the hiding of the “social” may suppress critical alternative voices and draw an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which business solutions can succeed in solving complex social and environmental problems (Kreutzer & Mauksch, 2014 ). Only in a few, rare cases did social entrepreneurs succeeded in combining both discourses and apparently seamlessly hid potential contradicitions between the two—as, for example, the start-up “Upcycling Design.”

Our study extends the existing research on the introduction of the market discourse in the social sector (Davis & Kim, 2015 ; Hwang & Powell, 2009 ) and its predominance in social entrepreneurship (Cho, 2006 ; Parkinson & Howorth, 2008 ), which has detrimental effects for relationships to constituents (Hwang & Powell, 2009 ). We illustrate how social entrepreneurs who resist attempts to determine who they should be as their way of practicing ethics (Dey & Steyaert, 2016 ) may not be able to easily connect with powerful business-oriented gatekeepers and investors. If social entrepreneurs—responding to such pressures—try to sell their ideas in a business “outfit,” will this inevitably lead to a degradation of their social mission? What impact may such an attempt have on the identity of social entrepreneurs since they have been found to draw their legitimacy as activists, guardians, or even entrepreneurs primarily from a sense of social morality rather than from the business discourse directly (Parkinson & Howorth, 2008 )?

Managerial Implications

Our study offers important managerial implications. Our findings illustrate how social entrepreneurs need to be able to present themselves in different ways to different audiences. Business-oriented stakeholders expect the appropriate information on business models, customers, pricing, marketing, etc.. However, this is not necessarily the content that may be of interest for other audiences such as beneficiaries, or stakeholders from the social sector. Our study elucidates how social entrepreneurs need to meet the expectations of their audience and thus may need to communicate differently depending on the respective target group, much like a chameleon.

Impact investors need to be mindful of the importance of assessing the social impact of a venture. This is not a trivial task and they may need to draw on the expertise of professionals in the relevant subject area, for example the integration of marginalized people or the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

Our study highlights the discursive repertoire that social entrepreneurs and their audiences draw upon in pitching situations. Our analysis of video material from live pitches shows how—paradoxically—a strong focus on the impact story may prevent social entrepreneurs from entering a shared discursive space with their business-oriented audience. The intertextual perspective allows us to better understand the power dynamics between the pitcher and their audience. We highlight how the intertextual reproduction of a larger discourse contained both enabling and constraining elements. In so doing, our study points to a crucial dilemma for social entrepreneurs: Should they intentionally “dress up” as a business if that helps to connect to gatekeepers and potential investors?

Although our study is based on rich data from interviews, observations, and videotaped pitches in three different cities in Germany and Switzerland, some dynamics may play out differently in social entrepreneurship communities in other countries. For example, pitching for resources in developing countries and among impoverished entrepreneurs may have different characteristics (Allison et al., 2015 ). While we acknowledge the limited generalizability of our findings, we maintain that our study sheds light on important processes that often unfold “behind closed doors.” Our unique data access enabled us to conduct real-time observations of live pitches, however, this setting also has limitations. Future research needs to explore which discourse (social or business) is more successful in convincing impact investors. Also, our research design did not allow us to control for the influence of other “variables.” For example, future research is needed to take other important aspects such as gender into account (Balachandra et al., 2019 ; Kanze et al., 2018 ) or to investigate how the audience’s perception of the moral intensity of the social problem (Smith et al., 2016 ) may influence their preference for a business or social discursive repertoire. Future research is also needed to illustrate how intertextuality plays out in other pitch situations and contexts. Such analysis could also elaborate on taboos (Hoon & Jacobs, 2014 ) or what is left unsaid by the entrepreneurs. In addition to our focus on language, it would be worthwhile to apply a visual ethnographic approach and explore how social entrepreneurs manage and manipulate visual symbols (Clarke, 2011 ) in pitches. Finally, if gatekeepers emphasize a business discourse to the detriment of the social in pitch situations, it would be crucial to understand what happens in the later process. For example, will such differences lead to misunderstandings and conflicts over means and ends between an investor and investee?

Achleitner, A.-K., Lutz, E., Mayer, J., & Spiess-Knafl, W. (2013). Disentangling gut feeling: Assessing the integrity of social entrepreneurs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24 (1), 93–124.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645–670.

Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (1), 53–73.

Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Webb, J. W., & Short, J. C. (2017). Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32 (6), 707–725.

Anglin, A. H., Wolfe, M. T., Short, J. C., McKenny, A. F., & Pidduck, R. J. (2018). Narcissistic rhetoric and crowdfunding performance: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 33 (6), 780–812.

Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23 (5–6), 373–403.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays . University of Texas Press.

Google Scholar  

Balachandra, L., Briggs, T., Eddleston, K., & Brush, C. (2019). Don’t Pitch Like a Girl!: How gender stereotypes influence investor decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 43 (1), 116–137.

Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (1), 41–60.

Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. The Academy of Management Review, 22 (2), 429–452.

Battilana, J. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1419–1440.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1419–1440.

Boje, D. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication research . Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bortolussi, M., & Dixon, P. (2003). Psychonarratology: Foundations for the empirical study of literary response . Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television . The New Press.

Brannen, M. Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 593–616.

Bruder, I. (2020). A social mission is not enough: Reflecting the normative foundations of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics .

Buckland, L., Hehenberger, L., & Hay, M. (2013). The growth of European venture philatrophy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11 (3), 33–39.

Chen, X.-P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (1), 199–214.

Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as practical coping: A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27 (5), 635–655.

Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: a critical appraisal. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan.

Christianson, M. K. (2018). Mapping the terrain: The use of video-based research in top-tier organizational journals. Organizational Research Methods, 21 (2), 261–287.

Clark, C. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral ‘pitch’ presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Capital, 10 (3), 257–279.

Clarke, J. (2011). Revitalizing entrepreneurship: How visual symbols are used in entrepreneurial performances. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (6), 1365–1391.

Clarke, J. S., Cornelissen, J. P., & Healey, M. P. (2019). Actions speak louder than words: How figurative language and gesturing in entrepreneurial pitches influences investment judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 62 (2), 335–360.

Clough, D. R., Fang, T. P., Vissa, B., & Wu, A. (2019). Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs mobilize resources to exploit opportunities? Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 240–271.

Cornelissen, J. P., Clarke, J., & Cienki, A. (2012). Sensegiving in entrepreneurial contexts: The use of metaphors in speech and gesture to gain and sustain support for novel business ventures. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship , 30 (3), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610364427 .

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1203–1213.

Davis, G. F., & Kim, S. (2015). Financialization of the economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 41 (1), 203–221.

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf .

Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (3), 321–334.

Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4 (1), 85–108.

Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2016). Rethinking the space of ethics in social entrepreneurship: Power, subjectivity, and practices of freedom. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (4), 627–641.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (3), 504–529.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change . Polity Press.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. The Academy of Management Annals, 8 (1), 237–298.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 . Pantheon Books.

Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. Financial Management, 23 (3), 28–37.

Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 38 (1), 157–160.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine Publishing.

Hall, J., & Hofer, C. W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (1), 25–42.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20 (1), 1–24.

Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (3), 476–501.

Hehenberger, L., Mair, J., & Metz, A. (2019). The assembly of a field ideology: An idea-centric perspective on systemic power in impact investing. Academy of Management Journal, 62 (6), 1672–1704.

Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. (2003). Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14 (3), 244–263.

Hjorth, D., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship: A second movements in entrepreneurship . Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Höchstädter, A. K., & Scheck, B. (2015). What’s in a name: An analysis of impact investing understandings by academics and practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 132 (2), 449–475.

Hockerts, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship between market and mission. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8 (2), 177–198.

Hoon, C., & Jacobs, C. D. (2014). Beyond belief: Strategic taboos and organizational identity in strategic agenda setting. Strategic Organization, 12 (4), 244–273.

Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (2), 268–298.

Jacobs, C. D., Kreutzer, K., & Vaara, E. (2021). Political dynamics in organizational identity breach and reconstruction: Findings from the Crisis in UNICEF Germany. Academy of Management Journal , 64 (3), 948–980.

Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method . Sage Publications.

Kaminski, J. C., & Hopp, C. (2019). Predicting outcomes in crowdfunding campaigns with textual, visual, and linguistic signals. Small Business Economics, 55 (3), 627–649.

Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61 (2), 586–614.

Kreutzer, K., & Mauksch, S. (2014). The one and the many sides of social business: a critical reflection. In A. Grove & G. Berg (Eds.), Social business (pp. 225–237). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art . Columbia University Press.

Kuronen, M.-L., Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (2005). The merger storm recognizes no borders: An analysis of media rhetoric on a business manoeuvre. Organization, 12 (2), 247–273.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing “perspectives on process organization studies.” In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organizing (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.

LeBaron, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Pratt, M. G., & Fetzer, G. (2018). An introduction to video methods in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 21 (2), 239–260.

Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research . Sage.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7), 545–564.

Lukes, S. M. (1974). Power: A radical view . Macmillan.

MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R., & Narasimha, P. (1986). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1 (1), 119–128.

Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41 (1), 36–44.

Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resouce acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5), 1107–1132.

Mason, C., & Harrison, R. (1996). Why “Business Angels” Say No: A case study of opportunities rejected by an informal investor syndicate. International Small Business Journal, 14 (2), 35–51.

Mauksch, S. (2017). Managing the dance of enchantment: An ethnography of social entrepreneurship events. Organization, 24 (2), 133–153.

Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (5), 592–606.

Moody, M. (2008). “Building a Culture”: The construction and evolution of venture philanthropy as a new organizational field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37 (2), 324–352.

Moss, T. W., Neubaum, D. O., & Meyskens, M. (2015). The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial orientations on microfinance lending and repayment: A signaling theory perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (1), 27–52.

Muzyka, D., Birley, S., & Leleux, B. (1996). Trade-offs in the investment decisons of European venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (4), 273–287.

Nicholls, A. (2010). The Institutionalization of social investment: The interplay of investment logics and investor rationalities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 70–100.

Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 1, pp. 185–207). Sage.

O’Connor, E. (2002). Storied business: Typology, intertextuality and traffic in entrepreneurial narrative. Journal of Business Communication , 39 (1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360203900103 .

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3), 455–476.

Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2014). Unleashing the powerful few: Sustainable investing behaviour of wealthy private investors. Organization & Environment, 27 (4), 347–367.

Paetzold, F., Busch, T., & Chesney, M. (2015). More than money: Exploring the role of investment advisors for sustainable investing. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1 (1), 195–223.

Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32 (2), 215–236.

Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20 (3), 285–309.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and Institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 635–652.

Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45 (1), 70–95.

Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). 1. Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 3–31.

Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48 (3), 364–381.

Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48 (1), 154–170.

Sklaveniti, C., & Steyaert, C. (2020). Reflecting with Pierre Bourdieu: Towards a reflexive outlook for practice-based studies of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32 (3–4), 313–333.

Smith, B. R., Kistruck, G. M., & Cannatelli, B. (2016). The impact of moral intensity and desire for control on scaling decisions in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (4), 677–689.

Smith, R., & Anderson, A. R. (2004). The devil is in the e-tale: form and structure in the entrepreneurial narrative. In D. Hjorth & C. Steyaert (Eds.), Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship (pp. 125–144). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2004). The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (1), 45–57.

Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11 , 79–92.

Steier, L., & Greenwood, R. (1995). Venture capitalist relationships in the deal structuring and post-investment stages of new firm creation. Journal of Management Studies, 32 (3), 337–357.

Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations driving positive social change: A review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of Management, 42 (5), 1250–1281.

Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 315–349.

Thompson, N. A., Verduijn, K., & Gartner, W. B. (2020). Entrepreneurship-as-practice: Grounding contemporary theories of practice into entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32 (3–4), 247–256.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2002). Justification, Legitimization and Naturalization of mergers and acquisitions: A critical discourse analysis of media texts. Organization , 9 (2), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508402009002912 .

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power . Palgrave Macmillan.

Whittle, A., & Mueller, F. (2012). Bankers in the dock: Moral storytelling in action. Human Relations, 65 (1), 111–139.

Wiltbank, R. (2005). Investment practices and outcomesof informal venture investors. Venture Capital, 7 (4), 343–357.

Wood, D., Thornley, B., & Grace, K. (2013). Institutional impact investing: Practice and policy. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3 (2), 75–94.

Zacharakis, A. L., McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2007). Venture capitalists’ decision policies across three countries: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (5), 691–708.

Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (1), 70–105.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chair of Social Business, Impact Institute, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Rheingaustrasse 1, 65375, Oestrich-Winkel, Hesse, Germany

Karin Kreutzer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Kreutzer .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Tables 1 , 2 , and 3 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kreutzer, K. On the Discursive Construction of Social Entrepreneurship in Pitch Situations: The Intertextual Reproduction of Business and Social Discourse by Presenters and Their Audience. J Bus Ethics 179 , 1071–1090 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05161-7

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2020

Accepted : 01 May 2022

Published : 10 June 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05161-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social entrepreneurship
• Impact investing
• Storytelling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Entrepreneurship for Social Good

Get inspired by 4,000+ keynote speaker videos & our founder, a top keynote speaker on innovation .

Daniel Epstein Inspires Change in This Social Innovation Speech

• Get Involved

SPEECH: Delivered at the Africa Group Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Driving a Social Entrepreneurship Agenda for Africa

March 29, 2022.

Speech by Dr Ayodele Odusola, Resident Representative of UNDP South Africa, and UNDP Africa Finance Sector Hub Director

Delivered at the Africa Group Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Driving a Social Entrepreneurship Agenda for Africa

Courtyard Marriot Hotel Diplomatic Quarters, Riyadh,  Saudi Arabia

28 March 2022

Honourable  Ministers,

Excellencies,

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen

I would like to thank the South African Government and GEN  for hosting with UNDP this important Africa Group Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Driving a Social Entrepreneurship Agenda for Africa . As Africa’s financing requirements for COVID-19 recovery and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are enormous, leveraging social entrepreneurship to address the continent’s development challenges, build back better in post-COVID-19 recovery, and achieve the SDGs and Africa’s Agenda 2063 remain critical.

COVID-19 has upended livelihoods, damaged business and government balance sheets, and reversed SSA’s development gains and growth prospects over the past two decades. The economy contracted by 1.7% in 2020, [1] pushing 30 million people back into extreme poverty and worsening inequality not only across income groups but also within subnational geographic regions. [2] Although, economic growth turned positive in 2021 to 4%, [3] the African Development Bank estimates that 39 million additional people were pushed into extreme poverty. [4] Furthermore, this growth rate remains far below the levels required to address the increasing incidence of high poverty, unemployment and income inequality.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also exacerbated the financing gap for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the ambitious SDGs in SSA. While the pre-COVID-19 annual financing gap for the SDGs was estimated at US$200 billion,  estimates show that COVID-19 recovery will cost some additional  US$154 billion. [5]

The emerging realities on financing development in Africa underpin the imperatives of moving from funding to financing mechanisms.

Africa is experiencing a crisis of success. Traditionally, this financing would have come from government funding, aid, philanthropy and foreign direct investments. However, as more SSA countries move into middle-income status, aid flows decrease as they become less deserving of aid – a crisis of success. This has led to declining aid to SSA countries that have also been brought about by changing donor priorities, as many traditional aid agencies are shifting from aid to impact investing. Most SSA countries have also borrowed heavily over the last few years to fund infrastructure projects, as evidenced by a pre-pandemic debt level of 50.4% of GDP; which is expected to reach 56% of GDP in 2022. [6]  

Furthermore, most African countries are vulnerable to the ongoing Ukraine war’s effects because of higher energy and food prices [7] (which will push up inflation further), reduced tourism, and potential difficulty in accessing international capital markets. The conflict has come at a time when most African countries have minimal policy space to counter the effects of the shock. This is likely to intensify socio-economic pressures, public debt vulnerability, and the scarring effects of the pandemic that are confronting millions of households and businesses.

An emerging lesson from Africa’s development financing strategy is the urgent need for a blended financing modality .  Building an equitable post-COVID-19 recovery in SSA, reducing the SDG financing gap and containing the effects of the war requires SSA to leverage all sources of financing including the private sector and social entrepreneurs - a paradigm shift – from funding to financing.

Social enterprises are an organizational form that combines entrepreneurial behaviours with the legitimate quest for economic profits while pursuing social and environmental goals. Social enterprises put people and the planet on equal terms with profit . Social entrepreneurs re-invest their economic profits into social and environmental objectives. In this regard, social entrepreneurship can use the Triple Bottom Lines to address Africa’s triple development challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment while simultaneously growing sustainable and profitable businesses.

This Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Driving a Social Entrepreneurship Agenda for Africa is to give greater awareness and attention among governments and international development partners to the role of social entrepreneurs.

The development of the Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Africa is still at an embryonic stage. As such, there is no clear policy toward social entrepreneurship in most African countries [8] . This is because little is known about social entrepreneurs, their activities and how they can positively impact communities.  Evidence from Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, and Kenya shows youth as the drivers of social innovation to solve social challenges. [9]

Yet, social enterprises provide full-time employment for up to 41 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa. [10]   They provide a positive impact on employment through three channels:

‐         Skill development: Providing education, running schools or working with youth to provide them with the skills they need to gain and create decent jobs.

‐         Jobs creation: Providing employment or self-employment opportunities, often for those who are marginalised or vulnerable or underserved. Evidence from a British Council study reveals that job creation is aimed by 78% of social enterprises compared to 27% in profit-first businesses.

‐         Enablers: Enabling others to start enterprises and supporting existing businesses, including smallholder farmers, to increase the quality and quantity of jobs they provide. By supporting other entrepreneurs, and developing businesses where commercial and profit-first businesses fail, it fosters a solidarity approach to development.

There are some good examples of social entrepreneurs in SSA such as Siyafunda Community Technology Centres (CTC) in South Africa, [11] Wecyclers [12] in Nigeria and Green Bio Energy (GBE) [13] in Uganda among others.

(i)                 Siyafunda CTC provides a network of community centres that extend access to computers, the Internet and digital technologies to local communities where such access may be lacking. It also provides accredited digital ICT courses and skills training, business and entrepreneurial skills development, adult literacy programmes and e-learning facilities.

(ii)              Wecyclers provides convenient recycling services in densely populated urban neighbourhoods. Wecyclers is a rewards-for-recycling platform that incentivizes people in low-income communities to capture value from recyclable waste.

(iii)            GBE designs produces and distributes innovative energy solutions to fight poverty, deforestation, and climate change. GBE emphasizes prevalent gender issues affecting women as they are typically the ‘managers of household energy’ and are by far the main beneficiaries of GBE’s products and services.

The UNDP’s Low-Cost Internet Access, using White Spectrum Technology (in partnership with Council for Scientific Industrial Research, CSIR), in four provinces which we intend to expand to 10 more communities by the end of 2022 is one of the examples of social entrepreneurship stimulated by international development partners. The British Council’s support for the development of Social Enterprise Networks and the mapping of social entrepreneurs in Ghana is another good example.

To provide investor intelligence for the private sector to take advantage of opportunities and align their investments with the SDGs/development needs, UNDP has developed a market intelligence tool - the SDGs Investor Maps that translates development needs into tangible investment opportunities. This market intelligence helps identify Investment Opportunity Areas (IOAs) at the intersection of national development needs and policy priorities. [14] UNDP also developed the complementary SDG Impact Standards , [15] which are the only management standards in the market that embed sustainability at the core of an organization holistically, and guide the private sector to make management decisions to optimize interrelated economic, social and environmental impacts – the triple bottom lines.

These maps have been completed in 19 countries globally - seven in SSA countries, namely Djibouti, Ghana , Kenya , Namibia , Nigeria , Rwanda , South Africa and Uganda . An analysis shows that energy (solar, wind and biomass), agricultural crops and processing, housing, and water and sanitation present the greatest opportunities. This initiative is being rolled out in eight countries [16] and it is expected to start in another four countries [17]. Some dividends are already emerging: in Colombia, a major financial institution is exploring financing possibilities; in Indonesia, it is serving as a tool for blended financing options to improve affordability; in Ghana, it helped an impact intermediary to identify a base value of USD 39 millions of potential investments in 15 Small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs); and in South Africa, it facilitated business to business engagement between South Africa and Japanese companies with seven South African SMEs benefiting from Government support.

Despite these positive employment and social impact,  the UNDP’s experience from SDGs Impact Investment Mapping on the continent reveal that social entrepreneurs in Africa face several challenges including:

(i)              Difficulty in sourcing viable investments that meet financial,  social, and environmental objectives,

(ii)             Limited innovative fund and deal structures among  exiting investments,

(iii)           Limited capacity of sustainable social enterprises and entrepreneurs,  

(iv)           Limited capital supply across the risk-return spectrum,

(v)            Unclear and inconsistent regulations,

(vi)           Poor linkages between sustainable social enterprises, entrepreneurs, investors and innovation networks, and

(vii)          Poor and inconsistent impact measurement practice. [18]

I would like to provide some illuminations on the experience from the SDGs Impact Investment Map across Africa. Deal flow in the impact investment market is significantly hindered by a limited number of viable investment options that can provide adequate financial returns as well as demonstrate social and environmental impacts. Particularly challenging is the low volume of potential impact investees that can demonstrate sufficient track record and capacity development to align with the risk appetite of investors.  Difficulties in sourcing viable impact investments also stem from inadequate measurement and reporting on social and environmental outcomes. Impact investors struggle to source funds and deals that meet their risk and return requirements. Institutional and other commercial investors find it particularly challenging to find funds and deals which can promise required market returns given the limited track record for many funds in Africa. Fund managers in turn have difficulties in sourcing enough deals that will fit investor requirements of both returns and risks. There are few conventional exit options for equity impact investments in Africa, which acts as a critical deterrent for investment in sustainable social enterprises on the continent and consequently hinders the supply of capital to impact investees.

How can we turn these challenges into social entrepreneurship opportunities for includive development?

De-risking social entrepreneurship in Africa remains critical to providing support to about a quarter of entrepreneurs in Sub-Saharan Africa (over 64 million entrepreneurs), [19] achieving national development plans and the SDGs.

First, there is an urgent need to improve the social enterprise policy space , including crafting regulations to drive corporate sustainability and scale corporate social investment as is emerging in South Africa and India [20] . Policy space can also take the form of tax exemptions and subsidies for social businesses, participation in public procurement (e.g. supply development programmes in Kenya),  tax relief for social enterprise investors, grant funding for social enterprises training and research, and accelerated social enterprise registration and accreditation.

Second, to overcome the small-scale nature of most social enterprises that makes it harder to deploy capital to them, providing grants and catalytic capital to de-risk social entrepreneurship investments is needed to crowd-in private capital into social enterprise. This calls for strengthening the pipeline of viable impact investment prospects that can meet both the financial, social, and environmental objectives of impact investors.

Third, fostering institutions for social enterprise capacity and practice . This includes institutionalizing social entrepreneurs in primary, secondary and tertiary levels curricula; addressing the skill deficits among youth; developing appropriate infrastructure for the impact investment sector (e.g. improving the ease of doing business); developing social enterprise intermediaries like incubators and accelerators; and enhancing impact measurement practice and standards.

Fourth, facilitating the social enterprise ecosystem development approach (EDA) – a process that brings together all players to concentrate efforts on creating a vibrant environment for impact investing on the continent by addressing key barriers that inhibit their growth and development. [21]  The UNDP works in Lesotho, Senegal and Uganda and the British Council work in Ghana are good examples that could be scaled up. Through this EDA, UNDP is helping youth to develop capability, confidence and connectedness in solving their problems.

Driving a Social Entrepreneurship Agenda for Africa is beyond what a development actor can achieve. It requires an ecosystem approach – with clear roles for governments, social enterprises and entrepreneurs, universities, and international organizations.

For instance, governments can focus on ensuring policy space and standards for social enterprises including promoting ease of doing business environment, incentivising social enterprises and their incubators and accelerators. The universities have a role to play in providing evidence, efficiency and impact of social enterprises while sharing best practices and providing business support to social enterprises remain critical to international organizations. Social entrepreneurs also need to invest sufficient time in training, coaching, peer-to-peer learning, and mentorship.

In conclusion,

I would like to seek your indulgence to encourage all ministers, top government officials, private sector representatives, international organizations and participants in today’s event to serve as ambassadors of social enterprise agenda in Africa.

UNDP, as the SDGs integrator in all countries, is ready to work with African countries to promote and advocate social entrepreneurship agenda on the continent.

And with your permission, UNDP is ready to work with you to organize Africa’s Social Entrepreneurship Agenda at the Margins of the UN General Assembly in September 2022 in New York as a way of deepening advocacy on this very important issue.

[1]  https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/REO/AFR/2021/October/English/statisticalappendix.ashx

[2] https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/10/21/sp102121-opening-remarks-at-the-ssa-regional-economic-outlook-press-briefing

[3] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2022/01/25/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2022#Projections

[4] https://www.afdb.org/en/knowledge/publications/african-economic-outlook

[5] https://unctad.org/webflyer/economic-development-africa-report-2020

[6]  https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/SSA/Issues/2021/10/21/regional-economic-outlook-for-sub-saharan-africa-october-2021

[7] Record wheat prices are particularly concerning for a region that imports around 85% of its supplies, one-third of which comes from Russia or Ukraine.

[8] For detailed exploration see (i) Littlewood, D., and  Holt, D. (2018). “Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment,”  Business and  Society, 57(3), 525-61. (ii) Dassah, M.O., and  Ngatse-Ipangui, R. (2019). “Impact of social entrepreneurs on community development in the Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality area, South Africa,” The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 15(1), 1-10. (iii) Seda, A., and  Ismail, M. (2019). ”Challenges facing social entrepreneurship. Review of Economics and Political Science,” Review of Economics and Political Science, 5(2), 162-82.

[9] https://it-online.co.za/2021/12/07/social-enterprises-could-be-key-to-a-prosperous-and-equitable-future-for-africa/ ; https://citinewsroom.com/2020/05/social-entrepreneurship-is-the-future-really-now-for-ghanaian-enterprises-article/ ; https://www.makingmorehealth.org/content/kenya-social-entrepreneurship-and-youth

[10] https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/social_enterprise_and_job_creation_in_sub-saharan_africa_final_singlepages.pdf

[11] https://www.siyafundactc.org.za/

[12] https://wecyclers.com/

[13] http://greenbioenergy.org/about-gbe/

[14]  https://sdginvestorplatform.undp.org/methodology

[15] https://sdgimpact.undp.org/practice-standards.html

[16] Eswatini, Gabon, Ghana (deep dives on target localities and sectors), Malawi, Mauritius, Tanzania, Seychelles and The Gambia

[17] Côte d'Ivoire, Lesotho, Togo and Zambia

[18] https://www.impactatafrica.org/sites/default/files/publications/undp-impact-investing-in-africa.pdf

[19] See British Council Global Social Enterprise.

[20] https://nextbillion.net/social-investments-africa-study/

[21] https://www.impactatafrica.org/

Related Content

Press Releases

Undp africa finance sector hub releases the ecosystem development approach (eda) report.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP through its Africa Finance Sector Hub (AFSH), launched its flagship knowledge action-oriented product, the Ecosyste...

Regulation as a Stimulus (RaaS) initiative launched by UNDP, Africa investor (Ai) and AfCFTA Secretariat, as a post pandemic recovery plan

Some of the high-level speakers of the RaaS event at the margins of the 76 UNGANew York, 29 September – African governments can turn trade barriers into accelerat...

Partnership for strengthening social cohesion in South Africa

UNDP and DSAC launched a partnership agreement which aims to intensify efforts to strengthen national social cohesion.

Publications

South africa sdg investor map 2020.

The South Africa SDG Investor Map 2020 is developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) South Africa Country Office and UNDP SDG Impact; a global p...

UNDP Launch The South Africa SDG Investor Map

On 29 September 2020, UNDP South Africa launched the report “The South Africa SDG Investor Map” which is a result of a study conducted between April and July 2020...

UNSGSA Opening Speech at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit 2019

Opening remarks by her majesty queen máxima of the netherlands, the united nations secretary-general’s special advocate for inclusive finance for development (unsgsa), at the global entrepreneurship summit 2019: the future now, held on 4 june 2019 in the hague, the netherlands..

Excellencies,  Distinguished guests,  Ladies and gentlemen,

An entrepreneurial culture is the foundation to any thriving economy and society. As a member of the Dutch Committee for Entrepreneurship, I am proud to say that in The Netherlands, achieving a sustainable growth of small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—is a key part of our economic agenda.

Also, as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development, my mandate is to support policies and business practices that advance universal access to affordable, effective, and safe financial services. Currently, 1.7 billion adults globally remain unable to access financial services such as savings, credit, insurance, and payments. And in terms of businesses, still today, around 40% of formal MSMEs worldwide lack the financing to expand, therefore hampering a robust inclusive economic growth.

Over the years, I have seen how essential entrepreneurship is in creating employment, value and innovation, while delivering products and services that people need around the world, both in developing and developed countries.

“Traditional” entrepreneurship has been the backbone of our local economies for centuries.But as technology advances, we are now witnessing the rapid emergence of innovative entrepreneurships: the ‘startups’.

A combination of tech-led and innovative business models enables them to create new products and services that reach more people at a cheaper cost, utilize unused assets and build upon data information. Even things that were unthinkable before. Whole sectors have been transformed—from financial services to food and agriculture, connectivity, energy, water, and healthcare—making these services more efficient and more accessible for even greater portions of the world’s population.

For any entrepreneur—startup or traditional—there are five key factors that can help a business fully thrive and make our world more inclusive.

• Access to finance—both for entrepreneurs and their customers.
• Technology—the need for fast digitization of all businesses.
• A customer-centric business model, which allows usage and access to markets.
• An enabling environment, including infrastructure.
• And more and more, leveraging strategic partnerships. 

First: For businesses, access to finance is crucial.

However, an IFC study found that the financing gap for MSMEs in emerging markets amounts to over $8 trillion (dollars). A lack of collateral, credit history, or transaction records can make it difficult for traditional businesses to access affordable credit from lenders. In the Netherlands, Qredits was created specifically for smaller firms that didn’t have access to normal banking credit.

Innovative startup entrepreneurs also face financing challenges but they are different from traditional MSMEs. Access to growth capital such as venture funds and angel investors can be limited in every phase.

Second: Technology

Technology and digitization can dramatically reduce cost and allow entrepreneurs to develop profitable low-value, big-volume business models. This is even more essential in emerging markets where infrastructure is less available, and the majority of the consumers have very limited purchasing power.

For example, fintech lenders such as Konfio in Mexico or Lidya in Nigeria use digital platforms and data analytics to lower customer acquisition and underwriting.

This means these companies can offer more affordable rates than traditional lenders at a much faster turnaround time. They also provide highly valued, non-financial services which really help clients grow. Lidya for example, offers clients digital methods to track invoices and receive payment reminders—giving these SMEs better insights in their business will help them increase productivity.

Third: A customer-centric business model, which is key for usage, scale and impact.  

Last year, during a visit to Indonesia, I became acquainted with Go-Jek—a startup which began as a very needed ride-hailing app for the country’s highly informal and traditional motorcycle taxi industry. Go-Jek is now a “super-app” that offers 18 on-demand services ranging from transportation to food services and logistics delivery, to in-home cleaning services. All provided by more that one million micro-entrepreneurs.

Customers needed to pay all of these services in an easy and fast way, so Go-Jek set up its own digital wallet—now one of the most used in Indonesia. Go-Jek is, today, one of Southeast Asia’s most valuable unicorns.

Fourth: Governments play an important role to foster entrepreneurship in an inclusive and responsible way.

Fintech has huge potential to play a transformative role to combat exclusion. But the speed and complexity of new innovations can be a challenge for regulators. Regulation should not stifle innovation. But at the same time it should protect consumers and the stability of systems—quite a balancing act.

It is important to recognize the power of having regulators and fintech innovators find solutions together to tackle risks and accelerate progress. To support regulators, particularly from emerging and developing economies, my fintech working group recently released a report that provides insights into regulatory innovations and will hopefully help to foster new technologies without hampering stability and consumer protection.

One issue that is very important is to ensure a level playing field. This is very true to financial services as it is in other sectors. As new technologies appear, the likelihood of a winner-takes-all situation could be more pronounced in emerging markets—especially within the digital space.

Because of the absence of infrastructure, a new innovative player can build ecosystems to address the infrastructure challenges around their business model. This is needed to transform a market at the beginning but might lead to a monopolistic or oligopolistic market structure. It is therefore important for regulators to mitigate against excessive market concentration.

For all of these things to work in an inclusive and fair way we will need certain pre-requisites, as I like to call them. These key enabling factors include cybersecurity, digital ID systems, customer data protection, financial and digital literacy, data privacy, and connectivity for all segments of the population.

In terms of competition and giving everybody an opportunity, entrepreneurship itself should be inclusive, particularly for women. Ability and intelligence cut across gender, but opportunity—and access to capital—does not.  A study in the US found that, on average, women receive less in early-stage capital than men; yet startups founded by women generally deliver over two times per dollar invested more than those founded by men.

And in the Netherlands, only 8% of the companies that have attracted venture capital have women in the leading teams. It shows a big disconnect between female entrepreneurship and venture capital. 

To address this issue and make finance work for women, FemNL has been launched in the NL. It encompasses the creation of the Borski Fund and a mentoring program, Fempower Your Growth.

This investment fund will hopefully allow more female talent to set up companies, and subsequently show others investors that women are worth investing in.

And my fifth and final point is the growing importance of strategic partnerships.  

Businesses of course do not operate in isolation. Many depend on ecosystems to thrive. The Dutch company ASML, which produces machines that make semiconductors, works in an “Open Innovation” system together with its suppliers, partners, and customers. In this way, it expands the knowledge and skills of all the partners involved, and accelerates innovations, much faster, than any one partner could do alone.

Creative partnerships can also help entrepreneurs grow faster by reaching last-mile and previously unserved customers. Last year we convened the CEO Partnership for Economic Inclusion to create this sort of cooperation. For example: Telenor, a mobile services provider, partnered with Unilever and PepsiCo, to enable micro-merchants in Pakistan to digitize their payments. The digitized transaction data can then be used to assess their creditworthiness for working capital loans. This resulted in higher incomes for the micro-merchants, and of course was good for the involved companies. Of course, technology is vital in allowing more of this kind of cross-industry partnerships.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Before I conclude, I’d like to say how wonderful it is to have so many entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world gathered here. Also, because it gives me the perfect chance to share some of my wishes with you!

First, we need data and timely in-depth analysis on the whole entrepreneurship landscape. The dynamism is large and ever-increasing. By having insights on who is winning, who is treading slowly and who is losing and why, we can design better policies and really help entrepreneurs. We are trying to achieve this with our yearly State of the SMEs report in the Netherlands.

Second, given that digitization, management systems changes and investment in human resources are key to increase productivity, how can we help companies to invest in those processes? Today, one cannot secure or guarantee a loan that helps you re-school your people or buy a new software, making funding difficult to obtain. How can we “secure” the financing for these investments?

And lastly, we have so many challenges, from sustainability to energy and water provision, food security, women empowerment, maintaining healthy families. How can we create partnerships within the private sector, across industries and with the NGOs to design products that can improve lives of so many that need it? We are seeing many examples, certainly building on technology, but we need more and we need scale if we want to change the world and make it a more equitable one.

I look forward to learning more about all your endeavors and I hope that we can learn from each other and above all inspire each other to make a better world.

How to Inspire Entrepreneurial Thinking in Your Students

Explore more.

• Course Design
• Experiential Learning
• Perspectives
• Student Engagement

T he world is in flux. The COVID-19 pandemic has touched every corner of the globe, profoundly impacting our economies and societies as well as our personal lives and social networks. Innovation is happening at record speed. Digital technologies have transformed the way we live and work.

At the same time, world leaders are collaborating to tackle the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals , which aim to address issues related to health, education, gender equality, energy, and more. Private sector leaders, too, are recognizing that it makes good business sense to be aware of corporations’ social and environmental impact.

So, how can we as educators prepare our students to succeed in this tumultuous and uncertain—yet hopeful and exhilarating—global environment? As the world changes, so do the skills students need to build their careers—and to build a better society. For students to acquire these evolving skills, we believe educators must help students develop an entrepreneurial mindset.

6 Ways You Can Inspire Entrepreneurial Thinking Among Your Students

An entrepreneurial mindset —attitudes and behaviors that encapsulate how entrepreneurs tend to think and act—enables one to identify and capitalize on opportunities, change course when needed, and view mistakes as an opportunity to learn and improve.

If a student decides to become an entrepreneur, an entrepreneurial mindset is essential. And for students who plan to join a company, nonprofit, or government agency, this mindset will enable them to become intrapreneurs —champions of innovation and creativity inside their organizations. It can also help in everyday life by minimizing the impact of failure and reframing setbacks as learning opportunities.

“As the world changes, so do the skills students need to build their careers—and to build a better society.”

Effective entrepreneurship professors are skilled at nurturing the entrepreneurial mindset. They, of course, have the advantage of teaching a subject that naturally demands students think in this way. However, as we will explore, much of what they do in their classroom is transferable to other subject areas.

We interviewed top entrepreneurship professors at leading global institutions to understand the pedagogical approaches they use to cultivate this mindset in their students. Here, we will delve into six such approaches. As we do, think about what aspects of their techniques you can adopt to inspire entrepreneurial thinking in your own classroom.

1. Encourage Students to Chart Their Own Course Through Project-Based Learning

According to Ayman Ismail, associate professor of entrepreneurship at the American University in Cairo, students are used to pre-packaged ideas and linear thinking. “Students are often told, ‘Here’s X, Y, Z, now do something with it.’ They are not used to exploring or thinking creatively,” says Ismail.

To challenge this linear pattern, educators can instead help their students develop an entrepreneurial mindset through team-based projects that can challenge them to identify a problem or job to be done, conduct market research, and create a new product or service that addresses the issue. There is no blueprint for students to follow in developing these projects, so many will find this lack of direction confusing—in some cases even frightening. But therein lies the learning.

John Danner, who teaches entrepreneurship at Princeton University and University of California, Berkeley, finds his students similarly inhibited at the start. “My students come in trying to understand the rules of the game,” he says. “I tell them the game is to be created by you.”

Danner encourages students to get comfortable navigating life’s maze of ambiguity and possibility and to let their personal initiative drive them forward. He tells them, “At best you have a flashlight when peering into ambiguity. You can shine light on the next few steps.”

In your classroom: Send students on an unstructured journey. Dive right in by asking them to identify a challenge that will hone their problem-finding skills and encourage them to work in teams to find a solution. Do not give them a blueprint.

For example, in our M²GATE virtual exchange program, we teamed US students with peers located in four countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. We asked them to identify a pressing social issue in MENA and then create a product or service to address it. One of the teams identified the high rate of youth unemployment in Morocco as an issue. They discovered that employers want workers with soft skills, but few schools provide such training. Their solution was a low-cost after-school program to equip students ages 8-16 with soft skills.

2. Help Students Think Broadly and Unleash Their Creativity

Professor Heidi Neck says her students at Babson College struggle with problem finding at the start of the entrepreneurial journey. “They are good at solving problems, but not as good at finding the problem to solve,” she explains. “For example, they know that climate change is a problem, and they’re interested in doing something about it, but they’re not sure what problem within that broad area they can focus on and find a market for.”

Professor Niko Slavnic, who teaches entrepreneurship at IEDC-Bled School of Management in Slovenia and the ESSCA School of Management in France, says he first invests time in teaching his students to unlearn traditional ways of thinking and unleash their creativity. He encourages students to get outside their comfort zones. One way he does this is by having them make paper airplanes and then stand on their desks and throw them. Many ask, “Should we do this? Is this allowed?” When his students start to question the rules and think about new possibilities, this indicates to Slavnic that they are primed for the type of creative exploration his course demands.

“When students start to question the rules and think about new possibilities, this indicates to Professor Niko Slavnic that they are primed for the type of creative exploration his course demands.”

In your classroom: Think about the concept of “unlearning.” Ask yourself if students are entering your class with rigid mindsets or attitudes based on rules and structures that you would like to change. For example, they may be coming into your classroom with the expectation that you, the instructor, have all the answers and that you will impart your wisdom to them throughout the semester. Design your course so that students spend more time than you do presenting, with you acting more as an advisor (the “guide on the side”).

3. Prompt Students to Take Bold Actions

Geoff Archer, an entrepreneurship professor at Royal Roads University in Canada, says Kolb’s theory of experiential learning underpins the entrepreneurial management curriculum he designed. Archer takes what he calls a “ready-fire-aim approach,” common in the startup world—he throws students right into the deep end. They are tasked with creating a for-profit business from scratch and operating it for a month. At the end of the semester, they must come up with a “pitch deck”—a short presentation providing potential investors with an overview of their proposed new business—and an investor-ready business plan.

This approach can be met with resistance, especially with mature learners. “They’re used to winning, and it’s frustrating and more than a bit terrifying to be told to do something without being given more structure upfront,” says Archer.

Professor Rita Egizii, who co-teaches with Archer, says students really struggled when instructed to get out and talk with potential customers about a product they were proposing to launch as part of their class project. “They all sat outside on the curb on their laptops. For them, it’s not normal and not okay to make small experiments and fail,” says Egizii.

Keep in mind that, culturally, the taboo of failure—even on a very small scale and even in the name of learning—can be ingrained in the minds of students from around the world.

The benefit of this permutation, explains Archer, is that students are writing plans based on actual experiences—in this case, customer interactions. Moving the starting blocks forward offers many benefits, including getting the students out of the classroom and out of their heads earlier, reminding them that the market’s opinion of their solution is far more important than their own. This also affords students more time to reflect and maximize the potential of their minimum viable product or experiment.

In your classroom: Invite students to bring their lived experiences and workplace knowledge into their studies. This can be just as powerful as the more famous exhortation to “get out of the classroom.” As Egizii sees it, “student-directed experiential learning provides a comfortable and relatable starting point from which they can then diverge their thinking.”

4. Show Students What They Can Achieve

For Eric Fretz, a lecturer at the University of Michigan, the key to launching his students on a successful path is setting the bar high, while at the same time helping them understand what is realistic to achieve. “You will never know if your students can jump six feet unless you set the bar at six feet,” he says.

His undergraduate students work in small teams to create a product in three months and generate sales from it. At the start of the semester, he typically sees a lot of grandiose ideas—a lot of “fluff and BS” as he calls it. Students also struggle with assessing the viability of their ideas.

To help, Fretz consults with each team extensively, filtering through ideas together until they can agree upon a feasible one that fulfills a real need. The real magic of his course is in the coaching and support he provides.

“People know when you’re investing in them and giving them your attention and energy,” Fretz says. He finds that coaching students in the beginning of the course helps assuage their concerns about embarking on an open-ended team project, while also supporting initiative and self-reliance.

In your classroom: Design ways to nudge your students outside their comfort zones, while also providing support. Like Fretz, you should set high expectations, but also adequately guide students.

5. Teach Students the Value of Changing Course

A key part of the entrepreneurial mindset is to be able to course-correct, learn from mistakes, and move on. Entrepreneurship professors position hurdles as learning opportunities. For example, Danner tells his students that his class is a laboratory for both aspiring and failing. He advises them to expect failure and think about how they are going to deal with it.

“A key part of the entrepreneurial mindset is to be able to course-correct, learn from mistakes, and move on.”

Ismail believes letting his students fail in class is the best preparation for the real world. He let one student team pursue a project for the entire semester around a product he knew had no potential. Two days before the end of the course, he told them as such. From his perspective, their frustration was the best learning experience they could have and the best training he could offer on what they will experience in real life. This reflects a key component of the entrepreneurial mindset— the ability to view mistakes as opportunities .

In your classroom: Build into your course some opportunities for students to make mistakes. Show them how mistakes are an opportunity to learn and improve. In entrepreneurship speak, this is called a “pivot.” Can you build in opportunities for students to face challenges and have to pivot in your course?

6. Communicate with Students Regularly to Establish New Ways of Thinking

Professor Neck realized that to nurture the entrepreneurial mindset in her students, she needed to provide them with opportunities to do so outside of class. She now encourages her students to establish a daily, reflective practice. She even designed a series of daily “mindset vitamins” that she sends to her students via the messaging platform WhatsApp. Students are not expected to reply to the messages, but rather to simply consume and absorb them.

Some messages relate specifically to entrepreneurship, such as: “How can you get started with nothing?” And others apply to life in general: “What has been your proudest moment in life so far? How can you create more moments like that? What did it feel like the last time you failed?”

In your classroom: Communicate with your students outside the classroom with messages that reinforce the mindset change you are seeking to achieve in your course. Social media and apps such as WhatsApp and Twitter make it easy to do so.

All Students Can Benefit from an Entrepreneurial Mindset

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that an entrepreneurial mindset is critical for addressing today’s problems. Adapting to risk, spotting opportunity, taking initiative, communicating and collaborating, being flexible, and problem solving—these are ways in which we have responded to the pandemic. And they’re all part of the entrepreneurial mindset. By instilling this way of thinking in our students, we will equip them to handle tomorrow’s challenges—as well as to identify and take advantage of future opportunities.

Thinking about which of these entrepreneurial approaches you can adopt in your own teaching may require you to redesign portions of your courses or even create a new course from scratch. We encourage you to be open to experimenting and trying out some of these ideas. Like the best entrepreneurs, don’t be afraid to fail.

Also, be open with your students. Let them know you are trying out some new things and solicit their feedback. If needed, you can always pivot your class and involve them in the exercise of co-creating something better together. In the process, you will also be modeling the entrepreneurial mindset for your students.

Amy Gillett is the vice president of education at the William Davidson Institute , a non-profit located at the University of Michigan. She oversees design and delivery of virtual exchanges, entrepreneurship development projects, and executive education programs. Over the past two decades, she has worked on a wide variety of global programs, including 10,000 Women , equipping over 300 Rwandan women with skills to scale their small businesses, and the NGO Leadership Workshops—one-week training programs held in Poland and Slovakia designed to enhance the managerial capability and sustainability of nongovernmental organizations in Central and Eastern Europe.

Kristin Babbie Kelterborn co-leads the Entrepreneurship Development Center (EDC) at the William Davidson Institute. She collaborates with the EDC’s faculty affiliates to design and implement projects that support entrepreneurs in building and growing their businesses in low- and middle-income countries.

Related Articles

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Social Entrepreneurship Speakers

Browse our motivational and inspirational keynote speakers on Social Entrepreneurship to engage, educate, and entertain your audience. These top-rated speakers and performers include industry experts, authors, and business leaders who can present their knowledge in a variety of different formats, such as a keynote speech, moderated conversation, Q&A, or a fireside chat. Contact us today to book a Social Entrepreneurship speaker for your next in-person, hybrid, or virtual event.

• SELECTED TOPIC: Social Entrepreneurship

Budget Range

Search within selection, speaking topics.

• Business Ethics
• Business Growth
• Business Leadership
• Communication
• Corporate Strategy
• Customer Service
• Digital Business
• Entrepreneurship
• Hospitality
• Human Resources
• International Business
• Manufacturing
• Negotiation
• Non-Profit & Association
• Real Estate
• Supply Chain
• Acting Speakers
• Broadcasting
• Celebrity Chef
• Pop Culture
• Television & Film
• Campus Health
• Commencement
• Empowerment
• Fraternity & Sorority Life
• Faith & Religion
• Generational Issues
• Immigration
• News & Media
• Social Activism
• Black Heritage
• Asian Heritage
• Civil Rights
• Hispanic Heritage
• Indigenous Heritage
• Jewish Heritage
• Middle Eastern Heritage
• Native American Heritage
• Polish Heritage
• Social Justice
• Anti-Bullying
• Early Childhood Education
• Education Motivation
• Education Policy & Reform
• Family & Parenting
• Online Learning
• STEM Education
• Teacher Motivation
• Motivational Youth
• Entertainers
• Hosts & Emcees
• Performing Arts
• Social Media
• Agriculture
• Animals & Wildlife
• Climate Change
• Conservation
• Environmental Activism
• Environmental Policy
• Environmental Science
• Sustainability
• Autoimmune Disease Speakers
• Global Health
• Heart Health
• Mental Health
• Men's Health
• Neurodiversity
• Public Health
• Sex & Relationships
• Digital Health
• Women's Health
• Disruptive Thinking
• Future Of Work
• Female Leadership
• Strategic Leadership
• Teamwork & Teambuilding
• Thought Leadership
• Adventure Speakers
• Food & Beverage
• Home & Decor
• Relationships
• Storytelling
• Coast Guard
• Cancer Survivor
• Ethics & Integrity
• Goal Setting
• Inspirational
• Mindfulness
• Overcoming Adversity
• Peak Performance
• Personal Growth
• Work-Life Balance
• Conservative
• Democratic Party
• Geopolitics
• Green Party
• Libertarian
• Political Science
• Republican Party
• Security & Defense
• World Affairs
• Earth Science
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Neuroscience
• Research & Exploration
• Social Sciences
• Extreme Sports
• Martial Arts
• Mind Sports
• Motorsports
• Mountain Climbing
• Olympic Sports
• Outdoor Sports & Recreation
• Paralympics
• Sports Business
• Sports Coaching
• Sports Journalism & Broadcasting
• Sports Motivation
• Sports Writing
• Swimming & Diving
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Cryptocurrency
• Cybersecurity
• Digital Transformation
• Engineering
• Modern Media
• Virtual Reality
• Gender Equity
• Influential Women
• Women's Empowerment
• Women's History Month
• Women in Business
• Women in Entertainment
• Women in Tech
• Women's Rights

Speaker Location

• Connecticut
• District Of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Puerto Rico
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• Burkina Faso
• Central African Republic
• Equatorial Guinea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Ivory Coast
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Asia & The Pacific
• Pacific Islands
• Afghanistan
• North Korea
• Palestinian Territory
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• South Korea
• Timor-Leste
• Turkmenistan
• United Arab Emirates
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Czech Republic
• Georgia (country)
• Liechtenstein
• Netherlands
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Vatican City
• Central America
• French Guiana
• Anaheim, CA
• Atlanta, GA
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Las Vegas, NV
• Los Angeles, CA
• Minneapolis, MN
• New Orleans, LA
• New York, NY
• Orlando, FL
• Philadelphia, PA
• San Antonio, TX
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Washington, DC

291 SPEAKER RESULTS

Live Fee: Below $10,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 New York, NY, USA

Dr. Claudia Espinosa

Founder & Executive Director of L.O.V.E. Mentoring; Social Entrepreneur; Changemaker

Live Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Virtual Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Milwaukee, WI, USA

Deanna Singh

Social Entrepreneur, Change Agent & Author of "Purposeful Hustle"; Advocate of Inclusion and Belonging in the Workplace

Live Fee: Below $10,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Atlanta, GA, USA

Jasmine Crowe-Houston

Founder & CEO at Goodr Co.

Live Fee: $30,000 - $50,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Toronto, Canada

Vicki Saunders

Founder of SheEO, Serial Entrepreneur & Award-Winning Mentor

Live Fee: Contact us for details Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Las Vegas, NV, USA

Frederick Hutson

Founder & CEO at Pigeonly

Live Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Chicago, IL, USA

Founder & CEO of Youth Equity Platform Chicago Beyond; Star of CNN's Documentary Series "Chicagoland"

Live Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Oakland, CA, USA

Jamira Burley

Head of Youth Engagement & Skills for the Global Business Coalition for Education

Live Fee: Below $10,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Silicon Valley, CA, USA

Jason Towns

Startup Investor & Award Winning Tech Diversity Advocate

Live Fee: Contact us for details Virtual Fee: Contact us for details Mountain View, CA, USA

Amin Toufani

CEO of T Labs, Creator of Adaptability.org, Chair for Finance & Economics at Singularity University

Live Fee: $100,000 - $200,000 Virtual Fee: $50,000 - $100,000 San Francisco, CA, USA

Marc Randolph

Entrepreneur, Netflix Co-Founder, National Best-Selling Author, Executive Mentor & Angel Investor

Live Fee: Contact us for details Virtual Fee: Contact us for details New York, NY, USA

Payal Kadakia

CEO & Co-Founder of ClassPass; Entrepreneur; Founder & Artistic Director of Sa Dance Company

Live Fee: $20,000 - $30,000 Virtual Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 San Diego, CA, USA

Robert Richman

Co-Creator of Zappos Insights, Culture Strategist & Author

Live Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Columbus, OH, USA

Dr. Monica F. Cox

Professor & Chair of the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State University; CEO of STEMinent LLC

Live Fee: Contact us for details Virtual Fee: Contact us for details Oak Ridge, TN, USA

Scott Rouse

Behavior Analyst & Body Language Expert

Live Fee: $100,000 - $200,000 Virtual Fee: $50,000 - $100,000 New York, NY, USA

Lewis Howes

Author, Entrepreneur, Podcaster & Former Professional Arena League Football Player

Live Fee: $30,000 - $50,000 Virtual Fee: $20,000 - $30,000 San Francisco, CA, USA

Kimberly Bryant

Founder & CEO of Ascend Ventures & Black Innovation Lab; Founder of Black Girls CODE

Live Fee: $30,000 - $50,000 Virtual Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 New York, NY, USA

Sheila Marcelo

Co-Founder & CEO of ProofOfLearn.io; Founder of Care.com, the World's Largest Online Destination for Finding & Managing Family Care

Andrew Yang

Entrepreneur, Philanthropist, Author & Former Democratic Candidate for President and Founder of The Forward Party

Live Fee: $10,000 - $20,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Lagos, Nigeria

Iyinoluwa Aboyeji

Nigerian Entrepreneur & Founder of Flutterwave

Live Fee: Below $10,000 Virtual Fee: Below $10,000 Tallahassee, FL, USA

Kristie Kennedy

Women's Worth & Wellness Expert, TEDx Audacious Leadership Transformational Speaker

AAE Speakers is a full-service speakers bureau and talent agency that exclusively represents the interests of event professionals to select, book, and execute events with keynote speakers who leave a lasting impact on their audiences. We work tirelessly for event professionals as their centralized, trusted, and impartial partner in the talent booking process.

With our expansive industry experience and exceptional customer support, our team has connected thousands of live, hybrid, and virtual events around the world with their perfect speaker, host, celebrity, or performer since 2002. We have booked well over $250M of celebrity talent on behalf of the most respected companies and organizations in the world.

Find a Speaker by Topic

• Business Speakers
• Celebrity Speakers
• College Speakers
• Culture Speakers
• Diversity Speakers
• Education Speakers
• Entertainment Speakers
• Environment Speakers
• Health Speakers
• Innovation Speakers
• Leadership Speakers
• Lifestyle Speakers
• Literary Speakers
• Military Speakers
• Motivational Speakers
• Political Speakers
• Science Speakers
• Sports Speakers
• Technology Speakers
• Women Speakers

Quick Links

• AAE In The News
• Find Speakers by Location

Other AAE Sites

• All American Speakers
• All American Entertainment

Call Us 1.800.698.2536

Speech on Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is like a thrilling journey. It’s about turning your unique ideas into a successful business. It’s about taking risks, facing challenges, and achieving dreams.

You might think of entrepreneurs as people who start companies. But they’re more than that. They’re problem solvers, innovators, and leaders. They shape the world we live in.

1-minute Speech on Entrepreneurship

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, today we’re talking about entrepreneurship. What is it? It’s like being a captain of your own ship. You decide where to go, how fast to sail, and who to bring on board. It’s about starting your own business and making it a success.

Imagine having a dream, a big idea. Maybe it’s a new toy, a cool app, or a delicious snack. As an entrepreneur, you take that dream and make it real. You find the materials, create a plan, and start building. It’s like a puzzle, but you’re making the pieces yourself.

But entrepreneurship isn’t just about making things. It’s also about solving problems. Have you ever thought, “I wish there was a better way to do this?” Well, entrepreneurs think like that all the time. They look for problems, big and small, and find new ways to fix them. It’s like being a superhero, but instead of superpowers, they use creativity and hard work.

Now, being an entrepreneur isn’t always easy. There are challenges, like a storm at sea. You might run out of materials, or your plan might not work. But entrepreneurs don’t give up. They learn from their mistakes, change their plans, and keep going. It’s about bravery and determination.

So, why is entrepreneurship important? Because it changes the world. It brings new ideas to life, solves problems, and creates jobs. It makes the world a better, more exciting place.

Remember, everyone can be an entrepreneur. All you need is a dream, a plan, and the courage to try. So, let’s all be captains of our own ships, and sail towards a brighter, more innovative future.

Also check:

• Essay on Entrepreneurship
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Entrepreneurship

2-minute Speech on Entrepreneurship

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let’s talk about entrepreneurship. You might wonder, what is it? It’s like creating a new recipe. You mix different ingredients, cook them in a unique way, and serve something that’s never been tasted before. In the same way, an entrepreneur mixes ideas, resources, and hard work to create something new and exciting.

Entrepreneurs are like explorers. They journey into the unknown, facing risks and challenges. They might stumble and fall, but they always get back up. They learn from their mistakes and keep moving forward. They are brave, not afraid of failure but see it as a stepping stone to success.

Entrepreneurship is not just about making money. It’s about making a difference. Entrepreneurs solve problems. They see a need in the world and they fill it. They make our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. They create jobs, boost the economy, and help communities grow.

Being an entrepreneur is not easy. It’s like climbing a mountain. It takes courage, determination, and a lot of hard work. But when you reach the top, the view is worth it. You have the satisfaction of knowing you’ve achieved something great. You’ve made a difference.

Entrepreneurship is also about creativity. Entrepreneurs are artists. They paint pictures not with brushes and colors, but with ideas and innovation. They dream big and turn their dreams into reality. They think outside the box and come up with solutions that no one else has thought of.

Finally, entrepreneurship is about freedom. As an entrepreneur, you are your own boss. You make your own decisions. You set your own goals. You have the freedom to follow your passion, to do what you love, and to make a living out of it.

So, let’s celebrate entrepreneurship. Let’s celebrate the courage, the creativity, the hard work, and the impact of entrepreneurs. Let’s encourage and support those who dare to dream, who dare to take risks, who dare to make a difference. Because entrepreneurship is not just a career, it’s a way of life.

• Speech on Entertainment Life
• Speech on Entertainment
• Speech on World Anaesthesia Day

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

2 Minute Speech On Entrepreneurship In English

Good morning everyone present here, today I am going to give a speech on Entrepreneurship. The term “entrepreneurship” refers to the factor of production that carries out the tasks of an enterprise. In terms of economics, the five factors of land, labor, capital, organization, and enterprise are considered to be the cornerstones of all production operations. In a larger sense, entrepreneurship can be thought of as the course of action an entrepreneur takes to start his business.

Understanding the political and economic climate is important for the entrepreneur. The definition of entrepreneurship is a creative and original response to the environment. These reactions may occur in any area of social endeavor, including business, agriculture, social work, and education, among others.

Entrepreneurship, according to Dr. J.E. Stepenek, is the ability to take risks, the ability to organize yourself, and the drive to diversify your business and introduce new ideas. The purpose of entrepreneurship is to identify investment and production opportunities, organize an enterprise to carry out a new manufacturing method and identify new raw material sources.

To conclude, being an entrepreneur requires a variety of skills and traits, making it a composite skill. These include creative risk-taking, the capacity to combine and use other production elements like capital, land, and labor, as well as intangible qualities like the capacity to harness scientific and technical advancements. Thus, entrepreneurship entails taking a chance and making crucial investments in the face of uncertainty. Thank you. 

Related Posts:

• A Grammarian's Funeral by Robert Browning Summary
• 2 Minute Speech On Child Labor In English
• Michael Poem by William Wordsworth Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Who Burns for the Perfection of Paper Poem by Martín Espada Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English for Students
• Identity Card Poem by Mahmoud Darwish Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English for Students
• Random University Name Generator

• Starting a Business
• Growing a Business
• Small Business Guide
• Business News
• Science & Technology
• Money & Finance
• For Subscribers
• Write for Entrepreneur
• Entrepreneur Store
• United States
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• South Africa

Copyright © 2024 Entrepreneur Media, LLC All rights reserved. Entrepreneur® and its related marks are registered trademarks of Entrepreneur Media LLC

5 Must-Try Real Estate Marketing Ideas That Will Attract Buyers By pursuing content marketing, real estate professionals grow their reputation and lay the foundation for future sales.

By Jessica Wong • Apr 18, 2024

Key Takeaways

• Content marketing helps build brand awareness, allows leading real estate agents to establish their authority within the sector, and generates leads.

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Real estate agents depend on powerful marketing strategies to engage buyers and close sales. In the age of digital marketing , for-sale signs on front lawns are no longer enough to convince sellers to choose a particular agent and to attract homebuyers. Technology-based marketing strategies like content marketing can set agents apart in a crowded marketplace and help them grow their businesses.

Content marketing in the real estate sector is about more than pitching properties to potential buyers. As an integral part of a comprehensive marketing strategy, this approach "provides useful and relevant content to your prospects and customers."

The goal is to establish relationships that will eventually lead to sales. Content marketing helps build brand awareness , allows leading real estate agents to establish their authority within the sector, and generates leads.

By pursuing content marketing, real estate professionals grow their reputation and lay the foundation for future sales.

Related: How To Build a Strong Real Estate Brand Online and Increase Trust With Clients

1. Identify target audiences and buyer personas

Before disseminating content, real estate businesses must define their target audiences and buyer personas . Without that step, the information risks getting lost and potentially alienating its audience.

For example, a young family looking to purchase their first home will look for different information than a couple of empty-nesters looking to downsize once their kids have left home. Real estate firms may be targeting both market segments. However, to reach them effectively, they must tailor their messages and choose their marketing channels wisely.

Determining audiences and personas goes beyond demographics. The most effective marketers understand their audiences' interests and address their pain points.

Related: Know Your Audience, Conquer the Market — The Importance of Buyer Personas in Franchise Marketing

2. Create compelling visual content

The term content marketing is often used synonymously with blogs and social media posts . However, visual content often has a greater impact when it comes to showcasing property.

High-quality images of an apartment or a house are the most basic form of visual content. Virtual tours or drone videos can attract even more attention and capture potential buyers' imagination.

Both options allow real estate agents to tell a story rather than sell a property. Imagine discovering a property for the first time: put yourself in the viewer's position and tell the story of their journey in a video. Another creative option would be to stage a day in the life of a family in their new home, highlighting how this particular property meets their needs.

3. Leverage video marketing

In recent years, video marketing has been one of the main growth areas within content marketing. Explainer video company Wyzowl found in a survey that more than 90% of businesses used video as a marketing tool, and just under 90% considered it an important part of their content marketing strategy.

In 2023 In the United States alone, businesses are likely to spend nearly $85 billion on video advertising in 2024, an increase of 9.9% compared to 2023. Consumers have embraced video content, too.

Regarding real estate, videos can simply showcase a property better than still images. No matter how many images an agent or a photographer takes, they may miss an element of tying those images together. Aside from walkthroughs, neighborhood tours and client testimonials also make for exciting video content.

Interactive and virtual content are taking these developments one step further. Innovative applications can help real estate professionals create tours that allow viewers to choose the direction they move in when viewing a property online.

Related: 3 Emerging Trends Shaping the Future of Real Estate

4. Blogging and thought leadership

So far, this article has focused on visual content, but it would be wrong to discount written content for a real estate agent's content marketing strategy. Blogs and thought leadership pieces allow companies and their key team members to establish themselves as experts in their field.

Depending on target audiences, content covering market trends, sharing homebuying tips, or offering guides to specific neighborhoods can work very well. The key to successful blogs and leadership pieces is understanding what the audience wants. Ask yourself what information your potential buyers cannot find elsewhere, think about their pain points , and address those.

5. Social media

Few content marketing strategies would be complete without the inclusion of social media channels. Social media platforms offer estate agents a chance to connect directly to their customers, distribute content, and engage with their audiences.

Social media offers excellent opportunities to share visual and written content that may otherwise have remained undiscovered. To harness the power of social media effectively, estate agencies need to ensure that the platform's and the content's audiences are well matched. Facebook may be the most popular platform for real estate agents now, but this may change as different generations enter the property market. Aside from platform choice, consistency is another critical component of a successful social media marketing strategy.

How to measure success and iteration

One of the biggest advantages of digital marketing channels over their more traditional counterparts is the ability to measure success.

Start by defining the key performance indicators that you want to measure. For videos, this could be the number of views or comments. For blog posts, it could be comments and shares or a growth in traffic to your website.

Not every content piece will be highly effective. Regular performance assessment and measurement allow real estate agents to adapt and iterate their content to make it even more relevant for their audiences.

Content marketing is a highly cost-effective part of a real estate agent's marketing strategy that can help create and increase brand awareness and build relationships with key audiences. Both visual and written content can deliver excellent results in the real estate sector. To further improve the impact of a campaign, real estate marketers need to measure the performance of their content and fine-tune their approach as necessary.

Entrepreneur Leadership Network® Contributor

Founder and CEO of Valux Digital and uPro Digital.

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Editor's Pick Red Arrow

• Bantam Bagels' Founder Fell Into a Mindset Trap 'People Don't Talk About' After Selling the Now-Defunct Business for $34 Million — Here's What Happened
• Lock This Startup Wants to Grow Your Side Hustle for You , While Cutting You a Monthly Check
• I Designed My Dream Home for Free With an AI Architect — Here's How It Works
• Renowned Psychologist Adam Grant Says This 3-Step Leadership Method Will Help Fight Employee Burnout
• Lock Most Americans Don't Think Higher Education Is Worth the Cost — But This State-By-State Breakdown of College Graduates' Salaries Tells a Different Story
• Lock Watch Now: Tapping into Your Unconventional Thinking and Using It to Create a Million-Dollar Business

Most Popular Red Arrow

94% of customers say a bad review made them avoid buying from a brand. try these 4 techniques to protect your brand reputation..

Maintaining a good reputation is key for any business today. With so many people's lives and shopping happening online, what is said about a company on the internet can greatly influence its success.

Build a Better Resume with This $35 Subscription

AI Resume Builder promises to help you apply to jobs twice as fast.

You Won't Have a Strong Leadership Presence Until You Master These 5 Attributes

If you are a poor leader internally, you will be a poor leader externally.

Samsung Makes 6 Day Workweeks Mandatory for Executives as the Company Enters 'Emergency Mode'

Samsung said its performance "fell short of expectations" last year. Now executives are required to work weekends.

63 Small Business Ideas to Start in 2024

We put together a list of the best, most profitable small business ideas for entrepreneurs to pursue in 2024.

I Tried Airchat, the Hottest New Social Media App in Silicon Valley — Here's How It Works

Airchat is still invite-only and prioritizes voices with no option to upload photos or write text, making it feel more human than Facebook or Reddit.

Successfully copied link

Argentina's populist president meets billionaire Elon Musk in Texas — and a bromance is born

B UENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — One is an erratic billionaire entrepreneur and self-declared free-speech absolutist, prone to profanity-laden rants against “wokeness” and obsessed with making humanity a multi-planetary species.

The other is an iconoclastic Latin American leader and self-declared anarcho-capitalist, prone to cloning his dead dogs and obsessed with destroying state controls .

Tech executive Elon Musk and Argentine President Javier Milei finally sealed their budding bromance Friday at a Tesla electric car factory in Texas — their first meeting after months of mutual admiration on social media.

It was a match made in free-market heaven.

In social media posts that thrilled their right-wing fans, the pair played up their real-life friendship.

“To an exciting & inspiring future!" Musk wrote on X, or Twitter as it was known before he bought it in 2022, along with a photo of him and Milei both grinning widely and giving the camera two thumbs up, the libertarian president's trademark gesture.

“Long live freedom, dammit!" Milei wrote in his own X post, which included a selfie of the pair, with the president sporting his signature leather bomber and Musk in his Air Force Academy navy sports jacket.

The meeting was closed to the press and a statement from Milei's office produced little news, saying the free-market enthusiasts discussed issues, ranging from the expected (how to promote entrepreneurship by slashing red-tape) to the random (the existential danger posed by declining birth rates).

Milei's office said that the president offered to help Musk in the clash between social media company X and Brazilian authorities, which have accused Musk of obstruction for defying a judge's order to block some accounts.

The two also agreed to host “a big event soon in Argentina to promote the ideas of freedom," the Argentine presidency said, but provided no further details.

But behind the smiley photo-op — and video of Milei's joy ride in a futuristic Cybertruck pickup — much was at stake for Argentina.

Support from the U.S. — particularly at the International Monetary Fund, to which Argentina owes over $42 billion — is critical to boosting investor confidence in the South American country, as Milei seeks to overhaul a broken economy with market-oriented policies.

With the revival of socialist governments across Latin America, from Chile to Brazil, experts say Argentina is now poised to emerge as a key strategic partner for Washington.

“There’s a chance that Argentina can fill this vacuum and eventually be a strategic partner for the U.S.,” said Sergio Berensztein, who runs a political consultancy in Buenos Aires. “Musk can serve to speed this process of Argentina becoming part of the (U.S.) new network of friends."

Last month, Musk's company delivered Starlink satellite internet service to Argentina, a move cheered by farmers struggling to keep up with high-tech agriculture in remote parts of the country.

Gerardo Werthein, Argentina's ambassador to the U.S., attended Friday's meeting and told La Nación newspaper that Milei and Musk discussed Argentina's vast reserves of strategic minerals , including lithium, an indispensable ingredient in batteries for electric cars.

“He expressed wanting to help Argentina, and had a very good view of everything we have, mainly lithium,” Werthein said of Musk.

Milei’s love for free markets and close alignment with U.S. policy — a major shift after years of left-wing governments that adopted interventionist policies and strained relations with Washington — has raised hopes in the U.S. that lithium and other badly needed metals can be extracted closer to home, breaking China’s dominance of the battery supply chain.

Analysts say that a successful energy transition in the U.S. will demand far more lithium and other essential commodities than the country is now on track to produce.

“We want to be able to localize our supply chain to the greatest extent so you’re not transporting materials all the way around the world,” said Ben Steinberg, a former Department of Energy senior adviser and current executive vice president at government affairs firm Venn Strategies. “The U.S. has a lot of interest in working domestically and with South American countries like Argentina."

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america