By Christine Driscoll Goulay
Associate Director, INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship Initiative
On January 16th
and 17th I was fortunate enough to spend two days at the European Commission (EC) Conference– Social Entrepreneurs: Have your Say! Drawing around 2000 participants –
consisting of government officials, agencies, social entrepreneurs, academics,
some students, and other stakeholders – it was a great effort to take stock of
progress since the set up in 2011 of the Social Business Initiative and to see
how things could be improved in the years ahead. The efforts of the EC
to hold such a big and important event are much appreciated. Many good things can and will come out of the discussions and networking. However, there were also some flaws in the execution meaning
that it might not have been as constructive as many participants had
hoped. Drawing from my experience, and
the feedback of many others with whom I spoke, I recap here some thoughts on
the conference.
First and foremost, instead of being named “Social
Entrepreneurs: Have your say”, a more appropriate title considering the
proceedings would have been, “Social Entrepreneurs: Sit there and listen!” The
debate was frustratingly thin as the two days were mostly constructed in
plenary sessions and parallel workshops that allowed for very little actual
exchange (at least in the workshops I attended). Whenever there was a chance
for the audience to participate and ask questions, so many hands shot up that
it overwhelmed the moderators. Fortunately, there was time for participants to discuss in
more depth during the “Off Broadway” portions of the programme – the World
Café, Open Sessions, mingling at the social entrepreneur fair, and by pasting things on bulletin boards. These were all fruitful ways to have an equal exchange and dialogue. Many participants questioned, however, whether this was
missing the point of talking to the Commissioners, and telling
them what was going well and what was going poorly. Many felt that much more of this discussion should have been featured on
the main stage, where, all in all, we heard more Commissioners speaking than
social entrepreneurs. I and many others
hope that the feedback from those doing the work on the ground was heard.
Yet the lack of
dialogue and exchange between social entrepreneurs and the government
representatives, and the dominance of government representatives on the scene,
were not necessarily the most troublesome parts. The
thing that worried me the most (an American working at a business school, i.e., a
capitalist!) was the focus on what I would call “old school” models of
the social economy – associations, cooperatives, and mutuals - models that do
not scream “innovation” or “entrepreneurship”. Not to imply that these models are not
worthwhile; on the contrary, they are great and important parts of the social
economy. But I would not necessarily call them the way of the future. In any case, I do not think "social
entrepreneurship" as understood by the EC should be limited to these forms, but over and over again, throughout the course
of the conference, we heard primarily about these models. Many government officials commented on the
importance of reinvesting profits (even so far as wanting all profit to be reinvested; the more moderate view was that the
majority of profit should be reinvested) and the focus on democratic governance in the
form of one person, one vote. These are
nice features for non-profits, but they are not going to encourage
entrepreneurship. During the first day
of the conference, commissioners exclaimed that they wanted Europe to be
entrepreneurial, but if you are restricting profits and going for consensus
management, you are not going to attract entrepreneurs. Nor will you attract
any investment. Won’t this limit potential impact in the
long run? Better just take the word “entrepreneurship” right out of the term “social
entrepreneurship”. These "old school" sentiments were so pronounced and so socialist, that
for this capitalist, it was hard to swallow. And it was worrisome to think that
European policy might be shaped around these tenants. I believe the only examples
of social enterprise shown on the main stage were of cooperatives. Where were the young social
entrepreneurs starting new innovative business models? It was disappointing not
to have representation from the upcoming generation of social entrepreneurs who are pushing the barriers of the field.
Another reaction I felt and heard from
others was that there was a regional bias to the conference. For example, I personally found
that, more than once, the UK was criticized for trying to unduly influence
other Member States or for putting forth their view that the private, public and the
third sectors are converging, resulting in a blended approach to social
enterprise. In the words of some, this approach was “diminishing the power of
the non-profit sector”. I was not aware
that there was such reticence to accepting the UK’s approach in this field. In my opinion, the UK has the most advanced
regulatory system for social enterprise in Europe with over 8000 enterprises
registered as Community Interest Companies (CICs) as well as the most developed
social finance sector. The UK landscape
is most closely aligned with what is happening in the US and other areas of the
world. But why is it that not one other
Member State has adopted the CIC even though it is spreading to Canada and Nova
Scotia? It makes you question whether Member States are learning from each
other and sharing best practices? Equally as important, the Eastern European states were
woefully under-represented in panel sessions. We saw virtually no examples of
work in those areas. With a very different history in the non-profit sector
than Western Europe, there could have been some interesting sharing
opportunities there. This imbalance left many with the sentiment that the conference could have been better at exploring best
practices and trying to spread innovation. Hopefully, this is something that will come in the wake of the event as it was an issue frequently discussed during the two days.
Lastly, there was a frustrating lack of
diversity among those speaking on the main stage which dampened the inspirational impact. Efforts were made to add
inspiration by side activities like making us write things on paper airplanes and
throw them in the auditorium. For me, this just spreads the stereotype that
social entrepreneurs are “flighty” (excuse the pun). The inspiration should have
been in the content and representation of speakers on the main stage, not in diversions.
I do not want to appear overly critical of
the event (though admittedly, I probably do).
It was a valiant effort to get many stakeholders in the same room to
discuss important issues around social enterprise. By
holding this conference, the EC has publicly
demonstrated that this subject is important to it. A wonderful goal was achieved at the end of the
conference when a 10-point declaration was given to Commissioner Michel Barnier,
head of the Social Business Initiative (you can view and sign up to the declaration here) - a great synthesis of many of the items discussed over the course of the two days. Certainly, this declaration will lead to accountability for next steps to improve the European context for people working in the social enterprise space. Commissioner Barnier
even went so far as to make the comment that this should be a regular event, a
“Davos” of social enterprise. That would be an exciting achievement. If so, I
hope that, during the next conference, there is more effort to bring some of the excitement, diversity and entrepreneurship back to social enterprise.
Please comment and let us know your thoughts.
