tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6452832738433033525.post8507070429942147137..comments2024-01-30T07:01:29.873+00:00Comments on Adrian Ashton: What Shakespeare can teach us about social enterprise – better ‘to be’ or simply ‘to do’?Adrian Ashtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03030921207546244517noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6452832738433033525.post-29375610412727666282010-09-09T06:31:28.712+01:002010-09-09T06:31:28.712+01:00Here's a coincidence:
http://smblog.changema...Here's a coincidence: <br /><br />http://smblog.changemakers.com/whats-in-a-nameJeff Mowatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15350496673678288137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6452832738433033525.post-10657300105394231902010-09-08T17:18:38.831+01:002010-09-08T17:18:38.831+01:00Adrian, that isn't what Yunus conveys to me an...Adrian, that isn't what Yunus conveys to me and I was interested to know how others saw it some weeks ago, in this question that nobody answered:<br /><br />http://www.businesszone.co.uk/anyanswers/whats-your-definition-social-business <br /><br />Now here's how we described the concept, published online and free to use from January 1997, 8 years prior to the appearance of CICs.<br /><br />"The P-CED concept is to create new businesses that do things differently from their inception, and perhaps modify existing businesses that want to do it. This business model entails doing exactly the same things by which any business is set up and conducted in the free-market system of economics. The only difference is this: that at least fifty percent of profits go to stimulate a given local economy, instead of going to private hands. In effect, the business would operate in much the same manner as a non-profit organization. The only restrictions are the normal terms and conditions of free-enterprise. If a corporation wants to donate a portion of profits to its local community, it can do so, be it one percent, five percent, or even fifty percent. There is no one to protest or dictate otherwise, except a board of directors and stockholders. This is not a small consideration, since most boards and stockholders would object. But, if an arrangement has been made with said stockholders and directors such that this direction of profits is entirely the point, then no one will object. The corporate charter can require that these monies be directed into community development funds, such as a permanent, irrevocable trust fund. The trust fund, in turn, would be under the oversight of a board of directors made up of employees and community leaders." <br /><br />"What's in a name?" a social enterprise by any other name is still for human benefit.<br /><br />I can go along with the Yunus definition because what he describes represents exactly what we've done over the last 6 years, as laid out on this page:<br /><br />http://people-centered.net/Services.aspx<br /><br />To my mind there's a world of difference between taking the risks that are involved in putting these ideals into practice and the opinions of those advising others how to do it.<br /><br />"This above all, unto thine own self be true" would seem appropriate in this context and here's the bottom line.<br /><br />http://socialbusiness.socialgo.com/magazine/read/the-bottom-line-of-social-business-_6.htmlJeff Mowatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15350496673678288137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6452832738433033525.post-77441971456665082992010-09-01T10:05:46.340+01:002010-09-01T10:05:46.340+01:00Interesting. Rodney Schwartz's recent review o...Interesting. Rodney Schwartz's recent review of Muhammad Yunus's 'refreshed definition' suggests that his take on things is too rigid; rather than loose as you suggest. <br /><br />You can read Rod's full review on our website: http://www.clearlyso.com/sbblog/?p=956<br /><br />Jonny | ClearlySoJonny | ClearlySohttp://www.clearlyso.comnoreply@blogger.com