by Nicole Helwig
(The excerpts that follow are taken from a PLAY written as part of an autoethnographic process. The end result was my doctoral thesis entitled From Ballet Studio to Business School: Dancing in the Social Enterprise In-Betweens.)
DRAMATIS PERSONAE
The Child
An observer who is keen to learn and understand. One who asks a lot of questions. Innocent and occasionally mischievous.
The Suit
Represents convention, big business and the corporate world. Wears a business suit which reduces individual personality to a stereotype. An MBA holding executive. Sometimes not self-aware. A composite character who also represents business faculty, entrepreneurs and investors.
Puck – The Trickster
Named after the trickster character from Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream. Also inspired from tricksters in indigenous teachings and oral histories.
Clever, intelligent, also irreverent and sarcastic. Injects humour to the point of the ridiculous, but with intent and for emphasis. A malleable character and shapeshifter capable of appearing in double as a device critical reflection. A composite representing voices from community and the non-profit sector. Champion of the underdog, sometimes to a fault.
The Artist
Appears in long white robes. Androgenous. Paraphrases quotes from artists and scholars.
Some parallel universe through the looking-glass, hovering oddly above the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The most eastern part of North America, the province is marked by the conditions of life on the North Atlantic coast and an economy largely based on natural resource extraction.
On July 1st 1992, the commercial Northern cod fishery was shut down as the ecosystem collapsed due to overfishing. It was a move that hit the labour force hard. Against this challenging background is a rich cultural history and strong sense of community.
Act I, Scene IV – Defining social enterprise
Lights flicker on to focus on the middle of the stage. It is sparsely fitted and poorly lit. Idyllic music plays to lead into the scene before tapering off. The Suit and The Child are in discussion. The child is on the ground in a bean bag chair. The Suit sits on a black executive chair, towering above.
THE CHILD: What is social enterprise?
THE SUIT: It’s a business with a social mission.
THE CHILD: Don’t all businesses have a social mission?
THE SUIT: Businesses certainly have missions. They are stated on websites and in annual reports. Missions help people rally around the business’s objectives. And well, it depends on what you mean by ‘social’.
THE CHILD: What do you mean by ‘social’ then?
THE SUIT (pauses thoughtfully for a moment): Well, all businesses have social impacts.
THE CHILD: So all businesses are social enterprises then?
THE SUIT: Well, no… That is, they could be? I mean…
THE CHILD (insistent): I’m getting confused.
THE SUIT: Those impacts could be positive – like creating useful products and meaningful employment. They could be negative too like pollution, carbon emissions, exploitative work, price gouging… Social enterprises are socially responsible business that do good.
THE CHILD: What do you mean by good? Those positive impacts?
THE SUIT: Yes, for example. It’s contextual. What is social and what is good depends on how you view it. There are many ways that businesses do good in the world.
(Gets up and starts pacing the room). You see… It’s about how the businesses are run. The decisions that are made, if they are made responsibly, then maybe it’s a social enterprise.
THE CHILD: Why do you say maybe?
THE SUIT: Depending where you live the government might recognise a social enterprise by certain criteria – like having a stated social mission, making profit through trade, reinvesting profits. Things like that. The enterprises they lead will have to be profitable clearly, but what they do who those profits is what matters.
A light reveals Puck on the catwalk about the stage, listening in.
THE CHILD: What do they do with those profits?
THE SUIT: Some reinvest profits back into furthering the mission. Others pay dividends to shareholders – though some put a cap on how much can be distributed.
THE CHILD: So social enterprise is business that sacrifices profits for the greater good? So that’s how you can recognise when a social enterprise is a social enterprise?
THE SUIT: That’s right. (Hesitates). Well, at least that one way to identify them.
THE CHILD: So, the government decides?
THE SUIT (pauses to think): Sometimes. Other times, there are sector bodies which give certification or membership. And then sometimes you self-identify.
THE CHILD: So there are lots and lots of social enterprises?
THE SUIT: Yes, that’s right. And social purpose companies and social businesses and social ventures… We call them many different things.
THE CHILD: That sounds messy. Why do you say business all the time? When it’s social enterprise?
THE SUIT: True. ‘Business’ usually makes people think about for profits. Social enterprises can be non-profits too. There is an entire spectrum of models, including non-profit and for-profit, that exist within the social enterprise sector.
THE CHILD: It sounds as if it depends on how you interpret a lot of things – social, good, enterprise…
THE SUIT: That is correct. It’s all very simple. You know it when you see it. It doesn’t really matter what label is used. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Puck, beings climbing down to the stage, quacking.
THE CHILD: What about non-profit organisations? What do they do?
THE SUIT: They are great social enterprises! They have a social mission already as the focus of what they do. They usually don’t make money in the marketplace but get their funds from donations and grants. When they start trading, they become social enterprises. And they must put their profits back into their missions.
THE CHILD asks: Shouldn’t all social enterprises be non-profits then?
THE SUIT (laughing – patronisingly says): Oh, you are so naïve!
THE CHILD looks puzzled.
THE SUIT: They are there to play their part in the marketplace. They address market gaps.
THE CHILD is about to ask what that means, but THE SUIT notices and continues. Puck has climbed down to stage level, upstage right, and slowly approaches the other two characters.
THE SUIT: Market gaps are economic failings that neither the government nor private sector can deal with. Non-profits are on the ground dealing with those failings like poverty, homelessness, unemployment, barriers to access healthcare and so on. Through social enterprise, they harness market forces and reinvest profits into their social objectives. They create social impact that solves those problems.
PUCK (off to one side scoffs): Solves – hah!
(Ignored by the others, Puck sings to himself and does a little dance).
THE CHILD: So that is why they start trading?
THE SUIT: It’s logical isn’t it. What better way than to address social problems.
PUCK (butts in): Do they fix problems businesses create? Like when a business exits creating a deindustrialised zone, social enterprise is a way to development, to community prosperity and all that good stuff?
THE SUIT: Yes, that’s right. The synergies create sustainable business models which create value for all.
PUCK (to The Child with a chuckle): The irony is lost… Did he hear what he just said? (Turning to THE SUIT) Aren’t market gaps also business opportunities – opportunities to tap into unserved or under-served market?
THE SUIT: Yes! Social entrepreneurship identifies such opportunities and exploits them – making money by doing good.
PUCK (triumphantly): So that’s how you reconcile making profits on the back of social problems!
As the lights dim, The Artist speaks: “What a dystopian paradigm. Expecting businesses to rectify problems they created in the first place”.
Act II – Scene II – Into the dragon’s den
THE SUIT: Welcome. The investor panel is keen to hear what you have to offer. We want to see if it will fit into our portfolio of traditional and impact investments. We’re looking for growth and decent returns with measurable social impact. Well then. Tells us, what’s your value proposition?
PUCK: It’s a simple but valuable package bolstered by our unique selling point. Our product is Saltwater Joys[1] – trademarked, copyrighted and wrapped up in a bow.
(On the side with a wink to The Child) Look how I’ve taken on their lingo. Pretty slick, eh?
THE SUIT: We’re listening. Tells us about the market size opportunity.
PUCK (animatedly): It’s huge. We’ve got people leaving in droves. There’s lots of space in the market despite the traffic up at the inn on Fogo. We can’t compete with that lot, but we’re sure there’s demand. We offer an authentic experience for those looking for a change from the hectic, long daily commute lifestyle.
THE SUIT (aside to one of the cardboard cut outs): This one’s a fast talker. (To Puck)Ah, so that’s the problem you’re addressing? The trials and tribulations of urban life?
PUCK: ‘Suppose so. Though it’s a means to an end. (Puck whispers to The Child and The Artist) Hopefully it’ll keep tax revenues up, so municipal water and health services won’t be cut. Bonus’d be if it’d fix the damn potholes!
THE SUIT: What kind of return can we expect from our investment?
PUCK: What we have to offer is invaluable. Priceless! You’d be rich as Croesus!
THE SUIT (aside to one of the cardboard cutouts): Another one who’s overselling. (To Puck) So, who’s your team?
PUCK: I’m here as co-founder representing the team – well, actually there are a lot of us. Er… 85 to be exact.
THE SUIT: How many are you?!
PUCK: We call ourselves the Round the Bay Outport[2] collective. We’re here to pitch our plans to stay put and through ingenuity and resilience, bring life back to our community of Seldom Come by Chance[3].
THE SUIT: Now just wait a minute…
PUCK (continues): Saltwater Joys include: watching sunsets paint the hills, mornings with the sunrise on the cove, gulls like flies surrounding Clayton’s wharf, Platter’s Island wrapped in rainbow in the evening after fog[4]…
THE SUIT (frustrated and somewhat disgusted): You can’t be serious.
PUCK: You know there’s a saying. How can you tell the Newfoundlanders in heaven? They are the ones who want to go home. It’s a way of Life we’re offering!
THE SUIT: This is nonsense! There’s no money in this.
PUCK: Ah well, if you want money ask about how we leverage our assets.
THE SUIT (interest is piqued): Go on.
PUCK: There’s the old fish plant that the b’ys’ve[5] converted into a museum. And the old lighthouse has been set up for tourists to stay. The outbuildings have been fixed up for artist residencies.
THE SUIT: That’s a nice project, but there’s no potential for growth and we don’t believe it would bring in much revenue.
PUCK: Well, it’ll only run seasonally anyway – June/July till end of November if we’re lucky with the weather. We just need it to break even and create a bit of employment.
(Leaning forward onto the investors’ table). How come when the tech entrepreneur guys bootstrap it’s cool, but when we perform miracles on shoestring budgets, we’re poor and unprofessional?
THE SUIT (exasperated): You don’t understand. We’re seeking a return on investment along with measurable, quantifiable impact at scale.
PUCK (smirking): You want to commoditise joy!
THE CHILD (intervening): Why does it have to be at scale?
THE SUIT: Economic growth is the objective and for us investors, given the risk we are taking with our investment, we expect a reasonable financial return. Scaling the business means growth and profitability. The more profits, the greater the social impact.
PUCK: Interesting assumption you’ve made there!
THE CHILD: Don’t many small initiatives together make something big?
THE SUIT (ignoring the question continues): For our portfolio, we’re happy to invest in community-owned and managed social businesses. But what’s been pitched here does not give us confidence. There’s little chance of a return and it’s too risky. And it’s low impact.
PUCK: You don’t value our lives or our community much do ye?
THE CHILD: Is this a discussion about value or about values?
PUCK: Never mind. Enough is enough. We’ll take our chances with saltwater joys.
We hear the strains of the tune Saltwater Joys and the lights go out on the stage. The lyrics of the final stanza are:
“Some go to where the buildings reach to meet the clouds
Where warm and gentle people turn to swarmin’, faceless crowds
So I’ll do without their riches, glamour and the noise
And I’ll stay and take my chances with those saltwater joys”.
A dim spotlight shines on Puck seated centre stage looking despondent.
Act III Scene VII – Contemplation
PUCK 1: There’s a lot to unpack and to extract from all these experiences. How does it make you feel? Disillusioned?
PUCK 2: Somewhat, but certainly disappointed. These experiences bring many things into question.
PUCK 1: Yes. Starting with the meaning of social enterprise. It’s sold a bit over optimistically, isn’t it?
PUCK 2: I can’t get on board with the whole ‘you can save the world’ bit. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate amazing things done by inspirational people. But I would couch it with more realism. We’re talking about wicked problems. If poverty were so easy to solve, there wouldn’t be poverty anymore.
PUCK 1: It’s interesting you said ‘solve’.
PUCK 2: Yes, true. I’m also not a believer in ‘solutions’ when most of the time we’re talking about relief efforts. The sooner we acknowledge that the better.
PUCK 1: Why do you say that?
PUCK 2: Because social enterprise is often criticised for being a band-aid that does not address root causes. Don’t get me wrong. There are needs that need to be immediately addressed. There is a place for relief efforts. But it’s wrong to frame them as social enterprise solutions. We mustn’t lose sight of the bigger picture. We need to take a wider view of things.
PUCK 1: Are you saying that we shouldn’t spend time on small, local and focussed issues?
PUCK 2: No, we absolutely need that as well. However, what I observe to be missing from social enterprise discourse is unpacking the power imbalance. We ignore privilege and politics, taking for granted dynamics that create and sustain injustice and inequities.
PUCK 1: You mean the stigma and double standards witnessed? Between non-profits and for profits? How things are valued differently? Then there’s the gendered subtext. (Pauses thoughtfully). It is frustrating that entrepreneurship is pushed on those marginalised – oppressed even. The message is “Buy and sell yourself out of disadvantage”. It’s patronising – where’s the dignity?
PUCK 2: The intersection of systems of power are there, but not discussed. Mentioned perhaps, acknowledged at best, but neglected. We keep hearing people say it’s about the system; we need systems thinking; we need to fix the system. But is the system actually broken?
PUCK 1: I agree. The capitalist system is working as designed.
PUCK 2: Yes, and with social enterprise, it replicates itself. Social enterprise gives it a poke, but fundamentally nothing changes.
PUCK 1: It’s all technique – not how. The technique is the skills, the technologies. The how is the nuances, the judgement calls. The how recognises that decisions are made, that humans are involved. What’s ignored is the applied ethics of it all.
PUCK 2: You’re making me think of co-operatives with their values and guiding principles.
PUCK 1: That’s interesting. How much of that is discussed in the lecture halls of business schools? There seems to be a desire to change, but a blindness about where to start, what to do. There’s much tweaking at the edges, but nothing radical.
PUCK 2: Yes. We’re wedded to the notion that business is meant to generate wealth and to do that they have to go to scale. For as long as that holds true, the system won’t change. In fact, isn’t just resistant to change, it preserves itself.
PUCK 1: That’s my observation. I’ve yet to see anything radical enough to be convincing. Though I expect ultimately the change won’t come from us, but will be done to us – by Mother Nature. We’ll have no choice, but to change as the climate changes. The word used is ‘adapt’ which sounds too gentle to me.
PUCK 2: What about value? Do we need to change what we value?
PUCK 1: You touch on what has made me despondent. The narratives about what is valuable pain me. As a dancer, I value things aesthetic, intrinsic… My background and experiences also make me see the value in small things – things that lie outside the market!
PUCK 2: The narratives around growth and scale are disturbing. Though we’ve known for decades there are limits to growth, they prevail. We need to replace ‘growth’ with ‘enough’. How can we enterprise for enough?
PUCK 1: And how can we ensure space for things, for activities without commodifying them.
PUCK 2: What about social enterprise education?
PUCK 1: Is it just another vehicle subjugated to a neo-capitalist agenda? Politically, the emergence of social enterprise stemming from neo-liberal agendas would suggest so.
PUCK 2: Most of all though do we walk blindly into educating about social enterprise? The assumptions need to be tested more. The pluralism of social enterprise activity needs acknowledgement and analysis. The concept needs to be placed within a wider conversation and interact with other disciplines.
PUCK 1: Any MBA on social enterprise or social entrepreneurship is subject to normative pressures. What meta-messages do students receive about how to behave? And in any case, they’re business students subject to expectations of conforming to business norms – the whole ‘how do be a business professional’ bit.
PUCK 2: So, are educators being set up for failure? Are we selling snake oil to students?
PUCK 1: Awareness is important. Students might compare commercial value with artistic value. Or take for instance conflicts and climate change, mental health and access to education. These are all important issues. Who is to say which are more important? There is value in the very small if it changes even one life. Those are the conversations that need to be had. When a decision is made on what to value, what to prioritise, there’s an ethical choice being made. Social enterprise education should be imbued with this. But we know the mainstream business programs only offer business ethics as an elective if at all. What did we expect?
PUCK 2: I think we have to meet people where they are. What about existing social enterprise activity? What about the people just getting on with it?
PUCK 1: Quite right. We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. How do we champion a new narrative that counters the high growth one? Could it at least be more balanced? But I’m concerned that mainstream business is – wittingly or unwittingly- going to take control of the narrative as usual. That’s what power does. And we will end up with tokenistic ‘social enterprise’ that is used by big business to excuse its own failing and even wash its hands of responsibility. On the other hand, we’ll have condescension and double standards. There’ll be another ‘social enterprise’ that is small because it is disempowered. Always having to justify every penny spent, to conform to metrics imposed by a funder, using up scarce resources to continuously explain why the work they do is important. It’s a burden.
PUCK 2: Social enterprise that is kept small because it is underprivileged. Because it is undervalued compared to the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
PUCK 1: Social enterprise education must take notice. We need to reclaim social enterprise while we can, if we can. That’s where we need to put in efforts.
PUCK 2: Take these thoughts, these concerns. Hold them. Work with them. Build on them. It’s unfinished thinking…
The lights fade and we have a scene change.
After a pause, the lights come up dimly on centre stage. Puck is seated on an upturned wooden box. Puck addresses the audience.
EPILOGUE
PUCK: I had a unique vantage point from which to ask, “What is social enterprise?” I spanned the boundary between non-profit and for-profit worlds. And I was meant to bridge social work and business cultures. However, I ended up caught between conflicting discourses about social change that often seemed incompatible. Could social change through business square with efforts focused on social justice?
Tensions I experienced were palpable. But they weren’t the tensions between social and financial objectives of social enterprise I read about in academic articles. They were the tensions between positions in society – specifically the relative positions of things associated with ‘social’ and with ‘enterprise’. I began to view social enterprise through the lens of status and power.
I was left in a state of discomfort. Initial misgivings about social enterprise gradually turned into frustration and disillusionment. Over time I felt that narratives around it were being accepted on blind, uncritical faith – ‘fixing’ a system that it was part of; ‘saving the world’ without an understanding of social challenges or how social change actually happens.
I saw the promise of what social enterprise could be – a way to a more fair, just and caring economy, but was dismayed to witness forms of discrimination perpetuated through social enterprise.
(Puck gets up from the upturned box and starts pacing, first hands behind her back then gesturing animatedly).
I wrestled with my own interpretation of social enterprise and have drawn up some personal insights.
(Pointing in the air) Number 1!
The rhetoric around social enterprise – and social entrepreneurship too – speaks of a blurring of boundaries. Boundaries across sectors and activities. But the looseness of definitions made things not so much blurry as murky.
The element of power is significant for the social construction of social enterprise. It forms a hierarchy of social enterprise meanings and sets the parameters for the environments in which social enterprise is active. Which manifestations of social enterprise are considered legitimate – more valuable if you will – are dependent on the values, expectations and norms of those most influential. This tends to restrict the autonomy of those with less influence who are then less able to compete. This leads to uneven playing fields. It also perpetuates entrenched disadvantage. What if those with power are unfair, irresponsible, exploitative?
Didn’t institutional theorists Wally and Paul predict that diversity would lead to uniformity? In time, what will the dominant form, the dominant interpretation of social enterprise look like? What does that mean for practitioners advocating for their versions of social enterprise? Do they lose autonomy under pressures to conform? And what will that mean for creating social change?
(Turning to face the audience and gesticulating). Number 2!
Social enterprise education – and I am thinking specifically of business schools here – plays an important role. Social scientists have written at length of the normative aspect of education. On how power and status are replicated and maintained through education. If business education favours the ‘enterprise’ over the ‘social’, there are lost opportunities. Will it be complicit with the loudest voices in the room or forthright to question dominant narratives and invite more diverse ways of thinking, knowing and doing?
A broad school of thought would bring a critical approach to the many assumptions about social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Are the central tenets around hybridity and mission drift sufficiently understood? Is autonomy through trade truly achievable or even desirable? Is financial sustainability necessary for creating positive social impact? Does social enterprise have to be focused on growth and scale to be legitimate? What about the primacy of the shareholder? Must social enterprise prioritise economic growth and entrepreneurship?
(Spinning a little pirouette) Thirdly!
A deeper understanding of the ‘social’ in ‘social enterprise’ is needed. It should not be assumed or taken for granted.
Social is associated with entrepreneurship and innovation discourses. But we mustn’t lose sight that social is about people. It involves how we interact and relate to one another. And how we organise.
The social is about people – building community, developing trust, forming relationships. It is also about how we live. It’s about recognising human Life in its fullest extent – beyond the metrics of GDP and commodification. The value that defies dollars and cents.
I believe that value is also tied to the aesthetic. This belief stems from my background in dance and stays with me front of mind. There are intrinsic values tied to the meaning of ‘social’. And we have a responsibility to safeguard that value for future generations.
We are living in times of crisis and conflict, and face the existential threat of climate change. There is such potential that is neglected, there is real value there. I want to say – beauty, hope, humanity. But we are distracted, dominated – and energies are channelled towards other directions. Are we dancing ourselves to the cliff’s edge?
Puck walks forward and picks up the wooden box. As she makes her way to the wings stage L, the curtain comes down.
END OF THE PLAY
[1] Saltwater Joys is the title of a famous Newfoundland tune.
[2] ‘Round the bay’ is a colloquial expression that refers to any populated area outside the capital St. John’s. ‘Outport’ refers to a small, remote fishing village. I’ve put the two together to reflect N.L. communities.
[3] A composite of the names of real N.L. communities evoking their isolated nature.
[4] These are all lines from the tune Saltwater Joys by Wayne Chaulk.
[5] B’ys in N.L. English is short for ‘boy’. Here it is meant to refer to the men of the community.