Chief hippie?

I can’t decide my take on this “chief guru of life change” executive naming trend.  Some of the most exciting emerging social ventures seem to enjoy coming up with creative yet somewhat ridiculous-sounding titles for the people who run their companies. This was brought to light by a somewhat recent McKinsey interview of Adam Werbach, who seems to know a lot about this stuff.  He highlighted two cool sustainability-focused for-profits, method and Seventh Generation.  Seventh Generation’s founder calls himself the “chief inspired protagonist” (seriously?), and method’s is the “chief greenskeeper” (seriously.).  These guys are arguably two of the major players in the triple bottom line/social venture/sustainability space, and this is what they call themselves?  I know they’re run out of San Francisco and Vermont and all, but really.  I’m trying to figure out what the next guy down gets called – vice inspired protagonist?  Semi-inspired protagonist?  Chief inspired realist?  The hierarchy could get really confusing.

In an industry like social enterprise that is trying to be more professional, more respected and a bigger player, I would expect this kind of stunt to be laughed off stage.  What kind of private sector CEO would call herself a chief inspiration nurturer?  What kind of investor would give his money to the chief flowerchild?  It makes me angry because it seems that some of the best emerging social ventures are making light of the space and encouraging mockery at best, reinforcement of a flaky and poorly managed sector image at worst.

But then, despite myself, there’s something I unwittingly like about this fad.  (Don’t tell my future investors.)  There’s something Google-esque about it.  It implies a work environment where incredibly bright minds come up with groundbreaking ideas over fooseball and beanbag chairs.  (Perhaps this has its own challenges, but it seems to have worked for tech.)  And maybe that’s what attracts the bright minds to the social sector – the idea of business without business as usual.

Socially responsible business, India, and the long view

I’m starting a research project on socially responsible business strategies, so a blog post seemed like a good way to dive in.  In talking to people about the concept of companies in India going “beyond corporate social responsibility,” I’ve gotten a few different responses – on one hand those who feel that there is a huge class divide and the elite of India pay little attention to the poor; on the other those who think India has huge potential to be a leader in sustainable business.  With Ramalinga Rajus (of Satyam fame) and Nandan Nilekanis (of Infosys, Imagining India and now Universal ID project fame) in the same country, it’s understandable that people would have varying perspectives.

I can also see the appeal of either approach.  India’s non-inclusive growth over the past decade is well known, and the elite have gotten fabulously rich through the information revolution, while the poor have stayed poor and/or gotten poorer.  But poverty is blatant here, slums intermingled with posh neighborhoods, garbage littering the streets – surely people have motivation to develop the country as a whole?  Besides, India is a young economy, free to build businesses with better strategies and learn from the mistakes of the West?  Maybe this is a naïve viewpoint, but I have hard time getting away from it.  In the states we joke about finishing our food because there are starving kids in developing countries.  Here, we can just go outside and give it to them.

Regardless of motivation, there is a debate raging in the international community over the responsibilities of the corporate sector, how and why companies should contribute to society, and whether social values detract from or enhance the profitability and sustainability of a company.  Do Indian companies take the long term view more often or less often than their foreign counterparts?  Can social and environmental practices really contribute to the bottom line?  Did the financial crisis expose a need for more sustainable business practices, or just make everyone tighten their purses and revert to conservative thinking?  I don’t know, but I hope to find out.

Linguistics

Where better to start a new blog than with a boring commentary on lexicon?


This whole social venture space seems to have some real issues with standardizing its terminology.  Is it social enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social ventures, social business, earned income, socially responsible business, corporate social responsibility...?  Oh and my favorite - "nonprofit entrepreneur."  Isn't that an oxymoron?


What's the difference between any of these terms?  Fine, it's a new field, but we really ought to be clear on what we're talking about - I have enough trouble explaining this stuff to my mother without a constantly changing lexicon.


Jerr Boschee at the Institute for Social Entrepreneurs actually tried.  I won't say I agree with all his definitions, but I commend the effort.  And his "five essential concepts" aren't bad:

"Dependency":  The traditional business model for nonprofits, in which they depend solely or almost entirely on charitable contributions and public sector subsidies, with earned income either non-existent or minimal

"Sustainability":  The ability to fund the future of a nonprofit through a mixed revenue stream -- a  combination of earned income, charitable contributions and public sector subsidies

"Self-sufficiency":  The ability to fund the future of a nonprofit through earned income alone

"Social entrepreneur":  Any person, in any sector, who runs a social enterprise

"Social enterprise":  Any organization, in any sector, that uses earned income strategies to pursue a double or triple bottom line, either alone (as a social sector business) or as part of a mixed revenue stream that includes charitable contributions and public sector subsidies

Full 80-term glossary available here - let's hope he continues to update it.