What do the terms “organic apples” and “social entrepreneurs” have in common? Both are pleonasms; they contain unnecessary repetition. After all, what’s an apple that grows without chemicals? It’s just an apple. If any kind of apple needs a modifier, it’s the kind that isn’t grown organically. Those we should call “chemical apples.”
Language is important. This issue features an article about “social entrepreneurs”. These entrepreneurs are primarily concerned with the contribution—the product or service—they make to society. Making money is the means of enabling that contribution to be sustainable. I applaud their efforts and I’m happy we celebrate their important work in this issue. But should we really call them “social” entrepreneurs? Is this something special that deserves a new name? Shouldn’t we expect all entrepreneurs to be social entrepreneurs? What other reason could there be to start an enterprise other than to make a useful contribution to society?
Since the 1970s, we’ve witnessed the rise of financial desperados who—misusing the term “entrepreneur”—have added a shadow to the glory of market capitalism. And that’s perhaps the good news of the current financial crisis: Entrepreneurs can and should become real entrepreneurs again—people enriching society with meaningful solutions and innovations.
My friend’s father led a big Dutch multinational for many years after World War II. A few years ago, my friend happened to watch the television news with his father, by then in his nineties. The news included a report about layoffs in Asia by that same Dutch multinational. Directors of the company took pains to explain that they were cutting costs to enhance shareholder value.
After the broadcast, my friend’s father showed surprise. “Why didn’t anyone express their frustration and sadness that they had to let go of so many people, depriving many families of their household incomes? They were only talking about the need to cut costs.” The father explained why his company had built factories all over the Netherlands after World War II. “That was not because it was practical,” he said. “It would have been much more efficient to have all our factories close together. But people needed jobs and we built factories wherever it was necessary to provide these jobs.”
In modern terminology, my friend’s father was a “social entrepreneur,” despite the fact that his company was and is one of the world’s leading multinationals. In only two generations, something that was normal business practice has been cast as the invention of so-called do-gooders, and the title “entrepreneur” has been degraded. Doing good shouldn’t be a special “enlightened business” category. Shouldn’t we always try to do good? Shouldn’t we always strive to make things work for the people around us? After all, that is—to honor Adam Smith—in our own best self-interest, since nothing is more fulfilling than knowing we’re making a positive difference in someone’s life. Entrepreneurs should be entrepreneurs. And apples should be apples.
