Response (3)

Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship, by Paul Light

Light gets it right where Martin and Osberg seem to miss the point. Reading Light's case for a loser definition of social entrepreneurship immediately after responding to Martin and Osberg's case for a tight definition was well-timed. Nearly all of Light's arguments against an exclusive definition seem to match my own in the response below. The chapter of his second section "Too tight for its own good" might as well have been the title of my last response. Getting sucked into language and the lines that we can draw between similar intentioned organizations does not help us focus on positive impact people and projects are creating worldwide. Light suggests that in the end it is not about labels but about real progress and fostering future generations to create positive social change no matter what you call it. I couldn't agree more.

In rereading many similar ideas and much similar language from these two articles I am reminded that they are written for a school of business. These attempts at a definition are being made within the business realm where tools like language can be vastly more important than in a classroom. Businesses frequently leverage language like litigators to manipulate and confuse people who are not as familiar with it. And maybe in a crazy (business) world of contrived value and false equity we need a contrived definition of social entrepreneurship to ensure its good reputation isn't wielded by those companies who do not truly seek positive social change.