Kategorie: Social Business

  • The five basic social business types

    Social Business Types

    While working with start-ups I’ve experienced two types of approaches to design a social business: Either the business plan is following a good old schoolbook approach and often risks running short in terms of the impact it is making: it’s well developed in terms of the production process, product design and the marketing strategy, but it lacks the social component, which makes it a social business. An organizations complex relations with stakeholders are simplified, which reduces the potential impact it could have.

    The second type of start-up tries to face this complexity, yet while drafting the business plan they often run the risk of being overwhelmed by what all should be done as a social business: democratic working conditions, cradle to cradle productions, socially fair pricing system and environmentally friendly distribution all at the same time, can become discouraging.

    Social Business Types can help both types of entrepreneurs to deal with the complexity of today’s economy during the different phases of establishing their new organization. It helps to put a focus on the essential aspects of their social business, where they should perform high to justify that they call themselves a social business, while it highlights those stakeholders and actions, which would be desireable, yet are not crucial for creating the intended impact.

    A social business is described by many authors (i.e. Yunus, Alter) through the fact, that it is mission based. In other words: the primary reason for existence is to improve the livelihood of a certain group in society, which i would like to call beneficiaries henceforth. Based on the approach of the common good economy and its focus on stakeholders as well as on Kim Alter’s Social Enterprise Typology I have developed a basic structure of 5 social business types. The main difference between them is the way the beneficiaries are involved in the organization. Accordingly one characteristic  is to consider, as which stakeholder-group these beneficiaries are involved in the (future) social business.

    Type A – Customer Oriented Social Business

    Social Business Typ A - Kundenorientiert

    In the first type, Type A customer oriented social business, the beneficiaries are the ones who buy, purchase, use or consume the good or service provided by the organization. This group is not only directly influenced by consuming or using the product or service of a company but shaped by the way how, when and where they are provided with the service and product. If they can participate in designing the product, if packing material can be recycled by the producer, if the product fulfills a basic need and in how far the product encourages a healthy and sustainable lifestyle are further aspects of the positive social impact.

    To sum it up: In a customer oriented social business the business works towards creating an impact on the beneficiary through providing them (or their closed family members) with a product or a service, which can ease their problem. Especially in the global south, the beneficiaries/customers are often low-income clients and the social business is providing them with access to basic goods and services.

    A Type A Social Business is referring therefore on the social dimension of sustainability and social inclusion in market transactions becomes one of the core reasons for its existence.

    Type B – Employee Oriented Social Business

    The second Type, Type B employee oriented social business, is focused on its employees, workers and also the working shareholders. Said in other words: everybody who earns his or her living from providing their labor time (not the product of his work efforts, which would be type C) to the business. A business’ impact derives not only from the financial compensation the individual is provided for his or her working time but also from the inclusion decision making, the workplace safety, educational possibilities, work time agreements and the degree to which precarious day labour and jobs are replaced by more secure monthly paychecks.

    While Type A includes the beneficiaries as customers, type B tries to increase their status through giving them employment. Yet, not every business which provides employment to somebody else is a social business: the social business should provide employment to people which would not find employment otherwise or include employees in a more democratic and egalitarian way in activities, then other companies from that particular sector do. While making a business plan for a social business which hire hard-to-employ people, the social business has to adopt the business processes according to the particular situation of the employees, such as providing special training (in case of under-qualified work force) or to adopt working place or working time to the requirements of the employees (as i.e. in the case of single mothers or blind people).

    Same like a type A Social Business also a type B Social Business is focused on the social dimension of sustainability, where the betterment of the beneficiaries‘ situation should be reached by social inclusion in the labour market and production process.

    Type C – Supplier Oriented Social Business

    graphic_intermediary_model_en

    The third group of social businesses includes organizations, which focus is on improving the situation of providers of raw material, products or services. Again: not every business which receives supplies is automatically a Type C Social Business. Similarly it is characterized by the fact, that those suppliers (the beneficiaries) can be considered a vulnerable group or a group in a particular disadvantaged situation.,This could be for example small farmers or other small and micro-sized producers, which are due to their size endangered to be exploited. A subcategory would be that the social business works with bigger suppliers, which in turn employ those disadvantaged groups. In both cases a supplier oriented social businesses should be characterized by setting way higher sectoral standards to the social and environmental standards of their suppliers and have a closer relationship with their suppliers than other organizations.

    The first type of Type C social business are concerned with the socio-economic situation of small suppliers (i.e. small farmers) and are supporting those through providing them with a better network, trainings and similar measures, which go way beyond the financial transaction of supplier and customer. In my experience this category is dominating in those countries, where the economy is still in pre-industrial stage, where one can find many small farmers, without business acumen. The second category we can find in industrialized countries and are trading and production firms, with the target to provide typical consumer goods, but from socially and economically more sustainable and reflective sources. This category often exists as a hybrid form of Type C and Type D.

    Type C social businesses focus on both the social as well as the environmental dimension of their suppliers, where for the first category the social dimension is clearly dominant.

    Type D – Environmentally Oriented Social Business

    Type_D_environment_en

    This fourth group of social business is less defined through a particular social group, but through the fact, that the ecological aspects of the business are in the focus of attention. Therefore all or a bigger indefinable group is benefiting from a cleaner and more healthy environment as well as less pollution.

    Some Social Businesses in this category, we would refer to as grass roots. They try to achieve the higher environmental sustainability by going back to the roots and providing or producing products and services with less or local resources (i.e. local made cookies rather than industrial produced ones; upcycling and repair-cafés) or developing new more sustainable business models to provide alternatives (i.e. food coops rather than supermarket). Again other Type D Social Businesses try to solve the environmental challenge through applying technology, by using internet platforms for sharing of resources or develop machines or tools to bypass the often unsustainable patterns of the dominant economy (i.e. Fairphone or  Livin Farms).

    While the other for types of social businesses are more often focused on the social aspect of sustainability, Type D social businesses are primarily on the environmental / planet layer of sustainability. Managing resources more carefully, avoiding garbage and pollution and promoting more sustainable life styles, which reduce the ecological footprint of the customer is in the focus of attention. Very often Type D Social Businesses are hybrids forms merging in elements of type A customer oriented social businesses or Type C supplier oriented social businesses.

    Type E – Socially Oriented Social Business (or service subsidization Social Businesses)

    Type_E_graphic_service_subization_en

    This last group of Social Businesses is holding organizations, which focus on beneficiaries, which cannot be involved as any of the stakeholder given above in the business process, but are in distress and need access to certain social service or products. The beneficiaries are often characterized by a lack of purchasing power as well as a lack of the ability to provide their work time, so that they canparticipate neither in the production nor in the consumption cycle, such as children or heavily disable people.

    In a Type E Social Business a profitable (while of course socially and environmentally friendly) business is established (i.e. a restaurant). The monthly profits are to 100 % (!) reinvested in the business as well as used for social activities. A high degree of transparency as well as democratic structures should be in place to ensure, that the funds are used in an appropriate and fair manner and for the intended purpose. We find this social business model very often in countries, which lack a social welfare state or similar social democratic institutions, which would take care of providing services to such citizens through redistribution policies.

    This type of Social business again focuses on the social aspect of sustainability with a focus on the inclusion of individuals, which are not able to participate in the market to still have access to fundamental services and products.

  • Paper Commentator Micro Finance Summit Nepal 2017

    [:en]P1030669 P1030669_smallFrom 15. – 17.3.2017 organized the Centre for Microfinance Nepal (CMF) the 4th Micro Finance Summit in Nepal. More that 800 representatives from Micro Finance Institutions and cooperatives gathered in Hotel Yak & Yeti to discuss the current status and future of Micro Finance in Nepal. I had the pleasure of being invited as a commentator on the paper, which gave the key slogan of the whole summit: „Balancing Financial, Social and Human Value“ published by Dr. Harihar Archarya on the case study of a woman lead and value oriented poverty alleviation model, which was facilitated by SAHAMATI.
    The case study gives the reader a detailed insight in the operative aspects of the micro financing model. What is the strength of this paper is also the limitation: it provides detailed insights in the internal organization, however, the methodology does not allow to answer the question, which aspects of the comprehensive intervention was causing the transformation in relationship with family, organization, society and nature. While formulating the research question, Dr. Archarya assumed, that the improved economic status was causing the uplift in the social relationship by asking: „Provided that their economic status is improved, is it possible to bring about significant transformation in social relationship [..]?“ Yet for me there are many evidences, that this transformation rather came from the interventions which accompanied the micro finance activity as a second effect of the program rather than assuming, that the intervention changed their economic status and their economic status transformed their social relationship.

    Yet the chosen methodology of the paper does not allow to answer the question of the causal effect. Yet to bring up this question I’ve referred in my talk to a comparative field experiment, which is described in Poor Economics (Banerjee, Duflo, 2011). The study has shown, that even though access to micro finance has increased the number of micro-businesses started and consumer goods available in a household their study has not detected that the pure access to finance has increased woman empowerment within the household or an improved access to health care or education. From this I would conclude, that is was not the financial change causing the social change, but rather the intervention of SAHAMATI causing both: an improved economic status as well as a social transformation.

    P1030672_smallAs the majority of the audience where the leaders and initiators of local micro financing initiatives, I’ve tried my best to summarise those conclusions in Nepali language. I continued, sharing the work from Dan Arieyl, who in his book Predictable Irrationality  summarised the findings of various experiments how there is something like social norms and something like market norms and how market norms have been show to actually put away social norms. Abhi Kaul, another speaker on that day, was talking about a new movement in Canada and the US „the spiritualisation of money“, which might be a realisation, that from monetising what has been done in social norms, the social norms get undermined.

    I concluded my comment with introducing the audience very briefly to the idea of impact measurement and the common good matrix, which which is a tool made to actually measure the impact of any organization in terms of the positive or negative impact of any organization on it’s different stakeholders and allows to put this in a comparative aspect. If i roughly apply this matrix to the activities of SAHAMATI I would see that many aspects of the democracy related indicators have been applied during the project implementation, which made the model so successful: inclusion of the „customer“ in product & service development, empowerment of the implementation partners, a set of feedback loops and more has given them back human dignity and provided a space to develop solidarity.

    The program ended with a set of questions from the audience in which several interesting questions where mentioned: One of it dealt with the question if a research fund should be established, which could help conducting more and in depth research on the impact of social business. Dr. Balram Duwal furthermore raised the direct question on how social business can be and is related to micro finance.

    Those micro finance institutions, which strive for bringing social change, are well advised to consider themselves social businesses and reflect on their social impact along all the lines. Without speaking it out SAHAMATI has been operating up to a high degree as a social business working along several principles, which looked way beyond the financial impact of their doing. The second relation between micro finance and social business is the question into which kind of business a micro business will grow, for the case it grows in terms of size and impact. Where a micro business always starts as a inward-oriented entity while growing into a social business a micro business needs to change at a certain stage of growth to turn its focus outward. This phenomenon I hope to be able to do more research on in future, is something I’ve named the inward-outward-paradigm shift.

    It was a great honor for me to be invited to contribute and share my thoughts in this program. I got inspired by he discussion and the energy which was present in the hall during the program. Same like for the rest of Nepal, I could feel the transition in the audience and a new way of thinking about the crucial community service micro finance institutions are playing in Nepal’s transformation. One positive aspect of the transformation was that the whole program was made accessible also to person not present on the day by being live streamed on Youtube. The link below is starting the live stream at the time, where my comment starts (mainly Nepali)

    https://youtu.be/E8j3qkSCL-E?t=3280

    I want to congratulate the center for Micro Finance and Dr. Harihar Archarya for this successful program and hope to be able to contribute in future again.

    Bibliography

    Ariely, Dan: Predictable Irrationality: The hidden forces, that shape our decisions; Harper Collins

    Banerjee, Abhijit V.; Duflo, Esther: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty; Random House India

     [:]

  • Summit in Vienna: Inspriation and Network

    Inge Patsch from Monon with Queen Sophia from Spain and Professor Mohammed Yunus
    Queen Sofia of Spain and Professor Yunus visiting Monon e.U.

    Inspiration, more clear visions and contacts to very interesting and committed persons are the three main things we took from the Global Social Business Summit 2012 last week in Vienna. At our booth in the ‚Space of Entrepreneurs‘ as well as during the breaks new ideas emerged together in discussions with other projects like Babele – an online platform for planning and financing of ideas in the field of social businesses, Hope Media – a new magazine in the area of social businesses – or for example the creation of a theater play for schools, which brings awareness for the zero-waste-movement into schools. Other participants of the space of entrepreneurs dealt with the issue of sustainable and power-saving lights like the campaign klares Licht or Variomondo – a social and ecological sustainable trading company which is operated as social business.

    I have been very pleased by the numerous visitors at our booth: Queen Sofia of Spain and Professor Muhammed Yunus as well as all the other visitors coming from various fields and showed interest in our activities. Throughout the manifold discussions and questions to the business idea behind Monon e.U. our concepts have been refined, sophisticated and in the same time simplified. I want therefore to thank everybody for all the critical questions, and especially Susanne for supporting me and giving me feedback again and again. All the inspiration and new thoughts will be reworked during the next weeks and will be integrated in our re-launched website, which will contain a simpler and clearer presentation of our products and services.

    Susanne and Inge at the Global Social Business Summit
    Susanne and Inge at the Global Social Business Summit. Thanks for the picture to Markus Feix from Variomondo

    But before this new concepts are published, Inge Patsch will leave next week for Nepal to work together with Anil Sapkota on the strategic development of the VHS Bhaktapur. During the upcoming 4 – 6 months I will as well make inquiries for other projects in Nepal and India and strengthen the contact to international organizations which are operating in this area. Last but not least, I’m looking forward to visiting the Yunus Center in Dhaka and hope that I can contribute to the establishing of their idea in Nepal.