(photo credit: WDI University of Michigan)

Over the years SCOUT BANANA’s work has been termed “social entrepreneurship.” Unfortunately, the definition of the social enterprise has slowly become muddled and confused with other ideas. During a discussion last month a friend said that calling someone a social entrepreneur was like “cutting the balls off of a socialist.” He may not have been as far from the truth as I once thought. As the term becomes more prevalent within aid and development we must delve deeper into the history of social enterprise and decide what it really means for the work that we do.

Jeff Trexler wrote an excellent post on the history of social enterprise. He writes that a social enterprise is essentially “a venture with a social purpose.” As many wrongly believe the ideas of social enterprise did not come from capitalism or corporate business models at all.

“In socialist jurisprudence, social enterprise was a term designed to replace the capitalist notion of businesses dedicated to the pursuit of profit. The social enterprise generated revenue in excess of the costs of production, but profit-making was not the goal of socialist business–rather, its fundamental organizational purpose was to serve collective benefit. More over, in keeping with Marxist/Leninist ideology, the social enterprise was owned & controlled not by private shareholders–a hallmark of bourgeoise capitalism–but by workers themselves, from the workers immediately connected to the enterprise to society as a whole.”

Jeff continues to write that “social enterprise” migrated to Western minds and charities much the same way that “civil society” was reborn and co-opted. Meaning “citizen’s society,” the term was used to unite individuals against centralized government power. Now the term is best understood as a descriptor of anything “non-governmental.”

It seems that “social enterprise” has drifted just as far from its original conception. As a social venture that was meant to give power back to people and allow them ownership, much like a cooperative, “social enterprise” has best come to represent corporate philanthropy and cause marketing campaigns. Both of which are focused on turning profits and not helping people. Julia Moulden asks, “is making a difference only for the rich?” She easily gives examples that it is not, but is it? As far as the foreign aid/ international development arena it appears that social enterprise is geared towards engaging wealthy Western populations in feel good campaigns, like Product (RED), that are best defined as image marketing campaigns for corporations to try and look better as a way to bring in more customers. Lucy Bernholz has termed this business model “embedded giving” where “commerce is used to generate funds for a cause.” She writes:

“Embedded giving is just one more example of the blurring of sectors and roles between commerce, philanthropy, and public good. [...] Maybe today’s teens and kids who have seen so much embedded giving will grow up to expect that every product and every service comes with a charitable affiliation.”

SCOUT BANANA’s work was first called “social entrepreneurship” in 2004 when I was selected as one of Netaid’s Global Action Awardee and was asked to contribute to a discussion on SocialEdge about young people and making a difference. Then, I was not too sure what the term meant or why it might be significant. More recently Spotlight Michigan has highlighted our work and called us a “social enterprise.” They select “innovative” companies and organizations in Michigan to feature on their website. Their criteria breaks down into three categories: creativity, risk-taking and adaptability. In the true spirit of a social enterprise we are an organization built for adaptation because we operate by members involvement and input. We have always been called creative for our fundraising tactics, use of yellow and bananas, and our ability to connect people. The risk-taking is another story. We never faced any risk in our venture to make a difference. If we failed the only people who would potentially suffer were those relying on our support to access basic health care. Alanna Shaikh wrote an excellent piece on how “global health is not about altruism.” While our actions may have been seen as risk-taking, we really work to create accountable, long-term relationships with communities developing their own sustainable solutions.

Personally I define social entrepreneurship within its original conception; a socialist structure (for social good) that is meant to give power and agency back to people as well as present an alternative to ineffective governments. Civil society still exists because honestly the government can’t do it all and often are not very good at meeting the needs of people. SCOUT BANANA sees the world’s problems as a simple equation of connecting communities; linking the necessary social capital (people and ideas) to social problems. We embrace the idea of “social enterprise” by focusing on presenting an alternative to government aid schemes and other big philanthropy and development programs that go for the quick-fix, band-aid solutions without being people-focused to produce long-term social change.

Is SCOUT BANANA a social enterprise? Yes and no, it depends how you define the term. If you are thinking of an organization cooperatively owned and operated by its members, focused on providing an alternative to what hasn’t worked, and supporting community-based solutions that do work – then, and only then are we definitely a “social enterprise.” In her Spotlight Michigan article I think Caitlin Blair put it best: “A society of entrepreneurs and innovators simply could not exist without social entrepreneurs because where business entrepreneurs typically work to enhance markets, social entrepreneurs completely transform the necessary infrastructure and attitudes of a society.”

See our features on Spotlight Michigan:
profile
article
photo essay

(photo credit: WHO)

From the UN Declaration to Amnesty International, between Paul Farmer and William Easterly it seems that everyone has a different understanding of what constitutes a basic human right and the cause of its absence. Michael Keizner has been building the discussion on health and human rights on Change.org’s Global Health blog while NYU Professor, William Easterly has recently entered the debate as a response to Amnesty International’s position on poverty related to human rights. This fueled a response from Amnesty International, which stated that Easterly was “pretty off base.” Easterly followed his Amnesty International response with an end to his “human rights trilogy” by asking Paul Farmer who should be held responsible for satisfying the right to health care?

The World Health Organization (WHO) states health as a human right as:

“the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being…”

It seems that Easterly’s human rights criteria is trapped in an old international law paradigm where there must be someone at fault or someone to blame. He also forgets that health is directly linked to food. You cannot have good health and not have food. Effective aid, not seen in today’s aid schemes, based in sustainable practices (not just buzzword reporting) that supports an individual’s right to develop themselves should look comprehensively towards the needs of a community of individuals. The ideas of human rights, foreign aid, and development should be less focused on international systems and more focused on building strong communities that meet their own human needs: health care, food, water, etc.

Within this debate of health and human rights, where does SCOUT BANANA fit. As an organization that makes and stands behind the statement that:

“global health is everyone’s responsibility and every individual’s human right”

Paul Farmer has the right idea, as Easterly quotes from his Tanner Lecture in 2005:

“only a social movement involving millions, most of us living far from these difficult settings, could allow us to change the course of history….troves of attention are required to reconfigure existing arrangements if we are to slow the steady movement of resources from poor to rich—transfers that have always been associated… with violence and epidemic disease… whether or not we can say “never again” with any conviction—will depend on our collective courage to examine and understand the roots of modern violence and the violation of a broad array of rights, including social and economic rights”

This is exactly similar to SCOUT BANANA’s understanding of health as a human right and a responsibility. It is a right where we do not attempt to place blame or hold the past accountable because those become frivolous exercises that produce no results. When we delve deeper into the root causes of issues, for example the driving forces of slavery, we must focus on a responsibility to not repeat the past and make ourselves accountable in the future.

There is no way that the entire European population and its descendants can be held accountable for the evils of the slave trade. While the same ideas of human rights did not exist in the time period of slavery, it is similarly difficult to place blame on systems (and populations) that drive the causes of poverty and lack of access to health care. Many people that I work with on development projects feel guilty that they are so privileged and wealthy compared to the communities that they work with that are so poor. SCOUT BANANA teaches its members to not feel guilty, but instead to feel responsible. Understanding personal privilege related to the oppression of certain populations within societal structures can assist in creating positive impacts. Human rights don’t necessarily have to be about placing blame, but rather developing an understanding of responsibility.

So Professor Easterly when you ask who is responsible for satisfying human rights: it is you, it is me, it is all those who dream of making a difference, and it is also those who lack the very human rights that we hold dear. Placing blame is not a concrete step forward, learning from history and recognizing where our privilege fits can be a first step towards effective actions. I too see Paul Farmer’s vision of a movement of millions, near and far, taking actions to shape a better future where human rights are everyone’s responsibility and every individual’s human right.

From the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”