social enterprise: is it the business of social work?

Keywordscommunity services sector; social enterprise;

social policy, social work practice.

IntroductionSocial enterprise has undergone a meteoricrise to prominence in debates about thefuture of social policy and communityservices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand,

the United Kingdom and the United Statesof America. In Australia, in a very shortspace of time, it has become a hotlydebated topic among commentators inpublic, practice and academic domains(Fitzgerald 2000; Botsman & Latham 2001;Crofts & Gray 2001; Healy 2001; Horin2001; McDonald & Marston 2001; Simons2001; Zappalà 2001). At stake in thesedebates is the future of the welfare stateand current practices within the socialservices, not only in the provision ofmaterial and social aid but also in thepromotion of active citizenship amongservice users, many of whom are the mostmarginalised members of our society. Yet, social enterprise is not a new idea inthe community services field. Indeed, arange of community services, from smallconsumer advocacy groups to large

Australian Social Work/June 2003, Vol. 56, No. 2 141

Social enterprise: is it the business ofsocial work?Mel Gray, Karen Healy and Penny Crofts

The paper explores the relevance of social enterprise to social work practice andpolicy development. Social enterprise refers to a broad set of approaches that usebusiness acumen to address social goals. A marginal activity in social work for along time, recently social enterprise has been thrust into the spotlight in debatesabout the future of social policy and community services. It is important that socialworkers understand the meaning and implications of social enterprise if they are toapply it critically and reflectively in practice and participate in contemporarydebates about its relevance in promoting individual and community empowerment.The paper provides an overview of the meaning of social enterprise, outlines thereasons for the renewed focus on social enterprise and related concepts in socialpolicy debates, particularly community economic development, and examines itsunderlying values. It concludes with a discussion of questions and concernssurrounding the implementation of social enterprise in Australia.

Mel Gray is Professor of Social Work and Head of theSchool of Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. Email: [email protected] Healy is a Senior Lecturer in the Department ofSocial Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University ofSydney, New South Wales. Email: [email protected] Crofts is a Lecturer in Social Work, School of SocialSciences, University of Newcastle, New South Wales.Email: [email protected]

charities, have developed through, andcontinue to use, entrepreneurial strategiesboth to ensure their continued survival and to promote the social and economicinterests of the communities with which they work. Social workers involved incommunity development initiatives withimpoverished communities have beenstrong advocates of social enterprise (Gray 1997; Midgley 1996; Raheim 1996)though, on the whole, it has been amarginal theme in professional social work in Australia. Nonetheless, as socialenterprise becomes increasingly moresignificant in community services policy and practice, it is important that socialworkers become familiar with it. Ourposition is that social enterprise can extend options and choices available toservice users, but that it should be seen as a complement to, rather than areplacement for, government involvement in social service provision and structuralchange.

Defining social enterpriseSocial enterprise refers to activitiesundertaken in the public interest usingentrepreneurial strategies (Simons, cited in Zappalà 2001). It embraces the idea that business acumen can be applied tocommunity causes to achieve a transfer of economic and social resources todisadvantaged groups and individuals (De Leonardis & Mauri 1992; Crofts & Gray 2001). According to Zappalà (2001),‘Social enterprise is a means for non-profitagencies to maximise their mission-relatedperformance through the development ofnew ventures or by reorganising activities

to improve operational efficiency’ (p. 43). It refers to a broad range of activities,including community economicdevelopment, profit generating activitiesundertaken by non-profits to supportservice initiatives, cross-sectoralpartnerships and private sector socialresponsibility programs (Henton et al. 1997;Catford 1998; Dees & Haus 1998; Reis 1999).

Community economic development and related activities, such asmicroenterprise development, are well-established strategies for achievingsocial and economic development inimpoverished communities (Church et al.2000; Raheim 1996). Examples of initiativesof this type include microcredit schemes,local employment cooperatives, city farms, community cafes, restaurants andlaundromats. Despite minimal profits, these initiatives offer increased access tomaterial and social resources for individualsand communities (Mawson 2001).

For-profit activities in non-profitcommunity service organisations constitutea second form of social enterprise. Therange of profit generating initiatives is broadand includes well-established fundraisingactivities, such as ‘op-shops’, through to theestablishment of consultancy units drawingon the expertise of staff in communityservice agencies, such as those offeringfee-for-service counselling to industrygroups. The profits generated through these activities can enhance the autonomyof community service agencies by enablingthem to undertake initiatives and projectsnot tied to specific funding programs.

Another type of social enterprise activityinvolves cross-sectoral partnershipsbetween communities, community

142 Australian Social Work/June 2003, Vol. 56, No. 2

agencies, business, and government(Centre for Corporate Public Affairs 2000).For example, a non-profit employmentservice in Sydney formed partnerships with computer companies through whichservice users gained access to physical(computers), human (technological skills),and social resources (networks linkingunemployed people to job opportunities)(Bullen et al. 1999).

Social entrepreneurs are not united by a single ideology and span the politicalspectrum from the neo-liberal (Abbott 2000)to communitarian (Midgley 1996),progressive (Raysmith 1998) and neo-Marxist positions (Church et al. 2000).Within the welfare sector, advocates ofsocial enterprise argue that governmenthas a role in supporting social development(Fontan & Shragge 1998; Midgley &Livermore 1998). Nevertheless, socialentrepreneurs share concerns about thewelfare policies and practices that emergedvia the Keynesian welfare state, such as the provision of income support paymentsand social support services to individuals.They argue that, while these practices mayaddress the short-term needs of serviceusers, they fail to provide pathways out of disadvantage (Midgley 1996). Somebelieve that the modern welfare statecentres upon passive forms of welfare thatdisempower individuals and communities(Botsman & Latham 2001; Pearson 2001).

The new emphasis on socialenterprise: Why now?The renewed focus on social enterprise can be attributed, in part, to currenttransformations in the welfare sector, in

particular, changes in the political andorganisational context of community service provision (Zappalà 2001). Thepublic policy arena in which socialenterprise has emerged, and indeed inwhich social work operates, is in a state of turbulence as many of the certainties of the welfare state are challenged orabandoned. Many governments throughoutthe English-speaking world have re-positioned themselves as partners in the provision of services, rather than as primary service providers. The notion of partnership is a driving theme in thecurrent Federal government’s policydirection towards the establishment of a‘social coalition’. For example, the Federalgovernment, through its ‘Business andCommunity Partnerships Program’ and its‘Welfare Reform’ agenda, is promotinggreater levels of social investment bybusiness through partnerships with not-for-profit welfare organisations and thedevelopment of for-profit initiatives as astrategy for financing and delivering socialand community welfare programs. AsConsidine (2000) notes, this shift ‘involveslabour market restructure and programchange away from collective provision by government and in the direction ofcontracting-out, privatisation and the empowerment of business and quasi-business actors’ (p. 74). The sametrend is reflected in the ‘Third Way’ politicsof New Labour in Britain (Giddens 2000).The re-positioning of government has been accompanied by challenges toindividual rights to welfare support andsignificant shifts in responsibilities ofvoluntary sector agencies. Social enterprise holds out possibilities for the reinvention of welfare practices to


enhance their relevance to a re-configuredwelfare state. In general, the direction ofsocial enterprise initiatives is towardspractices which extend the optionsavailable to service users for both social and economic participation, based on the notion that governmentshould, at most, facilitate rather thanprovide such options (Mawson 2001;Pearson 2001).

Second, the emergence of socialenterprise can be linked to resourceconstraints in the non-profit communityservices sector. Growth in governmentfunding to welfare agencies has not keptpace with escalating demands on theseservices. Moreover, as a result of newpublic management reforms, governmentfunding to social service agencies isincreasingly tied to service contracts withpredefined service outputs (Lyons 2001). In this context of financial austerity andcontrol, social enterprise providescommunity service agencies withalternatives for resourcing new services,especially service innovations that do not fit neatly within government fundingguidelines, such as the establishment of co-operative ventures to develop localemployment opportunities or socialresources like flexible shared child-care.

Third, social enterprise resonates withsome aspects of progressive critique ofestablished welfare policy and practice.Many social service workers and serviceusers are critical of the limitations ofindividual welfare provision for empoweringindividuals and for offering options forsustainable social and economicdevelopment (Midgley 1996; Mawson2001). These commentators argue thatsocial enterprise, particularly community

economic development initiatives, cangenuinely improve service users’ lives byproviding opportunities for the recognitionand development of their skills andknowledge and for their participation in social and economic development(Midgley 1996; Raheim 1996). Socialentrepreneurs emphasise the importance of individuals and communities participatingin determining local and relevant solutionsto the problems facing them. Many arguefor the re-invention of welfare policy andpractices so that they are more responsiveto the concerns and solutions posed byindividuals and communities and morerespectful of local knowledge and capacity(Pearson 2001). For many, this focus onlocal initiative is seen as a vital complementto, rather than as a replacement for,government provision or macro structuralchange (Botsman & Latham 2001; Pearson 2001).

Application to social workSocial work practice is significantly affectedby organisational and policy contexts.Increasingly social workers are confrontedwith the changing structure of the socialand community services sector wherebythere is a shifting balance between public and private provision (O’Connoret al. 2000). The growth of the not-for-profitsector as a major site of service deliverymeans that social workers will be involved increasingly in non-governmentorganisations either directly in terms ofemployment sites, or indirectly, through their role in referral, organisationaldevelopment and networking. AsRosenman (2000) points out, changes in


the structure of delivery systems haveimplications for the professional trainingand practice of human service workers,including social workers. In particular, thetraditional function of Australian social workto deliver mainly professional, individualisedservices through the structures of thewelfare state (Ife 2000) is likely to bechallenged in the new order of humanservices organisation and labour marketstructure. However, the capacity of the more marginalised perspectives and approaches in social work to contribute effectively in this new ordershould not be underestimated (Ife 1995).Social work’s embrace of communitydevelopment theory and practice provides an important foundation fromwhich to explore the relevance of socialenterprise to social work. To again draw on Ife (2000), community developmentprovides hope for the future viability ofsocial work.

Commentators point to similaritiesbetween social entrepreneurship andcommunity development (Healy 2001;Leitman & Crawford 2001). However, Healy (2001) highlights an importantdifference, namely, cross-sectoralcollaboration. She says, ‘Whereas manycommunity development practitioners have been reluctant to connect with theprivate business sector, socialentrepreneurs view such engagement as critical ’ (p. 16). This is an importantdifference and highlights our belief that the changing context of welfare in Australiais forcing social workers to think seriouslyabout building partnerships with privatebusiness. Indeed Crofts and Gray (2001)argue that it is precisely because of socialwork’s skills in community development that

social workers are ideally placed to make acontribution to evolving social enterprisepractice.

More globally, social enterprise is amarginal though long-established activity in social work. Midgley (1996) contendsthat social workers in developing countriesplayed a decisive role in the developmentof the practices of social and economicdevelopment. A small body of socialservice researchers in developed countrieshas also argued for the importance ofsocial enterprise activities, especiallymicroeconomic initiatives and cross-sectoral partnerships, for enhancing the material and socialresources available to service users(Midgley 1996; Raheim 1996; Gray 1997).On the face of it, the new emphasis onsocial enterprise in social policy presentsopportunities for social workers to redirecttheir practices more firmly towards theprofession’s historical commitment toaddressing social disadvantage (Midgley1996). Yet, some of the views expressed by the more vocal exponents of socialenterprise are also of concern to theongoing development of progressive andsocially just social welfare policies andpractices. In particular, we are concernedabout the negative and inaccurategeneralisations about the welfare state and the offensive caricatures of welfareproviders as self-interested and of serviceusers as passive and dependent.Notwithstanding these reservations, we recognise that social enterprise isgrowing in significance in the communityservices field and believe that it is important that social workers analyse itspotential and limitations for progressivepractice.


The values underpinningsocial entrepreneurshipTable 1 provides a comparison of thevalues underpinning business, social workand social enterprise. While economicconcerns are paramount for business andsocial well-being is not normally seen as a primary motivation, some believe thatglobal capitalism is leading to the death ofdemocracy and the rise in importance ofmultinational companies that are replacingnational governments’ function in settingsocial agendas and providing socialservices. Hertz (2001) cites numerousexamples of ways in which corporationsacross the world manipulate and pressuregovernments and of how consumer protestand product boycotts have become moreeffective weapons for change than theballot box. This global trend and theemerging understanding of corporate social responsibility in Australia arecontributing to the development of socialentrepreneurship (Bartlett 2002). This is notto say that people are happy with whatHertz (2001) calls the silent takeover.

All over the world, concerns are beingraised about governments’ loyalties andcorporations’ objectives. Concerns that thependulum of capitalism may have swungjust a bit too far; that our love affair with the free market may have obscured harshtruths; that too many are losing out. That the state cannot be trusted to look after ourinterests; and that we are paying too high a price for economic growth (p. 3).

Social work has always placed moral values at its core. The neo-liberal discourse,now a major influence on social policy,poses considerable challenges to the

social justice orientations of social work.(Gray & Askeland 2002). In the UK,Leveridge (2002) argues that social workpractice in Local Authority Social ServiceDepartments has become routinised suchthat the social worker’s role has becomethat of a technician and that this impacts on the rights of service-users (see alsoAdams et al. 1998). In Australia, severalwriters have highlighted the effects ofeconomic rationalism on social work, most notably its human costs. Alston andMcKinnon (2001) refer to ‘an increasinglybureaucratic and oppressive workenvironment’ characterised by increasingmanagerialism, decreasing job security, low morale and high levels of stress. Ife(1997, 2001) laments the decline in thegovernment’s concern with social justiceand human rights, as do Crimeen andWilson (1997).

A central goal for social enterprise, likesocial development, is the balancing ofeconomic and social goals. While businessand social work are bound by varyingdegrees of regulation, social entrepreneursclaim that their diversity, innovation andcreativity enable them to operate ‘outsidethe box’ of government funding, to seize on opportunities and to respond flexibly tochanges in the external environment (Crofts & Gray 2001).

As already noted, there are many formsand purposes of social entrepreneurshipand social entrepreneurs are not of onemind when it comes to values and ideology.Given that some members of the non-profitcommunity services sector see socialenterprise as ‘little more than a re-packaging of community development’(Healy 2001; p. 1), it follows that the values of local, community or consumer



Tab

le1.

Com

par

ison

of t

he v

alue

s un

der

pin

ning

Bus

ines

s, S

ocia

l Wor

k an

d S

ocia

l Ent

erp

rise

Co

nte

xtB

usi

nes

sS

oci

al w

ork

So

cial

en

terp

rise

Mai

n va

lues

Eco

nom

ic c

once

rns

are

Pro

tect

ion

of h

uman

inte

rest

sIn

sep

arab

ility

of e

cono

mic

and

p

aram

ount

Clie

nt r

ight

sso

cial

con

cern

s; b

alan

cing

E

ffici

ency

, effe

ctiv

enes

s,

Ser

vice

pro

visi

onec

onom

ic c

once

rns

with

soc

ial

outc

omes

, pro

duc

tivity

, and

Lo

yalty

to e

mp

loyi

ng

mis

sion

or

goa

lsp

rofit

abili

ty p

red

omin

ate

org

anis

atio

nLo

cal,

com

mun

ity o

r co

nsum

er

Acc

ount

abili

ty to

cus

tom

ers

Acc

ount

abili

typ

artic

ipat

ion

and

/or

shar

ehol

der

sC

omm

unity

par

ticip

atio

nP

artn

ersh

ipR

ecog

nitio

n of

the

pow

er

Soc

ial i

nclu

sion

Pro

mot

ion

of s

ocia

l coh

esio

n of

the

cons

umer

Pol

icy

chan

ge

and

incl

usio

nD

onor

or

char

ity a

pp

roac

h to

S

ocia

l jus

tice

Div

ersi

ty, i

nnov

atio

n an

d

soci

al c

ontr

ibut

ions

cr

eativ

ity(C

rofts

& G

ray

2001

)O

pp

ortu

nism

and

re

sour

cefu

lnes

s

Org

anis

atio

nal E

nviro

nmen

tB

ound

by

vary

ing

deg

rees

of b

urea

ucra

tic p

roce

dur

e an

d r

egul

atio

nO

per

ate

‘out

sid

e th

e b

ox’

Tren

ds

lead

ing

to v

alue

G

over

nmen

t pol

icy

favo

urs

Eco

nom

ic r

atio

nalis

m th

reat

enin

g

Cha

ngin

g p

olic

y co

ntex

t of

chan

ge

com

mun

ity-b

usin

ess

par

tner

ship

im

por

tant

hum

anis

tic v

alue

s an

d

chan

ges

in g

over

nmen

t fun

din

g

dev

elop

men

t for

cing

bus

ines

s in

to

forc

ing

ag

enci

es in

whi

ch s

ocia

l to

ind

ivid

uals

and

soc

ial

corp

orat

e or

soc

ial r

esp

onsi

bili

ty

wor

kers

wor

k to

bec

ome

mor

e or

gan

isat

ions

and

incr

easi

ngly

p

rog

ram

s, e

.g. t

akin

g c

ogni

sanc

e co

mp

etiti

ve a

nd b

usin

ess

com

pet

itive

‘bus

ines

s-lik

e’

of s

ocia

l and

env

ironm

enta

l or

ient

ated

and

dev

elop

en

viro

nmen

t of c

omm

unity

im

pac

ts o

f the

ir op

erat

ions

par

tner

ship

s w

ith d

iffer

ent s

ecto

rs

serv

ice

org

anis

atio

ns is

cre

atin

g

(gov

ernm

ent a

nd p

rivat

e)an

op

enin

g fo

r so

cial

ent

erp

rise

initi

ativ

es

participation, the promotion of socialcohesion and inclusion and the pursuit ofsocial justice should enjoy prominence.Social enterprise is thus seen as an attemptto counteract the forces of globalisation,centralisation and denationalisation and to address their impact in local contextswhere the opportunity to generateresources through diverse means andfunding sources, such as partnerships and for-profit social enterprise initiatives,arises. These means open up possibilitiesfor resource-starved organisations. As previously noted, the imperative to seek alternative financing options is anincreasing reality for the non-governmentsector (Considine 2000; Lyons 2001).

Australian community developers havebeen reluctant to develop partnerships with the for-profit sector; they have tendedto view this sector with suspicion and, insome instances, hostility (Healy 2001;Lyons 2001). Recent communitydevelopment initiatives in public housingestates in New South Wales demonstrate an attempt to combine social and economicobjectives. For example, in the HunterRegion of New South Wales, a large not-for-profit community services agency is working with local public housing tenantsto establish home maintenance businessesand in the process enhance the social andemployment skills and opportunities of theparticipants. Social enterprises of thisnature require a delicate balance ofindividual, commercial and collectiveinterests in their efforts to meet sometimescompeting objectives.

Our concept of social entrepreneurshipthus values local initiative and participationas a measure of principled practice, notonly to enhance opportunities to promote

social cohesion and collective action, butalso in the belief that local participation is afoundation for positive social policy andsocial change. An inductive approach tosocial and economic policy rejects thenotion that macro policy alone can deliversolutions to social issues. While analysis ofthe structural nature of many social andeconomic problems, and therefore action at the macro level are both important, thesocial entrepreneurial approach we favourpromotes practice responses and policyframeworks soundly based on anunderstanding of and contribution from,local experience. The goals of socialcohesion and inclusion should be thedrivers of social entrepreneurial activity, for it is the social mission that should be‘explicit and essential ’ (Dees & Haus 1998,p. 3). Social enterprise initiatives should beable to demonstrate that social as well aseconomic outcomes have priority. It isimportant therefore that social goals, valuesand outcomes are clearly articulated andsupported by all institutional stakeholders.In this regard there is a need for significantcase study research of community-businesspartnerships and social entrepreneurialactivities, with a particular focus onoutcomes for client groups.

The private sector is already an activeplayer in the field of human services in arange of ways as a direct provider, partnerand resource base (Centre for CorporatePublic Affairs 2000). For example, recentresearch in the Hunter Region of New SouthWales on the contribution of local businessto community causes found that themajority of respondents were makingcontributions including donations of money(81.6%), goods and services (61.5%),sponsorship (59.7%) and expertise (52.7%).


Just on one-third of respondents indicatedthat the business was involved in ongoingpartnerships. A higher proportion (nearly50%) indicated that the businessparticipated in committees, forums orevents dealing with community matters,such as civic issues, or social orenvironmental matters during 2000. Thefindings relating to causes supported bybusiness suggest that respondents weredirecting their contributions to communityservice activities. The data suggests that, at the local and regional level, businesscontributes significantly but that a greatdeal of work needs to be done to maximisethe strategic allocation of resources (Crofts & Gray 2001).

Finally, social justice outcomes shouldguide the mission and evaluation of socialentrepreneurial activity. Many initiatives insocial enterprise seek to addressentrenched disadvantage as a product of structural processes and systems thatresult in long-term negative economic andsocial consequences for individuals andcommunities (Pearson 2001). For socialworkers seeking to use social enterprisestrategies critically and reflectively it isimportant to ask, ‘Who benefits? ’ Ifoutcomes relate more to organisationalgrowth and resource acquisition than toimproved economic and socialcircumstances for individuals andcommunities, then social entrepreneurshiphas not lived up to its promise.

Questions and concernsabout social enterpriseThus far we have outlined definitions of and values underpinning social

entrepreneurship. While social enterprisecan make important contributions to thehuman services, we are mindful of itslimitations.

The role of government

Social entrepreneurs vary in their beliefsabout the role of government. Some favour free market approaches, wheregovernments should seek to removebureaucracy and control as much aspossible to allow entrepreneurial activity to flourish unencumbered by rules andregulations. For others, the role ofgovernment is crucial to establishing andenforcing standards that protect andenhance rights and opportunities andensure equity of access (Considine 2000).

From a social work perspective,government has a strong role in needsassessment, resource allocation andproviding adequate social infrastructure at the local and regional levels to facilitateactive engagement of social interests indevelopment. It has a responsibility toresource the most needy communities, as well as areas where the fallout fromeconomic change has unequal impact.Hence, in our opinion, to flourish, socialenterprise requires more not lessgovernment involvement. It requires openand flexible government, which allows for diversity rather than a ‘one size fits all’approach. As Considine (2000) suggests,research and experimentation with ‘a widervariety of institutional solutions’ (p. 82) areimportant government responsibilities in thisregard, hence the notion of ‘the enablingstate, the Australian version of the third way’(McDonald & Marston 2001; p. 11).Alongside its protective function to ensure


that citizens have adequate access toappropriate levels of income support,government has a role to play in investingin sustainable community initiatives andresourcing innovative communityenterprises and participatory processeswhich can have tangible economic andsocial gains.

The conventional wisdom in Australiansocial work education and practice hasmaintained that social services are bestprovided through the mechanism of thewelfare state to meet objectives of humanrights, equity and fairness (Ife 1997). Notsurprisingly, social workers share the deepsuspicion of business generally held in thehuman service industry (Lyons 2001) andgovernment promotion of business socialinvestment, seeing it as further evidence ofthe shift away from collective provision bygovernment in favour of ‘business andquasi-business actors’ (Considine 2000; p. 76). In so far as social service provisionhas a redistributive function and should beplanned and delivered in accordance withnotions of equity and need, it is difficult toaccept a central role for business in theprovision of social support. By focusing on the failure of government to reducewelfare dependency and advocating socialentrepreneurship as a better, unfetteredsolution, it can be argued that socialentrepreneurs are undermining ‘argumentsin favour of mobilising resources of thestate’, (McDonald & Marston 2001; p. 15)thus offering government a way out of itsresponsibilities to the most disadvantagedcitizens (Healy 2001).

The role of business

In advocating a greater role for business inservice provision, some commentators talk

about business as a homogeneous entity.This stereotype ignores the diversity of thesector, which includes large corporateorganisations motivated by big profits aswell as businesses of varying sizes indifferent sectors struggling to survive. Most businesses operate within thedominant donor or charity approach and do not automatically accept the notion that ‘doing good’ is necessarily beneficialfor profits. Hence, a great deal of work is needed to build effectivecommunity-business partnerships (Crofts & Gray 2001) and the governmenthas a role to play in providing incentives,for example, in allowing for tax transfersystem deductions to facilitate the role of business in social enterprise.

The community’s role

Social enterprise emphasises ‘thecommunity’ as a resource and a site forintervention. Its advocates seek recognitionfor and development of the social andeconomic capacities of communities andattempt to counter public perceptions about the dependency of marginalisedcommunities. Rather than relying solely on experts, professionals and paid carers,they seek involvement of communitymembers in the provision of care, capacitybuilding and economic developmentactivities (Botsman 2001). McDonald andMarston (2001) warn that this brand ofcommunitarianism, which equates civilsociety with community and in Australia with the community sector, conveys theidea that active participation rather than the exercise of rights and responsibilities isthe route to social and economic benefits.Much ‘community talk’ assumes consensus,harmony and receptiveness to development


activities. In reality, communities arehotbeds of complex power relations andconflict, which can lead to the exploitationand harm of people, particularly those who are vulnerable and the most needycommunities have limited resources anddiminished capacity to contribute to thekinds of macro level changes required to enhance their economic and socialconditions in the longer term. They cannotbe expected to cover massive shortfalls inservices. Hence, the social enterprise viewof the resourceful community needs to bebalanced against real need where onlyexternal intervention, be it from governmentor other sources, can lift the community out of poverty.

The role of the third sector

Social enterprise cannot flourish without the strong institutional base that communityservice non-government organisations (an important part of the third sector)provide. Within the human services sector, people in business, the professions,volunteers, and local communities havealways worked together in creative ways,providing services and programs,advocating and lobbying for change, acting as a watchdog for clients andchallenging government on unjust policiesand practices. Some proponents of socialentrepreneurship tend to overlook thiscontribution, instead offering blanketcriticism of welfare dependency. While a positive aspect of social enterprise is the focus on long-term outcomes forindividuals, groups and communities, thereis a danger that this may leave gaps inavailability of short-term relief and createheavy burdens on a small pool of welfareagencies, particularly in light of service

cutbacks and punitive income supportpolicies.

Concern with the analysis ofwelfare dependency

Many proponents of social enterprisebelieve that they can break the cycle ofwelfare dependency. While strategies todeliver improvements in individual socialand economic circumstances arewelcomed, the tendency to scapegoat thewelfare state for a broad range of social ills and to represent welfare workers andclients as passive and dependent givescause for concern. The reconstruction ofstructural disadvantage as individualinadequacy is problematic when economicand social structures cause inequality. This discourse of welfare dependency isvery selective and targets the mostdisadvantaged. It detracts from effectiveprograms that are achieving positiveoutcomes in spite of structuralarrangements that, more than individuallimitation, perpetuate inequality. AsMcDonald and Marston (2001) note, ‘What is lacking is a critical appreciation of the necessary role that governmentinvestment plays in building the social and physical infrastructure that supports the activities of community groups andvolunteers to meet social needs’ (p. 7).

Concern with the missionary zealof some proponents of socialentrepreneurship

Some of the most vocal advocates of thesocial entrepreneurship movement inAustralia, tend to overgeneralise in theircommentaries on the welfare state, ignoringthe history and complexity of social policy


and service provision (Botsman 2001). Theirmissionary zeal runs the danger of isolatingimportant groups, who could further theircause, especially those about whom some are critical, such as academics,researchers and social workers. Many ofthe most vocal advocates are male, yet it is largely women who staff the servicessector and informal caring networks.Sensitivity to gender dynamics is needed ifsocial enterprise is to avoid becoming yetanother vehicle through which a smallgroup of dominant male ‘visionaries’ impose their worldview on the primarilyfemale world of service provision.Furthermore, the missionary zeal of some social entrepreneurs negates work done on the ground to make policyworkable. Some of the prescriptions offered are overly simplistic, whilecommunities are contexts of complexity and ambiguity. Establishing inclusiveprocesses of community engagementbased on principles of equality and justicerequires careful planning and meaningfuldialogue.

Finally, it is important to considerwhether terminology of social enterprise is useful for championing the activities towhich it refers. On the one hand, the termsocial enterprise, like social capital, can be seen as strategic device that drawsattention to the productivity of the ‘social’sphere. It extends concepts traditionallyassociated with the business sector to allow recognition of the creativity andentrepreneurship of many within the socialservices sector. It also challenges theartificial separation between government,business and community services sectorsand draws attention to the capacities andresponsibilities of each to contribute to

community well being. On the other hand,the terminology of social enterprise sitsuncomfortably with many in the non-profitsector, particularly those who seek todistance themselves from the world ofcommerce and profit making. In its explicitreference to terms such asentrepreneurship and venture capital, social enterprise can appear closelyaligned with neo-liberal politics and, assuch, can seem contradictory to the aim of promoting social change at the local,institutional and structural level. Further, as noted by McDonald and Marston (2001),it legitimises the expanded role of thecommunity sector thus privileging‘community management over governmentand politics’ (p. 9). Also it can be seen astransferring government responsibility forsocial goods and services to the businessor corporate sector (Hertz 2001).

ConclusionSocial enterprise has emerged as animportant concept in public and academicdebate about the future of welfare bothnationally and internationally. Socialenterprise is and always has been thebusiness of social work in that it refers to abroad range of activities for integratingeconomic and social goals in the pursuit of community well being. Given socialworkers’ historical mission to address social disadvantage, the profession has avital role to play in current debates onsocial enterprise, in particular, to participatein the much needed examination of the itsstrengths and limitations for achievingsocial justice with marginalised individualsand communities.


References

ABBOTT T (2000), Unfinished business. Work for theDole Co-ordinators’ Conference, 26 July 2000,Publisher, Melbourne.

ADAMS R, DOMINELLI L & PAYNE M (1998), SocialWork: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. Macmillan,London.

ALSTON M & MCKINNON J (2001), Social work: Fieldsof practice. Oxford, South Melbourne.

BARTLETT L (2002), Universities and communityengagement: Learning/ teaching/training for socialentrepreneurship. The Second Australia and NewZealand Social Entrepreneurship Conference, 3–5 March 2002, Melbourne.

BOTSMAN P (2001), Australia’s new health challenge.In: Botsman, P & Latham, M (eds) The Enabling State:People Before Bureaucracy. Pluto Press, Sydney.

BOTSMAN P & LATHAM M (eds) (2001), The EnablingState: People Before Bureaucracy. Pluto Press,Sydney.

BULLEN P, LAWRENCE S, SCHWENKE P,WILLIAMSON A & WILLIAMSON S (1999), Non-Profitsin Business. Work Ventures, Sydney.

CATFORD J (1998), Social entrepreneurs are vital for health promotion – but they need supportiveenvironments too. Health Promotion International, 13 (2), 95–97.

CENTRE FOR CORPORATE PUBLIC AFFAIRS (2000),Corporate Community Involvement: Establishing aBusiness Case. Centre for Corporate Public Affairs inconjunction with the Business Council of Australia,Melbourne.

CHURCH K, FONTAN JM, LACHANCE E & SHRAGGE E (2000), Re-inventing the Trojan horse: Non-profit businesses attack labour marketexclusion. Canadian Social Work Review, 17 (1), 131–143.

CONSIDINE M (2000), Competition, quasi-markets and the new welfare state. In: O’Connor I, Smyth P &Warburton J (eds), Contemporary Perspectives onSocial Work and the Human Services: Challenges and Change. Longman, Surrey Hills.

CRIMEEN K & WILSON L (1997), Economic rationalismor social justice: A challenge for social workers.Australian Social Work, 50 (4), 47–52.

CROFTS P & GRAY M (2001), Social entrepreneurship:Is it the business of social work? Paper presented atthe 16th Asia and Pacific Social Work Conference:Millennium Challenges and Action for Social WorkEducation and Practice, 31 July–3 August 2001,Singapore.

DE LEONARDIS O & MAURI D (1992), From de-institutionalization to the social enterprise. Social Policy, 23 (2), 50–54.

DEES J & HAUS P [Internet] (1998), The meaning ofsocial entrepreneurship.http://www.gsb.standford.edu/services/news/DeesSocentrepPaper.html (accessed 21 June 2001).

FITZGERALD R [Internet] (2000), Social Obligation.National Volunteering Conference, Volunteering:Beyond 2000. http://www.csc.nsw.gov.au.

FONTAN J & SHRAGGE E (1998), Communityeconomic development organisations in Montreal. In: Sherraden, MS & Ninacs WA (eds) CommunityEconomic Development and Social Work. HaworthPress, New York.

GIDDENS A (2000), The Third Way and its Critics.Polity Press, Cambridge.

GRAY M (1997), The contribution of community socialwork to social development. Journal of Applied SocialSciences, 21 (1), 45–51.

GRAY M & ASKELAND G (2002), Social work as art:Counterbalancing the Tick Infestation in Social Work.Paper Presented at the International Association ofSchools of Social Work Conference, Citizenship and social work education in a globalising world,15–18 July 2002, Montpellier.

HEALY K (2001), Social enterprise: A strategy orparadigm for the sector. Impact, 1, 16.

HENTON D, MELVILLE J & WALESH K (1997), The ageof the civic entrepreneur: Restoring civil society andbuilding economic community. National Civic Review,86 (2), 149–156.

HERTZ N (2001), The Silent Takeover. Random House,Sydney.

HORIN A (2001), End of Charity, Sydney MorningHerald, 11 August 2001.

IFE J (1995), Community Development: CreatingCommunity Alternatives: Vision, Analysis and Practice.Longman, Melbourne.

IFE J (1997), Rethinking Social Work: Towards CriticalPractice, Longman, Melbourne.

IFE J (2000), Community-based options for socialwork: Sites for creative practice. In: O’Connor I, SmythP & Warburton J (eds), Contemporary Perspectives onSocial Work and the Human Services: Challenges andChanges. Longman, Surrey Hills.

IFE J (2001), Human Rights and Social Work: TowardsRights-Based Practice, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

LEITMAN S & CRAWFORD F (2001),Connecting/blending/joining community participationwith entrepreneurial thinking: A way forward?


Paper presented at the 16th Asia-Pacific Social WorkConference: Millennium Challenges and Action forSocial Work Education and Practice, 31 July–3 August2001, Singapore.

LEVERIDGE MJ (2002), Mac-Social Work: Theroutinisation of professional activity. SocialWork/Maatskaplike Werk, 38(4), 354–362.

LYONS M (2001), The Contribution of Nonprofit andCooperative Enterprises in Australia: the Third Sector.Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

MAWSON A (2001), Making dinosaurs dance: Socialentrepreneurship and civic action. In: Botsman P &Latham M (eds), The Enabling State: People BeforeBureaucracy. Pluto Press, Annandale.

MCDONALD C & MARSTON G (2001), Fixing theNiche? Rhetorics of the Community Sector in the Neo-Liberal Welfare Regime. Paper Presented at theSocial Entrepreneurship Workshop: Centre for FullEmployment and Equity and the Department of Social Work, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle,November 2001.

MIDGLEY J (1996), Introduction to special issue:Social work and economic development. InternationalSocial Work, 39 (1), 5–12.

MIDGLEY J & LIVERMORE M (1998), Social capitaland economic development: Implications forcommunity building practice. In: Sherraden MS &Ninacs WA (eds), Community Economic Developmentand Social Work. Haworth Press, New York.

O’CONNOR I, WARBURTON J & SMYTH P (2000),Contemporary Perspectives on Social Work and theHuman Services: Challenges and Changes. Longman,Surrey Hills.

PEARSON N (2001), Rebuilding indigenouscommunities. In: Botsman P & Latham M (eds), TheEnabling State. Pluto Press, Annandale.

RAHEIM S (1996), Micro-enterprise as an approach forpromoting economic development in social work:Lessons from the self-employment demonstration.International Social Work, 39 (1), 69–82.

RAYSMITH H (1998), Facing the future: Emergingmodels in community services. Impact, Bulletin of theAustralian Council of Social Services, May, 10–12.

REIS T (1999), Unleashing the new resources andentrepreneurship for the common good: A scan,synthesis and scenario for action. W.K. KelloggFoundation, Battle Creek, MI.

ROSENMAN L (2000), Turning threats into challenges:A positive perspective on the future. In: O’Connor I,Smyth P & Warburton J (eds), ContemporaryPerspectives on Social Work and the Human Services: Challenges and Changes. Longman, Surrey Hills.

SIMONS R [Internet] (2001), Social enterprise:Partnership for Sustainable Change. Paper Presentedat the National Social Policy Conference, Social PolicyResearch Centre, University of New South Wales.http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/nspc2001/papers/Paper61.pdf (accessed 10 March 2003).

ZAPPALÀ G (2001), From ‘charity’ to ‘social enterprise’:Managing volunteers in public-serving nonprofits.Australian Journal on Volunteering, 6 (1), pp. 41–48.

Article accepted for publication December 2002.


social enterprise: is it the business of social work?

Documents