I love it.  Action is finally being taken.  I will wait for the results.

Verlia

Pretty impressive

I have long wanted an email address so the citizens from the whole U.S. could answer a question from the Whitehouse or the congress yes or no on a certain question of national importance.  I hope this is such a service of he Obama Administration.  Thenak you

Dear President to be Obama,
In my view it is of vital importance that the Federal Government go all out on stem cell research. Remember how Nancy Reagan and her family were urging so strongly that this be done, My family feels that way too. So please.....
Martin H. Gingold
Warwick, Pa. 18974

im very happy for you, wonderfull man, wonderfull president.
im italian

I would like to see something which moves toward the profit for purpose model of social enterprise we leveraged in Russia following their 1998 economic collapse, it's a model that treats development aid funding as if it were investment capital.

With an initial stake of $6 million in 2001 the Tomsk Microfinance Bank funded 10,000 new businesses with > 99% repayment and survival rate over 4 years.

http://www.p-ced.com/projects/russia/
  
Jeff Mowatt

I wish there was a way to keep the IRS from taxing us thousands of dollars from 2006. We lost our business and everything we own, due to the economy crisis. And now we are very low income and on food stamps. The IRS expects us to pay them taxes on the income we made in 2006 and all the money was roled over into the properties we owned and no longer own anymore due to foreclosure.
Our family budjet only allows us to pay rent, utilities and some cosmetics. How can we possibly pay the IRS? If they detach our wages we could become homeless. My children have been through enough. Is there a way out of this mess? Please help!

Sincerly,

Mechelle Sanders

Mechelle,

All I can do from a long way away is to point you to a group where a lot of others are in similar situations. They want to co-create new business. There are more than 2000 now. 

http://kossacksnetworking.ning.com

Jeff

This whole idea of social entreprenuership sound like lobbying in a different package. I object to any group for or not for profit having any more access to the government than afforded the individual by the Constitution. The government can not nor should not try to solve our social problems.

I am also a member of your moveon.org I am proud to be an American with you at the helm soon! I have fibromyalgia and am on disability. I would like to see the stem cell research put back on track. I have read that you already have the papers ready to sign on Jan 20th! Hurrah! Maybe one day I can get past the constant pain that I am in with new research. I would so love to be able to be a part of your Change America! Anything that I am able to do I will. I have donated what I can afford as I can. I also support donors choice which is for poor schools.
Betty

Hello:
I was looking on the web today searching for information about the White House Office of Social Entrepreneurship and came across your blog.  I actually considered applying for the job as director of such an office and was looking to see if it had actually been established and who if anyone would be taking the lead there. As such I've read your entry here with great interest. I've been an entrepreneur for most of my life. I started my first business when I was 26 years old. Ran that company for more than 20 years and in the midst started or helped start a few others. I am now in the financial services business and squarely focused on the issues of social entrepreneurship. One thing that I think needs to be addressed in this arena is the default notion that Social businesses 1: are always small businesses and 2: Need necessarily be somehow outside of the business of maximizing financial profits. My colleagues and I are currently developing an investment fund that aims to identify and invest in businesses that operate from what we call a "multi-stakeholder" mindset.  That means that we look for businesses that understand how a myopic focus on shareholders often sacrifices long-term health on the alter of short-term profits, and that a focus on core stakeholders; employees who give their precious time and energy, customers who are the life-blood of all organizations, communities that give them license to operate, suppliers who fuel their production cycle; actually increases the rewards for shareholders over the long-term. The interesting thing about multi-stakeholder focused companies is that they become "Social-enterprises" by default. If a company is focused on caring for all its stakeholders they have no choice but to seek ways to provide a broader set of benefits than "just" profit for shareholders.  This concept is what has been labeled the "fourth generation" of sustainability. It's a holistic mindset that understands that sustainability MUST be about continuous environmental, social, cultural AND economic re-birth if it is to be a true model of sustainability. We've come to encapsulate this notion in an idea that looks to focus the energies of businesses and non-profit organizations alike: It's the idea that these two types of entities need to start looking more alike than different: For profit businesses need to understand that focusing on profit, for profits' sake is not a sustainable business model. Massive societal forces are at play, both cultural and economic, that demand businesses enterprises of all sizes take a greater role in the betterment of society. Those businesses that miss this shift in the zeitgeist will be left behind in the future as customers defect because of harmful practices, employees look for more engaging places to work, suppliers bring their best ideas to the more humane partners and communities, wary of unsustainable practices erect barriers to entry. At the same time, not-for-profit organizations need to understand that "profit" is not a dirty word and that they can best serve their social goals by creating a "sustainable” flow of internal capital. Put simply while we believe in philanthropy, we also believe that relying ONLY on the kindness of strangers in the new financial reality is a recipe for disaster.

As you can then imagine I’m not a big fan of the L3C concept. Low profit doesn’t assist in sustainability. I think we need to set aside the moral objection to making money and understand that there is a new paradigm of business that allows for a “both-and” scenario where businesses can do good and do well simultaneously. Some people will read this post and accuse me of being the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” The interesting thing is that this barb is hoist from both sides of the debate; “pure” capitalists often accuse us of being naïve, not understanding the real world, trying to focus businesses on things that are outside of the bailiwick of business activities. We get lumped into the Socially Responsible crowd which many capitalist see as business “lite”. On the other hand the Socially Responsible crowd accuses us of not being pure enough; we’re really just using this movement as a way to show companies how to exploit it for profit and we don’t really care about the social outcomes. How can we when “everybody” knows that you need to sacrifice profits if you intend to use your business as a vehicle for social good.  The mere fact that we’re criticized from both sides helps me know that we’re on the right track. But we also come to this position honestly as we’ve been proponents of the concept of Polarity Management for most of our careers. Polarity Management suggests that most of life’s complex issues are not really problems that lend themselves to an either / or solution. Rather they are polarities that must be managed from a both / and mindset.  Maximizing profit and doing social good are often seen as two opposing poles in an equation of choice.  Selecting either one has an upside and a downside.  If we decide to maximize profits we can’t focus on the social repercussions of our decisions. Our job is to maximize the return for our shareholders and once they have realized those gains, they can deploy that money if they like to do social good.  On the other pole, if we choose to use our business as a vehicle for social good, profits are a secondary consideration.  Our shareholders understand that we may spend some of their money on social issues or make decisions that will limit their potential returns.  We believe that the multi-stakeholder model provides a framework to eliminate this false choice. It gives management the tools to realize the upside of both poles, an extremely profitable business that serves the broader social context. The true definition of a “social” “enterprise.”

I was looking on the web today searching for information about the White House Office of Social Entrepreneurship and came across your blog.  I actually considered applying for the job as director of such an office and was looking to see if it had actually been established and who if anyone would be taking the lead there. As such I've read your entry here with great interest. I've been an entrepreneur for most of my life. I started my first business when I was 26 years old. Ran that company for more than 20 years and in the midst started or helped start a few others. I am now in the financial services business and squarely focused on the issues of social entrepreneurship. One thing that I think needs to be addressed in this arena is the default notion that Social businesses 1: are always small businesses and 2: Need necessarily be somehow outside of the business of maximizing financial profits. My colleagues and I are currently developing an investment fund that aims to identify and invest in businesses that operate from what we call a "multi-stakeholder" mindset.  That means that we look for businesses that understand how a myopic focus on shareholders often sacrifices long-term health on the alter of short-term profits, and that a focus on core stakeholders; employees who give their precious time and energy, customers who are the life-blood of all organizations, communities that give them license to operate, suppliers who fuel their production cycle; actually increases the rewards for shareholders over the long-term. The interesting thing about multi-stakeholder focused companies is that they become "Social-enterprises" by default. If a company is focused on caring for all its stakeholders they have no choice but to seek ways to provide a broader set of benefits than "just" profit for shareholders.  This concept is what has been labeled the "fourth generation" of sustainability. It's a holistic mindset that understands that sustainability MUST be about continuous environmental, social, cultural AND economic re-birth if it is to be a true model of sustainability. We've come to encapsulate this notion in an idea that looks to focus the energies of businesses and non-profit organizations alike: It's the idea that these two types of entities need to start looking more alike than different: For profit businesses need to understand that focusing on profit, for profits' sake is not a sustainable business model. Massive societal forces are at play, both cultural and economic, that demand businesses enterprises of all sizes take a greater role in the betterment of society. Those businesses that miss this shift in the zeitgeist will be left behind in the future as customers defect because of harmful practices, employees look for more engaging places to work, suppliers bring their best ideas to the more humane partners and communities, wary of unsustainable practices erect barriers to entry. At the same time, not-for-profit organizations need to understand that "profit" is not a dirty word and that they can best serve their social goals by creating a "sustainable” flow of internal capital. Put simply while we believe in philanthropy, we also believe that relying ONLY on the kindness of strangers in the new financial reality is a recipe for disaster.

As you can then imagine I’m not a big fan of the L3C concept. Low profit doesn’t assist in sustainability. I think we need to set aside the moral objection to making money and understand that there is a new paradigm of business that allows for a “both-and” scenario where businesses can do good and do well simultaneously. Some people will read this post and accuse me of being the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” The interesting thing is that this barb is hoist from both sides of the debate; “pure” capitalists often accuse us of being naïve, not understanding the real world, trying to focus businesses on things that are outside of the bailiwick of business activities. We get lumped into the Socially Responsible crowd which many capitalist see as business “lite”. On the other hand the Socially Responsible crowd accuses us of not being pure enough; we’re really just using this movement as a way to show companies how to exploit it for profit and we don’t really care about the social outcomes. How can we when “everybody” knows that you need to sacrifice profits if you intend to use your business as a vehicle for social good.  The mere fact that we’re criticized from both sides helps me know that we’re on the right track. But we also come to this position honestly as we’ve been proponents of the concept of Polarity Management for most of our careers. Polarity Management suggests that most of life’s complex issues are not really problems that lend themselves to an either / or solution. Rather they are polarities that must be managed from a both / and mindset.  Maximizing profit and doing social good are often seen as two opposing poles in an equation of choice.  Selecting either one has an upside and a downside.  If we decide to maximize profits we can’t focus on the social repercussions of our decisions. Our job is to maximize the return for our shareholders and once they have realized those gains, they can deploy that money if they like to do social good.  On the other pole, if we choose to use our business as a vehicle for social good, profits are a secondary consideration.  Our shareholders understand that we may spend some of their money on social issues or make decisions that will limit their potential returns.  We believe that the multi-stakeholder model provides a framework to eliminate this false choice. It gives management the tools to realize the upside of both poles, an extremely profitable business that serves the broader social context. The true definition of a “social” “enterprise.”

An excellent perspective Jeff. We have a similar outlook toward multiple stakeholder enterprise and a fund to invest in seeding "social enterprise". When pitched as a thesis, it proposed that:

"The corporate charter can require that these monies be directed into community development funds, such as a permanent, irrevocable trust fund. The trust fund, in turn, would be under the oversight of a board of directors made up of employees and community leaders."  

http://www.p-ced.com/about/history/

The term "social" was never used, considered too provocative even under a Democrat administration. Speaking retrospectively as one not there at the time, I believe the intention was to gather support from across the spectrum without scaring "pure capitalists".

It was actually called a people-centered business at this time, to reflect the community stakeholder aspect, and make the point that the real purpose of business is in the end to serve people.

Far away in Pakistan, someone unconnected has taken the holistic idea of a people-centered business to create an illustration of serving economic, environmental, social and spirtual  needs of people. Her name is Ramla Akhtar.

http://www.triplebottomline.com.pk/response.asp?id=1&sub_id=7

I helped start up P-CED in the UK in 2004 and we're now a profit for purpose business which develops and supports software to fund work in Eastern Europe. We resolve to prove what could be done for what was being spent in Iraq every week.

What we find in the UK is that social enterprise although adopted as government policy tends to be "controlled" by which I mean government has a perception for the role of social enterprise and its very difficult to convey social enterprise working in more ambitious endeavours.

For example, in the last 4 years we've been able to do things that have influenced the childcare policy of foreign government, That I suspect is something that both US and UK goverment might consider their territory.

Anyway Jeff, go for that job.  


   
  
 
   

Does anyone know if there's been any progress on this?

Not that I know of Jeff. It's been discussed on Skoll Social Edge in a recent thread on the role of government:

http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/responsibility/public-innovators

 Hello, I  have been on the edge of my chair   waiting to see how this new change will effect the culture of American government. I dont like what I dont like what I see. Government is responsible for MOST of the problem that the american people are facing today. To reconize  this  would be the frist step in fixing this america we all live in.