By Fábio Deboni
As the social impact business agenda advances (from now on I will call it social business to make it easier), some questions still seem to remain in the forefront of this discussion. This raises a certain paradox. On the one hand, this agenda seems to be advancing in leaps and bounds as being a kind of 'icing on the cake' of market solutions to 'change the world'. In this same vein we find related themes (sustainability, ESG, among others), all presenting us with a narrative that market solutions, in addition to the market itself, are key pieces in this great arena of socio-environmental transformation.
Therefore, there is a glass half full ahead, full of opportunities for new 'solutions' based on this thesis of market logic to attack socio-environmental problems. In times of such misinformation and shallow opinions about everything, I allow myself to endorse that I believe that the market can and should be an active actor in facing these problems without, however, also failing to recognize that it itself is the cause of several of these problems and that it has its interests in this arena, which will not always be so reconcilable. Closing this parenthesis, I return to the solutions that this market presents to us.
They are often presented as 'innovative', implying that the solutions that already existed before this boom were, in turn, not very innovative (for some people, outdated). Yes, this conflict of visions exists and continues to be present between the lines of this discussion, and seems to feed on a frontier not so distant from the false thesis of a civil society that 'hinders development', that 'is sold to international interests', among other narratives regrettable, but present today.
In this broad arena of socio-environmental transformation (under the marketing synthesis of 'changing the world') there is a group of civil society actors who have been working there for some time. Whether or not they are innovative, I recommend a trench where this discussion takes place fruitfully: the field of social innovation (especially drawing on European references). Social innovation, unlike how they try to sell it to us here, seeks to demarcate that there is, always has been and will continue to be a lot of innovation and creativity in the solutions that civil society undertakes, and that these solutions are not limited to just those that adopt the logic of market. Topic for another article.
Looking at the two aspects didactically presented here – on the one hand, market solutions and on the other, civil society organizations – we can infer that both seem to converge in the same direction as their point of arrival: the resolution of these socio-environmental problems with the formulation of the SDGs as a possible convergence of goals to be pursued. Maybe we can have some consent here.
If we can allow both aspects to share the same point of arrival, in their practices, paths and ways of acting, we will find more divergences than convergences. In practice, they seem to follow parallel trenches in this broad arena of socio-environmental transformation. Some effort has been made to propose bridges between the two, after all, if both share the arrival point, some paths along this journey may also converge, in due course.
Below I list some of these possible non-obvious convergences, assuming that within them there are divergences and nuances that deserve to be considered and deepened. In the case of a debate that is in its initial chapters, the following points can serve as appetizers to sharpen this discussion.
Is social business part of civil society?
In the field of social business, the expression 'sector 2.5' is often used to demarcate that it has a bit of a 3rd sector, therefore, of civil society, and a bit of a 2nd sector, therefore, of the corporate world. The synthesis is didactic, but an empirical observation of its practical application has made us realize that the center of gravity of sector 2.5 seems to be closer to the pole of the 2nd sector (in the world of companies) than to civil society. An obvious question arises from this: in this way, can sector 2.5 be considered as part of the field of civil society? In addition to this issue, the basic question that remains is: how does this change the lives of actors who work in civil society and vice versa?
Assuming the identity of civil society can contribute to reinforcing the germ of social justice that is often latent at the beginning of various social businesses, but with its growth (scale), this essence can be diluted. After all, wouldn't reconnecting and strengthening bonds with entrepreneurs in these businesses be relevant to civil society and its historical struggles?
The donation (grantmaking) Isn’t it suitable for social business?
If social businesses need to get on their feet financially by generating their own revenue through the sale of products and/or services, a hasty conclusion would be that they would not need donation resources. It is worth remembering, however, that most of these social businesses, throughout their initial journeys, need all types of support (including donations) to be able to survive and overcome the so-called 'valley of death' of this difficult entrepreneurial journey. Therefore, they also need patient capital, institutional support and non-financial support that are so expensive and relevant for civil society organizations.
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that there is a considerable diversity of types of social businesses, and they are not all the same thing. I draw attention to community-based enterprises, peripheral businesses, NGOs with a business model, local cooperatives, among other models, which need this type of support even more. Perhaps these are the types of social businesses that most carry with them the identity notion of civil society.
Therefore, placing all social businesses under the same rule is wrong and can lead to hasty conclusions. The central question is: what type of social business are we talking about when discussing the importance of donations? Recognizing that part of social businesses will require donation resources, what is the impact on civil society organizations that depend largely on this same type of capital and support? Will this imply less availability of resources for these organizations? Are they both going to fish in the same aquarium?
Because it is a social business, would they be further away from the foundations of society?
Not necessarily. We cannot evaluate social businesses by the type of CNPJ they have (remembering that in Brazil there is not yet a specific legal category for these organizations. In practice, they can have CNPJ from companies, MEI, cooperative or association). Therefore, being a social business does not establish, a priori, that this initiative is closer or further away from the foundations of society. As we saw in the previous topic, there are types and types of social businesses, some of which are theoretically closer to the bases of society. Peripheral impact businesses, for example, emerge precisely in peripheral urban territories and generally bring with them a more politicized vision of their interventions. This helps to illustrate that even within this aspect there are positions, nuances and different readings of the common sense view on 'market solutions' to face socio-environmental issues. This example even shows that there are efforts among social businesses to hack this same market by adopting their tools.
Bringing a current discussion from the political field here, Would it be too much to dream of thinking about a 'broad front of socio-environmental transformation'? Would it be too much of a stretch? For some yes. Not for others. I myself don't have an opinion on this, but I still realize that there are many possible bridges between different organizations that continue to implement powerful initiatives with positive socio-environmental impact. If at the end of the day, we all seek to build a fairer, more supportive, more diverse world, etc., expanding the connection and collaboration between those who work in similar or distant trenches in this broad socio-environmental arena would allow us to achieve deeper and more profound transformations. consistent. Furthermore, we would reduce the space for foam and narratives of washing. In times of fake news, they swim in stride and unfortunately contribute to trivializing the synthesis of 'changing the world', which seems to mean little nowadays.
