A notable -and perhaps regrettable- feature of the 20th century is the generalized separation between the business and social world. The economic and financial enterprises forged and began to grow, without taking account of the enormous social challenges on their surroundings. And the social causes, which were conceived in an altruistic or charitable spirit, were oblivious to the market rational and thus, grounded their existence to people’s generosity and the desire of wealthy people to assure their entrance into heaven.
The enterprise’s social commitment was limited to the number of jobs created while the financial profit of social organizations was suspicious. And this dualism, that has been installed in our imaginaries, only contributes to companies accentuating social problems -increasing poverty, mayor inequalities, and greater distance between the people- and to social organizations depending on the charity of others to achieve their worthy intentions.
But the growing awareness of the devastating effects of “wild capitalism,” together with the social sector’s professionalization and laicism, have been drilling that wall, and have created meeting points between two antagonistic worlds. In the first two decades of this century, there have been constant efforts from companies to approach the social world, and of social organizations to approach entrepreneurship. All kinds of concepts and trends have emerged at this junction, such as social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, B corps, impact capital, social investment funds, shared value schemes, social businesses, and social impact bonds, among others.
The pattern of these models is using capitalist markets’ tools to support social or environmental impact purposes. In other words, making the altruist work, cost-effective. Thus, the “insensitive” capitalisms find incentives to worry about people’s’ wellbeing, and the social organizations find channels to make their actions sustainable and to gain influence and autonomy.
In Tiempo de Juego’s case, our efforts to create opportunities for boys and girls from vulnerable communities, tend to be expensive and hard to make profitable. We require trained staff, infrastructure, some materials, refreshments, and so much more. Still, we can’t charge the participants for these services because we locate right in the places where there are few opportunities for children, and their capacity to bear these costs is low.
This situation made us think, from the first years of the organization, about how to approach a business logic, and develop business units that allow us to train and create job opportunities among the participants and their families, governed by market rules, to produce economic value as well.
It was in this logic that Local Grocery Store “La Jugada” and screen printing workshop “Pongale Color” were created several years ago. After meeting the Hotel and Restaurant built by Kick4Life at Lesotho, we got inspired and developed the Hotel Escuela “El Habitante”, currently operating in Ciénaga, Magdalena. This same logic raised the audiovisual producer Labuzca, where children receive training and work on the video and music industry, and where the Communications Collective was originally created, which brings this publication to life.
Adopting the logic of economic entrepreneurship to develop productive projects that can generate income for the organization has become a fundamental source of our income. At the same time, it has allowed us to adopt reliable administrative tools that impact the organization’s general performance, as monitoring and evaluation models, costing tools, the culture of efficiency, and so many other elements taken from the business world. Measure and evaluate the intervention’s results, has allowed us to engage valuable economic resources, from companies and corporations that find it strategic to join the social development efforts that we lead. The fact is that the 21st century has sophisticated the investment forms under a systemic point of view, and this has led many entrepreneurs and investors to start incorporating other’s wellbeing as a fixed variable in their own welfare equation.
The path is starting to be traced. Still, there is much to be discovered for the merging of these two logics to contribute consistently and deeply to the eradication of environmental and social problems. The challenge is for all of us.
