"social entrepreneursneed otherframework conditions"

lala.ruhr in conversation with Daniel Bartel from SEND NRW

How does SEND define social entrepreneurship?

Social entrepreneurs are people who use their creativity, their willingness to take risks and their entrepreneurial spirit to develop and disseminate innovative approaches to overcoming social problems. The primary goal of social entrepreneurship is thus to solve societal challenges. This is achieved through the continuous use of entrepreneurial means and results in new and innovative solutions. The social or ecological added value is always in the foreground, profits are seen as a means to an end, and social goals are lived out internally and externally. The work is therefore aimed at impact, not primarily at profit. This is ensured by a controlling and regulating dimension.

While the social entrepreneurship sector is strong in many countries, above all in Great Britain, Germany scores relatively poorly when looking at the data from the Atlas of Social Innovation. Why is that?

Mainly because in Germany there is a very strong distinction and separation between the common good, non-profit and profit orientation. Entrepreneurship is accordingly associated per se with a capitalist profit motive, not with a social-innovative impact. A good example in this regard is Viva con aqua, an international network founded in Hamburg that campaigns for safe access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation. The company makes revenue and uses it for social purposes – according to the German guidelines it is difficult to define whether this is a public good or profit orientation.

According to SEND, social entrepreneurship is still in its infancy, especially in North Rhine-Westphalia and thus also in the Ruhr region. Why?

The problem described above applies here: In North Rhine-Westphalia, politicians do not yet recognise that social entrepreneurs need different framework conditions and pursue different goals than traditional companies. While entrepreneurs are primarily oriented towards making profits and using them to create more jobs, social entrepreneurs have set themselves the goal of working in an impact-oriented way and thus making themselves obsolete as soon as the problem is solved. Because profits and the common good have so far been considered separately, there is still a lack of support and funding programmes for budding social entrepreneurs in NRW. Other federal states, such as Hesse, are already a step further. Here, there is the funding programme Sozialinnovator (Social Innovator), which offers advice and financial resources for entrepreneurs without a capitalist profit-making intention. Only in some municipalities, for example Dortmund, are there positive exceptions with the Start Grow programme. The Impact Hub in Essen also promotes social innovation. But basically the infrastructure is still missing, so to speak. Structural investments on the part of politics are urgently needed here, because a profit-oriented market will be reluctant to provide them.

What else would be needed, besides counselling and start-up funding for founders?

Adapted federal and state procedures. For example, official purchasing of materials and services usually takes place according to the criterion of the cheapest price. Social criteria are not taken into account or are only given second place. However, these could lead to more frequent use of social entrepreneurs.

This is an exciting aspect, and it is worth taking another look at Great Britain. Under the approach of “community wealth building”, such aspects are increasingly being considered by more cities, including Preston as a pioneer. Community wealth building is about creating a resilient and inclusive economy for the benefit of the local area. For its part, Greater Liverpool has over 80 social enterprises with an explicit socio-spatial approach. These range from a launderette as a community hub to a cooperatively organised bakery to The Womens Organisation, a social enterprise that, among other things, promotes and supports the professional path of women as entrepreneurs through workshops and coaching.

Yes, that’s exactly the kind of approach we need here too! Authorities in particular can control their budgets. The municipal district of Höxter, for example, is currently working on a balance sheet for the common good. Currently, there is even a petition to make it possible for public institutions to balance their budgets according to the common good. Furthermore, these examples also show a structural dimension. What rules should the Ruhr region follow in future? Should profit continue to be the only priority? Or do we ensure that public welfare-oriented entrepreneurship and public welfare innovation are actively promoted – by imposing appropriate conditions on the awarding and approval of contracts. All the way to an exaggerated vision: Will only laundromats with a socio-spatial approach be allowed to open in the future?

Should the public sector dare to cooperate and collaborate more?

Absolutely. Open Social Innovation is the keyword here. A good example of this has just started at the federal level with the Update Germany Hackathon. The clear advantage is that public authorities act very slowly, while entrepreneurs act quickly and pragmatically. However, it is important that the institution sees itself as a neutral, effectiveness-oriented platform, approaches potential partners such as the Impact Hub Ruhr, and formulates clear rules. For example: The profits must remain in the Ruhr region and the local structures.

lala.ruhr focuses on green infrastructure and cooperative landscape development. A topic for social entrepreneurs?

Definitely! Especially in forestry, social start-ups are playing a big role at the moment. Actively planting and redesigning – there are many conceivable models that combine modern means and technologies with challenges such as the greening of our cities.

Finally, let’s look beyond the Ruhr region: which national and international examples should we keep an eye on?

The EU-funded programme BRESE (Border Regions in Europe for Social Entrepreneurship) and Las Vegas as a city where the increasing number of casinos has structurally destroyed a lot. Social entrepreneurs are now starting to rebuild the city.

And another personal question: Why are you a social entrepreneur?

Because I am passionate about it and believe that we have an enormous amount of potential in our society to solve problems in ecological and economic harmony. Liveable, regenerative and with respect for all future ways of life.

Thank you very much for the interview!

Interview: Sonja Broy

Daniel Bartel is a bridge builder between reality and a future oriented towards the common good, social innovator and NewWork pioneer make it – a network of 100 founders that has already inspired over 1,000 (social) start-up teams of established companies worldwide. Daniel has published three books, is a changemaker dealing with the essential questions of responsible business models in a digitalised society and is the organiser of Unfuck Düsseldorf. He was recently voted one of the “Top 40 under 40 – Macherinnen und Macher im Rheinland”.