Where's the Fortune 500 Love???

As I buried myself in this week's reading, I was comforted by the fact that I was finally receiving some foundation in social entrepreneurship/enterprise/innovation--I have yet to conclude which of these is my favorite term so please bear with me.

I have always been a strong supporter of social progress, especially for our undeserved populations domestically and abroad. However, most recently I have become confused as to how to balance my yearning for social progress while not forgetting that time is ticking until it's time to pay back these student loans (Thanks Cornell and CMU). As I began to hear more about social entrepreneurship, I was relieved to find that there could be some overlap.

Working in the non-profit community here in Pittsburgh has been rewarding but I have found somewhat of an anti-profit bias on occasion. Again, I was confronted with some anti-profit sentiments while researching advancements in underdeveloped regions--mostly attributed to exploitation (Exhibit A: Good ol' Nike--http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm). I would see this in informal conversations and it seemed that many non-profit supporters would neglect to mention that a lot of their resources are granted by profit aimed businesses.

But with the help of people like Jim Patell, Stanford Business School Professor, and McKinsey & Co.'s report entitled, "What Happens Next? 5 Crucibles of Innovation," I have finally seen the light. McKinsey's report highlighted the many opportunities large multinational companies could take advantage of in underdeveloped regions as our world continues to change. Similarly, Jim Pattel focuses efforts on possibilities to "improve lives and make money." The innovations spoken of were not solely charity but instead were innovative and beneficial on several levels.

Strides made by private companies range from, GE's $1500 profitable electrocardiograph machine to Danones cheap but profitable nutritional yogurt that was released in Bangladesh. These innovations have long term and far reaching impact(s). With these things being said, it would seem that there should be lots of praise for our private companies seeking change.  I think that more programs like Patell's at Stanford should be placed in innovative universities around the country. I also think we should, as Mckinsey's report did, urge innovators to seek opportunities in underdeveloped nations because of the potential. Though I wouldn't consider myself a social entrepreneur at this point (nothing to brag about) I do see how sometimes it can be discouraging trying to seek social change along with a profit.

I hope we begin to commend the "GE's and Danone's" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328943452892722.html) for what they do in underdeveloped neighborhoods regardless of whether they are looking for profit down the road. I urge them to continue looking for emerging markets to capitalize on becuase it seems their benefits far outnumber those of the critics.

Sources Used:

• McKinsey&Company. Special Report. What happens next? Five crucibles of innovation that will shape the coming decade. Bisson, Kirkland, Stevenson, Viguerie.
• CNNMOney.com - Products for the other 3 billion
• Danone innovation -http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328943452892722.html