It is an incredibly reductive and simplistic article, Kevin, and it’s leaning is undoubtedly negative (i.e., from this one failure, we will extrapolate findings for an entire movement)…but there is some sense there, reading between the sideswipes. Certainly the phrase “social enterprise mantra” rang a little bit true (I have a feeling this is more so in the UK), whereby people just put forward the model as a panacea to all social ills: no more grants needed, no state intervention, all self-sustaining etc.

The reality is that social entrepreneur-led organisations, whatever their structure/model, grow, survive and flourish by their enterprising nature, the quality of what they do, the transparency with which they operate, and the clarity of how they communicate. And, as far as income generation and legal structures go, they are a spectrum from which to choose the best fit to achieve mission. Blind faith (and adherence) to one ‘pure’ model, whilst turning down other opportunities to achieve impact, isn’t entrepreneurial, it’s the opposite.

See my take on it here.

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce