The Rise of Social Entrepreneurship

Transcript

Stuart Crainer:

Hello, I’m Stuart Crainer, co-founder of Thinkers50. Welcome to our weekly LinkedIn Live session, celebrating some of the brightest new stars in the world of management thinking. In January, we announced the Thinkers50 Radar Community for 2024. These are the upcoming management thinkers we believe individuals and organisations should be listening to. The 2024 list was our most eclectic and challenging yet. This year’s Radar is brought to you in partnership with Deloitte, and features business thinkers from the worlds of fashion, retail, branding, and communications, as well as statisticians, neuroscientists, and platform practitioners from the Nordics to New Zealand and Asia to America. Over the next few weeks, we will be meeting some more of these fantastic thinkers in our weekly sessions, so we hope you can join us for some great conversations. As always, please let us know where you’re joining us from, and send in any comments, questions, observations, at any time during the 45-minute session.

Our guest today is Sophie Bacq. Sophie is Professor of Social Entrepreneurship and Coca-Cola Foundation Chair in Sustainable Development at IMD in Switzerland. As a globally-recognised thought leader on social entrepreneurship and change, she invented and investigates and theorises about entrepreneurial action to solve intractable social and environmental problems at the individual, organisational, and civic levels of analysis. Sophie has taught and conducted research on social entrepreneurship in Europe, the US, and South Africa since 2006. At IMD, she leads the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, which aims to inspire entrepreneurs, leaders, scholars, and organisations to change the system and to create and share new solutions for positive societal change. Sophie, welcome. Let’s start at the beginning. What ignited your interest in social entrepreneurship in the first place?

Sophie Bacq:

Thank you, Stuart, and thanks for having me, and thanks for this first question. I have a background in entrepreneurship studies. I come from Belgium, and I did my bachelor and master’s degrees at UCLouvain, which is a French-speaking university there. As I was really drawn to pursue my studies in entrepreneurship, but also get more exposure and experience to the world of education, I started a position in 2006, as you mentioned, as a teaching and research assistant. I taught strategy, I was the assistant of a professor in strategy, and I also got the luxurious choice of picking a dissertation topic. My advisor, Frank Jensen, was really kind and actually very laissez-faire and said, “You can pick whatever topic is of interest to you. You can go from VC to women,” female entrepreneurship was really en vogue back then, “Or this new thing, social entrepreneurship.”

I was like, “Well, that sounds intriguing,” so I guess you can call it a calling. I was intrigued by the combination of the adjective social, which to me refers to the humanity that we all carry in us and the opposition that was induced in terms of being social as opposed to economic, and mixing that with entrepreneurship, which I had studied for five years already. We also say that in research, we do me-search, and it’s true that I had done, as many of us on the call, I’m sure, lots of volunteering at Oxfam and Amnesty International, so I had this kind of social fibre in me, and I was ready to know more. Luckily, or not, in that year, the stack of paper that my advisor gave me was about that thick, which you know if you start a PhD, this is really nothing, right? It’s not the thousands of pages that one would experience in other fields. The field was really at the beginning and has passionated me since then, so this is how I got started.

Stuart Crainer:

Have you ever thought you should have done research into venture capital? Don’t feel obliged to answer that question, Sophie.

Sophie Bacq:

No regrets. I’m delighted for the platform and the opportunity to do it because it’s such a vast field. You mentioned that the research I do, I’ve done at the individual level looking at the drivers and what drives people to actually be a bit crazier than everybody else and not only start a venture with the associated risks, but also do that for the benefit of others, so looking at elements of empathy and compassion and what are really the traits and the elements that may make these individuals different from traditional entrepreneurs?

At the organisational level, you have all of these tensions that entrepreneurs, and social entrepreneurs in particular, need to navigate between pursuing their mission, and at the same time building a sustainable, viable business model. On the organisational level, maybe, I haven’t studied VCs, but I think there’s fascinating questions about the funding then. It allows me to just, oh, maybe I want to study personality traits or maybe funding issues for social entrepreneurs and social enterprises, and maybe more recently these days, looking at community and trying to take a broader view on what social entrepreneurs do. I’m still at it.

Stuart Crainer:

Rewind a bit, Sophie. How do you define social entrepreneurship? Is there a commonly accepted definition these days? I know it’s been a matter of academic debate for a number of years.

Sophie Bacq:

That’s right. Yes, I think there is consensus on the understanding of social entrepreneurship as the primary pursuit of a social or environmental goal by means of an entrepreneurial means including commerce, creativity, innovation. There is really two components to social entrepreneurship. It’s the goal, the ends that’s going to be social or environmental, and the means that’s going to be more traditional business commerce-based.

Stuart Crainer:

How important is social entrepreneurship? Are there any numbers to tell us how much it contributes to the economies of the world or how important it is?

Sophie Bacq:

This is a good question. There are numbers fresh off-the-press brought to us by the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs, which is part of the WEF, the World Economic Forum, here in my new neighbourhood, so to speak, in Switzerland, in Geneva. Really grateful to the team that’s been led by Francois Bonnici at the WEF, who managed to give us a size of the social entrepreneurship sector. We don’t have trends because that’s the first time I’m seeing these numbers, but the size is pretty significant.

A few numbers I jotted down in preparation for the call, there are about 10 million social enterprises worldwide. Maybe it’s smaller in significance compared to other kinds of social enterprises, but I don’t think we want to talk about niche anymore. 10 million social enterprises, half of them led by women. I think what’s interesting here is that the way these enterprises are managed and then organized and governed are showing a bit more progress when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and so on, so I think it’s worthwhile mentioning that. Creating 200 million jobs, and that’s important because entrepreneurship is always featured as a driver of economic progress or economic activity, job creation. Social entrepreneurs do the same with the primary purpose that they pursue. You can think of the sustainable development goals, so it can be poverty-related, water and sanitation, gender equality, education, life in the ocean and so on.

In terms of revenue generated, I think that’s the one that can speak maybe to most who are listening to us and who are not in the social entrepreneurship space, but in traditional business, 2 trillion US dollars generated in revenue. By comparison, that is twice larger than the advertising industry and larger than the apparel industry. This speaks to also the definition I mentioned earlier. It’s not just charity. It’s doing good by running a viable business, and it’s hard. There’s lots of failures, like there is in entrepreneurship in general, but the surviving ones give us these numbers. I believe, top of my head, but I think that’s correct, it contributes to 7% of the GDP worldwide.

Stuart Crainer:

They’re amazing numbers. There’s 10 million social enterprises worldwide, creating 200 million jobs, generating $2 trillion in revenue, and that equates to 7% of global GDP.

Sophie Bacq:

Correct.

Stuart Crainer:

I’m just reiterating them because they’re really important.

Sophie Bacq:

Absolutely.

Stuart Crainer:

They belie the kind of image of social entrepreneurship as being kind of peripheral.

Sophie Bacq:

Absolutely.

Stuart Crainer:

It’s actually central to the economy, and that’s totally… These activities are kind of spread evenly throughout the world?

Sophie Bacq:

Ooh, that’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that question. I would say I don’t know about evenly. They’re spread out, so there is the manifestations of the phenomenon throughout the world. There is actually, I am looking at currently, for some of my research in progress, at a data set of social entrepreneurs who integrated an accelerator. I was going to say, well, there are many issues in the south, the global south, as some say, or the developing world, with social entrepreneurs sometimes based in the north, in developed countries. But in this global data set that we’re looking at, actually 96% of these entrepreneurs are incorporated where the issues that they’re tackling are. With that dataset, we have 153 countries. I don’t know about evenness, but it is a global phenomenon, for sure.

Stuart Crainer:

We’re joined by people from throughout the world, suitably, somebody from Sweden, people from India, Poland, Switzerland, strangely, as well. Please send in your questions at any time. Frank from Switzerland, Frank Calberg says, “How do social entrepreneurs measure success?”

Sophie Bacq:

“Please give a couple of examples. Thanks.” Great question. I like the broadness of the question in the sense that one reality, an accepted fact, is that there is no one single metric to measure success, which is called impact in social entrepreneurship, as the issues vary broadly from one goal to another. I cited homelessness, ocean life, survival. You are going to have different kinds of impact in those issues, but also the context matters a lot. We no longer are, in social entrepreneurship, looking for one currency, so to speak, when it comes to success. Giving an example is going to help me address the question. A first practice, which is the most widespread, which is due to the fact that this is the easiest to capture, is going to be counting how many lives have been bettered, how many lives have been saved, how many animals have been protected from extinction, and that’s what we call output.

There is a framework that we use which is called the theory of change, which actually encompasses three levels of success in terms of measurement. The first one is the output is exactly what I just said, is like how many people have been affected, hopefully positively, by the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative? Then there is the outcome, and the outcome is going to get more granular, what do we mean by bettering a life? Do we mean longer life expectancy? Do we mean better health, improved health, thanks to access to vaccines or prevention of malaria? Or if you are just saying homelessness in the developed countries, how many lives saved? But then what do these individuals experience as a result of being helped by the social enterprise?

Then you get to add measures of well-being, and you get at more subjective measures, perceptive measures, of impact or success. Eventually, when we talk about impacting the theory of change framework, we usually think of quality of life, has it been improved, and we think 10 years down the line. This is a great question because you can imagine that outputs and outcomes are more captured by social entrepreneurs and social enterprises than the quality of life 10 years down the road because it’s hard to establish causality, you don’t have the counterfactuals, so there’s a lot of challenges in measuring success, but I hope this addresses, I think it was Frank’s question.

Stuart Crainer:

What about the relationship between social entrepreneurship and something like benefit corporations, B Corps?

Sophie Bacq:

Yeah, absolutely.

Stuart Crainer:

Are they the same thing? Are B Corps social enterprises?

Sophie Bacq:

They can be, but not always. They are definitely overlapping. The B Corp movement, I think they like to call it a movement, was launched by the B Lab in the early years, I would say 2010, somewhere like that, in the United States. It’s a nonprofit, a 501(c)(3) in the US, that launched this certification. When you hear B Corps, you actually most probably are hearing about or thinking about or reading about a certified corporation that has the B Corp label. The objective of the B Lab was to recognize and authenticate and actually certify the genuine efforts towards the people and the planet by for-profit organisations. They are related why? Because, that’s something I haven’t said yet, but social enterprises as organisations that are part of social entrepreneurship can be for-profit or nonprofit. There are different criteria to decide whether it’s more beneficial for the mission to incorporate as a for-profit or a nonprofit.

If you’re a nonprofit and the perception of your stakeholders, it’s an easier sell that your mission is really at the core of what you do, and you may be generating income through trade and commerce. If you are a for-profit, knowing that the for-profit organisations really exist within the capitalist systems that we know, at least in many countries around the world, including the US and Switzerland, where I am now, who tells me that you’re authentic and you are not just greenwashing, as we hear, or social washing? This certification really has made more clear to many stakeholders that the certified B Corps, whether they are social enterprises or not, are actually doing good when it comes to governance of the organisation and diversity of their board, for instance, when it comes to workers’ conditions and the way that their employees are treated and their well-being, when it comes to waste management.

The B Lab has come up with a series of measures, the B Impact Assessment, that’s the name, that these for-profits voluntarily take, get a score for, and are held accountable to by this independent third-party organisation, which is the B Lab. I think, to circle back and close on this question, I would say that there is likely more variance within the certified B Corps. Some organisations are not maybe primarily looking to address a social or environmental goal, but they are doing tremendous efforts that deserve recognition. To me, it’s all progress in the right direction, or at least in a more socially inclusive and environmentally-friendly direction.

Stuart Crainer:

You wrote recently, I read it, that social entrepreneurship is at a point of convergence.

Sophie Bacq:

That’s right. That’s right.

Stuart Crainer:

What do you mean by that? Could you expand on that?

Sophie Bacq:

Yes, yes. Thank you. This was part of my reflections as I hosted, on IMD’s campus, the 20th Annual Social Entrepreneurship Conference, which is the largest academic gathering of its kind. I have been co-directing it with Jill Kickul since 2012, so we celebrated this year, it’s a big year at IMD, and I was reflecting on, taking stock, and looking ahead on what I could share with the 150 participants that came to campus, mostly scholars, PhD students, and a couple of practitioners. I’ve taught social entrepreneurship for many, many years at the undergrad level, MBA level, doctoral level, as well, and I used to frame it more as a separate phenomenon that some entrepreneurs, some individuals in society, in our economies undertake for a particular primary reason that’s not going to be profit or economic financial returns. But more and more, to build on the B Corp answer, we see corporations acting towards more people-centred and planet-centred goals, whether that’s out of compliance, especially in the EU, or whether that’s out of reactions to stakeholder claims, think of consumers and what they want, think of employees, there is a lot of press about that.

I really see now social entrepreneurship, I use my hands if you’ll see, so I thought social entrepreneurship is this little bubble here and there is the economy there, maybe they make a little part of it. But I really think that social entrepreneurship can be seen as a phenomenon where the forces are converging, whether it is larger organisations trying to do good, they can learn from these business models that are highly innovative because they are inherently pursuing two goals, or whether this is corporations thinking more in terms of partnership and collaboration and collective action. We talk about systemic change and so on, it’s not going to be one actor saving it all. That was actually the claim for social entrepreneurship for many years, it’s the silver bullet. Social entrepreneurs are heroes. They’re going to save the world. Well, no, they are not.

The progress is there, amazing, and I love teaching about it, both successes and failures. But at the same time, I really believe now, reflecting on almost 20 years of research on the topic, that social entrepreneurs are at the centre. Maybe the movement is going to the centre of what we are seeing now, if you think of an economy that’s moving towards more fairness and environmental protection, and that corporations have a lot to gain in partnering with social entrepreneurs. They are going to give legitimacy to social entrepreneurs. Corporations can actually advance further if they partner with social entrepreneurs, as opposed to trying to reinvent themselves in areas that they’re not really trained or equipped to, and so that’s the point of convergence. I am excited about that, from the outskirts to the centre of the circle.

Stuart Crainer:

What about the relationship between social entrepreneurship and corporations? Do you think corporations have now got a greater understanding of the power of social entrepreneurship? Are they getting closer together? Just now you talked about them seeing opportunities for collaboration and partnership. Is that actually happening?

Sophie Bacq:

It is happening. On average, I am not sure that corporations are more and more aware or sufficiently aware of what social entrepreneurship is about. I think that can also vary by country, right? When I taught undergrads in the US, a lot of them had taken social entrepreneurship classes in high school. You think they’re in business school, they graduated from Indiana University, where I was, and then joining these corporations, so I think some corporations in some contexts may have members who are really aware of what it is. In Switzerland, I am working and collaborating with the B Lab, and then there is a forum here at the University of Lausanne, there’s a lot of actors that are working to spread the word more, so I think we can do more. Why? Because I really believe in this power of partnership.

To give you an example, and I just finished writing a case, it will need to be polished before being published, I am testing it with my MBAs in a few weeks, on IKEA, IKEA Belgium in particular, which wanted to streamline and be more intentional about its impact strategy. IKEA Belgium had the budget, sustainability budgets, good intentions for doing good in the world, but a very scattered approach, meaning they were funding schools in different countries in Africa, they were helping some associations, as we call them in Belgium, but without a clear guide for their impact activities. They decided to zero in on an issue that was highly prevalent in Belgium and for which they could actually bring a solution that was aligned with their core business, which is furnishing. That problem that they identified was adequate or fair housing of single-parent families.

Lots of families that are led by a single parent in Belgium don’t have adequate housing, don’t have enough sleeping rooms, sleeping shelters, and so they wanted to address that. To do that, they really engaged with social enterprises who actually knew best, not only how to fix the problem, we shouldn’t jump to quick fixes, necessarily, but to connect with the community of people affected by the issue. They created coalitions with social enterprises and community members to come up with more long-lasting solutions, where they moved from writing checks and making donations to the schools in Africa that I mentioned earlier to actually in-kind donations, so furniture, really aligned with their business model, but also provide employee time. Volunteering time increased at IKEA Belgium. Employees could go and volunteer, not as a soup kitchen you would think. That is nothing to do, it’s great, we need those, but nothing to do with the business. But actually volunteering in building the IKEA furniture, and then designing and making the rooms pretty and welcoming for a family when they come back home from school and work.

This partnership really made a huge difference. I think what’s critical is not only the entrepreneur mindset and the thinking outside the box and very bottom-up that entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs represent, but also this connection with the community. Social entrepreneurs by the finish, and they start with a problem. They are animated by this force to address issues that really deeply bothers them in the world, and they will have, let’s say, deep connections with individuals who are experiencing the problem deep in the sense that they know…

We talk a lot about empathy and social entrepreneurship, and we talked about empathy earlier as I was telling you a bit about my research, but they will be able to really say, “This person needs that. It’s not about painting the walls. It’s actually more beds for people to sleep better at night.” Having this connection really makes a difference, because the good intentions are there. I see them every day when I have corporate leaders in the classroom. The good intentions are there. The means are there. There are budgets, there are even sustainability officers. It’s more about directing those good intentions and means that really drives me to move forward and try to spread the word more and think about different models.

Stuart Crainer:

Frank Calberg has a follow-up question, “What specific actions can people who work for corporations take to help social entrepreneurs create 20 times more impact? I think you’ve kind of answered that really, Sophie, in your previous answer.

Sophie Bacq:

Yeah, absolutely. Great question. Thanks for engaging, Frank. I think people in corporations, this group at IKEA Belgium, I mentioned the sustainability officer, but what I really liked and thought was innovative on the part of IKEA Belgium, and documented in the case study, is also that when the IKEA Belgium leadership had the intention of shifting the impact strategy, they created a team that was interdisciplinary and intermultifunctional, right? It was the sustainability, but it was also representatives from people who are on the floor, because at IKEA, most employees, or coworkers, as they call them, are actually working in the shops that some of you may have likely visited.

I think this interdisciplinary angle is actually critical. Back to my convergence, that’s another point I didn’t dig into earlier, but social entrepreneurship is usually taught in business schools, since it’s entrepreneurship, after all, but there’s amazing work in economic development and public administration, policymaking, where we see a lot of convergence, and we should talk more to each other. That’s an aside. The interdisciplinarity, I think you can go further, for 20 times your impact, if you actually break down the silos because the social issues, they gather people around. They are really good at being a point of convergence, to go back to that.

The other thing, and here, I am less of an expert, but I am aware of amazing work by my colleague, Elisa Alt, she’s at King’s College in London, and her team about social intrapreneurship, or corporate social entrepreneurship, where they actually show that there are a lot of changemakers in organisations that actually can do good inside the organisation when it comes to issues such as, why are we always wasting that packaging when we have lunch meetings and you’re having lunch when you have your meeting, and you may be discarding a lot of plastic or paper, whatsoever.

There’s a lot of empowerment that I think can be done in larger corporations for employees to speak up and bring solutions to the internal problems, but also maybe the external problems, as well. I would invite leaders to empower these changemakers and give them the licence to make a change, either internally or proposing some potential partnership or setting up teams for making a change.

Stuart Crainer:

IMD has recently created its Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, which you lead. Can you tell us about that, Sophie? What’s the objectives of the initiative?

Sophie Bacq:

Thank you, Stuart. The objective of the initiative is really to inspire. That’s how we thought of it at first. It’s a newly-created initiative to inspire not only students in our degree programs, like the MBA students, some of them may start a social enterprise or executive MBA students, but also inspire individuals in corporations to either, it’s either/or, or both, actually, even better, to use some of the principles that social entrepreneurs can teach us when it comes to governance of dual goals, when it comes to starting with a problem, holding off any preconceived solutions, holding off assumptions. These are really important skills that are not built in most of the corporate routines, and to inspire scholars.

We would like the initiative to be a point of resources for future programs for corporate leaders, and eventually, hopefully, programs where leaders can meet social entrepreneurs, can meet people from the communities, and build together these solutions in a way that’s collaborative and really play up to the strength of each actor. I think we will go further if we think collaboratively, which again is very counterintuitive in a lot of the economic slow and the lows of competition and competitive advantage. But when it comes to social issues, we can change our mindset, and we like to inspire many to do that.

Stuart Crainer:

Timothy Cook has distilled things down very nicely, “The forces are converging and aligning, how to go faster.” I guess a lot of what you’ve talked about, Sophie, is that things appear to be heading in the direction of change, but how can they be accelerated?

Sophie Bacq:

I am thinking of a few elements I saw in the IKEA case, and I’m collecting more data – I’d like to have more of those cases to teach in the classroom – I think intention goes a long way, but with the caveat that intention without action is creating nothing, likely. But the intention, like having likely more than one person, but a group of individuals in organisations, or a coalition of a few people from a corporation, a social entrepreneur, a few people from the committee, really carrying on this project and having the intention to do so, I think we go faster than waiting for incentive systems to change or larger systems that drive our behaviours to change.

I really see, in a lot of my work, you may hear I’m very positive, but I’m also cognizant that there are many challenges, but humans connect in ways that are still magical in so many ways. Having coalitions of actors from across sectors, corporations, social entrepreneurs, communities, and being intentional about bringing the work to fruition, I think it’s critical. It’s akin to volunteering in your, I’m looking at my village here, in your village about helping the elderly or doing cleanup. The intention is there. I’d like to see more of that intention.

The second thing I was going to say is measurements. Of course, you are going to become what you measure. Measurements are tricky. It’s a tricky question, there’s a lot of variance across contexts and issues. But I think if we can really move the needle, many scholars, including at IMD, are working on that topic, I think we would make more progress because we would be able to measure and then better convince the stakeholders with whom we interact.

Stuart Crainer:

The other area of your work, Sophie, if you would just give us a brief insight into it, is you do work on civic wealth creation.

Sophie Bacq:

That’s right.

Stuart Crainer:

Can you tell us what you mean by that and what the work involves?

Sophie Bacq:

Yes. Thanks for the question. I just hinted because I think it’s aligned with my last answer. Civic wealth is a new indicator for progress or for positive societal impact, which is best captured at the community level. On that, I will add that lots of my work has been, as I mentioned, about the individuals, the organisations, until we realised, and this is work jointly done with my co-author, Tom Lumpkin, that the impact, it’s extra-organisational. It’s not within the organisation for the most part. You’re trying to help people who have to live in the shelters because they don’t have proper housing, that’s the IKEA case I just mentioned, and so the community level is really critical.

With that, we think of civic wealth as the intellectual, material, effective resources, capacities, or capabilities of a segment of society. It’s not just the material resources. When I talked about improving lives and wellbeing, it’s not just having more money in your pocket to put food on the table, which is critical, but effectively, are people better off mental health-wise? Are they more educated? A new indicator at the community level, or what we call the civic level, how do you reach it? Well, through the power of collaboration, and that’s what I just explained earlier. It’s not only an entrepreneur who is going to reach the high levels of civic wealth created, it’s going to be an entrepreneur collaborating with the community. There, we have a lot of evidence from work on economic and community development, where there is no change, or lasting change, if the help is provided top-down without empathy and without understanding of the issue, so community engagement is critical.

The last stakeholder, so we have three stakeholder groups in the model, is what we call the regimes of support by those who, in a nutshell, have influence and power. These can be philanthropists, they can provide funding, but they can also provide direction, like the IKEA Belgium case did. They can be corporations. This is where I think philanthropists can continue doing the work funding amazing social entrepreneurs who engage with the community, but universities have also a role to play. Lots of the institutions who have power and influence are invited to join the collaborative work and realise that, honestly, realistically, together, we will achieve more. The power of collaboration is just not said lightly. I think this is where we will do greater good, and in a faster way, hopefully.

Stuart Crainer:

Are you optimistic that social enterprises are being better understood and their impact is being maximised?

Sophie Bacq:

I am optimistic that social enterprises are better understood, yes. I always cautiously teach it in the classroom, I assume my audience doesn’t know much about it, and so most of the time, I am positively surprised. Not everyone may know about it, but there is 50% who’s heard of it, so I think that’s really good. I think we are going in a direction of an upward trajectory for spreading the word. Do social enterprises maximise or optimise their impact? No, and I think there are gaps in funding, as well, where, for good reasons, what we call impact investors are forgoing some of the profits, financial return investment, for impact return investment.

But at the same time, we see patterns in certain kinds of social enterprises, those who can scale, get more money, and some social enterprises not being funded, or being funded for the first two years. But it takes time to create change, and so I would love to see more investors who can be patient with their capital, but I understand the challenges. I think there are logics of decision-making and behaviours for all the stakeholders, but I’d love to see more supportive social entrepreneurs by investors and other kinds of institutions I just mentioned.

Stuart Crainer:

We’re out of time, Sophie. Where can people find out more about your work, and what should they be looking out for? Is anything coming out soon?

Sophie Bacq:

Great question. I think on LinkedIn, definitely, I post a lot of updates. The IMD website is pretty complete when it comes to future programs, when it comes to forthcoming publications, so this is where you should look. I think if you type IMD and my name, you’ll find my page and the initiative, and lots to be read there. And if not, contact me on LinkedIn. I can always send you work by email.

Stuart Crainer:

Timothy Cook says, “Start small, make a measurable impact.” That’s his top tip for the future. Thank you for that, Timothy. We appreciate you watching. We appreciate all the comments and questions from people. I think it’s worth ending with a summary of the numbers that Sophie quoted earlier, that there’s 10 million social enterprises worldwide, creating 200 million jobs and $2 trillion in revenue, and they constitute 7% over the world’s GDP. A massive and really interesting area, touching the very basic issues of capitalism really, as well, and society.

Sophie Bacq:

Absolutely.

Stuart Crainer:

Sophie, thank you very much for joining us. Really, really appreciate the conversation and the insights. Thank you, everyone from around the world who’s joined us. Next week, we will be joined by Stephanie LeBlanc-Godfrey from Google, so hope you can join us then. Thanks very much, Sophie, and thank you, everyone.

Sophie Bacq:

Thank you so much.