Fundamentally, that article took issue with the mission of the social enterprise. I believe that "social enterprise" is a compromise term anyway, and what's important is linking what we do for a living with what we need to do as a species to survive. We're getting there; the economic models are developing, the finance is changing, but it's a big project.
You know, it's miserable to feel like you're working against your own, your family's and your community's best interest. And that should tell us something.
I'm adding a few references to my assertions.---
- in order to build products and services, we need developed intangible assets (knowledge, relationships, processes, physical and emotional health, creativity) [Note: see Baruch Lev's seminal work, and many others since then.]
- a large amount of intangible asset creation and development happens in the community, transcending the boundaries of the firm, or even being initiated in the community at large by people who are unaffiliated with any firms. [see Anne Saxenian's study comparing HP/Silicon Valley with DEC/Boston area.]
- therefore, when a company takes on its corporate social responsibility, it links back into the community and is able to develop pathways to assist faster development of intangible assets, gain knowledge of where they are and what affects them, and bring them into product/service-relevant activities when it's appropriate.
That's just strategic behavior. It can be done poorly -- there's such a thing as a poor strategy, or an inefficient one -- but that's how "edge" is built, that's how companies compete with each other.