Throughout our trip, we haven't only been meeting with NGO's, we have also visited with some social entrepreneurs such as Small World, NRG Solutions, Agile Development and more. As a result, we have also been talking about the differences between the two.
Basically, the biggest difference I see, is that social enterprises don't rely on donations and grants to get the money they need for their projects; they have a structured program that will get them a steady income. This might be better because money wouldn't be as big of a focus for the group and instead, they could be focusing their time and energy towards whatever cause the organisation is working towards; money wouldn't be as much of a question mark or inconsistent aspect. Consequently, enterprises are more of a business, so they can also develop other businesses through what they're doing. Like Small World empowers other people to start their own companies, NRG Solutions encourages micro financing and more. Generally, the entrepreneurs for world development issues like the ones we met with will also make the slightest bit of an income as well so that he/she has a bit of money to live on.
On the other hand, an NGOs' biggest challenge is generally getting the funding for their projects. They will always be writing grants or looking for ways to increase donations and money, as a result, is more problematic. An organisation might, one month, be doing very well and have a great sum of money for tackling their issue but then, the next month, won't have had any donations and would be struggling to continue the programs they had started the month before. For big organisations, this isn't as big of a problem, but for grassroots that are just starting off, it is extremely common. Also, unlike most enterprises, people who work for NGO's are strictly volunteers: they don't make any personal money for what they do.
Personally, based off what I've heard through the last couple of days, I think that social enterprises might be better because they are more sustainable and I find that sustainability is one of the most important factors when working on service projects like these. An NGO might not last and get to the change they want to bring due to their financial issues. It is common for groups to start off as NGO's because they believe that that way they will really only be helping others and not make their own money because that's not what helping others is about, then they'll start to face these challenges with funding and will then change to social enterprises. Generally if an organisation is serious about the work that they are doing and that it's based off world development, when they become businesses they really limit their personal income to the essentials.
Neither option is bad, it's just a matter of how you want your program to run; whether you are prepared to tackle the financial challenge or you won't be able to and need to alter the system to ensure that your organisation will still succeed.
LM
Basically, the biggest difference I see, is that social enterprises don't rely on donations and grants to get the money they need for their projects; they have a structured program that will get them a steady income. This might be better because money wouldn't be as big of a focus for the group and instead, they could be focusing their time and energy towards whatever cause the organisation is working towards; money wouldn't be as much of a question mark or inconsistent aspect. Consequently, enterprises are more of a business, so they can also develop other businesses through what they're doing. Like Small World empowers other people to start their own companies, NRG Solutions encourages micro financing and more. Generally, the entrepreneurs for world development issues like the ones we met with will also make the slightest bit of an income as well so that he/she has a bit of money to live on.
On the other hand, an NGOs' biggest challenge is generally getting the funding for their projects. They will always be writing grants or looking for ways to increase donations and money, as a result, is more problematic. An organisation might, one month, be doing very well and have a great sum of money for tackling their issue but then, the next month, won't have had any donations and would be struggling to continue the programs they had started the month before. For big organisations, this isn't as big of a problem, but for grassroots that are just starting off, it is extremely common. Also, unlike most enterprises, people who work for NGO's are strictly volunteers: they don't make any personal money for what they do.
Personally, based off what I've heard through the last couple of days, I think that social enterprises might be better because they are more sustainable and I find that sustainability is one of the most important factors when working on service projects like these. An NGO might not last and get to the change they want to bring due to their financial issues. It is common for groups to start off as NGO's because they believe that that way they will really only be helping others and not make their own money because that's not what helping others is about, then they'll start to face these challenges with funding and will then change to social enterprises. Generally if an organisation is serious about the work that they are doing and that it's based off world development, when they become businesses they really limit their personal income to the essentials.
Neither option is bad, it's just a matter of how you want your program to run; whether you are prepared to tackle the financial challenge or you won't be able to and need to alter the system to ensure that your organisation will still succeed.
LM
