Singapore's first hawker centre run by social enterprise closes

Usually such model need subsidy, otherwise just can't sustain.

Temp san, infact you have far-sighted view, NTUC had lost it social obligation to serve S'porean despite given tax free incentive cos is a corporative entity. When LKY founded ntuc his main objective is to control the workers from strike that affecting the country economy, Over the decade ntuc grow to become super rich, now internally all struggle for power and authority.
Well, think after losing substantial vote and a GRC now they wake up liao...Look like they going to set up a ntuc or union ENTERPRISE to look into how to reduce the medical cost for S'poean....in thailand those poor peasant are given free medical treatment, whereas SG can die but cannot fall sick.

(08-11-2013, 02:57 PM)Temperament Wrote: i am just thinking why can't we run a Social Enterprise as Private Enterprise? Or a Private Enterprise as a Social Enterprise?
Don't we have NTUC, Tamasek, GIC, etc...Sometimes i am not sure what these companies, etc are for? For All Singaporeans, or some Singaporeans? Or very little for most Singaporeans and a lot for some Singaporeans? The worst case is for some FTs too. No? Perhaps my perspective is "Myopia"

opmi san, you hit the jackpot, fully agreed
>Social Enterprises is a business, with 2 bottomlines, profit and social impact.
>NTUC Co-ops may have lost their ways by pursuing profit...

indeed ntuc nowadays are super greedy and profit orientated...sad sad sad...even funeral money they also desperate.

(08-11-2013, 05:22 PM)opmi Wrote: A business need to generate profit to self-sustain, invest or build up
reserve for the future. Cost recovery not sustainable for long run
coz one day goodwill/donations of others will run out.

That why it is more difficult to run a social enterprise. For-profit
does not mean profit maximization. It is balance between profit
and social objectives.

opmi, cost recovery is not donation or goodwill. It is simply running a business at a profit level that is enough to cover the operating cost and meet the social objectives.

In other words, the priority KPI is the social outcome and the bottom line takes a back seat. Yes, agreed it is difficult.

(08-11-2013, 11:43 PM)LionFlyer Wrote:

(08-11-2013, 05:22 PM)opmi Wrote: A business need to generate profit to self-sustain, invest or build up
reserve for the future. Cost recovery not sustainable for long run
coz one day goodwill/donations of others will run out.

That why it is more difficult to run a social enterprise. For-profit
does not mean profit maximization. It is balance between profit
and social objectives.

opmi, cost recovery is not donation or goodwill. It is simply running a business at a profit level that is enough to cover the operating cost and meet the social objectives.

In other words, the priority KPI is the social outcome and the bottom line takes a back seat. Yes, agreed it is difficult.

I mean cost recovery is not enough and unsustainable for the long term. Orgs that just do cost recovery to cover ops costs, may still have to get donation for capex or expansion coz they cannot build up cash reserves.

I also feel that social enterprises must be market relevant. Their products and services must be marketable. If produce things that no one wants, also not sustainable.

It is an business enterprise after all(with a social function).
Retail/Food business is cut throat, need to stay ahead of the game or close down.
Same with many other folks who are motivated by something else to run their business,
it does not work if it can't break even/generate a profit.

There are various models and it is a question of how far any social enterprise want to go as far as profitability is concerned because you will come up to a point where certain business decisions have to be made which might run counter to the social objective.

I guess something along the lines of cost-recovery + % of profit might be a balance which social enterprises might strife for without getting into the uncomfortable situation of questions being asked about the motivations. (E.g a social which employs disenfranchised women in a third world can be seen as exploiting them if it is done 'incorrect').

(09-11-2013, 08:51 AM)LionFlyer Wrote: There are various models and it is a question of how far any social enterprise want to go as far as profitability is concerned because you will come up to a point where certain business decisions have to be made which might run counter to the social objective.

I guess something along the lines of cost-recovery + % of profit might be a balance which social enterprises might strife for without getting into the uncomfortable situation of questions being asked about the motivations. (E.g a social which employs disenfranchised women in a third world can be seen as exploiting them if it is done 'incorrect').

That's why the leadership (board and mgt) must be
clear about mission and objectives. Eg an indulgent board to ambitious
founder-CEO may lead the org astray. Eg golden taps.

(08-11-2013, 09:26 PM)koh_52 Wrote: Temp san, infact you have far-sighted view, NTUC had lost it social obligation to serve S'porean despite given tax free incentive cos is a corporative entity. When LKY founded ntuc his main objective is to control the workers from strike that affecting the country economy, Over the decade ntuc grow to become super rich, now internally all struggle for power and authority.
Well, think after losing substantial vote and a GRC now they wake up liao...Look like they going to set up a ntuc or union ENTERPRISE to look into how to reduce the medical cost for S'poean....in thailand those poor peasant are given free medical treatment, whereas SG can die but cannot fall sick.

opmi san, you hit the jackpot, fully agreed
>Social Enterprises is a business, with 2 bottomlines, profit and social impact.
>NTUC Co-ops may have lost their ways by pursuing profit...

indeed ntuc nowadays are super greedy and profit orientated...sad sad sad...even funeral money they also desperate.

LKY learn from Hock Lee bus riot and know 水可载舟， 亦可翻舟. So unions have to be controlled

NTUC Co-Op mission is simple: to provide a baseline for prices so that competitive pressure will force competitors to have less price elasticity. Their model worked so well in groceries that they are expanding to other industries where they want to control the prices. I'm not sure if they are profit oriented now but as I pointed out in another thread, they are unlikely to be competitive beyond the shores of Singapore without the indirect govt subsidies. Otherwise, they have served their purpose here.

I think social enterprises should be focused on 1)green field where risk is high, from micro-financing to biopolis 2) National interests from Development banks to telecommunications which was what Temasek was doing.

Agree the BoD must be very clear about objectives. Producing profit to sustain the social objective is VERY DIFFERENT from focusing on profit with social objective as a means. NKF and Temasek are a good examples of organisations that don't remember why it existed.