This chapter posits that the term social enterprise carries multiple discourses and that social enterprise is referred to in various ways by different actors. In this section, various discourses which exist in the field of social entrepreneurship in South Korea will be introduced and discussed with a focus on the time in which each discourse emerged, the groups of actors promoting each discourse, and the emphasis of each discourse. Although the concept of social enterprise has been officially institutionalized by the SEPA, some discourses of social enterprise provided by other actors are not included in this institutionalized meaning. Therefore, some actors have been pushing their discourses to be accepted by other actors, especially by the government who has the dominant power in this institutionalized field. Moreover, alternative discourses of social enterprise which resist against the dominant institutionalized concept continuously emerge from the field.
In order to compare discourses, the actors promoting each discourse, and their relationships and strategies, I have identified social enterprise discourses in South Korea using Karim (1993)’s framework, as shown in Table 4-1. Some discourses overlap and do not completely oppose each other. Also, it is important to recall that a group of actors can promote more than one discourse at the same time.
Table 4-1Discourse Identification of Korean Social Enterprise using Karim’s (1993) Discourse Identification
Discourse Main Actors
Dominant and official discourse
Certified Social Enterprise (Work-related, welfare-related and CSR discourse)
Top-down actors (The Blue House, Ministry of Labor, Members of the National Assembly, Big Corporations, NMCOU)
Oppositional discourse
Local development Bottom-up actors (NMCOU and CSSSED)
Cooperative CSSSED, KCCSE
Social economy CSSSED, KCCSE
Alternative discourse
Social innovation and entrepreneurial
SEN Korea, Social Finance Organizations, Ashoka, Beautiful Store, Individual Entrepreneurs
Populist discourse
None None
According to Karim (1993), dominant discourse is not monolithic and static but it reflects the “ever-changing structure of power” (Karim 1993: 192). Therefore, a dominant discourse is shaped by the interactions between actors in power relations that are changing over time. A dominant discourse comprises the dominant definitions of the situation in which the existing structures of power and social conditions are embedded. However, a dominant discourse is not necessarily an official discourse (Williams 1985). An official discourse represents the views, arguments, explanations and policy suggestions provided by the state, which appear in legislations and in other government regulations (Schlesinger, Elliot, and Murdock 1984). An oppositional discourse criticizes a dominant discourse and its viewpoints, and resists against the hegemony of the dominant discourse. An alternative discourse, instead, is considered to be a discourse that does not share the same viewpoint with dominant discourses, unlike oppositional discourses (Karim 1993). Lastly, a populist discourse has a conservative tendency similar to dominant discourses, but its voice,
manners, and viewpoints are much more extreme so that it is not usually adopted by the state (Schlesinger, Elliot, and Murdock 1984).
In South Korea, the official discourse of social enterprise is the dominant discourse. When the state, including the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the Members of the National Assembly, the Big Corporations, and intermediary organizations, such as the NMCOU, promoted an official discourse of social enterprise as a certified social enterprise, they combined work-related, welfare- related and CSR discourses which represent their views, explanations and policies and this discourse spread very quickly over the entire country. During my fieldwork, many interviewees emphasized the fact that the official meaning of social enterprise is dominant in South Korea as follows:
“The organizational form that we call Social Enterprise is only given to those organizations that are certified by the SEPA. People will be confused if we call uncertified organizations Social Enterprises although they share similar characteristics of Social Enterprises. (BJ7, CEO, G SE, 16 June 2014, 14:04PM- 16:00PM)”
Oppositional discourses and alternative discourses emerged during and after the SEPA legislation. Bottom-up actors, such as the Civil Society Solidarity for Social Enterprise Development (CSSSED) and the Korea Central Council of Social Enterprise (KCCSE), promoted local development, workers’ cooperative, and social economy discourses against the official discourse. However, they basically agreed on the need for an institutionalization of social enterprise and of the basic concept of Social Enterprise, as described in the SEPA.
Social innovation and entrepreneurship discourses of social enterprises are considered as alternative discourses which do not share the same viewpoint of the official discourse. Alternative discourses are mostly promoted by private organizations, such as the SEN Korea, Social Finance Organizations, Ashoka, Beautiful Store and individual social entrepreneurs. These groups of people do not consider having a Social Enterprise certification as something which is necessary and they do not want to be included in the institutionalized meaning of Social Enterprise
as defined by the law. They prefer to draw a line between Social Enterprise and the social entrepreneurial activities that they do, as EC1 highlighted:
“Social Enterprise defined by the SEPA is completely different from the social entrepreneurship activities that we are promoting. Social Enterprise activities supported by the state should be known as activities of “social service enterprises”, not as “social enterprise.” (EC1, Deputy Director, D SV, 13 May 2014)”
Moreover, many interviewers including DH7 who are in the social venture sector added that:
“I am not interested in getting a Social Enterprise certification. And I am not interested in the Social Enterprise promotion policies delivered by the MoEL. (DH7, CEO, Z SV, 18 June 2014, 11:06AM-12:17PM)”
No populist discourse of social enterprise can be included in the official discourse because it is far too extreme by nature. According to BD3:
“The MoEL considers all the different discourses and actors which can be included in the institutional setting. (BD3, Manager, C Government Department, 15 June 2014, 18:09PM-17:44PM)”
Despite the diversity of discourses presented in section 4.4, the history of the emergence of social enterprises is often described from the government perspective. In Section 4.5, after outlining the history of Social Enterprises from a top-down perspective, I shall introduce their history from the bottom-up non-profit and innovative perspective.