This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Business


103


Capitalism for a cause M


More than three years after the term “social enterprise”  rst entered the government’s vocabulary, the concept is far from widespread


BY LUCIANA LEITÃO


acau has just added one more social enterprise to its inven- tory. Two months ago the


Fuhong Society of Macau opened a laundry that is intended to be staffed by mentally handicapped people. The number of social enterprises


in the city is unclear but anecdotal evidence suggests there are very few. Macau Business sought details from the Social Welfare Bureau but had not received a response by the time this edi- tion went to press. Nurturing social enterprises was


part of chief executive Edmund Ho Hau Wah’s plan to counter the effects of the 2008 international  nancial crisis. But they have yet to take off in a big way.


“A social enterprise is an organisa-


tion whose social mission ful ls a social need and operates with entrepreneurial strategies to be self-sustaining,” is how the Hong Kong General Chamber of So- cial Enterprises de nes the term. This means a social enterprise cannot be supported by government grants. Any pro t is usually either reinvested in the company or used for the bene t of the community. Mr Ho announced his plan in No-


vember 2008. He expected social en- terprises to give jobs to those laid off because of the international  nancial crisis. At least one enterprise was estab- lished as a direct consequence of Mr


Ho’s announcement. A group of 30 peo- ple in the building industry set up Macau Social Enterprise Co. Ltd.


in August


2009 to provide employment referrals and vocational training for construction workers. As time passed and fear of a spike


in unemployment proved unfounded, the urge to promote the establishment of social enterprises to  ght unemploy- ment faded. Instead, social enterprises became a way to create jobs for handi- capped people.


Clean break To this end, the Social Welfare Bureau began a special programme in 2010, of- fering associations a lump sum of up to


JANUARY 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116