Speaking at the Skoll World Forum earlier this year, Oxford University’s Politics and International Relations Department’s Dr. Ngaire Woods noted how areas we used to think of as “public policy” are now being thought of as “social policy” (catch the whole video below). She went on to warn that, as social entrepreneurs seek to take on services previously provided by governments, there are some problems (such as global governance of water or banking systems) which require international cooperation and multilateral governance (which is, she notes, by necessity “tortuous and slow” work).

What really interested me about this talk for our purposes here was the question she posed to the room of successful entrepreneurs, many of whom operate as ‘external actors’ bringing their own social priorities to communities perceived to be in need: when this occurs, she asked, ”who is socially accountable for the priorities that we might be inadvertently setting inside communities?”

This instantly sang harmonies to me with the critics of international development, who often note how in spite of (or perhaps because of) the best intentions of practitioners and donors, the programs and initiatives carried out rarely achieve the social justice, equality or opportunity they are aimed at. The questions this line of thought provokes for me is: how can we enable communities to set their own priorities - (how) can we achieve social goals that are locally appropriate? Are there any social universals?

In terms of trade and consumption, these questions are directly related to the issues of ethical standards. On the one hand, there absolutely must be universals (like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the ILO’s stipulations regarding workplace regulations) which can form a legal basis for the protection of individuals and communities. On the other hand, the very process of defining these ‘universals’ often highlights just how much of the common sense and the taken-for-granted falls apart when viewed from a variety of paradigms (challenge, for example: find a definition of when “childhood” begins and ends that is equally true for all cultures).

This problem is clarified in the use of private standards initiatives, like the Fair Trade Labelling Organisation: the recent split within the USA Fair Trade movement (check out Maria’s post on this for a different angle) demonstrates just how different social standards can be. In the coming posts, I will be exploring different ways of measuring the social impact that companies undertake, and how this translates what happens in reality into sales-speak. It seems to me that one of the greatest challenges before us, as consumers and citizens, is to demand the universals we are collectively entitled to but in ways which reflect our individual ethics and those we connect to through trade. Maybe this sounds a bit like putting a square peg in a round hole, but I believe that with the advanced communications and information technologies humanity has at its disposal we should be in a stronger position than ever to facilitate beneficial collaboration. The challenge for many social entrepreneurs, I believe, is to be able to show how the square interests served by their businesses are aligned with the round demands of the planet and its inhabitants.

Jack Dentith is the Social Impact Director at Ethicodes. A fellow at the Emerge Venture Lab, Jack has worked in research and development at several London based charities including the Facial Surgery Research Foundation. He holds a master’s degree from the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. He lives in London.