The startup scene likes to portray itself as progressive and socially engaged—people talk about diversity, impact, sustainability, and empowerment. But critics accuse startups of being nothing but self-promotion behind their social outlook. A commentary.
The big democracy party is scheduled to take place in Berlin's Olympic Stadium next June. Condom startup Einhorn, Luisa Neubauer of Fridays for Future, and moderator and author Charlotte Roche are inviting people to the "largest citizens' assembly in Germany." Up to 90,000 "global citizens who want exactly the same thing" are expected to meet and sign as many petitions as possible. Tickets cost €29.99 on the crowdfunding platform Startnext.
The criticism wasn't long in coming: How does the high entrance fee square with the promise that everyone should participate? Doesn't it point to a creepy understanding of democracy that everyone should want "exactly the same thing"? Is a stadium even the right place for a discussion? And then, of all places, the Berlin Olympic Stadium, with its past and Nazi-inspired architecture? Add to that the accusation that the startup Einhorn is simply using the climate protests for its own marketing.
Founders for Future
The Olympic Stadium campaign is part of a larger trend: startups don't just want to make money, they also want to make a positive change. So it was hardly surprising that the previous issue The motto of the Munich startup conference Bits & Pretzels was 'Impact' - people want to make a difference.
Unlike former US President Barack Obama, climate protest figurehead Greta Thunberg was not on stage herself, yet she was still present. Obama praised the young Swede's work, and the Bits & Pretzels organizers also displayed a photo of Thunberg during their opening speech. They called for a new movement: "Founders for Future."
Despite all the commitment to positive impact, the organizers are, of course, primarily concerned with the success of their startup festival. The founders in the paying audience also want to make money at the end of the day. How do these two things fit together: entrepreneurial motives and saving the world? Critics at, for example,Spiegel Online' accuse the startup scene gathered at Bits & Pretzels of exploiting political protests for their own profit interests: "Cashing in with Greta".
Böhmermann: Shut down your social startups
Critical words for the startup scene were also Jan Böhmermann last year. Back then, the ZDF comedian used his speech at Bits & Pretzels to sing the praises of entrepreneurship: There's nothing to be gained in business except money. Anyone who wants to make a difference would be better off in local or state politics, or at least "somewhere where you can realize your wishes and dreams without being subject to the dictates of profit maximization." Böhmermann recently followed up on Twitter:
Shut down social startups, stop profits! Böhmermann doesn't say, however, how people who care about the environment, society, sustainability, and justice should finance their lives and work. Let alone how the money that will then flow to charitable causes should be generated.
The United Nations also relies on social startups
The 'social entrepreneurship' attacked by Böhmermann combines two things: On the one hand, entrepreneurship, which must always be oriented toward making money. On the other, the good cause. In Teutonic thinking, these two aspects are often considered opposites, because the desire to make money—which Böhmermann calls the "drive for profit maximization"—is inherently suspect to many Germans. What is overlooked is that a private company can approach things differently than, say, a non-profit organization.
Companies have far greater resources than clubs or other charitable organizations. A team dedicated to a specific issue full-time is significantly more effective than an army of volunteers who also have to earn a living.
Additionally, companies and entrepreneurs have one advantage over volunteers: a relentless focus on the problem at hand. Startups must deliver—or shut down. Investors, sponsors, and the ecosystem are extremely impatient and want to see progress. Anyone who has ever been involved in a civil society organization, however, knows that patience is essential. Motivation quickly turns to frustration if nothing moves forward.
Anyone who has only scorn for social entrepreneurs knows the successful work of startups like Social Bee, the Social Entrepreneurship Akademie and the Social Entrepreneurship Network Germany not — or is not really interested in the topic. The United Nations World Food Programme also runs a Startup acceleratorto harness the disruptive power of entrepreneurs in the fight against hunger.
Leave Greta out of the game
But critics of social startups may be right on another point: Startup culture and the ethos of the scene sometimes clash with what we understand as civic engagement. For example, the always optimistic, impatient, and constantly overexcited entrepreneur seems strange to some outsiders when it comes to serious topics.
Sometimes it's simply a matter of tact: Of course, it's in the spirit of social entrepreneurship to view issues like environmental pollution or social injustice as completely ordinary problems that need to be solved. It can also help to think outside the box. However, the idea of reinventing democratic participation as a stadium event might have been worth reconsidering.
It is also okay to rely on the persuasive power of emotions in a pitch. Sales video For the not-so-cheap tickets to the citizens' assembly, the protagonists should perhaps not constantly reassure themselves that they get goosebumps because of the greatness of their own idea.
The incredibly successful agenda-setting of Fridays for Future is, of course, a best practice for marketing professionals. But we still don't want to see Greta in any more pitch decks.
Update: The initiators of the event in Berlin's Olympic Stadium have responded to the criticism expressed. Her reply can be read here.
