Why I’m Calling Out Social Enterprise Certification

And Why Purpose-Driven Founders Deserve Better

There’s a growing push for social enterprise certification in Australia, and if you’re a purpose-driven founder, chances are an advisor, or government funding program has told you: “You must be Social Enterprise Certified.”

I’m here to say it plainly: I think the current approach to social enterprise certification is flawed, and in many cases, completely backwards.

Let’s talk about why.

The Original Promise of Social Enterprise

Social enterprise wasn’t meant to be just another kind of charity.

It was born from the idea that business can be a powerful mechanism for social good, that you could run a commercially viable, profitable business and solve problems that matter. It was the bridge between the purpose of not-for-profits and the power of the market.

You didn’t have to rely on donations.
You didn’t have to write endless grant applications.
You could create sustainable impact, and you could fund it through trade, not charity.

That’s the model I signed up for.
That’s the model many women founders are building.
So why are we being forced to prove our impact by contorting ourselves back into an NFP box?

The Certification Contradiction

Let’s be blunt: the current certification models reward constraint, not capability.

If you want to be certified as a social enterprise in Australia, you’re expected to:

• Reinvest the majority (if not all) of your profits into the business

• Cement this into your constitution

• Show you’re not using the business to benefit yourself

In other words: behave more like a charity than a business.

I want to know - Why?

Why should I, as a founder, not be allowed to build a profitable, impactful business that also delivers personal wealth, financial freedom, or generational security?

Why is a founder drawing a dividend or paying themselves well considered somehow less “social”?

Why are we celebrating systems that punish founders for succeeding?

I Don’t Need Two Entities

I already run a not-for-profit. It has a clear mission, legal obligations, and funding structures in place. It exists for public benefit.

I don’t need a social enterprise and an NFP to be considered credible.

What I need is a model that recognises:

• The value of my labour

• The risk I’ve taken as a founder

• The impact I’ve delivered - regardless of whether I kept a portion of the profits

If we’re building businesses for good, let’s treat them like real businesses. Not like side projects that require self-sacrifice to be seen as legitimate.

And Don’t Even Start on Investment

Here’s the kicker.

While certification bodies are pushing founders to reinvest every dollar and operate under tight restrictions, impact investors are looking for returns. As they should.

This is where the contradiction becomes laughable:

• Certification: Don’t take any profits for yourself

• Investment: What’s my return on capital?

Founders are stuck between two worlds, constantly told they’re “too commercial” for certification and “not commercial enough” for investment. It’s exhausting. It’s unsustainable. And it’s wrong.

Let’s Redefine What Business for Good Looks Like

I want my business to be known for the impact it’s having.
And I want it to be known for being commercially viable, profitable, and self-sustaining.
Not because I want to extract value at all costs, but because this is how you build legacy. This is how you scale. This is how you move from idea to infrastructure.

We need to move away from outdated ideas that position founders as extractive simply for building something that works. We need certification models - or alternatives - that acknowledge the full spectrum of value creation, including financial return, founder sustainability, and long-term impact.

Because impact and income are not mutually exclusive. And if your model says they are, you’re doing it wrong.