Vaccines, education, etc., (to use Gaudiani’s examples) all represent “investments” in our social infrastructure in the hopes of paying “dividends” in the future. These dividends take economic form as decreased pressure on public health budgets, better prepared workforces, and so on.

“Investment” might be less metaphorical than it might seem.

I like defining yourself by what you are rather than what you are not. But in my experience, definition of the sector has been some what of a turf war. The “social enterprise” folks argued that the “social entrepreneur” folks should change their taxonomy because there was no money making involved, i.e. no enterprise. I like your dictionary definition which is for sure broader, but a few groups have already laid out stake in that ground and its a tedious debate to dig into.

Personally, I’ve always liked the concept of social capital — unlike profit, it relates equally to financial and human assets.

Though again, I’m not sure it matters all that much — factions have been trying to redefine the sector regularly for the last 20 years. Some of us simply define our community promise in what we do and how we account for it rather than what we call ourselves.