Again, For-Profit Social Enterprises Suck?

For-profit social enterprises state that they need profit to scale social impact effectively, it's not surprising why skepticism abounds when they could hardly prove impact. The controversial for-profit microfinance institutions are able to show remarkable growth in loan volume at global scale, but their social impact is still debatable. As it's widely known now, microfinance access alone doesn't equate impact and could also cause over indebtedness. The point is let's not kid ourselves into believing that for-profit model is in the mainstream and widely accepted now.
 

For-profit social enterprises especially those in poverty alleviation need longer investment horizon, likely more technical assistance and below-market returns. Hence there are criticisms quite often like the accusation that they generally hide behind weak business plan. Is the accusation fair?

True, there are some pretentious firms that market themselves as social enterprises but what comparison are we trying to make in general? Multinational consumer companies are well documented to struggle to establish themselves in poor regions for decades even with their level of resources. Selling is tough in those regions let alone proving impact and it usually takes longer to refine the business model. For skeptics who advocate improved/ new approach in poverty alleviation but condemn for-profit social enterprises right away, do they imply that there should never be any attempt on for-profit approach at all? Their critique can be helpful to practitioners, beyond that, their premature condemnation serves only contradiction and a disservice to early stage innovation.