Why We Took A Different Path

From restaurant closures to new opportunities – and how a forced change taught us what really mattered

After five years of running a restaurant, it became clear that our model was not sustainable. Despite all the efforts, subsidies, and the fact that the founders worked almost every month without a salary, we were still making structural losses.

It was time for a fundamental choice.

The Sum of Problems

Individually our challenges might have been solvable, but together they created an untenable situation:

Financial: Structural losses despite subsidies and unpaid founders
Operational: Team absence due to illness and other challenges + ongoing planning challenges surrounding the trainees
External: NOW repayment obligations that we could not bear
Strategic: No realistic path to profitability without major investments

The conclusion was clear: our current model did not work and would not work in the future.

The Strategic Options

We had three realistic choices:

1. Maintain status quo Risk of eventual bankruptcy, with all the consequences for trainees, employees, and stakeholders.

2. Invest heavily in expansion Renovate, professionalize, expand to 80+ seats. But without guarantee of success and with high financial risks.

3. Close the restaurant and set a new course Painful in the short term, but retaining the valuable elements of our approach.

What We Wanted to Keep

Besides all the operational and financial challenges, our impact was clearly demonstrable. People really grew through our journey, improved their language skills, and built networks.

The problem was not our impact methodology, but our business model.

The question became: How do we keep what works without the parts that break us?

The New Direction

Instead of running operational activities ourselves, we focused on:

In-house trajectories: Developing trajectories within other organizations
Supporting technology: Tools that help in the integration process, for example by lowering communication barriers 

The core idea: focus on where we added value (guidance, training and technology) and let others do what they are better at (running their organization).

First Experiments

We started testing whether our methodology also worked outside the hospitality industry:

AI communication tools: Real-time translation systems during important conversations Document translation: Support for Dutch bureaucracy
Care pilot: Collaboration with Zorg&Co in which status holders perform care tasks under buddy guidance

These pilots showed that our new direction was promising.

The Care Pilot as Proof of Concept

The collaboration with Zorg&Co became an important validation. A status holder worked there under the supervision of an experienced colleague, learned practical skills, and contributed to real care provision.

For the healthcare organization it was valuable because they received support with structural staff shortages. For the participant it was an opportunity to gain work experience in another sector.

Zorg&Co indicated that they wanted to scale up this approach. This shows that the model works, but without the operational burdens of having your own restaurant.

What We Kept vs. What We Let Go

Retain:

• The guidance method (practical learning, buddy support, personal coaching)
• The network of partners and stakeholders
• Six years of built-up expertise
• Team members with experience

Letting go:

• The restaurant with all the operational complexity
• High fixed costs of a physical location
• Direct responsibility for complete processes
• The tendency to want to do everything yourself

The New Model

Our reorientation focused on three pillars:

1. Trajectory development: Helping other organizations set up effective integration processes
2. Supporting technology: Developing tools that facilitate integration
3. Knowledge transfer: Training and advice based on proven methods

Strategic Lessons

Sticking to a model can be counterproductive: We stuck with the restaurant for too long because we had invested so much in it.

Impact and business model are separate issues: Fantastic impact with a bad business model is not sustainable.

Focus creates opportunities: By doing less ourselves, we had space to focus on our core competencies.

Network is more valuable than assets: Our relationships and expertise turned out to be more important than physical assets.

Flexibility trumps perfection: An adaptable model that is “good enough” beats a perfect but rigid system.

First Results of the Transition

A few months after the change of course we saw:

• Further development of the care pilot with expansion plans
• Interest from other organizations in our methodology
• Room for innovation instead of just survival
• Improved work-life balance 

For Other Social Entrepreneurs

Be realistic about your business model: Good intentions do not compensate for weak financial policies.

Measure both impact and sustainability: A program that helps people but destroys your organization is ultimately ineffective.

Be willing to change direction: Your first implementation is rarely your best implementation.

Focus on unique value: What can you do better than others? Focus on that.

Invest in relationships: Network and expertise are often more valuable than physical assets.

The Broader Meaning

In our change of course, we discovered that maximum impact does not always mean doing everything yourself. Sometimes you can achieve more by making others more effective.

The restaurant was a valuable learning phase, but not the end point. By letting go of what didn't work, space was created for what could work.

Our new model is still in development, but the direction is clear: we help other organisations to effectively guide status holders, without them having to experience all the pitfalls that we have gone through.

This feels like a more sustainable way to scale impact and a healthier way to do business.

In our latest blog, we share the key lessons: six ingredients for future social entrepreneurs who can learn from our experiences.