A PROJECT REPORT ON
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

SUBMITTED BY
APOORV CHITNIS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
THE BACHELOR OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
PROF. BHUMIKA MORE

SIES COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI-400706

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012

DECLARATION

I, APOORV CHITNIS, studying in T.Y.B.M.S, of S.I.E.S COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE, NERUL hereby declare that I have completed the project on SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP in the year 2011 – 2012 as per the requirements of Mumbai University as a part of Bachelor in Management Studies (B.M.S) programme.

DATE:
PLACE: NAVI MUMBAI

__________________ APOORV CHITNIS
CERTIFICATE

I, BHUMIKA MORE hereby certify that APOORV CHITNIS student OF S.I.E.S COLLEGE OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE, NERUL has completed his field work project on the topic of “SOCIAL ENTREPRENUERSHIP” in the
Academic Year 2011-12.
The project is based on bonafide information.

_________________ _______________ ______________
Prof. Bhumika More Prof. Smita. R Dr. Rita Basu (Project Guide) (BMS Coordinator) (Principal)

________________ External Examiner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My thanks to my project guide, Prof. Bhumika More for assisting me in every way possible and gently steering me back to track wherever she felt I deviated.
I am deeply grateful to Vinit Parikh, a friend pursuing MBA in Social Entrepreneurship from NMIMS, for allowing me to use his notes. Rectifying me wherever needed and providing me with a deep insight of the subject.
Also Parin Gala, friend and a BMS graduate to help me with helping me in data collection & bifurcation, also for presentation of the project work.
My thanks to Rotaract Club of SIES (Nerul) for believing in me and considering me for the post of Entrepreneurship Director for the year 2011-12. Without being a part of it, I wouldn’t have known my zeal for Entrepreneurship & love for this topic.
Special thanks to my TYBMS batch mates Naman & Surbhi for helping me in proof reading the entire project and suggesting changes for presenting it to the best of my ability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|Sr | | |PgNo |
|No |PARTICULARS |INCLUDES | |
|1. |Acknowledgements | |4 |
|2. |Executive Summary | |8 |
|3. |Objectives of the Study | |11 |
|4. |Research Methodology | |13 |
|5. |Social Entrepreneurship |5.1) Definition & Meaning |15 19|
| | |5.2) Is It Really A New Trend? |25 31|
| | |5.3) Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship | |
| | |5.4) Important Terms in Social --------------------Entrepreneurship |36 41 |
| | |5.5) Social Entrepreneurship Environment | |
| | |5.6) Why “Social” Entrepreneurship over --------Business Entrepreneurship? | |
|6. |Social Enterprise |6.1) Definition, Meaning & Categories |43 48 |
| | |6.2) Study of Social Enterprises | |
|7. |Social Entrepreneurship with regards to |7.1A) Social Venture Capital |52 53 |
| |Finance & Marketing |7.1B) Components of A Successful a --------------Community Venture |---60 |
| | |7.2A) Social marketing & | |
| | |Types of Social Marketing | |
|8. |Social Entrepreneur |8.1) Role of a Social Entrepreneur |64 65 |
| | |8.2) Characteristics of a Social --------------------Entrepreneur |---67 |
| | |8.3) Challenges Faced by a | |
| | |Social Entrepreneur | |
|9. |Social Entrepreneurship: Today & Tomorrow |9.1) Impact of Social Entrepreneurship 9.2) Social |69 71 |
| | |Entrepreneurship – |74 79 |
| | |Call For The Day! |-----82 |
| | |9.3) Emerging Trend In India 9.4) New |84 |
| | |generation: Making of ----- Social | |
| | |Entrepreneurs | |
| | |9.5) Related Coursework 9.6) What Can | |
| | |You Do? | |
|10. |Case Study | |87 |
|11. |Conclusion | |108 |
|12. |Bibliography | |111 |

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Entrepreneurship is the capacity to take risks, ability to own and organize, desire and capability to innovate and diversify - Stepanek, 1962

Entrepreneurs are essential drivers of innovation and progress. In the business world, they act as engines of growth, harnessing opportunity and innovation to fuel economic advancement. Social entrepreneurs act similarly, tapping inspiration and creativity, courage and fortitude, to seize opportunities that challenge and forever change established, but fundamentally inequitable systems.
“Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.”
– Bill Drayton, CEO, chair and founder of Ashoka

Distinct from a business entrepreneur who sees value in the creation of new markets, the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of transformational change that will benefit disadvantaged communities and, ultimately, society at large. Social entrepreneurs pioneer innovative and systemic approaches for meeting the needs of the marginalized, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised – populations that lack the financial means or political clout to achieve lasting benefit on their own.
Today, Social Entrepreneurship has become a buzzword. Some consider buzzwords to be nothing more than marketing gimmicks. However, buzzwords help to make the point and get the message across succinctly. More important buzzwords play a role of catalysts and help propel an emerging trend to reach mass acceptability. In long term the most important factor that decides the fate of a trend is how meaningful and relevant it is.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To analyze the difference between Business Entrepreneurship & Social Entrepreneurship.

• To understand the concept and scope of the subject.

• To gain knowledge about Social Entrepreneur & Social Enterprise.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This Research Work is majorly based on data collected from following sources:

SECONDARY DATA:
Information collected through various articles, books & magazines, websites, blogs & E-notes.

CASE STUDY:
Case study related to the topic has been referred.

A personal help was taken from Mr. Vinit Parikh who is pursuing MBA in Social Entrepreneurship at NMIMS, Mumbai and he is an aspiring Social Entrepreneur.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

DEFINITION AND MEANING

Social Entrepreneurship is the use of business practices such as business planning, project management, marketing and sales, for advancing social causes. Social entrepreneurs combine the passion of a social mission (explicit and central) with business-like discipline, innovation, and determination. While social entrepreneurs often work through nonprofits and citizen groups, many work in the private and governmental sectors.
[pic]

There have been numerous attempts at defining Social Entrepreneurship.
The Skoll Foundation defines a social entrepreneur as follows:
"Society's change agent: a pioneer of innovation that benefits humanity."
However, the broadest definition is given by Wikipedia:
“Social entrepreneurship is the work of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change. Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of the impact she or he has on society.”
There are 3 key components that emerge out of this definition and are more of less common when it comes to other variations of the definition of Social Entrepreneurship:
* The problem
* A sustainable solution
* Social change
The main aim of social entrepreneurship as well as social enterprise is to further social and environmental goals. Although social entrepreneurs are often non-profits, this need not be incompatible with making a profit. Social enterprises are for ‘more-than-profit,’ using blended value business models that combine a revenue-generating business with a social-value-generating structure or component.
A great social entrepreneur is a leader. Good leaders lead by examples.
Muhammad Yunus, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, is a recent example. He began offering microloans to impoverished people in Bangladesh in 1976, thereby empowering them to become economically self-sufficient and proving the microcredit model that has now been replicated around the world. While social entrepreneurship isn’t a new concept, it has gained renewed currency in a world characterized by a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. With this heightened visibility, social entrepreneurs at the forefront of the movement are distinguishing themselves from other social venture players in terms of ultimate impact.

One more example is social entrepreneur Bunker Roy, who created the Barefoot College in rural communities in India to train illiterate and semiliterate men and women, whose lack of educational qualifications keeps them mired in poverty. Today Barefoot College graduates include teachers, health workers and architects who are improving communities across India, including hundreds of "barefoot" engineers who have installed and maintain solar- electrification systems in over 500 villages, reaching over 100,000 people.

Another example is Ann Cotton, who launched the Campaign for Female Education (Camfed) in 1993 to ensure an education for young girls in Africa whose families cannot afford school fees. By establishing a sustainable model that provides community support for girls to go to school, start businesses and return to their communities as leaders, Camfed has broken the cycle of poverty for hundreds of thousands of young women in Zimbabwe, Ghana, Zambia and Tanzania. Since 1993, nearly 700,000 children have benefited from Camfed’s program across a network of some 3000 schools. Over 5,000 young women have received business training and start-up grants to establish their own rural enterprises.

One more example would be ApproTEC
Founded in Kenya in 1991 by Martin Fisher and Nick Moon, Appropriate Technologies for Enterprise Creation (ApproTEC) has enabled local entrepreneurs in Kenya and Tanzania to start more than 33,000 profitable small businesses using existing technologies such as its manually operated “MoneyMaker” pump.
These and other social entrepreneurs are solution-minded pragmatists who are not afraid to tackle some of the world’s biggest problems. They recognize the extraordinary potential in the billions of poor people who inhabit the planet, and they are absolutely committed to helping them use their talents and abilities to achieve their potential. Social entrepreneurs use inspiration, creativity, courage, fortitude and, most importantly, direct action, to create a new reality – a new equilibrium – that results in enduring social benefit and a better future for everyone.

IS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP REALLY

A NEW TREND?

No. Considering its broad definition no one can deny that its practice is far more ancient. The roots and first usage of the term ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ can be dated back in the literature of social change in 1960’s and 1970’s. What is rather new is the trend of categorizing these socially entrepreneurial ventures as Social Enterprises fuelled by a recent influx of capital availability to fund such initiatives. Add to this mix an emerging trend towards sustainable businesses, triple bottom line and Base of the Pyramid economics.
Though the terms, social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship, were used first in the literature in the 1960 and 1970s, it came into widespread use in the 1980s and 1990s, promoted by Bill Drayton the founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, and others such as Charles Leadbeater. From the 1950s to the 1990s Michael Young was a leading promoter of social enterprise and in the 1980s, was described by Professor Daniel Bell at Harvard as 'the world's most successful entrepreneur of social enterprises' because of his role in creating over 60 new organizations worldwide, including a series of Schools for Social Entrepreneurs in the UK. Another British social entrepreneur is Lord Mawson OBE. Andrew Mawson was given a peerage in 2007 because of his pioneering regeneration work. This includes the creation of the renowned Bromley by Bow Centre in East London. He has recorded these experiences in his book "The Social Entrepreneur: Making Communities Work" and currently runs Andrew Mawson Partnerships to help promote his regeneration work.
Although the terms are relatively new, social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship can be found throughout history. A list of a few historically noteworthy people whose work exemplifies classic "social entrepreneurship" includes:
[pic]
Jane Addams (1860-1935) ❖ Founded Hull House, a social settlement in Chicago, with Ellen Gates Starr ❖ Hull House efforts expanded to the national level (fed. Children's Bureau and fed. child labor laws created.) Helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ❖ Helped organize Woman's Peace Party, elected first chairman ❖ First American woman recipient of Nobel Peace Prize ❖ Country's most prominent woman through her writing, her settlement work and her international efforts for world peace
[pic]
Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) ❖ First to state publicly that the rich have a moral obligation to give away their fortunes. In 1889 he wrote The Gospel of Wealth, in which he asserted that all personal wealth beyond that required to supply the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community. ❖ In his 30s, Carnegie had already begun to give away some of his fast-accumulating funds. ❖ Lifelong interests included the establishment of free public libraries to make available to everyone a means of self-education.

[pic]
Florence Nightingale (U.K.): Founder of modern nursing, she established the first school for nurses and fought to improve hospital conditions.

[pic]

Dr. Maria Montessori (Italy): Developed the Montessori approach to early childhood education.

[pic]
John Muir (U.S.): Naturalist and conservationist, he established the National Park System and helped found The Sierra Club.
[pic]
Susan B. Anthony (U.S.): Fought for Women's Rights in the United States, including the right to control property and helped spearhead adoption of the 19th amendment.

[pic]
Jean Monnet (France): Responsible for the reconstruction of the French economy following World War II, including the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC and the European Common Market were direct precursors of the European Union.
[pic]
Vinoba Bhave (India): Founder and leader of the Land Gift Movement, he caused the redistribution of more than 7,000,000 acres of land to aid India's untouchables and landless.
During the 19th and 20th centuries some of the most successful social entrepreneurs successfully straddled the civic, governmental and business worlds - promoting ideas that were taken up by mainstream public services in welfare, schools and healthcare.

EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Social Movement
Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.
Modern Western social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature), and increased mobility of labour due to the industrialization and urbanization of 19th century societies. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture is responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. However others point out that many of the major social movements of the last hundred years grew up, like the Mau Mau in Kenya, to oppose Western colonialism.
Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.
Modern movements, such as The Borgen Project have utilized technology and the internet to mobilize people globally. Adapting to communication trends is a common theme among successful movements.

[pic]

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.
Sociologists have developed several theories related to social movements [Kendall, 2005]. Some of the better-known approaches are ■ collective behavior/collective action theories (1950s) ■ relative deprivation theory (1960s) ■ value-added theory (1960s) ■ resource mobilization (1970s) ■ frame analysis theory (1980s) ■ new social movement theory (1980s) ■ political process theory (1980s)

Social Development
Social development is a process which results in the transformation of social structures in a manner which improves the capacity of the society to fulfill its aspirations. Society develops by consciousness and social consciousness develops by organization. The process that is subconscious in the society emerges as conscious knowledge in pioneering individuals. Development is a process, not a programme. Its power issues more from its subtle aspects than from material objects.

Social Work
[pic]
Social work is concerned with social problems, their causes, their solutions and their human impacts. Social workers work with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities. Social Work is the profession committed to the pursuit of social justice, to the enhancement of the quality of life, and to the development of the full potential of each individual, group and community in society. Social refers to human society or its organization. Stem "soci-" which is from the Latin word socius, meaning member, friend, or ally, thus referring to people in general. It is a social science involving the application of social theory and research methods to the study and improve the lives of people, groups, and societies. Social work is unique in that it seeks to simultaneously navigate across and within micro, mezzo, and macro systems -in order to sufficiently address and resolve social issues at every level. Social work incorporates and utilizes all of the social sciences as a means to improve the human condition.
Social work bases its methodology on a systematic body of evidence-based knowledge derived from research and practice evaluation, including local and indigenous knowledge specific to its context. It recognizes the complexity of interactions between human beings and their environment, and the capacity of people both to be affected by and to alter the multiple influences upon them including bio-psychosocial factors. The social work profession draws on theories of human development and behaviour and social systems to analyze complex situations and to facilitate individual, organizational, social and cultural changes (International Federation of Social Workers).
However, social work and social entrepreneurship is not the same
The difference is that the aim of social work is only impact of the work but no profit whereas social entrepreneurship may include profit.

Impact Maximization
Impact maximizing companies endeavor to make the greatest positive impact on society, much like profit maximizing companies, according to the economic theory that defines the term, theoretically work to maximize profit.
The concept of impact maximization is similar but not identical to that of measuring performance according to a double bottom line. While impact maximizing companies are created for the purposes of making a positive impact on society, or offering a solution to a social problem, a company that measures its performance via a double bottom line can subjectively determine the weight or value placed on performing according to its financial or social impact-related goals. Impact maximizing companies aim to maximize the positive impact of their activities on people, and to support these activities by providing products and services for sale to customers.

Social Responsibility

[pic]

Social responsibility is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society at large. Businesses use ethical decision making to secure their businesses by making decisions that allow for government agencies to minimize their involvement with the corporation. For instance if a company is proactive and follows the Country’s Environmental Protection guidelines for emissions on dangerous pollutants and even goes an extra step to get involved in the community and address those concerns that the public might have; they would be less likely to have the government investigate them for environmental concerns.

Though social entrepreneurship may be socially responsible, corporate entrepreneurship that adopts CSR approach does not become social entrepreneurship.

IMPORTANT TERMS IN SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Social Innovation
Social innovation refers to new strategies, concepts, ideas and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds - from working conditions and education to community development and health - and that extend and strengthen civil society.
Over the years, the term has developed several overlapping meanings. It can be used to refer to social processes of innovation, such as open source methods and techniques. Alternatively it refer to innovations which have a social purpose - like microcredit or distance learning. The concept can also be related to social entrepreneurship (entrepreneurship isn't always or even usually innovative, but it can be a means of innovation) and it also overlaps with innovation in public policy and governance. Social innovation can take place within government, within companies, or within the nonprofit sector (also known as the third sector), but is increasingly seen to happen most effectively in the space between the three sectors. Recent research has focused on the different types of platforms needed to facilitate such cross-sector collaborative social innovation.
Growing interest in social entrepreneurship has led to recent developments and the idea of social innovation has become much more prominent with ongoing research, blogs and websites.
Each social entrepreneur presents ideas that are user-friendly, understandable, ethical, and engage widespread support in order to maximize the number of local people that will stand up, seize their idea, and implement with it. In other words, every leading social entrepreneur is a mass recruiter of local change makers—a role model proving that citizens who channel their passion into action can do almost anything.
Over the past two decades, the citizen sector has discovered what the business sector learned long ago: There is nothing as powerful as a new idea in the hands of a first-class entrepreneur.

Socially-responsible Investing
Socially responsible investing, also known as socially-conscious or ethical investing, describes an investment strategy which seeks to maximize both financial return and social good.
In general, socially responsible investors favor corporate practices that promote environmental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights, and diversity. Some (but not all) avoid businesses involved in alcohol, tobacco, gambling, weapons, the military, and/or abortion. The areas of concern recognized by the SRI industry can be summarized as environment, social justice and corporate governance (ESG). Example
[pic]
Alternative Energy: One of many forms of sustainable investing
Sustainable Development
[pic]
Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for future generations. The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s "sustainability" was employed to describe an economy "in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems." Ecologists have pointed to The Limits to Growth, and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy” in order to address environmental concerns.
The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability.

Sustainopreneurship
Sustainopreneurship is a concept that has emerged from earlier conceptual development social entrepreneurship and ecopreneurship, via sustainability entrepreneurship. The concept means to use creative business organizing to solve problems related to the sustainability agenda to create social and environmental sustainability as a strategic objective and purpose, at the same time respecting the boundaries set in order to maintain the life support systems in the process. In other words, it is a “business with a cause” - where the world problems are turned into business opportunities by deployment of sustainability innovations. In short, it is entrepreneurship and innovation for sustainability.

Three Main Dimensions
The definition of sustainopreneurship needs to be highlighted by three distinguishing dimensions with all three being simultaneously present in the applied (inter)action it reflects. The first is oriented towards "why" - its purpose and motive. The second and third are reflecting two "how"-related dimensions - its process.

1. Sustainopreneurship consciously sets out to find and/or create innovations to solve sustainability-related problems
This list, derived and synthesized from sources, lines up areas with associated problems to solve, goals to reach and values to create: • Poverty • Water and Sanitation • Health • Education/illiteracy • Sustainable production and consumption patterns • Climate change and energy systems • Chemicals • Urbanization • Ecosystems, biological diversity and land use • Utilization of sea resources • Food and agriculture • Trade Justice • Social stability, democracy and good governance • Peace and Security

2. Sustainopreneurship means to get solutions to the market through creative organizing. It is of core importance to take the agenda as entrepreneurial challenges – to view problems as possibilities, obstacles as opportunities, and resistance as a resource, whatever the nature of the resistance. If the solution is generated by creativity, it is equally important to take it to the market in a creative and innovative way. Bringing something to the market at the same time, bringing it to society and our shared physical environment is the main objective.

3. Sustainopreneurship in process adds sustainability value with respect for life support systems. The awareness that the (economic) market is an embedded sub-system in the “socio-sphere” that is in turn a part of the ‘bio-sphere’ is made explicit. This awareness naturally and self-evidently makes the sustainopreneurial team maximize harmony with life support systems in the process.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ENVIRONMENT

[pic]

Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.

However, the environment in which the social enterprise or the social entrepreneurship exists and grows includes the influence of 4 major aid agencies:- 1. Government 2. Business sector 3. Community support & 4. Universities and schools.

[pic]

Government Looking at the developing world and honestly the developed world too, the governments play an essential part of how to implement a structure, to handle these new scenarios and interactions. It aims at: • Increased growth, high productivity or increased employment • Take in to consideration the size of the public sector or the level of taxes, i.e. structural factors • High vitality measured by example the number of innovative entrepreneurship or the number of new firms • Problem to analyze the relation between Outcomes, Structure and Vitality,etc.

Business Sectors
Many business organizations own social enterprises as a subsidiary. Also, many of them support and encourage the existing social entrepreneurs in the ways they can. Example:- Fast Company Magazine annually publishes a list of the 25 best social entrepreneurs, which the magazine defines as organizations "using the disciplines of the corporate world to tackle daunting social problems." In 2009, Business Week followed suit, publishing a review of American's 25 most promising social entrepreneurs, defined as "enterprising individuals who apply business practices to solving societal problems."

Community Support
Entrepreneurs are innovative, opportunity-oriented, resourceful, value-creating change agents.
- Dees & Economy (Enterprising Nonprofits)
Hence, Social Activists and all sections of the society join social entrepreneurs and support them as they get benefitted by the social business.

Universities and Education
[pic]
Today, nonprofits and non-governmental organizations, foundations, governments and individuals promote, fund, and advise social entrepreneurs around the planet. A growing number of colleges and universities are establishing programs focused on educating and training social entrepreneurs.
The concept and subject of Social Entrepreneurship is most astonishing. There are loads to do and very less people and time. Today, there are Universities and Educational Institutions teaching Social Entrepreneurship. What you learn in these classes are just instruments for you to change the world Education should not only teach the youths (as well as the adults) the necessary tools and knowledge, but also create confidence in the people and a sense of seeing possibilities and not problems.
Youth social entrepreneurship is an increasingly common approach to engaging youth voice in solving social problems. Youth organizations and programs promote these efforts through a variety of incentives to young people. One such program is Young Social Pioneers, which invests in the power and promise of Australia's young leaders. The program, which is an initiative of The Foundation for Young Australians, strengthens and supports and celebrates the role of young people in creating positive change in their communities.
Most business schools still address social issues by discussing the management of nonprofit organizations as social enterprises. Nonprofit management strategies increasingly include traditionally for-profit concepts, including earned-income strategies. Courses in Social Entrepreneurship, particularly those that tell stories of especially charismatic leaders, are very popular on campus.

WHY “SOCIAL” ENTREPRENEURSHIP OVER
BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURSHIP?

“Many of the problems of our modern world, ranging from disease to drugs to crime to terrorism, derive from the inequities between rich and poor...be they rich nation vs. poor nation or rich community vs. poor community. It is in the best interests of the well-off to help empower those who are not as well-off to improve their lives.”
– Jeff Skoll
Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.
A business entrepreneur seeks capitalization opportunity within a market framework through a defined time frame whereas social entrepreneur seeks only limited capitalization within a Social framework with an elastic time frame. The social entrepreneur strives for sustenance and to create social impact unlike the business entrepreneur who aims for better profits and growth.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

DEFINITION & MEANING

Social Enterprises are businesses with social objectives.
“Social Enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners.” (Social Enterprise – A strategy for success, U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, 2002)
Social Enterprises have developed in that sector of the economy that lies between the market and the State. These enterprises seek to reconcile market and non-market forces within a plural economy (OECD,1996)
Social enterprises are social mission driven organizations which apply market-based strategies to achieve a social purpose. The movement includes both non-profits that use business models to pursue their mission and for-profits whose primary purposes are social. Their aim – to accomplish targets that are social and or environmental as well as financial – is often referred to as the triple bottom line. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social or environmental purpose remains central to their operation.
Rather than maximizing shareholder value, the main aim of social enterprises is to generate profit to further their social and or environmental goals. This can be accomplished through a variety of ways and depends on the structure of the social enterprise. The profit from a business could be used to support a social aim, such as funding the programming of a non-profit organization. Moreover, a business could accomplish its social aim through its operation by employing individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds or lending to micro-businesses that have difficulty in securing investment from mainstream lenders.
Many non-profit organizations see social enterprise as a way to reduce their dependence on charitable donations and grants while others view the business itself as the vehicle for social change. Whether structured as nonprofits or for-profits, social enterprises are simply launched by social entrepreneurs who want to improve the common good and solve a social problem in a new, more lasting and effective way than traditional approaches. They are conceived and operated by visionary entrepreneurs who recognize potential where others may not see it and who apply discipline, pragmatism, courage and creativity to pursue their solution in spite of all obstacles, toward a world that is more abundant, secure and inclusive for all.
Social entrepreneurs are individuals who pursue opportunities to create pattern-breaking change in inequitable systems, whether through social enterprises or other means. Many social entrepreneurs have launched their ideas within nonprofits, since that organizational form is already set up to advance social value. However, there are an increasing number of social entrepreneurs launching social purpose businesses by building a social or environmental mission into the DNA of their company. By contrast, social enterprise refers to an organizational movement that applies market-based strategies to achieve social change. The underlying motivation is a growing awareness that the scale of the problems we are facing today cannot be adequately solved by the traditional non-profit and philanthropic approach.

Social enterprises are also: • Operated by charities and non-profit organizations • Run by some for-profit business organizations as subsidiaries • Projects supported by Government seed funding.

CATEGORIES OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

In their book “The Power of Unreasonable People“, John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan mention that Social Business can be categorized in three models: • Leveraged Non-Profit Ventures • Hybrid Non-Profit Ventures • Social Business Ventures
A Leveraged Non-Profit Venture focuses on addressing a Social Problem, which might benefit the Economically Vulnerable.
Classic Illustration of this kind of venture is the Barefoot College.
A Hybrid Non-Profit Venture focuses on delivering goods/services to the section of the population which has been ignored or left out by the mainstream products/services.
Classic Illustration of this kind of venture is Arvind Eye Clinic.
A Social Business Venture provides goods/services with a specific mission. This venture makes profits by providing its services, but the focus is not in making more and more profits, but to ensure the good/service reaches as many as possible.
Classic Illustration is the Grameen Danone and AMUL. [pic] [pic]
Social entrepreneurship includes the following:- • Voluntary • Ngo • Npo • 3rd sector organization • Cbo • Cso, etc.

Some of the Services Provided By Social Enterprises: • Production and sales • Domestic services • General cleaning services • Catering services • Personal care services • Other products and services
In India, a social enterprise may be a non-profit Non-governmental organization(NGO), often registered as a Society under Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860, a Trust registered under various Indian State Trust Acts or a Section 25 Company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956.[1] India has around 1-2 million NGOs, including number of religious organizations, religious trust, like Temples, Mosque and Gurudwara associations etc, who are not deemed as Social Enterprises.
A social enterprise in India is primarily NGOs, who raise funds through some services (often fund raising events and community activities) and occasionally products. Despite this, in India the term, Social Enterprise is not widely used, instead terms like NGOs and NPOs (Non-profit organizations) are used, where these kind of organizations are legally allowed to raise fund for non-business activities. Child Rights and You and Youth United, are such examples of Social Enterprise, who raise funds through their services, fund raising activities (organizing events, donations, and grants) or sometimes products, to further their social and environmental goals.

Social Entrepreneurship Is Not…

❖ A way of characterizing the altruistic impulse ❖ Another way of describing people who work for nonprofits or NGOs ❖ Good corporate citizenship ❖ A new public benefit sector model

STUDY OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

Characteristics
Three common characteristics of social enterprises as defined by Social Enterprise London are:
1. Enterprise orientation: They are directly involved in producing goods or providing services to a market. They seek to be viable trading organizations, with an operating surplus.
2. Social Aims: They have explicit social aims such as job creation, training or the provision of local services. They have ethical values including a commitment to local capacity building, and they are accountable to their members and the wider community for their social environmental and economic impact.
3. Social ownership: They are autonomous organizations with governance and ownership structures based on participation by stakeholder groups (users or clients, local community groups etc.) or by trustees. Profits are distributed as profit sharing to stakeholders or used for the benefit of the community.

Challenges • Lack of personnel in NGOs with professional business experience • Financing • Double ‘bottom line’ • Limited understanding • Restriction on private benefits • Familiarity • Type of entrepreneur

Success Factors • Entrepreneur spirits • Expectation for participants • Recognition and support from the general public • Government policy • Administrative barriers? • Promoting the concepts of social enterprises • Awards
There are several awards that recognize and reward social enterprises. The Enterprising Solutions Award is the UK's national award for social enterprise. Run by the Social Enterprise Coalition in partnership with the Office of the Third Sector in the Cabinet office and the Community Banking branch of the RBS Group, the awards recognize the work undertaken by many organizations within the social enterprise movement. The Edge Upstarts Awards are run annually by the New Statesman in the UK.

Potential Benefits • Create job opportunities, especially for the underprivileged groups
Increase employability of participants
→ Enhance integration into labor market
→ Become self-reliant
→ Meet new needs • Innovation • Increasing density of community network and cross-sector partnerships • → Promote community inclusion

Fostering of Entrepreneurship in Social Enterprises • Role of university • Training, executive education, and research support • Role of business sectors • Expertise, funding support, and mentorship • Role of the government • Legislation, tax advantages, and seed money • Supporting SMEs in HK • SUCCESS (Support and Consultation Centre for SMEs) • SME funding Scheme • SME Loan Guarantee Scheme • SME Export Marketing Fund • SME Training Fund • SME Development Fund • Mentorship Programme • SME Committee members

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITH REGARDS TO FINANCE & MARKETING

SOCIAL VENTURE CAPITAL

Social venture capital is a form of venture capital investing that provides capital to businesses deemed socially and environmentally responsible. These investments are intended to both provide attractive returns to investors and to provide market-based solutions to social and environmental issues.
Among the firms that deploy "social venture capital" are: Acumen Fund, Triodos Bank, Calvert Group, Gray Ghost Ventures, The New Economics Foundation, Social Venture Capital Fund, Venturesome Fund, Social Venture Partners, VenturEast BYST Growth Fund and Good Capital.

COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL
COMMUNITY VENTURE

• A clearly stated purpose
This is often the single hardest part of the whole process. Ambiguous, unrealistic, or ill-defined goals have ruined many projects. One must start with small, easily-obtained goals and build on their success. The goals will change as the project evolves.

• A governing structure, knowledgeable advisors

• A solid Business Plan
“Failing to plan is planning to fail”. Hence one must consider the following questions while making a business plan:- 1. How the project is going to pay for itself? 2. Where to obtain the initial startup capital? 3. Who is the target audience for the system? 4. What do we ASSUME? 5. What research needs to be done? 6. What skills are needed to run the project? 7. Have a current contingency plans. What is to be done if there is a major unforeseen disaster? 8. What are the weaknesses in our thinking? 9. Do we have enough resources to run and expand the project?

• Good Project Planning
It is basically turning your ideas into reality. Steps in Building a Project are as follows:-
1. Definition of goals
2. Brainstorming of concepts and ideas
3. Critique of concepts
4. Mission statement
5. Budget, projections, and timeline
6. Reality check
7. Project Planning
Project Management Tips
1) An early plan is good to get started quickly. An early plan includes a pre-project launch, resource assignments and a plan to build a detailed project plan.
2) Understand the scope of the project requirements before trying to break it down into specific tasks.
3) Documentation is vital, especially when more than one person needs to work on parts of a project.
4) Communication is very important and it never hurts to double or even triple check to make sure that you are properly communicating with your project team.
5) Find ways to build up your team early, such as taking them out for dinner. You should have regular events to bring the team together. Just make sure that they are not too often.
6) Meetings, when they occur at all, should be short and to the point.
7) Show your leadership. Listen and learn from your team.

After defining your project, the next step is to break down it into specific tasks. In developing your task use the S.M.A.R.T method.
S = Specific, concrete objective
M = Measurable indicator of progress
A = Assignable to a specific person
R = Realistic
T = Time (how long the job will take and a specific date that it will be done by)

• A target audience
"Try to be all things to all people and you will end up be nothing to anyone". Do your targets have enough capital to support your project? If not you have two choices:
a) Choose other target groups
b) Redesign your project so that it is affordable by your target groups
What to look for in a target audience? 1. Enough members in the target who are interested in your project or are willing to learn about it 2. Resources (monetary or otherwise) to support it 3. Enough members to bring a substantial number of people the project 4. Enough connections to other groups so that you can grow your market • A source of money &/ resources to run and expand the organization. Very detailed plans of where the resources are coming from and how they will be used should be made. An experienced financial person should be involved to handle the monetary side. Need to have a very high confidence that resources will be available. “Plan to Fail” Must have an ongoing detailed contingency plan.
[pic]
Planning to fail:-
1. What if few of your expected resources come through?
2. Your “target audience” is un-interested in your project
3. Another competing project comes along & steals your thunder
4. Your project idea is simply to strange for people to understand
5. The project requires far too much time & energy than you can give to it
6. In order for the project to succeed it requires far more resources than originally anticipated
7. Due to a major economic downturn, funds become tight for you target audience
8. Times change & people’s interests shift to other projects

• Good Communications, marketing and sales plan - Communications: PR functions (i.e. inform of upcoming events)
The Communication Rules to be followed are as follows:- ✓ KISS – Keep it Simple and Short ✓ Keep it relevant to your project & to your target audience ✓ Make it professional ✓ Make sure the message you are sending is consistent with the project

- Marketing: get people to “buy into” your project
Marketing Strategy ➢ Who are your target audiences? ➢ What exactly are you trying to get those target audiences to do? ➢ How can you make a message that these target audiences are most likely to respond to? ➢ What are the best mediums to reach your target audiences?
Marketing Mediums ➢ News Kits and News Releases ➢ Sales Letters ➢ Sales and Marketing Brochures ➢ Advertisements ➢ Web Sites ➢ Speciality Items ➢ Sale Proposals ➢ Goodwill Materials ➢ Promotional Materials ➢ Sales Kits ➢ News Letters ➢ Speeches ➢ Your Imagination

- Sales: get people & organizations to give resources to your project - Basic Steps ➢ Find prospects (part of target audience) ➢ Research prospects ➢ Gain their attention ➢ Build trust ➢ Determine Common Ground, if any ➢ Demonstrate understanding of prospect needs ➢ Show how project can meet prospect needs ➢ Moving from prospect to customer ➢ Keeping commitments

• Solid Leadership
Without good leadership a great project can fail. With good leadership a weak project can often succeed. Leaders are made, not born. Anyone can become a leader if they are willing to learn.
Features of Great Leaders ➢ Challenge the Process ➢ Inspire a Shared Vision ➢ Enable Others to Act ➢ Model the Way ➢ Encourage the Heart
Features of Bad Leaders ➢ Threaten ➢ Indecisive ➢ Refuse to listen to the people around them ➢ Keep all the power for themselves ➢ Refuse to learn or change • A good working relationship with other community organizations ➢ Try and coordinate your effort with existing groups ➢ Approach existing groups to see if there are ways of working together ➢ Build up a network among community groups and be willing to help them with their projects ➢ “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”
If you lack in any of the above, then the chances of failing increases.

SOCIAL MARKETING

Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. Social marketing can be applied to promote merit goods, or to make a society avoid demerit goods and thus to promote society's well being as a whole. For example, this may include asking people not to smoke in public areas, asking them to use seat belts, or prompting to make them follow speed limits.
Although 'social marketing' is sometimes seen only as using standard commercial marketing practices to achieve non-commercial goals, this is an over-simplification.
The primary aim of 'social marketing' is 'social good', while in 'commercial marketing' the aim is primarily 'financial'. This does not mean that commercial marketers cannot contribute to achievement of social good.
Increasingly, social marketing is being described as having 'two parents' - a 'social parent' = social sciences and social policy, and a 'marketing parent' = commercial and public sector marketing approaches.
Beginning in the 1970s, it has in the last decade matured into a much more integrative and inclusive discipline that draws on the full range of social sciences and social policy approaches as well as marketing.
Social marketing must not be confused with Social media marketing.
In India, especially in Kerala, AIDS controlling programmes are largely using social marketing and social workers are largely working for it. Most of the social workers are professionally trained for this particular task.

TYPES OF SOCIAL MARKETING

Using the benefits and of doing 'social good' to secure and maintain customer engagement. In 'social marketing' the distinguishing feature is therefore its 'primary' focus on 'social good', and it is not a secondary outcome. Not all public sector and not-for-profit marketing is social marketing.
Public sector bodies can use standard marketing approaches to improve the promotion of their relevant services and organizational aims, this can be very important, but should not be confused with 'social marketing' where the focus in on achieving specific behavioural goals with specific audiences in relation to different topics relevant to social good (eg: health, sustainability, recycling, etc).
As the dividing lines are rarely clear it is important not to confuse social marketing with commercial marketing.
A commercial marketer selling a product may only seek to influence a buyer to make a product purchase.
Social marketers, dealing with goals such as reducing cigarette smoking or encouraging condom use, have more difficult goals: to make potentially difficult and long-term behavioral change in target populations.
It is sometimes felt that social marketing is restricted to a particular spectrum of client -- the non-profit organization, the health services group, the government agency.
These often are the clients of social marketing agencies, but the goal of inducing social change is not restricted to governmental or non-profit charitable organizations; it may be argued that corporate public relations efforts such as funding for the arts are an example of social marketing.
Social marketing should not be confused with the Societal Marketing Concept which was a forerunner of sustainable marketing in integrating issues of social responsibility into commercial marketing strategies. In contrast to that, social marketing uses commercial marketing theories, tools and techniques to social issues.
Social marketing applies a “customer oriented” approach and uses the concepts and tools used by commercial marketers in pursuit of social goals like Anti-Smoking-Campaigns or fund raising for NGOs.
Initially, there was a need for 'large scale, broad-based, behavior change focused programs' to improve public health. The following outline eight essential components of social marketing that were necessary and still hold today. They are: 1. A consumer orientation to realize organizational (social) goals 2. An emphasis on the voluntary exchanges of goods and services between providers and consumers 3. Research in audience analysis and segmentation strategies 4. The use of formative research in product and message design and the pretesting of these materials 5. An analysis of distribution (or communication) channels 6. Use of the marketing mix - utilizing and blending product, price, place and promotion characteristics in intervention planning and implementation 7. A process tracking system with both integrative and control functions 8. A management process that involves problem analysis, planning, implementation and feedback functions

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

ROLE OF A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

The function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the patterns of production... By exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.
Joseph Schumpeter (20th Century Economist)
However, Social entrepreneurs play the major role of change agents in the social sector, by: 1. Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value 2. Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission 3. Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning 4. Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand 5. Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created

The other roles of a social entrepreneur are as follows:- ➢ Leading social change. ➢ A person with vision, drive, integrity of purpose, great persuasive powers, and remarkable stamina and the ability to create positive attitude. ➢ An innovator who combines technical innovations and financial finesses for social changes. ➢ Important role in producing competitive products, processes, and services and reduce the costs. ➢ Generation of new employment. ➢ Local and regional economic development. ➢ Improved allocation of resources and transfer of technologies. ➢ Opening of new sources of supply of goods or services especially to the disadvantaged group of people.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

Social entrepreneurs demonstrate all the characteristics of the business entrepreneur: Possessed by an innovative idea, they are driven, focused and unrelenting in their determination to produce results. That said, they must also be exceptionally skilled at identifying and mobilizing resources.
They are constantly looking for new ways to serve their constituencies and to add value to existing services. They are willing to take reasonable risk on behalf of the people that their organization serves. They understand the difference between needs and wants.
They understand that all resource allocations are really stewardship investments. They weigh the social and financial return of each of these investments. They always keep mission first, but know that without money, there is no mission output.
The usual ideologies and principals do not holdback social Entrepreneurs. They are always looking at breaking them. Social Entrepreneurs are impatient. They do not go well with the bureaucracy around them.
Social Entrepreneurs have the patience, energy and enthusiasm to teach others and they do not lose their Focus anytime. Social Entrepreneurs always jump in before having their resources in place. They are not traditional.
Social Entrepreneurs believe that everyone can Perform and have the capacity to do so and display Determination at all times. Social Entrepreneurs measure and monitor their results.
The major qualities they possess are as follows:-
1. Willingness to self connect
2. Willingness to share credit
3. Willingness to break free of established structures
4. Willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries
5. Willingness to work quietly
6. Strong ethical impetus

CHALLENGES FACED BY A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

“What we have here are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.”
- John Gardner
The Social Entrepreneur faces many challenges and problems in the following areas:- ■ Mission / Vision ■ Strategy ■ Business Planning ■ Accountability ■ Competition ■ Opportunities ■ Resources ■ Innovation ■ Financial Management ■ Human Resources ■ Governance ■ Donors / Investors ■ Scale ■ Organizational Change ■ Risk
Hence, the best way to solve such issues would be adoption of Professionalization in Management of Social entrepreneurship.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
TODAY & TOMORROW

IMPACT OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Social entrepreneurs see and seize opportunities to produce large-scale, positive social change. Hence they’re Impact is Dynamic.
The process is very simple. It is generation of an idea and after analyzing its feasibility and effectiveness it is implemented. Evaluating this process will tell us the impact of the entrepreneurship.

[pic]

So far social entrepreneurship has shown dynamic contributions in the following:- - Significant contributions to national income, employment, and export earnings - Employment and better career opportunities - Sources of innovation and creativity - Better utilization of available resources - Stimulates productivity, etc. ( see below )
Briefly, Social Entrepreneurship is needed for creating something different, with value, by devoting necessary time and effort, by assuming the accompanying financial, psychological, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary, social and personal satisfaction.

[pic]

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP – CALL FOR THE DAY!

[pic]

Why is social entrepreneurship a big deal? Why is the need of the hour?

Here are the reasons:- □ Markets for ideas not necessarily efficient
a) The case of health insurance coverage • 45 million Americans (i.e. 15% of the population) lack insurance coverage • This shows an untapped market
b) The shortage of education and healthcare workers

□ The search for meaning in work
In today’s world, each one has become reward oriented. Senior executives drop out of the rat race to focus on intrinsically rewarding experiences

□ Trends in spending and budgets by the traditional actor: Government
a) Downward pressure on tax rates and the prevalence of tax shelters
b) Pressures on entitlement spending • Social security and Medicare
c) Other diversions, for instance, defense and homeland security expenditure

□ Increasing income inequality
This is one of the major problems. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The fight is between the richest and the poorest sections of the society. There is a shift in the society the winner takes it all. This growing gap is giving rise to capitalism since money attracts more money! [pic] □ The paradox of corporate philanthropy a) Businessmen are penny-pinchers in their corporate avatars, but can be pretty generous in private life example - Gates Foundation
b) Tax breaks • Philanthropy is costless when tax-deductible!
c) Corporate social responsibility • Individual philanthropy sidesteps the controversies surrounding corporate philanthropy

□ Microfinance
a) The most challenging of social ventures
b) One-third of the world’s population lives on a dollar a day
c) Microfinance involves providing small loans/investment to the world’s poorest; venture capital for those with zero collateral
d) e.g. Grameen Bank

□ Governmental efforts to solve social deficiencies is unlikely to be effective or popular (example - healthcare). Markets fail when the profit motive is not satisfied.
Hence, social entrepreneurs play a very critical and crucial role as a bridge between imperfect markets and controversial government intervention.

EMERGING TRENDS IN INDIA

Deval Sanghavi, Dasra

Social entrepreneurship in India has progressed significantly over the last decade. More and more people are using entrepreneurial skills in building sustainable enterprises for profit and non-profit to effect change in India, says Deval Sanghavi, a former investment banker and now president of Dasra. Based in Mumbai, Dasra is a non-profit organisation which bridges the gap between those investing in social change and those spearheading the changes.
“Social entrepreneurship in India is emerging primarily because of what the government has not been able to do. The government is very keen on promoting social entrepreneurship - not necessarily by funding it or by advising on it or enabling it. What they do do, is not disable it,” Sanghavi, who brings the rigour and discipline of an investment banker to the social sector, told INSEAD Knowledge on the sidelines of the International Social Entrepreneurship conference held here recently.
For example, in Mumbai alone, non-profit organisations educate more than 250,000 children on a daily basis. The government has not told these organisations not to do it, he says. Whereas in some countries, when someone takes it into their own hands to start a facility for education or healthcare or empowerment, the government often puts in place barriers to prevent this from happening. “In India, there is this drive and commitment to take change upon you. There are no inherent barriers to begin with in India.”

An Uneasy Truce

Another shift that has happened over the last ten years is that the Indian government and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) have realised that they not only have to co-exist but to work with each other to effect change, says Sanghavi.
India still has a long way to go compared to the West where governments are funding non-profit organisations by outsourcing social sector services. “In India that is not going to happen,” he says. “It will be overambitious for us to think that they will be funding all these initiatives but the fact that they allow these organisations to operate within the government structure - albeit with conflict, as they are operating with one hand tied behind their back - is progress.”
At the same time the few organisations who have decided to play this role have realised that even with one hand tied behind their back they can effect great change because they have access to hundreds of millions of people that they will never be able to access on their own.
“So it’s the shift in the NGO mindset, where we’ll never get 100 per cent of what we really want to do but working with the government, if we get 70 per cent that’s better than the 20 per cent efficiencies that the government is currently operating at,” he argues.
A New Phenomenon

Devashri Mukherjee

Although social entrepreneurship has been practised in India for some time now, social business is a comparatively new phenomenon in the country, says Devashri Mukherjee, Ashoka’s director of its Venture Programme which is also based in Mumbai.
Social entrepreneurs in the country, however, have had substantive success in addressing social problems. The reason for their success, and that of social businesses, according to Mukherjee, is the fact that the solutions are realistic. “They address existing gaps in society which are in need of practical solutions, and more importantly, the solution initiatives are driven by visionary, tenacious and ambitious persons who are ready to strive to ensure their dreams do come true.”

Impacting society but so much more to be done
Social enterprises are definitely making an impact on Indian society, says Sanghavi, but with a population of 1.1 billion, it is very difficult to see that impact on a macro level. “However, in organisations we have worked directly with, we have seen growth 15 to 100 times in their beneficiary base in a five- to seven-year period. Clearly growth is possible. They are at numbers of tens of thousands and realise they need to get to hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions. But that is taking time. It is the mindset more now than ever of the need to scale and the ability of the organisation to do so.”
Mukherjee concurs that the impact is significant enough to be meaningful. “Our country does not have a homogenous people or geography, so the impact largely remains regional.”

The Elements Necessary For Social Entrepreneurship To Flourish In India

Hans Wahl

First there needs to be an awareness of and concern about the social problems and issues to be addressed, and committed entrepreneurs interested in addressing them, says Hans Wahl, executive director of INSEAD's Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. A policy and regulatory framework within which social entrepreneurs can obtain status without compromising their objectives is also very important.
“It would be good to have a collaborative network to be used among social entrepreneurs that enables them to share ideas and spread innovations, ideally linked to an academic institution interested in, and committed to, promoting awareness and creating knowledge and insight into the best functioning of social enterprises,” he adds.
On the ground, Mukherjee says that financial assistance, social legitimacy and acknowledgement are the most important factors necessary to enhance the growth of social entrepreneurship in India. “The process has begun, but a lot more needs to be developed, especially by social, educational and government institutions.”

The landscape in five to ten years’ time
According to Wahl, with the current economic climate, it is very likely that social needs will increase and, consequently, the number of people committed to addressing them will increase. He sees innovations increasing, especially in the field of examining and applying technology to social needs.
For Mukherjee, work in the field of human rights will continue since violations are unlikely to go away. Natural resource management and alternate energy initiatives will gain prominence, as will livelihood and migration. “Social entrepreneurship and social businesses will be mainstreamed substantially, so we will have many opting to follow the course of one or the other which will hopefully impact society positively.”

NEW GENERATION:
MAKING OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS

"Growing up and becoming a caring person is dependent on the kinds of experiences we have when we are young. Children are not born with the ability to carefully be formed; they develop into caring individuals by how we work with them, how we model our behavior, what we teach them, and what we do together," says Diane Levin, Ph.D. author of Remote Control Childhood and Senior Advisor to this Web guide.
Teaching children how to take responsible action is a process that develops gradually over time. From preschool to high school, it's a process of working together to solve problems directly connected to your children's immediate experience. It's important to discuss factors that may impede the development of caring such as violent media and a commercial culture that makes wanting more important than doing.
Raising children who care may be one of the most important things you can do.
When you are encouraging kids to care, the goal is not to show children one "right" way to think about or respond to a problem. Instead, help them come up with strategies that make sense to them. Here are some ideas: 1. Help children take actions that grow out of their own concerns. 2. Strategize tangible ways kids can make a difference. 3. Show children there are many ways to care. 4. Help kids deal with problems in inclusive ways. 5. Make sure children know it is the job of adults to make the world a safe place. 6. As children get older, talk about the causes of problems, not just the solutions.
Along with these, many schools are adopting different approaches.

Here are some lesson plans:-

Innovation for Good

Students will engage in a discussion, watch selected video clips online, use a handout in small groups to create a "virtual innovation for the good," and present ideas to the class.

The Power of One

This lesson allows students to hear from some of the world's greatest (and sometimes quietest) leaders who have changed the world through their individual effort and vision, then asks students to consider their perceptions of what one person can really do.

Social Entrepreneurship

Students learn about the economic trend of what has come to be called "social entrepreneurship" and its impact on global economics.

Stories of Shelter

This unit looks at transitional and transformational spaces that support people who are in need of shelter in order to grow and develop new lives.

Bringing the Future to People

The three videos in this series share stories of people on the frontiers of technology working in developing countries. Their stories are engaging ways to introduce students to complex and compelling concepts around technology and progress.

The Business of Doing Good

This unit engages students in thinking about global economics and society.

Learning Matters — Making a Difference

This unit focuses on the positive impact that education has on social problems such as poverty, disease, and child prostitution.

[pic][pic][pic]

RELATED COURSEWORK

Notable Coursework In India

Though no specific degree or qualification is required, one can study the following to enhance the managerial skills.

■ Any MBA from the top B schools

■ NMIMS Mumbai & Bangalore, India

■ TISS, Mumbai, India

Notable Coursework Overseas

■ IMD, Entrepreneurship Projects (Core Course)

■ Babson College, The Social Entrepreneur (Elective Course)

■ Columbia University, Social Entrepreneurship: Financing and Growing Social Ventures (Elective Course)

■ Duke University, Social Entrepreneurship (Elective Course)

■ London Business School, Social Entrepreneurship (Elective Course)

■ The George Washington University, Nonprofit Enterprise (Elective Course)

■ University of California – Berkeley, Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship (Elective Course)
■ University of Notre Dame, Social Entrepreneurship (Elective Course)

■ Washington University, Social Entrepreneurship (Elective Course)

■ Committee for Democracy in Information Technology (IESE)

■ Corposol (Harvard Business School Publishing)

■ Yla Eason (A, B) (The Business Enterprise Trust, dist. by Harvard Business School Publishing)

■ CARE Kenya (A): Making Social Enterprise Sustainable (Richard Ivey School of Business)

■ The Lee David Pesky Center for Learning Enrichment (Tuck School at Dartmouth College)

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Do you feel inspired to use your talents to help others? Would you like to change the world, or change the lives of a group of people? Do you feel passionate about the environment, human rights, education, literacy, health, or another cause that benefits humanity?
Now is the time to start doing work you believe in by becoming a social entrepreneur and starting your own nonprofit business.
For example, can you imagine yourself as a social entrepreneur starting and leading a nonprofit business that is working to: • Protect our environment • Increase appreciation of the arts • Raise awareness and funds to prevent illness • Improve educational opportunities for children • Help the poor in the U.S. or other countries • Encourage diversity and tolerance • Assist elderly people to live with dignity • Provide relief in emergency situations • Shelter abandoned or abused animals • Another cause you believe in [pic]
As founding member of a nonprofit business you will decide how to run the organization. You will lay the groundwork for deciding what issues to address, what programs to run, and how to spend your funds.
When you start a nonprofit business, you can directly help the people who need it. Your programs could change people’s lives and their futures.
As a social entrepreneur, you'll enjoy freedom from the “rat race” and use a new kind of measuring stick for your achievements: one that measures dollars raised, lives changed, and people helped.
You may travel the world for your cause, meeting with world leaders or people grateful for your help. For many social entrepreneurs, having hands-on involvement and seeing the immediate results of their effort are great rewards and motivators.
[pic]
If you have the desire and determination to see your dream become a reality, you can become a social entrepreneur and start a nonprofit business. No special education or experience is necessary to break into this career and succeed

CASE STUDY

The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship [pic]
Over the last 18 months, Pamela Hartigan's schedule has been hectic, to say the least. As Managing Director of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, she has been jetting off around the world every month to spread the word about the importance of social Entrepreneurship. The Foundation, which began operating less than two years ago, has developed quite a profile. "We have created a "positive buzz among social entrepreneurs," says Hartigan. People are interested in learning more about the Foundation's work—virtually every person she wants to meet with opens up time for her. One of the projects that the Foundation undertook, in cooperation with other partners, the creation of a social investment capital market, has taken off and is a few months away from being formally established as an independent organization. The Foundation's constituents—the Social Entrepreneurs that form part of the Schwab Foundation global network—have evolved into a tight-knit community and provide ongoing feedback about the Foundation's work. By listening and responding to their input, the Foundation has undergone a major strategic reorientation—which seems to be working well—so far. However, Pamela is not someone to sit tight—"I can't deal with working in a bureaucracy. I've always been someone that comes in and wants to do new things, differently." However, Pamela's main concern right now is that "we are so focused on day-to-day operations that we haven't had time since we undertook this new strategic direction several months ago, to elaborate the performance indicators that will help us know whether we are being successful. Right now, we can feel we are doing things right—but that is not enough, of course. What are the benchmarks that will substantiate our "feeling" that we are doing the right things, as well making the best use of our opportunities with the resources we have?"

Background Information
Summer 2000—The Original Idea—The Million Dollar Award
In the summer of 2000, Klaus Schwab asked Pamela Hartigan to become the Managing Director for the Foundation he and his wife, Hilde, were endowing in Geneva, Switzerland with funds derived from investments they had undertaken. Klaus and Hilde set up the Foundation with the purpose of raising awareness of the importance of social entrepreneurship to sustainable development. According to Schwab, The Foundation has been a dream of ours for many years. My belief always has been that in the end, economic and social progress can only be achieved through entrepreneurship of all kinds. The Foundation enables us to encourage and foster entrepreneurs working for the public interest- to support them and provide them with access and funding to an international platform for experience exchange that they might otherwise lack. We wanted to create a mechanism from the bottom up. This approach differs from the approach of the World Economic Forum, which I founded 30 years ago. At the World Economic Forum, we have built global communities that convene every year at Davos and also in different regions, to search for joint solutions to crises or problems at the macroeconomic and geopolitical level. At the beginning of the 21st century, it becomes more evident that social progress cannot depend only on high level cooperation among global decision-makers, but also requires community-driven social entrepreneurship on a broad scale. Inspired by the belief that entrepreneurship is as vital in other spheres of human endeavor as it is in business; the Foundation seeks to elevate the importance of social entrepreneurship by recognizing exemplary cases. The centerpiece of the Foundation was to be a "Social Entrepreneurship Awards for the 21st Century"— a US$ 1 million Award given to an individual and/or an organization spearheading social entrepreneurial initiatives that have significantly improved people's lives and have a potential to be replicated elsewhere. To develop the criteria and mechanics for granting the Award, the Foundation partnered with the Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Defining social entrepreneurship was a task in itself. "One of the problems we have is that some assume that 'social entrepreneurship' is synonymous with 'entities of the civic sector,' simply by virtue of their commitment to social value generation, independent of any "entrepreneurial" approach in their activities," Hartigan commented early in the life of the Foundation.

Initial Process
Based upon the criteria, the Foundation Secretariat developed the selection process for the future Award winner, which was approved by the Foundation's Board of Trustees (Exhibit 3). Hartigan and the staff at the Secretariat cast wide net and selected nominators from around the world who would be well placed to identify outstanding social entrepreneurs. The Secretariat developed a detailed checklist to guide nominators in their assessment of the candidate being proposed. Nominators were confidential. Hartigan personally contacted via telephone the suitable nominees, inviting them to apply. Forty-three of them did so. Three outside reviewers screened each application. Based on the analysis of the external review, nine candidates were selected and Hartigan, her staff, and other independent parties conducted on-site due diligence on those nine candidates. For each one, an extensive report was prepared and presented to the Board for a final decision. An additional component of the Foundation's strategy was the creation of networking opportunities. For example, a Summit for Social Entrepreneurs was to be held yearly at the Foundation's headquarters in Geneva, and social entrepreneurs were to be integrated within the activities of the World Economic Forum, wherever feasible. It was clear from the beginning that the leadership of Klaus Schwab and his role as the World Economic Forum's Founder and President would give the Foundation a special platform. According to Schwab, "the Foundation will complement the activities of the world Economic Forum. The Schwab Foundation will draw on the knowledge and constituents of the World Economic Forum (WEF), but otherwise it is a completely separate legal and financial entity." In practice, this would, among other things, mean that the Award would be announced during the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and that social entrepreneurs would be included as participants in the Forum's activities. Further, the Foundation could leverage the linkages provided by the Forum's access to global leaders on behalf of social entrepreneurs and raise the profile of the field.

November 2001-The Social Entrepreneurs' Summit
During its first year, the Schwab Foundation received over 100 nominations for the award. After screening the applications, the Foundation identified 43 middle and late stage social entrepreneurs world-wide2. Among those 43, nine were identified as top contenders for the Award. The due diligence on-site visits took Hartigan and her colleagues literally around the world—four continents in four weeks! To enhance the networking opportunities all the 43 candidates, including the nine finalists, were invited to a three-day Summit on Social Entrepreneurship, held in November 2001, in Geneva. While the Summit was to be a networking opportunity for the entrepreneurs themselves, for the Board of the Foundation, it provided an occasion for them to meet the candidates personally. Well before the Summit, Hartigan and her colleagues had begun to question seriously the idea of one award. The world trip and site visits had only reinforced their misgivings. In some cases, a couple of the social entrepreneurs selected among the nine finalists proved to be not as stellar as their written material had indicated. The Foundation's Board faced some tough choices--among those who were clearly outstanding, how could the merits of such different achievements be compared? How could one of them be singled out over the others as being more socially entrepreneurial? They were just too different. Together with Klaus and Hilde, Hartigan and her colleagues began to debate the wisdom of the million-dollar award. Perhaps the million should be split among several? To them, it seemed that doing so would be the better option. Secondly, early stage social entrepreneurship involves the initial work of conceiving, planning, launching, implementing and assessing an idea. Early stage innovations often remain local. Ashoka supports social entrepreneurs at this stage. Middle stage is characterized by expansion, organizational development, and deeper institutionalization of a successful innovation and the innovation is being implemented on a broader scale, regionally or nationally. In late stage social entrepreneurship, the innovation is widely accepted as a new pattern in society. The impact can be clearly seen in many ways, and it has been disseminated to affect regional or international populations. The Summit was a turning point for the Foundation, for it led to a radical shift in strategy in the months that followed. First, it became clear that the social entrepreneurs were starved for company of peers. "As soon as they arrived, the group bonded! It was clear that they could understand each other's travails better than anyone else!" recalls Hartigan. Significantly, the entrepreneurs had a deep impact upon the Board. The first afternoon, each social entrepreneur stood up to recount his or her experience. The Board was transfixed. Hilde later commented that in her over 30 years of marriage, she had never seen Klaus Schwab sit for more than twenty minutes without getting up. Four hours later, Klaus was still sitting. Later, addressing the social entrepreneurs, he joyously commented, "You have given us a great gift by engaging so much throughout this weekend. We believe that bonding together is the way forward!" Other Board members were equally moved. Muhammad Yunus, Founder and Managing Director of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, told the audience later that evening at a press conference, "If I were a venture capitalist, I would provide funding for each one of these entrepreneurs. If I were a Hollywood producer, I would make a film to tell each one of their stories!" Board Member Zanele Mbeki, First Lady of South Africa commented, "Imagine the transformation that could occur if these 43 social entrepreneurs were allowed to implement their initiatives in one single developing country!" According to Hartigan, "the more we talked with social entrepreneurs, we began to realize that awarding a prize wouldn't really make a significant difference—but continuing to build a community could." A significant shift in the Foundation Board's original thinking occurred as it listened to its clients – the successful social entrepreneurs themselves. The Board began to realize that a large prize for a few individuals was not the best use of the Foundation's resources. The Award was originally conceived as an incentive for social entrepreneurs to seek out the Foundation, but it became clear during the Summit that it was not the only or the main one. In addition, with so many prize awarding entities in the world today, using the Foundation’s limited resources to fund one, two or three awards as the main vehicle for addressing the needs of social entrepreneurs may not be the most effective use of those resources. Thus, while maintaining the Foundation's original purpose, the Board was faced with rethinking what value the Foundation added to outstanding social entrepreneurs. The human factor was also making the Board vacillate in its Award decision. Once they had met the 43 individuals behind the stories they had read, they had the same problem the Secretariat had been facing: they were not able to single out one, two or three winners. The Board's decision: All of them needed to be celebrated! Take them all to the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting! Thereby, they delicately deferred the decision on any Awards until they met again in early February during the Annual Meeting. The decision and announcement of the Award winner would be made then. Schwab felt that "the world must become aware of the fantastic transformational power of social entrepreneurship." On the last day of the Summit, the Board announced that all 43 social entrepreneurs were going to "Davos", exceptionally to be held in New York in 2002. They were thrilled, as was the Secretariat, although somewhat overwhelmed at the thought that they had 8 weeks to prepare to take 43 social entrepreneurs to the Annual Meeting. In their minds, there was no doubt that the Annual Meeting would provide an extremely powerful platform for recognizing the achievement of this unique community, as well as providing the opportunity for the influential to be influenced by those with practical experience about what works in what contexts to improve the lives of the least advantaged. Board member and renowned Brazilian author Paulo Coelho gave the Schwab Social Entrepreneur's some parting advice in closing the Summit. He reminded them that they had a duty to perform in New York—"Beyond any structure or organization, you exist. Remember that you are very important. The world needs your work. Do not beg; you are going to New York to interact with other people from different environments and mentalities. It is about raising the level of consciousness."

January 2002—WEF Annual Meeting in New York
The following excerpts from an article written by Hartigan and published in March 2002 illustrate how the events developed in New York. The first challenge was to manage expectations. We spent a week writing a twelve-page document called "Getting Ready for the Annual Meeting: A Guide for Social Entrepreneurs". Why do leaders from around the world come to the Forum's Annual Meeting? How do social entrepreneurs fit into this scene? What is the "vibe"? What should you bring? What should you not bring? (the answer is proposals for funding, posters or declarations). Then there was the issue of interpreters. At least ten of our social entrepreneurs spoke little or no English. But it is assumed that everyone who participates at the Forum speaks English! The Forum agreed to let our non-English speaking social entrepreneurs bring interpreters. All December and early January, we worked with the Forum staff to ensure that the social entrepreneurs were included in sessions relevant to their area of expertise. We also set up a separate session called "Come Meet Social Entrepreneurs" which was quickly so overbooked that we had to find another room to accommodate everyone that wanted to come. To provide further support, we arranged for a pre-meeting the day before the opening of the Annual Meeting with the whole group. This one day session was tremendously useful for two reasons: it reconnected everyone after the Geneva Summit, which had been the first time they had ever met and being together at this larger-than-life event provided a comfort level that further bonded them as a "family." The next day, they joined the fray of corporate and political leaders, academic luminaries, media moguls and stars, and chose from the smorgasbord of plenaries, workshops and panels that have come to characterize the Annual Meeting program. "I felt like Alice-in-Wonderland who fell down the rabbit hole of the World Economic Forum," Sara Horowitz of Working Today described to me. "It has been an amazing experience". Sara was elated, having just been introduced by Colin Powell to John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO leader she had been trying to meet for two years. Alice-in-Wonderland stuff for sure. Perhaps the biggest take-away for the social entrepreneurs was the perception that the business community is serious about addressing social issues. For a number of them, this was something of a revelation. And it gave them an increased sense that business-social partnerships were possible and worth more of their energy investment. There were also frustrations. Much of the discussion at the Annual Meeting revolved around poverty, inequity, reaching the poor, incorporating technology in education, and so on. But despite our best efforts, those with the solutions, the social entrepreneurs, were in the audience, not on the podium. Social entrepreneurs had difficulty finding the confidence to raise their voices and contribute from practical experience, to the session discussions. "I am a small Asian farmer," Takao Furuno shared with his other newly-found friends, "we are being destroyed by some aspects of globalization. Here people have a lot of information about the situation, they analyze it and discuss it, but no one is actually feeling it every day the way Asian farmers do." Much work remains to be done to incorporate these views from the ground into the Annual Meeting discussions. Hopefully next year, when we have more than eight weeks to plan, it will be different. But the question still lingering in everyone's mind—What about the award? The Board met formally again on the last day of the Annual Meeting to decide on the winners. The meeting was at 7:30 a.m., over breakfast. All the Board members were present except for Quincy Jones who called Klaus Schwab to say, "I'm getting ready to go to BED at that hour…but if we have it at six in the morning, I can make it…" The Board debated again around the finalists, the group as a whole, how to best use the Foundation's resources; finally coming to a dramatic decision—the only one that really made sense. It was approved by all of them unanimously. The social entrepreneurs found out about the Board's decision that afternoon in a local pub, the only location available in the immediate surroundings of the crowded Annual Meeting. "The Board believes that rather than single out one, two or three of you, and channel one million dollars to a few, we should dedicate that million every year to supporting you and future network members", Klaus announced, "each of you is an amazing individual who has accomplished what others thought was impossible. All of you, and people like you who we have yet to identify, deserve to be supported." Klaus's announcement was met with wild and enthusiastic cheers and whistles from the 43. Even those who knew that they had been among the nine finalists claimed that. "It was a brilliant decision. Any one of us would have felt badly if we had been singled out as a winner." Joe Madiath of Gram Vikas in India added, "Over the past three months we have built a strong community that has bonded and plans to do things together. To give any one of us a million-dollar award would have been a strategic mistake. The money is much better invested in community-building, capacity-strengthening and resource mobilization.".

Reshaping the Strategy
Returning from New York with the change in strategy, Hartigan and her staff began to address two key questions: If the focus is on community building and strengthening the field of social entrepreneurship, who should be included in years to come? And what should the Foundation offer social entrepreneurs? To deal with the first question, the Secretariat analyzed the current group in the network. They faced a situation in which certain members of the network did not strictly meet the criteria for social entrepreneurs defined by the Foundation. The original intention of the Secretariat had been to invite to the Summit all 43 candidates who had been reviewed by external evaluators, not only the nine finalists. The result was that there was a small handful of individuals who, in hindsight, were not social entrepreneurs but well-meaning individuals that had sacrificed their lives to doing good and good causes. When the Board decided to invite all 43 to the Annual Meeting and publicly announced this, it could not very well say, "We invite all of your except X, Y and Z". There was little the Foundation could do, these individuals would continue to be supported as members of the network regardless. The social entrepreneurs that do meet the criteria span a continuum of financing methods, including those who are wholly grant-dependent, and a few at the other extreme who have become self-sustaining enterprises generating social benefits. The vast majority of the current Schwab entrepreneurs falls somewhere in the middle, that is, they have been able to reach some modicum of self-sustainability through membership fees, fees-for service, franchising, establishment of for-profit activities to support their social activities, or forming partnerships with the business and/or local community. Still, to a greater or lesser degree the Schwab entrepreneurs rely on grant funds to sustain their socially oriented activities. The Foundation has decided to concentrate its future efforts on social entrepreneurs who, in addition to having implemented practical and innovative approaches to social value creation, have built substantial financial sustainability into their operations and are not wholly grant-dependent. Given the Foundation's new strategy to be a unique community-building and opportunity enhancing entity for outstanding social entrepreneurs, it has the task of identifying the gaps that even the best social entrepreneurs collectively experience and provide ways of addressing them. For Hartigan, after working closely with leading social entrepreneurs from around the world, it has become clear to her, that they have three major interrelated needs:
- Legitimacy and credibility
- Opportunities for networking among social entrepreneurs as well as with other individuals / organizations who can mobilize support for their initiatives.
- Financial and/or in-kind resources
The order of priority of these needs will vary depending on how financially dependent a social entrepreneur is on outside funding. However, in all cases, absence of any one of the three elements will constrain the entrepreneur in bringing the initiative to scale and achieving long-term sustainability. In Hartigan's experience, because social entrepreneurs tend to defy traditional practice, they are routinely being denied an important element that bestows an aura of credibility and legitimacy upon individuals when they operate within established frameworks. The need for legitimacy and credibility for the social entrepreneur is most often felt at the local and national levels in which he/she operates. For her, "most of these people are considered modern day Don Quixotes—people think they are weird because they are often so driven with getting their new idea going. This was something that every social entrepreneur echoed during the Summit, and it is clearly a problem for them-even when they are very successful, they are ostracized and criticized by the mainstream. Vera Cordeiro, founder of Renascer in Brazil, shared with us the great relief she felt when someone told her 'you are not crazy—you are just a social entrepreneur!'" Promoting social entrepreneurship is an enormous challenge that Hartigan and the Schwab Foundation face: "One dilemma we have right now is identifying the in-built structural and cultural constraints to entrepreneurship—both social and business. We find that in some countries, entrepreneurship flourishes like mushrooms after rainfall. Yet in others, we can barely find any. In many countries we encounter the "cut the tall poppy" phenomenon—those that stick out above the rest of the mob in some fashion are targets of envy and derision—they don't fit within what is accepted—social entrepreneurs and often then business counterparts are tall poppies by nature. They have to be—but they find they operate under enormous constraints in comparison to entrepreneurs in the USA where individualism, self-confidence, risk-taking, and bouncing back and learning from failures are celebrated." As part of its effort to build legitimacy and credibility, the Foundation plans to focus much of its energy in providing opportunities for networking. It was evident from the social entrepreneurs’ responses to the first Summit that the vast majority has too few opportunities to meet with one another and share experiences, methods, successes and challenges with others as accomplished, if not more so, than themselves. The nature of social entrepreneurship is such that these men and women have little time to focus on anything other than implementing their vision and getting others to believe in it and help execute it. The Foundation, through its linkage with the World Economic Forum, seeks to foster relationships between accomplished social entrepreneurs and the community of corporate and philanthropic entities as well as policy makers, media and other thought leaders. The degree of legitimacy and awareness of social entrepreneurship as a critical approach to development will depend on the opportunities provided to accomplished social entrepreneurs for sharing and inspiring enthusiasm among key stakeholders, so that social entrepreneurship is encouraged and nurtured. In Hartigan's view, "social entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship that doesn't focus primarily on maximizing financial profit. The focus is primarily on social value creation. The same types that are entrepreneurs, social or business, are the people that constantly push traditional boundaries, are not afraid of failure, see an opportunity and take a risk. They go against the grain." Lastly, the Foundation seeks to address the perpetual need social entrepreneurs have for financial and/or in-kind resources. In its view, there are many successful social entrepreneurs whose models are already working in one or more countries and are poised for replication. But there are few flexible, second-stage-financing mechanisms available for such social entrepreneurs. There is no market and barely a handful of financial institutions that can provide significant, later-stage capital to those models with high potential for replication and scalability. To exacerbate the situation, and in part because of it, thousands of seed-funders needlessly reinvent the wheel by starting new organizations from scratch. In their view, to date there has been only one social financing “invention” or model replicated on a global scale: the Grameen Bank and micro-credit. This suggests a structural problem for the field, implying a critical information gap and an urgent need to develop second-stage financing mechanisms, networking platforms and appropriate and dynamic certification agencies so that social entrepreneurs with replicable models can find the financial and in-kind support they need. To address such structural problems, the Foundation engaged in the development of GEXSI—Global Exchange for Social Investment.

Challenges of the Foundation
So far, the change in strategy, from award-granting to network-building, has not had a detrimental impact on the interest of candidates to become part of the network. "In switching from not giving an award as a carrot for joining the network, we were concerned that many would not be interest because it wasn't worth it. But that hasn't happened—in fact, we have some unbelievable candidates this year who all submitted their information well ahead of the deadline!!" However, Hartigan questions whether the Foundation is offering enough—"I wonder if they come to us because our relation with WEF—everyone wants to come to Davos. But are we taking full advantage of our relationship? Is getting them to Davos enough?" Further, the Foundation faces a delicate balance in managing the value of its network brand. "How do we evolve vis-a-vis our selection of network members? After all, there is a finite number of outstanding social entrepreneurs in the world that meet the selection criteria. Do we continue to pick existing winners, or do we pick potential winners and give them access to the resources to become winners?", comments Hartigan. According to their strategic documents, the Foundation faces three major challenges as it moves forward:
- It must continue to build the global network of social entrepreneurs and strategically manage its response to their "triangle of needs" in the light of the human and financial resource constraints of the Foundation;
- It must continue to maintain its foothold as the initiator and convener of the GEXSI to help ensure its continued development in ways that match the needs of social entrepreneurs, and thus ensure that Schwab entrepreneurs are able to access support through this mechanism.
- As a result of its network-building with accomplished social entrepreneurs, the Schwab Foundation is strategically placed to bring to light the most outstanding initiatives in a given field. From the perspective of the development community, the Schwab Foundation provides a pool of innovative but practical and proven approaches to solving complex social problems. Different elements of these initiatives can be tested and adapted to other contexts by other social entrepreneurs in the Schwab network, or indeed, tested and scaled up by other development agencies, including governments. How can the Foundation foment the replication of the ideas of their social entrepreneurs?

Lessons learned
When asked what she and her staff have learned during their first year of immersion with social entrepreneurs, as well as reviewing their personal stories, accomplishments, frustrations and challenges, Pamela provided the following answers:
First of all, we need to clarify what constitutes social entrepreneurship. The problem of definition is a very real one. Most frequently around the world, it is equated with philanthropy. Everywhere, from Europe to Australia, social entrepreneurs face the social entrepreneur-as-charity misrepresentation. The false dichotomy between those who work in the social arena and those who work in the financial arena will continue as long as the legal structures and mentality exist dividing what is "profitable" and "what is not"… what type of work gets a tax break and what does not. Anyone who has worked in both the financial and social worlds knows that every financial investment has social ramifications, and vice versa. Interestingly, social entrepreneurs need to be supported as they interface with their counterparts in the business world, particularly in the area of communications. Take for example the specific instance where Fabio Rosa, one of our Schwab entrepreneurs, met at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting with the CEOs of the seven biggest energy companies in the world. What an opportunity! Rosa has developed a scalable system to provide affordable solar energy to poor people who currently spend $8 to $15 a month on non-renewable fuels for lighting. His model allows investors to recoup their investment in five to ten years. This target market encompasses most of the two billion people in the world who still lack electricity and who, by burning fossil fuels, contribute significantly to global warming. Rosa's challenge was to convey to the energy CEOs that they should work with him. How? One way could be Rosa asks for help by appealing to fears such as terrorism, environmental degradation, etc., or principles such as – we can't continue to neglect such as the fact that one third of the planet is being left out of development, etc. Another approach could go like this: Rosa explains to the CEOs something like "This is the largest untapped energy market on the planet. You guys need alternative distribution systems to reach these people. And I can how you how to reach them.!" As business people, the CEOs know that if they want to reach a new market they need new distribution mechanisms. Now the discussion is all about: 'What is the value proposition? What is the win-win deal?' It is a totally different conversation than asking for a hand out, and more hold more promise in initiating a working partnership. We in the Foundation need to help our community articulate its accomplishments and what they can offer in a language that the business community can relate to and respond. We in the Foundation are strategically placed to assume a brokering role, strengthening the business-social bridge. Our Founder and President is the same man who 30 years ago founded and presides over the World Economic Forum. We want to use our leverage to attract the notice of governments and business people so that the scalable solutions of social entrepreneurs can be replicated, improved and expanded, so that their practical insights can be incorporated into government policy and business initiatives. Secondly, we have learned that the business community thinks it is easy to run a social enterprise. But they need to rethink that myth, and the Foundation needs to promote this reflection. As Jed Emerson says, if more business people understood what it is like to manage a social enterprise with a double or triple bottom line, they would be more humble. Third, in the management consulting world, there is much talk of unleashing the metrics, methods and talent pool of the private sector as the panacea to end problems of poverty and unemployment. But the private sector has a lot to learn about delivering better outcomes for customers. As Eric Schwarz, Founder of Citizen's Schools point out, social entrepreneurs in education are trying to change the performance of their customers – children - in vital skill areas. Finding different ways of helping them be better writers, better critical thinkers, able to attend university. When, Schwarz asks, is the last time anyone asked Nike or Reebok if its shoes actually make anyone run faster or jump higher? Fourth, many in the Foundation sector bristle at the mere term, “social entrepreneur”. Foundations are still strongly suspicious of the business community, and they have had good reason to be. But something very important is happening around the world. More and more in the business community are serious about addressing social issues. Businesses, large and small, are having to redefine their value proposition to include social and environmental as well as financial bottom lines. But if that does not convince foundations, then one thing should: poverty elimination will never be achieved if what the bottom line boils down to the number of grants or dollars given away every year. Feeling good about giving money away is not a product. Welfare is not only disempowering, it is the reason why people remain poor. Fifth, there are those who think that using the tag of "social entrepreneur" may access new funds. But one cannot wake up one morning and decide to be a social entrepreneur. When sitting around with a group of social entrepreneurs one quickly realizes that they cannot help being the way they are. They are born that way. Similarly, for business school academics, can they teach someone to be a social entrepreneur? The Foundation thinks not. Of course, a social entrepreneur can learn to be better at management, financial accountability, and human resource development… and there are courses to help them. But the continuous energy to imagine, innovate, implement, improve on innovation, scale up, diversify, defy the usual, break the patterns, move in a new direction… that exhausting and exhilarating quality of what makes a social entrepreneur… no training course will ever teach that. Finally, those in government have grabbed onto the promise of social entrepreneurship. But they are fooled into thinking that a manager of a social enterprise and a social entrepreneur are the same. One can understand their temptation as they are increasingly unable to deliver public services, and the route to privatize those same services has a corrosive effect on equity. So, a confused idea of social entrepreneurs that equates them with people who run social enterprises has emerged. But social entrepreneurs tend to be less of a manager than they are practical visionaries that innovate because they have a thorough understanding of their field and the context in which they develop their innovation. One does not qualify as a social entrepreneur by getting a degree in the subject. Social entrepreneurs are the flames that ignite the fire of social transformation. This is not business as usual. That flame must be fanned and nurtured by those who understand what social entrepreneurship is about and delight in its promise to achieve social transformation.

CONCLUSION

Entrepreneurship is a challenging and rewarding profession.
The Social Entrepreneur needs to concentrate on market analysis, financial resources, and technology management with every opportunity to better or change the social position.
Initially, one cannot compete directly with the “big guys”, so the social entrepreneur needs to be ingenious and innovative in all entrepreneurial functions
Social entrepreneur is a change maker, always searching for change, responding to it, and exploiting it as an opportunity thus, leading to achievement of success.
- Peter Drucker (Management Guru)
In the wake of the 2008 financial flameout, most business people are, to put it mildly, downbeat. Banks aren't lending, consumers aren't spending and the prospects for the rest of the year seem grim. All of which makes social entrepreneurs, well, intensely—even passionately—optimistic.
"This is a slam dunk," says Willy Foote, the founder of Root Capital, which provides loans to rural businesses in Latin America, Africa and Asia. "The Wall Street meltdown provides a chance to think about how we transition from a financial system that is complex, opaque and anonymous to one that is direct and transparent."
The world seems ready for such a change. In the middle of one of the farthest-reaching financial collapses in history, U.S. President Barack Obama came into office faced with the challenge of delivering on his promise of change. People are tired of business as usual. The exasperation is palpable, but so is the hope that this time, we can and will do things differently. Social entrepreneurs have always believed this, and for many, it's their moment to shine.
"In a world where change is escalating exponentially, the only way we'll make it is if everyone has the mindset of a social entrepreneur," says Bill Drayton, a pioneer in the field and founder of Ashoka, which sponsors international leaders in philanthropic business. "The current upheaval is a great opportunity to flip the switch. We need to make everyone a change-maker."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles • Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, Sally Osberg and Roger Martin • Everyone a Changemaker: Social Entrepreneurship's Ultimate Goal, Bill Drayton • The Importance of Social Entrepreneurship for Development, Jürgen Nagler • Enterprising Social Innovation: the most intriguing form of social entrepreneurship, Greg Dees and Beth Anderson • The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship article by J. Gregory Dees • The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets that Change the World: John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan

Books and Magazines • Effective Project Management: How to Plan, Manage, and Deliver Projects on Time and within Budget by Robert K. Wysocki • The advance edge • Business week • Top 50 social entrepreneurs October 2009 • How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas: David Bornstein • E-Notes of MBA in Social Entrepreneurship - NMIMS

Other References • J Gregory Dees (pdf) • Skollfoundation (pdf) • Ashoka (pdf) • Social enterprises resource centre (pdf)

Websites http://www.pluggd.in/ http://www.approtec.org/ http://www.lfpl.org/western/htms/carnegie.htm http://www.rootsweb.com/~nwa/ http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/hull_house.html axel.behrens@ec.europa.eu www.vmoksha.com www.BeyondGreyPinstripes.org http://knowledge.insead.edu/ http://sereporter.com http://en.wikipedia.org

-----------------------

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP WITH REGARDS TO FINANCE AND MARKETING

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: TODAY AND TOMORROW

CASE STUDY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONCLUSION