Está en la página 1de 64

PROJECT REPORT ON SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

SUBMITTED BY JITENDRA RAMJEET YADAV T.Y. BMS SEMESTER V 2011-12

PROJECT GUIDE PROF. K. SELVI NADAR

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI RAMNIRANJAN JHUNJHUNWALA COLLEGE GHATKOPAR (W), MUMBAI 400 086
1

DECLARATION

I, JITENDRA RAMJEET YADAV THE STUDENT OF RAMNIRANJAN JHUNJHUNWALA COLLEGE FOR T.Y. BMS SEMESTER V (2011-12) DO HEREBY DECLARE THAT I HAVE COMPLETED THE PROJECT WORK TITLED SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS PART OF MY ACADEMIC FULFILLMENT.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PROJECT WORK IS TRUE AND ORIGINAL TO THE BEST MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

DATE: _________________

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT

CERTIFICATE

I, PROF. K. SELVI NADAR DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT JITENDRA RAMJEET YADAV IS A STUDENT OF RAMNIRANJAN JHUNJHUNWALA COLLEGE FOR T.Y. BMS V (2011-12). HE HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT WORK ON SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS PART OF HIS ACADEMIC FULFILLMENT, UNDER MY GUIDANCE.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT WORK IS ORIGINAL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

_________________ SIGNATURE OF PROJECT GUIDE

_________________ SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

INDEX
Sr no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Particulars Introduction Characteristics of social entrepreneurs Theories of entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurs Differences between business,social entrepreneurs and others Why social entrepreneurs? Social value Economic value Examples of social entrepreneurs Examples of social enterprises Social entrepreneurs of the year 2010 and their achievements Conclusion Bibliography Page no. 05 12 13 20 21 29 34 36 39 49 53 62 63

INTRODUCTION
Social Entrepreneurship is the work of social entrepreneurs. A social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to achieve social change (a social venture). While a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital. Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. Social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, but this need not preclude making a profit.

History of social entrepreneurship


Social entrepreneurship as a practice that integrates economic and social value creation has a long heritage and a global presence. The global efforts of Ashoka, founded by Bill Drayton in 1980, to provide seed funding for entrepreneurs with a social vision the multiple activities of Grameen Bank, established by Professor Muhammad Yunus in 1976 to eradicate poverty and empower women in Bangladesh or the use of arts to develop community programs in Pittsburgh by the Manchester Craftsmens Guild, founded by Bill Strickland in 1968. The terms social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship were used first in the literature on social change in the 1960s and 1970s. The terms 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 more than sixty 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
5

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. The National Center for Social Entrepreneurs was founded in 1985 by Judson Bemis and Robert M. Price, and Jerr Boschee served as its president and CEO from 1991 to 1999. 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" might include Florence Nightingale (founder of the first nursing school and developer of modern nursing practices), Robert Owen (founder of the cooperative movement), and Vinoba Bhave (founder of India's Land Gift Movement). During the nineteenth and twentieth 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 health care.

Definition of Social Entrepreneurship


Any definition of social entrepreneurship should reflect the need for a substitute for the market discipline that works for business entrepreneurs. We cannot assume that market discipline will automatically weed out social ventures that are not effectively and efficiently utilizing resources. The following definition combines an emphasis on discipline and accountability with the notions of value creation taken from Say, innovation and change agents from Schumpeter, pursuit of opportunity from Drucker, and resourcefulness from Stevenson.

Dees defines social entrepreneurs as follows:


Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created. Social entrepreneurship, as a practice and a field for scholarly investigation, provides a unique opportunity to challenge, question, and rethink concepts and assumptions from different elds of management and business research. This article puts forward a view of social entrepreneurship as a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way that is not dominated by direct nancial benets for the entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and development versus capturing economic value. Despite the agreement that social entrepreneurship is an emerging field, there exists no agreed upon definition. Many attempts to define social entrepreneurship start with exploring the terms use, going back to French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in the early 19th century, who defined an entrepreneur as a person who creates value by shifting economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield . Most influential was Joseph Schumpeter in defining the Unternehmer (entrepreneur) as an innovative force for economic progress, important in the process of creative destruction and therefore
7

as a change agent, a term which is used in many modern definitions of social entrepreneurship. While there are many different definitions of entrepreneur, the relatively new term social entrepreneur is even less clearly defined and often varies from country to country and author to author6. One of the most widely cited definitions in the academic literature is the one from a renowned scholar in the field of social entrepreneurship: A social entrepreneur is a change agent who: Adopts a mission to create and sustain social values Recognizes and relentlessly pursues new opportunities to serve that mission Engages in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning Acts boldly without being limited by resources currently at hand, and Exhibits heightened accountability to the constituencies served and the outcomes created.. Noteworthy is also a shift in the focus of social entrepreneurs away from the non profit sector, traditionally in charity and philanthropic activities, towards entrepreneurial private-sector oriented business activities. While some authors such as Dees et. Al (2001) and Bornstein (2004) still see the social entrepreneur mainly in the non-profit sector, most of the studies in recent years highlight that the boundaries between non-profit and forprofit vanish. Leadbeaters (1997) diagram illustrates how t he social-entrepreneur sector overlaps with the public, private and voluntary sectors: The more modern definition of social entrepreneurship incorporates the enterprise orientation with social objectives and social ownership, which

means that the social enterprise is typically accountable to community stakeholders rather than financial investment shareholders: A social enterprise is any business venture created for a social purpose mitigating/reducing a social problem or a market failure and to generate social value while operating with the financial discipline, innovation and determination of a private sector business. Social enterprises lie at the crossroads between non-profit and business organization as shown in the following illustration of the spectrum of hybrid organizations that includes key features of different types of enterprises.

The typology of social enterprise in China

10

Meaning of social entrepreneurship


The idea of "social entrepreneurship" has struck a responsive cord. It is a phrase well suited to our times. It combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination commonly associated with, for instance, the high-tech pioneers of Silicon Valley . The time is certainly ripe for entrepreneurial approaches to social problems. Many governmental and philanthropic efforts have fallen far short of our expectations. Major social sector institutions are often viewed as inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive. Social entrepreneurs are needed to develop new models for a new century. The language of social entrepreneurship may be new, but the phenomenon is not. We have always had social entrepreneurs, even if we did not call them that. They originally built many of the institutions we now take for granted. However, the new name is important in that it implies a blurring of sector boundaries. In addition to innovative not-for-profit ventures, social entrepreneurship can include social purpose business ventures, such as forprofit community development banks, and hybrid organizations mixing notfor-profit and for-profit elements, such as homeless shelters that start businesses to train and employ their residents. The new language helps to broaden the playing field. Social entrepreneurs look for the most effective methods of serving their social missions. Though the concept of "social entrepreneurship" is gaining popularity, it means different things to different people. This can be confusing. Many associate social entrepreneurship exclusively with not-for-profit organizations starting for-profit or earned-income ventures. Others use it to describe anyone who starts a not-for-profit organization. Still others use it to refer to business owners who integrate social responsibility into their operations. What does "social entrepreneurship" really mean? What does it take to be a social entrepreneur? To answer these questions, we should start by looking into the roots of the term "entrepreneur."

11

Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurship


Social entrepreneurship is innovative, social value-creating activity, Unique solution to a social problem, Huge social impact crossing regions and national borders, Replicable and sustainable, It occurs within or across the non-profit, business and public sectors, Dynamic process created and managed by an individual, Strives to exploit social innovation with an entrepreneurial mindset Create new social value in the market and community.

Origins of the Word "Entrepreneur"


In common parlance, being an entrepreneur is associated with starting a business, but this is a very loose application of a term that has a rich history and a much more significant meaning. The term "entrepreneur" originated in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In French, it means someone who "undertakes," not an "undertaker" in the sense of a funeral director, but someone who undertakes a significant project or activity. More specifically, it came to be used to identify the venturesome individuals who stimulated economic progress by finding new and better ways of doing things. The French economist most commonly credited with giving the term this particular meaning is Jean Baptiste Say. Writing around the turn of the 19th century, Say put it this way, "The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield." Entrepreneurs create value. In the 20th century, the economist most closely associated with the term was Joseph Schumpeter. He described entrepreneurs as the innovators who drive the "creative-destructive" process of capitalism. In his words, "the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of
12

production." They can do this in many ways: "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." Schumpeter's entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy. By serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things, they move the economy forward. It is true that many of the entrepreneurs that Say and Schumpeter have in mind serve their function by starting new, profit-seeking business ventures, but starting a business is not the essence of entrepreneurship. Though other economists may have used the term with various nuances, the SaySchumpeter tradition that identifies entrepreneurs as the catalysts and innovators behind economic progress has served as the foundation for the contemporary use of this concept.

Theories of Entrepreneurship
Contemporary writers in management and business have presented a wide range of theories of entrepreneurship. Many of the leading thinkers remain true to the Say-Schumpeter tradition while offering variations on the theme. For instance, in his attempt to get at what is special about entrepreneurs, Peter Drucker starts with Say's definition, but amplifies it to focus on opportunity. Drucker does not require entrepreneurs to cause change, but sees them as exploiting the opportunities that change (in technology, consumer preferences, social norms, etc.) creates. He says, "this defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurship-the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity." The notion of "opportunity" has come to be central to many current definitions of entrepreneurship. It is the way today's management theorists capture Say's notion of shifting resources to areas of higher yield. An opportunity, presumably, means an opportunity to create value in this way. Entrepreneurs have a mind-set that sees the possibilities rather than the problems created by change.
13

For Drucker, starting a business is neither necessary nor sufficient for entrepreneurship. He explicitly comments that "not every new small business is entrepreneurial or represents entrepreneurship." He cites the example of a "husband and wife who open another delicatessen store or another Mexican restaurant in the American suburb" as a case in point. There is nothing especially innovative or change-oriented in this. The same would be true of new not-for-profit organizations. Not every new organization would be entrepreneurial. Drucker also makes it clear that entrepreneurship does not require a profit motive. Early in his book on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker asserts, "No better text for a History of Entrepreneurship could be found than the creation of the modern university, and especially the modern American university." He then explains what a major innovation this was at the time. Later in the book, he devotes a chapter to entrepreneurship in public service institutions. Howard Stevenson, a leading theorist of entrepreneurship at Harvard Business School , added an element of resourcefulness to the opportunity-oriented definition based on research he conducted to determine what distinguishes entrepreneurial management from more common forms of "administrative" management. After identifying several dimensions of difference, he suggests defining the heart of entrepreneurial management as "the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled." He found that entrepreneurs not only see and pursue opportunities that elude administrative managers; entrepreneurs do not allow their own initial resource endowments to limit their options. To borrow a metaphor from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, their reach exceeds their grasp. Entrepreneurs mobilize the resources of others to achieve their entrepreneurial objectives. Administrators allow their existing resources and their job descriptions to constrain their visions and actions. Once again, we have a definition of entrepreneurship that is not limited to business start-ups.

14

Prabhu (1999) tries to divide social entrepreneurial organisations into 3 groups:


the charitable ones - to provide relief to the needy and deprived; the social action ones - to actively take up issues of politics and justice and attempt to change society, sometimes through political or violent means; and the developmental ones - aim at initiating economic activities among the deprived by introducing technological and organisational innovation with considerable experimentation, but rarely believe in making core social or political changes. The differences among the three are primarily ideological (Prabhu 1999). Both social entrepreneurial organisations and economic entrepreneurial organisations make efforts to provide innovative products and services, to make many trial runs and use a variety of approaches to arrive at viable methods, to have identifiable leaders who are strongly committed to their ventures, and to meet local peoples needs. Nevertheless, Brown and Covey (1987) states that the values, missions and organisational structures of the two types of organisations vary. Social entrepreneurial organisations are committed to changing their environment. Though some economic entrepreneurial leaders have contributed to social change (Harris, 1984) it is often a secondary mission. For insight into social entrepreneurial leaders, it is important to understand their characteristics and motivations. Though there is inadequate knowledge has been gained for social entrepreneurial leaders, a broad hypothesis on social entrepreneurial leadership can be proposed building on mainstream leadership literature as well as few case studies (Prabhu, 1999). Social entrepreneurial leaders have high emotional energy and drive as seen in the tenacity and persistence shown by them during adversity. They tend to experience their venture events as personal events (Bird, 1989). As for motivations, McClellands (1967) achievement motivation may not be high among social entrepreneurial leaders, but the motivation to
15

assuage a deep feeling of uneasiness with the status quo, may be higher (Prabhu, 1999). Other possible motivations are altruism, need to be true to ones values and beliefs, need to match with ones self concept, need to be socially responsible. Swamy (1990) also draws a case that the leader has the urge to fight injustice and the urge to experiment. Despite the different motivations, social entrepreneurial leaders have a strong need to be in control of their environment. Younger people are likely to initiate social action or developmental activities while older ones are likely to initiate charitable ones. Strong family influences may also guide potential leaders towards social context (Prabhu, 1999). Social entrepreneurial leaders take multiple roles in their organisation-creator, transformer, and initiator of new systems, culture and programmes. It is vital for them to build external relations to establish legitimacy with multiple constituencies such as funding agencies and the government.

Social Enterprise Ownership


Social entrepreneurs do not create personal wealth for themselves; they create common wealth for the wider community. They seek a direct link between their actions and an improvement in the quality of life for the people with whom they work and those they seek to serve. They aim to produce solutions, which are sustainable financially, organisationally, socially and environmentally. Traditional forms of giving focused on charitable deeds have matured into a locally grown landscape of community based social enterprises that are interested in promoting sustainable social progress through strategic investments in deprived communities. The nature of the social investments is very different from a provider's perspective. Community based social entrepreneurs and volunteers are motivated to donate their money or time for a range of reasons. (Austin et al 2006). Philanthropic social entrepreneurs are the highest profile social enterprise leaders motivated by their own desire to contribute to society. *These+
16

Entrepreneurs are found within the public sector institutions and charitable organisations as well as in business. Possibly the quintessential example of this is Michael Young credited with 30 socially orientated organisations, notably the Open University financial initiatives *have+ been inspired by the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh [by] Professor Muhammad Yunus [who] has come to epitomise in many ways those people who have turned their backs on the ethos and practice of their professions (Thake & Zadek 1997). Thake & Zadek also found that a wealthy and successful entrepreneur is unlikely to have quite the same needs as a social entrepreneur who is unknown, unemployed and possibly unemployable in a traditional work environment. Within those working for a community, there is, of course, a difference between those who come from a relatively privileged background and those who work in the community and suffer he same kinds of discrimination that they are fighting to overcome for others. This later group not only work for communities, they are rooted in them. These are the community-based social entrepreneurs. The final type of ownership type is a social enterprise that is unrelated to a mission. The enterprise that is not grounded in a mission, or intended to advance a mission, exists for no other reason than to generate income for its programmes and operating costs. Business activities may have a social bent, add marketing or branding value, operate in an industry related to the non-profit parent organisation's services or sector, however, profit potential is the motivation for creating a social enterprise unrelated to mission. Social enterprises unrelated to mission usually take the form of external social enterprises.

Boundaries of Social entrepreneur and Types of Social Ventures


In defining social entrepreneurship, it is also important to establish boundaries and provide examples of activities that may be highly meritorious but do not fit our definition. Failing to identify boundaries
17

would leave the term social entrepreneurship so wide open as to be essentially meaningless. There are two primary forms of socially valuable activity that we believe need to be distinguished from social entrepreneurship. The first type of social venture is social service provision. In this case, a courageous and committed individual identifies an unfortunate stable equilibrium AIDS orphans in Africa, for example and sets up a program to address it for example, a school for the children to ensure that they are cared for and educated. The new school would certainly help the children it serves and may very well enable some of them to break free from poverty and transform their lives. But unless it is designed to achieve large scale o r is so compelling as to launch legions of imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a new superior equilibrium. These types of social service ventures never break out of their limited frame: Their impact remains constrained, their service area stays confined to a local population, and their scope is determined by whatever resources they are able to attract. These ventures are inherently vulnerable, which may mean disruption or loss of service to the populations they serve. Millions of such organizations exist around the world well intended, noble in purpose, and frequently exemplary in execution but they should not be confused with social entrepreneurship. It would be possible to reformulate a school for AIDS orphans as social entrepreneurship. But that would require a plan by which the school itself would spawn an entire network of schools and secure the basis for its ongoing support. The outcome would be a stable new equilibrium whereby even if one school closed; there would be a robust system in place through which AIDS orphans would routinely receive an education. The difference between the two types of ventures one social entrepreneurship and the other social service isnt in the initial entrepreneurial contexts or in many of th e personal characteristics of the founders, but rather in the outcomes. Imagine that Andrew Carnegie had built only one library rather than conceiving the public library system that today serves untold millions of American citizens.
18

Carnegies single library would have clearly benefited the community it served. But it was his vision of an entire system of libraries creating a permanent new equilibrium one ensuring access to information and knowledge for all the nations citizens that anchors his reputation as a social entrepreneur. A second class of social venture is social activism. In this case, the motivator of the activity is the same an unfortunate and stable equilibrium. And several aspects of the actors characteristics are the same inspiration, creativity, courage, and fortitude. What is different is the nature of the actors action orientation?. Instead of taking direct action, as the social entrepreneur would, the social activist attempts to create change through indirect action, by influencing others governments, NGOs, consumers, workers, etc. to take action. Social activists may or may not create ventures or organizations to advance the changes they seek. Successful activism can yield substantial improvements to existing systems and even result in a new equilibrium, but the strategic nature of the action is distinct in its emphasis on influence rather than on direct action. Why not call these people social entrepreneurs? It wouldnt be a tragedy. But such people have long had a name and an exalted tradition: the tradition of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Vaclav Havel. They are social activists. Calling them something entirely new i.e., social entrepreneurs and thereby confusing the general public, who already know what a social activist is, would not be helpful to the cause of either social activists or social entrepreneurs.

19

Social Entrepreneur
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to societys most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change. 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. 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 changemakersa 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. Social entrepreneurs are persons who create and manage innovative entrepreneurial organisations or ventures whose primary mission is the social change and development of their client group. Not much work has been done to explore the role of social entrepreneurial leaders in the formation, growth, functioning, effectiveness, decline and closure of social entrepreneurial organisations. However some efforts have been made to use entrepreneurship concepts in modelling the creation of social entrepreneurial leaders (Swamy, 1990). It inevitably draws the attention to
20

the distinguishing characteristics of the two types of leadersthe social and the economic leaders. Before any discussion on the characteristics of social leaders, it may well be helpful to understand the typologies of social organisations and to revisit some common and different issues between the two types of organisations.

1. Differences between Business and Social Entrepreneurs


The ideas of Say, Schumpeter, Drucker, and Stevenson are attractive because they can be as easily applied in the social sector as the business sector. They describe a mind-set and a kind of behaviour that can be manifest anywhere. In a world in which sector boundaries are blurring, this is an advantage. We should build our understanding of social entrepreneurship on this strong tradition of entrepreneurship theory and research. Social entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. However, because of this mission, they face some distinctive challenges and any definition ought to reflect this. For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is explicit and central. This obviously affects how social entrepreneurs perceive and assess opportunities. Mission-related impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation. Wealth is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs. With business entrepreneurs, wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation. This is because business entrepreneurs are subject to market discipline, which determines in large part whether they are creating value. If they do not shift resources to more economically productive uses, they tend to be driven out of business. Markets are not perfect, but over the long haul, they work reasonably well as a test of private value creation, specifically the creation of value for customers who are willing and able to pay. An entrepreneur's ability to attract resources (capital, labor, equipment, etc.) in a competitive marketplace is a reasonably good indication that the venture represents a
21

more productive use of these resources than the alternatives it is competing against. The logic is simple. Entrepreneurs who can pay the most for resources are typically the ones who can put the resources to higher valued uses, as determined in the marketplace. Value is created in business when customers are willing to pay more than it costs to produce the good or service being sold. The profit (revenue minus costs) that a venture generates is a reasonably good indicator of the value it has created. If an entrepreneur cannot convince a sufficient number of customers to pay an adequate price to generate a profit, this is a strong indication that insufficient value is being created to justify this use of resources. A redeployment of the resources happens naturally because firms that fail to create value cannot purchase sufficient resources or raise capital. They go out of business. Firms that create the most economic value have the cash to attract the resources needed to grow. Markets do not work as well for social entrepreneurs. In particular, markets do not do a good job of valuing social improvements, public goods and harms, and benefits for people who cannot afford to pay. These elements are often essential to social entrepreneurship. That is what makes it social entrepreneurship. As a result, it is much harder to determine whether a social entrepreneur is creating sufficient social value to justify the resources used in creating that value. The survival or growth of a social enterprise is not proof of its efficiency or effectiveness in improving social conditions. It is only a weak indicator, at best. Social entrepreneurs operate in markets, but these markets often do not provide the right discipline. Many social-purpose organizations charge fees for some of their services. They also compete for donations, volunteers, and other kinds of support. But the discipline of these "markets" is frequently not closely aligned with the social entrepreneur's mission. It depends on who is paying the fees or providing the resources, what their motivations are, and how well they can assess the social value created by the venture. It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value is created by reducing pollution in a given stream, by
22

saving the spotted owl, or by providing companionship to the elderly? The calculations are not only hard but also contentious. Even when improvements can be measured, it is often difficult to attribute an them to a specific intervention. Are the lower crime rates in an area due to the Block Watch, new policing techniques, or just a better economy? Even when improvements can be measured and attributed to a given intervention, social entrepreneurs often cannot capture the value they have created in an economic form to pay for the resources they use. Whom do they charge for cleaning the stream or running the Block Watch? How do they get everyone who benefits to pay? To offset this value-capture problem, social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies, donations, and volunteers, but this further muddies the waters of market discipline. The ability to attract these philanthropic resources may provide some indication of value creation in the eyes of the resource providers, but it is not a very reliable indicator. The psychic income people get from giving or volunteering is likely to be only loosely connected with actual social impact, if it is connected at all.

23

COMPARISION OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS


They are entrepreneur with a mission of wealth creation. For business entrepreneurs value creation or profit is explicit and central. Business entrepreneurs are subject to market disciplines. They work for those who willing and able to pay. Business entrepreneurs are not fully dependent, on donations and subsidies. Profits are higher then the social entrepreneurs. If a business entrepreneurs cannot convince a sufficient number of customers to pay an adequate price to generate a profit, then it was not creating value.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. For social entrepreneurs social mission is explicit and central. Social entrepreneurs are not subject to market disciplines. They work for society or for social cause. Social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies, donations, and volunteers. Profits are very low or nil as its aim is to provide social benefits. It is harder to determine wheather a social entrepreneur is creating sufficient social value to justify the resources used in creating that value.

2. The differences between entrepreneurship and social

entrepreneurship
According to Websters dictionary, an entrepreneur is a person who organizes, manages and assumes the risks of a business enterprise. In a 1998 column for Inc magazine, Norm Brodsky expanded on the definition. Starting with nothing more than an idea or a prototype, he wrote, entrepreneurs have the ability to take a business to the point at which it can sustain itself on internally generated cash flow. The italics belong to us. Successfully running a business means sustaining it with earned income, not grants or subsidies. The most commonly quoted definition of social entrepreneurship today was formulated by Prof. J. Gregory Dees of Stanford University in 1998.
24

We think that is not only conceptual flawed, but also psychologically crippling. It lets non-profits off the hook. It allows them to congratulate themselves for being entrepreneurial without ever seriously pursuing sustainability or self-sufficiency. They still return, year after year, to the same individual donors, foundations and government agencies. What, then, is social entrepreneurship? And how does it differ from entrepreneurship per se? A social entrepreneur is any person, in any sector, who uses earned income strategies to pursue a social objective, and a social entrepreneur differs from a traditional entrepreneur in two ways: Traditional entrepreneurs frequently act in a socially responsible manner: They donate money to non-profits; They refuse to engage in certain types of businesses; They use environmentally safe materials and practices; They treat their employees with dignity and respect. All of this is admirable, but their efforts are only indirectly attached to social problems. Social entrepreneurs are different because their earned income strategies are tied directly to their mission: They either employ people who are developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill, physically challenged, poverty stricken or otherwise disadvantaged; or they sell mission-driven products and services that have a direct impact on a specific social problem (e.g. working with potential dropouts to keep them in school, manufacturing assistive devices for people with physical disabilities, providing home care services that help elderly people stay out of nursing homes, developing and selling curricula). Secondly, traditional entrepreneurs are ultimately measured by financial results: The success or failure of their companies is determined by their ability to generate profits for their owners. On the other hand, social entrepreneurs are driven by a double bottom line, a virtual blend of financial and social returns. Profitability is still a goal, but it is not the only goal, and profits are re-invested in the mission rather than being distributed to shareholders.

25

3. The differences between sustainability and self-sufficiency The non-profit sector has traditionally been driven by a dependency model, relying primarily on philanthropy, voluntarism and government subsidy, with earned income a distant fourth. But social entrepreneurs have turned that formula on its head: Philanthropy, voluntarism, and government subsidy are welcome, but no longer central, because the dependency model has been replaced by two others. In the nonprofit world sustainability can be achieved through a combination of philanthropy, government subsidy and earned income. Its a wonderful thing, sustainability, but for many non-profits its only a way station. Self-sufficiency, on the other hand, can be achieved only by relying completely on earned income, and is the ultimate goal of the most ambitious social entrepreneurs. In short, as long as non-profits continue to be dependent on contributions from individuals, grants from Foundations, subsidies from government and other forms of largesse, they will never become sustainable or selfsufficient. Its my theory, says Kathleen Buescher, President and Chief Executive Officer of Provident Counselling Inc., a US$ 5 million dollar family services organisation in St. Louis, that non-profits in the future will have to fund a lot of their mission this way. Were just not going to have sufficient other money to do it. Well have to earn it ourselves. And the beauty of making a profit, as weve been able to do during the past 15 years is that you can do a lot with the money, you can do what you want to do. You can do it how you want to do it for as long as you want to do it and you dont have to make anybody happy except your own Board and staff. You dont have to meet anybody elses expectations. Thats a very freeing idea, and once you
26

feel it, you dont want to go back to the confines of any other type of funding. 4. The differences between earned income strategies and

social purpose business ventures


Many non-profit Board members and executives are daunted by the prospect of social entrepreneurship because they think it means starting a business venture, something few know how to do. But creating a business isnt the only way to be successful as a social entrepreneur. In fact the most fertile ground for the vast majority of non-profits is something called earned income strategies, and they have nothing to do with starting a business venture. The two approaches differ substantially in terms of purposes, expectations and structure: Earned income strategies: Every non-profit has opportunities for earned income lying fallow within its existing programs. The opportunities may be tiny, but exploiting them can have a significant cumulative impact. By aggressively turning inward and searching for pockets of existing opportunities, non-profits have been able to register impressive gains, often raising their percentage of total revenue from earned income by as much as 15 percent within one or two years. Business ventures: Once a non-profit has successfully carried out a variety of earned income strategies, it may want to consider launching a formal business venture but the goals would be much more ambitious and the strategy completely different. The only reason for a non-profit to start a business venture is to exploit a specific opportunity for significant growth and profitability a substantial difference from earned income strategies, which are designed primarily to cover more of a programs costs, without any real expectation of making a profit or even reaching a break-even point. The pioneers in the field have also discovered that the chances for success with a business venture increase dramatically if the organisation creates a skunkworks, a completely separate entity insulated as much as
27

possible from the day-to-day operations of the organisation. That means having a separate staff, separate compensation policies and even a separate Board of Directors if necessary to achieve as much independence as possible. 5. The differences between innovators, entrepreneurs and

professional managers
Perhaps the single most important lesson learned by the pioneers in the field has been a deeply personal one that strikes to the very heart of their self-perceptions. So often, non-profits discover (too late) that their entrepreneurial efforts have been doomed simply because they are being led by people with the wrong types of skills. The mistake occurred because they did not truly understand the difference between:

Innovators, entrepreneurs and professional managers.


Regardless of whether a non-profit is attempting to engage in a variety of earned income strategies or trying to launch a business venture, its important to understand the differences between the three types of leaders: They are all needed in the evolution of a healthy organisation, but at different times, and rarely does an individual possess more than one of the three skills.

Innovators are the dreamers:


They create the prototypes, work out the kinks and then get bored, anxious to return to what they do best, which is inventing more prototypes. They are rarely concerned, ultimately, with the financial viability of what they do.

Entrepreneurs are builders:


They turn prototypes into going concerns then they get bored. For them, financial viability is the single most important aspect of what they do.

28

Professional mangers are the trustees:


They secure the future by installing and overseeing the systems and infrastructure needed to make sure the going concern keeps going. Unfortunately, in the non-profit sector, often because resources are scare, organisations try to shoehorn people into positions where they dont fit, and many of the problems non-profits have when they begin adopting entrepreneurial strategies arise from having an innovator or a professional manager trying to do an entrepreneurs job.

Why "Social" Entrepreneur?


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. The nascent field of social entrepreneurship is growing rapidly and attracting increased attention from many sectors. The term itself is shown up frequently in the media, is referenced by public officials, has become common on university campuses, and informs the strategy of several prominent social sector organizations, including Ashoka and the Schwab and Skoll foundations. The reasons behind the popularity of social entrepreneurship are many. On the most basic level, theres something inherent that is interesting and appealing about entrepreneurs and the stories of why and how they do what they do. People are attracted to social entrepreneurs like last years Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus for many of the same reasons that they find business entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs so compelling. These extraordinary people come up with brilliant ideas and against all the odds succeed at creating new products and services that dramatically improve peoples lives.

29

But interest in social entrepreneurship transcends the phenomenon of popularity and fascination with people. Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and its practitioners apart. Although the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are clear to many of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return, is less clear. In fact, we would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything but clear. As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit.

Social Entrepreneurs: A Rare Breed


Social entrepreneurship describes a set of behaviours that are exceptional. These behaviours should be encouraged and rewarded in those who have the capabilities and temperament for this kind of work. We could use many more of them. Should everyone aspire to be a social entrepreneur? No. Not every social sector leader is well suited to being entrepreneurial. The same is true in business. Not every business leader is an entrepreneur in the sense that Say, Schumpeter, Drucker, and Stevenson had in mind. While we might wish for more entrepreneurial behaviour in both sectors, society has a need for different leadership types and styles. Social entrepreneurs are one special breed of leader, and they should be recognized as such. This definition preserves their distinctive status and assures that social entrepreneurship is not treated lightly. We need social entrepreneurs to help us find new avenues toward social improvement.

Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value(not just private value),

30

Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.

This is clearly an "idealized" definition. Social sector leaders will exemplify these characteristics in different ways and to different degrees. The closer a person gets to satisfying all these conditions, the more that person fits the model of a social entrepreneur. Those who are more innovative in their work and who create more significant social improvements will naturally be seen as more entrepreneurial. The truly Schumpeterian social entrepreneurs will significantly reform or revolutionize their industries. Each element in this brief definition deserves some further elaboration. Let's consider each one in turn.

Change agents in the social sector:


Social entrepreneurs are the reformers and revolutionaries described by Schumpeter, but with a social mission. They make fundamental changes in the way things are done in the social sector. Their visions are bold. They attack the underlying causes of problems, rather than simply treating symptoms. They often reduce needs rather than just meeting them. They seek to create systemic changes and sustainable improvements. Though they may act locally, their actions have the potential to stimulate global improvements in their chosen arenas, whether that is education, health care, economic development, the environment, the arts, or any other social sector field.

31

Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value:


This is the core of what distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs even from socially responsible businesses. For a social entrepreneur, the social mission is fundamental. This is a mission of social improvement that cannot be reduced to creating private benefits (financial returns or consumption benefits) for individuals. Making a profit, creating wealth, or serving the desires of customers may be part of the model, but these are means to a social end, not the end in itself. Profit is not the gauge of value creation; nor is customer satisfaction; social impact is the gauge. Social entrepreneurs look for a long-term social return on investment. Social entrepreneurs want more than a quick hit; they want to create lasting improvements. They think about sustaining the impact.

Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities:


Where others see problems, entrepreneurs see opportunity. Social entrepreneurs are not simply driven by the perception of a social need or by their compassion, rather they have a vision of how to achieve improvement and they are determined to make their vision work. They are persistent. The models they develop and the approaches they take can, and often do, change, as the entrepreneurs learn about what works and what does not work. The key element is persistence combined with a willingness to make adjustments as one goes. Rather than giving up when an obstacle is encountered, entrepreneurs ask, "How can we surmount this obstacle? How can we make this work?"

Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning:


Entrepreneurs are innovative. They break new ground, develop new models, and pioneer new approaches. However, as Schumpeter notes, innovation can take many forms. It does not require inventing something wholly new; it can simply involve applying an existing idea in a new way or to a new situation. Entrepreneurs need not be inventors. They simply need to be creative in applying what others have invented. Their innovations may appear in how they structure their core programs or in how they assemble the resources and fund their work. On the funding side, social
32

entrepreneurs look for innovative ways to assure that their ventures will have access to resources as long as they are creating social value. This willingness to innovate is part of the modus operandi of entrepreneurs. It is not just a one-time burst of creativity. It is a continuous process of exploring, learning, and improving. Of course, with innovation comes uncertainty and risk of failure. Entrepreneurs tend to have a high tolerance for ambiguity and learn how to manage risks for themselves and others. They treat failure of a project as a learning experience, not a personal tragedy.

Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand:


Social entrepreneurs do not let their own limited resources keep them from pursuing their visions. They are skilled at doing more with less and at attracting resources from others. They use scarce resources efficiently, and they leverage their limited resources by drawing in partners and collaborating with others. They explore all resource options, from pure philanthropy to the commercial methods of the business sector. They are not bound by sector norms or traditions. They develop resource strategies that are likely to support and reinforce their social missions. They take calculated risks and manage the downside, so as to reduce the harm that will result from failure. They understand the risk tolerances of their stakeholders and use this to spread the risk to those who are better prepared to accept it.

Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created:
Because market discipline does not automatically weed out inefficient or ineffective social ventures, social entrepreneurs take steps to assure they are creating value. This means that they seek a sound understanding of the constituencies they are serving. They make sure they have correctly assessed the needs and values of the people they intend to serve and the communities in which they operate. In some cases, this requires close connections with those communities. They understand the expectations and values of their "investors," including anyone who invests money, time, and/or expertise to help them. They seek to provide real social
33

improvements to their beneficiaries and their communities, as well as attractive (social and/or financial) return to their investors. Creating a fit between investor values and community needs is an important part of the challenge. When feasible, social entrepreneurs create market-like feedback mechanisms to reinforce this accountability. They assess their progress in terms of social, financial, and managerial outcomes, not simply in terms of their size, outputs, or processes. They use this information to make course corrections as needed.

Social Value
Social value is created when resources, inputs, processes, or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole. Most social enterprise focuses their resources in this arena, but unfortunately, it is here that they have the most difficulty measuring the value generated. Social value can be found in a wide variety of activities from anti-racism efforts, community organising, environmental protection, and the creation of art, to a family moving from welfare to work. These activities may generate results with high intrinsic value, but it can be difficult to agree upon or quantify the actual value created. For example, the psychological impact on an individual whose family has moved from welfare to work may be significant but hard to translate into rupees of value. Smallbone et al found that It is difficult to place a single value on the contribution made by social enterprises because the benefits of the sectors activities are frequently of a non-monetary nature and difficult to value (WM Enterprise Consultants, 1998). It is believed in Europe that such organisations, member controlled and people centred, with social economic aims contribute to the maintenance of the economic and social cohesion of the community (Oatley, 1999), although such contributions are difficult to measure. Smallbone et al 2001). Since the early days of industrial revolution it was realised that an organisation is not formed only to benefit its stakeholders but also accept
34

responsibility to other stakeholders such as arranging for housing to the workers of the organisation, taking care of the health and safety of the workers and providing workers and their children with educational facilities. All organisations exist within the society and therefore it was realised by many organisations that they must at least partly meet the needs of the society. Social value, according to Schumpeter (1908), is a summary expression for certain phenomena, and its meaning is pretty clear. It expresses the fact of mutual interaction and interdependence between individuals and the results thereof. Dealing with values required continual monitoring of surrounding environment, weighing alternative courses of action, balancing and integrating conflicting responsibilities, setting priorities among competing goals and establishing criteria for defining and evaluating performance. The world is undergoing a rapid change as social values have started to be considered as integral components of performance and policy making in most management decisions. Social enterprise, in particular has a distinct and valuable role to play in helping create a strong, sustainable and socially inclusive economy.

35

Economic Value
Just as enterprises are able to mobilise various economic resources and forms of ownership, so too are they able to activate the various means for distributing goods and services. At least this is the hypothesis formulated by theorists who defend the substantive approach to economics. They propose an extensive concept of economics in which all actions derive from people's dependence on fellow humans and nature. This contrasts with the formal, more restrictive approach, which views economics in terms of rational choices of maximisation applied under conditions of scarcity. By following Polanyi's formulation of the substantive approach, the economy will be conceived as a plural economy mixing in different socio-political contexts the economic principles of reciprocity, market and redistribution (Polanyi 1997). The market principle refers to the matching of supply and demand for goods and services with a view to exchange, facilitated by a price-setting mechanism. The relationship between buyer and seller is established on a contractual basis. The market principle does not assume that agents will immerse themselves in social relationships, since these are 'viewed nowadays by western culture as being separate from institutions with a conventional or strictly economic vocation (Maucourant, Servet & Tiran, 1998). Social enterprise is a means to achieve sustainability through earned income; however, it is important to note that financial objectives differ among organisations. Unlike the microfinance field, the financial objective of a social enterprise is not by default viability (generating sufficient income to cover all costs). Social enterprises don't need to be profitable to be worthwhile. They can improve efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation by: reducing the need for donated funds providing a more reliable, diversified funding base
36

enhancing the quality of programmes by increasing market discipline (Alter 2004). Social enterprises have varying financial motives, ranging from income diversification to full financial self-sufficiency. The level of social enterprise self-sufficiency is based on financial objectives, the type of enterprise, and its maturity. Social enterprise methodology does not dictate breakeven or profit-making; rather, financial performance is appraised by the ability of the social enterprise to achieve the financial objectives it has set. For this reason, the chart below does not represent gradation from one stage of development to the next, unless the social enterprise's express objective is to move across the continuum and performance is a question of maturity. Economic measurement is usually subservient to social impact measurement in the studies examined. In Paton 2003 several options are under consideration including outcome measurement. The current vogue for outcome measurement and the legitimacy it affords leads to another definitional problem. Advocates (eg Plantz, Greenaway et al, 1997) write as if outcome measurement systems already exist, but it would appear that for many areas of non-profit activity much of what they report is research on outcomes undertaken in the hope of developing measures and systems. (Paton 2003). Bull and Crompton draw out three economic indicators: A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services: social enterprises, unlike the traditional non-profit organisations, are normally not engaged in advisory activities as a major goal or in redistribution of financial flows. Instead they are directly involved in the production of goods or services represent ... the reason for *their+ existence. A high degree of autonomy: social enterprises are voluntary created by a group of people governed by them in the framework of an autonomous project. Although they may depend upon public authorities ... *they+ do not manage them.
37

A significant level of economic risk: those who establish a social enterprise assume totally or partly the risk of the initiative. Unlike most public institutions, their financial viability depends on the efforts of their members to secure adequate resources. (Bull & Crompton 2005). Placing economic value on social enterprise has an extra edge to it as declared by Sayer If we are to avoid either dismissing or exaggerating the scope of morally-guided economic action, we need to treat the motivations of actors as an empirical question, and not as something we can determine a priori, as in rational choice theory's outrageous assumption of universal, one-dimensional self-interest. This is not to say that moral decisions are simply a matter of applying principles which can be followed consistently. They are often complex and involve intractable dilemmas, but that does not negate their moral character. (Sayer 2000). The definitive UK Government statement on social enterprises sets out the economic case for them. Social enterprises create new goods and services and develop opportunities for markets where mainstream business cannot, or will not, go. They provide examples of new ways of working that can be replicated throughout the whole economy. A key factor is the role social enterprises play in empowering individuals and communities, encouraging the development of work habits and increasing employment diversity. Like any business, social enterprises generate wealth through economic activity. Indeed, their business operations may be indistinguishable from other private sector companies, or vehicles for the delivery of public services. Some start out as independent businesses, many are cooperatives, and others are making the transition from a grant dependent voluntary sector or community organisation to one which is independent. While fledgling social enterprises may derive less than half their income through commercial activity, mature social enterprises aim for close to 100%.

38

SOME EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS FROM HISTORY. Florence Nightingale


Born 12 May 1820 Florence, Grand Duchy of Tuscany Died 13 August 1910 (aged 90) Park Lane, London, United Kingdom Known for Profession Pioneering modern nursing Nurse and Statistician Institutions Specialism Selimiye Barracks, Scutari

Hospital hygiene and sanitation

Florence Nightingale (12 May 1820 13 August 1910) was a celebrated English nurse, writer and statistician. An Anglican, Nightingale believed that God had called her to be a nurse. She came to prominence for her pioneering work in nursing during the Crimean War, where she tended to wounded soldiers. She was dubbed "The Lady with the Lamp" after her habit of making rounds at night. Nightingale laid the foundation of professional nursing with the establishment, in 1860, of her nursing school at St Thomas' Hospital in London, the first secular nursing school in the world, now part of King's College London. The Nightingale Pledge taken by new nurses was named in her honour, and the annual International Nurses Day is celebrated around the world on her birthday.

Crimean War
Florence Nightingale's most famous contribution came during the Crimean War, which became her central focus when reports began to filter back to Britain about the horrific conditions for the wounded. On 21 October 1854,
39

she and a staff of 38 women volunteer nurses, trained by Nightingale and including her aunt Mai Smith, were sent (under the authorisation of Sidney Herbert) to the Ottoman Empire, about 295 nautical miles (546 km; 339 mi) across the Black Sea from Balaklava in the Crimea, where the main British camp was based.

Nursing
The first official nurses training program, the Nightingale School for Nurses, opened in 1860. The mission of the school was to train nurses to work in hospitals, work with the poor, and to teach. This intended that students cared for people in their homes, an appreciation that is still advancing in reputation and professional opportunity for nurses today. Florence Nightingale's lasting contribution has been her role in founding the modern nursing profession. She set an example of compassion, commitment to patient care, and diligent and thoughtful hospital administration. The work of her School of Nursing continues today as the Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery at King's College London. The Nightingale Building in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at the University of Southampton is also named after her. International Nurses Day is celebrated on her birthday each year. The Florence Nightingale Declaration Campaign, established by nursing leaders throughout the world through the Nightingale Initiative for Global Health (NIGH), aims to build a global grassroots movement to achieve two United Nations Resolutions for adoption by the UN General Assembly of 2008 which will declare: The International Year of the Nurse2010 (the centennial of Nightingale's death); The UN Decade for a Healthy World 2011 to 2020 (the bicentennial of Nightingale's birth). NIGH also works to rekindle awareness about the important issues highlighted by Florence Nightingale, such as preventive medicine and holistic health. So far, the

40

Florence Nightingale Declaration has been signed by over 18,500 signatories from 86 countries. During the Vietnam War, Nightingale inspired many U.S. Army nurses, sparking a renewal of interest in her life and work. Her admirers include Country Joe of Country Joe and the Fish, who has assembled an extensive website in her honour. The Agostino Gemelli Medical School in Rome, the first university-based hospital in Italy and one of its most respected medical centres, honoured Nightingale's contribution to the nursing profession by giving the name "Bedside Florence" to a wireless computer system it developed to assist nursing There are many foundations named after Florence Nightingale. Most are nursing foundations, but there is also Nightingale Research Foundation in Canada, dedicated to the study and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome, which Nightingale is believed to have had. In 1912 the International Committee of the Red Cross instituted the Florence Nightingale Medal, awarded every two years to nurses or nursing aides for outstanding service.

Hospitals
Four hospitals in Istanbul are named after Nightingale: F. N. Hastanesi in ili (the biggest private hospital in Turkey), Metropolitan F.N. Hastanesi in Gayrettepe, Avrupa F.N. Hastanesi in Mecidiyeky, and Kzltoprak F.N. Hastanesi in Kadiky, all belonging to the Turkish Cardiology Foundation.

41

Vinoba Bhave
Born British Died 11 September 1895 India 15 November 1982 (aged 87) New Delhi, Union of India Nationality Religion Indian Hinduism

Vinoba Bhave, born Vinayak Narahari Bhave (September 11, 1895 November 15, 1982) often called Acharya (In Sanskrit means teacher), was an Indian advocate of nonviolence and human rights. He is best known for Bhoodan Andolan. He is considered as a National Teacher of India and the spiritual successor of Mahatma Gandhi.[1] He is one of the most notable figures in modern Indian history.

Early life and background


He was born in Gagode Village in Colaba District of Mumbai State, Maharashtra on September 11, 1895 into a pious family of the Chitpavan Brahmin clan. He was brought-up in Baroda. He was highly inspired after reading the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharat, Ramayan at a very early age. His father, Naraharishumbhurao Bhave was a devout Hindu and his mother, Rukmini Devi who died in 1918, was a great influence on him. In his memoir, Bhave states that, "there is nothing to equal the part my mother played in shaping my mind". Specifically, his devotion and spirituality. His two brothers, Balkoba Bhave and Shivaji Bhave, were also bachelors devoted to social work.

42

Vinobha Bhave and Land Donation Movement


In 1955, Great saint of India Vinoba Bhave had started land donation movement. He took donated land from rich Indians and gave to poor free of cost for making houses and living. He got more than 1000 villages in the form of donation for poor Indians. Out of these, he obtained 175 donated villages just in Tamil Nadu. Awards In 1958 Vinoba was the first recipient of the international Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership. He was awarded the Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1983. Nand Kishore Chaudhary
Born 13 June 1953 (age 58) Churu, Rajasthan, India Residence Nationality Occupation Religion Jaipur Indian Chairman and Managing Director of Jaipur Rugs Hinduism

Nand Kishore Chaudhary (born June 13, 1953) is an Indian social entrepreneur.He currently serves as the Chairman and Managing Director of the social enterprise Jaipur Rugs, which he founded in 1978.

Early life
Nand Kishore Chaudhary was born in a marwari family in the Churu district of Rajasthan.[2] He was not interested in following his father in the
43

traditional family business of shoe-making. Instead, he was fascinated by the carpet business, and started weaving with two looms in the year 1978.

Career
The carpet weaving in the Indian knotted carpet industry used to take place through middlemen. These middlemen used to exploit the artisans by not paying them amounts commensurate to their art. N. K. Chaudhary through his formative years wanted to change this scenario. Hence he established the social business model of Jaipur Rugs, connecting the poor weavers with the global markets by building a global supply chain focused on developing human capability and skills at the grassroots level, providing steady income for rural men and women in the most depressed parts of India and connecting them with markets in the United States.

Personal life
N. K. Chaudhary is married to Sulochana. They have five children, Asha, Archana, Kavita, Yogesh and Nitesh, all of whom are involved in Jaipur Rugs.

Recognition
He is regarded as the Gandhi of the carpet industry due to his commitment to uplifting society through the art of carpet weaving.

Honours and awards


Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year 2010 for the best Start-up. Distinguished Entrepreneur Award in the year 2010 by PHD Chamber of Commerce.

44

Akhtar Hameed Khan


Akhtar Hameed Khan, 1973 Born 15 July 1914 Agra, British India Died 9 October 1999 (aged 85) Indianapolis, Indiana, USA Residence Nationality Fields Karachi, Pakistan and Comilla, Bangladesh Pakistani Rural development, Microcredit

Akhtar Hameed Khan ( 15 July 1914 9 October 1999) was a Pakistani development activist and social scientist credited for pioneering microcredit and microfinance initiatives, farmers' cooperatives, and rural training programmes in the developing world. He promoted participatory rural development in Pakistan and other developing countries, and widely advocated community participation in development. His particular contribution was the establishment of a comprehensive project for rural development, the Comilla Model (1959). It earned him the Ramon Magsaysay Award from the Philippines and an honorary Doctorate of Law from Michigan State University. Ralph Smuckler wrote in his book, "His Scandinavian colleagues and other advisors had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize" In the 1980s he started a bottom up community development initiative of Orangi Pilot Project, based in the outskirts of Karachi, which became a model of participatory development initiatives. He also directed many programmes, from microcredit to self-finance and from housing provision to family planning, for rural communities and urban slums. It earned him international recognition and high honours in Pakistan. Khan was fluent in
45

at least seven languages and dialects. Apart from many scholarly books and articles, he also published a collection of poems and travelogues in Urdu.

Major development projects


Comilla Cooperative Pilot Project Main article: Comilla Model The Comilla Model (1959) was Khan's initiative in response to the failure of a Village Agricultural and Industrial Development (V-AID) programme that was launched in 1953 in East and West Pakistan with technical assistance from the US government. V-AID remained a government-level attempt to promote citizen participation in the sphere of rural development. Khan launched the project in 1959 on his return from Michigan, and developed a methodology of implementation in the areas of agricultural and rural development on the principle of grassroots-level participation. Initially, the aim was to provide a development model of programmes and institutions that could be replicated across the country. Advisory support in this respect was provided by experts from Harvard and Michigan State Universities, the Ford Foundation, and USAID. Practical help was also sought from Japan to improve the local farming techniques. Comilla Model simultaneously addressed the problems that were caused by the inadequacy of both local infrastructure and institutions through a range of integrated programmes. The initiatives included the establishment of: a training and development centre; a road-drainage embankment works programme; a decentralised, small scale irrigation programme; and, a twotiered cooperative system with primary cooperatives operating in the villages, and federations operating at sub-district level. After Khan's departure from Comilla, the cooperative's model failed in independent Bangladesh, because only a few occupational groups managed to achieve the desired success. By 1979, only 61 of the 400 cooperatives were functioning. The model actually fell prey to the ineffective internal
46

and external controls, stagnation, and diversion of funds.This prompted the subsequent scholars and practitioners in microfinance, such as Muhammad Yunus of Grameen Bank and Fazle Hasan Abed of BRAC, to abandon the cooperative approach in favour of more centralised control and service delivery structures. The new strategy targeted the poorest villagers, while excluding the 'less poor'.However, Khan's leadership skills during the course of his association with the project remained a source of inspiration for these leaders, as well as other participatory development initiatives in the country.

Orangi Pilot Project


Main article: Orangi Pilot Project The Orangi poverty alleviation project (known as the Orangi Pilot Project, or OPP) was initiated by Khan as an NGO in 1980. Orangi is located on the northwest periphery of Karachi. At that time, it was the largest of the city's approximately 650 low-income squatter settlements (known as katchi abadi). The locality was first developed in 1963 as a government township of 5 square kilometres (1,236 acres). The influx of migrants after the creation of Bangladesh swelled the settlement to about one million people crowded over an area of more than 32 square kilometres (7,907 acres). The working class multi-ethnic population was predominantly composed of day labourers, skilled workers, artisans, small shopkeepers, peddlers and lowincome white collar workers. The project proved an impetus to the socioeconomic development of the population of the area. As the project director, Khan proved to be a dynamic and innovative leader. The project initially focused on creating a system of underground sewers, using local materials and labour, and succeeded in laying hundreds of kilometres of drainage pipes along with auxiliary facilities. Within a decade of the initiative, local residents had established schools, health clinics, womens work centres, cooperative stores and a credit organisation to finance enterprise projects. By 1993, OPP had managed to provide low-cost sewers to more than 72,000 houses. The project subsequently diversified into a
47

number of programmes, including a people's financed and managed lowcost sanitation programme; a housing programme; a basic health and family planning programme; a programme of supervised credit for small family enterprise units; an education programme; and a rural development programme in the nearby villages. Comparing the OPP with Comilla project, Akhtar Hameed Khan once commented: The Orangi Pilot Project was very different from the Comilla Academy. OPP was a private body, dependent for its small fixed budget on another NGO. The vast resources and support of the government, Harvard advisors, MSU, and Ford Foundation was missing. OPP possessed no authority, no sanctions. It may observe and investigate but it could only advise, not enforce. The successful OPP model became an inspiration for other municipalities around the country. In 1999, Khan helped to create Lodhran Pilot Project (LPP) to collaborate with Lodhran municipal committee. Learning from past experiences, the project extended its scope to the whole town instead of concentrating on low-income settlements only. The municipal partnership was itself a new initiative that ensured wider civic cooperation. The success of OPP did come at a cost for Dr Khan as his liberal views and self help initiatives were questioned and criticised by certain interest groups. At two occasions, he was accused of blasphemy.[47] However, all allegations against him were acquitted by the courts of law and cleared by independent religious scholars.

Awards and honours


Khan received the following civil awards: Jinnah Award (Posthumous, 2004) for services to people as founder of the Orangi Pilot Project.

48

Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Posthumous, 2001) for services to the community. Ramon Magsaysay Award (31 August 1963, Manila, Philippines) for services to rural development. Sitara-e-Pakistan (1961) for pioneering work in rural development.

Examples of Social Enterprises: Aravind Eye Hospital & Aurolab

Social Entrepreneur: Dr.Govindappa Venkataswamy (Dr. V) & David Green Type of Organization: Trust Location: Madurai, India Website: www.aravind.org Mission: Making medical technology and health care services accessible, affordable and financially self-sustaining Founded in 1976 by Dr. G. Venkataswamy, Aravind Eye Care System today is the largest and most productive eye care facility in the world. From April 2007 to March 2008, about 2.4 million persons have received outpatient eye care and over 285,000 have undergone eye surgeries at the Aravind Eye Hospitals at Madurai, Theni, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore and Puducherry.
49

Blending traditional hospitality with state-of-the-art ophthalmic care, Aravind offers comprehensive eye care in the most systematic way attracting patients from all around the world.

SKS India

Social Entrepreneur: Vikram Akula Type of Organization: For-profit Website: www.sksindia.co Mission : Empowering the poor to become self-reliant through affordable loans SKS believes that access to basic financial services can significantly increase economic opportunities for poor families and in turn help improve their lives. Since inception, SKS has delivered a full portfolio of microfinance to the poor in India and we are proud of our current outreach. As a leader in technological innovation and operational excellence, SKS is excited about setting the course for the industry over the next five years and is striving to reach our goal of 15 million members by 2012.

50

AMUL (Anand Milk Union Limited)

Social Entrepreneur: Dr. Verghese Kurien Type of Organization: Co-operative Website: www.amul.com Amul has been a sterling example of a co-operative organizations success in the long term. It is one of the best examples of co-operative achievement in the developing economy. The Amul Pattern has established itself as a uniquely appropriate model for rural development. Amul has spurred the White Revolution of India, which has made India the largest producer of milk and milk products in the world.

Grameen Bank

Social Entrepreneur: Muhammad Yunus Type of Organization: Body Corporate Website: www.grameen-info.org
51

Grameen Bank (GB) has reversed conventional banking practice by removing the need for collateral and created a banking system based on mutual trust, accountability, participation and creativity. GB provides credit to the poorest of the poor in rural Bangladesh, without any collateral. At GB, credit is a cost effective weapon to fight poverty and it serves as a catalyst in the over all development of socio-economic conditions of the poor who have been kept outside the banking orbit on the ground that they are poor and hence not bankable. Professor Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank and its Managing Director, reasoned that if financial resources can be made available to the poor people on terms and conditions that are appropriate and reasonable, these millions of small people with their millions of small pursuits can add up to create the biggest development wonder. As of May, 2009, it has 7.86 million borrowers, 97 percent of whom are women. With 2,556 branches, GB provides services in 84,388 villages, covering more than 100 percent of the total villages in Bangladesh.

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad

Type of Organization: Society Website: www.lijjat.com Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad is a Womens organisation manufacturing various products from Papad, Khakhra, Appalam, Masala,
52

Vadi, Gehu Atta, Bakery Products, Chapati, SASA Detergent Powder, SASA Detergent Cake (Tikia), SASA Nilam Detergent Powder, SASA Liquid Detergent. The organisation is wide-spread, with its Central Office at Mumbai and its 67 Branches and 35 Divisions in different states all over India. The organization started of with a paltry sum of Rs.80 and has achieved sales of over Rs.300 crores with exports itself exceeding Rs. 12 crores. Membership has also expanded from an initial number of 7 sisters from one building to over 40,000 sisters throughout India. The success of the organization stems from the efforts of its member sisters who have withstood several hardships with unshakable belief in the strength of a woman.

Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 and their achievements. AFRICA Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 Godwin Ehigiamusoe - Lapo - Nigeria
LAPO is the leading Microfinance Institution in Nigeria with over 240,000 clients. It is recognised for delivering sound financial and social services for alleviating poverty and empowering the disadvantaged. Alongside its financial services offering, LAPO supports enterprise development in diverse areas such as food processing, craftworks, merchandising, fabrication and farming, while the LAPO Development Foundation provides social and health empowerment programmes addressing issues of empowerment, nutrition, health, discrimination, injustice and gender equality.

53

Brien Holden and Kovin Naidoo - International Center for Eye Care Education (ICEE) - South Africa
The International Center for Eye Care Education works in eight African countries, developing and implementing sustainable solutions for improved eye care access. The organization collaborates with governments, communities and international non-government organizations to develop long-term solutions by investing in local eye care education, professional education, appropriate service delivery systems and research to ensure sustainable eye care in underserved communities.

Victoria Kisyombe - Sero Lease and Finance (Selfina) - Tanzania


In Tanzania, where 75% of the population lives in rural areas and 90% lives on less than US$ 2 per day, most enterprising individuals, particularly women, have scarce working capital to buy equipment. The mission of Sero Lease and Finance (SELFINA) is to increase incomes and employment for women through microcrediting schemes in order for them to achieve economic and social independence. SELFINA has issued credit worth US$ 22 million to women in Tanzania. Its activities have helped over 200,000 Tanzanians out of poverty.

Shona Mc Donald - Shonaquip - South Africa


Shonaquip is a social business that both makes equipment for and provides support services for persons with disabilities. Shonaquip began when the founder realized the unique needs of people with disabilities were often not met with current products and services and that caretakers received little training on how best to support people with disabilities. Shonaquip has as its goal to promote inclusion and equal opportunity employment.

54

Olivia van Rooyen - The Kuyasa Fund - South Africa


According to Kuyasas research, 68% of South Africas population falls into the lowincome portion of the population that remains unbanked and therefore unable to access credit. The Kuyasa Fund has proved suitable in helping to bridge this gap, providing demand-led, short-term loans to finance incremental building and supplying a suitable mechanism through which the poor have been able to build financial and social capital through investment in housing.

Asia Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 Rajiv Khandelwal and Krishnavatar Sharma - Aajeevika Bureau India
Aajeevika Bureau offers rural seasonal migrants photo identity and financial services, skills training, and partnerships with local governments and businesses, mostly at their destination points in urban markets.Over five years, more than 50,000 ultra-poor seasonal migrants have directly accessed the Bureaus services, registering 50-80% growth in their incomes as well as increased citizenship entitlements. Additionally, Aajeevikasmodel has been replicated by more than 30 civil society organizations in Bihar, Orissa, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Tony Meloto - Gawad Kalinga (GK) - Philippines


GK tackles poverty by combining multiple solutions in GK villages. Through corporate sponsorships, GK works with impoverished communities to build homes, schools, clinics, community centres and businesses. Services include educational programmes for youth, trained community health workers and capacity building for solid waste management programmes.
55

Andy Schroeter - Sunlabob Renewable Energy - Laos


Through public-private partnerships, Sunlabob brings sustainable renewable energy solutions to off-grid areas by installing solar lantern rental systems, solar home systems, hybrid village grids and water purification systems. To encourage local enterprise development and ownership, Sunlabob trains village technicians and village committees to maintain, recharge and rent out the lanterns. In addition, Sunlabob provides consultancy services, expanding internationally into Uganda, Cambodia and Afghanistan through franchise agreements.

Sakena Yacoobi - Afghan Institute of Learning - Afghanistan


Afghan Institute of Learning provides health and education services to Afghan women and children so that amid decades of war and civil strife they can rebuild their identities, lives, society, and ultimately, their country. In addition to operating rural health clinics, the institute provides primary and secondary education, university classes as well as teacher training and human rights workshops for women and children. To date, its programmes have benefited more than 7.9 million people. The Afghan Institute of Learning requires active community participation so that in the long run these communities become self-sufficient in providing for their own educational and health needs.

56

EUROPE Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 Norbert Kunz - iq consult Germany
IQ Consult addresses the rising problem of unemployment, particularly among young adults, foreign migrants or people with disabilities in Germany. Norbert Kunz first ran a training program. After realizing that even a training and formal qualification did not land these people a job, he started enterprise to provide the necessary skills to become selfemployed. Given that no institution considers these young entrepreneurs credit-worthy, he has also developed the first small credit models in Germany and is now expanding the concept to other European countries.

Laurent Lak - Groupe La Varappe - France


When Laurent Lak took over La Varappe in 1997, the association focused on construction services and developing green spaces. He then widened the range of services by creating several companies and by investing in fields with a future, such as renewable energies. Today, 85% of Groupe La Varappes income comes from the sales of its services. In 2009, the turnover increased from 25% and the number of employees in integration increased by 19%. More than 65% of the employees who left La Varappe found a steady job in another company.

Zoran Puljic - Mozaik Foundation - Bosnia and Herzegovina


In the post-war period, an exploding number of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have evolved around foreign donor money. Mozaik stresses the importance of mobilizing local resources to strengthen the confidence and self-reliance of the communities. It co-finances tangible improvements in local communities, such as roads, water supplies, street lights and local heritage sites. Mozaik works with community members to identify their

57

biggest needs and mobilize local volunteers, locally available finance and materials.

MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 Mhammed Abbad Andaloussi - Al Jisr - Morocco
"Al Jisr works to improve public school performances throughout Morocco by fostering public-private partnerships in the education sector. With support from the Moroccan Ministry of Education, over 100 of the country's leading companies have adopted 300 Moroccan schools, helping to improve the quality of education and school facilities for 150,000 students. "

Essma Ben Hamida - Enda Inter-Arabe - Tunisia


Enda inter-arabe is the first and only best-practice microfinance institution in Tunisia. With a staff of 750 working in 60 branches, enda serves 140,000 clients with a US$ 48 million loan portfolio and a repayment rate above 99%. In addition to issuing traditional lines of credit, enda has developed specialized products including education, housing and agriculture loans, and provides business development services such as financial literacy classes, vocational training, marketing and workplace guidance.

Eli Beer, United Hatzalah of Israel, Israel


United Hatzalah provides life-saving medical assistance immediately after an accident or life-threatening event, even before the arrival of an ambulance. United Hatzalah of Israel was founded in the aftermath of several tragic and avoidable deaths; avoidable because medical personnel were nearby but were unaware of unfolding events until too late. It is the only organization of its kind in the world to undertake the task of responding to emergency
58

calls and providing advanced life-saving care until an ambulance and EMS teams arrive. Within a single year the organizations trained volunteers treat more than 180,000 people and save lives on a daily basis.

LATIN AMERICA Social Entrepreneurs of the Year 2010 Vladimir Delagneau Barquero - Tecnosolucion - Nicaragua
In rural Nicaragua, where more than 50% of the population lacks access to electricity, Tecnosol works to provide customers with alternative energy solutions. In its 12 years, Tecnosol has installed more than 50,000 photovoltaic systems, including lighting, water pumping, and refrigeration systems. To help customers finance the systems, Tecnosol works with local microfinance institutions and the Interamerican Development Bank. Tecnosol has 17 stores in Nicaragua and recently opened its first store in El Salvador.

David Gaus - Andean Health and Development - USA


Andean Health and Development (AHD) is changing rural healthcare in Ecuador by providing sustainable, quality medical care, while also training young doctors and nurses to become leaders in rural healthcare. Operational costs at AHDs hospitals are funded entirely by local sources, including the Ecuadorian Social Security Administration, service fees from patients and contributions from local municipalities. AHD currently runs two financially self-sustaining hospitals in Ecuador and plans to open another teaching hospital and research facility.

Anne Hastings and Joseph Philippe - Fonkoze - Haiti


Fonkoze is Haitis largest microfinance institution with 43 branches located across the entire country. As a full-service MFI, it provides savings, loans,
59

remittance services and insurance to its clients, as well as business and health training. Fonkoze seeks to empower rural Haitians to build and diversify their income, learn new skills, and follow a "staircase out of poverty" model. Currently, Fonkoze serves more than 45,000 women borrowers and 210,000 savers.

Roberto Kikawa - Projeto Cies - Brazil


Projeto Cies is innovative in two aspects: it has a unique self-sustaining management model of integrating health with education and the community; and uses advanced technology through its mobile health centre to offer services in 10 medical specialties. Projeto Cies offers lowincome communities free access to doctors and advanced equipment, which are usually available in private hospitals. In two years, the organization has served more than 24,000 people in 15 Brazilian cities in three different states, and has attracted the attention of other cities in Brazil and abroad, including in Angola, Colombia, Italy, Niger, Panama and Venezuela.

Toms Recart - Ensea Chile - Chile


Tomas Recart strives to combat the systematic lack of educational opportunities in Chile. Based on the model of Teach for America it already achieved significant impact. By enlisting Chiles top university graduates to teach for two years in lowincome communities, Ensea Chile aims to build a massive force of leaders in all fields, who have the perspective and conviction that comes from teaching successfully, and who are advocates for the extra challenges faced by the educational system.

Claudia Valladares - Banca Comunitaria Banesco - Venezuela


Banescos Banca Comunitaria provides credit access and financial products and services to low-income families in Venezuela. This not only contributes to the empowerment of entrepreneurs, but reduces poverty through economic development and social transformation. Banca Comunitaria has
60

created a network of 176 commercial allies and retail agents, and offers 24/7 services for conducting online banking transactions.

Suzana and Claudio Padua - Instituto de Pesquisas Ecolgicas (IPE) - Brazil


Instituto de Pesquisas Ecolgicas (IPE) promotes conservation and sustainable development in impoverished communities throughout Brazil. Its activities include research of rare or endangered species, environmental educational programmes, sustainable alternatives for income generation of local communities, policy advocacy for biodiversity conservation and sustainability, carbon offsets and reforestation of degraded areas, and partnerships with the private sector to improve their overall social and environmental responsibilities. IPE, for example partners with companies such as Havaiana flip flops and Natura cosmetics to bring products to market with an environmental message.

61

Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship is the construction, evaluation and pursuit of opportunities for transformative social change carried out by visionary, passionately dedicated individuals. These individuals are motivated to address social needs as opposed to commercial entrepreneurs wanting to address financial needs. It is important to note that social entrepreneurship is not the same thing as charity or benevolence, it is not necessarily even not for profit. At the core there is a benevolent attitude that is motivated by a deep seated need to give to others, but it goes beyond this. In future the social entrepreneurship will make its presence not only in india but in the whole world. It is the future of the business and trade.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The meaning of social entrepreneurship, J. Gregory Dees J. Mair, I. Marti / journal of world business 41 (2006) 36-44 Social entrepreneurship: the case of definition, Roger l. Martin and Sally Osberg, 2007 Towards a better understanding of social entrepreneurship, Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg Social entrepreneurship: the role of institutions, Mukesh Sud, Craig V. Vansandt, Amanda M. Baugoy www.grameen-info.org www.manchesterguild.org www.ashoka.org social entrepreneurship: pattern- changing entrepreneurs and the scaling of social empact, David A. Sherman, The ICFAI Journal of entrepreneurship development Social Entrepreneurs and Enterprise Development Ahmed Youssry Sustainable Development Association Egypt, Alexandria August, 2007

63

64

También podría gustarte