1

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 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.
2

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.























3

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.






4

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 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
5

various nuances, the Say-Schumpeter 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.
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
6

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.

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 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.
7

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] 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.
8

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 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.

9

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.

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.










10

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 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
11

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 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 re-deployment 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
12

venture. It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value
is created by reducing pollution in a given stream, by 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.

















13

COMPARISION OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS

BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
They are entrepreneur with a mission of
wealth creation.
They are entrepreneurs with a social
mission.
For business entrepreneurs value creation
or profit is explicit and central.
For social entrepreneurs social mission is
explicit and central.
Business entrepreneurs are subject to
market disciplines.
Social entrepreneurs are not subject to
market disciplines.
They work for those who willing and able
to pay.
They work for society or for social cause.
Business entrepreneurs are not fully
dependent, on donations and subsidies.
Social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies,
donations, and volunteers.
Profits are higher then the social
entrepreneurs.
Profits are very low or nil as its aim is to
provide social benefits.
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.
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.

14

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.








15

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 self-sufficient.
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 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:
16

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 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.
17

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.
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.





















18

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.

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.









19

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),

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.




20

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.

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
21

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 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 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
22

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 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.



23

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
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
24

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.

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
25

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%.





















26

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 Pioneering modern nursing
Profession Nurse and Statistician
Institutions Selimiye Barracks, Scutari
Specialism 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, 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.

27

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 World2011 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 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.
28

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.



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



29

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 Jaipur
Nationality Indian
Occupation Chairman and Managing Director of Jaipur Rugs
Religion 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 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.
30

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.



Akhtar Hameed Khan
Akhtar Hameed Khan, 1973
Born 15 July 1914
Agra, British India
Died 9 October 1999 (aged 85)
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Residence Karachi, Pakistan and Comilla, Bangladesh
Nationality Pakistani
Fields 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
31

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 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 two-tiered 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 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
32

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 low-income white collar workers. The project
proved an impetus to the socio-economic 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
number of programmes, including a people's financed and managed low-cost 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.

33

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.
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
34

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. 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.




35

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
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
36

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, 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
37

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.

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.

38

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.

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.


39

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.















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.
40

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.

41

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


42