0

Forming Future Social Entrepreneurs in K-12 Schools: A

Framework for Mainstreaming Social Business and

Social Entrepreneurship Education

By: John Frederick A. Lauron

Submitted to: Dr. Rosalinda P. Ofreneo

SD-302 Theories and Constructs in Social Development

College of Social Work and Community Development University of the Philippines-Diliman

October 21, 2013

1

I. Introduction

The Philippine economy grew by 6.8 percent in 2012, while the first quarter

gross domestic product for 2013 soared to 7.8 percent, the fastest in Asia. But it seems

that the country's strong economic growth failed to equipoise figures in the jobless rate

as unemployment rose to 7.5 percent in April from last year's 6.9 percent (Cerda, 2013).

The National Statistics Office reported that Philippine employment plunged to 37.82

million in April 2013 from the 37.84 million in April 2012.

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) said that the

country's unemployment rate increased by 0.6 percent due to a lower level of

employment amid a slightly higher labor force level. Majority of the unemployed were

high school graduates (31.7 percent), college graduates (21.3 percent) and college

undergraduates (14.6 percent), the state agency noted. About half (48.2 percent) of the

unemployed were aged 15-24 years old, 27.5 percent of which are male while 20.7

percent are female (Cerda, 2013).

The unemployment rate ranges from 6.1 percent to 8.0 percent from 2009 to

2012. The unemployment rate within the country may not be very high as compared to

other countries but we have to remember that a significant number of Filipinos are

employed abroad. If these OFWs lose their employment, the unemployment rate would

have been higher than the existing unemployment rate.

2

The country is experiencing the so-called jobless growth. While the GDP

increased, there is no corresponding increase in employment for the working class.

With policies and laws that favor the business sector, the existing profit-maximizing

business models marginalize the working class who generate the wealth for the

capitalists.

As the country aspires to attain inclusive growth, there is a need to rethink

business models that would not leave the poor and the workers behind. What is

alarming is that the gap between the rich and the poor is most pronounced in the

Philippines as compared with neighboring Southeast Asian nations (Ho, 2011). The

Philippines registered a Gini coefficient of 44 percent in 2010, higher than Thailand’s

42.5 percent, Indonesia’s 39.4 percent, Malaysia’s 37.9 percent and Vietnam’s 37.8

percent. The Gini coefficient measures the inequality of distribution of income. Higher

Gini coefficient means higher inequality.

3

Social entrepreneurship is something that can structurally address the big gap

between the rich and poor and the great inequality. With the K-12 reforms, highlighting the

importance of entrepreneurship to basic education students, especially in the senior high

school level, there is hope that inclusive growth can be attained and the country’s

inequality may be decreased.

II. Problem

The purpose of the study is to develop a framework for mainstreaming social

entrepreneurship and social business education in K-12 schools. Specifically, the study

seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the existing models and practices in social entrepreneurship and social

business education of selected schools and institutions in Metro Manila?

2. What are external and internal factors that contribute to mainstreaming social

entrepreneurship (SE) and social business (SB) education in K-12 schools in the

Philippines?

3. What are the different models of SE and SB education that can possibly be embraced

by different K-12 schools?

4. What have we learned from the experimental class using the organization/club

model in SE and SB program of the Ateneo de Manila High School for SY 2014-2015?

4

III. Objectives

This study attempts to identify the existing models and practices in social

entrepreneurship and social business education of selected schools and institutions in

Metro Manila;

1. Determine external and internal factors that contribute to mainstreaming social

entrepreneurship (SE) and social business (SB) education in K-12 schools in the

Philippines;

2. Identify different models of SE and SB education that can possibly be embraced by

different K-12 schools;

3. Evaluate the experimental class using the organization/club model in SE and SB

program of the Ateneo de Manila High School for SY 2014-2015.

IV. Review of Related Literature

A. From Microfinance to Social Business/Social Entrepreneurship

The concept of microfinance was popularized when Muhammad Yunus, an

economics professor at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, after observing that

enterprising women did not have access to finance their small entrepreneurial activities

decided to lend $27 to a group of poor women. Before 1974, most women in Bangladesh

were marginalized and excluded due to very high interest from loan sharks. This

experience of Yunus led him to put up Grameen Bank in 1976 which provides small loans

without collateral to those who are not credit worthy, the poor (Yunus, 2003). Most of the

5

borrowers were women and it was observed that there was very high repayment rate.

Since its foundation, Grameen has refined its repayment mechanism to the following

formula:

• Loans last one year

• Installments are paid weekly

• Repayment starts one week after the loan

• An annual interest rate of 20 percent is charged

• Repayment amounts to two percent of the loan amount per week for 50 weeks

• Interest payments amount to 2 taka per week for every 1,000 taka of the loan

amount.

The success of the Yunus model of microfinance became the tool for poverty

alleviation in many development projects. Grameen Bank, together with it founder received

the Noble Peace Prize in 2006, about 30 years after its establishment. Grameen Bank now

gives loans to over 7.5 million poor people-97 percent of whom are women - which help the

poor lift themselves out of poverty. 68 percent of the families of Grameen Bank borrowers

have crossed the poverty line. Motivation towards repayment is high, with rates currently

running at 98.4 percent, and the bank has been profitable in every year of its existence except

1983, 1991 and 1992 (Yunus, Lehman, & Ortega, 2010). Another milestone in the history of

microfinance was when the United Nations dedicated 2005 as the year of microfinance.

In an article published by UNIFEM, Cheston and Khun (2007) cited that

microfinance programs have the potential to transform power relations and empower the

6

poor—both men and women. In well-run microfinance programs, there is a relationship of

respect between the provider and the client that is inherently empowering. This is true

regardless of the methodology or approach. As a consequence, microfinance has become a

central component of many donor agencies’ and national governments’ gender, poverty

alleviation, and community development strategies. Several studies and the experiences of

a number of MFIs have shown, however, that simply putting financial resources in the

hands of poor women is not enough to bring about empowerment and improved welfare

(Cheston & Kuhn, 2007). It is for this very reason that microfinance maybe considered as

the springboard for other poverty alleviation tools such as the use of business to solve a

social problem.

One of the often articulated rationales for supporting microfinance and the targeting

of women by microfinance programs is that microfinance is an effective means or entry

point for empowering women. By putting financial resources in the hands of women,

microfinance institutions help level the playing field and promote gender equity and

equality. However, microfinance is not enough. It has to be supplemented with human

capacity building and other functioning that would allow one to lead the kind of life he/she

has reason to value.

When Yunus conceptualized microfinance and started providing small loans to a

group of enterprising women, his frame of mind was that access to finance is a basic human

right that allows a human being to lead the kind of life one has reason to value. Providing

small loans to the entrepreneurial poor allows them to participate in the economic activity

7

and reduce the chance of being exploited by those who have access to finance. It is

important to consider that the loan is intended to supplement the financial needs of an

existing or a start-up entrepreneurial poor who do not have access to financial services

enjoyed by big business ventures Therefore, microfinance is always connected to

entrepreneurial activity.

Yunus’ vision of creating a world without poverty made him keen to specific

initiatives that would provide capacity for the poor to be fully responsible and accountable

for his/her own development. As a typical economist, he did not critique the existing

neoliberal-capitalist model but instead he used it as a model for ensuring that the economic

rights of the poor, especially women will be protected. That is why, he coined a new term –

social business as a new kind of capitalism. With the end in mind to create a world without

poverty, he partnered with other business companies to transform the capitalist model of

doing business into something that will benefit the poor and the marginalized. Yunus’

development model evolved from just simply microfinance to the so-called social business.

While there is no clear and established definition agreed upon by experts, this paper

adheres to the definition of Yunus. In his book entitled, Building Social Business, he defined

social business as a new kind of capitalism. It aims to solve a social problem. Grameen bank

has both pioneered the development of microfinance and created nearly 30 businesses

designed to alleviate poverty (Yunus, 2010).

8

B. What is Social Entrepreneurship?

Social entrepreneurship as a field of study is still in its early stage which provides a

great opportunity for researchers to establish empirical studies that would define it

operationally. As of the moment, there are really no existing dominant theories that would

describe what social entrepreneurship is and is not. The current literature generally

explains specific cases and practical considerations for the practice and improvement of

social entrepreneurship and of the social entrepreneur.

In the late 90s there were two contending schools of thought regarding social

entrepreneurship namely: the Social Enterprise School and the Social Innovation School.

Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg proposed the social enterprise school who asserts that “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

important ways:

Traditional entrepreneurs frequently act in a socially responsible manner: They donate

money to nonprofits; they refuse to engage in certain types of businesses; they use

environmentally safe materials and practices; they treat their employees with dignity and

respect. 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

9

disadvantaged; or they sell mission-driven products and services that have a direct impact

on a specific social class.

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.”

In the Social Innovation School, J. Gregory Dees and Beth Battle Anderson claim that

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

Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just provide 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 heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the

outcomes created”.

“Social entrepreneurship entails innovations designed to explicitly improve societal

well-being, housed within entrepreneurial organizations, which initiate, guide or contribute

to change in society (Perrini, 2006).”

In a book entitled Creating New Civilization through Social Entrepreneurship, social

enterprise and social entrepreneurship are considered as powerful tools that can help us

achieve an economy where the value of new ideas and business is measured by how they

10

affect our human and natural environments. “Social entrepreneurship is a vital tool to

achieve a more balanced world and a social enterprise pursues a social or environmental

mission using market-driven approaches to increase impact and sustainability. Social

enterprise can exist in all sectors, business, nonprofit, government and philanthropy.”

(Kagnaire in Petit, 2011)

C. Typology: Social Business and Social Enterprise

Yunus, Lehman and Ortega (2010) cited that ‘in the capitalist system, there are two

extreme types of corporate bodies that can be distinguished. On the one hand, companies can

be seen as profit-maximizing businesses, whose purpose is to create shareholder value. On the

other, non-profit organizations exist to fulfill social objectives’ (Yunus, Lehman, & Ortega,

2010). Social business attempts to borrow from and merge these two opposing concepts.

The figure below shows a diagram that illustrates social business.

Figure 1: Social Business vs. Profit Maximizing Business and Not for Profit

Organizations

In a social business, the cost has to be covered by the earnings of the business but

investors do not earn profit. Investors may claim the initial capital without interest after it

11

is rolled over. Unlike the profit maximizing business, investors in social business have to be

cause-oriented rather than profit oriented. As an organization, social business has to be

managed like a ‘regular’ business and not like a charity, even though the objective is

different from a profit-maximizing company. While it attempts to achieve the social

objective, social businesses need to recover their full costs so it can be self-sustaining. The

owners never intend to make profits for themselves as there are no dividends. Surplus or

profit has to be used either to expand the business to benefit more people who do not have

access to these products and services.

“[While] its primary purpose is to serve society, a social business has products, services,

customers, markets, expenses and revenues like a ‘regular’ enterprise .It is a no-loss, no-

dividend, self-sustaining company that repays its owners’ investments…” (Yunus, Lehman,

& Ortega, 2010.p. 311).

In the book entitled, Building Social Business, Yunus (2008) identified two types of

social business. The type I social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company devoted to

solve a social problem and owned by investors who reinvest all profits in expanding and

improving the business (e.g. Grameen Danone, Grameen Veolia Water, BASF Grameen, etc.).

The type II social business is a profit-making company owned by poor people, either

directly or through a trust that is dedicated to a predefined social cause (e.g. Grameen

Bank, Otto Grameen Textile Factory, etc). It is important to remember that unlike a non-

profit organization, social business has investors and owners who don’t earn a profit, a

dividend, or any other form of financial benefit and will take back their original investment

amount over a period of time they define. Yunus made it clear that a social business cannot

12

be called as such, if there is an increase in the money going to investors beyond the original

investment and if there is financial benefit by those who establish the business.

The definition of social business is close to the definition of social entrepreneurship

as defined by Mair and Marti as ‘a process involving the innovative use and combination of

resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs’.

Yunus, Lehman and Ortega (2010) asserts that ‘social businesses can be seen as a subset of

social entrepreneurship, which includes both profit and not-for-profit initiatives, and which

can be distinguished from conventional entrepreneurship through the ‘relative priority given

to social wealth creation vs. economic wealth creation. In business entrepreneurship, social

wealth is a by-product of the economic value created. All those who design and run social

businesses are social entrepreneurs - but not all social entrepreneurs are engaged in social

businesses (some models, for instance, still include conventional dividend payments to profit

oriented shareholders).’

In the Philippines, a social enterprise is usually in a form of fair trade organization,

microfinance institution, cooperative, and community-based enterprise serving the fishers,

farmers, and the indigenous people, social business and small and medium enterprise that

have embraced a social mission as the core of the business. Figure 2 shows the typology of

social enterprises.

13

Figure 2: Social Enterprises Typology

A social business is a totally new form of business which is an alternative to charity but it is

not a charity organization. In social business, businesspeople may use their business skills and

creativity to solve social problems. Based on figure 2 which shows the typology of social

enterprises, one could conclude that all social businesspeople are social entrepreneurs but not all

social entrepreneurs are engaged in social business.

D. Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders (SEPPS) Framework

Social entrepreneurship is defined by many experts and organizations based on respective

contexts. Of the many definitions of social entrepreneurship, the most common component includes

the concept of innovation in a social organization that creates social value. In an attempt to

contextualize social entrepreneurship in the Philippines, Dacanay (2012) made a very extensive

and pioneering research on this field for her PhD dissertation at Copenhagen Business School.

Fair trade

organizations

Microfinance

institutions

Cooperatives

Community-based

enterprises

Small & medium

enterprises

Social

businesses

Social Enterprises

14

Dacanay proposed that for one to understand what social entrepreneurship is, the following

elements have to be considered to differentiate social enterprises from private/profit maximizing

enterprises: 1) primary stakeholders and beneficiaries; 2) primary objectives; 3) and enterprise

philosophy (Dacanay 2004).

Table 1: Key Elements Differentiating Social and Business Enterprises

(Dacanay 2004)

Private Enterprise Social Enterprise

Primary Stakeholders and

Beneficiaries

Rich stockholders Marginalized sectors

Primary Objectives Bottom line: profit Double or triple bottom line

Enterprise Philosophy Accumulative Distributive

Dacanay’s definition emphasized that the poor and marginalized should be the primary

stakeholders in a social enterprise which is established with the primary objective of triple bottom

line which considers people, planet and profit. What is distinct in social entrepreneurship as

compared to the traditional profit-maximizing enterprise is the distributive philosophy. This

implies that in a social enterprise the profit is being distributed to the stakeholders.

Dacany (2012) used the SEPPS or social enterprises with the poor as primary

stakeholders as her research framework in her dissertation:

‘SEPPS are social mission driven wealth creating organizations that have at least a double

bottom line (social and financial), explicitly have as principal objective poverty reduction/

15

alleviation or improving the quality of life of specific segments of the poor, and have a

distributive enterprise philosophy’.

She argued that there are three aspects to the working definition of SEPPS as target

population:

1. “SEPPS are social mission driven organizations explicitly pursuing poverty

reduction/alleviation or improving the quality of life of specific segments of the poor as

primary objective.

2. SEPPS are wealth-creating organizations that have at least a double bottom line (social

and financial).

3. SEPPS have a distributive enterprise philosophy. Unlike in a business or private enterprise

where payments or wages made to the poor are considered as financial costs to be

minimized, these are considered as social benefits for primary stakeholders that need to be

optimized. Moreover, the distributive philosophy is expressed in the surplus or profits accruing

to the poor as dividends as well as being reinvested back to the enterprise to sustain the

fulfillment of its social mission or in activities that benefit and assist the poor in overcoming

poverty or improving their quality of life.

Dacanay’s definition of social entrepreneurship calls for a transformation of framework of from

a diluted neoliberal model with double or triple bottom line as proposed by Yunus to an alternative

model which is the social solidarity economy model. As I write this paper, I am attending the

International Meeting for Social Solidarity Economy (SSE) held at the University of the Philippines.

As I reflect on possible models, I find SSE as a more appropriate framework that is aligned to

Dacanay’s definition of social entrepreneurship.

16

Social entrepreneurship in the neoliberal framework asserts that there is no alternative to the

invisible hand that dictates one’s life. While one has to survive and compete in the free market

economy, a social entrepreneur thinks beyond survival and competition. He or she works using the

rule of the game in the free market economy but he/she ensures double or triple bottom line. My

critique in using the neoliberal framework to social entrepreneurship or social business is that core

principles of neoliberal framework do not fully align with the three elements of a social enterprise

as defined by Dacanay. There is a need to use an alternative development perspective that is

focused on people’s wellbeing while considering sustainability. The Social Solidarity Economy (SSE)

is a promising model which is an alternative to the existing neoliberal economy, one which is deeply

rooted on solidarity and cooperation, rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest and

that promotes economic democracy, alternative models of local economic governance, equity and

sustainability rather than the unfettered rule of the market (Allard & Matthaei, 2013). Dacanay’s

SEPPS or social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders are closely aligned to the SSE

framework.

E. Social Solidarity Economy and Social Enterprises

The previous chapter explains Dacanay’s SEPPS framework of social entrepreneurship. It

appears that the SEPPS framework when compared with other models of social entrepreneurship is

very close to the social solidarity economy model. This chapter explains social solidarity economy

in relation to social entrepreneurship.

According to Quinones (2013), “Solidarity Economy is a socio-economic order and new way of

life that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as the goal of

economic activity rather than maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the market. It

places economic and technological development at the service of social and human development

17

rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest. It is an alternative economic model to neo-

liberal capitalism which promotes attitudes and behaviors that values sharing, co-responsibility,

reciprocity, plurality, respect for diversity, freedom, equality, ethics, brotherhood, and sisterhood

(Arruda, 2008 in Quinones, 2013).

The Chantier Economie Sociale of Quebec cites five key principles to distinguish solidarity

economy initiatives. These are (Poirier 2007 in Quinones, 2013):

(1) the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving for

financial profit;

(2) the economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;

(3) in its statute and code of conduct, a democratic decision-making process is established

that implies the necessary participation of users and workers;

(4) it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and surplus;

and

(5) its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and

collective responsibility.

Solidarity Economy adopts conscious altruism and solidarity, not extreme individualism, as

the core of the new socioeconomic culture. It tends to favor cooperation, not competition, as the

main form of relationship among humans and between them and Nature (Poirier 2007). On the

other hand, social entrepreneurship with the poor as the primary stakeholder promotes altruism

and solidarity with the poor and marginalized. It also promotes cooperativism as a norm rather

than competition.

18

Therefore, Social Solidarity Economy model is the closest framework that explains the

nature of a social enterprise with the poor as a primary stakeholder that employs transformational

service rather than just transactional.

F. Social Entrepreneurship Education

Chapter V Section 11 of the House Bill 6085, The Magna Carta for Social Enterprises states:

“Toward strategically developing the nation’s human resource capability in social entrepreneurship,

the DepEd and the CHED shall cause the integration of SE content and inclusion of SE courses in the

curricula at all levels, especially in the secondary and tertiary levels.” This study aims to strategically

find existing models of social enterprise education that can be mainstreamed in K-12 senior high

school level.

At present, the Entrepreneurs School of Asia (ESA) under the Institute for Social

Entrepreneurship Education (I4SEE) runs a program called Teenpreneur Challenge. Teams from

different high schools undergo workshops, trainings and site visit. The students work with a

product owner, a Nanay who comes from partner communities of ESA to improve her existing

product so that it would be marketable. After three months of product improvement workshops

and actual development of products, the students will then compete in a bazaar highlighting

innovation and marketability of the products of their partner Nanay. This program usually runs

from July to October every year. Participating schools with the most innovation and with highest

sales are given an award. For the past years, the school’s program provided high school students

actual experience in handling a social enterprise with the poor as the primary stakeholder. In the

case of Teenpreneur Challenge, the Nanay is the primary stakeholder of the enterprise because she

19

owns the business. The students help her come up with more innovative ideas and marketing

strategies.

V. Research Framework

This study aims to determine existing models of social entrepreneurship education

and identify specific variables or factors that are essential in developing a program on

Stage 1: Existing Social Entrepreneurship Programs I4SEE of Entrepreneur School of Asia

Variables /Factors Courses offered Learning goals and objectives Pedagogy/Andragogy Content (Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes) Profile of students Profile of teachers Partnership with Communities and Institutions Resource mobilization and management

K-12 Schools (Content/Input)

Stage 2: External and Internal Environmental Scan

Social Enterprise Companies (Internship)

Partner Communities (Livelihood training,

enterprise development, cooperative

management

Teachers (competencies, training

and development needs)

Facilities

Models for Social Entrepreneurship and Social

Business Model Organization/Club Model Elective Subject Model Social Involvement

Program Model Service Learning Model Specialization Model

20

social entrepreneurship. After determining the existing model, the researcher will attempt

to conduct an internal and external environmental scan of the possible arrangements in

developing such program. K-12 schools, social enterprise organizations and partner

communities will be surveyed. The third stage of the study will be the collection of

empirical data from the experimental model – The Social Involvement Model in teaching

social entrepreneurship.

Bibliography

Books & Journals

Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship: The Art of Mission-Based Venture Development. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

CARE. (n.d.). CARE: Women's Empowerment. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from

http://www.care.org/newsroom/publications/whitepapers/woman_and_empowerment.pdf

Dacanay, M. L. (2004). Creating Space in the Market: Social Enterprise Stories in Asia. Makati City: Asian

Institute of Management and Conference of Asian Foundations and Organizations.

Dacanay, M. L. (2009). Measuring Social Enterprise. Quezon City: Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in

Asia.

Dacanay, M. L. (2013). Social Enterprises and the Poor: Transforming Wealth. Quezon City: Institute for

Social Entrepreneurship in Asia.

Danna Greenberg, e. a. (2011). The New Entrepreneurial Leader: Developing Leaders Who Shape Social

and Economic Opportunity. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Dichter, Thomas, Harper, Malcolm. 2008. What’s Wrong with Microfinance?.Warwickshire:

Practical Action Publishing.

Durkin, R. G. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach. Bristol: The Policy Press University of

Bristol.

Hechanova, M. R. (2009). For the People, With the People: Developing Social Enterprises in the

Philippines . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

21

Isidore Ekpe, N. B. (2010). The Effect of Microfinance Factors on Women Entrepreneurs’ Performance in

Nigeria : A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science.

Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts Over Credit: Re-evlauating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to Women

in Rural Bangladesh. World Development, 29.

Ledgerwood, Joanna.2002. Sustainable Banking with the Poor Microfinance Handbook.

Washington D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Lont, Hotze, Hospes, Otto.2004. Livelihood and Microfinance: Anthropological and Sociological

Perspectives on Savings and Debt. Amsterdam: Eburon Academic Publishers.

Manders, H. M. (2009). Women's Empowerment: Comparing Concepts & Assessing Implications for

Microfinance. Oikocredit.

Matthaei, J. A. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2013, from

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7ipVo40GxUoJ:www.geo.coop/sites/

default/files/SE%2520Definitions%2520and%2520Themes_SEN_draft.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=cln

k&gl=ph

Mercado, R. C. (2009). Solidarity Economy and the Cooperative Experience. Quezon City: UP School of

Labor and Industrial Relations.

Muhammad Yunus, B. M.-O. (2010). Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen

Experience. Long Range Planning, pp. 308-325.

Perrini, F. (2006). The New Social Entrepreneurship: What Awaits Social Entrepreneurial Ventures?

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Petit, P. U. (2011). Creating a New Civilization through Social Entrepreneurship. New Jersey: Goi Peace

Foundation.

Roy, Ananya. 2010 . Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development.

Mandaluyong. Asian Development Bank.

Sebastian. 2010. Blue Way 2 Ateneo Graduate School Business Case Book: Case Studies on Social

Business. Pasig. Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Villafuerte, Nelly Favis.2007. Microfinance Handbook (Philippines). Makati: Apples of Gold

Publishing.

Wankel, C. (2008). Alleviating Poverty through Business Strategy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yunus, M. (2003). Banker to the Poor. New York: Public Affairs Books.

Yunus. 2010. Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism. USA. Public Affairs

22

Dissertation

Dacanay, M. (2012). Social Enterprises and the Poor Enhancing Social Entrepreneurship and Stakeholder

Theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Copenhagen Business School Dissertations. (PhD

Series 30.2012)

Internet Sources OECD-DAC Secretariat. Creditor Reporting System database, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/55/ 38898309.pdf (accessed October 13, 2013). http://rags2riches.ph/v2/, accessed on October 13, 2013 Javelosa, 2011 http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=667771&publicationSubCategoryId=89, accessed on October 13, 2013 http://www.franchise.nfo.ph/News/Franchise/Hapinoy-The-Microfinanced-Franchise-Model.html http://www.hapinoy.com/, accessed on October 13, 2013 http://www.echostore.ph/, accessed on October 13, 2013 http://rags2riches.ph/, accessed on October 13, 2013