Address Telephone 20-22 +44 (0)20 Bedford Row 7269 6900 London WCIR 4EB United Kingdom

Fax +44 (0)20 7269 6901

E-mail info@ sustainability.com

Website www. sustainability.com

Scalable Solutions
The role of social entrepreneurship in solving sustainability challenges

Skoll Paper 1 November 2006

John Elkington, Founder & Chief Entrepreneur, SustainAbility Sophia Tickell, Chair, SustainAbility Comments? elkington@sustainability.com or tickell@sustainability.com

SPONSORED BY THE SKOLL FOUNDATION

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 1 of 26

Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 7 Social Entrepreneurship in Context ................................................................................. 9 The Business Case........................................................................................................ 13 Five Sectors, Five Issues............................................................................................... 15 No Easy Road Ahead .................................................................................................... 20 Conclusions and Looking Forward................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX 1: Some Definitions & Criteria............................................................................ 23

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 2 of 26

Foreword

A core part of SustainAbilitys mission is to identify, track, evaluate andwhere necessary and appropriatehelp build trends that drive business strategy and markets towards more just and sustainable forms of value creation. From 2001, we concluded that the growing worldwide interest in social entrepreneurship would be one such trendand began working with such organizations as The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship and the World Economic Forum. But when we announced to our clients that we had been awarded a $1 million, three-year grant from the Skoll Foundation to help develop the field of social enterprise, we were surprised to find that several major companies protested what they saw as our impending shift from the mainstream into the outer darkness. Surprised because it is our belief that far from being a soft sideline to mainstream business, in the next decade social enterprise will significantly shape both business practice and the markets in which leading companies operate. To set out our case, we have written this business primer, the first in a planned series as part of our evolving Skoll Program, focused on Scalable Solutions to sustainability challenges1. A changing theory of change SustainAbilitys basic theory of change is evolving. When the organization was founded in 1987, our theory of change was fairly simple, albeit unusual for the time. We aimed to push towards more sustainable forms of development with business, through markets. We chose to focus on the private sector and on big international companies in particular, because we felt that this is where the greatest leverage for change would be found. We also stayed small, to cut overheads and enable us to turn away certain types of work and certain categories of client. The business case for focusing on large companies was multi-dimensional, for example: (1) such companies hadand continue to havemajor economic, social and environmental impacts, both for good and ill; (2) they have the ability to do new things at scale; and (3) when they take on new priorities, they can cascade the new thinking through their supply chains or value webs and, via their lobbying and public policy work, powerfully influence government. A sub-component of our early business model was that we chose not to work in the developing world, despite calls to do so, on the basis that the work often meant working with public sector clients, among them development banks and aid agencies, rather than with the private sector. This model has served us well and, we hope, our clients, partners and the wider sustainability agenda, too. But along the way we have encountered several challenges from clients and other stakeholders. In summary, we have been asked, Why SustainAbility does not: (1) work with governments and the public sectorbecause they have a crucial role to play; (2) work with small and medium-sized enterprisesbecause SMEs represent such a dominant part of our national and global economies, with commensurate social and environmental impacts; and, just as important, can be the source of innovative, entrepreneurial ideas; (3) work in the emerging economies and developing world more generallybecause the potential for positive change is greatest there; and (4) grow our business in order to play an even more powerful role in defining and driving the sustainability agenda?

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 3 of 26

All excellent questionsand this document reflects the fact that answers that served us well in the past need to change to reflect changing market conditions. Indeed, our theory of change and our business model are evolving in ways that begin to answer all of the above. So, in 2006, following a major strategy review, we have formalized our commitments to: (1) invest more time in understanding public policy drivers of corporate behavior; (2) integrate social entrepreneurship considerations into all our work and support a growing number of entrepreneurial start-ups over the next 3-5 years; (3) substantially develop our work in four emerging economiesBrazil, South Africa, India and China; and (4) grow the business significantly over the next 3-5 years, in support of these objectives. While the majority of our effort will still ultimately be focused on large companies and financial institutions, because that is where some of the most interesting opportunities to produce scalable change are found, we also plan to invest growing effort in four key drivers of corporate change: o governments (e.g. policy, regulations, subsidies and pricing signals, all of which drive and incentivize a great deal of corporate change); financial markets (which can have an even greater impact); civil society (e.g. voting, NGO membership and consumer pressure); and entrepreneurial activity, which signals where future markets, innovation and business models need to head next.

o o o

As an integral part of this latter component of the new strategy, we plan to invest more effort exploring social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, seeking to connect our corporate networks and this emerging field. Our 3-year funding from The Skoll Foundation is a major contributor to this end. This paper is part of an evolving dialogue and attempts to provide a snapshot of a rapidly changing landscape. When they are published, it should be read alongside two other publications SustainAbility is currently working on with help from the Skoll Foundation, Global Reporters 2006 and Globalization 2017, in addition to a book that John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan of The Schwab Foundation are writing for Harvard Business School Press, due for publication early in 2008. We would very much welcome any comments and views you may have. John Elkington (elkington@sustainability.com) and Sophia Tickell (tickell@sustainability.com)

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 4 of 26

Executive Summary

Social entrepreneurs are people who, through the practical exploitation of new ideas, establish new ventures (social enterprises) to deliver a range of goods and services currently unmet by existing markets. The emphasis on social returns on investment is what sets social entrepreneurs apart from the mainstream. In the course of their work, social entrepreneurs often signal impending changes in how value is defined and co-created. Less obvious, but arguably more important over time, is the fact that the ideas, attitudes and approaches of social entrepreneurs have the potential to disrupt assumptions and business models in a way that could eventually have a profound effect on mainstream markets. The paper concludes that there is an increasingly powerful business case for corporate engagement in the world of social entrepreneurship, which is largely, but not exclusively, based on the lessons it offers about innovation, new market opportunities and potential disruption to existing business assumptions. As is recognized by many leading companies, these attributes are particularly relevant in a global operating context that is experiencing profound change. Their interest is reflected in an increase in attempts to quantify and measure intangibles such as an organizations license to operate, business continuity and longer term security. We conclude that there are at least four business drivers for connecting mainstream markets and social entrepreneurs. o Market intelligence: Most companies considering engagement with social entrepreneurs and social enterprises start out by thinking in terms of the potential enhancement of their brand and reputation through cause-related marketing. And there are no doubt various ways in which such connections can be made and real value created, on both sides. But an equally important area can be the gathering of market intelligence. As interest in base-of-the-pyramid markets grows, social entrepreneurs are experimenting with new business models, services and products in many of the markets that major companies are beginning to take seriously. Innovation: At a time when success in tackling many of the great divides between rich and poor seems virtually out of reach, leading social entrepreneurs are plunging in, taking risks that few if any major companies would dare to take, andin some cases beginning to attract significant funding and other forms of support. Leverage, Replication and Scale: As we move into an era in which it is no longer viable to postpone attention to environmental issues or the poverty agenda, the spotlight will inevitably shift towards innovation and entrepreneurial solutions. In the process, conventional corporate responsibility (CR) strategies and initiatives may begin to look somewhat tired. This is where social entrepreneurs potentially come in, given that they offer greater leverage than traditional non-profit partners. Significantly, too, partnerships between major businesses and social enterprises hold the promise of better scalability. Metrics: One of the most importantand potentially tediousareas in the pursuit of any form of change is measurement. But, tedious or not, the old management mantra that what you cant measure you cant manage applies here, too. That said, most metrics in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development (SD) fields today tend to focus on policies, systems and procedures, rather than on impacts and outcomes. By contrast, the major foundations that are investing in social entrepreneurship are increasingly requiring evidence of impacts and outcomes.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 5 of 26

These benefits are already playing out in real cases. In capital markets and the finance sector, for example, social entrepreneurs are precipitating a revolution in assumptions about who is credit-worthy and where profit can be made. The concept of microfinance, which has spread to the boardrooms of some of the worlds biggest banks, originally evolved from the absolute fringes of the system. Possibly even more disruptive to the finance sector than microfinance is the work being undertaken by social entrepreneurs to capture long-term value in investment decision-making. Coinciding with increased corporate attempts to measure intangibles, the financial community is beginning to acknowledge some of the negative impacts of short-termism on the long-term value of investments, particularly in key sectors with long investment requirements, such as pharmaceuticals and energy. The social and environmental challenges facing humanity are hard to overstate and the can-do attitudes of the social enterprise movement have generated high hopes and great expectations that they will succeed in rising to a wide range of economic, social and environmental challenges. There are, however, major hurdles ahead. The enthusiasm inspired by social entrepreneurs creates a biotechnology-type risk that their potential contributions are overestimated in the short term, with consequent disappointment when the early impacts are less than had been anticipated. It is also clear that the social enterprise movement will eventually find itself facing the profound challenges that have faced governments, NGOs, companies and multilateral organizations who have stepped up to the plate before them. Among them are equity and the scaling up of best practice; social justice and the principles of universal provision; and trade justice and how to thrive in the face of global competition. In summary, social entrepreneurship is relevant to big business for a number of reasons. First, the next phase of the sustainability debate will focus on the sort of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial solutions in which leading social entrepreneurs excel. Second, the business case for action will increasingly focus on value creation, well beyond the basics of corporate citizenship and corporate responsibility. Third, while definitions vary, social entrepreneurs bring new mindsets, perspectives and business models to bear on some of the crucial challenges of our day. Fourth, though material issues will vary considerably from sector to sector, we suspect that the centre of gravityand influencewill begin to shift to people who to date have been fairly resistant to these issues, among them chief financial officers, financial analysts, mainstream entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and investment bankers. For such people, the work of social entrepreneurs is already providing early markers of future risks and opportunities and of the processes by which tomorrows value will be created in novel ways.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 6 of 26

Introduction

In the next decade, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise will come to significantly shape both business practice and the markets in which many firms operate. The mechanisms of change are likely to be both direct (as when social enterprises identify and capture new markets) and indirect (as when larger companies model at least part of their business model and behavior on those of social enterprises). We assess what is happening in the field; why business needs to understand the implications and trajectories; and how companies and other business organizations might identify and respond to some of the challenges this field of activity poses. The paperwhich very much represents work in progressis divided into seven sections and an Appendix. o Section 2 explains what social entrepreneurship is and describes what social entrepreneurs do. Section 3 outlines how social entrepreneurship fits into rapidly evolving global discussions about the role of markets in delivering social and environmental goods. A discussion of the business case for mainstream corporations to focus on this area can be found in Section 4. Section 5 probes five sectors and five issues, including scale, security and universality. Section 6 offers a note of caution about the road ahead. And Section 7 provides our conclusions and thoughts for continued engagement with the evolving discussion on scalable solutions.

o o o

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 7 of 26

Definitions

2.1 Who and what are Social Entrepreneurs? Social entrepreneurs are people who, through the practical exploitation of new ideas, establish new ventures (social enterprises) to deliver a range of goods and services currently unmet by existing markets. The emphasis on social returns on investment is what sets social entrepreneurs apart from the mainstream. Historically most have assumed that such ventures will be non-profit, or at least where profits are made they will all be reinvested in the organizations mission. More recently, however, there has been a growing interest in hybrid not-for-profit and for-profit modelsand in models that are designed from the outset to profitably produce blended value. (Appendix 1 provides additional definitions.) The most accomplished of these people have had notable success in using market principles to deliver a range of education, health, environmental and other goods and services to people whoprior to their involvementit had been assumed the market could not reach. Social entrepreneurs are both a response to and a potential solution for market and government failure. In the process of their work, they signal impending changes in how value is defined and co-created. Often, they seek and harness the talents of people whose skills are undetected by existing employment radar screens, providing them with incomegenerating opportunities. Less obvious, but arguably more important over time is the fact that the ideas, attitudes and approaches of social entrepreneurs are disrupting assumptions and business models in a way that could eventually have a profound effect on mainstream markets. According to The Schwab Foundation, whose mission is to support social entrepreneurs, the discipline of social entrepreneurship is: (a) about applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor; (b) a term that captures a unique approach to economic and social problems, an approach that cuts across sectors and disciplines; and (c) grounded in certain values and processes that are common to each social entrepreneur, independent of whether his/her area of focus has been education, health, welfare reform, human rights, workers' rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, etc., or whether the organizations they set up are non-profit or for-profit entities. It is this approach, the Schwab Foundation notes, that sets the social entrepreneur apart from the rest of the crowd of well-meaning people and organizations who dedicate their lives to social improvement.2 Social entrepreneurs are as varied as the communities they aim to serve. This group of New Heroes includes the likes of 2006 Nobel Prize-winner Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank. A native Bangladeshi and economics professor, Professor Yunus pilot tested and scaled a new business model to provide credit to the worlds poorest citizens. Today the bank has nearly six million customers, almost all of them women, and boasts a 98% repayment rate. Or consider Vinod Khosla, an entrepreneur who is now playing a key role in the emerging biofuels sectora sector that has seen boom conditions as energy security concerns grow in the United States and elsewhere. Nor are such people alone. The Grand Prix motorcycle racing arena sparked another social enterprise targeted at tackling a simple, yet critical element, of the African health care system: transportation. By providing bikes and maintenance support services, Andrea Coleman and her organization, Riders for Health, have extended the reach of health care providers to 11 million Africans. The group finances itself through private funds and receives no government support. And, to take just one more example of how social entrepreneurship is emerging all around us, consider Victoria Hale and her enterprise OneWorld Health. After

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 8 of 26

an Aha moment in the back of a New York taxi cab, Dr. Hale, a pharmaceutical scientist, launched the worlds first non-profit pharmaceutical company. By matching orphan drugs with orphan diseases, OneWorld Health is developing safe, effective and affordable solutions for people previously unserved by mainstream firms. 2.2 Why are Social Entrepreneurs important? Social entrepreneurs are engaged in what we might see as a massively parallel, open source market research survey, offering substantial potential value to mainstream business. Successful entrepreneurs not only see the future comingthey help to create it. Indeed, Swiss billionaire Stephan Schmidheiny has explained one key to his success as his interest in observing social movements, seeking to detect the first signs of change in what seemed to be a static context. This, he said, is the best early warning system to detect both risks and opportunities. By identifying and getting into embryonic markets, social entrepreneurs signal emerging opportunity spaces. Their business models, often mutated to suit local circumstances, offer important clues as to how larger, mainstream, businesses will need to adapt to successfully enter these new markets. In addition to early warning of impending market trends, there are several other reasons for companies to focus more intensely on best practice in social entrepreneurship: o First, leading social entrepreneurs have demonstrated both the passion and momentum needed to intervene successfully in markets to address social and environmental challenges. Meanwhile, the main body of the corporate social responsibility movement seems to be in danger of losing both passion and momentum. Second, the timing is right, as the preconditions build for a new wave of societal pressure on business, with a growing focus on the need for entrepreneurial solutions to sustainability problems that can both be replicated and scaled up. Third, at a time when there is growing mainstream interest in base-of-the pyramid markets, these people are in the thick of the BoP action, working out new strategies to harness a wide range of resources to the task, while simultaneously experimenting with new ways of meeting the myriad commercial needs of poor people.3 Their hands-on knowledge of such markets and of the political and regulatory environments potentially offers valuable market intelligence. Fourth, and by no means finally, their approaches hold the potential of higher leverage as a result of more sustainable and market-oriented business models and the use of new and rigorous outcome and impact metrics to quantify success.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 9 of 26

Social Entrepreneurship in Context

3.1 The Next Pressure Wave In the past twenty years the role of business in meeting the worlds great social and environmental challenges has been subject to fierce debate. Figure 1 plots these debates as three wavesthree successive cycles in the never-ending effort to civilize capitalism. The small print tracks key events in each year. The rapidly emerging social enterprise movement is both a product and a symbol of the latest phase in this continuum. Though chopped back by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath, the third wave is building back powerfully at the time of writing. The likelihood is that upwave and downwave cycles will continue, but underlying these fluctuations is a rising tide of pressure driven by demographic, technological, societal and environmental trends. Figure 1: Pressure waves, 1960-2006

SustainAbility described some of the likely characteristics of this emerging operating environment in a 2001 book, The Chrysalis Economy4, which argued that the 30-year period from 2000 would see profound changes in the global economy, increasingly driven by the sort of limits first identified in the Limits era by the MIT Limits to Growth team and others, includingmore recentlythe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment team. One implication is that the agenda will increasingly engage the people who create and buildrather than simply runbusinesses (Figure 2). Key issues are likely to include energy security, the role of financial markets in helping to scale up successful initiatives, the future role of intellectual property rights as open source solutionsand, less positively, counterfeitingspread; and,

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 10 of 26

perhaps most taxing of all, the question of how to achieve universal provision of the sort of services that social entrepreneurs are developing. Figure 2: Whos involved in business?

Tomorrow

CFOs, Entrepreneurs, Investment Bankers, Venture Capitalists

Today

CEOs, Boards (e.g. Non-Executive Directors), Investor Relations

1990s

Process and Product Design, Marketing, Managers

1980s

Environment Managers, Project Planners

1970s

Lawyers, Public Relations

So how has this process played out in business itself? Figure 2 illustrates the way that the centre of gravity of attempts to curb the worst excesses of capitalism, driven by a range of external pressures, has percolated (or been forced) up through corporate hierarchies in recent decades. In the process, the spotlight has expanded from defensive functions (such as public relations and legal affairs) to the point today where many boards are becoming involved, whether or not they welcome the fact or have the skills to deal with the relevant issues. One key factor driving such processes has been the growing complexity and political charge associated with many triple bottom line issues. Now, increasingly, we see an involvement of those who create new businesses, among them entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and investment bankers. So what have been the net results to date of these pressure waves? Given the scale of the current challenges, and the failure to ensure suitable forms of governance to manage the processes of globalization, some might query whether much progress has been made at all. In the decade following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a newly unfettered capitalism emerged apparently triumphant: in country after country, governments and business queued to reshape the economy along free(ish) market lines. During this ongoing Globalization era, governments have deregulated and liberalized markets at an unprecedented pace and on a global scale. The outcome has been a near-exponential growth in the flow of goods and services across the world, accompanied by the rapid expansion of communications and accelerated capital movements. While the net benefits of these changes are hotly disputed, it is clear that as benefits have accrued to some people, so too has evidence of multiple market failures. And these failures have been increasingly visible because of the extraordinary advances in communications, including the Internet, search engines like Yahoo! and Google, and the worldwide emergence of 24/7 rolling news outlets (with over 30 in India alone).

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 11 of 26

Through the third upwave and its aftermath, the euphoric language linking the evolution of democracy with the advance of the market has been tempered by the realization that too many people have not benefited by global growthand that there are growing numbers of people out there prepared to capitalize on this fact. The economic, cultural and political impacts of the rise of radical Islam became apparent following 9/11 and continue to play out in the disastrous aftermath of the Iraq war. Non-violent, but nonetheless also potentially disruptive of the prevailing market paradigms, is the recent electoral success of left-leaning populist leaders in Latin America. These figures, including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia, generate a heady clash of ferocious animosity and fervent support, seeking to counter what they see as the worst of the globalization trend by reasserting control over key resources and industries. Their argument is that this is the only way that sufficient rents can be obtained to fund social programmes.

3.2 The Rise of the Social Enterprise Movement It is against this complex, dynamic backdrop that the social enterprise movement has moved into the spotlightspurred along by the award to Muhammad Yunus and The Grameen Bank of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Interest in social entrepreneurship is literally sweeping across the globe, triggering a secondary boom in websites, publications (books, reports, newsletters), conferences, government initiatives, awards schemes and, to a degree, funding. The 2006 WEF Summit was the fifth in the series to formally embrace social entrepreneurs, a process led by The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship5, while the Skoll Foundation is developing its own series of major conferences in partnership with the Sad Business School at Oxford University6. Although social enterprise is in part a logical response to the global trends outlined above, it has its own particular antecedents as well. The delivery of social, environmental and ethical value using market-based techniques has a very long history. This fact was underscored by David Bornstein in his excellent book How to Change the World7, which tracked the field back to such people as St Francis of Assisi and Florence Nightingale. Parts of the movement find their origins in such people as the Quakers, with their ultimately successful battle against slavery and corruptionand their involvement in the founding of a range of successful companies. The roots of the modern movement can also be traced back to the work of international development organizationsmultilateral as well as NGOswhich have provided support for income-generating activities, health and education services for decades. Social entrepreneurs are not a new phenomenon, but it seems, the social enterprise movement is. What then, has changed an unrelated network of driven individuals into an incipient movement? The context appears to be crucial. The New Economy era spawned new fortunesand new forms of philanthropy, particularly so-called venture philanthropy (see separate Barefoot Billionaires paper). The names associated with comparably generous philanthropic gestures are the late nineteenth and early twentieth century philanthropists Rockefeller, Carnegie and Cadbury. For these extremely wealthy individuals, the context of acute inequality, in which the juxtaposition of great wealth against mass and wretched poverty was highly visible, acted as a spur to action. It is no coincidence that massive support for social entrepreneurs is now coming from modern-day equivalents, people like George Soros, Stephan Schmidheiny, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (with massive additional aid from Warren Buffett), eBay founders Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll, and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. The wealth, social and other divides have

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 12 of 26

opened out strikingly over pretty much the same period that they have been building their successful companies. The involvement of these well-connected and highly strategic social investors has the potential to make a huge difference. They have created organizations to seek out, track and support social entrepreneurs across the globe. When these newly networked social entrepreneurs share experiences using new communications technologies the outcomeas in the work of organizations like the Acumen Fund and Endeavor Globalcan be both inspirational and widespread. The involvement of some of the most influential and wealthy people on the planet has played a decisive role. It was no accident that the theme of the 2006 annual summit of the World Economic Forum was Creativity8. There is an increasingly urgent sense that a new wave of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial solutions is needed to meet the challenges of reducing poverty and improving environmental stewardship; challenges which will be compounded by predicted massive demographic growth and by the growing urgency of resource limitations linked to water, land and fossil fuels9. While mainstream companies and governments are often still at the stage of acknowledging these challenges, social entrepreneurs are getting on with finding solutions, market or otherwise. And it is this that leads us to argue that the world of social entrepreneurship can be seen as a massively parallel experiment in sustainable development10. Unhampered by sunk costs, institutional culture, comfort zones or bureaucracy, social entrepreneurs are developing into one of the most interesting vectors of experiment and change. For the first time a convergence of these bottom up and top down approaches is apparent. Social enterprise efforts and events now attract a small but growing number of visionary mainstream financiers and other funders who are seeking to identify new research tools to help them understand medium and long-term factors that will affect the businesses in which they invest, but which are not, as yet, adequately factored into fund-management decision-making. The appetite that exists to better analyze these trends has drawn their attention to the work of social entrepreneurs who have attempted to quantify their unique combination of values and outcomes from the word go. They are explicitly influenced by business and determined to ensure that there is a measurable value to what they do. The movement is fresh, energetic and inspiring. It parallels and complementsbut also significantly challengescurrent governmental, non-governmental and corporate strategies. One example is the field of corporate social responsibility. Despite its rapid growth in recent years, CSR often appears bureaucratic and stodgy compared to what is being achieved by leading social entrepreneurs. There is a serious possibility that it will increasingly be challenged by higher leverage, results-driven and intensively measured forms of social entrepreneurship. This, however, may prove to be a minor impact, compared to the disruptive effect that its creative ideas could have on business, a trend which is explored in the next section.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 13 of 26

The Business Case

For two decades SustainAbility has worked with business through markets to meet social and environmental challenges. The experience of tracking relevant trends during this time has given us sensitive antennae that help identify important developments early in their evolution. There is, in our view, a strong business case for corporate engagement in the world of social entrepreneurship, which is largely, but not exclusively, based on the lessons it offers about innovation, new market opportunities and disruption to existing business assumptions. These attributes are particularly relevant in a global operating context for mainstream corporations which is experiencing profound change. This is recognized by many leading companies and is reflected in a growing interest in quantifying and measuring intangibles, license to operate, business continuity and security. Social entrepreneurs boldly go where mainstream companies cannot or will not. Their experimentation with new technologies and business models might be assumed to apply only to niche markets. However, this would be a mistake. While they have been demonstrably successful in developing some niches, such as fair trade and organic food, there is evidence that their innovative approaches and continual experimentation with markets is already leading mainstream companies to experiment with alternative business models and to pilot interesting ideas in new markets. Below we outline four key areas of potential value-added, followed by a more in-depth look at five sectors: finance, energy, food, healthcare and ICT.

Market intelligence: Most companies considering engagement with social entrepreneurs and social enterprises start out by thinking in terms of the potential enhancement of their brand and reputation through cause related marketing. And there are no doubt various ways in which such connections can be made and real value created, on both sides. But an equally important area can be the gathering of market intelligence. As interest in base-of-the-pyramid markets grows, social entrepreneurs are experimenting with new business models, services and products in many of the markets that major companies are beginning to take seriously. An example of a social entrepreneur helping a major company to access market intelligence is the recent announcement of a joint venture between the Grameen Bank and Danone. According to the press release, Grameen Danone will be highly committed to protect the environment of its communities developing solar energy and bio gas energies. It will also develop innovative and environmentally friendly packaging for its products. The initial focus of Grameen Danone will be to launch an easily affordable dairy product to fulfil the nutritional needs of children in Bangladesh and contribute to their strong growth by bringing them the benefits of milk and micronutrients that they lack, including vitamins and minerals such as Iron, Zinc, and Calcium.

Innovation: At a time when success in tackling many of the great divides between rich and poor seems virtually out of reach, leading social entrepreneurs are plunging in, taking risks that few if any major companies would dare to take, andin some cases beginning to attract significant funding and other forms of support. An example of a social entrepreneur helping a major company to innovateor think more innovativelyis that of the creation of the worlds first not-for-profit pharmaceutical company, One World Health (see below for details). This takes archived intellectual

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 14 of 26

property from mainstream pharmaceuticals to develop new drugs for neglected diseases of the developing world. o Leverage, Replication and Scale: As we move into an era in which it is no longer viable to postpone attention to environmental issues or the poverty agenda, the spotlight will inevitably shift towards innovation and entrepreneurial solutions. In the process, conventional CR strategies and initiatives may begin to look somewhat tired. This is where social entrepreneurs potentially come in, given that they offer greater leverage than traditional non-profit partners. Significantly, too, partnerships between major businesses and social enterprises hold the promise of better scalability. An example of how mainstream companies can pursue leverage, replication and scale is the announcement of a major hydrogen power project for California by BP and Edison Mission Group in February 2006. Other market opportunities for social entrepreneurs and large corporations alike have been created via calls from the European Commission for solar power to be installed on half a million roofs by 2010, stimulating demand for manufacturing, leading to a market worth some 10 billion dollars, and creating 100,000 new jobs. o Metrics: One of the most importantand potentially tediousareas in the pursuit of any form of change is measurement. But, tedious or not, the old management mantra that what you cant measure you cant manage applies here, too. That said, most metrics in the CSR and SD fields today tend to focus on policies, systems and procedures, rather than on impacts and outcomes. By contrast, the major foundations that are investing in social entrepreneurship are increasingly requiring evidence of impacts and outcomes.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 15 of 26

Five Sectors, Five Issues

5.1 Overview The social and environmental challenges facing humanity are hard to overstate. It is perhaps inevitable that the can-do attitude and insistence on outcomes over intention of the social enterprise movement have generated high hopes and great expectations. But is this euphoria reflective of reality? Below we take a look at five key sustainability challenges and early signs that entrepreneurial solutions are gaining traction.

5.2 Capital Markets and Finance: The Issue of Scale

A quiet revolution in assumptions about who is credit-worthy and where profit can be made is taking place in the financial community. It evolved not from the core of the financial powerhouses, but from the absolute fringes of the system, and has spread from the slums of Bangladesh to the boardrooms of some of the worlds biggest banks in financial centers such as New York, London and Zurich. Ten years ago microfinance the term to describe the often tiny loans made out to very poor people was almost unheard of. It is now common parlance. And as the ideas behind it spread it has mutated and developed so that its ripple effects are now felt not just in South Asia but also in the delivery of new products and services sold across the globe. It has provided opportunities for poor people to access credit, but it has also created a potentially huge market to cater for individuals wishing to invest imaginatively in enterprises that deliver both profit and social and environmental goods. It took a social entrepreneur to effect this revolution. For the majority of people in rich countries being able to access credit and other financial services is relatively easy. The recycling of saving funds to mortgage lending, start-up ventures, capital development and other borrowing requirements underpins many economies. This lending is usually predicated, however, on clients having collateral to receive loans, meaning that poor people everywhere have struggled to qualify. Traditional banks have been long been reluctant to lend to people and communities that have been calculated to be a high credit risk or whose financial needs are too small to administer economically. Microfinancealso known as banking for the poorwas pioneered by Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning professor of macroeconomics who developed an astonishingly simple and effective means of empowering very poor people around the world to pull themselves out of poverty. Grameen explains its philosophy as follows: Relying on their traditional skills and entrepreneurial instincts, very poor people, mostly women, use small loans (usually less than US$200), other financial services, and support from local organizations called microfinance institutions (MFIs) to start, establish, sustain or expand very small, self-supporting businesses. A key to microfinance is the recycling of loan dollars. As each loan is repaidusually within six months to a yearthe money is recycled as another loan, thus multiplying the value of each dollar in defeating global poverty, and changing lives and communities. Possibly at least as disruptive to the finance sector as Grameens challenge as to who is creditworthy is the work being undertaken by social entrepreneurs to capture long-term value in investment decision making. Coinciding with increased corporate attempts to measure intangibles, the financial community is beginning to acknowledge some of the

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 16 of 26

negative impacts of short-termism on the long-term value of investments, particularly in key sectors with long investment requirements, such as pharmaceuticals and energy. The result is a growing move towards the definitionand ultimately measurementof newly identified non- or extra-financial indictors of value. An interesting case here is Generation Investment Management, an asset management company created by David Blood and Al Gore, which attempts to balance conventional equity analysis with long-term sustainability considerations.

5.2 Energy: The Issue of Security The longer term risks of basing our economies on oil has become increasingly obvious. For decades scientists have worked to tap economically viable alternative energy sources. Successful experiments with solar and photovoltaic energy creation have been complemented by work on biofuels. Until relatively recently, however, the renewables landscape has largely been populated with a succession of failed or only partially successful pilot-scale experiments. Today, by contrast, wind power is growing rapidly (albeit from a small installed base) in Europe, US and China. Solar technologies are also attracting growing investment from energy groups like BP and Chevron, and a small number of social entrepreneurslike Fabio Rosa of IDEASS in Brazilare linking solar technology to novel power supply methods and business models to afford poor people access to electricity and other types of energy. One of the most striking ideas to have emerged in recent years in the energy area is that of applying the principles of the Internet and World Wide Web to energy production and supply. With radical decentralization, there would be a much lower risk to our economies from threats from major oil-supplying regions, and the related infrastructure would open the gates to a wide array of fuel cell and other more sustainable technologies. Alongside the work of people like Richard Sandor of the Chicago Climate Exchange and Tessa Tennant of the Carbon Disclosure Project, such concepts could help drive a radical transformation of the energy sector in the coming decades. The global backdrop to these attempts is a world of energy haves and have-nots: an estimated 1.6 billion people lack access to modern energy services. More recently, soaring oil prices have driven energy security issues up the consumer, business and political agendas. There have been many factors at work, among them conflict, political developments in places like Venezuela, Russia and Iran, the growing appetite for energy and other resources from emerging economies like China and India, and the problems that forced BP to shut down major parts of its Alaskan operations. But there is an even bigger issue at work here, the growing sense that the world may already be in its Peak Oil period, when we move beyond the point of having consumed half the available oil resourcesand the challenge of winning future oil becomes progressively more difficult. 5.3 Food: The Issue of Traceability In February 2005, the British public woke up with a start to the news that Sudan was no longer only the biggest country in Africa. Instead it was a toxic dye, alleged to be carcinogenic, that had found its way into soups, sausages, crisps and over 600 ready meals on which busy consumers increasingly rely. Sudan I, imported from India, was at the heart of the latest in a series of food scares, which highlighted the extraordinary distances and complex routes food now travels from farm to plate.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 17 of 26

Globalization of international trade has led to radical changes in the way that food is grown, produced, bought, prepared, distributed and sold. The industry is being consolidated to the point where, according to one analyst report, by 2015 there will be only five global retailers and ten global manufacturers with a number of suppliers competing to supply their demands. Successful food producers and retailers have strengthened their position by lowering costs, diverting investment to core businesses; and transferring to suppliers down the chain many of the risks embedded in production and/or manufacturing, including demand for flexibility, tighter control over inputs and standards and ever lower prices. Transferring risks to suppliers, who often pass on increased costs to their workerswhile extremely efficient, is not without downsides. Farmers in rich countries and developing economies are critical suppliers for whom the food industry creates many jobs and employment opportunities. As they have become more involved in the global food trade so too they experience many of the negative side effects: just in time delivery requirements can lead to dramatic increases in hours and compulsory overtime. The transfer of cost and commercial risks increase suppliers costs and can lead to: lower wages; reductionor denialin the provision of benefits; and the denial of labor rights. One of the early responses of social entrepreneurs to the newly globalized food market was the creation of fair trade brands. Though initiatives date back to the 1940s, it wasnt until 1989 that the international development agencies worked together to create the first fair trade consumer guarantee, Max Havelaar. Working on the principle that producers should be able to sell their produce at a price that meets their basic needs, fair trade is a form of market intervention, but one that increasing numbers of consumers are prepared to support. Fair trade marked products are now sold in 20 countries across Europe and North America and through recent breakthrough agreements with supermarket chains in some product categories are achieving 15% of total national market share. As food scares increase in regularity and the depth of media coverage grows, the cumulative effect has led growing numbers of consumers to ask where their food has come from, how it was produced and by whom. This is the issue of traceability, which is likely to be central to the food industry in future. Innovation is absolutely vital for the sector particularly due to the slow or even static demographic growth in its key markets. In the past, innovation has been focused on achieving efficiencies in supply chain management and product creation. In future, if demands for traceability achieve critical mass, which is quite likely given the scale of some recent food scares, the challenge to food companies will be to link their greatest assetsbrand and priceto successful traceability strategies. The questions that will need answers include: Will the demand for traceabilitywhich is most marked in areas like the organic and fair trade sectorsexpand out into other sectors as retailers and others gain experience and are forced to manage risk in new ways? And how can companies respond to the technical, branding, communications and ethical challenges in one of the most competitive and low-margin sectors of all? Among leading social entrepreneurs working in this space are Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish of SEKEM in Egypt, Craig Sams of Green & Blacks (now part of Cadbury Schweppes) in the UK, and John Mackey of Whole Foods Market in the US. 5.4 Health: The Issue of Universality At first glance, the fundamentals underlining the future business of the pharmaceutical industry seem healthy. Aging populations in wealthy markets, increasing disposable incomes, advances in sciencebiotechnology, diagnostics and devices, opportunities in emerging marketsall point to future prosperity. But the landscape in which the business

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 18 of 26

must be developed is highly complex and it takes little to trigger an underlying public unease about the fact that a profit-seeking private enterprise lies at the heart of drug development. A near-perfect storm hit in 2001, in the form of public outcry over the price and lack of availability of AIDS medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa. It combined new technologies offering miracle cures for a terrifying plague, the viral spread of informationwords and pictures illustrating the human cost to those unable to pay for drugs, and the citing of co-defendant Nelson Mandela, one of a handful of global statesmen, by an industry unable to appreciate the extensive damage its court case against the South African government would cause. The controversy also spotlighted the challenge increasingly facing us all: how to balance shareholder expectations with societys expectations of universal access to effective, affordable healthcare. The challengeconsiderably more acute in developing countries where decades of poverty and under-investment in health mean that the baseline is incredibly lowis one that faces health providers worldwide. A number of social entrepreneurs have stepped into the field to experiment with new business models able to meet the needs of low income individuals who, even collectively, do not offer the industry a commercially interesting market. One astonishingly successful social entrepreneur in the field is Victoria Hale, a pharmaceutical chemist of considerable experience, who opted to use her skills and expertise in drug development to create the worlds first not-for-profit pharmaceutical company. OneWorld Health (OWH) is dedicated to the development of safe, effective and affordable medicines for people with infectious diseases in the developing world. The basic idea is that OWH takes dormant intellectual property, owned by academia or companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and develops it into medicines to treat infectious disease in developing countries. OWHs flagship project has successfully taken paromomycin through clinical trials as a treatment for Visceral Leishmaniasis. Partnering with the Indian government has secured OWH a distribution agreement to guarantee the treatments availability for those who need it mostIndias rural poor. Clearly, the OWH business model is highly reliant on the goodwill of industry. Many drug leads and compounds are made available to OWH by innovator companies. The organizations work has successfully evolved due to partnerships, exchange and constructive relationships with industry. But, a key question, could all of this move beyond leveraged corporate citizenship to market disruption? Could the very existence of such organizations as OWH end up contributing to the disruption of the pharmaceutical industrys current blockbuster business model? One reason to think that they might is this. OWH operates a business model which makes publicly available information about the costs of all stages of the drug development process, how much it costs them to bring a drug to market and what this has to do with the price at which it is sold. What is already clear is that, despite the fact that OWH does not have to factor in the costs of failure in the way that Big Pharma (the large pharmaceutical company sector) does, the alternative cost model could well prove disruptive in a world where the challenge of providing access to quality, universal healthcare provision means that pharmaceutical costings are under closer scrutiny and value for money is likely to be more rigorously tested.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 19 of 26

5.5 ICT: The Issue of Accessibility Roughly 186 million new people sign up as mobile phone users each year, bringing the global total to 2 billion. At the same time, while the trends are hard to keep up with in this highly dynamic sector, up to 80% of people in Africa have never heard a dial tone, let alone surfed the Web. This disparity, known as the digital divide, has a significant impact on equality of opportunity, job prospects and social inclusion. Globally it reflects and, some argue, aggravates sharp and growing economic inequalities between the rich and the poor. However, the ICT sector has proved capable of developing leapfrog technologies that are better adapted to the economic realities of its customers. Access to pay-as-you-go mobile phones has meant that shanty-town dwellers in developing countriespreviously uncontactable due to the price of fixed line telephonesare available to potential employers as never before. Many have completely bypassed the traditional route from fixed line to mobile. Shared access internet centres in rural villages have given farmers unprecedented access to price information about the commodities they will to sell and even in some cases direct access. And these innovations have bled back into developed country markets. Parents eager to avoid extortionate phone bills have eagerly supported the transfer of their teenagers phone agreements from contract-based payment to pay as you go. The digital divide remains a very real challenge around the world and one which social entrepreneurs have risen to meet, in the process further challenging assumptions about how markets work. The Grameen Bank (see 5.2, above) is one of the social enterprises that has spawned a telecoms sister company, GrameenPhone. Strikingly the GrameenPhone has been made available explicitly to innumerate and illiterate women. Skeptics initially argued the lack of basic skills would make it impossible for these women to make use of this technology, but the astonishing success of the enterprise proved that Muhummad Yunus basic premise that they would learn fast and effectively if the outcome was better access to markets, more income generating potential and increased opportunities. Other leading social entrepreneurs active in this area include Rodrigo Baggio of CDI (Brazil), Rory Stear of Freeplay Energy (UK) and Orlando Rincn Bonilla of ParqueSoft (Colombia).

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 20 of 26

No Easy Road Ahead

Standing back from all of this, however, it is worth sounding a note of caution. The enthusiasm inspired by social entrepreneurs creates a biotechnology-type risk that their potential contributions could be overestimated in the short term, with consequent disappointment when the early impacts are less than had been anticipated. There is even a danger that this could result in the withholding of support necessary to realize their extraordinary longer term potential. It is also clear that sooner rather than later, the social enterprise movement will find itself facing the profound challenges that have faced governments, NGOs, companies and multilateral organizations which have stepped up to the plate before them. Among them: Equity and Social Justice: The more successful the work of social entrepreneurs, the more quickly they will be faced with the challenge of who their work benefits, how such benefits are most effectively measured and rewarded, and how best practice can be scaled up. Though the number of governments unable or unwilling to provide services to those who need them remains very high, the aspirations of equity and universality of provision of services are still very much alive. The role of NGOs in filling the gaps has long been accepted, but the outcome tends to be both patchy and serendipitous. The challenge is the greater because since the end of WWII the concept of universal human rights has gained ground, with governments slowly but surely coming to understand that these rightswhich place an obligation on us all to ensure that fellow humans enjoy the same rightsrefer not only to civil and political rights, but also to social and economic rights. In theory at least, governments accept their responsibility to meet the needs of their citizens on grounds of the important principles of universality and equity. Social entrepreneurs are challenged to think whether the models they develop may have wider applicability. Many social entrepreneurs thrive in the absence of bureaucracy and succeed due to their impatience as well as their drive and stamina. But what kind of relationships should they seek to establish between their successful programs and local or national government so as to achieve more universal provision? Other Obstacles: Many of the movements predecessors, also inspired to act locally to meet immediate needs, were struck by the structural obstacles preventing their work from being replicated or scaled up. These obstacles can be similarly localthe result of local authority obstacles or apathy, nationalthe result of government behavior, or international such as global trade barriers or protectionism. Social activists have responded to these challenges by undertaking advocacy work to change the policies and practices that prevent the poor from successfully competing in markets and to encourage policies that ensure universal provision of the pre-requisites for anyone to participate in marketsincluding basic health and education. Just as social entrepreneurs working on service sector delivery have faced the challenge of scaling up to address issues of universality, so too small enterprises attempting to scale up to trade in todays markets will face problems of trade justice. Todays markets are dominated by global companies working to scale. It can be tremendously difficult for small enterprises to survive and thrive when faced with competitors whose economies of scale and technical expertise permit them to understand and work global markets using highly sophisticated technologies, business models and logistics.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 21 of 26

Moreover, businesses in developing countries often trade in agricultural commodities which are further disadvantaged by trade barriers which prevent or circumscribe the sale of their products in protected rich country markets. A Paraguayan dairy farmer with newly acquired production and marketing skills will still find it difficult to sell to a local market if she is competing with subsided milk from the European Union, likewise grain farmers are struggling to compete with subsided wheat from the US.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 22 of 26

Conclusions and Looking Forward

Social entrepreneurship is a complex and emergent (some would say re-emergent) discipline and field of practice. The discussion above explores some of the underlying trends and their possible future trajectories. We conclude that: 1. The next phase of the sustainability debate will focus on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial solutions. 2. The business case for action will increasingly focus on value creation, well beyond the basics of corporate citizenship and corporate responsibility. 3. While definitions may vary (see Appendix 1), social entrepreneurs potentially bring new mindsets, perspectives and business models to bear on some of the crucial challenges of our day. 4. Among the key aspects of the new business mindsets that will impact the corporate responsibility and sustainable development agendas in companieslarge, medium and smallwill be a focus on market mechanisms, innovation, leverage, new metrics (focused on impacts, outcomes and value added) and the replicability and scalability of solutions. 5. The material issues will vary considerably from sector to sector, as indicated in our short cases of the finance, energy, food, health and ICT sectors (see Section 5). In the process, the centre of political gravityand influencewill begin to shift to people who to date have been fairly resistant to these issues, among them chief financial officers, financial analysts, mainstream entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and investment bankers. 6. The work of social entrepreneurs is already identifying early markers of emerging priority issues. 7. Rather than being an either/or discussion, we need to focus on how entrepreneurs, startups, SMEs, big business, financial markets, governments, foundations, NGOS and the business education sector can be helped to align their priorities and work. We hope this brief paper has stimulated ideas about how this emerging movement can contribute to current sustainability challenges, and encourage you to engage with us and in ongoing forums sponsored by leading groups in this space, such as the Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll foundations. SustainAbility will continue this conversation through additional papers, and upcoming reports exploring the links between innovation and entrepreneurship and key sustainability issues, such as corporate reporting and globalization. A survey, due to be published springing March 2007, is likely to focus on the financial challenges and opportunities facing social entrepreneurs as they attempt to scale their enterprises. For our latest thinking on the topic, please continue to refer to our web site, www.sustainability.com/socialenterpreneurship.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 23 of 26

APPENDIX 1: Some Definitions & Criteria Below we present the definitions of three leading organizations in the field of social entrepreneurship.

ASHOKA: A Knock-out Initial Test The knock-out initial test for Ashoka is summed up by the question: Is the person possessed by a truly new idea for solving a public need? Is it a truly transformational innovation, or just a tweaking of how things are now done? How is it different from what others do in the field? o Creativity Is the person creative - both in vision/goal-setting and in problem solving? How creatively does the person approach opportunities and obstacles - be they organizational or political? Does he/she create original solutions? o Entrepreneurial Quality Is the person so committed to his/her vision that it is impossible for him/her to rest until the vision becomes the new pattern across society? Is the person willing to spend years relentlessly grappling with myriad, practical "how to" challenges (how to get to national scale, how to make the pieces fit together, etc.)? o Social Impact of the Idea Is the idea likely to solve an important social problem at the national level or beyond? Is the idea itself sufficiently new, practical, and useful that people working in the field will adopt it once it has been demonstrated? o Ethical Fiber Is the person totally honest? Would you instinctively trust him/her? (A quick intuitive test: Imagine yourself in danger and ask if you would feel fully comfortable if the candidate were with you.) Is his/her motivation deeply and firmly rooted in a commitment to serve others? www.ashkoka.org

THE SCHWAB FOUNDATION According to The Schwab Foundation, social entrepreneurship is: o o o about applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor; a term that captures a unique approach to economic and social problems, an approach that cuts across sectors and disciplines; grounded in certain values and processes that are common to each social entrepreneur, independent of whether his/ her area of focus has been education, health, welfare reform, human rights, workers' rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, etc., or whether the organizations they set up are non-profit or for-profit entities.

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 24 of 26

The Foundation argues that it is this combination of approaches that sets the social entrepreneur apart from the rest of the crowd of well-meaning people and organizations who dedicate their lives to social improvement. Schwab defines a social entrepreneur as: o A pragmatic visionary who achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through a new invention, a different approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies or strategies, or a combination of these. Combines the characteristics represented by Richard Branson and Mother Teresa.

Social entrepreneurs share come common traits including: o o o an unwavering belief in the innate capacity of all people to contribute meaningfully to economic and social development a driving passion to make that happen. a practical but innovative stance to a social problem, often using market principles and forces, coupled with dogged determination, that allows them to break away from constraints imposed by ideology or field of discipline, and pushes them to take risks that others wouldn't dare. a zeal to measure and monitor their impact. Entrepreneurs have high standards, particularly in relation to their own organizations efforts and in response to the communities with which they engage Data, both quantitative and qualitative, are their key tools, guiding continuous feedback and improvement a healthy impatience.

As a result, social entrepreneurs dont do well in bureaucracies. They cannot sit back and wait for change to happenthey are the change drivers. www.schwabfound.org

THE SKOLL FOUNDATION Entrepreneurs have always been the drivers of progress. In the business world, they act as engines of growth, harnessing opportunity and innovation to fuel economic advancement. Social entrepreneurs, like their business brethren, are similarly focused; they tap into vast reserves of ambition, creativity and resourcefulness in relentless pursuit of hard, measurable results. But social entrepreneurs seek to grow more than just profits. Motivated by altruism and a profound desire to promote the growth of equitable civil societies, social entrepreneurs pioneer innovative, effective, sustainable approaches to meet the needs of the marginalized, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised. Social entrepreneurs are the wellspring of a better future. Throughout history, such individuals have pioneered solutions to seemingly intractable social problems, fundamentally improving the lives of countless individuals, as well as forever changing the way social systems operate. Among them are Florence Nightingale, who transformed hygiene practices at hospitals, dramatically reducing death rates; Maria Montessori, who created a revolutionary education method that supports each childs unique development; and, more recently, Muhammad Yunus, who began offering microloans to impoverished people in Bangladesh in 1976 to allow them to become economically self-sufficient, a model that has been replicated in 58 countries around the world. So while social entrepreneurship isnt a new concept, it is gaining renewed

Scaleable Solutions

November 2006

Page 25 of 26

currency in a world characterized by a growing divide between the haves and the havenots. Today social entrepreneurs are working in many countries to create avenues for independence and opportunity for those who otherwise would be locked into lives without hope. They range from Gillian Caldwell of WITNESS, who uses video and communications technology to document human rights abuses, to Amitabha Sadangi of International Development Enterprises-India, who develops low-cost irrigation technologies to help subsistence farmers survive dry seasons. They include Victoria Hale of Institute for OneWorld Health, who taps existing but abandoned pharmaceutical research to bring new drugs to the worlds poorest people, and William Foote, who promotes a more equitable and sustainable model of international trade for a range of commodities, including coffee. These individuals and other social entrepreneurs share a commitment to pioneering innovations that reshape society and benefit humanity. Whether they are working on a local or international scale, they are solution-minded pragmatists who are not afraid to tackleand successfully resolvesome of the worlds biggest problems. www.skollfoundation.org

Funded by The Skoll Foundation, www.skollfoundation.org http://www.schwabfound.org/whatis.htm 3 C.K. Prahalad, The Fortune at The Bottom of The Pyramid, Wharton School Publishing, 2005. 4 John Elkington, The Chrysalis Economy, John Wiley/Capstone Publishing, Oxford, 2001. 5 http://www.schwabfound.org 6 http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/index.html 7 David Bornstein, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Oxford University Press, 2004. 8 http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2006 9 http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/index.html 10 The Social Enterprise Issue, Radar, August/September 2005, SustainAbility
2