Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

SOA on Social Solidarity Economy and Social Entrepreneurship:

Convergence and Divergences October 17, 2013

Organizers: Institute of Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA)

Welcome to the SOA on SE and SSE: Convergences and Divergences. The organizers of this activity are the following: ISEA, FSSI, PRRM, INAFI, WFTO, ASCENT, and PHILSEN. This activity is part of the international conference on Social Solidarity Economy. There are 12 SOA for today and partly tomorrow.

I. Welcome Remarks Mr. Isagani R. Serrano President, PRRM

On behalf of the organizers, he welcomed the participants to this Self Organized Activity. He shared that there are 7 organizations responsible for organizing this event.

He explained that if everyone was present in yesterday’s plenary discussion, they would have been treated to a discussion on two new buzzwords - Social Solidarity Economy and Social Enterprises. This SOA was dedicated to addressing these buzzwords in terms of their differences and commonalities. Explaining that the objective is not so much to belabour things but to sharpen participants’ understanding on these concepts and serve their higher goals and aspirations.

He shared that Paul Singer said that “social economy” being as old as human civilization. While in the closing plenary there were a lot of questions on social solidarity economy. David, in particular, said that social solidarity economy is something Bolshevic. This would mean that the participants are coming from different directions or perspectives. This activity would somehow help to clarify these concepts.

He also expressed his personal interest on the discussion. He hoped that the panellist would somehow explain how on earth SSE and SE can answer the three stubborn paradoxes of development. The first paradox is about growth that includes some and leaves so many. The second paradox was as the economy grows the more wealth is being concentrated to a fewer and fewer hands. Before, the percentage of the super rich are 30%, then it lowered to 20%, then to 10%. Now, the super rich are only about 1% of the global population. He said that he is sure that when Paul Singer made reference to economy as dating back to human civilization and looking at what is happening now, he would no longer recognize the kind of situation that humanity is facing now. He said that he is sure to think that this is not the intended result of social economy. The third paradox, he shared was, the more economy grows, the more impoverish the environment gets which actually compromise growth itself.

He said he would like to see how how SSE and SE address these three paradoxes of development. He would like to think that these paradoxes are unwanted outcomes and yet these still happens and continue to happen regardless of intentions. He would like to see how SSE and SE change these things.

II. Introduction

Mr. Jay Lacsama, Executive Director of FSSI and the moderator of the event introduced the participants of the activity. Please see the attached attendance sheet for the details.

Chanthol Hoes comes from Kompong Thom Province, 3 hours North of Phnom Penh. She was born fourth in a family of 8. She graduated from college in July 2010 with a degree in Finance and Accounting. At present, she is the Business Manager and Tourist Interpreter of Inside out Cambodia, a travel agency based in Phnom Penh. She used to be an interpreter for Healing Home Organization in 2008 and several of medical missions to Cambodia.

Social Economics is the process of identifying, connecting, strengthening and creating grassroots, life centered alternatives to capitalist globalization, or the Economics of Empire. SE is relevant in creating reliance of communities or territories and in the pursuit of sustainable development.

There are five dimensions of sustainable development: a) socially responsible governance, b) enhanced social wellbeing, c) healthy climate and environment, d) edifying value, and economic security. The core principle of social solidarity economy is both corporative enterprises and government need to work together to be able to achieve the Social Solidarity Economy.

Some challenges of SSE identified by Ms. Hoes are flood, earthquake, poor business model, and world financial crisis. She explained that in Cambodia, some businesses failed because they do not have the business plan and rely only to family connections. She explained that when she started her business on tourism in 2010, she had a dream of creating jobs for the Cambodian people. Her experience resulted to some changes in her perspective on business.

In looking at the global vision of Social Solidarity, they had a roundtable discussion on SSE in Cambodia. The participants expressed that the global solution should be holistic. It should encourage entrepreneurship among youth. It should seek self sustainability. It should also encourage growth of rural business as well as taking a firm stance against corruption. This holistic solution should have different aspects, such as:

economic, education, emotional, practical, of ultimate importance, spiritual and moral. Ms. Hoes also shared cases in Cambodia.

a) WEC-VTP Cases. Mr. Om Sopheap of WEC-VTP said that his organization has learned that hard skill training is not enough. Soft skills are also important such as managing finances, communication skills, spiritual development, home skills and other life skills. With this holistic approach, WEC is seeing much more effective transformation agent in comparison to more simple training programs they tried before.

To address self-sustainability, WEC-VTP has begun to offer individuals informal loans that must be paid back, rather than giving free donations. The global solution should improve ideas on motivating responsibility and self-ownership of community development which will lead to self-sustaining development.

b) Khmer Village Home stay. Ms. Esther Ding shared another holistic strategy which is tourist site and community program called the Khmer Village Home stay in Kompong Thom Province. The guests pay to stay in the village which provides jobs an income for a community that otherwise has very little opportunity, but the guests are also encourage to participate in community development activities during their stay including building a well, teaching English, and building or repairing a house.

c) Rural Village Business. Many people in Cambodia are migrating to cities and other nations for work, leaving the villages neglected, underdeveloped and devoid of opportunity. Encouraging business owners to relocate to villages and other areas of concentrated poverty would increase opportunities for people who are too poor to relocate to cities or seek work in other countries. It would also help to increase internal GDP growth by keeping more of the workforce at home rather than sending it abroad.

d) Corruption. It was expressed that the global solution should include a firm stance against corruption. I want to stand firm on this. Most business persons in Cambodia do not want to work with government because of this. She also shared some cases studies on corruption.

Chhouen Putheary of So! Nutritious said we must be willing to take the hard way. Business owners NGOs and other activists must stand up to corruption in order to make an impact on the issue. Chanthol Hoes of Inside Out Travel ask government officials to write her a receipt for any fee they collected from her business.

Ms. Hoes also expressed that there is a need for further education and understanding of SSE among the members in Cambodia. The RIPESS Conference is one way of doing this. SSE Network members in Cambodia are:

Cambodia Association of Travel Agents (CATA) http://www.catacambodia.com/

Cambodia Women’s Entrepreneur Network (CWEA) www.cweacambodia.com

Pacific Asia Travel Association - Cambodia Chapter (PATA) http://www.patacambodia.org/

Emerging Market Entrepreneur http://www.emergingmarkets.asia/eme/

Asia CEO & Entrepreneur (ACE?) http://www.asiaceo-entrepreneur.com/

In here final slide she expressed that communication and visibility is important in propagating the concept and principles of SSE. There are many NGO’s with educational and informative radio shows, TV programs and print publications, but it is not known if any are directly affiliated or familiar with SSE agenda. There are often short educational TV programs on various issues such as a dramatic presentation educating women on post rape health and legal actions among other social issues.

She said that in the future there is a need to do more conferences on SSE because it is a new concept even in the university. It is also important to reach the people in the rural areas through these TV shows.

IV. Social Solidarity Economy Vision:

Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise in Indonesia Mr. Wahyu Indriyo

After 15 years of reformation and democratization, the big problem being faced now by Indonesia are poverty, corruption and erosion of social capital. Indonesia had three elections for the parliament and two direct presidential elections

Three general elections for the parliament and two direct presidential elections happened in the last 15 years but it did not lead to improvement of peoples’ welfare and well-being. People do not trust the government, the NGOs and community organizations.

During the reformation era of Indonesia, the grants for social movements decreased.

When donors decreased their grants for social movements in Indonesia, it was an important moment for NGOs to become social enterprises. This shift was not easy. NGOs become accustomed to asset- diversification, cash flows, and long-term budget planning. In short, the socially-oriented and traditionally non-profit organizations have been transformed into hybrid organizations in which they combine social and business approaches in their daily operations.

A research found that there are 63 good reputation institutions who define themselves as social enterprise or a social entrepreneurship organization. Some examples of social enterprises are Vinasuwadaya, Binalisa, PAKALTE, and another organization.

But what is social enterprise and social enterprise? What is a social entrepreneur? Can social enterprise be used for social transformation? Based on the definitions shared by the 50 respondents or resource persons, there is integrity and ambiguity of definition. Many of the resource person could not differentiate the two social enterprise and social entrepreneur. But the common terms used are integrity, leadership and good example; business model is profitable; innovative and committed to cope with social programs; helping spirit, volunteerism or business result to bigger impact to social economy; spirit of networking and initiatives. It was also agreed that cooperative is the new model of social enterprise because it realized democratization of the economy and in carrying out the organization’s social mission.

On social solidarity economy, there is no clear definition on this. The social mission of a social enterprise is to realize the social solidarity economy. It is necessary important to establish a macro system of social enterprises. It is urgent to radicalize the movement such as Sudazi. These are the views of 15 resource persons.

Micro finance in Indonesia gets broad attention from the private sector. There are two ways in which to do micro finance : 1) low cost by cutting off the cost that are not relevant with funding business; and 2) social enterprise gives premium to developing skills and social capital to the community : such as community education, financial literacy, etc.

Some social innovative generations done in Indonesia are:

Tanoker Ledokombo is located in East Java where most people are migrants. It was important to organize the children for education to increase their school performance. The result was very excellent. They are invited to national and international event. The group was organized to lessen the crime in the area.

Koperasi Kasih Indonesia is a cooperative involve in micro finance (Gramin model). Initiated by the young generation. Some of them are alumni in vacancy involved in poor community. After two years of work, there are 2000 active clients with good financial report.

Dreamdelion is an organization of students in the University of Indonesia who accompanied poor people in Central Jakarta. These students initiated to get product in an indigenous peoples’ community in Indonesia and market these product. The students also helped in doing research in the community and documenting the issues faced by the IPs. They helped the IPs developed their handicrafts and using storytelling in their marketing. They develop reputation in doing this.

Suku Anak Dalam ‘Rengke-rengke’ are students from design schools in Java. They helped the poor people develop their handicrafts for better marketing.

Dwaya Manikam

From the five models above, the problem that these social enterprises are facing is sustainability of their effort. They still need the capacity building concentrated on the following areas (next agenda):

Market Access to Access Capital Business Enabling Community Environment Skill Enterprise/ Social Enterprise
Market
Access to
Access
Capital
Business
Enabling
Community
Environment
Skill
Enterprise/
Social
Enterprise

He ended by sharing the framework below is needed to help in increasing the social enterprise spirit of Indonesia. They call this - SELF a process cultivated to increase the social enterprise spirit in the Indonesia. This framework came from their experiences.

the Indonesia. This framework came from their experiences. Social Entrepreneurship Learning Framework Value Human

Social Entrepreneurship Learning Framework

Value Human Agent of Change Vision Capital Multiplication Vitality Social Social Creative Response to Learning
Value
Human
Agent of Change
Vision
Capital
Multiplication
Vitality
Social
Social
Creative Response to
Learning
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship
the Social, Economic,
Focus
Initiative
Spirit
Environmental
Problem
Trust
Social
Social Capital
Team
Capital
Multiplication
Taft
MAPPING FORMATION TRANSFORMATION ACTIVATION
MAPPING
FORMATION
TRANSFORMATION
ACTIVATION

Social Solidarity Economy: World Fair Trade Experience Mr. Rudi Dalvai (Italy) President, World Fair Trade Organization/ Ctm Altromercato

Rudi Dalvai is born on the 23rd of January 1958 in Bolzano, Italy He is an economist by academic discipline; with a past career in food industry before joining the FT movement in 1985 as a founder member of the World Shop in Bolzano, Italy. From 1987 to 1989 he was the managing director of EZA (Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Dritte Welt), the Austrian FTO (Fair Trade Organisation). During this period he took part in founding EFTA (European Fair Trade association) and IFAT(now WFTO).

Since 1990 he is working in Ctm-Altromercato (www.altromercato.it), the first Italian FTO, of which he is also a founding member.

He was actively involved in founding TransFair Italy, of which he was a board member and vice chair for several year and a member of the "Coffee Register Committee" of FLO (Fair Trade Labelling International). In May 1999 Rudi has been elected, as the representative of Europe, in the Executive Committee of IFAT (International Federation of Alternative Trade, now WFTO). Presently, he is President of the World Fair Trade Organization, a position he held since June 2001.

During the past 10 years, and at present, he is working on different levels in the field of Fair Trade standards and criteria setting and the development of a global monitoring and accreditation system for Fair Trade and Fair Trade Organisations. During his Fair Trade Activity, Rudi has visited hundreds of Fair Trade producer organisation in Latin America, Africa and Asia, with the aim to do assessments and to start commercial Fair Trade relations.

He shared that when he tried to understand social solidarity economy, it was not easy for him. He said that there are so many definitions and he noted of Mr. Serrano’s point on the definition. He said that definition is important because it tell the people what is behind the term, but its meaning is useless when people are fighting due to definition.

Economy is not a bad thing. Trading is also very important. The problem is when production poisons the environment or production is done to earn more money. This is the same as in trading when people are putting down the price of a product to earn more profit. Cheating the consumer, selling to them what is not the true value of the product. Economy becomes negative or deathly such as what happened in Bangladesh and Pakistan where people are producing in conditions below human acceptance.

The difference between social solidarity economy and social entrepreneurship is hard to see because there is no clear definition. This is difficult because there is no one understanding of the term, there are varying understanding in the concepts used in North America, Peru or other parts of the world. Defining could be a waste of time.

This is also true with Fair Trade. It started as a grassroots movement. It started from the bottom up. There was no one on the top defining the term. This is not the same as Mc Donald that you have the same definition. Fair trade like Social Econmy is bottom-up. All over the world, people are starting trading activity which are trying to change unjustive trade relationship. For example in the Northen America coffee and tea are very important commodity. There are countries like Sri Lanka which produce tea imported to Europe. Products which are important and people producing these products such as the farmers still live below or close to the poverty line. A producer producing coffee in Nicaragua is earing income less than the cost of one cup of coffee. The Fair Trade concept started to build new trading relationship for the South. It started with the charity less help the poor from the South in 1960s.In the 70s this changes to lets help the poor, in the 80s, the idea people can help themselves. Meaning, pay for the fair price and listen to the people and build up partnership relations. Charity is not anymore required. No one should loss from the partnership.

In short, Fair Trade has started as a partnership between small scale producers and FTO’s. The aim was, and still is, to provide development opportunities to marginalized producers and to campaign for fair structures in international trade. What is also important is that Fair Trade Organziations financed themselves through trade. There is no outside funding even for the social activity. They campaign to make

changes in international trade. Show them that injustices of producing products such as chocolate because there are so many exploitation of the people in Gana. 70,000 children are working as slaves and taking from their family.

WFTO was created in 1987 by Fair Trade Organisations from Europe and North America. In 1991, the door was opened for Fair Trade producer organisations to become members. Today 2/3 of the members of WFTO are producer organisation. WFTO is the only global FT platform made out of members of the whole Fair Trade supply chain: FT producers FT traders FT retailers.

WFTO has about 400 members in more then 70 countries in all continents. In the Philippines, there are nine members. The head office of WFTO is based in The Netherlands. Regional offices are in Manila, Brussels, Nairobi, and Assunciòn/Paraguay. All core costs of WFTO are covered by membership fee. WFTO is working in promoting guarantee system and certification.

He also shared their membership:

system and certification. He also shared their membership: He also shared the different certification they gave
system and certification. He also shared their membership: He also shared the different certification they gave
system and certification. He also shared their membership: He also shared the different certification they gave

He also shared the different certification they gave in different countries. Fair trade is different per country. There are standards used per country as stated. The certification was done because there are global organizations who claimed their products are from fair trade and yet not. Globally, 5 Billion Euros sales from Fair Trade. Some examples are:

Ecocert - The butterfly effect of FT

Fair for Life (IMO): fair but different

FLO - fairtrade: the pioneer in FT certification

Utz, “good” in Mayan language

Naturland: from organic to Fair Trade

Rainforest Alliance: for intelligent farming

FSC: against deforestation

GoodWeave (RugMark): carpet

MSC: fish for today - and tomorrow

He called what is happening now as - Metamorphosis of Fair Trade because some consumers are asking

if the products they are buying are from Fair Trade. There were no selection criteria for licensees which

resulted to a consequence where opportunists started to enter the Fair Trade market. This resulted to from

a mission driven companies, here comes the profit driven companies. This Fair Trade products changed identity from development and awareness tool to certified socially clean products.

After 20 years of global discussions, this is the initial definition - Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to

sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, small and marginalized producers and workers especially in the South. Social economy should have a global definition which will set the standard where in per country could also formulate their own standard.

Fair Trade Organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade (FINE

2001).

He also shared the importance of their conference in Global Fair Trade Week in Rio de Janeiro in May 2013. They talked about the Fair Trade beyond 2015. He also shared the importance of the new WFTO Fair Trade Guarantee System they are implementing as discussed above. Some example of this is discussed below:

USA

 

Equal Exchange: discussion started 2005

“At Equal Exchange, we are extending our vision, seeking ways to partner with small farmer co-ops, consumers and retailers here in North America to build a vision for a more socially just, participatory and sustainable economic system that includes the global, domestic and local levels”

Domestic Fair Trade Association USA

united for health, justice and sustainability http://www.thedfta.org/)

FRANCE

Bio Partenaire (http://www.biopartenaire.com)

Member of “Plate-forme Française pour le Commerce Equitable”

He also discussed the importance of campaigning for Fair Trade in domestic market so that consumers will support national development of Fair Trade activities. He also shared their new product in Italy, “solidale italiano”.

He thanked the people who helped the small organizations to grow. He also shared the story of the animal farm where the animals taken over the farm, “everybody is the same but other are more the same”. He ended by saying that the creating profit is not the problem but the problem is when creating profit by exploiting the people or the environment.

V. Perspective on Social Entrepreneurship and Transforming the Economy Dr. Marie Lisa Dacanay (Philippines) President, Institute for Social Enterpreneurship in Asia

Marie Lisa M. Dacanay, PhD is the founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA), a pioneer in social entrepreneurship education and research in the region. As Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor at the Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University since 2008, Dr Dacanay is leading the design and delivery of degree and non-degree courses on social entrepreneurship.

From 2001 2008, Dr Dacanay was Associate Professor and Faculty Champion for Social Entrepreneurship at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM). At the AIM, she served as Program Director and Guru of the Master in Entrepreneurship for Social and Development Entrepreneurs (MESODEV). She mentored four batches of social entrepreneurs and managers of government and non-government organizations engaged in social enterprise development.

Dr Dacanay has a Bachelor of Science (Statistics) from the University of the Philippines, a Masters in Development Management (With Distinction) from the Asian Institute of Management and a PhD (Organizational and Management Studies) at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark.

In locating the relevance of Social Entrepreneurship, it is important to take note that Social Entrepreneurship is not an end in itself but a means towards an end. Social entrepreneurships’ goal is to achieve sustainable development. In defining sustainable development, it is also important to know its major elements (Serrano, 1994). These elements are:

Social equity: control over resources and decisions as well as benefits of development accrue to the majority of people between nations, within nations (classes, rural-urban, across regions), between genders, across generations

Integrity of environment and development: environment is life support system of people and communities so protection of environment is integral to development

Quality growth: growth redounds to improvement in quality of life of people, communities and their habitat

So what is its value added? What’s new? As a phenomenon and field of study, it provides perspectives, strategies and tools on how we could more effectively advance solutions to poverty, inequality and environmental degradation towards our vision of sustainable development in the socio-economic realm (markets and the economy as arenas for transformation).

Social entrepreneurship as global phenomena: In the US, social entrepreneurship was started in the 70s and 80s as a response to the economic downturn. The economic downturn has resulted to large cutbacks in US Federal funding for NPOs with development programs. Social enterprises earned income or a market based approach which helped in sustaining their operations. In Europe, it was a response to the crisis of welfare states (80s) retreat from public services amidst structural employment. This gives rise to Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISE). In the developing countries, social entrepreneurship was a response to continuing crisis of development and the worsening poverty and inequality resulting from failure of the state and market institutions to serve the needs of the poor (80s). This resulted to the rise of Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders (SEPPS).

In the Philippines, Ms. Dacanay made a rapid appraisal of all over the country in 2007 and estimated that there are more or less 30,000 SEPPS. These are composed of cooperatives and associations where poor are majority or exclusive members, social mission-driven Micro Finance Institutions and Mutual Benefit Associations, Fair Trade Organizations, CSO-initiated SEs serving various segments of poor, organizations espousing a social and solidarity economy, rights and welfare-oriented enterprises serving disadvantaged groups, SEs initiated by young professionals, SMEs with a double or triple bottom line, management and consulting services for SEs/micro-enterprises, SE Service and Resource and Advocacy Institutions/ Networks. The study resulted to the formulation of a bill and formation of Poverty Reduction through Social Entrepreneurship (PRESENT) Coalition advocating PRESENT Bill (2012).

Some examples of SEPPS in the country are:

a) Alter Trade is involved in sustainable agriculture and fair trade with an annual revenue income of Php 202.8 million. Alter Trade was organized 21 years ago. Alter Trade worked with an 820 sugar

workers-turned ARBs in Negros organized as POs which was eventually called the Negros Organic Fair Trade Association (NOFTA). NOFTA were empowered from being a supplier to becoming its partners in fair trade and sustainable agriculture work.

b) Upland Marketing from being poor to becoming supplier-partners in Value Chain Management. 60 community based enterprises who worked in organic rice and muscovado sugar in involved in a value chains. It is now 17 years old with an annual revenue of Php32 million benefiting 3,000 producers in upland, lowland and coastal communities.

c) NFCPWD: poor who are now empowered worker-owners of SE. They produced school chairs to government. NFCPWD employed 1,250 Persons with Disability (PWD). It is now 15 years of age with annual revenue of PhP48 million. It is 15 primary coops nationwide.

d) Tahanang Walang Hagdanan: poor are now workers-partners in SE management. It is a rehabilitation and employment venue for PWDs. Currently it is 36 years old with annual revenue of Php 24 million. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan produced educational toys and works with 273 PWD employees, workers and producers.

e) Lamac MPC: poor as client-partners towards social inclusion. They give financial and social protection services and is now 17 years with annual revenue of Php 101.4 million. They are now

35,040 members who are mostly entrepreneurial poor in the Visayas. They are farmers, construction/domestic/migrant workers in Lamac.

f) CARD-MRI: Poor Empowered Client-Owners of SEs. CARD-MRI provides microfinance & social development services and is now 26 years old with a loan portfolio of Php 6.3 billion. It has a 99% repayment and an asset of Php14.1 billion. They have an outreach of 1 million nanays and 7 million insured. 35,000+ nanays part owners of CARD-MRI Bank; CARD MBA fully owned and governed by nanays.

Amidst poverty and inequality in the South was born the Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders or SEPPS. It is a social mission driven organizations which explicitly pursue poverty reduction/alleviation as primary objective and the poor are engaged as• as workers, suppliers, clients, owners and as partners in social enterprise/value chain management, governance &/or pursuit of social change. It is also a wealth creating organizations engaged in provision of goods and services. It has double or triple bottom line (social, environmental, financial). SEPPS’ financial sustainability is supportive to its social objective. SEPPS has a distributive enterprise philosophy. SEPPS generate positive economic &social value that is distributed to/benefit the poor as primary stakeholders. Its surplus or profits are accrued to poor as dividends, is used to support activities/ services for poor to overcome poverty or invested/reinvested to fulfill social mission.

“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). Below are some of the strands of SE.

Social Innovation School (Dees&Anderson, 2006)

Social Enterprise/Earned Income School (Dees& Anderson, 2006)

Social Economy School (Defourney&Nyssens, 2008)

for profit or non-profit organizations

non-profit venture serving a social mission

intersection of public, private and civil society sectors: not-for- profit private organizations providing goods and services with explicit aim to benefit community

linked to democracy and participation of citizens who put high value on autonomy, bear economic risks of initiative

pursuit of innovative solutions to social problems

ensure continuity of service provision thru market-based

large-scale lasting and systemic change thru intro of new ideas,

income streams beyond grants and subsidies

methodologies and changes in attitude

business methods to improve non-profit organizations

set up by individual social entrepreneurs

important role of individual social entrepreneurs

multi-stakeholder, collective dynamics

Difference of Social Entrepreneurship (SE): American & European Schools

Earned Income School: Extraordinary personsmarket based solutions to social problems It is a response to cutbacks in federal funding for NPOs. Looks at market as the economy where believed that business tools to solve social problems and the role of state not given importance. Social Economy School is multi stakeholder initiatives to address socio-economic problems. It is a response of people to a crisis of welfare states. Believe that the market is not the economy. They believe that collective action of citizens an state role in redistribution is important to strengthen the social economy.

In discussing the SE and Perspectives on Transforming the Economy she shared the principles governining mindful markets by Korten (1999). The following are the principles:

Use life as a measure.

Put costs on the decision maker.

Favor human scale firms and stakeholder ownership.

Strive for equity.

Favor full disclosure.

Encourage the sharing of knowledge and technology.

Seek diversity and self-reliance.

Pay attention to your borders.

Honor government’s necessary role.

Maintain an ethical culture.

She expressed that there is a need to change from economic to ecological economics (Constanza et al, 1991; Farley and Daly, 2011). The following are the differences:

 

Conventional

Ecological

Basic World View

Limitless resources; technological fix for scarcity

Limited resources; finite earth; earth as a large, complex system

 

Individual tastes and preferences taken as given and dominant force

Humans are responsible for understanding their role in the larger system and managing it sustainably

View of the Environment

Source of raw materials and sink for waste

Life support system of humans (biosphere)

Main

Profit, Growth

Quality of Life, Sustainability

Concern/Preoccupation

 

Conventional

Ecological

Primary macro goal

Growth of national economy

Ecological economic system sustainability; Improve human welfare

Primary micro goal

Maximize profits(firms) Maximize utility (individuals)

Improve quality of life; must be adjusted to reflect system goals

She also shared the Earth’s Three Socio-Ecological Classes: (Durning, 1991): See below. She noted that people should be more of excluded to help the planet.

Overconsumers

Sustainers

Excluded

1.1 billion

3.3 billion

1.1 billion

Travel by car & air

Travel by bicycle & public surface transport

Travel by foot, maybe donkey

Eat high fat, high calorie meat- based diets

Eat healthy grains, veggies,some meat

Eat nutritionally inadequate diets

Drink bottled water & soft drinks

Drink clean water plus some tea,coffee

Drink contaminated water

Use disposables,discard substantial wastes

Use unpackaged goods, durables, recycle waste

Use local biomass, negligible waste

Live in spacious, climate controlled 1-family house

Live in modest houses w/ extended families

Live in open/rudimentary shelters w/o secure tenure

Fashionable wardrobes

Wear functional clothing

Wear 2 nd hand or scraps

SEPPS is a response to failure of market and state institutions to serve the needs of the poor. It provides the poor a combination of transactional and transformational services that address capability deprivation of poor. SEPPS positively contribute to creation of economic and social value meaning much of value created not recognized by mainstream market economy. SEPPS use a combination of principles as actors in economic development.

The principles pursued by SEPPS as actors in economic development are:

Innovation: poverty and inequality cannot be solved with business-as-usual strategies/approaches

Ethical or mindful markets: market valuation of goods and services need to internalize social and environmental costs and benefits

Reciprocity: solving common problems through mutual help and collective action

Redistribution: multisectoral engagements involving civil society, government and business for social justice & equity

Solidarity: shared vision, objectives and action among the poor and non-poor to end poverty

Sustainability: sustainable solutions through people empowerment, scaling up, building resilient communities & a healthy environment

She also discussed the perspectives on transforming the economy towards sustainable development in the South where she highlighted that there should be a shift in the economic development paradigm, where market is not equal to economy. She agreed with Laville (2010) on the importance of innovations to develop plural economies (Laville,2010) taking into considerations the ethical or mindful market economy (Korten, 1999) with strong social and solidarity economy. Where state’s role to redress inequalities and regulate

markets weak; markets unaccountable, there is a big role of social movements to exact accountability from state and market. SEPPS is a vehicle for redistribution and for North-South cooperation.

In conclusion, the divergence between SE and SSE is brought about by one of the dominant schools of thought, practitioners, advocates of SE espousing market as equal to economy. The convergence and mutual enrichment of SE and SSE, on the other hand, are:

Social economy school of thought that espouses a plural economy with a strong social economy

Emerging South school of thought where social movements and SEPPS have a major role in transforming markets and the economy towards sustainable development

Ecological economics as source of analytical tools and insights

Importance of continuing research on SE and SSE to enrich theory and practice of transforming markets and the economy towards sustainable development

VI.

Social Solidarity Economy: World Fair Trade Experience Mr. Rudi Dalvai (Italy) President, World Fair Trade Organization/ ACtm Altromercato

.

He shared that when understand social economy and social solidarity, he got lost. Definition is important

because it tell the people what is behind the concept I got lost. But it become useless when people are fighting due to the definition.

He added that there are Bangladesh and Pakistan people are producing in areas where below human

acceptance.

The difference is hard to see, there is no clear definition. Understanding is different from North America and

Peru. Defining could be sayang sa time. Fair trade like Social Econmy is top down. Change the relationship from the North and the South. Before is like helping the poor. What is needed is build partnership relationship, no more charity. People can help

themselves.

What is a fair price??? Where everybody should gain. Nobody should loss from the production. Producers are below poverty line. The farmer who produced the coffee in Nicaragua earn less per kilo compared to the price of coffee

VII. Roundtable Discussion with the Panel of Reactors and Open Forum

Bambang Ismawan shared that his experience on SE and SSE came 50 years ago in Indonesia. He started as a student and later on as farmer, he established an organization called Vinaswadaya. He was involved in empowering organization transformed them into a social entrepreneurship organization. This is their strategy to organize and contribute in procreating social value of solidarity and survivors among the people involved in this kind of work. To have greater impact, they did networking and working with government and establish micro finance movement in Indonesia. They also establish network in universities and are looking at establishing the same model in other Asian countries. We are creating wider impact to local and national activities. He said that SSE is a new dimension and a new paradigm or approach at looking at economic system. University function as education, research and service to the community. In Indonesia, they want to see dimension of something that is clear contribution to the meeting.

Mr. Marlon Palomo of PRRM and INAFI expressed that he have been hearing convergences and divergence since yesterday. He tends to agree that there should be some kind of a common / global definition of SSE. In the presentation we have seen that Fair Trade introduces cooperation from different level and sharing. Can we share this as an expression of SSE? SE in Asia and other continents is building business with each other guided by principles of SE, can this be called SSE? He thought that there are more and more reasons to converge than to diverge. He explained that he came from a network of micro

finance in my primary organization and building local sustainable development, maybe, before the poor/ land less workers participate in social solidarity economy, he/she should have access to finance, and access to knowledge. He look at this conference as a venue to converge with others.

Mr. Gani Serrano expressed that hearing Mr. Dalvai’s talk about Fair Trade, it has come a long way since he last heard of it in 1980s. He said that WFTO have achieved partnership and trading from across the world, but this also impacts on carbon used for travelling. As to Ms. Dacanay’s presentation, he opined that maybe it is not important to knit pick on the definition of SE and SSE. He explained that one talked about the economy while the other talked about the enterprise. There is no need to belabour the differences. He recognized that importance of academic work and how useful it is.

Mr. Rudi Dalvai agreed with Mr. Serrano’s point on the carbon footprints. They are aware of it and are actually transporting goods using ship which has the lowest carbon footprints.

Mr. Gani Serrano again asked on their take for the shortening the food mile.

Mr. Rudi Dalvai said that in Europe, there is a movement on local production and consumption. But this is the reality.

Ms. Lisa Dacanay explained that it is not to knit pick definition of SSE and SE but there was also a clamour to understand. This is the spirit of her presentation.

VIII. SE and SSE: Experiences in the Visayas Mr. Pedro Baclagon Visayas Program Manager, FSSI

Mr. Baclagon shared what happened in Cebu in August 2013 where they were able to gather 70 delegates representing 39 organizations gathered in a conference with the following objectives:

Have a more heightened awareness and instilled commitment to the global movement to build a social solidarity economy (SSE);

Learned from experiences of selected development stakeholders in Visayas in implementing SSE- related efforts in their local economies; and

Come up with an action agenda on how they can collectively enhance and expand the impact of local SSE-related initiatives

The basic assumptions were: a) there are local actions in Visayas collectively undertaken by people according to their own abilities, definition of the problem, and values that are with the frame of SSE. b) the organizations invited believe in a values-based economy. c) even if we do not call our efforts or what believe in as “Social Solidarity Economy” -- we are seeking for alternative economic solutions to social and environmental issues.

During the conference, they tried to map out the values of the delegates. Below is a collage of the values, the greater the font, the more participants uphold such values.

The output above is the same as the values enumerated by Dr. Quinones in his

The output above is the same as the values enumerated by Dr. Quinones in his “What is Social Solidarity Economy (SSE)?.

The conference was guided by three modules:

a) Conceptual frameworks

b) Local actions promoting SSE thru value chain development, cooperativism and thru resource management

c) Broadening local actions where there was a brief orientation on the SE bill, identifying actions that can be done locally, nationally and globally

On the discussion on value chain development, Mr. Baclagon shared the experience of Alter Trade Foundation inc. (AFTI) in which they organized small producers then formed the NOFTA where the sugar producers are linked to fair trade market. He also shared the experience of Taytay sa Kausawagan Inc. (TSKI) Farmers Integrated Development Assistance (FIDA) Program in supporting palay farmers from input accessing to production to processing and marketing and providing capacity building at each chain link.

The presenters common work on promoting the spirit of cooperativism such as self help, self responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. Social solidarity economy is building solidarity among individuals, among cooperatives in providing basic services in their communities. The presenters all talked about integrated community based resource management which is essentially enhancing the role of the community as stewards of the resources they depend on to survive, promotion/ adoption of sustainable production systems, alternative economic opportunities, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and addressing access to basic services (heath and water). The experience of SPPI in Northern Samar and the Mag uugmad Foundation Inc were presented.

The above experiences are anchored on different dimensions such as economic focusing on value chain development; ecosystem which is essentially resource management and social- Cooperatives. Another topic discussed in the conference was the PRESENT bill which would ensure conducive environment for SEs to strive.

Towards the end of the conference, the participants formulated a declaration which is called the Visayas SSE Conference Declaration. This document synthesizes the lessons learned from the experiences shared in the conference. Please see below.

We share a vision of a sustainable, just, responsive, and equitable economy founded on compassionate people’s solidarity that will contribute to the transformation of society.”

What We Want to Change

Concentration of wealth in the hands of a few who are living in opulence, while leaving behind and marginalizing a significant number of people coping with poverty and sheer lack of economic opportunities;

Desecration of the earth’s natural resources that has been putting so much strain on the already fragile ecosystems, that has already taken away human lives, and has been threatening the very existence of the next generations; and

Social disintegration which has led to conflicts within and among communities; pervasive graft and corruption in government, and deteriorating peace and order situation.

Together we will…

Make the principles and message of social solidarity economy more visible and heard, and practiced by people from all walks of life, across gender, and age -- especially by children and youth for whom we wish a better future.

Promote responsible consumption or the consumption of products not just on the basis of quality, price, and convenience -- but also in consideration of environmental and social impacts of patronizing such products.

Adopt and promote efficient and sustainable ways of producing goods and services -- making sure that production technologies and the end products are safe and beneficial to the health of workers, consumers, and communities.

Facilitate principled trading partnerships between responsible consumers and sustainable producers.

Support the passage of enabling laws at the national and local levels that promote strengthening of social enterprises and building of solidarity economies.

Create social solidarity communities that work together at the national and local level.

As communities of social solidarity advocates, we will govern ourselves based on the principles of participatory and bottom-up consensus building.

We will seek synergy with other movements and enhance and complement not supplant – each others’ efforts.

In building a solidarity economy, change should begin with us, our families, the organizations we work with and the communities we live in.

According to the capacities and distinct missions of our organizations, as social enterprises, non- government organizations, cooperatives and similar people’s organizations, churches and religious institutions, the academe, business sector, and government, we will work towards facilitating the transformation of unjust economic structures and systems.

And together we dare dream and we dare declare that indeed a just world is possible!

IX.

Reaction Earl Parreno, SEED

He shared three points. He agreed with Mr. Serrano that there is no need to belabour the definition of SSE and SE. He shared that social entrepreneurship is a wealth creating driven organization. It is a subset of economy that advocates wants to build. He said that in talking about the economy, one needs to talk about social relation. It is part of the society. Hence, in talking about social solidarity economy, one also needs to look into social movements. It is building an alternative economy from the society that one wanted to build. In defining SSE, there is a need to define it based on the rich global experiences and practices of people on the ground. Its definition should not come from out of the blue. It should reflect the SSE practices on the ground and build on these experiences.

Of the history of human kind that the participants can maximize is the invention of market. This is not necessarily a bad invention. However, to maximize it, it is important to change one section of the market. As advocates, there is a need to change “greedwhich is a result of overconsumption. In a social economy, it is important to develop a mindful market. In the current financial system which spouse commodification blocks the access of the community to more opportunities. There is a need to have a model to reform the financial system within the form of social economy.

X. Open Forum

Ms. Irene Fernandez of INAFI expressed that she is just in the middle of understanding the concept of SE and now there is another concept SSE. What is this SSE and what is the value added in being an SSE? If I become an advocate, what can I get and what can I share? A lot of reading is still needed before fully understanding these concepts. She opined that there is no need to dwell so much on the definition, however, she believe that it is important to look into and understand the concepts. She agreed with Mr. Serrano on the importance of continuing the discourse and the practices to enrich the body of knowledge of SSE. She said that the goal is to achieve sustainable development. There are more common denominators and more reasons to complement in each other practices. She said that it is also important to have simpler terms from the conferences, research, exposures, modelling, networks, and share approaches, changing the mindset through projects and programs. The financing sector can provide access to marginalized sectors to have financial access.

Ms. Tieza Santos of ACSENT shared that having listened since yesterday of the discussion, she could not help but wonder what is the implications of SSE in the varying key players in the field. She would like to agree to Ms. Dacanay that SE and social innovations is just a means to an end. Social ventures are learned laboratories and experimental aspect. The challenge to a lot of practitioners is the mission drift. SSE should have knock out test as its practitioners are still in the process of identifying it. But SSE should demand practitioners to take the extra mile and not drift from their mission. The bottom line is still social justice practice men and women for others. On its implication to the public sector, the concept of SSE especially in basic services, as we always say is that government is not providing efficiently the goods and services for the people. In Pakistan experience it defies government dependency. In Thailand, it promotes closer family ties. There is a great potential for public and private sector engagement. By closing the gap in delivering social services, for example some financial institutions (Touch Foundation) show that financial institutions can reposition itself within the main aspiration of SSE. They do not see of clients as people not worthy of credit but as partners.

One of the participant said that SE is understood through its practices and theory building. They are still trying to understand it. The challenge is how the theory can enrich the practice and vice versa.

One of the participant shared that SSE creates a space for commitment for students to become men and women for others. It equips our students our students to deal with real challenge. We live in the community and provide service learning. We do not look at the community as a zoo of animals but how you can connect our learning to their lives and knowledge.

Rudi Dalvai answered that in reality he had only one experience and that is with Alter Trade. Their work with Alter Trade was started in 1980 when the first shipment of muscovado sugar was shipped to Switzerland. They were only thinking of getting barge of muscovado sugar from Negros then because there was no market yet. But it continued. This is not a theory but hard work. The theory came after this experience. Where do you think can this theory support the practical thing? At the global level, there is an International Symposium promoted by professors, we would like to prepare for this 5 th World Exposure I Milan. What could we give to the academics to look for us to continue to develop, support the Fair trade and solidarity economy? We need to help promote the practice of SSE.

Earl Parreno shared that 5 years ago when Lisa went to Bacolod, AlterTrade was transforming from small scale enterprise to a medium scale enterprise. This transformation has resulted to tension between its social goals and its business goals. When Lisa came doing research, her research provided the theoretical foundation to our practical work on the ground. It was able to help in stopping the mission drift. For some enterprises, they would have chosen financial sustainability over their mission. The foundation if AlterTrade is grounded on community development work so it opted to develop the NOFTA to free themselves from poverty. The importance of this forum is what really is what social economy means on the ground without this, the mission drift would happen. The SE could be eaten up by more conscious dominant economy.

Lisa Dacanay said that she is a firm believer of a body of knowledge on SSE and SE to inform practice. If there is no consciousness of the mission drift, then it could not be managed at the early stage. The case studies on SSE and SE could help in managing the different bottom lines. This body of knowledge can be captured and use again to enrich the practices on the ground. The other aspect is engaging corporate and government. There is a need to be clear on the foundation how to engage them so that there wouldn’t be any co-optation. Most of the participants are lobbyist of the SE bill. It is easy to pass the law without the funding or controversial provisions but why push for the PRESENT bill version? There is a need to push government to do more than what they are doing now.

SE enterprises and SSE organizations need to be clear on the agenda especially with the impact investors before engaging them. There is a need to build platforms to engage government, corporations, and investors. SE or SSE can grow in way without losing its mission. There is a need to work together to do more as SE and SSE. Engage them on the building alternative economy. My bias is to build plural economy. There is a need to be inclusive than exclusive. There is a need to build a community of learners and build benchmarks SSE and SE to build models. There is a need to present these models as inclusive to build an inclusive movement which promotes a plural economy (part of the audience). We need to be more inclusive if we are more confident with what we are doing, benchmarks, in a better and better way. She also shared the experience of Tahanang Walang Hagdanan on the mission drift. She highlighted that the social mission is always the priority, this is what set SSE and SE apart from other business model. Understanding that there is a mission drift can build confidence in some SEs to confront the various issues that they are facing.

Finally, Mr. Jay Lacsamana thanked the sponsors, speakers and the participants for attending the SOA.