Prof. Randy M.

Ataide
~~For Private Use Only~~
No Unauthorized Distribution or Publication without permission of author

A Thorny and Unresolved Issue:

Are Religious Entrepreneurs Social Entrepreneurs?

Abstract
This paper seeks to address the existing boundaries that effectively separate two
distinct but related fields: Religious entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. The
role of religion and entrepreneurship has been called “a thorny and unresolved issue” and
while religion and entrepreneurship are important global social and cultural forces
individually, there has been little research done on the combination. While the definitions
and frameworks of social entrepreneurship have been quite dynamic and inclusive,
Martin and Osberg have observed that this breadth threatens the existence and validity of
social entrepreneurship. Drawing deeply from a various sources and research, the author
demonstrates that religious entrepreneurship meets at least the threshold definitions of
social entrepreneurship in that they advance a social mission; they apply innovative
processes and technologies; they have a measurable and scalable impact; and they
integrate financial sustainability. In establishing religious entrepreneurship as a hybrid
form of social entrepreneurship, the two forms and their advocates and practitioners are
then encouraged to engage in positive and constructive conversations and efforts to
further their similar missions and visions.

Introduction
One of the leading social entrepreneurs, Bill Drayton of Ashoka, has written
extensively of the results-based transformational power of the citizen sector, and that
there is a rapidly expanding pool of social entrepreneurs. “This virtuous cycle catalyzed
by leading social entrepreneurs and local changemakers is the chief engine now moving
the world towards an ‘everyone a changemaker’ future.” (Drayton, 2006, p. 1)
But are Drayton’s changemakers necessarily social entrepreneurs? Drayton does
not directly answer this question with “It was, however, only quite recently that Ashoka
realized that its ultimate purpose, an ‘everyone a changemaker’ world, is an unreachable
fantasy unless the youth years become years of practicing being powerful and acquiring
the required underlying skills: applied empathy, teamwork and leadership.”1 (Drayton,
2006, p. 9) Looking to this future, he concludes with “A generation hence, probably 20
to 30 percent of the world’s people, and later 50 to 70 percent, will be changemakers and
entrepreneurs. That world will be fundamentally different and a far safer, happier, more
equal, and more successful place.”2(Drayton, 2006, p. 25) A somewhat more temperate
view of the future for social entrepreneurs than Drayton’s is offered by Bornstein. While
noting that the future holds boundless opportunities, options and capacity for
entrepreneurial experimentation, and that “We need to be prepared to take full advantage
of these changes,” he continues with “I don’t mean to imply that everyone should become
a social entrepreneur. We don’t want that. If everyone were an entrepreneur, society
would be a terrible mess.”3 (Bornstein, 2005, p. 28)
Bornstein and Drayton’s comments seem to underscore the need for some sort of
definitional boundaries for the field of social entrepreneurship. On the one hand, if we

1
recognize a very broad and inclusive boundary, the more opportunities there are for new
stakeholders, opportunities, alliances and resources to emerge. On the other hand, it is
possible that the understanding of social entrepreneurship will become too broad and
therefore functionally unidentifiable. This can occur if social entrepreneur type activities
remain on a micro-level and vulnerable and do not present opportunity for imitation and
expansion, or if there are activities that are influential on society in a positive way but not
transformational,
The issue of definition is complicated when the variable of personal values, faith
or religion is interjected into entrepreneurship has been properly identified as a “thorny
and unresolved issue” and that “although the entrepreneurship literature suggest that
value structures may form an important construct in a theory of entrepreneurship
behavior, their magnitude and overall importance is still relatively unknown.”4 (Dodd and
Seaman, 1998, p. 71) But how should we classify those individuals and organizations,
that just as readily identifiable social entrepreneur have accomplished, created
organizations operating with a direct nature of action and are moving towards a
sustainable new equilibrium but are doing so at least in part from a personal religious
motivation, foundation or framework? While there is little doubt that they are authentic
changemakers and activists, does their religious connection preclude them from being
authentic social entrepreneurs?
Certainly, few would deny that religious leaders such as Mother Teresa, the Dalai
Lama, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others have been recognized as transformational
figures of society with unmistakable religious connections, albeit with varying levels of
religiosity. But little is actually known by both social entrepreneur academics and
practitioners about how religious beliefs impact the ordinary entrepreneur, social or
otherwise, or conversely how entrepreneurship impacts the religious community. There is
even less information on the relationship between religious entrepreneurs and non-
religious entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs. While religion is obviously a
component of the private religious universities throughout the world and even many
public universities devote curriculum and research to religion in their history, archeology,
sociology and literature departments, business schools and entrepreneur programs,
conferences, and events generally ignore religion as an important component of one’s
entrepreneurial activities. Contemporary business textbooks on entrepreneurship are
devoid of information on religion and its relationship to entrepreneurship and this lack of
understanding likely extends to the business practitioner as well.5
Why is this issue important to the social entrepreneur? Simply stated, “Religion
both shapes and is shaped by society” and that “Investigating the relationship between the
individual religion and enterprise shows that religion affects believer’s entrepreneurial
activity, influencing their decision to become an entrepreneur, enterprise management,
and the entrepreneur’s contact network.”6 (Dodd and Seamon, 1998, p. 71) It is also
likely that in many situations the social and religious entrepreneur are doing very similar
work and service, and the opportunity to partner and to develop new, enhanced or even
larger value creation opportunities and alliances should not be overlooked. Further, in the
current era of economic uncertainty with escalating needs and opportunities and declining
resources, it is in the interests of both religious and social entrepreneurs alike to if not
mutually support one another to at least mutually understand one another.

2
 This paper is an attempt to expand the discussion beyond Foster’s limited yet
important observation: “For many of course the Church of England has long been of no
significance and its fate does not matter. Yet despite the need to raise human and financial
resources to keep the Church itself going, it still so often has human and financial
capacity over to offer for social objectives—it is only that it might do better with
opportunities that it proactively encounters and otherwise seeks out.”7 (Nichols, 2006, p.
200) This insight applies well beyond the fairly limited confines of the Anglicanism to
religions, denominations and traditions of all sorts. Indeed, more contemporary research
points to the conclusion that “In the context of a pluralistic moral basis for
entrepreneurship, both mainstream and religious sects continue to motivate, and provide
strong links to legitimacy and resources for social entrepreneurs.”8 (Keynes, 2007)
It is the thesis of this paper that while social entrepreneurship serves as an
appropriate overall category for the field of religious entrepreneurship and that both share
many of the same characteristics making them distinct from traditional for-profit
entrepreneurship, that religious entrepreneurship is an appropriate and important sub-field
to social entrepreneurship. Although not without some important distinctions, there is
indeed a vibrant form of entrepreneurship that exists in current practice within religious
communities throughout the world and it is worth consideration and acceptance by social
entrepreneurs as a legitimate partner in this remarkable process of global transformation
to “everyone a changemaker.”
There is probably no more widely used contemporary term in social
entrepreneurship than the charge to “Think Globally and Act Locally.” Most users of this
insightful phrase are unaware that it is widely attributed to the French Christian
theologian Jacques Ellul more than sixty years ago, and that he was speaking towards
issues of great concern to him such as the environment, technology and the destruction of
a sense of community, yet clearly within his personally vibrant and engaging religious
faith. Despite addressing many of the most important issues of the 20th century, Ellul
always remained firmly planted in his own deeply personal faith. Perhaps there is more
kinship between social and religious entrepreneurs than is widely believed.

Points of Connection
Perhaps the most widely held stereotype of religion, primarily among the world’s
major religions of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, is that each represents a
monolithic group of people with a common belief, world outlook and ultimately identity.
While at a very basic level of understanding there is often basic religious tenets with a
commonly held set of beliefs, the applications of these beliefs vary greatly among many
categories including gender, socio-economic background, nationality, age, etc.9 (Keynes,
2007, pp. 186-198) Part of this stereotype is likely geographical in nature. In comparing
the differences between various regional religious practices, it has been observed that
“Church buildings tend to claim a relatively central site in both settings, but with a crucial
difference. In the Eurasian instances, a single structure almost always dominates the
scene, whereas in the United States we find multiple denominations and their quarters
manifested at or near the center, generally, inter alia, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian,
Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and depending on the region, Roman
Catholic.”10 (Zelinksy, 2001, p. 566) One would also need to add to this diversity in
understanding contemporary U.S. religious practices the rapid increase in the past decade

3
of Islamic mosques, non-denominational and inter-denominational Christian
congregations, and other religious groups, further underscoring the complexity and
diversity of religion and the danger of generalizations. Yet few in the non-religious
populations fully understand this diversity.
It is likely that the non-religious social entrepreneur is not primarily to blame for
this impression, for fault appears to lie within the religious community itself. “(R)eligious
leaders speak inadequately about business—more so than almost anything else they
preach on. Their professional vocabulary, for the most part, so misses the point that it is
painful to listen to them.” The point is further made that “The alarming state of the
church’s ability to be a relevant force influencing business can be summed up in a simple
observation: we already see many signs of Christian businesspeople from every
denomination rejecting religion, and religion overwhelmingly rejecting
businesspeople.”11 (Goossen, 2004, p. 62)
In the midst of this tension, it is challenging for those interested in the issues
presented by religious entrepreneurship, as we are generally limited to a study of the field
of social entrepreneurship, and one’s ability to make reasonable inferences by way of
analogy. “In terms of academic research, progress has been inhibited by a pervasive
mindset…Outside of departments of religious studies the academy has long practiced a
policy of containment, marginalization, and suspicion of the subject of religion.”12
(Zelinsky, 2001, p. 566) But there are risks to both the social and religious entrepreneur
that these inferences may be inaccurate and ultimately lead to confusion. Further, such
limitations leave significant questions unanswered.
Closer study reveals that there are some potential points of connection between
religious entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Jeff Skoll, perhaps the most influential
supporter of social entrepreneurship, wrote “One of the great ironies of history is that the
solutions to current challenges frequently create new challenges even more menacing.
Industries that have improved the quality of our lives have also created new problems that
threaten our very existence. We can split the atom, walk on the moon, communicate with
another person anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye, and yet poverty, violence
and illness in much of the world are as pervasive as they have ever been.” 13 (Nichols,
2006, p. v.) But concurrent to, if not actually preceding the rise of Skoll’s articulate voice
on social entrepreneurship, there were emerging entrepreneurial voices within the global
religious community, with Muslims and Christians providing many innovations for their
traditional faiths.
Alan Roxburgh, a prominent Christian theologian writing a few years earlier than
Skoll, sounds quite similar to Skoll. “The old skills and identities no longer work but
there are, as yet, neither new skills nor identities: This is the ambiguous sense of being
out of control, exposed and unable to see what the demand and challenges might be that
have to be faced. Because of this tension, the instinct to create the illusion that little has
changed, or to integrate change resources into present organization is very high. We are
not in a situation that requires minor adjustments and course corrections. We need to
fundamentally rethink the frameworks and paradigms that have shaped the church over
the last half-century.”14 (Roxburgh and Regele, 2000, p. 66) Time Magazine observed of
Rick Warren, best-selling author and pastor of one of the largest churches in the U.S., that
“He is both leading and riding the newest wave of change in the Evangelical community:
an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing

4
torture and combating global warming.” Warren added of his person evaluation of the
2008 U.S. Presidential candidates that “There will be no Christian religion test. I want
what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me.”15 (Van Biema, 2008, p. 38)
Beyond theological and pastoral statements, there are numerous organizational
examples of newly imagined religious frameworks and paradigms among many faiths.
For example, the Indian Muslim Welfare Centre in Batley (West Yorkshire) is an
affiliation of six neighborhood organizations founded in the 1960’s. Originally a point of
worship, it evolved to cover a range of cultural needs for the local Asian community
include elder care, women support, youth services, training, weddings, funerals and
health education. The Centre’s goal is to generate income to be self-sufficient, which is a
distinguishing characteristic from traditional religious charities.16 (Thompson et al., 2000,
p. 328) In the Philippines, the Catholic University of the University of Santo Tomas,
Manila, created the Entrepreneurship and Ethics education towards Equity Program in the
1990’s. The Program’s mission is that “The Triple E Program is a center of excellence
that forms entrepreneurs who, inspired by the ideals of ethics, social responsibility and
social justice, serves the low income groups for goods, services and paid work.”17
(Loanzan, 2007, pp. 341-370) A prominent American Protestant voice has been “Business
as Mission” frequently referred to as “BAM” which is “based on the principle of holistic
mission, which is an attempt to bring all aspects of life and holiness into an organic
whole” and includes “business related issues such as economic development,
employment and unemployment, economic justice and the use and distribution of natural
and creative resources among the human family.”18 Among many private Universities,
Regent University’s Center for Entrepreneurship is a good example of a business school
that has extensively incorporated BAM into their mission and curriculum.19
Skoll went on to say that “The nature and the wonder of humanity is that while
there are always tumultuous events and seemingly overwhelming challenges to face,
people, exceptional individuals, and ideas and movements emerge to face and find
solutions to these challenges.” This is the call to the social entrepreneur but it is
abundantly clear that these exceptional individuals exist within the world religions as
well. But are they social entrepreneurs?

The Problem of Definitional Inconsistency

It is a cornerstone of qualitative, quantitative and mixed method research that
clarity of terms is essential. Researchers are counseled to not define terms in everyday
and common language, but rather to “use accepted language in the research literature.”20
(Creswell, 2008, pp. 41-42)Thus, having a clear definition of both social, religious and
any of the many other variant forms of entrepreneurship is in order.
However, Martin and Osberg have persuasively argued that social
entrepreneurship currently lacks such definition and is overly broad and inclusive.
Therefore, the lack of identification of religious entrepreneurship as part of social
entrepreneurship seems rather ironic based upon past and current practices of social
entrepreneurs being over inclusive in accepting wide variations of its practice:

“Although the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurs are clear to many
of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social
Entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return is less clear. In fact,

5
 we would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything
but clear. As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now
has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit.”21
(Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 30)

Martin and Osberg contend that this is no mere academic exercise but one that
strikes at the very heart of social entrepreneurship, for if too many non-entrepreneurial
activities are included within the definition, “then social entrepreneurship will fall into
disrepute, and the kernel of true social entrepreneurship will be lost.”
All entrepreneurs should be concerned with the lack of definitions not only within
social entrepreneurship but within the field of entrepreneurship generally. It is clear that
entrepreneurship is being extended well beyond the field of business activities. We now
have “intellectual entrepreneurship”, a cross-disciplinary approach to undergraduate
education22, as well “norm entrepreneurship” meaning the use of political scandals to
effect cultural change utilized by lower level governmental officers.23 Adherents of
modern secular or humanist movements are known as “spiritual entrepreneurs” with core
tenets that include self-development, individual power and the creating of meaning and
purpose through one’s work.24 (Goossen, 2004, p. 48) Even the phrase religious
entrepreneurship has been applied to the origins of jihad, which is an extension that
should concern any entrepreneur practitioner or academic.25 These are just of the few
examples of the diversity of terms, with varying levels of identifiable and accepted
research and field based definitions. The trend is clearly towards the overuse of the term
entrepreneur.
Similarly, there is an indication of incapacity in the field of social
entrepreneurship to effectively deal with the issues posed by religious entrepreneurship.
Likely the most powerful and effective voice in social entrepreneurship, the Skoll
Foundation appears to have only the most incidental of connections to religion, primarily
through the educational background of a few specific Board Members of the
organization.26 Oxford University recently hosted a panel discussion on Religion, Social
Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy, but it did not appear to provide the needed impetus
towards recognizing that religion and entrepreneurship is often merged together, in
practical entrepreneurial activities, distinguished from charity, ethics, social activism and
philanthropy. The discussion had a narrow focus limited to “Drawing on three world
religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam the panel will prompt reflection on how notions
of ethics, values and power as expressed in each of these traditions, shape philanthropy
and social entrepreneurship.”27 Fortunately, as a supporting Skoll Foundation blog to the
panel discussion later stated “the question of "meaning," whether arrived at through faith,
spiritual practices, personal experiences or mind-blowing transformation is a place in
need of MUCH greater exploration.”28 (emphasis in original)
But there is evidence that religious entrepreneurs seek change well beyond
“reflections of notions of ethics and values.” In sharp contrast to the Oxford panel
discussion, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Reich has stated that “we should stop
kidding ourselves that charity and philanthropy do much to help the poor.”29 Few know
better than the religious entrepreneur that traditional support and funding sources within
organized religion are undergoing massive and irrevocable changes. For example, it no
longer appears to be a tenet of commonly held Christian belief to support missionary or
proselytizing efforts and therefore it is natural that resource allocation is quite uneven.

6
While a few Christian denominations or traditions give an impressive amount and are
expanding efforts the majority of them and related Christian charities are reducing their
formal efforts and are shrinking their global involvement.30 (Standaert, 2008) The
cumulative efforts of Christians towards traditional activities has moved downward,
continuing a trend of nearly 80 years of declining funding of these types of efforts.31
Recognizing the limitations of traditional models of charity and philanthropy, not only
social entrepreneurs and theologians but religious changemakers and entrepreneurs as
well have called for and begun implementing entirely new approaches to solving the
world’s intractable problems.
It must be recognized that the study of religious beliefs and its impact on many
issues of contemporary business generally and entrepreneurship specifically has a very
short history. Overall, the conclusion has been drawn that the academic literature does not
provide any consistent support for the understanding and relationship between one’s
religious practices and their entrepreneurial activities, and also that what literature is
available points us in contradictory directions, some of which is at least in part from bias.
(Dodd and Seaman, 1999) The popular media has not been any more understanding. For
example, in 1993 The Washington Post alleged that evangelical Christians in the United
States are “poor, uneducated and easy to command” which was underscored by the fact
that only 15% of evangelicals held college or graduate degrees.”32 (Lindsey, 2008, p.
B12) The reality is that the percentage of evangelical Christians receiving bachelor’s
degrees has climbed 133% from 1976 to 2004, more than double the change of the
general population, and leading some to now contend that “Religion must not be simply
studied at arm’s length, but must be considered as a viable candidate for the truth.”33
(Lindsey, 2008, p. B13)
This emerging credibility for a more positive view between one’s religion and
vocation, even within the academy, would only be validated by the recent assertion that
“companies built on belief systems tend to outlast those without them, boding well for
ventures founded on a system of religion such as Christianity.”34 (Bradley, Drinkwater et
al, 2005, pp. 3-4) For instance, it has only recently been offered that religion shapes the
entrepreneurial decision, and that some religions, such as Islam and Christianity, are
actually found to be conducive to entrepreneurship while Hinduism likely impedes
entrepreneurship.35 (Audretsch, Boente and Tamvada, 2007) It has also been argued that
“spiritual entrepreneurs” or “religious entrepreneurs” are “primarily either exploiters of
marketing opportunities – they undertake to focus strategies concentrating on religious
market segments or social entrepreneurs.” The suggestion has also been made that the
field of spiritual and religious entrepreneurship can benefit from the use of established
methods and models from the field of social entrepreneurship research.36 (Bradley,
Drinkwater et al, 2005) But beyond these general statements, there is little original
research. It seems therefore that comparing the definitions or frameworks of social
entrepreneurship and religious entrepreneurship provides some additional important
information.
Definitions and frameworks for social entrepreneurship are many, far-reaching
and vary slightly depending on the context. Nonetheless, of these stand many offerings a
few stands out. Martin and Osberg define social entrepreneurship as having three distinct
components, including an unjust equilibrium that excludes, marginalizes or inflicts
suffering upon a weak human segment; identifying and creating a social value

7
proposition through entrepreneurial characteristics; and forging a new equilibrium that
alleviates the unjust equilibrium with hope for broader impact.37 Elsewhere, a matrix of
the many different definitions used for social entrepreneurship has been created and four
central elements have been identified: 1) they advance a social mission; 2) they apply
innovative processes and technologies; 3) they have a measurable and scalable impact;
and 4) they integrate financial sustainability.38
For the religious entrepreneur, there has not been a wide variety of definitions
offered. “Religious entrepreneurs can be differentiated by two drivers: the extent that
success of the organization is measured by monetary rewards, and the extent that the
organization’s operations are guided by the owner’s religions.” (Goossen, 2004, p. 53)
But there has been some difficulty in creating a definition because some have identified
religious entrepreneurship as being identified as those who sell religious goods and
services, such as “bible houses,” religious camps, schools, etc. However, while these
individuals and organizations may well possess some entrepreneurial elements, I am
excluding them from serious consideration as social entrepreneurs for they do not have as
a primary goal the advancement of a social vision but rather a religious one, a rather
obvious distinction. These individuals and organizations are much closer to being
religious activists than social entrepreneurs. It is analogous to the exclusion of for-profit
entrepreneurs, who would not have a social vision as a primary goal, even if in the
furtherance of their purposes some social vision exists.
I would instead offer that religious entrepreneurs hold to the same four central
elements as the social entrepreneurs. Using the four central elements provided, a
comparison of some social and religious entrepreneurs operating in similar sectors is
illuminating will allow us to draw some conclusions in support of the thesis presented
that religious entrepreneurship is indeed a legitimate sub-field of social entrepreneurship,
albeit with a few important distinctions.

A Brief Comparison of Social and Religious Entrepreneurs

Several existing companies dealing with clearly identifiable and widely accepted
social entrepreneur goals demonstrate remarkable similarities between social
entrepreneur and religious entrepreneurial firms. The examples provided will be in the
provision of clean water to the world’s poor, fair-trade coffee, and education for African
nationals.
A 2009 Skoll Foundation Award recipient is WaterPartners International which is
“A U.S. based non-profit committed to providing safe drinking water and sanitation to
people in developing countries. Working in partnership with donors and local
communities, we have helped thousands of people develop accessible, sustainable
community level water supplies.”39 The organization has a long history of doing
significant and transformational service in addressing this formidable problem in many
countries and regions.
Similarly, Healing Waters International states that “We affect lasting change in the
cities of developing countries with passion, entrepreneurship and creativity by providing
safe water through local partners.”40 One has to look further into the website of Healing
Waters International to discover that it is a Christian organization, where they disclose
that their vision is “To see safe water provided in the name of Jesus in every poor
community of the world” yet they are clearly inclusive in asserting both in policy and

8
practice that they “will work with any individual or organization that wants to help us
provide affordable, safe water to the poor including churches, companies, foundations
and civic organizations.”41 The geographical locations, methods, techniques,
collaborations, management and products between WaterPartners International and
Healing Waters International are strikingly similar and highly entrepreneurial.
A second example is that of fair trade coffee, which is defined as “a trading
partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seek greater equity in
international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading
conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially
in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, 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.”42 A prominent example of social
entrepreneurs engaged in fair trade coffee is Dean’s Beans, based in Orange, Ma., USA.
The firm states that “Besides only roasting organic coffees, Dean's Beans® only
purchases beans from villages and importers that are committed to Fair Trade and
working towards better economic opportunity, improved health and nutrition in the
villages. We promote local empowerment and self-reliance through our Fair Trade
purchases and our work with local grassroots development and human rights groups.”
A very similar fair trade coffee firm is Equal Exchange, founded in 1986 and
located about 100 miles from Dean’s Beans in West Bridgeport, Ma., USA. “Equal
Exchange has created Big Change since 1986. Our founders envisioned a food system
that empowers farmers and consumers, supports small farmer co-ops, and uses
sustainable farming methods. They started with fairly traded coffee from Nicaragua and
didn't look back. Today, we continue to find new and powerful ways to build a better food
system. We partner with co-operatives of farmers who provide high-quality organic
coffees, teas, chocolates and snacks from farmers all over the world.”43 The only
indication that one receives that there is any difference between Dean’s Beans and Equal
Exchange is in the listing of the Interfaith Coffee Program on Equal Exchange, where it
“works in partnership with faith-based relief, development and human rights
organizations to help communities of faith learn about and promote Fair Trade” and there
are various religious groups fair trade coffee initiatives listed and linked.44 One has to
search for a direct religious connection, such as one author noting of Equal Exchange that
“Not all coffee is equal, and it is important for Christians to link consumptive choices to
take care of the global economic household. The basic assumption of the Interfaith
Coffee Program is that Christians should and do care, and will in fact vote redemptively
in the marketplace when given the information and opportunity to do so.”45
A final area of comparison is that of education in Africa. Dr. Senyo Adjibolosoo, a
Professor of Economics at Point Loma Nazarene University, is a native Ghanan who
frequently returns to the African country of 10,000,000 people. In 1999, Adjibolosoo,
who is a Christian, wrote “The Human Factor” an academic book (not religious) that has
as its thesis that leadership is fundamentally a reflection of one’s personal ethics. He has
since expanded the “Human Factor” into a number of other books, articles and
curriculum for undergraduates. In 2006, Adjibolosoo started the Human Factor
Leadership Academy in Akatsi, Ghana. "Our vision is to improve the Human Quality,"
said Adjibolosoo. "We believe the world can be a better place for all humanity, and are
dedicated to improving the human condition through our academy. Our programs will

9
generate honest and compassionate leaders who will transform lives through knowledge
acquisition and its application through clear understanding. Most educational institutions
concentrate on schooling rather than education. Our primary goal is to use our curriculum
and methods of transformational development education to accomplish our vision and
mission at the HFLA.”46 As a well-published Professor of Economics and International
Development, Adjibolosoo’s vision for the HFLA has derived from his theoretical
principles of societal transformation which has been developed through a series of books
and articles. “It (the HFLA) has few parallels in the breadth and depth of its treatment of
contemporary issues in Civil Society and the role of the Human Factor in aiding its
development.”47 The HFLA also is developing strategic partnerships with U.S. for-profit
companies, most notably Causeworth Financial in San Diego, which in turn will “place
up to 30% of its gross revenue with the non-profit or charity of your (the clients)
choice.”48
A similar model of education for Africa can be found with the non-profit Educate!
with the mission “To educate and empower the next generation of socially responsible
leaders in Africa. “ Based upon its five core values of personal leadership, innovation,
ethical action, powerful relationships and exponential empowerment, its stated
educational goals are “through the study of leadership and social entrepreneurship,
Educate! equips scholars with the knowledge and vision to create a vision of positive
change.”49 As with the Human Factor Leadership Academy, it has a US base of operations
to support its Uganda focus, and has developed key strategic partnerships. There is great
similarity between both organizations, except for the religious motivation of the Human
Factor Leadership Academy.
It is important to note that Healing Waters International, Equal Exchange and the
Human Factor Leadership Academy all have a global vision, one which has specific
outcomes that are large scale and envision new systems towards a new equilibrium, an
important distinction from being a localized social service. Nor are these three examples
tied to the individual or founder—all have sought from the inception to create strategic
alliances, multiple stakeholders, and each involves multiple countries or regions in their
support, organization, mission and services. Thus, they at least satisfactorily meet the
threshold of inclusion into the field of social entrepreneurship.
The comparison between the groups illustrates precisely what Martin and Osberg
have identified: “Having created a definition of social entrepreneurship and distinguished
it from social service provision and social activism, we should recognize in practice,
many social actors incorporate strategies associated with these pure forms or create
hybrid models.” Later, they note that “in the real world, there are probably more hybrid
models than pure forms.”50 (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 38) This is likely what we have
with religious entrepreneurship: a hybrid form of social entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial Motivation
Notwithstanding their religious motivation and support, Healing Waters, the
Human Factor Leadership Academy and Equal Exchange are nearly identical to their
non-religious counterparts. To emphasize this, each of them possesses the four central
elements previously identified: 1) they advance a social mission; 2) they apply innovative
processes and technologies; 3) they have a measurable and scalable impact; and 4) they
integrate financial sustainability. Further, it is important to note that the warning against

10
including too many “non-entrepreneurial activities” into the definition of social
entrepreneurship cannot fairly be used as a basis for not considering religious
entrepreneurship as a legitimate sub-field of social entrepreneurship. Each of these
organizations and many others are highly entrepreneurial as well as a narrowly defined
organizational purpose. This is in contrast to social services and social activism, as well
as their religious counterparts, which properly distinguishes them from authentic social
entrepreneurship.51 (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 37) Healing Waters et al possess no
religious proselytizing functions or goals, nor can one even easily ascertain that they are
religious in orientation at all. If there is a religious overtone present anywhere, it is so
subtle as to be almost imperceptible.
This does not mean that religious entrepreneurs are non-committal about their
religion: rather it is that the religious model provides a personal or collective worldview,
which then develops particular motivations that lead to social entrepreneurial activities.
“A worldview is simply the sum total of our beliefs about the world, the big picture that
directs our daily decisions and actions.”52 (Goossen, 2004, p. 49)Also the religious
entrepreneur’s resource bases, leadership and support structures are primarily from other
like-minded religious individuals and organizations whose own personal values resonate
with the mission of the enterprise. The same could likely be said of any social
entrepreneur or hybrid social entrepreneur.
Nonetheless, there is an important distinction as well as a disqualification to be
made between religious and social entrepreneurship. The distinction builds upon the
forceful argument of Martin and Osberg that the differences between “normal”
entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs should not be determined by the motivation of the
entrepreneur. “(I)t is important to dispel the notion that the difference can be ascribed
simply to motivation—with entrepreneurs spurred on by money and social entrepreneurs
driven by altruism.”53 (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 34) While this is persuasive as to
distinguishing for profit entrepreneurship from social entrepreneurship, the motivation
distinction is not as compelling in the case of the religious entrepreneur. Religious belief
or non-religious belief by the entrepreneur is often directly related to the national,
regional and organizational culture in which the entrepreneur is a member of and is an
important social and cultural construct, framework and institution in many societies. In
these societies personal motivation is inextricably linked to the social entrepreneurial
activities of the religious entrepreneur. “Culture is an important and complex construct.
Likewise, entrepreneurship captures a wide spectrum of activities and is multifaceted.”54
And “The addition of social institutions to the repertoire of cultural icons is a step
forward in behavioral research on the nexus of culture and entrepreneurship.”55 (Gerard
and Zahra, 2007, p. 6) “It (religion) supports power structures, gives meaning and shape
to a society’s ethical structures, rewards and punishes certain kinds of behavior:
providing norms for social action…religion (also) explains and justifies social institutions
and social roles.”56 (Dodd and Seaman, 1998, p. 71)The linkage between religion and
personal motivation leading to social activities, including social entrepreneurship, is
clear: “The meaning system provided by religion provided by religion and the sacred
symbols or a religion bring together or synthesize a people’s ethos—the tone, character,
and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood—and their world view.”57
(Geertz, 1985, p. 67) What we have is that this world view has moved beyond traditional

11
religious functions, methods and models, and ironically this adaption of religion may
have actually occurred prior to the rise of contemporary social entrepreneurship.
Taking the opposite view of Martin and Osberg, it has been observed that some
emerging models of social entrepreneurship positions not only individual but group
motivation as a key consideration and determining factor of social entrepreneurs. It has
been found that “(social) entrepreneurship was not of the ‘heroic individualistic’ type in
any of the cases, but joint, leader + supporters, or team based; (and) there was distributed
entrepreneurship—circles of entrepreneurial activity, with central roles played by the
entrepreneurs within the organisation, but with a wider group of external stakeholders
sometimes quite closely and essentially involved—including customers, and distributed
across public/private boundaries.”58 (Spear, 2006, p. 408)
On the other hand, disqualification for religious entrepreneurship would be if the
individual or organization attempts to portray, either directly or indirectly, religious
proselytizing or direct religious solicitation as the social mission requirement of social
entrepreneurship. Such activity would quickly move the activity into the field of social or
religious activism. “What is different is the nature of the actor’s action orientation” and
its attempt to influence, persuade or reason rather than direct action.59 (Martin and
Osberg, 2007, p. 38) Entrepreneurs that would attempt religious persuasion through their
entrepreneurial actions should not properly be considered as social entrepreneur.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Having established that carefully defined religious entrepreneurship is a
legitimate form of social entrepreneurship, there is significant further work to
accomplish. The following actions are recommended as practical areas of connection as
well as additional research that are needed:

1) Discern appropriate collaborative organizational and operational

opportunities with Social and Religious Entrepreneurs. The examples, issues
and conclusions offered by this paper require additional consideration. There
exists the realistic possibility of hybrid entrepreneurial structures between
religious and social entrepreneurs including joint ventures, strategic alliances and
associations which will allow mutually beneficial goals of each to be fulfilled in a
more efficient way. By the very principles and dynamics of social
entrepreneurship, we encourage serious consideration of collaboration,
communication and cooperation. However, such opportunities are likely not to be
realized without intentional conversations by social and religious entrepreneurs to
listen and learn from one another. A conference, panel discussion or similar
opportunity should be considered by organizations such as the Skoll Foundation.

2) Additional study of non-traditional mutually beneficial “opportunity

streams.” Care will need to be given to the recognition, valuation and
exploitation of various opportunity streams utilized by both the social and
religious entrepreneur, above and beyond simply asking for donations from
individuals and businesses inside and outside of their stakeholder bases. There
may be some creative opportunities that present themselves for mutual benefit
than existed in the past. Strategic partnerships and alliances could be envisioned

12
 sourcing from not only local but global resources will need to be considered in a
new light, using grants, foundations, financing structures, donations, gifts,
products, and other value-added opportunities. These streams can be envisioned to
“grow the pie” for the benefit of all, rather than for singular individuals, groups,
causes or religions.

3) Engagement between business schools and Religious Entrepreneurs so as to

further the dialogue. A vigorous discussion and sharing of ideas should be
commenced between these schools, bringing together academics, theologians and
practitioners in an environment of healthy respect and mutuality. The unique
benefits of best practices, risk management, academic research, cultural insight
and historical knowledge should be harnessed together to meet the challenges of
an ever-changing world needing these experts.

4) Participation in the global Social Entrepreneurship dialogue. Participation to

this point by Religious Entrepreneurs has been generally small scale and limited
to those possessing particular interest in the field of Social Entrepreneurship.
There has been little broader awareness, participation or interaction by members
of the religious community in the social entrepreneur field. Constructive
engagement and dialogue should be encouraged by religious communities in the
many venues of Social Entrepreneurs, and these communities have much to learn
of service from social entrepreneurs in the current era.

5) Develop further the concept of Religious Entrepreneurship. It is hoped that the

issues raised here encourage additional dialogue on the viability of the concept of
religious entrepreneurship as a viable distinction within the field of social
entrepreneurship education and practice. Additional tools, structures and
measurements are needed in this field.

The challenges to these social and religious entrepreneurs are formidable, and the
risks many and yet the rewards are great. Voices, interests, organizations, religions,
professions and disciplines that have perhaps viewed each other with skepticism or
ignorance need to engage in a fresh dialogue and effort for a higher good within the field
of Social Entrepreneurship—this can be the appropriate meeting ground.

Endnotes

13
1
Drayton, Bill. Everyone a Changemaker (2007) Harvard Press. Ibid. P. 9
2
Ibid. p. 25
3
Bornstein, David. So You Want to Change the World? Hart House, Toronto (2005) p. 28.
4
Dodd, Sarah Drakopoulo, and Seaman, Paul Timothy. Religion and Enterprise: An Introductory Explanation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Fall 1998. P. 71.
5
For example, some popular collegiate textbooks on entrepreneurship that fail to even mention religious issues or beliefs
and entrepreneurship include Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures (2nd ed.); Bruce R. Barringer and R.
Duane Ireland, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2008); Entrepreneurship 94th ed.); Peggy A. Lambing and Charles R. Kuehl,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2007); Entrepreneurship: Starting and Operating a New Business; Steve Mariotti, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey (2006).
6
Dodd, Sarah Drakopoulo, and Seaman, Paul Timothy. Religion and Enterprise: An Introductory Explanation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Fall 1998. P. 71.
7
Foster, Doug. Social Entrepreneurship: Exploring a Cultural Mode Amidst Others in the Church of England. 200. (Within
Nichols textbook below)
8
Keynes, Milton. Religion and Value-Driven Social Entrepreneurship. 3rd International Social Entrepreneurship Research
Conference. 18-19 June 2007.
9
Ibid. 186-198.
10
Zelinsky, Walter. The Uniqueness of the American Religious Landscape. The Geographical Review (3). July 2001, p. 566.
11
Goossen, Richard J. Entrepreneurship and The Meaning of Life. The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, Fall
2004, p. 62.
12
Zelinsky, Walter. Ibid.
13
Nichols, Alex, edited by. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford University Press,
2006, p. v.
14
Roxburgh, 66.
15
The Global Ambition of Rick Warren. David Van Biema. August 18, 2008. P. 38
16
Social entrepreneurship - a new look at the people and the potential
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy, Ann Lees. Management Decision. London: 2000. Vol. 38, Iss. 5; pg. 328

17
Loanzan, Joanne. Toward equity: The poor and university students. Political Theology. 2007, 341-370.
18
http://www.regententrepreneur.org/paradigm.html
19
See Regent’s website at http://www.regententrepreneur.org/index.html
20
Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Ca.
2008. P. 41-42
21
Martin, Roger, and Osberg, Sally. Social Entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Volume 5, Number 2. Spring 2007. P. 30.
22
https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/
23
Article on French entrepreneur scandals
24
Goossen, Richard J. Entrepreneurship and The Meaning of Life. JBIB, p. 48
25
Religious Entrepreneurs: A study in the origins of jihad. Washington Times, July 24, 2007.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=HXGDhQGpTJZchn82LWq7k9chwcWD8MVl5HDYp1bPYsKhhsRwrrMv!856
897951?a=o&d=5021884841
26
For example, see http://www.skollfoundation.org/aboutskoll/bio/hanson.asp
27
http://www.socialedge.org/features/skoll-world-forum/swf2009-26
28
Ibid.
29
Standaert, Michael. “Social Entrepreneurship and Alternatives to Faith-Based Welfare.” Huffington Post, May 31, 2008.
30
Ibid.
31
Anonymous. (2005). “Support of Overseas Missions Linked to Growth.” Oct. 26, 2005;
http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=223
32
Lindsay, D. Michael. Evangelicalism Rebounds in Academe, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 9, 2008, B12.
33
Lindsay, Evangelicalism, p. B13.
34
Bradley, Drinkwater, et al. p. 3-4
35
Religion and Entrepreneurship, David B. Audretsch, Werner Boente, Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada¤
May 27, 2007
36
SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS ENTREPRENEURS: STUDYING CHRISTIAN ENTREPRENEURS AS
OPPORTUNITY EXPLOITERS AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS. Don B. Bradley III, Dawn Drinkwater, Michael J.
Rubach.
37
Osberg and Martin. P. 35.
38
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8451734/Social-Entrepreneurship-Definition-Matrix
39
http://www.water.org/
40
http://www.healingwatersintl.org/abouts/view/stuff-people-always-ask-us
41
http://www.healingwatersintl.org/abouts/view/stuff-people-always-ask-us
42
See http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org/efta/Doc/What.pdf
43
See http://www.equalexchange.coop/our-co-op
44
http://www.equalexchange.coop/interfaith-program
45
Evans, Donald, Vos Ronald J., and Wright, Keith P., edited by. Biblical Holism and Agriculture, William Carey, Pasadena
Ca. (2003) p. 284.
46
See http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/education-systems-institutions/11762880-1.html
47
Endorsement of Adjibolosoo’s book Developing Civil Society. Dr Afeikhena Jerome, Associate Professor, University of
Ibadan, Nigeria. Ashgate Publishing 2006.
48
http://www.causeworth.com/founder.php
49
See http://www.experienceeducate.org/storage/Concept%20Paper.pdf
50
Martin and Osberg, Social Entrepreneurship, p. 38.
51
Ibid, 37.
52
Goossen, Entrepreneurship and the Meaning of Life. P. 49.
53
Martin and Osberg, p.34.
54
Gerard, George, and Zahra, Shaker A. Culture and Its Consequences for Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice. Summer 2002. P. 6.
55
Ibid.
56
Dodd and Seaman. P. 71
57
Geertz, C. Religion as a Cultural System. In R. Bocock and K. Thompson (Eds.) Religion and Ideology. Manchester:
Manchester University Press. 1985. P. 67
58
Spear, Roger. Social Entrepreneurship: A Different Model? International Journal of Social Economics; 2006; 33. 5/6, 408.
59
Martin and Osberg. P. 38

References

Audretsch, David B., Boente, Werner, and Pawan Tamvada, Jagannadha. (2007) Religion and Entrepreneurship.

Biema, David Van. (2008) The Global Ambition of Rick Warren. Time Magazine. August 18, 2008.

Bornstein, David. So You Want to Change the World? (2005)Toronto: Hart House.

Bradley III, Don B. III, Drinkwater, Dawn, and Rubach, Michael J. (2008) Spiritual and Religious Entrepreneurs: Studying
Christian Entrepreneurs as Opportunity Exploiters and Social Entrepreneurs. Unpublished Manuscript.

Creswell, John W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Dodd, Sarah Drakopoulo, and Seaman, Paul Timothy. (1998). Religion and Enterprise: An Introductory Explanation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Drayton, Bill. Everyone a Changemaker (2007) Boston: MIT Press.

Evans, Donald, Vos, Ronald J., and Wright, Keith P. (Eds.) (2003). Biblical Holism and Agriculture. Pasadena: William
Carey Press.

Geertz, C. (1985) Religion as a Cultural System. In R. Bocock and K. Thompson (Eds.) Religion and Ideology. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.

Gerard, George, and Zahra, Shaker A. (2002) Culture and Its Consequences for Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice.

Goossen, Richard J. (2004) Entrepreneurship and The Meaning of Life. The Journal of Biblical Integration in Business.

Keynes, Milton. (2007) Religion and Value-Driven Social Entrepreneurship. 3rd International Social Entrepreneurship
Research Conference. 18-19 June 2007.

Lindsay, D. Michael. (2008) Evangelicalism Rebounds in Academe. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Loanzan, Joanne. (2007) Toward equity: The poor and university students. Political Theology.

Martin, Roger, and Osberg, Sally. (2007) Social Entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation
Review. 5(2)

Nichols, Alex, edited by. (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Roxburgh, Alan, and Regele, Mike. (2000) Crossing the Bridge: Church Leadership in a Time of Change, Chicago: Percept
Group.

Spear, Roger. (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: A Different Model? International Journal of Social Economics. (33) 5/6,
408.

Standaert, Michael. (2008) “Social Entrepreneurship and Alternatives to Faith-Based Welfare.” Huffington Post.

Thompson, John, Alvy, Geogg, Lees, Ann. (2008) Social entrepreneurship - a new look at the people and the potential.
Management Decision. 38(5)

Zelinsky, Walter. (2001) The Uniqueness of the American Religious Landscape. The Geographical Review. (3)