The Contribution of Social Entrepreneurship

In making to happen Sustainable Development in Africa

BY:
Fisseha Tessema

email: fishatesema@yahoo.com

Wuppertal, Germany

May, 2007
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of social entrepreneurship in
making to happen sustainable development in Africa. This study provides the analysis of
three case studies that operated in Africa and have been widely recognized as successful
social entrepreneurship projects. KickStart promotes sustainable economic growth and
employment creation in Kenya, Mali, Tanzania and other countries by developing and
promoting technologies. The second case study was a pioneer mobile toilet company in
Nigeria, which designs, builds, and distributes safe, sanitary mobile toilets for outdoor
and indoor use at large public gatherings. The third case study was workers owned
company, Mango Tree Educational Enterprise (MTEE), which produced educational
games and toys, pictorial charts, counselling tools for health care workers and
schoolteachers. From the findings and analysis of this research, social entrepreneurship is
concluded to be viable in making to happen sustainable development in Africa - from its
help out in the process of operationalizing the abstract notion of sustainable development
to its contribution to the overall goal of achieving sustainable development in Africa.
The analysis of the case studies at the same time disproved the hidden and tenuous
assumption that environmental and social problems can always be solved if the economy
is sound. The findings suggest that African leaders and other development partners to
hear from people who have discovered practical solutions to environmental and social
problems at the local level, solutions that have been shown to work and that can be
adapted to solve similar problems elsewhere. The result of this study suggests intriguing
avenues for further exploration by social entrepreneurship practitioners and researchers.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................................... 4
ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 5
1.1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 The Need for Sustainable Solutions to Social Problems............................................................... 7
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.4. METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 10
1.4.2 Case Studies Selection ................................................................................................................ 11
1.4.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 11
1.4.4 Data presentation and analysis................................................................................................... 12
2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1 Development trends in Sub-Saharan Africa................................................................................ 13
2.2.2. Towards the definition of Social Entrepreneurship ................................................................... 20
2.2.3 Defining Social Entrepreneurship .............................................................................................. 23
2.2.5 Multidimensional Social Entrepreneurship Construct ............................................................... 25
CHAPTER THREE : BACKGROUND TO SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL ORGANIZATIONS &
SELECTED CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 ORGANISATIONS ENCOURAGING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY ................................................ 27
3.1.1 Ashoka: Innovators for the Public ............................................................................................. 28
3.1.2 The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship................................................................ 30
3.1.3 The Skoll Foundation .................................................................................................................. 31
3.2 BACKGROUND TO SELECTED CASE STUDIES............................................................................................ 33
3..2.1 Selected Case Studies and Social Entrepreneurial Organizations ............................................ 33
3.2.2 KickStart appropriate technology ............................................................................................... 36
3.2.3 DMT Mobile Toilet...................................................................................................................... 37
3.2.4 Mango Tree Educational Enterprises ......................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER FOUR: STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
WITHIN THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE ....................................................... 39
4.1. DOMAINS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 39
4.2 CATERING TO BASIC HUMAN NEEDS ........................................................................................................ 41
4.3 CHANGING NORMS AND BEHAVIOR TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES (NEEDS FOR ENABLING STRUCTURES IN
COMMUNITIES AND SOCIETIES)...................................................................................................................... 44
4.4 CATERING TO THE NEEDS OF FUTURE GENERATIONS ............................................................................. 46
CHAPTER FIVE: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IMPACTING THE GOALS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................... 49
5.1 MDGS AS ROAD MAP TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................. 49
5.2 THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ........................................................................................ 50
5.2.1 Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology.................................................................................. 50
5.2.2 DMT Mobile Toilets .................................................................................................................... 58
5.2.3 Mango Tree Educational Enterprises ......................................................................................... 60
5.3 THE IMPACTS OF SE VIS-À-VIS THE UN SD ROAD MAP (THE MDGS) .................................................... 62
5.3.1 The Millennium Development Goals........................................................................................... 62

2
 5.3.2 The impact of Social Entrepreneurship against the Millennium Development Targets ............ 63
5.4 READING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MODELS .............................. 64
5.5- SCALING FOR SOCIAL IMPACT ................................................................................................................ 68
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................... 71
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 71
RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................................................................ 74
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 76

3
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Methods against research questions .....................................................13

Table 5.1: The Millennium Development Goals and Targets..............................63
Table 5.2: The impact of Social Entrepreneurship against the MD ...................64

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 3.1: KickStart’s Strategy.....................................................................................38

Figure 4.1 An operational model of the contribution of SE to SD............................42
Fig 5.1: The Super MoneyMaker Plus at work in the field.......................................55
Fig 5.2: KickStart’s manually operated oilseed press under operation.....................58
Fig:5.3. A view of community as three separate, unrelated parts:...........................66
Fig: 5.4. Weak Sustainability....................................................................................67
Fig: 5.5. Strong Sustainability...................................................................................67
Fig: 5.6. The position of the three case studies on the Scaling out model................70
Fig:5.7. KickStart’s technologies, expertise, and methods in Africa.......................71

ACRONYMS
DMT DMT Mobile Toilet
IDGs International Development Goals
KickStart KickStart appropriate technology
LDC Less Developed Countries
MSE Micro and Small Scale Enterprises
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MTEE Mango Tree Educational Enterprises
SE Social Entrepreneurship
SD Sustainable Development
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

4
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

To instill new momentum in efforts to achieve Sustainable Development, the UN

Millennium Declaration was adopted in 2000. Since then different efforts have been
taking place at the local, regional and international levels to take in the notion of
sustainable development. And advances have been made and the number of developing
countries undertaking major reforms in economic and political governance is increasing.
In East Asia, poverty rates have declined fast enough to meet the goal in 2015. Despite
this good news, the developing world still has some 826 million people who are not
getting enough food to lead normal, healthy and active lives (UN, 2001). And about 51
percent of the population of Africa is living on less than $1 per day (UN, 2001) and its
share of the world exports has dropped from over 3 percent in 1950 to about 1.1 percent
in 1990 (Berner and Trulsson, 2000). The world which is characterized by this kind of
endemic poverty will always be prone to ecological, political and social catastrophes.

The existed state of poverty characterized by declining performance along a range of

social indicators, and the continuous proliferation of environmental decline will hamper
or eliminate progress towards sustainable development as the capacity is lost to increase
fundamental services to the poor. In search for workable development strategies,
development theory has changed significantly during the past decades (Trulsson, 2000).
However, most efforts taken place have sadly failed and calling to this failure history
Joseph Stieglitz noted that “three decades of experience with aid, foreign investment and
policy reforms to kick-start economic growth have produced more stories of failure than
of success” (Stieglitz, 2002). Yet, the need of reversing the negative growth trends in
developing countries are fundamental preconditions for eliminating absolute poverty and
realizing sustainable development. But this time the prevailing idea is that development
must evolve from below and the idea that development must be orchestrated from above

5
has been checked out (Hyden, 1994) and the framework of sustainable development
applied here calls to break a ground by bringing the roles of major actors. To this end,
Dees (2001) argued that the time is certainly ripe for entrepreneurial approaches to social
problems and Anita Spring and Barbara E. McDade (1998) noted that while the social
organization and economic systems resulting from Africa’s past contribute to its present
dilemma, the future will be constructed from the efforts of its entrepreneurs as they work
within the evolving system. Steen Seierup (1996) also argued that development can’t be
successful unless it is based on entrepreneurial strategies. However, as argued, for
example, by Per Trulsson (2000) such an understanding of entrepreneurial activity must
go beyond the preconceived ideas based upon homo economics, the rational economic
man and a more adequate understanding should place entrepreneurial activity in a societal
context.

The need of people who have discovered practical solutions to economical, ecological
and social problems at the local level is unquestionable; solutions that have been shown
to work and that can be adapted to solve similar problems elsewhere. Christian Seelos
and Johanna Mair from the University of Navarra (Spain) reported that Social
Entrepreneurs build hope and optimism from the ground up by focusing on what is
achievable locally, rather than trying to implement global ‘best practices’, as
development organizations have attempted to do for several decades (Mair and Seelos,
2005). And they also proposed that these people are transforming social dilemmas in
developing countries into manageable problems, which they solve in innovative and
entrepreneurial ways (Mair and Seelos, 2005). Along with, since many traditional
philanthropic efforts have fallen far short of developing countries expectations, social
entrepreneurs are needed to develop new models for a new century (Dees, 2001).

However, the term “Social Entrepreneurship” encompasses a broad range of activities

and initiatives and defining social entrepreneurship is tricky, because a wide range of
opinions exist over the matter. Although social entrepreneurship is an emerging but ill-
defined concept in business and marketing, a consensus is developing that understanding
social entrepreneurship and the social enterprise is important. Towards this challenge,

6
Pamela Hartigan, managing director of the Schwab Foundation for Social
Entrepreneurship pointed out that “The Foundation’s biggest challenge is to define for
others what social entrepreneurship is and is not. It is not, for example, the same thing as
philanthropy or charity” (Knowledge@Wharton, 2003). However, what so ever the
confusion is, she stressed on the ultimate goal, which is to “showcase how successful
social entrepreneurship can advance sustainable development and enhance the lives of
today’s poor and excluded populations.” To give meaning to the term ‘social
entrepreneurship’ Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair chose to examine its contribution to
the overall goal of achieving sustainable development, particularly in the poorest
countries, acting in a vacuum of effective government and market structures. And they
found that social entrepreneurs discover and create local opportunities and contribute to
social, human and economic development (Mair and Seelos, 2005).

It is against this backdrop of terminology confusion and a progressively more difficult

situation of the African sustainable development but yet an increasingly need of social
entrepreneurs that this research is required to let drop the subject to the public domain.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.2.1 The Need for Sustainable Solutions to Social Problems

The importance of ensuring the full partners of the "beneficiaries" of development
programs and projects in the design, planning, execution and evaluation of those
initiatives is critical. But in reality, this seldom happens. Aid and investment in diverse
forms, ranging from general capital investment, adjustment loans and provision of fully
equipped factories to direct efforts towards large-scale educational, did not achieve much
in many poor countries (Seelos and Mair 2005). Auspiciously, still the world has so many
options and Joseph Stigitz reported that “Our vision of a true development round shows
there are many ways of helping ourselves while helping the developing countries (
Stiglitz and Charlton, 2005). And the challenges of finding effective and sustainable
solutions to social problems are substantial, and solutions may require many of the
ingredients associated with successful business innovation. Yet, no one couldn’t forget

7
that solutions to social problems—such as sustainable alleviation of the constellation of
problems associated with long-term poverty—often demand fundamental transformations
in political, economical, and social systems.

1.2.2 Traditional models alone are unlikely to do the trick

It is since years ago that many development practitioners and specialists were calling for
a better way of addressing the economical, social and ecological problems of developing
countries. And today also there is a consensus that traditional models like “AID” alone
couldn’t bring the development that the world is striving to have. In this regard, the UN
warned that “Even a three-quarters full aid glass will not bring the Millennium
Development Goals within reach, especially if resources do not come on-stream for
several years,” (UNDP, 2005). Multilateral and bilateral agencies are reflections of
governments tend to be inward-looking, concerned with internal politics and hierarchies,
and their respective development missions often seem left to afterthought. NGOs are
constrained by flavor-of-the-month donor whims, and fixed, usually short, project cycles.
In addition, their endless needs to raise funds leave them precious little time to involve
their "target" communities.

1.2.3 A Need for Promoting Innovative Action

Today it is becoming a daylight reality that social and environmental problems can be
successfully reversed when the poor of the developing countries and their organizations
at the grassroots are systematically supported to become the guardians of their own
futures. Thus, the main argument of many observers critical to traditional development
efforts is that sustainable development cannot be designed or achieved merely through
supply and central administration of resources. What might be needed is a fresh approach
of finding solutions and changing the very systems that produced the problems in the first
place – an approach that does not emphasize aggregate or average positive outcomes but
is driven by ownership of positive outcomes by individuals. This is at the heart of the
phenomenon of social entrepreneurship – to change the lives of real people and to change
the systems that create and sustain poverty (Seelos and Mair 2005).

8
The number of people who are optimistic about the positive impact of social
entrepreneurs in the developing process of poor countries is increasing. Ian MacMillan,
professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Wharton University, noted that “There is
no reason why imaginative entrepreneurs can’t enhance social wealth and also generate
fortunes for themselves,” and he sees social entrepreneurship in many cases as “an
alternative to governments undertaking the task of solving societal problems.”
(Knowledge@Wharton, 2003). Given the current context of Africa, Caroline J. Thomas
concluded that social entrepreneurship is viable in providing sustainable solutions to
social problems (Thomas, 2004).

The accomplishments of these social entrepreneurs must be disseminated so others can

support them or emulate their approaches. Their continuous energy to imagine, innovate,
implement, improve on innovation, scale up, diversify, defy the usual, break the patterns
and move in a new direction, all characteristics that define social entrepreneurs, are
critically needed to improve our problem-solving capacity in priority developing
countries development issues (Hartigan, 2006). However, the critical problem is the
characteristic of social entrepreneurship, its actual impact in the sustainable development
of developing countries is not clearly known. A fruitful approach to understand the
phenomenon is to study its importance for the achievement of desired social and
economic outcomes of the poor people (Seelos and Mair 2005).

Therefore, this study on the Characteristic, Gaps and Impacts of Social Entrepreneurship
in Africa in relation to its Sustainable Development effort is needed to be conducted.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1 General objective

• To examine the contribution of social entrepreneurship in making to happen
sustainable development in Africa.

9
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To identify the role of social entrepreneurship in the process of

operationalizing the abstract notion of sustainable development.
2. To examine the contribution of social entrepreneurship to the overall goal
of achieving sustainable development in Africa.
3. To explore the patterns for widening the impacts of successful social
entrepreneurship initiatives.

1.4. Methods

1.4.1 General
The language of social entrepreneurship is new but not the phenomenon. And it is
associated with an emerging body of knowledge (rather than paradigmatic), the
boundaries between the subject and its real-life context are unclear, and causal links for
example between the resources needed by entrepreneurs and their subsequent impact on
surrounding communities are also unclear currently. And there is a very definite
contemporary focus on social entrepreneurship; therefore, this investigation into this
subject will focus on contemporary events – not in the sense that social entrepreneur did
not exist in the past in developing countries: despite the lack of the name “social
entrepreneur” that world has had those (Dees, 2001).

In this kind of research subject, Yin (1984) recommends “case study” research method.
Researcher Robert K. Yin defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry
that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1984).
There fore, this study will be an exploratory and the method to be used is qualitative case
study research method. However, critics of the case study method believe that the study
of a small number of cases can offer no grounds for establishing generality of findings
and others feel that the intense exposure to study of the case biases the findings (Soy,
1997). In this case, this study limited the number of case studies on the basis of

10
responding to these critics and according to the availability of time and resource, yet the
study didn’t establish generality of findings. And to avoid case biases on the findings,
multiple sources of evidence method within the qualitative case study was utilized.

1.4.2 Case Studies Selection

The number of case studies considered were three and this number of cases was chosen
for two reasons. Perry (2001) indicates that the suggested number of cases varies, with
the recommended minimum number ranging from two to four cases and the maximum
from twelve to fifteen. Therefore, the number of case studied could fall in the medium
number of case studies. Of course, there is no general rule for the number of cases chosen
when embarking upon a case study research yet most researchers comments on the
advantages of multiple case studies in that they are considered more robust, and the
evidence more compelling – although the resources and time required are considerably
increased (Yin, 2003, Perry, 2001). The second reason for the range (number of case
studies) is to simplify the finding of relationship of the case studies analysis result with
the sectors that focused on sustainable development through poverty eradication. These
are multi-sectoral and include Health, Education, Environment, and Income generation.
And to select the case studies within these sectors, a set of criteria was established.
However, the most striking problem was to single out those activities that could be
identified as “Social Entrepreneurship”. To tackle this hectic procedure, the case studies
are entirely those that have got the acknowledgement of the organizations that focused on
encouraging social entrepreneurial activity. The organizations considered for this purpose
are Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
and the Skoll Foundation. These organizations were selected because of their provision
to crucial supporting networks also because of the relatively higher number of their
fellow social entrepreneurs.

1.4.3 Data Collection

As indicated above the study uses multiple sources of evidence because different
information sources should be used to ensure a more rounded perspective. The case
studies were collected from the published materials of the above organizations. The

11
information collected was strengthen by soliciting further data from other organizations
and possible additional enquiry was made by online interview with Mrs. Lesley Agams,
(Representative Ashoka Innovators for the Public Abuja, Nigeria), which was
materialized as an e-mail correspondence. To ensure further triangulation, home-pages of
the owners of the case studies was visited.

1.4.4 Data presentation and analysis

In order to suggest a framework which could adequately addresses the data to be
collected there was a move of back and forth between the different information sources
and the overall concept of social entrepreneurship. The case study description was re-
organized once the necessary information was collected. The organize data is presented
in a text, diagrams and tabulated forms. Business building blocks were developed and
social and development theories and models were assessed to analyze the case studies.

1.4.5 Methods against Research Questions

The method discussed above is summarized in the following table against research
questions which are derived from the stated specific objectives.

Table 1.1: Methods against research questions

Research Question Method Importance Source
What is the role of Multiple sources of The contribution of Case studies, other
social data were used. The the social business models,
entrepreneurship in case studies were entrepreneurship and theories and
the process of evaluated on the and the areas of models in
operationalizing the basis of one intervention were sustainable
abstract notion of sustainable assessed to identify development.
sustainable development model. the role of social
development entrepreneurship in
What are the After collecting the making to happen Millennium
contribution of necessary body of sustainable Development Goals,
social theory in development in Development
entrepreneurship to development and Africa. In short, the practitioners,
the overall goal of social areas, the impact on the organizations
achieving case studies were Communities where working on social
sustainable analysed against they are operated entrepreneurship
development in these theories and was assessed to and in some cases
Africa. the MDGs. identify whether the social

12
 The analysis of the social entrepreneurs under
case studies entrepreneurship is study
included ecological, a viable alternative
economical and to address the
social impacts. sustainable
These impact development of
analysis begun from developing
the sustainability of countries
the organizations
and was followed by
considering and
analysing the
replicable nature of
the impacts.
What are the Entrepreneurial The scaling out and Uppsala University
patterns for models was used the scaling deep Business School,
widening the and business efforts of the theories and models
impacts of building blocks organizations were on social
successful social were developed and evaluated to make entrepreneurship.
entrepreneurship then the case studies sure their
initiatives were discussed sustainability in
their role as a viable
alternative to
address the
sustainable
development of
developing
countries

CHAPTER TWO: BRIEF REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF

LITERATURE

2.1 Sustainable Development

2.1.1 Development trends in Sub-Saharan Africa

There is a boom of export market of the world over the last two decades. Although this
side of the economic trend seems to reflect a generally positive trend in terms of global

13
economic growth, the situation is very different when we consider the effect of this
global economic growth on developing countries like Africa. Africa has been missing the
large expansion of international trade. Africa’s share of global trade has fallen from
around 3 percent in 1950 to about 1.1 percent in 1990 (Berner and Trulsson 2000). The
problem is not only in relative terms to the rest of the world, but also in absolute terms. In
1995, total African exports in nominal dollar terms were actually 10 percent below the
level of 1980 (Berner and Trulsson 2000). Unlike much of the rest of the world, the
exports relative to GDP ratio, has actually declined from 31 percent in 1980 to 28 percent
in 1995 (World Bank 1997).

In general, the preceding discussion indicates that Africa is in a worse position than it
was in 1970s by all major economic indicators. The economic malaise facing Africa
today is serious. About three fourths of the countries in the region are classified in the
low-income category. From all the developing regions in the world, Africa is the most
overburdened by foreign debt, the most dependent on foreign financial and technical
assistance, the most dependent on food aid and imported food.

On the social front, the social development efforts undertaken by African national
governments, bilateral development agencies and international organizations have led to
some positive, but limited, results. For instance, between 1960 and 1994 life expectancy
increased from 40 years to 52 years, while since the mid-1980s the proportion of the
population with access to safe water has almost doubled, from 25 percent to 43 percent of
the total (Spark 1998). During the past two decades adult literacy advanced from 27
percent to 55 percent. Between 1960 and 1991 female enrollment at the secondary level
quadrupled, from 8 percent to 32 percent. Over the past three decades, the infant
mortality rate fell from 167 live births per 1000 to 92 per 1000 (Spark 1998). Even if
there are some improvements in the sphere of social development, Africa still has the
worst record on social indicators.

2.1.2 Sustainable development as a societal process

The 1980s have shown us the disparity of the least developed countries in the world

14
community, discouraging the belief in automatic development (Lemma and Malaska
1989). The expectation of, and demand for, something new has now entered the human
spirit. This results in the need for finding new meanings for the concept of growth as part
of the process of human evolution to enable us to see the possibilities of a “slim quality
of life,” and to set them as valuable goals for human activity. Malaska (1991) argues that
the concept of growth has many dimensions and thus we need not give up the use of the
concept itself but only one-dimensional interpretation of “gaining weight,” or its meaning
as extensive growth. Hence, attention should be given to the meaning of “intensive
growth” and “regenerative growth” as the necessary elements of transformational
dynamics of development. According to Malaska (1991), each new stage of development
has within it the seeds of further change. This is a basic idea of the transformational
dynamics and it also underlies evolution and feedback. Accordingly, development means
self-organizing, changing orders emerging as a result of non-linear, non-equilibrium
processes triggered by local fluctuations, and not merely of perennial global equilibrium.
Bifurcation is introduced into social processes because of the inability of the faculty of
the dominant social and economic orders to facilitate new emerging needs and values,
thus creating the evolutionary dynamic, propelling humanity from the past toward the
future.

According to evolutionary thinking, biological evolution is a process of accumulating

“useful” genetic information. The best measure of evolutionary progress is the ability to
store and process information in the brain and/or central nervous system. Similarly, social
evolution is a process of accumulating “useful” cultural information that is used for social
purposes, passed on via social processes, and stored in artifacts (for example, books) as
well as in people’s memories. In both cases the term useful must be understood as that
which assists survival and growth. As stated by Ayres (1994), “the direction of evolution
is characterized by an increasing ability of organisms and systems to sense the state of the
environment, to assess its risks and opportunities, to learn and remember appropriate
responses, and to transmit this useful information to other individuals in the community
and to succeeding generations.”

15
The principal factors of the Entity (Distinguish ability) factors of societal systems are
ecological space, demography and culture. These factors define what a given social
system is, its process of becoming and the nature of its evolutionary path. The ecological
space defines the possibility space for societal evolutionary process. In terms of a society,
this is given by the source and sinks function of the natural environment. The source
function includes the services provided by the natural environment as a source of material
and energy inputs for societal activities while the sink function covers services provided
by the natural environment as a recipient of emissions and discharges of socio-economic
activities. Demography stands for the overall distribution of population and the nature of
human settlements in a given ecological space.

2.1.3 Formal and informal sector

Most African countries have focused nearly all their attention on encouraging and
subsidizing the formal sector in a variety of ways. The anticipated growth through the
development of the large-scale industrialization process has failed to materialize. Despite
the dynamism of the informal sector, it is neglected and poor. The challenge is how to
expand the informal sector, which produces the numerous entrepreneurs in developing
countries. The informal sector in developing countries represents about 50 percent or
more of the full-time workers and produces 40 percent to 60 percent of the national
income. The informal enterprises provide the bulk of urban employment and are second
only to small-holder agriculture as a rural employer.

Entrepreneurs in the informal sector engage in a wide range of business: agriculture,

manufacturing and repair, trade, and construction (Demeke and Amha 1997). Many
operate in the open air, or are forced to ‘squat’ without full legal rights. The informal
sector is making an invaluable contribution to the economic and social development of
Africa. It accounts for over 20 percent of Africa’s GDP, while providing 60 to 70 percent
of employment (UN 1996). For the African countries, this sector is an important
contributor to GDP as a source of jobs, income and social services; it also provides a
breeding ground for human development. All of these factors combine to make the
informal sector an important tool for poverty alleviation.

16
The informal sector uses labor and domestic raw materials more intensively than the
formal sector. Their technology is simple but flexible. They innovate, particularly in their
ability to recycle scrap materials. In Ethiopia, for example, artisans make kerosene lamps
and charcoal cooking stoves from thin metal plates hammered from used oil drums
(Demeke and Amha 1997). The informal sector thrives because of its responsiveness to
market forces and because of its close links with grass roots institutions. Ease of entry
and exit makes these small firms an outlet for the skills of entrepreneurs from all sections
of the society. For women, the poor, and other disadvantaged groups, the informal sector
is often the only such outlet.

It is generally believed that the informal financial sector in African countries is large,
even though it is difficult to provide quantitative evidence to measure its actual size.
There is a wide variety of arrangements in the informal financial sector, rooted in
customs and traditions, some dating back centuries, but constantly evolving in response
to changing economic and social conditions. The sector is characterized by a high degree
of spontaneity and flexibility, with demand creating its own supply. One form of informal
finance widely in use is the rotating savings and credit association (ROSCA). Members
contribute a mutually acceptable amount of money to a fund that is then made available
to them on a rotating basis. In Ghana, ROSCAs–or “Susus” as they are called– have
evolved into larger scale credit and saving facilities. Informal credit in Ghana is four to
five times larger than formal credit. In Ethiopia, a non-institutional form of group
controlled pooled capital known as “Equb” brings savings and credit facilities down to
the poorest segments of the population. In Cameroon, the informal financial sector
(Tontines) is estimated to account for about 75 percent of rural financial assets and
obligations. In Zimbabwe and Zambia 87 and 43 percent respectively of farmers’ credit
needs are met by informal sources (UNECA 1996). According to a report by the UN
(1996,19-22), informal finance offers many advantages for the following reasons. The
informal or indigenous agents know their clients better than formal banks do, which
reduces their information costs. Their administrative and staff overhead is lower; their
interest rates are not regulated so they can adjust to market forces. But despite their

17
popularity and potential, most forms of informal finance have their limitations too,
especially in terms of economies of scope and scale, maturity transformation, spatial
transfer of savings, predominance of cash transaction.

The informal sector, especially in urban areas, has had to substitute for much of the social
solidarity once found liberally in traditional Africa. The informal sector serves, in
addition, as a safety net for those retrenched or retired from formal sector employment
and unemployed school leavers and migrants. Other forms of non-formal social security
schemes provide support to their members in times of adversity. The “edir” in rural and,
more importantly, urban Ethiopia provides financial assistance, extends support in
household cores and otherwise share collectively in the afflictions and sorrows of
bereaved families.

Integration with the formal sector benefits the entrepreneur and the national economy.
Despite the paucity of data, the statistics that do exist and casual observations indicate
that linkage with the formal sector will need to be strengthened in most of the African
economies. Moreover, a preliminary survey of Africa’s current development plans
reveals that a more congenial enabling environment needs to be created to stimulate
small-enterprise growth and integration of the informal sector into the mainstream of the
national economy (UN 1996).

2.2 Social Entrepreneurship

2.2.1 Theories of Entrepreneurship

The term ‘entrepreneur’ originated in French economics in the 17th and 18th centuries and
suggests that the entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into
an area of higher productivity and greater yield. Entrepreneurs create value; (Dees, 1998)  
they are innovators who drive the ‘creative- destructive’ process of capitalism  
(Schumpeter   1934).   Entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy and they move
the economy forward by serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things. In
general, early literature suggests that the primary function of an entrepreneur is starting

18
new profit-seeking business ventures. Subsequent literature, however, reflects that this
function is not considered a sufficient condition for entrepreneurship. In an extensive
review, Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) observe the presence of six schools of thought
about entrepreneurship in the literature.
First, the ‘great person’ school of thought suggests the entrepreneur has an intuitive
ability — a sixth sense — and the traits and instincts he or she is born with.
Secondly, the ‘psychological characteristics’ school suggests that entrepreneurs have
unique values, attitudes and needs, which drive them.
Thirdly, the classical school of entrepreneurship reflects the early approaches to
entrepreneurship and suggests that the central characteristic of entrepreneurial behavior is
innovation.
Fourthly, the management school suggests that entrepreneurs are organizers of an
economic venture; they are people who organize, own, manage and assume the risk.
Fifthly, the leadership school argues that entrepreneurs are leaders of people. They have
the ability to adapt their style to the needs of people.
Sixthly, the Entrepreneurship school suggests that entrepreneurial skills can be useful
in complex organizations. Cunningham and Lischeron observe that a judgment
concerning each model’s appropriateness depends upon the researcher’s assessment of its
capacity for explaining and improving certain aspects of the entrepreneurial process. In a
radical departure some researchers suggest that entrepreneurship can be viewed as a
behavioral characteristic of the organization. This school of thought argues that
entrepreneurs display three characteristics in their decision making within organizations:
tolerance for risk; proactiveness; and innovativeness. These characteristics form the basis
of the behavioral entrepreneurship scale developed by Covin and Slevin.   (1986). Further,
the proponents of this school of thought argue that adoption of a firm-behavior model of
entrepreneurship has a number of advantages over more traditional entrepreneurship
models and theories that focus on traits of the individual entrepreneur, primarily because
the level of analysis at firm level is more appropriate to understanding effectiveness and
the types of firm-level behaviors that result in performance.

Recently some researchers have produced a compelling argument that entrepreneurial

19
opportunity recognition and exploitation are constructs that fall squarely within the
unique domain of entrepreneurship and should be the focus of research in the field.
Casson defines entrepreneurial opportunities as ‘those situations in which new goods,
services, raw materials, and organizing methods can be introduced and sold at greater
than their cost of production’. This definition requires profit generation as a precondition
for an entrepreneurial opportunity, which can be applied post hoc only, after profits have
been achieved. With a view to reconciling this debate, Singh (2001) suggests that the
potential to generate profits would be an appropriate indicator of an entrepreneurial
opportunity. Accordingly, Singh (2001)   defines an entrepreneurial opportunity ‘as a
feasible, profit seeking, potential venture that provides an innovative new product or
services to the market, improves an existing product/service, or imitates a profitable
product/service in a less-than saturated market’. Singh  (2001) argues that this definition is
purposely broad and can be applied to entrepreneurial opportunities based on incremental
market improvements, those that are highly innovative and create new markets, and
everything in between. Thompson et al (2000) speak of entrepreneurship as a process,
comprising “an (Often opportunistic) idea and the ensuing actions which bring about
desirable outcomes” and include the expansion thereof as an important element in this
process. Shaw (1999) believes that entrepreneur is not adequately defined in academic
literature, conceding that the term has adopted a broad range in meaning. He refers to two
aspects of entrepreneurship: firstly that of an idea which is implemented by the
combining of resources and management skills in order to create a new venture, and
secondly, driving the growth of this new venture.

The preceding discussion provides the theoretical foundation in general in

entrepreneurship research, which is necessary to conceptualize the social
entrepreneurship construct.

2.2.2. Towards the definition of Social Entrepreneurship

Boschee (1995), in his article entitled ‘Social Entrepreneurship’, focuses on non-profit
organizations that have resorted to profit-seeking ventures in order to generate funds. The
trends of increasing running costs, low resources, increased social needs and decreased

20
funding are given as a background to the profit-making initiatives that are sought to
create self-sufficiency. Ventures started by social entrepreneurs are classified into two
categories: affirmative ventures (providing jobs and opportunities for the disadvantaged),
and direct-service ventures. Although some of these are for-profit and some non-profit
businesses, most of them emerge from the non-profit sector. In this sense, the ‘social
entrepreneur’ builds on something already in place rather than starting something new.
Boschee (1995) recognizes the discomfort that many feel towards traditional nonprofits
making money, and agrees that profit-making is not always an appropriate strategy. Yet,
the integration is offered as a useful means of serving clients in a self-sufficient manner,
thus reducing pressures for public or private funding. The “twin carrots of mission and
money” (Boschee, 1995) would attract an increasing number of ‘social entrepreneurs’,
and the resulting situation is described as “winwin”. Dees (1998) refers to this shift of
non-profit funding in his article ‘Enterprising Nonprofits’ against the backdrop of the
rising tide of commercialization in the voluntary sector. The trend of non-profits turning
to the for-profit arena for funding is discussed whilst highlighting both the advantages
and dangers thereof. If certain social programmes were to become self sufficient,
philanthropic funding may be freed up and allocated to other needy activities. Of course,
one of the major threats is that the organization may lose sight of its original mission,
which is social rather than financial. However, Dees (1998) does not classify the
commercial ventures of nonprofits as ‘social entrepreneurial ventures’, but merely points
out that these organizations are “enterprising”.

As social entrepreneurship becomes a more popular concept, so the definitions taken on

by different organizations vary. The Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (CCSE,
2001) has defined the concept broadly to fall within two categories:

1. In the for-profit (private) sector, encompassing activities emphasizing the importance

of a socially-engaged private sector;
2. In the non-profit sector, encompassing entrepreneurial activities which increase
organizational effectiveness and foster long-term sustainability.
From these discussions, one may conclude that the type of social entrepreneurship that is

21
referred to in the literature by Boschee (1995) and the CCSE (2001) is really a
combination of commercial and social entrepreneurship in the sense that the private and
voluntary sectors overlap.

Fowler (2000) suggests two possible frameworks in response to the shift in aid thinking;
‘social entrepreneurship’ or ‘civic innovation’. Fowler (2000) defines social
entrepreneurship in a similar way to Boschee’s (1995) definition thereof and Dees’
(1998) definition of ‘enterprising non-profits’ – those ventures with the “economic
mission of creating a surplus rather than a profit to ensure viability in tackling social
problems” (Fowler, 2000), and the use of commercial undertakings to finance social
projects. He suggests two types of social entrepreneurship:
1. Integrated social entrepreneurship: an organization’s economic activities are focused
on generating positive social outcomes.
2. Complementary social entrepreneurship: an organization engages in an economic
activity which does not directly result in a positive social outcome, but the benefits are
used to cross subsidies a development activity. Organizations engaged in these types of
social entrepreneurship are really profit / nonprofit hybrids and are complex to manage.

It is suggested that the integration of developmental agendas with market opportunities

often results in contamination rather than synergy (Fowler, 2000). Fowler (2000)
suggests the concept of ‘civic innovation’ (or civic entrepreneurship) as a preferred
alternative to the above described ‘social entrepreneurship’. A civic innovator would
draw on the citizen base in the way of motivation and resources, finding new ways of
addressing social problems. This is closely linked to the original premise on which
NGDOs were founded, with the underlying assumption that civil society could be
instrumental in solving societal problems.

Fowler’s definitions of these two concepts are given as (Fowler, 2000):

Social Entrepreneurship: the creation of viable (socio-) economic structures, relations,
institutions, organizations and practices that yield and sustain social benefits.
Civic Innovation: the creation of new or modification of existing conventions, structures,

22
relations, institutions, organizations and practices for civic benefit demonstrated by
ongoing, self-willed citizen engagement and support.

The literature concerning social entrepreneurship contains definitions that span the
public, private and voluntary sectors. In fact, it is highlighted that the boundaries between
these sectors are diminishing (Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (CCSE),
2001; Fowler, 2000). As partnerships are increasingly common between sectors (Fowler,
2000), it is difficult to limit particular activists to one sector only, including social
entrepreneurs. However, it is recognized that the predominant environment of the social
entrepreneur is the voluntary sector (Thompson, 2002). Civic action results as a
consequence of gaps in society left by inadequate public systems or private sector action
– thus forming the basis of the so-called ‘third sector’.

In the context of social entrepreneurship, it is important to understand the definitions of

each of the three sectors in which entrepreneurs can operate:
1. Private Sector: Also referred to as the business sector or profit sector. This refers to the
sector of the economy that is focused on profit-making activities to create wealth for the
owners or shareholders.
2. Public Sector: Also referred to as the government sector or state sector. This is the
sector of the economy controlled by the government and is focused on the fulfillment of
governmental policies.
3. Voluntary Sector: Also referred to as the third sector, the social sector, the citizen
sector or the non-profit sector. This is the sector of the economy which is non-profit
oriented and relies heavily on voluntary support in order to survive.

2.2.3 Defining Social Entrepreneurship

As the discussion of the preceding section shows the definitions of social
entrepreneurship range from broad to narrow. In the former, social entrepreneurship
refers to innovative activity with a social objective in either the for-profit sector, such as
in social-purpose commercial ventures (e.g., Dees & Anderson, 2003; Emerson &
Twersky, 1996) or in corporate social entrepreneurship (e.g., Austin, Leonard, Reficco, &

23
Wei-Skillern, 2004); or in the nonprofit sector, or across sectors, such as hybrid structural
forms which mix for-profit and nonprofit approaches (Dees, 1998). Under the narrow
definition, social entrepreneurship typically refers to the phenomenon of applying
business expertise and market-based skills in the nonprofit sector such as when nonprofit
organizations develop innovative approaches to earn income (Thompson, 2002).
Common across all definitions of social entrepreneurship is the fact that the underlying
drive for social entrepreneurship is to create social value, rather than personal and
shareholder wealth, and that the activity is characterized by innovation, or the creation of
something new rather than simply the replication of existing enterprises or practices. The
central driver for social entrepreneurship is the social problem being addressed, and the
particular organizational form a social enterprise takes should be a decision based on
which format would most effectively mobilize the resources needed to address that
problem. Thus, social entrepreneurship is not defined by legal form, as it can be pursued
through various vehicles. Indeed, examples of social entrepreneurship can be found
within or can span the nonprofit, business, or governmental sectors.

The broader conceptualization of social entrepreneurship is used for the purpose of this
research. To simplify the attempt of this research and to find out the nexus of social
entrepreneurship and sustainable development all the three sectors: Public, Non Profit
and For profit are included in the definition of social entrepreneurship. Therefore, here,
social entrepreneurship is defined as innovative, social value creating activity that can
occur within or across the nonprofit, business, or public sectors. However, most
definitions of social entrepreneurship in popular discourse, as well as in the academic
literature, focus primarily on social entrepreneurship within and across the nonprofit and
the business sectors.

2.2.4 Commercial and Social Entrepreneurship

The distinction between social and commercial entrepreneurship is not dichotomous, but
rather more accurately conceptualized as a continuum ranging from purely social to
purely economic (James et al 2006).Even at the extremes, however, there are still
elements of both. That is, charitable activity must still reflect economic realities, while

24
economic activity must still generate social value. The major differences of social
entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship could be summarized in the following
manner.

• Mission. The fundamental purpose of social entrepreneurship is creating social value

for the public good, whereas commercial entrepreneurship aims at creating profitable
operations resulting in private gain. This contrast is, of course, overstated. Commercial
entrepreneurship does benefit society in the form of new and valuable goods, services,
and jobs, and can have transformative social impacts. Such transformations can even be a
driving motivation for some commercial entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, the differences in
purpose and reward are useful for our comparative analysis. James et al (2006) described
this as “Differences in mission will be a fundamental distinguishing feature between
social and commercial entrepreneurship that will manifest itself in multiple areas of
enterprise management and personnel motivation. Commercial and social dimensions
within the enterprise may be a source of tension”. Such transformations can even be a
driving motivation for some commercial entrepreneurs.

• Performance measurement. The social purpose of the social entrepreneur creates

greater challenges for measuring performance than the commercial entrepreneur who can
rely on relatively tangible and quantifiable measures of performance such as financial
indicators, market share, customer satisfaction, and quality. The challenge of measuring
social change is great due to non quantifiability, multicausality, temporal dimensions, and
perceptive differences of the social impact created (James et al 2006).

The following section also discusses further the distinction of social entrepreneurship and
commercial entrepreneurship based on Gillian Sullivan Mort, Jay Weerawardena and
Kashonia Carnegie model of social entrepreneurship.

2.2.5 Multidimensional Social Entrepreneurship Construct

This is suggested by Gillian Sullivan Mort, Jay Weerawardena and Kashonia Carnegie
(2002). It was observed that models of entrepreneurship that have evolved in the

25
commercial enterprise context are inadequate to capture fully the unique characteristics
of social entrepreneurship, but such approaches provide valuable input in understanding
the challenging role social entrepreneurs are expected to play within the increasingly
competitive environment. Sullivan et al (2001) highlighted the centrality of the social
mission in social entrepreneurship but also observed the inadequacy of a single
dimensional conceptualization to capture the complex nature of social entrepreneurship.
Addressing all these issues, social entrepreneurship was conceptualized as a
multidimensional construct, captured by the common factor underlying its four
dimensions.

Entrepreneurially virtuous dimension: Virtues are positive, morally good values such
as love, integrity, honesty and empathy, which must be acted upon to become genuine
virtues. Social enterprises have a spiritual or virtue dimension very often missing from or
only latent in commercial enterprises. Social entrepreneurs’ attitudes and behaviors must
involve a virtue dimension. It is this virtue dimension of vision of moral purpose that will
aid in operationalising the social mission, and differentiates the social entrepreneur from
the commercial entrepreneur.
Balanced Judgment Capacity: this is conceptualized behaviorally as a superior ability
to deal with complexity and to be able to prioritize, weigh and decide between conflicting
activities to maintain the social mission as the central, prime and uncompromised purpose
of the social enterprise. It has long been acknowledged that one of the key features of
social marketing is the complexity of stakeholder accountability. Social entrepreneurs
demonstrate the ability to form balanced judgments. In for-profit businesses, the primary
function of the corporation is to maximize return on investment to the owners of the
business, the shareholders who are the primary stakeholders. Traditionally, those with
other bases for concern and involvement, the secondary stakeholders, take a lower place
in consideration. in the not-for-profit business, the range of stakeholders, owners, clients,
donors, government, are on a much more equal footing and the primary focus is
understanding and then maximizing the return of social value while also being able to
manage and develop the income generating capacity that contributes to the long-term
viability of the social organization as a whole and its ability to create superior social

26
value. Sullivan et al (2001) argue that social entrepreneurs exhibit balanced judgment or a
coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of complexity and this constitutes the
third dimension of the proposed multidimensional.
Social Opportunity Recognition: This is a central attribute of entrepreneurial firm
behavior. Sullivan et al (2001) suggest that a socially entrepreneurial opportunity as a
feasible, potential venture provides superior social value to the clients served by the
social entrepreneurs. In contrast to commercial entrepreneurs who are driven by the aim
of creating superior ‘commercial value’ to their customers, social entrepreneurs seek
market opportunities that will enable them to create better social value to their clients.
Decision-making behaviors (tolerance for risk, proactiveness and innovativeness): these
three behavioral characteristics are identified for commercial entrepreneur but they are
also instrumental in enabling the social entrepreneur to create superior social value to its
clients while dealing with a chaotic environment within which the social enterprise
operates.

CHAPTER THREE : BACKGROUND TO SOCIAL

ENTREPRENEURIAL ORGANIZATIONS & SELECTED
CASE STUDIES

3.1 Organisations Encouraging Social Entrepreneurial Activity

Today, non-profits and non-governmental organizations, foundations, governments, and

individuals promote, fund, and advise social entrepreneurs around the planet. A growing
number of colleges and universities are establishing programs focused on educating and
training social entrepreneurs. Organizations such as Ashoka: Innovators for the Public,
the Skoll Foundation, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs, Echoing Green, the
Manhattan Institute, the Draper Richards Foundation and Civic Ventures, Yale School of
Management, the Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation among others, focus on
highlighting these hidden change-makers who are scattered across the globe. The North
American organizations tend to have a strongly individualistic stance focused on a

27
handful of exceptional leaders - while others in Asia and Europe emphasize more how
social entrepreneurs work within teams, networks and movements for change. However,
most organizations that promote social entrepreneurship are either originated in North
America or have American orientation in one or another way.

As the analysis of this study is based on the population of social entrepreneurships whose
founders are recognized as “outstanding social entrepreneurs” by Ashoka, the Skoll, and
the Schwab Foundations, the discussion of the following section is limited to these three
organizations. Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, the Skoll Foundation, and the Schwab
Foundation for Social Entrepreneurs, have been involved in promoting social
entrepreneurship in Africa. These organizations directly support social entrepreneurs by
providing seed capital and access to crucial supporting networks. And they use a number
of criteria for awarding membership to the network.

3.1.1 Ashoka: Innovators for the Public

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public have been involved in promoting Social
Entrepreneurship in Africa since 1990 and is more active than any other organizations in
its involvement in the region and the analysis phase of this study some consultation was
made with this organization. Ashoka is the world’s community of “leading social
entrepreneurs”—individuals with innovative and practical ideas for addressing social
needs. Ashoka is committed to pushing back the frontiers of poverty by identifying and
supporting social entrepreneurs through financial and a host of value-added professional
services (Ashoka, undated). The organization was founded in the USA in 1980 by Bill
Drayton, and he named Ashoka after a third century B.C. Indian Emperor who, after a
particular conquest, renounced violence and dedicated his life to doing good deeds for the
public. Identifying the organization as the first professional association for social
entrepreneurs, Ashoka has launched more than 1,700 leading social entrepreneurs in at
least 60 countries.

Approach: To ensure that the leading ideas for social change are fully developed and
sustained, Ashoka has designed an approach that offers critical interventions on three
levels—the individual, the group, and the sector.

28
 • Supporting Social Entrepreneurs Ashoka identifies and invests in leading social
entrepreneurs and helps them achieve maximum social impact.

• Promoting Group Entrepreneurship Groups and networks of social

entrepreneurs working together accelerate and spread social impact. Ashoka
engages communities of entrepreneurs and develops patterns of effective
collaborations that change entire fields.

• Building Infrastructure for the Sector A global network of change-makers

requires tools and support systems to deliver sustainable social solutions. Ashoka
creates needed infrastructure, such as access to social financing, bridges to
business and academic sectors, and frameworks for partnerships that deliver
social and financial value.

Africa Program: Ashoka launched its Africa program in 1990 with the election of the
first Fellow in Zimbabwe. Since establishing its Southern African program, Ashoka
Africa expanded to West Africa in 1992 and opened its East Africa office in 2001.
Ashoka believes that building a critical mass of leading social entrepreneurs with
groundbreaking ideas is an important step toward creating a vibrant, prosperous African
continent. As Ashoka claims in its website its Fellows in Africa are empowering people
to create their own economic and civic opportunities, addressing the pandemic of
HIV/AIDS and other devastating health concerns, implementing transformative education
systems, protecting their environments and natural resources, and introducing effective
methods of conflict resolution. Today there are more 200 Ashoka Fellows in 17 sub-
Saharan Africa countries (Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana,
Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania,
The Gambia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe). And roughly 25 new Fellows (almost 25
percent of the worldwide each year new Fellows of Ashoka) elected each year in sub-
Saharan Africa. Ashoka Africa currently works under the 3 cluster regions of East,
Southern and West Africa, and has 4 regional offices based in Nigeria, Senegal, South
Africa, and Uganda.

29
3.1.2 The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship

This is a non-profit organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, and aims to foster greater
understanding of, and support for, the practice of social entrepreneurship through the
creation of a network for social entrepreneurs (Schwab Foundation, 2002). The Schwab
Foundation does not give grants or invest financially in the organizations of its selected
social entrepreneurs. Rather, it uses its resources to create opportunities where social
entrepreneurs who have successfully implemented and scaled their transformational idea,
can further legitimate their work, have access to usually inaccessible networks, and in
consequence, mobilize financial and in-kind resources that enable them to continue to
strengthen and expand. The founder of the foundation and President, Klaus Schwab, is
the same man who 30 years ago founded and presides over the World Economic Forum.
And the Foundation, through its linkage with the World Economic Forum, seeks to foster
relationships between accomplished social entrepreneurs and the community of corporate
and philanthropic entities as well as policy makers, media and other thought leaders. The
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship was formally established in 1998, but it
was not until August 2000 that the Foundation began its operations. The mission of the
Foundation is to identify, reward and disseminate examples of outstanding social
entrepreneurship, and to generate general awareness on the significance of social
entrepreneurship for societies.

Approach:

· supporting the participation and active involvement of its selected

social entrepreneurs at the annual events of the Schwab Foundation
and the World Economic Forum.

· continuously facilitating connections between interested investors and

social entrepreneurs; supporting the participation of its social
entrepreneurs to key events sponsored by other organizations.

· working with leading graduate schools around the world to offer

opportunities for executive training to its social entrepreneurs.

30
 · working with companies to advance specific activities of social
entrepreneurs or initiatives that support social entrepreneurship.

· offering the possibility of internships for graduate students in relevant

areas of interest to specific social entrepreneurs.

· working with leading academic institutions to publish case studies on

specific social entrepreneurs for incorporation in undergraduate and
graduate level courses.

Africa Program: The Schwab Foundation searches for leading social entrepreneurs
around the world. Social Entrepreneurs have been selected into the Foundation’s network
after a thorough due diligence process, including outside expert reviews and site visits.
The Schwab Foundation is collaborating with media partners in various countries to
identify the “social entrepreneurs of the Year” for the country. The national winners will
be selected into the global Schwab Foundation network and will have access to the
benefits provided by the Foundation. Until today, the network includes 103 social
entrepreneurs 8 of them are from sub-Saharan Africa countries ( DMT Mobile Toilets –
Nigeria, KickStart- Kenya, Soul City- South Africa, Honey Care- Kenya, SAILD-
Cameroon, MAARDC – Nigeria, Heartbeat Centre for Community Development - South
Africa, ASAFE- Cameroon). According to its 2005 annual report the regional
representation of social entrepreneurs of the foundation fellows is Latin America -24%,
Europe -13%, Australia -3%, Asia -28%, Africa - 9%, and North America -23%.

3.1.3 The Skoll Foundation

The Skoll Foundation, headquartered in California’s Silicon Valley, was created by Jeff
Skoll in 1999 to pursue his vision of a world where all people enjoy and employ the full
range of their talents and abilities. Skoll, who was the first employee and first President
of eBay, founded the Foundation with the belief that strategic investments in the right
people can lead to lasting social change. The Skoll Foundation’s mission is to advance
systemic change to benefit communities around the world by investing in, connecting and
celebrating social entrepreneurs. By identifying the people and programs already bringing

31
positive changes to communities throughout the world, the Skoll Foundation support
them to extend their reach, deepen their impact and fundamentally improve society.

Approach: its approaches could be put in short as Investing, Connecting and

Celebrating.

Investing: The Skoll Foundation invests in social entrepreneurs through its flagship
award program, the, replication or extension of programs that have proved successful in
addressing a broad array of critical social issues .

Connecting: The Skoll Foundation connects social entrepreneurs with key people and
resources through a number of academic, business and community channels which serve
to advance the work of individual entrepreneurs, as well as the field of social
entrepreneurship as a whole. To further academic study and build knowledge of social
entrepreneurship, the foundation launched the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship in
November 2003 at the Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. The Centre funds five
Skoll Scholars who participate in the full Saïd MBA program and supports Skoll Fellows
who do research in and teach social entrepreneurship. The Centre also convenes the Skoll
World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, an annual conference that brings together the
world’s foremost practitioners and thought leaders in the emerging field of social
entrepreneurship. To foster connections online, the Skoll Foundation launched and built
Social Edge, an online community at www.socialedge.org where social entrepreneurs,
nonprofit professionals, philanthropists and others in the social sector connect to network,
learn, inspire one another and share resources.

Celebrating: The Skoll Foundation celebrates social entrepreneurs through projects such
as the PBS Foundation Social Entrepreneurship Fund, which enables filmmakers,
documentaries and other journalists to produce works that tell the stories of individual
social entrepreneurs and promote large-scale public awareness of social entrepreneurship.
As the foundation’s reach and impact have grown, its structure has evolved to meet the
growing needs of those it serves. Today the Skoll Foundation encompasses two separate
corporations: a private foundation, The Skoll Foundation, and a public charity whose
legal name is The Skoll Fund. The Skoll Fund, created in 1999, is a supporting

32
organization associated with Silicon Valley Community Foundation of San Jose,
California. The private foundation was launched in 2002. Each entity is governed by its
own board of directors. The two entities share grant making, program and administrative
resources. Both organizations were founded to support social entrepreneurship, and
together they are known as the Skoll Foundation.

3.2 Background to Selected Case Studies

3..2.1 Selected Case Studies and Social Entrepreneurial Organizations

The analysis of this study is based on the population of social entrepreneurships whose
founders are recognized as “outstanding social entrepreneurs” by Ashoka, Schwab and
Skoll Foundations. Three social entrepreneurship organizations that are operating in
Africa were selected as case studies according to the selection criteria stated in section
1.4.2. The selected case studies are DMT Mobile Toilet (DMT), Mango Tree Educational
Enterprises (MTEE) and KickStart appropriate technology. The founder of DMT is
recognized as Social Entrepreneur both by Ashoka and Schwab Foundation, MTEE by
Ashoka and KickStart by Skoll and Schwab Foundations.

In the context of Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations social entrepreneurship has
come to be synonymous with the individual visionary – the risk taker who goes against
the tide to start a new organization to create dramatic social change. The problem with
focusing so much attention on the individual entrepreneur is that it neglects to recognize
and support thousands of other individuals, groups, and organizations that are crafting
solutions to troubles around the globe (Light 2006). Paul C. Light (2006) of Stanford Jr.
University pointed out four principal problems with defining social entrepreneurship in a
way that puts so much emphasis on individuals. The first is a cult of personality that
focuses on individual traits such as achievement, motivation, tolerance for ambiguity,
optimism, intelligence, talent, and so forth. This focus strays from what the entrepreneur
does to who the entrepreneur is and his or her ability to sell an idea. Much of the research
that underlies this thinking has failed to prove that personality traits contribute to
entrepreneurial success, let alone to identify the specific traits that actually matter.

33
Moreover, the available evidence from exemplary social entrepreneurs suggests that
success depends less upon personality than it does on teachable skills, such as the ability
to activate the public, raise capital, negotiate results, and manage the difficult transitions
involved in taking an organization from its initial start-up phase to maturity. The second
bias that comes from focusing on individuals is a tendency to ignore the role of
organizations and the resources they provide for pattern-breaking change. Researchers
have long known that successful ideas require a mix of talents that is rarely found in one
person. The third bias in focusing on individual social entrepreneurs is the potential
neglect of the basic pattern-breaking idea. Yet, the notion that ideas might emerge before
champions is a staple of both business and nonprofit thinking. Social entrepreneurship
might follow a very similar track in which ideas find champions, or vice versa, or in
which solutions find resources, or vice versa (Light 2006). However, Bill Drayton
(2006), Founder and CEO of Ashoka has strongly criticized Paul C. Light’s description
of Ashoka’s definition of “social entrepreneur” by saying that Ashoka recognizes more
than just the individual – “We support pattern-changing new ideas, the social
entrepreneurs behind them, and the institutions needed to support both.” The Ashoka
fellow selection criteria do, in fact, include many of his suggestions. However, in a
practical version any one can read easily the due attentions paid on the individual
entrepreneur from the supports given, the follow ups provided, and the on going
promotions of social entrepreneurs by the three organizations.

Unlike the common bias in focusing on individual social entrepreneurs, this study doesn’t
give so much attention for the individual entrepreneur instead it focuses on the pattern-
breaking idea and on the role of the organization as a whole.

Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations identified and awarded their fellow social
entrepreneurs at different scale-up stages. Early stage social entrepreneurship involves
the initial work of conceiving, planning, launching, implementing and assessing an idea.
Early stage innovations often remain local. Ashoka supports social entrepreneurs at this
stage. Middle stage is characterized by expansion, organizational development, and
deeper institutionalization of a successful innovation, and the innovation is being

34
implemented on a broader scale, regionally or nationally. In late stage social
entrepreneurship, the innovation is widely accepted as a new pattern in society. And it
seems that both Skoll and Schwab Foundations identified social entrepreneurs when they
are at their middle and late stages. However, both Ashoka and the Schwab foundation
recognized DMT Mobile Toilet at the same year, 2005. This might be because the
impact of the SE organizations can be translated in many ways, and as a result in
analyzing the impact stage of DMT these organizations had reached at different
conclusions.1

The Schwab Foundation has decided to concentrate its future efforts on social
entrepreneurs who, in addition to having implemented practical and innovative
approaches to social value creation, have built substantial financial sustainability into
their operations and are not wholly grant-dependent. Unlike this future focus, at the
moment Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations don’t focus on the financial
sustainability of SE organizations. As a result they recognized any organization be it
Non-Profit, Not- for- Profit, or Profit. The organizations accept social entrepreneurs with
any legal status into their network. The legal form or forms of an organization are not a
selection criteria. However, in the case of the profit based organizations all the three are
curious about the distribution of dividends and they advised social entrepreneurs strongly
to allocate the profit produced mainly for scaling out activities of the organization
impacts. Actually these kinds of beliefs and principles have caused some kind of tensions
in recognizing social entrepreneurs – the future plans of MTEE and DMT, discussed in
sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, demonstrates this undeclared fact. The three case studies,
couldn’t be categorized simply as for- profit or Non-profit because all of them are hybrid
and it seems that it is the matter of registration in their respective home countries other
wise all of them are Not-for-profit hybrid models. According to their respective home
country registrations, the legal form of DMT is for-profit, MTEE- for-profit and
KickStart- Non – profit.

1 Definitions taken from Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, working document
for the Schwab Foundation, September 2000.

35
3.2.2 KickStart appropriate technology

KickStart (previously ApproTEC) is a not-for-profit organization that was founded in

Kenya in July 1991 by Nick Moon and Martin Fisher, who are fellows of Schwab and
Skoll foundations. It designs, develops and markets new low-cost technologies in Africa
in order to support local entrepreneurs and to establish new small businesses. It promotes
sustainable economic growth and employment creation in Kenya, Mali, Tanzania and
other countries by developing and promoting technologies that can be used by
entrepreneurs to establish and run profitable small scale enterprises. KickStart’s
technologies, expertise, and methods are widely applied throughout Africa to support
programs in agriculture, shelter, water, sanitation, health, and relief. KickStart has offices
in Kenya, Tanzania, and Mali.

Activity and Resource Arrangement:

Conduction of market research: Identification of profitable new small business
opportunities that can be established by local entrepreneurs with limited capital
investments. The research studies examine raw materials, competing products, potential
market demands and constraints and opportunities for small enterprises. Design and
development of the products through KickStart engineers and technicians
Promotion and installation of products through KickStart trainers and promoters
Marketing of new technologies to local entrepreneurs through shops, demos, sales staff
and the media -> e.g. through live demonstrations at the retailers, radio and newspaper
advertisements, mobile truck mounted demonstrations in local villages, demonstrations at
local shows and exhibitions, commissioned sales staff, discounts and sales. The local
entrepreneurs/investors buy the technologies from the retailers and use them to establish
profitable new businesses.
Monitoring of cost-effectiveness and impacts of its program
1 measurement of the number of new businesses and jobs created and the amount of
new profits and new wages earned by the new entrepreneurs and their employees

36
 2 the impacts are compared to the costs of the program: KickStart’s state-of-the-art
Impact Monitoring and Reporting Unit tracks and records key indicators. The new
machines are sold with a one-year guarantee and the guarantee forms are used to
track the number of technologies sold and the names and locations of the buyers.
The purchasers’ details are recorded on a computerized database and KickStart’s
monitoring staff visit a random selection of purchasers to interview them at their
premises. They are visited when they first buy the new equipment and again one
and two years later. KickStart staff administer detailed questionnaires and gather
statistical data to determine the impact of the new businesses.

Fig 3.1: KickStart’s Strategy

3.2.3 DMT Mobile Toilet

DMT Mobile Toilet (DMT) is the pioneer mobile toilet company in Nigeria, which
provide decent toilet facilities in strategic locations across the country. It was established
in 1992 by Isaac Durojaiye who was elected both to the Ashoka and Schwab Fellowships
in 2005. DMT’s business model aims at improved public health and social transformation
by providing job opportunities and better sanitation.

Activity Description: DMT designs, builds, and distributes sanitary mobile toilets for
outdoor and indoor use at large public gatherings and for wider deployment as public
toilet facilities where public sanitation systems are absent or inadequate. To ensure a

37
steady supply of mobile toilets to meet the needs of Nigerians, DMT established a local
factory to manufacture the toilets. Once built, they are placed in markets, motor parks,
street corners, and other strategic locations. To keep the toilets clean and functional, each
toilet is given to a young person on a lease arrangement. The area boys oversee the
maintenance of the facilities and enter into an arrangement whereby DMT staff and their
specialized trucks evacuate the waste twice a week from each toilet. They use of the
toilet, pay back a percentage to DMT and keep the rest as income. This system ensures
that the young people have a sense of ownership of the toilets and a stake in keeping
them clean and functional in order to continue the intended social service and the making
of profit.

Revenue and Cost Structure: To sustain the initiative and increase the availability of
the toilets in public places, DMT rents and sells the toilets to churches, oil, construction,
and other companies who can afford to pay premium prices for them. With the funds
realized from these customers, DMT is able to build and place more basic toilets in
heavily used public spaces

3.2.4 Mango Tree Educational Enterprises

Mango Tree Educational Enterprises (MTEE) is a private limited company with thirty
shareholders, the majority of whom are employees. It was founded by Craig Esbeck in
Uganda in January 2000. The organization manufactures innovative educational tools for
schools and health centers and provides trainings in how to use them effectively. Craig
Esbeck chose “Mango Tree” as the name of the business because many village primary
schools in Uganda use the shade of a mango tree as a classroom. He wanted to create an
enduring and meaningful symbol that combines the grassroots focus of the business with
the best qualities of traditional African village life.
The company produced educational games and toys, pictorial charts, counseling tools for
health care workers, large format story charts used to ignite discussions on subjects such
as gender, communication and HIV/AIDS. The innovative aspect of the products and
services of the company are in the following areas:

38
 • They are designed collaboratively with grassroots educators.
• They are culturally relevant, durable, inexpensive, and made from local materials
that can be replicated by users.
• They encourage educators to use participatory teaching methods.

Revenue and Cost structure: Mango Tree Educational Enterprises established with an
initial capital investment of about US $2,500 and has been a self- sustaining enterprise
since its inception. MTEE reinvests all profits from the sale of Mango Tree products into
advancing its ideas and spreading them throughout the country.

CHAPTER FOUR: STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES OF

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHIN THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE

4.1. Domains of Sustainable Development

The most widely used definition of SD is taken from World Commission on Environment
and Development, WCED, (1987), entitled "Our Common Future", also called the
Brundtland Report (after the Commission's chairwoman, Gro Harlem Brundtland). It
defines sustainable development as
“ development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987).
This definition sets out the two fundamental principles of intra-generational and inter-
generational equity, and contains the two 'key concepts' of needs and limits. The concept
of needs demands that 'overriding priority' should be given to the essential needs of the
world's poor, both North and South. Poverty and the unequal distribution of resources are
identified as major causes of environmental degradation: 'Sustainable development
requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their
aspirations for a better life' (WCED, 1987). Crucially, the1987 WCED Report stresses
that these goals can only be achieved if consumption patterns in the richer countries are

39
readjusted. Secondly, the concept of limits recognizes that the current state of technology
and social organization imposes limits on the ability of the environment to meet present
and future needs, so we must moderate our demands on the natural environment. Yet the
report rejects the crude anti-growth arguments of the 1970s, asserting that 'Growth has no
set limit in terms of population or resource use beyond which lies ecological disaster'
(WCED, 1987). Indeed, the WCED report demands a revival of growth in developing
countries to help alleviate poverty and provide for basic needs, although it seeks a more
'eco-friendly' type of growth that is 'less material- and energy-intensive and more
equitable in its impact' (WCED, 1987).

The report highlighted the three fundamental domains of sustainable development, the
environment, the economy, and society and highlighted a number of major proposals for
sustainable development. The major and the common view of sustainable development is
that the three domains (of Environment, economy and society) must all develop but not at
the expense of each other.

In this section the case studies are analyzed in order to examine their strategy and
activities that could exemplify the issues implicit in the above definition of sustainable
development. This also explores the activities of social entrepreneurs on the basis of the
three domains of sustainable development. As a result this will make out the advantage
of social entrepreneurship in the process of operationalising the abstract notion of
sustainable development. To do so, the model of Seelos et al (2005) that decompose the
notion of sustainable development into three distinct sets of activities is adopted. It is an
operational model that tries to indicate the contribution of social entrepreneurship to
sustainable development. At the heart of this model are the three domains of sustainable
development and it was developed on the basis of the three distinct activities that aimed
at (1) satisfying basic human needs; (2) creating communities that establish norms, rights,
and collaborative behavior as a prerequisite for participating in social and economic
development; and (3) translating the more abstract needs of future generations into action
today.

40
Figure 4.1 An operational model of the contribution of social entrepreneurship to
sustainable development

The model depicts a framework for thinking about separate categories of needs: those of
the individuals, those of communities or societies, and those of future generations. These
three categories are very different from each other, yet they combine to represent the two
principal forms of human organizations- - individuals and collective of individuals – over
time. Seelos et al ( 2004) believes that social entrepreneurs are seen as providing products
and services to all three levels of needs. Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair define the
purpose of social entrepreneurship to be to contribute to sustainable development (Seelos
et al 2004). And the social entrepreneurs activities are targeted individuals, societies and
future generations. At the same time, this model is framed on the basis of the 1987
WCED report, which explicitly assigned priority to satisfying the essential needs of the
poor, such as those for ‘food, clothing, shelter, jobs’, but also to providing them with the
‘opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life’. This should be achieved,
however, without ‘compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’.

4.2 Catering to basic human needs

World Commission on Economic Development (1987) demands a revival of growth in

developing countries to help alleviate poverty and provide for basic needs, but it seeks a

41
more 'eco-friendly' type of growth that is 'less material- and energy-intensive and more
equitable in its impact' (WCED, 1987). It was the wish of the Report that all human
beings should be able to achieve their basic needs because sustainable development can’t
be achieved so long as the essential needs of the poor remain unsatisfied.

Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology

KickStart seeks to develop a significant middle class in Africa by stimulating the growth
of a thriving entrepreneurial sector. Its strategy depends on the creation of new jobs and
wealth that enables the poor to climb out of their poverty, creates new businesses and
jobs by developing and promoting new low-cost technologies. These are bought and used
by local entrepreneurs to establish profitable small-scale businesses. By identifying,
developing and marketing technologies with a high cost-benefit ratio, KickStart enables
the entrepreneurial poor to play an effective role in the market economy, substantially
increasing their income levels and creating jobs. One of the technologies developed by
KickStart to date is Micro-Irrigation Technologies. The use of micro-irrigation
technologies generally results in a significant yield improvement over traditional
irrigation practices such as flood irrigation. Appropriate low-cost drip systems have
shown to have positive effects on yield, incomes, and food security. With the right
institutional support, these systems can help poor farmers improve water productivity and
incomes (IWMI International water Management Institute 2005). KickStart micro
irrigation technologies is Low-cost type which could increase income for poor farmers
by enabling more efficient use of water resources, improving yield, improving quality,
and reducing labor costs. Thousands of entrepreneurial farmers in East Africa are
irrigating with KickStart's manual irrigation pumps. KickStart believes micro-irrigation
can increase incomes, create employment and stimulate local economies in rural areas by
enabling small-scale farmers to make the transition from subsistence agriculture to
commercial farming by:

1 increasing the land area under irrigation

2 ensuring full irrigation resulting in improved crop quality
3 increasing the number of growing cycles per year

42
4 timing harvests to coincide with times of high prices
5 employing more waged labor
6 growing of high value crops

Case 2: DMT Mobile Toilet (DMT)

DMT manufactures toilets and provides them, free of charge, to area boys and widows
wishing to franchise them. In turn, they oversee the maintenance of the facilities and
enter into an arrangement whereby DMT staff and their specialized trucks evacuate the
waste twice a week from each toilet. Each toilet is used about one hundred times a day,
for a small cost. Young men and women charge a fee for the use of the toilet, pay back a
percentage to DMT Mobile Toilet and keep the rest as income. As a result, local area
boys and widows earn far more than the national monthly average. DMT Mobile Toilet
has also been working in some states in the country, through the Ministry of Women
affairs and poverty alleviation to help alleviate poverty among majority of women by
giving them toilets to man at strategic places by this, some are been empowered.

Case 3. Mango Tree Educational Enterprises (MTEE)

MTEE offers custom-made educational tools and classroom learning aids, including
games, wall charts, maps, books, flash cards, puppets, and letters and numbers. To design
and make these products, MTEE contracts with local craftspeople who use raw materials
that are familiar to people in Uganda, thus supporting the local economy and reinforcing
pride in local products. All Mango Tree products are made in Uganda and Most products
are handmade providing valuable local employment. Originally MTEE made all of its
products in its own workshop. As it increased the production capacity MTEE recognized
it did not have to do it alone. MTEE now work with about fifteen different subcontractor
groups. Some are NGOs working with marginalized groups like the disabled, street
children, and HIV positive individuals, while others are private sector businesses.

43
4.3 Changing norms and behavior to create opportunities (Needs
for enabling structures in communities and societies)

A second crucial development aspect was emphasized by World Commission on

Economic Development (1987) when it asked that the poor be given the ‘opportunity to
satisfy their aspirations for a better life’. Health and social issues needed to be taken care
of before people could be economically productive. The need for communities and
societies to provide enabling structures and a fair distribution of limited resources allows
individuals to act in their own best interests but also enables the collective to sustain and
improve structures and resources for themselves and for every one else. The drive for
economic development comes from communities and societies that seek responsible
allocation of resources, protecting of the rights of individuals, trusted institutions, and
means of risk sharing for building entrepreunrial initiatives. In addition, society plays an
important role in providing structures that are capable of satisfying the basic needs of its
members (Seeols et al 2004).

Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology

KickStart acts as an enabling structure that coordinates many activities and diverse
groups of people to create value from very limited assets and resources. It researches
markets to identify unfulfilled needs and match them with technology solutions. The
technology to be identified by KickStart must require minimum training to install and
use, be easily repairable and manufactured from locally available materials. KickStart
designs the tools for mass production of the equipment. It buys the product from the
manufacturers and markets it to poor entrepreneurs, using innovative techniques and
selling through local retail shops. It trains them to set-up production assembly lines using
the tooling designed by KickStart and train them how to do quality control. It recruits and
trains a network of local retail shops in cities, towns, and small market centers around the
region. KickStart then buys the technologies from the manufacturers and sells them with
a mark-up to the retailers. KickStart is an important and very efficient structure for
empowering people to act and its scale of operation have a transforming effect on the
whole communities in which it operates, For example: KickStart has developed original
designs for low-cost, split-rim wheels for animal carts and is working with companies to

44
introduce a locally produced design of the Xtracycle cargo bicycle to East Africa.
Transport services are a great business everywhere and Africa is no exception. In the
rural areas non-motorized transport is often the only feasible and affordable way to
transport people and goods.

Case 2. DMT Mobile Toilets

The health and dignity of Nigerian citizens is eroded by the lack of adequate toileting
facilities which forces many people to defecate and urinate indiscriminately in major
cities around the country. For Isaac (the founder of DMT Mobile Toilet), the solution was
simple: Nigerian cities could be as clean and hygienic as any other city if adequate
facilities were provided. Based on this recognition, starting in Lagos, Isaac embarked on
the first mobile toilet initiative in the country. To do this effectively and in a sustainable
manner, DMT Mobile Toilet manufactures mobile toilets locally and in a manner that
meets the needs of the different categories of users. For instance, squatting mobile toilets
are built for markets, parks and streets, while executive toilets are manufactured for use at
seminars, crusades, construction sites, and parties. To sustain the initiative and increase
the availability of the toilets in public places, DMT Mobile Toilet rents and sells the
toilets to churches, oil, construction, and other companies who can afford to pay premium
prices for them. With the funds realized from these customers, the company is able to
build and place more basic toilets in heavily used public spaces. The company now
provides toilets at bus stops and in densely populated areas in major cities within the
country. In addition, all the toilets are leased to unemployed youth who make fixed
returns at the end of the day and keep whatever they make over the fixed amount.

Case 3. Mango Tree Educational Enterprises

Mango Tree Educational Enterprises uses two distinct approaches. First, it designs,
produces, and sells child-centered, affordable learning aids that inspire creativity in
children. And second, it reaches teachers through workshops and ongoing trainings,
encouraging them to break with the tradition of rote learning and introduce creative and
interactive methods in the classroom. MTEE encourages teachers to develop their own
new tools, refine creative techniques, and mentor less experienced teachers by offering

45
such incentives as awards given to truly inventive teachers, as well as prizes of free
classroom games and toys that they can readily integrate into their curriculum. Although
it primarily focuses on teachers, MTEE applies its work beyond the traditional teaching
sphere, offering progressive learning strategies to community health workers,
environmental educators, and others. Its products impact low-income individuals by
improving the quality of educational services they receive. Seventy-Five percent of the
products are targeted to schools in war-affected northern Uganda where poverty levels
are much higher than the national average. From a small village workshop with five
employees producing three products, Mango Tree now has over 125 products and a range
of training workshops and consulting services. They work with about fifteen different
subcontractor groups. Some are NGOs working with marginalized groups like the
disabled, street children, and HIV positive individuals, while others are private sector
businesses. MTEE supports disadvantaged groups though subcontracts. It contributes
free materials–equal to roughly 10 percent of the day's workshop sales–to the NCC
Resource Center and this alliance has offered a strategic foothold for Mango Tree.

4.4 Catering to the needs of future generations

The third aspect emphasized by World Commission on Economic Development (1987)

was that satisfying the needs of current generations must be achieved ‘without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Future
generations have a current – albeit abstract –need for us to act on their behalf and in their
interest as well. We do not know the exact nature of future needs, but certainly, future
generations have a need to make their own choices. The concept of sustainable
development thus implies that we should act in ways that do not increase constraints and
thus lower the choices available to future generations. Inheriting a set of serious
environmental and social problems will not support this goal. The costs of environmental
degradation as a side-effect, or even a result, of economic growth and modern lifestyles
accrue over long time periods and are spread over many stakeholders. The environment
as a social asset is a shared common property; this characteristic of the environment does
not maximize the incentives for individuals to best maintain it. In many poor countries,

46
priorities understandably focus on current problems and the value of future benefits is
heavily discounted.

Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology

KickStart promotes appropriate technology and employment creation in Kenya, Mali,
Tanzania and other countries to establish and run profitable small scale enterprises. Its
technologies, expertise, and methods are widely applied throughout Africa. Once
identified, its research team works to design a product that meets strict criteria. It must be
affordable, manually operated, energy-efficient, durable and easy to transport by bicycle
or bus. "Appropriate technology is usually characterized as being small scale, energy
efficient, environmentally sound, labor intensive, and controlled by the local community.
It must be simple enough to be maintained by the people using it. Furthermore, it must
match the user and the need in complexity and scale and must be designed to foster self-
reliance, cooperation and responsibility." (Engineers without Borders online Glossary).
Note that appropriate-technology aims in this definition for "environmentally sound
technologies”. The technology selection criteria of KickStart completely matches with
the characteristics of Appropriate Technology that was put ward by Engineers without
Borders.
The micro-irrigation technologies of KickStart can improve productivity; raise incomes
through crop yields and outputs; and enhance food security of households. Numerous
studies have established the gains from micro-irrigation adoption and several government
and non-government organizations are engaged in actively promoting the technologies.
According to research done by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI
2005), one-third of the world’s population will face absolute water scarcity by the year
2025. Among the worst hit will be regions in Asia, the Middle-East and Sub-Saharan
Africa, home to some of the largest concentrations of rural poverty in the world.
Policymakers, researchers, NGOs, and farmers are pursuing various technical,
institutional and policy interventions to meet this challenge. Micro-irrigation
technologies, commonly in use in water scarce areas of developed countries, constitute
one such intervention with the ability to use water more efficiently in irrigated
agriculture.

47
The Sanitation Technologies of KickStart, which aimed at reducing the environmental
problems caused by sanitation problems are environmental technologies that may result
in reducing wastes; and are developed within both the ecological and social context.
KickStart’s Domed Concrete Pit Latrine Slabs have become the standard in refugee
camps in East Africa where over 90,000 slabs have already been installed. The
‘Domeslab’ is produced using equipment designed by KickStart for the UNHCR (United
Nations High Commission for Refuges) during the Somali refugee crisis in 1992.
Circular domed concrete slabs with tight fitting lids are quickly and simply cast on site
using minimal quantities of cement, and no steel reinforcement. These are easily installed
by placing them over the latrine pit. Two workers can cast 3 slabs per day. A Domeslab
latrine costs a fraction of a conventional reinforced concrete slab latrine or “Ventilated
Improved Pit (VIP)” latrine. This technology is presently in use in refugee camps all over
East & Central Africa where relief agencies have installed over 90,000 KickStart
Domeslabs.

Case 2. DMT Mobile Toilet

DMT Mobile Toilet is founded because of its founder concern about the health and
environment issues created by the absence of public toilets in most Nigerian cities. Its
mission is to provide top affordable quality mobile/ portable toilets through outright sale,
lease and rental plans in order to maintain and sustain a cleaner and healthier
environment, along with a continuous public education and enlightenment programme. It
transports the waste to government approved recycling plants for disposal. And it is
working diligently to devise creative avenues for recycling the waste collected to
generate bio-gas, electricity and fertilizer for farmers making sure no waste is wasted.

Case 3. Mango Tree Educational Enterprises

Many of MTEE educational tools are culturally relevant, durable, inexpensive, and
made from locally available materials like grain sacks, bottle tops, recycled slippers (flip-
flops), bicycle spokes, gourds, and plastic jerry cans. This makes them easy to replicate
by low income educators. The use of these kind of recycled product is beneficial in two
ways: it reduces the inputs (energy and raw materials) to a production system and reduces

48
the amount of waste produced for disposal. These in return reduces the environmental
degradation and the economic costs of manufacturing.

CHAPTER FIVE: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

IMPACTING THE GOALS OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

5.1 MDGs as Road Map to Sustainable Development Goals

Intellectual efforts were made and a number of meetings for the various UN conferences
were held in the 1990s to give sustainable development some theoretical and operational
muscle. OECD in 1996 proposed a set of seven time-bound quantitative targets in the
form of International Development Goals (IDGs) as a possible road map to sustainable
development. In September 2000, 149 Heads of State and representatives from 180
countries endorsed the principles behind the IDGs and transformed the seven IDGs into
eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A set of indicators for each of the MDGs
was established to enable the tracking of progress towards the MDG targets. Essentially,
the MDGs became the road map to the sustainable development goals.

The MDGs are also described by critics, and these critics are important to notice some of
the pitfalls of the MDGs when they serve as a measure yard for sustainable development.
The MDG programme implementation is facing many obstacles in the field, and, in all
likelihood, it will be difficult to meet the deadlines that have been set. Criticism of the
MDGs is related to problems of dependence of some poorer countries on donor countries.
Funding from the richer countries is usually accompanied by conditions which further
burden the recipient country. Barbara Unmüßig (2006) criticized the MDG as based on a
concept of development that is, in material aspects, a narrow one. And she added that
even the multifariousness of the causes of poverty and social exclusion are not addressed.
The Asia-Pacific Civil Society Forum, held in Bangkok from 6-8 October 2003, made a
number of specific criticisms of the MDGs, including:

49
 1. The MDGs, in their vision, scope and direction, define poverty in narrow terms
and ignore human rights.

2. The MDGs do not re-evaluate analysis of institutional and policy change. Tying
the MDGs to World Bank and IMF prescriptions is a mistake.

3. The developed/industrial nations' attention and funding are diverted from poverty
reduction activities. Funding is directed towards debt servicing and military
spending.

Despite these criticisms and pitfalls the MDGs became the road map to the sustainable
development goals and have received a great deal of endorsement and may for years to
come remain the political reference point for development policy. One of the remarkable
points in stating the criticisms of MDG is the fact that contribution of social
entrepreneurs for sustainable development is just more than fulfilling the MDGs (See
Section 5.4) .

5.2 The Impact of Social Entrepreneurship

5.2.1 Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology

Impact assessment is integral to KickStart development strategy, and is perceived as part

of its customer service and market research programmes. It has established a system of
ongoing monitoring of impact across all its stakeholders, supported by annual random
surveys of customers, suppliers and manufacturers of its technologies. KickStart
measures its performance by comparing the economic benefits brought about by its
technologies to the cost of developing and promoting them. The Impact Monitoring and
Reporting Unit tracks and records the key indicators. The numbers of technologies
manufactured and sold are logged. Purchasers’ details are recorded in a computerized
database. Training recipients’ details are also recorded. Later, monitoring staff visit a
random selection of purchasers and trainees to interview them at their premises,
administer questionnaires, and gather statistical data for impact analysis.

50
Since 1987 KickStart has developed a range of technologies including equipment for
small scale oil pressing, manufacture of soil blocks and tiles for low cost construction,
and “Domeslab” concrete latrine covers.

Economy: In 1999/2000 KickStart generated 26% of its total income through quality
inspection and marketing fees charged to manufacturers and retailers on the sale of its
technologies and training and consultancy fees (Rangan 2003). Since its inception until
2006, Over:

• 50,000 new businesses started

• $52 million a year in new profits and wages generated by the new businesses

• Produced new revenues equivalent to more than 0.6% of Kenya’s GDP and
0.25% of Tanzania’s GDP

Social: KickStart aims to resolve two major challenges faced by small business
entrepreneurs:
1 Lack of business choice: Entrepreneurs cannot easily identify viable new enterprise
opportunities. They need guidance about the options available.
2 Access to technology: Nor can they easily access or develop the technologies they
need for their new enterprises.
And accomplish these aims its work is based on the following principles:
1 that self-motivated entrepreneurs are the most effective agents of change in emerging
economies
2 that such entrepreneurs can raise small amounts of capital (US$100-1000) to start
new enterprises
3 that such entrepreneurs have the capacity and skills to manage the day to day affairs
of a small business.
V. Kasturi Rangan (2003) argued that, KickStart maintains that financial sustainability in
the sense of full cost recovery from programme delivery is not a relevant issue for them,
either as an institution or for the services it provides. KickStart argue that they are
providing:
i. A technology Research & Development service that in developed economies is
largely supported by public funds and carried out by specialized research

51
 institutes, universities and the military, but for which in Africa very limited
public funding is available.
ii. A “loss leading” product launch and promotion service, in order to raise
awareness and to systematically build the market for a new technology up to a level
at which the entire business chain, from production through to sale, can be carried on
entirely in the private sector without further subsidy.
In so doing KickStart believes it is responding to market failure – i.e. by designing,
developing and promoting technologies which would not otherwise be supplied by
market mechanisms. The organization justifies the use of public (donor) funds for this
purpose by pointing out that the economic benefits felt by the end-users of the
technologies far outweighs the amount of subsidy and that ultimately no subsidy is
necessary, once the technology in question has become established in the market.
KickStart recruits and trains a network of local retail shops (over 120 shops in Kenya
alone) in cities, towns, and small market centers around the country (Pinder 2001).

Environmental: KickStart designs, develops, produces, distributes and promotes its

technologies using only locally available resources, and only working with local
companies. It technologies don’t use fossil fuels and use locally available resources,
which means lower cost and less impact on the environment. Its technology are
appropriate to the environmental, cultural and economic situation it is intended for.

Illustrative Examples:
Micro-Irrigation Technologies
Rural Kenyans need hard cash to buy enough food and to pay for school fees and
healthcare. Yet most live on farms less than two acres in size. Many thousands of
entrepreneurial Kenyan farmers are now irrigating with KickStart’s manual MoneyMaker
irrigation pumps and changing their small subsistence farms into new commercial
enterprises. With irrigation they can grow and sell as many as three to four high value
vegetable crops every year, and ensure that the crop is ready for market when the price is
high. These farm entrepreneurs are increasing their incomes by as much as ten-fold and
making as much as 400,000 shillings ($5400) profit per year. KickStart’s low cost micro-

52
irrigation pumps are transforming subsistence farms into highly profitable enterprises.
The following illustrative example, prepared by the Harvard Business school professor
V. Kasturi Rangan (2003), focuses on the socio-economic impacts achieved to date by
the Super MoneyMaker pressure pump.

PRODUCT PROFILE: THE SUPER MONEYMAKER PRESSURE PUMP

This was launched in October 1998 in response to a demand by small farmers for a pump that can 'push
water uphill." Suitable for use on steeply sloping land where the water source may be at the bottom, it
can be used to pump water from hand-dug wells, rivers, streams, lakes and ponds. It is ideal for
sprinkler irrigation, filling overhead water tanks, or for use with nozzles and sprays attached to the end
of the delivery hose. The pump has a maximum suction head of 6 metres, and a maximum total delivery
head (suction + pressure) of 13 metres. In normal use it delivers ¾ to 1 litre of water per second.

Impacts of KickStart MoneyMaker Pumps in Kenya through end 2003:

• 45,000 pumps in use by poor farmers

• 29,000 new waged jobs created

• $37 million per year in new profits and wages generated by the pumps

• More than 50% of pumps managed by women entrepreneurs

• manufacturers producing pumps

• over 400 retailers selling pumps in Kenya, Tanzania and Mali

It already looks like the Money Maker PLUS achieves greater sales and impact on the
incomes of its buyers than its 'parent' model.

53
Fig 5.1: The Super MoneyMaker Plus at work in the field

KickStart has an engineering design team based in a light industrial area in Nairobi; here
the technologies are designed and developed. Local engineering businesses are then
commissioned to manufacture the range of KickStart equipment which is subsequently
sold by KickStart through the network it has established of approximately one hundred
and thirty dealers. There are currently four engineering companies which manufacture the
pressure pumps and KickStart trains and provides ongoing support to these companies to
ensure they meet the required standard.
MANUFACTURER PROFILE: MAKIGA ENGINEERING WORKS
Makiga Engineering Works is a local metalwork firm that started in a very small way in
Kariobangi in 1988, and began making KickStart designed equipment in 1989. Makiga has
expanded over the years to become a well established manufacturer with an international
reputation for high quality.

Dealers are similarly selected on the basis of their location and capacity to service the
machines and provide high quality customer care; almost all dealers are one-person or
one-family businesses. They are mostly agri-based such that most of the clients are
farmers.

54
DEALER PROFILE: KILIMO KENYA LTD
Located in Thika town, Kilimo Kenya Ltd, combines as a retail/wholesale outlet for agro-chemical
goods and other farm inputs. They were recruited to be one of KickStart 's stockists of the Super
MoneyMaker early in Dec 1999, and they have been selling 30-40 pumps monthly. The proprietor
feels he is an agent of change by availing the irrigation pump to the farmers in the Thika area.

End Users: Typically, KickStart's end-users are small farmer households with 0.5-5.0
acres of land on which they grow subsistence and cash crops. The pumps can also be
used to provide water for the households who not only benefit from the additional income
generated by the improved crop irrigation but also the increased time available to them to
spend on their families needs and crop cultivation. KickStart believes micro-irrigation
can increase incomes, create employment and stimulate local economies in rural areas by
enabling small-scale farmers to make the transition from subsistence agriculture to
commercial farming by:
1 increasing the land area under irrigation
2 ensuring full irrigation resulting in improved crop quality
3 increasing the number of growing cycles per year
4 timing harvests to coincide with times of high prices
5 employing more waged labor
6 growing of high value crops

END-USER PROFILE
Janet Ondiek is a small scale farmer in Kisumu. She was widowed in 1997, and depended on
growing vegetables for sale, irrigating them with water drawn by bucket from a stream adjacent to
her land. Even with up to three casual workers to help her this was tiring work, and one acre was as
much as they could manage using the bucket system. Often vegetables were not watered enough,
and some dried up. Using bucket irrigation she made a profit of just Ksh7,000 (US$115) per
season. In early 1999 Janet saw the Super MoneyMaker pump being demonstrated at her local
market, and liked it so much she bought one on the spot. She now irrigates 2.5 acres, and has
diversified her crops to include high value ones such as sweet peppers and tomatoes. In 2003
season her profits topped Ksh60,000 (US$1000) and she now employs five workers. After the death

55
of her husband, Janet's six children almost dropped out of school due to lack of school fees, but now
she makes enough money to send them to College. She is also putting up a small general shop at
Gita market and plans to be a full time businesswoman. "Now," she says, "I'm making enough
money to support my family without begging from relatives."

Oil Processing Technologies

In 1992 the Kenyan government removed price controls on essential commodities and the
price of cooking oil almost tripled in a few weeks. KickStart realized that the small-scale
production and sale of cooking oil could be a very profitable small business opportunity
if only the right technology was available to local entrepreneurs.

PRODUCT PROFILE: OIL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Starting in 1993 KickStart engineers designed a manually operated oilseed press that is
ideally suited for small-scale sunflower cooking oil businesses in East Africa called the
“Mafuta Mali” (meaning “oil wealth” in Kiswahili), it was based on an original “ram
press” but was designed to be more efficient, durable and profitable to use. KickStart also
developed and designed the first Gravity Bucket Filter to go with the press and developed
a complete set of tooling for local mass production of both the press and filter. In 1994,
KickStart trained four local engineering firms to manufacture the new presses. The press
extracts oil from sunflower, sesame, and other oil seeds. The filter produces clear, cold-
pressed, nutritious cooking oil ready for sale or consumption. The seedcake by-product is
valued as a high protein animal feed supplement.

56
Fig 5.2: KickStart’s manually operated oilseed press under operation

Impacts of KickStart’s manually operated oilseed press in Kenya through end 2003.

• manufacturers making oilseed presses

• Over 1,050 presses sold

• Over 700 oilseed pressing businesses created or expanded

• Over 1,500 new jobs in oil pressing businesses

• Over 8,000 new jobs in related activities

• Increased sunflower cultivation in Kenya

• Improved nutrition for people and livestock

Local manufacturers and retailers sold the presses and the project also promoted the
increased production and sales of improved varieties of sunflower, sesame, oil-rape and
safflower seeds. Although the number of new businesses could still be increased with
further promotion, the manufacture and sale of KickStart oilseed presses is now self-
sustaining in the private sector in Kenya. The machines are available from local
manufacturers, entrepreneurs continue to establish profitable small scale cooking oil
businesses, and farmers continue to increase the local production of oilseeds. This
profitable technology continues to result in new jobs, economic growth, and improved
nutrition for people and livestock

57
 END-USER PROFILE
Jane Mathendu is a single mother who lives on the eastern slopes of Mount Kenya. In1998 she bought
the KickStart oilseed press to start a new business. Today, she makes a profit of US$10 a day, quite a
difference in comparison to her previous school teacher's salary of $50 a month. She has become a
leader in local social groups and has managed to pay for her oldest daughter's University education -
something she could only dream about before she bought her new KickStart press. And she has left her
job as schoolteacher to manage her business full time. She now contracts 20 local farmers to grow
seeds and employs 2 full time workers who press over 16 liters of oil a day. She sells oil in bulk to a
local hospital and school and in labeled bottles to her other customers. The seedcake is very popular
with local farmers and in 2003 she was planning to buy a second press to meet the growing demand.

5.2.2 DMT Mobile Toilets

In Nigeria, the most populous African country with a population of about 140 million
people, most public places do not have toilet facilities, and as a result, most people have
to use open spaces to ease themselves. It is not uncommon in a place like Lagos for
instance to see people defecating into the Atlantic ocean from atop bridges. Another
familiar sight might be someone passing waste into a stream next to somebody else
drinking from the same water and another washing clothes. In markets where food is
sold, traders use the open sewage gutters sometimes right in front of their food stalls to
dispose of their human waste. Such unclean and improper disposal of human waste
contributes to the heavily polluted waterways, rivers, and seas in and around Nigeria.
Since most Nigerians rely directly on unfiltered water from these sources for their
cooking, drinking, and washing, the spread of diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, and
cholera is widespread and dangerous.

In 1999, before DMT Toilets started, there were only 500 functional public toilets in
Nigeria and most of them were poorly maintained and inadequate. Thus, DMT offers an
alternative to the current wide spread and unhygienic practice of urinating and defecating
in the streets. Until 2003, 1,500 toilets have been built by DMT. In 2005 one hundred and
twenty of these toilets were situated in public places and in the same year 2,000 more
had been approved by the Lagos State Government for deployment around the

58
metropolis. In addition, through successful lobbying efforts, DMT had been awarded
2,000 free toilets as a donation by the state government. These toilets created another
2,000 jobs for unemployed youth in and around Lagos (Ashoka 2005).

Economy: Each toilet is used about one hundred times a day, for a small cost. Sixty
percent of the profits go to those who franchise the operation, and Forty percent to DMT
for evacuation services. As a result, local area boys and widows earn about US $160 a
month, far more than the national monthly average of under US$30. A typical day's
proceeds works out at about $15 (20 Naira) which is a fairly good income by Nigerian
standards (BBC News Thursday, 16 November 2006, 16:17 GMT). About 25% of
DMT’s revenue currently comes from advertising. It costs N60,000 a year to rent out the
advertising space on a toilet, and that payment is made up front. It costs N45,000 to
produce the toilet. With a life span of 15 years per toilet, the advertising pays for 20
toilets in the course of its lifetime. DMT Toilets also rents mobile toilets for parties and
outdoor activities, generating additional income, approximately Fifteen percent (Schwab
2005).

Social: DMT is performing a major social service as it is eliminating the need for
people to defecate in public places. Each toilet typically serves about 100 people a day
and it decreased the number of people who defecate and urinate on Nigeria’s streets.
Through the partnership with area boys, some of these area boys not only earn decent
salaries, they also gain meaningful work experience while keeping them out of trouble.
As part of its effort to be socially responsible to its community, DMT Foundation was
founded to oversee the activities of DETOWES. DETOWES (Descent Toilets for Schools
and Women Empowerment Scheme) is a Not-For-Profit and a Non-Governmental
organization, DMT Mobile Toilet social service arm, provides free toilets for schools in
order to promote better hygiene, health and empowering women in the society. This is
borne out of the company belief that children are more vulnerable to disease if no
functional and decent toilets are provided and maintained in schools.

59
Environment: DMT Mobile toilets , over time has contributed tremendously to a cleaner
environment and improved sanitation in major cities in Nigeria. The company has also
created a good public health / environmental awareness and now provides an alternative
to the current wide spread practice, where people defecate openly around their
environment.

5.2.3 Mango Tree Educational Enterprises

In Uganda, where memorization and repetitive learning techniques characterize

education, MTEE equips primary school teachers with a new set of tools–games, flip
charts, and puppets–that engage children and foster their creativity. The tools offer
schools, teachers, and parents a low-cost, culturally relevant alternative to some of the
imported products that, for example, require hard-to-come-by batteries, seem utterly alien
to teachers and students or are unaffordable. Furthermore, MTEE encourages teachers to
develop their own new tools, refine creative techniques, and mentor less experienced
teachers by offering such incentives as awards given to truly inventive teachers, as well
as prizes of free classroom games and toys that they can readily integrate into their
curriculum. Although it primarily focuses on teachers, MTEE applies its work beyond the
traditional teaching sphere, offering progressive learning strategies to community health
workers, environmental educators, and others.

Economy: Established with an initial capital investment of about US $2,500, Mango

Tree has been a self- sustaining enterprise since its inception. Mango Tree, despite the
difficulties it faces, is a financially viable business. Though it is not wildly profitable, but
enough to grow, has the social impacts it desires, and provides its employees with a
proper wage, life and health insurance, and the opportunity to grow professionally.

Social: In 2003 and 2004 MTEE has supplied educational tools to over 4,500 primary
schools in Uganda. Approximately 12,800 teachers have been trained in how to use its
tools to improve classroom performance. About 875,000 children in village primary
schools have been impacted by its products and services during these time periods. Its

60
educational tools have been also used to teach people about subjects such as AIDS
prevention and effective communication. Many of its products (75%) are targeted to
schools in war- affected northern Uganda where poverty levels are much higher than the
national average. Its products has impacted low-income individuals by improving the
quality of educational services they receive. The educational model they (the clients of
MTEE –teachers and health workers) use in teaching is lecture-based and focused on rote
memorization with little regard for meaning or understanding. The few teaching tools
available through traditional sources support this out-dated paradigm. Mango Tree's
educational products are specially designed to encourage participatory teaching. Learners
understand and retain information better because they play an active role in the teaching
process. MTEE also has planned to establish a "sister" Mango Tree Foundation, which
will solicit grant money, both locally and abroad, for research and development activities
related to its primary mission. Through the foundation, it expects to expand its awards
program for especially talented, enterprising teachers. The "Teacher of the Year Awards"
will be given in each district of Uganda to motivate teachers and encourage creative
solutions that can be applied broadly. Mango Tree will bring the award recipients
together to share ideas and identify systemic solutions regarding primary school
education. These teachers will then return to their districts to mentor less experienced,
less confident teachers.

Environment: Many of MTEE educational tools are made from locally available
materials like grain sacks, bottle tops, recycled slippers (flip-flops), bicycle spokes,
gourds, and plastic jerry cans. This makes them easy to replicate by low income
educators. And because its products are made from local materials and recycled products
using simple technologies, it is able to keep its manufacturing and environmental costs
down.

61
 5.3 The impacts of SE vis-à-vis the UN SD Road Map (the MDGs)

5.3.1 The Millennium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals are a concise set of goals, numerical targets and
quantifiable indicators to assess progress in development. The set includes 8 goals, 18
targets and over 40 indicators. All United Nations Member States have pledged to meet
these goals by the year 2015. The first seven goals are mutually reinforcing and are
directed at reducing poverty. The last goal -- global partnership for development -- is
about the means to achieve the first seven.

Table 5.1: The Millennium Development Goals and Targets

Millennium Development Goals and Targets

Goal
1. Eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal
primary education
3. Promote gender equality
and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS,
malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental
sustainability
Targets
1. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose
income is less than one dollar a day
2. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer
from hunger
3. Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will
be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
4. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education,
preferably by 2005, and at all levels of education no later than 2015
5. Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five
mortality rate
6. Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal
mortality rate
7. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
8. Have halved by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria
and other major diseases
9. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country
policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental
resources
10. Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access
to safe drinking water
11. By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of
at least 100 million slum dwellers

62
8. Develop a global 12. Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non discriminatory
partnership for trading and financial system
development 13. Address the special needs of the least developed countries
14. Address the special needs of land-locked countries and Small Island
Developing States
15. Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing
countries through national and international measures in order to
make debt sustainable in the long term
16. In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement
strategies for decent and productive work for youth
17. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to
affordable essential drugs in developing countries
18. In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of
new technologies, especially information and communications

Goal 1-7: are for Developing Countries while Goal 8 is a global partnership. Therefore as
the case studies selected are borne out ,developed, and operating at the local community,
the evaluation of their impact is assessed based on Goal 1-7 only.

5.3.2 The impact of Social Entrepreneurship against the Millennium

Development Targets

Table 5.2: The impact of Social Entrepreneurship against the Millennium Development
Targets

Millennium KickStart’s Impact DMT’s Impact MTEE’s Impact

Development Targets Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
impact impact impact impact impact impact
1. Poverty X X X
2. Hunger X X X
3. Education X X X
4. Empowering Women X X X
5. Child Mortality X X X
6. Maternal Mortality X X X
7. HIV/AIDS X X X
8. Malaria/Other X X X
Diseases
9. Conserving Natural X X X
resources

63
10. Access to Clean X X X
water
11. Slum Dwellers X X X

The various MDGs are linked with each other, though the strength level of the links has
raised some questions (see section 5.4). And as shown in figures 5.4 and 5.5 all of the
three case studies has demonstrated these links inarticulacy they have made obvious the
profound link of poverty (target1) and environment (target 7). This is largely because
poverty in Africa is a multifaceted phenomenon, embracing marginalization, deprivation,
social exclusion and inequity that the MDGs on education, health and environmental
sustainability should address. Furthermore, given that the prospects for sustained
economic growth of the organization rest on the integrity and productivity of the natural
resource base.

5.4 Reading Social Entrepreneurship on Sustainable

Development models

The impacts of the case studies discussed on section 5.2 demonstrates that the three
domains of SD: environment, economy and society are developed not at the expense of
each other. That is why sustainable development issues, prescriptions and tools always
cut across the three domains. The impacts of the case studies shows the many links
between the organization and its community's economy, society and environment. The
impacts couldn’t be expressed on a traditional measures of communities’ development,
which sows as if a community were made of three separate parts -- an economic part, a
social part and an environmental part that do not overlap like the picture on figure 5.3

64
 Fig:5.3. A view of community as three separate, unrelated parts:
an economic part, a social part and an environmental part.

However, when society, economy and environment are viewed as separate, unrelated
parts of a community, the community's problems are also viewed as isolated issues. Like
for example if MTEE were producing the educational materials at the expenses of the
environment or KickStart were providing the technology with out considering the social
values, either there would haven’t a concept called SE or these case studies would
haven’t be coined as SE. What makes social entrepreneurship different from traditional
business is its non-piecemeal mission. Piecemeal approach can have a number of bad
side-effects:
• Solutions to one problem can make another problem worse. Creating affordable
housing is a good thing, but when that housing is built in areas far from
workplaces, the result is increased traffic and the pollution that comes with it.
• Piecemeal solutions tend to focus on short-term benefits without monitoring long-
term results. The pesticide DDT seemed like a good solution to insect pests at the
time, but the long-term results were devastating.
The actions of the social entrepreneurship to improve livelihoods of the community in
which it operates take the connections between the economy, the environment and the
society into account. How ever, the strength of these connections for the case studies as
discussed on section 5.2 is not the same, some takes Fig 5.4 and other takes fig 5.5.

65
Fig: 5.4. Weak Sustainability Fig: 5.5. Strong Sustainability

Figure 5.4 is the one that is often used to illustrate the SD concept. Its point of
intersection (also known as triple bottom line) depicts the harmonious relationship
between the three dimensions of sustainable development. However, Figure 5.4 also
reflects some competition of interests between the economy, society and the
environment. Essentially, it represents a weak sustainability ethos. Fundamentally, it
takes little or no cognizance of the ecological constraints within which humans, other
species, markets, policies and development operate. It is further confounded by the
hidden and tenuous assumption that environmental and social problems can always be
solved if the economy is sound. DMT Mobile Toilet could be shown up in figure 5.4
because it doesn’t deal with the final fate of the waste that it collected and transported. Its
environmental motives has been compromised to some extent. DMT could have made a
few changes and significantly would improve its operation by converting it into a green
business (by converting the waste it collected to compost, biogas or to other waste
recovery products).
Figure 5.5 on the other hand depicts the interdependence of the three systems that
contribute to sustainable development. It illustrates the existence of the economy the
activities within which are driven by societal needs whose satisfaction is dependent on a
biophysical system. The strong sustainability ethos that it represents therefore treats the
economy as a subset of society that also pursues livelihood interests other than the
economic. Fundamentally, this strategy takes cognizance of the constraints that natural

66
systems of our planet impose on human and economic activities intended to meet
livelihood needs. The underlying conviction of the strategy is that while the economy
may expand or contract, and society’s expectations and values may change over time, any
attempts to exceed the capacity of the biosphere to provide for and absorb effects of
human activities would result in a negative backlash. The impact of KickStart and MTEE
could lie on the second model. And theoretically social entrepreneurship is expected to
operate on model 2 (Fig 5.5) because there is a need to maintain in good condition each
of the three parts of the system and the system as a whole. However, the success of the
strong sustainability strategy hinges on the satisfaction of key institutional, political and
ethical requirements. The institutional requirements are about participation and inclusion
of stakeholders in decision-making. The political ones are about governance regimes that
provide political and legal frameworks to protect civil, political, and environmental and
resource-use rights. And the ethical ones are about ensuring that there exits a mechanism
for minimizing or eliminating moral failures by the holders of obligation. The pursuit of
sustainable development requires national and international systems that fosters
sustainability. What makes SE advantageous overt traditional business is that it is context
based. It functions according to the environment of a specific location. Any of the study
case studies are not imported “Best Examples”, which prescribed to the local community
rather all of them are developed and framed according to the local needs and conditions.
Therefore, the case studies have the potential of operating under a given social, political
and cultural context.
Figure 5.4 and 5.5 also raised issues that need to be addressed if the MDGs are to be used
as a road map to sustainable development. Two main issues are addressed: the linkages
between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development;
and those between the various MDGs. The understanding and resolution of these issues in
a country context are fundamental to the attainment of the MDGs. The first issue relates
to whether or not a shared national vision exists, and if it does, the extent to which is has
shaped the sustainable development strategy in any given African country. The intricate
relationships between the economy, society and environment – sometimes dubbed as the
economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development – underpin
this issue. The diagrams also depict the types of linkages that inform the strategic

67
orientations to the SD issue in country contexts. Each country situation would be located
on the continuum linking the weak and strong poles of sustainability. That location has
implications for the country’s application of the MDGs as the road map to sustainable
development and it is influenced by the country’s national vision, governance system and
its tact in managing external pressures from the changing fads in development assistance.

5.5- Scaling for Social Impact

Scaling out, spreading social innovations into new locations or markets, is by far one of
the most challenging issue of most social entrepreneurs. By contrast, in the for-profit
world, when a successful new business model is developed, it often spreads rapidly. To
analyse the scaling out dimension of the case studies the model developed by Gregory
Dees, Beth Battle Anderson, and Jane Wei-Skillern is used. In their model there are three
mechanisms for driving the scaling process of social entrepreneurship. These are
Dissemination, Affiliation, and Branching. Dissemination involves actively sharing
information. The originating organization has at most a short-term agreement to provide
technical assistance to those who would use this information to bring the innovation to a
new locale. Affiliation occurs when an ongoing agreement exists between two or more
parties to be part of an identifiable network. Affiliation agreements can be more or less
restrictive or prescriptive on many dimensions, including things such as the use of a
common brand name, program content, funding responsibilities, quality control, and
reporting requirements. Branching occurs when the remote sites implementing the
innovation are legally part of one large organization, much like company-owned stores
(Dees et al 2004). Of course, the lines between these categories can blur, and the social
entrepreneurs creativity is highly required. Though some combinations may seem more
natural, any form of innovation could be spread in these three ways.

68
 Fig: 5.6. The position of the three case studies on the Scaling out model

Dissemin
ation

Affiliatio Branchin
n g

Case 1: KickStart appropriate technology

KickStart promotes the new technologies and installs them in the private sector to ensure
that they are well known, easily available, and continually purchased by small-scale
investors. It recruits and trains a network of local retail shops in cities, towns, and small
market centres. KickStart then buys the technologies from the manufacturers and sells
them with a mark-up to the retailers. It doesn’t concern about others imitating its
products. Its goal is to subsidize the development and establishment of new technologies
until they become firmly rooted in the society, reducing the need for marketing. Other
manufacturers step in to copy the product and compete with KickStart. KickStart is a
good example of the Dissemination model. In this model efforts to get the word out are
supplemented with some technical assistance and the central organization has little
control over implementation in other locations, however, KickStart at the same time has
also agreements with local manufacturers and dealers to be part of its network and
imposes some prescriptive on quality control dimensions of its products (Affiliation
Model). KickStart has branch offices in Tanzania and Malawi (Branching Model).

69
Therefore, it can be concluded that KickStart uses all the three scaling out models to
drives its scaling process of social entrepreneurship, however, it depends largely on the
dissemination mechanism. KickStart disseminates the idea of appropriate technology by
creating affordable, manually operated, energy-efficient, durable and easy transportable
technologies. The technology must require minimum training to install and use, be easily
repairable and manufactured from locally available materials.

Fig:5.7. KickStart’s technologies, expertise, and methods in Africa

Source: KickStart 2005Annual Report

Case 2: DMT Mobile Toilet

DMT manufactures the toilets and provides them, free of charge, to area boys and
widows wishing to franchise them. In turn, they oversee the maintenance of the facilities
and enter into an arrangement whereby DMT staff and their specialized trucks evacuate
the waste twice a week from each toilet. The objective of the agreement between DMT

70
and area boys is to be part of an identifiable network for the sake of the DMT program
content and revenue responsibilities (Affiliation Scaling out mechanism). In addition to
this way of scaling out DMT has spread its innovation to Abuja, Aba, Abeokuta, Enugu,
Ibadan, Nsuka, Port-Harcourt, Lagos, Oshogbo, Bayelsa, Ilorin, Kaduna, Kano, and
Onitsha by establishing branch offices. DMT Mobile Toilets is committed to increasing
the number of public toilets across Nigeria 's major cities on the basis of Affiliation and
Branching models of scaling social entrepreneurship out.

Case 3: Mango Tree Education Enterprise

MTEE is working with about fifteen different subcontractor groups. Some are NGOs
working with marginalized groups like the disabled, street children, and HIV positive
individuals, while others are private sector businesses. It expects to have its products in
hundred percent (100%) of the schools in Uganda in the near future. As far as replicating
the business, it is currently doing that by expanding into the health sector using its same
business model. It also expects to branch into science education which is a major priority
of the Ugandan government. It has also a plan to assess which of the neighbouring
markets (Kenya, Tanzania, e.g.) offer markets given its business model and the local
needs and competitive climate. The broken lines in figure 5.6 indicates that MTEE is
scaling out its social impact on the basis of affiliation but it is looking at neighbouring
countries to establish its branch organization for the implementation of its innovation.

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSION

The subject of social entrepreneurship is clearly a complex one – from defining the term
to the implementation and evaluation of social entrepreneurial projects. To give meaning
to the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair (2005) chose to

71
examine its contribution to achieving the overall goal of sustainable development,
particularly in the poorest countries, acting in a vacuum of effective government and
market structures. And this study was aimed at examining the contribution of social
entrepreneurship in making to happen sustainable development in Africa.

From the findings and analysis of this research, social entrepreneurship is concluded to be
viable in making to happen sustainable development in Africa - from its help out in the
process of operationalizing the abstract notion of sustainable development to its
contribution to the overall goal of achieving sustainable development in Africa.

This research was limited to the analysis of three cases, all of which were social
entrepreneurs as selected by Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations according to the
organizations’ own criteria. These organizations directly support social entrepreneurs by
providing seed capital and access to crucial supporting networks. The three case studies
are KickStart (Kenya), DMT (Nigeria), and MTEE (Uganda).

KickStart appropriate technology promotes sustainable economic growth and

employment creation in Kenya, Mali, Tanzania and other African countries by
developing and promoting technologies that can be used by entrepreneurs to establish and
run profitable small scale enterprises. KickStart’s technologies, expertise, and methods
are widely applied throughout Africa to support programs in agriculture, shelter, water,
sanitation, health, and relief. It has offices in Kenya, Tanzania, and Mali.

DMT Mobile Toilets (DMT) is the pioneer mobile toilet company in Nigeria, which
designs, builds, and distributes safe, sanitary mobile toilets for outdoor and indoor use at
large public gatherings and for wider deployment as public toilet facilities where public
sanitation systems are absent or inadequate. DMT provides the toilets, free of charge, to
area boys and widows wishing to franchise them. In turn they manage the toilets Each
toilet is used about one hundred times a day, for a small cost. Sixty percent (60%) of the
profits go to those who franchise the operation, and Forty percent (40%) to DMT for
evacuation services. As a result, local area boys and widows earn about US $160 a
month, far more than the national monthly average of under US$30. DMT is also

72
working with schools where toilet facilities are abysmal, donating both toilets and
evacuation services.

The third case study was workers owned company, Mango Tree Educational Enterprise
(MTEE). The company produced educational games and toys, pictorial charts,
counselling tools for health care workers, large format story charts used to ignite
discussions on subjects such as gender, communication and HIV/AIDS. It designs its
products collaboratively with grassroots educators. The products are culturally relevant,
durable, inexpensive, and made from local materials that can be replicated by users.
MTEE encourage educators to use participatory teaching methods.

All the three initiatives (KickStart, DMT and MTEE) have achieved proven impact and
scale, the model’s ability to create social, economic and environmental values, the wide
variety of their structural organization and the value creation models that have discovered
support the proposition that they emphasize local discovery rather than replication of best
practices. There are, however, signs that some basic principles of successful models can
be employed in different context and the case of KickStart that cloned its Kenya’s
development effort in Tanzania and Mali proved that social entrepreneurship has the
capacity to “tailor” the model to the particular culture, problem sets and resources of
particular community.

Scaling out, spreading social innovations into new locations or markets, and scale up of
their impacts into significant social changes are by far some of the most challenging
issues of most social entrepreneurs. Although all of the three social entrepreneurship
initiatives of this study have been successful in expanding and sustaining their impacts to
some degree (or they would not have been selected for this study), there are substantial
differences in the extent to which they have been able to do so. They have identified
three major patterns for widening the impacts of successful social entrepreneurship
initiatives: KickStart uses typically, dissemination mechanisms in conjunction with
branching and affiliation for driving the scaling process of its social entrepreneurship
impacts while both DMT and MTEE are good examples of affiliation model of impact

73
scaling out and at the same time both also use branching mechanism. As KickStart’s
technologies, expertise, and methods have been used in many African countries,
KickStart is more successful in using the three major patterns for widening its impacts.

The impact analysis of KickStart, DMT, and MTEE showed that the initiatives of social
entrepreneurs contribute to the achievement of MDGs in Africa. It viewed that social
entrepreneurship is an essential component of social development in Africa. At the same
time it disproved the hidden and tenuous assumption that environmental and social
problems can always be solved if the economy is sound. Their efforts targeted isolated
societal needs and problems, their operations are environmental friendly and they make
profits to broaden their impacts. Their missions, activities and strategies illustrate that
society is much more than just the economy and at the same time these pointed out that
society, in turn, exists entirely within the environment. In effect, social entrepreneurship
move towards all three goals: environmental protection, social wellbeing and economic
development - at the same time and it lead not to a trade-off these three dimensions of
sustainable development. The examination of social entrepreneurship strategies and
activities on the basis of the three domains of sustainable development, described also the
advantage of social entrepreneurship in the process of operationalizing the abstract notion
of sustainable development, which goes merely trying to achieve the MDGs.

Recommendation

Today, nonprofits and non-governmental organizations, foundations, governments and

individuals promote, fund, and advise social entrepreneurs around the planet. However,
most of these organizations tend to have individualistic stance focused on a handful of
exceptional leaders – rather than emphasizing more how social entrepreneurs work
within teams, networks and movements for change. Therefore, all concerned stakeholders
should rethink on the common bias in focusing on the individual social entrepreneur and
due attention should be given to the pattern-breaking idea and on the role of the
organization as a whole. And a growing number of universities are establishing programs
focused on educating and training in social entrepreneurship, however, most of these

74
universities are focusing on integrating social entrepreneurship courses into the
curriculum of the University’s Master of Business Administration (MBA) program.
Though the growing attention for the sector is a good news, however, the humanity and
the social sides of social entrepreneurship couldn’t be addressed only by MBA
programmes and graduates of MBA from these prestigious business schools are mostly
trained so as to meet the needs of the wealthy commercial entrepreneurs. Therefore, to
give social entrepreneurship some theoretical and operational muscle intellectual efforts
from other field of studies (such as humanity, social, development and others) is
necessary. Organizations such as Ashoka and Skoll Foundation, which supports business
schools for the sake of furthering academic study and building knowledge of social
entrepreneurship should also extend their hands to include other schools of studies.
Social entrepreneurship has been suggested as a concept that could address societal ills in
a sustainable manner. And this study also highlighted the contribution that social
entrepreneurs in Africa are making to the achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals and it also concluded that social entrepreneurship stimulates further sustainable
development. Therefore, Africa governments and other multilateral organizations which
are struggling to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 should take into
account social entrepreneurs as a potentially valuable development partners. They should
also hear from people who have discovered practical solutions to environmental and
social problems at the local level, solutions that have been shown to work and that can be
adapted to solve similar problems elsewhere. The accomplishments of these social
entrepreneurs must be disseminated so others can support them or emulate their
approaches. And development policies and regulations of governments should open a
greater space for social entrepreneurship actions.

The analyses of this study has some success bias, in the sense that all the initiatives have
survived the initial start-up phase and this is because the analysis of the study was based
on the population of social entrepreneurships whose founders are recognized as
“outstanding social entrepreneurs” by Ashoka, Schwab and Skoll Foundations. As a
result, generalisations to the greater population of social entrepreneurs or social
entrepreneurial projects are limited, therefore, the need of other in-depth case studies

75
which can contribute to the knowledge base surrounding the subject of social
entrepreneurship is unquestionable. Moreover, as social entrepreneurship is a field that
still needs better theories to make sense of its contribution to sustainable development,
studies and researches shouldn’t be limited to case studies and instrumental analysis of
efficiency and operational best practices. Yet, the author believe that the result of this
study suggest intriguing avenues for further exploration by social entrepreneurship
practitioners and researchers.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B.B., Dees J. G. and Wei-Skillern. J (2002) Scaling for Social Impact:
Exploring Strategies for Spreading Social Innovations. Innovation Review, Volume 1,
Number 4, Spring 2004.
Ayres, R.U. (1994) Information, Entropy and Progress: A New Evolutionary
Paradigm. American Institute of Physics, New York.
Berner, B. and Trulsson, P. (2000) Structural Change and Social Action in Sub-Saharan
Africa. In: Berner, B.and Trulsson, P. (eds) Manoeuvring in an Environment of
Uncertainty: Structural Change and Social action in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ashgate
ppc, England.
Boschee, J. (1995) Social Entrepreneurship, Across the Board, 32 (3), 20-23.
Dees, J. (1998) Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb, 55-67.
Dees, J (2001) The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Centre for the Advancement of
Social Entrepreneurship (CASE), USA.
Demeke, A,. and Amha, B. (1997) The Informal Sector in Ethiopia. In
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on the Ethiopian Economy. The
Ethiopian Economic Association, Addis Ababa.
Hartigan, P. (2005) Innovating in response to Market Failure: The Art of Social
Entrepreneurship Examples from Africa. Schwab Foundation.

76
Hyden, G.(1994) Changing Ideological and Theoretical Perspectives on Development. In:
Himmelstrand, U, Kinayanjui, K and Mburugu, E. (eds) African Perspectives on
Development: Dilemmas and Openings. E.A.E.P., Nairobi.
James, A., Jane, W. and Howard S. (2006) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different or Both?. Baylor University Press. Baylor.
Knowledge@Wharton (2003) Social Entrepreneurs: playing the role of change agents in
society. Wharton University of Pennsylvania.
Lemma, A. and Malaska, P. (1989) Africa Beyond Famine. A report to the Club of
Rome. Tycooly Publication, London
Light, Paul C (2006) Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation
Review Fall 2006. Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Malaska, P. (1991) Economic and Social Evolution: The Transformational Dynamics
Approach. In: Laszlo, E. (ed.) The New Evolutionary Paradig. Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, New York.
Perry, C. (2001) Case Research in Marketing. The Marketing Review, 1, 303-323.
Rangan, V. Kasturi (2003) ApproTEC Kenya: Technologies to Fight Poverty and Create
Wealth. Harvard Business School.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (2005) 5 Year Evaluation Report 2000-
2005. Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, Geneva, Swizerland.
Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2005) Sustainable Development: How Social Entrepreneurs
Make It Happen. Barcelona, Spain.
Seierup, S. (1996) Small Town Entrepreneurs and Networks in Kenya. In: McCormick,
D. and Pedersen, P.O (eds), Small Enterprises: Flexibility and Networking in an
African context. Longhorn, Nairobi.
 Singh R. P. (2000) Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition through Social Networks.
Garland. New York.
Singh, R. P. (2001) A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship through the
Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 26, No. 1.

77
Shaw (1999) Entrepreneurs…Winning Strategies Aside. Ivey Business Journal, 63
(3), 24-25.
Spring, A. and McDade, B. (1998) (eds), African Entrepreneurship: Theory and Reality.
University press of Florida, Florida.
Soy, Susan K. (1997) The case study as a research method. University of Texas,
Austin.
Stein, H. (1998) Globalization, Adjustment and the Structural Transformation of
African Economies. Roosevelt University, Chicago.
Stiglitz, J. and Charlton, A. (2005), The way to help ourselves by helping others,
The Daily Telegraph, telegraph Limited Group, London.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. W. Norton, New York.
Thompson, J.L. (2002) The World of the Social Entrepreneur. International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 15 (5), 412-431.
Thompson, J.L., Alvy, G. & Lees, A. (2000) Social Entrepreneurship. A New Look
at the People and the Potential, Management Decision, 38 (5), 328-338.
Trulsson, P. (2000) Entrepreneurs as Path-Finders in Processes of Social Change. In Boel
Berner and Per Trulsson (eds), Manoeuvring in an Environment of Uncertainity:
Structural Change and Social action in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ashgate ppc, England.
United Nation (1996) Informal Sector Development in Africa. United Nations. New
York.
United Nation Development Programme (2005) Human Development Report. New
York.
United Nation Economic Commission for Africa (1996) Economic and Social Survey of
Africa. UNECA, Addis Ababa.
United Nation (2001) Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations. New York
Unmüßig, Barbara (2006) The Millennium Development Goals – Are they Contributing
to Sustainable Development? The Heinrich Böll Foundation North America ,USA
Yin, R. (1984) Case study research: Design and methods, 1st edn. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.

78
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research – Design and Methods, third edition.
Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Weerawardena, J. and Sullivan Mort, G. Kashonia C. (2001) Learning, Innovation and
Competitive Advantage in Not-for-Profit Aged Care Marketing: A Conceptual
Model. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 9, No.3.
World Bank (1993a) World Development Report. Oxford University Press, London.
World Bank (1997) World Development Report. Oxford University Press, London.

Websites:
Ashoka: Innovators for the Public http://www.ashoka.org/africa
(visited on January and February 2007)
DMT Mobile Toilets www.dmttoilet.com
(visited on February to April 2007)
KickStart www.ApproTEC.org
(visited on February to April 2007)
Mango Tree Educational Enterprises http://www.mangotreeuganda.org/
(visited on February to April 2007)
Skoll Foundation http://www.skollfoundation.org/
(visited on January and February 2007)
The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship http://www.schwabfound.org/
(visited on January and February 2007)

79