You are on page 1of 18

SOA on Social Solidarity Economy and Social Entrepreneurship:

Convergence and Divergences


October 17, 2013


Organizers: Institute of Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


II. Introduction

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


III. Social Solidarity Economy: An Asian Perspective
Ms. Chanthol Hoes (Cambodia)
Business Manager, Inside Out Travel








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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d) Corruption. It was expressed that the global solution should include a firm stance against corruption. I
want to stand firm on this. Most business persons in Cambodia do not want to work with government
because of this.
She also shared some cases studies on corruption.
Chanthol Hoes comes from Kompong Thom Province, 3 hours North of Phnom Penh. She was born
fourth in a family of 8. She graduated from college in July 2010 with a degree in Finance and
Accounting. At present, she is the Business Manager and Tourist Interpreter of Inside out Cambodia, a
travel agency based in Phnom Penh. She used to be an interpreter for Healing Home Organization in
2008 and several of medical missions to Cambodia.

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

Ms. Hoes also expressed that there is a need for further education and understanding of SSE among the
members in Cambodia. The RIPESS Conference is one way of doing this.
SSE Network members in Cambodia are:
Cambodia Association of Travel Agents (CATA) http://www.catacambodia.com/
Cambodia Womens Entrepreneur Network (CWEA) www.cweacambodia.com
Pacific Asia Travel Association - Cambodia Chapter (PATA) http://www.patacambodia.org/
Emerging Market Entrepreneur http://www.emergingmarkets.asia/eme/
Asia CEO & Entrepreneur (ACE?) http://www.asiaceo-entrepreneur.com/

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

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


IV. Social Solidarity Economy Vision:
Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise in Indonesia
Mr. Wahyu Indriyo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some social innovative generations done in Indonesia are:
Tanoker Ledokombo is located in East Java where most people are migrants. It was important to
organize the children for education to increase their school performance. The result was very excellent.
They are invited to national and international event. The group was organized to lessen the crime in
the area.
Koperasi Kasih Indonesia is a cooperative involve in micro finance (Gramin model). Initiated by the
young generation. Some of them are alumni in vacancy involved in poor community. After two years
of work, there are 2000 active clients with good financial report.
Dreamdelion is an organization of students in the University of Indonesia who accompanied poor
people in Central Jakarta. These students initiated to get product in an indigenous peoples community
in Indonesia and market these product. The students also helped in doing research in the community
and documenting the issues faced by the IPs. They helped the IPs developed their handicrafts and
using storytelling in their marketing. They develop reputation in doing this.
Suku Anak Dalam Rengke-rengke are students from design schools in Java. They helped the poor
people develop their handicrafts for better marketing.
Dwaya Manikam

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



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










Human
Capital
Social
Capital
Learning
Focus
Value
Vision
Vitality
Trust
Team
Taft
Social Entrepreneurship Learning Framework
Social Capital
Multiplication
Agent of Change
Multiplication
Creative Response to
the Social, Economic,
Environmental
Problem
Social
Entrepreneurship
Spirit
Social
Entrepreneurship
Initiative
MAPPING FORMATION TRANSFORMATION ACTIVATION
Community
Enterprise/
Social
Enterprise
Business
Skill
Market
Access
Access to
Capital
Enabling
Environment

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

In short, Fair Trade has started as a partnership between small scale producers and FTOs. The aim was,
and still is, to provide development opportunities to marginalized producers and to campaign for fair
structures in international trade. What is also important is that Fair Trade Organziations financed
themselves through trade. There is no outside funding even for the social activity. They campaign to make
changes in international trade. Show them that injustices of producing products such as chocolate because
there are so many exploitation of the people in Gana. 70,000 children are working as slaves and taking
from their family.

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

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

He also shared their membership:









He also shared the different certification they gave in different countries. Fair trade is different per country.
There are standards used per country as stated. The certification was done because there are global
organizations who claimed their products are from fair trade and yet not. Globally, 5 Billion Euros sales from
Fair Trade. Some examples are:
Ecocert - The butterfly effect of FT
Fair for Life (IMO): fair but different
FLO - fairtrade: the pioneer in FT certification
Utz, good in Mayan language
Naturland: from organic to Fair Trade
Rainforest Alliance: for intelligent farming
FSC: against deforestation
GoodWeave (RugMark): carpet
MSC: fish for today - and tomorrow

He called what is happening now as - Metamorphosis of Fair Trade because some consumers are asking
if the products they are buying are from Fair Trade. There were no selection criteria for licensees which
resulted to a consequence where opportunists started to enter the Fair Trade market. This resulted to from
a mission driven companies, here comes the profit driven companies. This Fair Trade products changed
identity from development and awareness tool to certified socially clean products.

After 20 years of global discussions, this is the initial definition - Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based
on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to
sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, small and
marginalized producers and workers especially in the South. Social economy should have a global
definition which will set the standard where in per country could also formulate their own standard.

Fair Trade Organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness
raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade (FINE
2001).

He also shared the importance of their conference in Global Fair Trade Week in Rio de Janeiro in May
2013. They talked about the Fair Trade beyond 2015. He also shared the importance of the new WFTO
Fair Trade Guarantee System they are implementing as discussed above. Some example of this is
discussed below:
USA
Equal Exchange: discussion started 2005
At Equal Exchange, we are extending our vision, seeking ways to partner with small farmer
co-ops, consumers and retailers here in North America to build a vision for a more socially
just, participatory and sustainable economic system that includes the global, domestic and
local levels
Domestic Fair Trade Association USA
united for health, justice and sustainability http://www.thedfta.org/)
FRANCE
Bio Partenaire (http://www.biopartenaire.com)
Member of Plate-forme Franaise pour le Commerce Equitable

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

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


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


Marie Lisa M. Dacanay, PhD is the founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA), a pioneer in
social entrepreneurship education and research in the region. As Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor at the Ateneo School of
Government, Ateneo de Manila University since 2008, Dr Dacanay is leading the design and delivery of degree and non-degree
courses on social entrepreneurship.
From 2001 2008, Dr Dacanay was Associate Professor and Faculty Champion for Social Entrepreneurship at the Asian Institute
of Management (AIM). At the AIM, she served as Program Director and Guru of the Master in Entrepreneurship for Social and
Development Entrepreneurs (MESODEV). She mentored four batches of social entrepreneurs and managers of government and
non-government organizations engaged in social enterprise development.
Dr Dacanay has a Bachelor of Science (Statistics) from the University of the Philippines, a Masters in Development Management
(With Distinction) from the Asian Institute of Management and a PhD (Organizational and Management Studies) at the
Copenhagen Business School in Denmark.


In locating the relevance of Social Entrepreneurship, it is important to take note that Social Entrepreneurship
is not an end in itself but a means towards an end. Social entrepreneurships goal is to achieve sustainable
development. In defining sustainable development, it is also important to know its major elements (Serrano,
1994). These elements are:
Social equity: control over resources and decisions as well as benefits of development accrue to the
majority of people between nations, within nations (classes, rural-urban, across regions), between
genders, across generations
Integrity of environment and development: environment is life support system of people and
communities so protection of environment is integral to development
Quality growth: growth redounds to improvement in quality of life of people, communities and their
habitat

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

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

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

Some examples of SEPPS in the country are:
a) Alter Trade is involved in sustainable agriculture and fair trade with an annual revenue income of
Php 202.8 million. Alter Trade was organized 21 years ago. Alter Trade worked with an 820 sugar
workers-turned ARBs in Negros organized as POs which was eventually called the Negros Organic
Fair Trade Association (NOFTA). NOFTA were empowered from being a supplier to becoming its
partners in fair trade and sustainable agriculture work.
b) Upland Marketing from being poor to becoming supplier-partners in Value Chain Management. 60
community based enterprises who worked in organic rice and muscovado sugar in involved in a
value chains. It is now 17 years old with an annual revenue of Php32 million benefiting 3,000
producers in upland, lowland and coastal communities.
c) NFCPWD: poor who are now empowered worker-owners of SE. They produced school chairs to
government. NFCPWD employed 1,250 Persons with Disability (PWD). It is now 15 years of age
with annual revenue of PhP48 million. It is 15 primary coops nationwide.
d) Tahanang Walang Hagdanan: poor are now workers-partners in SE management. It is a
rehabilitation and employment venue for PWDs. Currently it is 36 years old with annual revenue of
Php 24 million. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan produced educational toys and works with 273 PWD
employees, workers and producers.
e) Lamac MPC: poor as client-partners towards social inclusion. They give financial and social
protection services and is now 17 years with annual revenue of Php 101.4 million. They are now
35,040 members who are mostly entrepreneurial poor in the Visayas. They are farmers,
construction/domestic/migrant workers in Lamac.
f) CARD-MRI: Poor Empowered Client-Owners of SEs. CARD-MRI provides microfinance & social
development services and is now 26 years old with a loan portfolio of Php 6.3 billion. It has a 99%
repayment and an asset of Php14.1 billion. They have an outreach of 1 million nanays and 7 million
insured. 35,000+ nanays part owners of CARD-MRI Bank; CARD MBA fully owned and governed
by nanays.

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

Social entrepreneurship entails innovations designed to explicitly improve societal well-being, housed
within entrepreneurial organizations, which initiate, guide or contribute to change in society (Perrini,
2006). Below are some of the strands of SE.


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

Earned Income School: Extraordinary persons market based solutions to social problems It is a
response to cutbacks in federal funding for NPOs. Looks at market as the economy where believed that
business tools to solve social problems and the role of state not given importance.
Social Economy School is multi stakeholder initiatives to address socio-economic problems. It is a response
of people to a crisis of welfare states. Believe that the market is not the economy. They believe that
collective action of citizens an state role in redistribution is important to strengthen the social economy.
Social Innovation School
(Dees&Anderson, 2006)
Social Enterprise/Earned
Income School
(Dees& Anderson, 2006)
Social Economy School
(Defourney&Nyssens, 2008)
for profit or non-profit
organizations

pursuit of innovative solutions to
social problems

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

methodologies and changes in
attitude

set up by individual social
entrepreneurs
non-profit venture serving a
social mission

ensure continuity of service
provision thru market-based

income streams beyond grants
and subsidies

business methods to improve
non-profit organizations

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

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

multi-stakeholder, collective
dynamics

In discussing the SE and Perspectives on Transforming the Economy she shared the principles governining
mindful markets by Korten (1999). The following are the principles:
Use life as a measure.
Put costs on the decision maker.
Favor human scale firms and stakeholder ownership.
Strive for equity.
Favor full disclosure.
Encourage the sharing of knowledge and technology.
Seek diversity and self-reliance.
Pay attention to your borders.
Honor governments necessary role.
Maintain an ethical culture.

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

Conventional Ecological
Basic World View Limitless resources;
technological fix for scarcity
Limited resources; finite earth;
earth as a large, complex
system
Individual tastes and
preferences taken as given
and dominant force
Humans are responsible for
understanding their role in the
larger system and managing it
sustainably
View of the Environment Source of raw materials and
sink for waste
Life support system of
humans (biosphere)
Main
Concern/Preoccupation
Profit, Growth Quality of Life, Sustainability
Conventional Ecological
Primary macro goal Growth of national economy Ecological economic system
sustainability; Improve human
welfare
Primary micro goal Maximize profits(firms)
Maximize utility (individuals)
Improve quality of life; must
be adjusted to reflect system
goals

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

Overconsumers
1.1 billion
Sustainers
3.3 billion
Excluded
1.1 billion
Travel by car & air Travel by bicycle & public
surface transport
Travel by foot, maybe
donkey
Eat high fat, high calorie meat-
based diets
Eat healthy grains,
veggies,some meat
Eat nutritionally inadequate
diets
Drink bottled water & soft
drinks
Drink clean water plus some
tea,coffee
Drink contaminated water
Use disposables,discard
substantial wastes
Use unpackaged goods,
durables, recycle waste
Use local biomass,
negligible waste
Live in spacious, climate
controlled 1-family house
Live in modest houses w/
extended families
Live in open/rudimentary
shelters w/o secure tenure
Fashionable wardrobes Wear functional clothing Wear 2
nd
hand or scraps

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

The principles pursued by SEPPS as actors in economic development are:
Innovation: poverty and inequality cannot be solved with business-as-usual strategies/approaches
Ethical or mindful markets: market valuation of goods and services need to internalize social and
environmental costs and benefits
Reciprocity: solving common problems through mutual help and collective action
Redistribution: multisectoral engagements involving civil society, government and business for social
justice & equity
Solidarity: shared vision, objectives and action among the poor and non-poor to end poverty
Sustainability: sustainable solutions through people empowerment, scaling up, building resilient
communities & a healthy environment

She also discussed the perspectives on transforming the economy towards sustainable development in the
South where she highlighted that there should be a shift in the economic development paradigm, where
market is not equal to economy. She agreed with Laville (2010) on the importance of innovations to develop
plural economies (Laville,2010) taking into considerations the ethical or mindful market economy (Korten,
1999) with strong social and solidarity economy. Where states role to redress inequalities and regulate
markets weak; markets unaccountable, there is a big role of social movements to exact accountability from
state and market. SEPPS is a vehicle for redistribution and for North-South cooperation.

In conclusion, the divergence between SE and SSE is brought about by one of the dominant schools of
thought, practitioners, advocates of SE espousing market as equal to economy. The convergence and
mutual enrichment of SE and SSE, on the other hand, are:
Social economy school of thought that espouses a plural economy with a strong social economy
Emerging South school of thought where social movements and SEPPS have a major role in
transforming markets and the economy towards sustainable development
Ecological economics as source of analytical tools and insights
Importance of continuing research on SE and SSE to enrich theory and practice of transforming markets
and the economy towards sustainable development


VI. Social Solidarity Economy: World Fair Trade Experience
Mr. Rudi Dalvai (Italy)
President, World Fair Trade Organization/ ACtm Altromercato
.
He shared that when understand social economy and social solidarity, he got lost. Definition is important
because it tell the people what is behind the concept I got lost. But it become useless when people are
fighting due to the definition.

He added that there are Bangladesh and Pakistan people are producing in areas where below human
acceptance.
The difference is hard to see, there is no clear definition. Understanding is different from North America and
Peru. Defining could be sayang sa time.
Fair trade like Social Econmy is top down. Change the relationship from the North and the South. Before is
like helping the poor. What is needed is build partnership relationship, no more charity. People can help
themselves.
What is a fair price??? Where everybody should gain. Nobody should loss from the production.
Producers are below poverty line. The farmer who produced the coffee in Nicaragua earn less per kilo
compared to the price of coffee




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


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

Mr. Marlon Palomo of PRRM and INAFI expressed that he have been hearing convergences and
divergence since yesterday. He tends to agree that there should be some kind of a common / global
definition of SSE. In the presentation we have seen that Fair Trade introduces cooperation from different
level and sharing. Can we share this as an expression of SSE? SE in Asia and other continents is building
business with each other guided by principles of SE, can this be called SSE? He thought that there are
more and more reasons to converge than to diverge. He explained that he came from a network of micro
finance in my primary organization and building local sustainable development, maybe, before the poor/
land less workers participate in social solidarity economy, he/she should have access to finance, and
access to knowledge. He look at this conference as a venue to converge with others.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Mr. Baclagon shared what happened in Cebu in August 2013 where they were able to gather 70 delegates
representing 39 organizations gathered in a conference with the following objectives:
Have a more heightened awareness and instilled commitment to the global movement to build a social
solidarity economy (SSE);
Learned from experiences of selected development stakeholders in Visayas in implementing SSE-
related efforts in their local economies; and
Come up with an action agenda on how they can collectively enhance and expand the impact of local
SSE-related initiatives

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

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








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

The conference was guided by three modules:
a) Conceptual frameworks
b) Local actions promoting SSE thru value chain development, cooperativism and thru resource
management
c) Broadening local actions where there was a brief orientation on the SE bill, identifying actions that
can be done locally, nationally and globally

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

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

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

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

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

What We Want to Change
Concentration of wealth in the hands of a few who are living in opulence, while leaving behind and
marginalizing a significant number of people coping with poverty and sheer lack of economic
opportunities;
Desecration of the earths natural resources that has been putting so much strain on the already fragile
ecosystems, that has already taken away human lives, and has been threatening the very existence of
the next generations; and
Social disintegration which has led to conflicts within and among communities; pervasive graft and
corruption in government, and deteriorating peace and order situation.

Together we will

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

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

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

Facilitate principled trading partnerships between responsible consumers and sustainable producers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


IX. Reaction
Earl Parreno, SEED

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

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


X. Open Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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