Republic of the Philippines

Palawan State University

Dumaran Campus
Dumaran, Palawan

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP (ENTRE 9)

MODULE 2

Beneficiaries and customers-One crucial group within the social enterprise ecosystem is
the beneficiaries and customers who use the services that social businesses and nonprofits
provide. Customers are those who pay for a good or service, while beneficiaries are those
whom an organisation seeks to help. In some social enterprises (for example, a low-cost grocery
store located in a ‘food desert’), these two groups may be the same; in other models, they may
be different. However, both customers and beneficiaries provide crucial feedback that shapes
the ways in which social enterprises devise and refine their aims and models.

Governments- are also an important part of the social enterprise ecosystem. Governments play
a key role in setting collective priorities for addressing social needs, and they provide funding
and other support for innovations and initiatives that meet those needs. Government policies
may also expand or limit the available options for social enterprise models – for example, by
determining how certain types of organisations are taxed and regulated. We will learn more
about what the UK government has done to promote social enterprise in the next step.
In addition to the government, other funding sources enable social enterprises to start up – and
scale up – their innovations. These funders include impact investors who seek both a financial
and a social return, as well as foundations and other traditional philanthropic organisations
that provide grants to nonprofit social enterprises. The availability, flexibility, and conditions of
funding may determine which organisations grow and thrive, and which fail to get past the
initial idea phase.

Universities, independent research organisations, and other institutions can also support social
enterprise by evaluating the impact of different models and disseminating relevant research
findings. In this area, the role of enabling organisations, which open channels of
communication and collaboration among all of the key players discussed above, is especially
important.

Finally, peer organisations also form a crucial part of the social enterprise ecosystem. Social
enterprises may compete for funding or customers with one another or with other nonprofits
or businesses, but they can also share information and best practices, collaborate, and support
complementary initiatives.

Social Enterprise Ecosystem in the Philippines 2020: The Enablers

Social Entrepreneurship is making its way to becoming more commonplace in the Philippines.
Especially during these unprecedented times due to COVID-19, businesses large and small are
starting to take a second look at doing business as something that does not only drive profit but
also create a positive impact on society. The British Council says that “the number of social
enterprise start-ups has more than tripled in the last decade alone”. With the rise in social
enterprises comes a rise in new learnings, challenges, and needs for those parts of this sector.
Different actors in the community must work together and keep up with the constant need for
support, resources, and innovation for social enterprises in the Philippines.

According to Brad Feld, the author of Startup Communities, a successful entrepreneurial

ecosystem must be led by the entrepreneurs that make it up, must have a long term
commitment to developing the space, must be inclusive and welcoming to anyone who wants
to participate in it, and must have continual activities and events that serve the community. All
startup ecosystems will have its leaders and feeders, and the interplay between these actors
will directly affect the landscape that fosters these entrepreneurial activities. Through Brad
Feld’s framework we, at The Spark Project, attempt to map out the leaders and feeders
(collectively called enablers) that make up the Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in the
Philippines. Our hope is that through this exercise, we get to have a better understanding of the
current SE landscape and find ways in enriching it. We know that this snapshot is far from
complete, and our invitation is for the community to join us as we crowdsource information to
make this map even better.

Entrepreneurial Organizations

The leaders of the Philippine social enterprise community must be the social entrepreneurs
who make up the space. These entrepreneurial organizations are formed and founded by
entrepreneurs who want to help fellow entrepreneurs in their journey. These groups create an
environment where social entrepreneurs are welcome, motivated, and inspired to start and
scale their ideas. They create a safe space for aspiring and existing social entrepreneurs to
learn, network, and share best practices and opportunities on social entrepreneurship.

In the Philippines, Yabang Pinoy is one of the oldest entrepreneurial communities in the
ecosystem, serving as a platform for local and social enterprises through their Yabang Pinoy
Bazaar. Other well-known and loved communities for product-based social enterprises are
Roots Collective and The Good Trade. Muni.ph is another community that focuses on
sustainable initiatives and supports enterprises that promote that. We also have international
communities like the Global Shapers Community, that has hubs across the Philippines – Manila,
Iloilo, Cebu, and Davao.

There aren’t a lot of communities at the moment that caters specifically to social enterprises.
Those that do are usually purpose-driven organizations that aim to build and nurture
communities of individuals who are passionate about creating positive change in their
respective different communities, social entrepreneurship being one of the ways this is
achieved.

Community Events

Community Events celebrate the wins we experience in the social enterprise space. These also
initiate and continue conversations in the community about the challenges, developments, and
opportunities that entrepreneurs can take. Both Entrepreneurial Communities and Community
Events for social enterprises in the Philippines still have plenty of space for growth. With the
growing number of Social Enterprises and Social Entrepreneurs in the country, there will be a
demand for more communities and events to provide the support network SEs need.

Annual conferences like Spark Fest by The Spark Project and the Social Good Summit of
Rappler, and monthly meetups like Impact Happy Hours organized by Villgro had to be put on
hold for 2020 due to quarantine protocols. In the new normal, these events will definitely not
be the same as they used to, but it will be interesting to see how this space will evolve in 2021.

Government and International Orgs programs or policies that favor SEs

The government’s role in the ecosystem is to support rather than lead. This cluster comprises
organizations that enable entrepreneurs by helping establish the Social Entrepreneurship space
both locally and globally. Organizations that are in this cluster have a large reach and have great
influence. They are in good position to advocate Social Entrepreneurship as a means for
innovation and problem-solving in society. They promote Social Entrepreneurship as a space to
pay attention to because of the economic and social impact it can bring to the communities
they serve. For now, opportunities available for SEs in this space mostly come from
international organizations and governments, but local policy through the PRESENT Bill in our
country is a potential game-changer and definitely a good sign of progress.

Universities that have SE programs or courses, and organizations that conduct research

The universities and research-driven organizations in this cluster conduct regular academic
studies and promote learning about social entrepreneurship in the Philippines. From degree
programs, elective courses, intensive training, to resource sharing –  all of which are designed
to foster an environment of experimentation, encouragement, and innovation for aspiring
entrepreneurs and existing entrepreneurs. Organizations like Bayan Academy are active
researchers and content producers for this space, and many Universities such as Ateneo de
Manila and De La Salle University are integrating Social Entrepreneurship in their programs and
academic curriculums, both in the undergraduate and graduate level. Universities hold an
important role in the local SE ecosystem because they act as feeders to the ecosystem. They
expose students on social entrepreneurship at an early stage. These institutions have the power
to set the course for future social entrepreneurs and innovators who can potentially create
sustainable businesses that do good.

Funders and Investors

The role of funders and investors is to inject capital resources that will help entrepreneurs be
better equipped in running their respective social businesses. This is important for the SE
ecosystem because impact-driven funders and investors provide the needed financial (and non-
financial) support for entrepreneurs who are willing to put in the work to pursue this path. In
the Philippines, there are financing sources available for SEs but most of these opportunities
are particularly for scale-up social enterprises, and not for early-stage social enterprises. For
early-stage SEs, grant competitions and crowdfunding are the go-to options, apart from self-
funding.

Mentorship

This cluster comprises organizations that provide social enterprises with opportunities to
advance and develop their impact, most often without asking for an economic return. This is
usually done through incubators and accelerator programs. Communities in this cluster focus
their attention on guiding businesses that they see have the potential to scale their impact.
Some organizations in this cluster cater to social enterprises that target a specific sector or
industry such as Agriculture, Women-led enterprises, Technology, and Sustainability.

Service Providers for SEs

Service Providers can span from Lawyers to Accountants, to Recruiters, to Marketing

Consultants, and other specialized fields that provide much-needed assistance to social
entrepreneurs. They can be either individuals or companies that invest their time and energy to
provide quality and personalized services and help to early-stage companies. There are only a
few enterprises in the Philippines such as Works of Heart and ATBP Co. that cater primarily to
Social Enterprises and Mission-driven organizations, and it would be beneficial to the local
ecosystem to have more of these types of organizations serving social enterprises.

Large Companies that have SE programs

Corporations that are well-established and well-known have the power and capacity to move
the needle in the local SE space by supporting social entrepreneurs and innovators through
company programs and policies that give these enterprises access to funding, capacity training,
and other opportunities only they can provide. That is corporate citizenship. Companies such as
Globe Telecom, BPI Foundation, ABS-CBN Foundation, MVP Group, and Pilipinas Shell are some
of the large corporations that have enterprise development programs that have a strong focus
on social entrepreneurship and social innovation. Having more corporations taking this part
towards this kind of corporate citizenship will help mainstream social businesses and encourage
more entrepreneurs to be more impact-driven.

Media

Media plays an important role in spreading the word about social entrepreneurship and social
impact. They serve as conversation starters, evangelists, and advocates for social entrepreneurs
by giving them a voice and a platform to share their message. In the Philippines, there are a
handful of media outlets that showcase the work that social entrepreneurs are doing and their
contribution to economic growth, and their impact on society.

Awards

Both Local and International Award giving bodies recognize the strides and notable
achievements that have been made in the SE space. They put a spotlight on the work
happening in this space and keep the conversation and support going for initiatives that have to
create positive social impact. We have a handful of award-giving bodies that recognize the
amazing work of social entrepreneurs and innovators here in the Philippines.

Conclusion

Although each of the actors in these clusters has a specific role they play in the ecosystem, they
all have a unified goal of providing the best support for social enterprises across different
stages. The Enablers that make up the Social Enterprise Ecosystem in the Philippines exist for
the same reason that social enterprises exist, and that is to meet the needs of people, profit,
planet, and purpose. They introduce a new paradigm of conscious capitalism where doing good
and earning a profit can co-exist, and the marginalized sectors and communities in our society
are not left behind.

These enablers make it possible for entrepreneurs to emerge, grow, and develop in this space.
In the words of Thompson, “Entrepreneurship enablers are the ‘people behind the people’ who
create and build businesses and social enterprises and thus help bring about economic and
social regeneration”. With everything that COVID-19 has brought to the world of
Entrepreneurship, and specifically Social Entrepreneurship, one can only hope that this
catalyzes more growth and development in the local impact ecosystem in the Philippines. Let’s
watch this space in 2021. And if you can, be part of this space.

Characteristics of Social Entrepreneur

5 Important Qualities that Make a Successful Social Entrepreneur

Deep empathy.

Lorena makes it clear, “the solutions don’t come from those that haven’t suffered the problem.
The solutions come from the problem.” Most social entrepreneurs understand the problem so
well because they’ve lived it. Learn more about empathy from CLU Teaching Faculty Anita
Nowak.
Innovation.

Studying the causes of a problem, and what has or hasn’t worked to solve it, creates space for
an innovative approach to solving the root of a problem, rather than reacting in a crisis.  Explore
more about being an innovator in Dutch peace activist Willemijn Verloop’s Tedx Talk.
A Systemic View.

Successful social entrepreneurs seek change with permanence, which may mean changing
mindsets, culture, or policies adopted in a widespread way by the people.

A Sustainable Approach.

It’s not about the financial model (for-profit or non-profit) but about the plan in place to reach
the goal.
Involving Changemakers.

The social entrepreneur’s vision only works when identifying and engaging local changemakers
to solve a problem.

Who are these changemakers anyway? One great example Lorena shares, is that of Christina
Fialho, an immigration attorney who seeks to change how the immigration detention system
functions through her organization CIVIC End Isolation. Private detention centers are able to
hold people detained by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement without allowing them access
to a lawyer or even a phone, effectively preventing them from being able contact people
outside the center.

Changemakers also bring a great deal of influence to the mission and their participation is
crucial to its success.
Christina’s organization mobilized a large network of unpaid volunteers, mostly retired white
Evangelical women who wouldn’t rouse suspicion, to knock on the doors of local detention
centers and request to visit a detainee using a random name allowing them to verify whether
an individual by that name is being housed at the center.  Lorena notes that this army of
volunteers, “has created one of the most important and powerful underground databases,
gestapo-style, of who is detained.” This is one critical way Christina has leveraged a powerful
community of changemakers to address the problem she is passionate about.

Lorena’s talk is timely and meaningful to all changemakers, new and experienced.  At CLU we
want students to be active participants in the process of redefining systems to benefit others in
a meaningful way. If you’d like to hear more of Lorena’s talk, check out the recording on
SoundCloud.

Ready to get started in making your own impact?

 Research – Who is coming up with the best solutions to local problems, and what do
those success stories look like? Students in CLU’s Social Impact program dive deep into
social impact literacy.
 Rethink – Why do I care so much about this issue? What is my personal story?
 Collaborate – How are you going to make sure that there is an army of changemakers
willing to fight this fight with you? As Clair Baca, CLU Student Services Advisor,
reinforces, “Lorena’s presentation really showed that while the role of the social
entrepreneur is incredibly important, changemakers also bring a great deal of influence
to the mission and their participation is crucial to its success.”
Social entrepreneurship – trends, patters and future directions.
According to the newest comparative report on the basis of 167,793 adults in 58 economies
[Bosma, Schøtt, Terjesen, Kew, 2016], social entrepreneurs are starting businesses in all major
regions of the world but with notable variations throughout countries and different economic
areas. The early-stage social entrepreneurial activity, measured by the percentage of adults
between the age of 18 and 64 who are currently trying to start a social purpose business is at a
global average of 3.2%.

The statistics indicate lower prevalence of social entrepreneurial activities in comparison to

commercial early-stage activities that are at the global average of 7.2% [ibidem]. Nevertheless,
the detected rate is promising in terms of further social entrepreneurship development. In
overall perspective, Australia and the US have the highest ratios of social entrepreneurship
activities (11%).

In Australia and the US, one out of 10 individuals are social entrepreneurs. Sub-Saharan Africa is
classified as the second economic area with high social entrepreneurial activities including early
and post start-up stage. While social entrepreneurship rates are high in sub-Saharan Africa,
these economies tend to be characterised by small-scale entrepreneurial activity in general, in
terms of employing few people and not having very high levels of sales.

Eastern and Western Europe, Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East and South Africa have
average levels of social entrepreneurial activities and they are at the third place in the ranking.
The last place belongs to South-East Asia with the least amount of social entrepreneurs – at just
3.8% [ibidem].

The studies indicate various motives of differsified dynamics of social entrepreneurial activities
across the globe, from those innovation driven to those necessity driven. It has been unveiled
that the areas with the highest average level of economic welfare and institutional
development have the highest ratios of social entrepreneurial activities due to institutional
support mechanisms, such as dedicated facilities to support entrepreneurs.

As a contrary, the areas at lower levels of economic development have some of the highest
rates of necessity-driven entrepreneurship where individuals’ social initiatives are driven by
needs that emerge from the local community. Interestingly, the findings illustrate that, at lower
levels of economic development, new entrepreneurial activities with social goals are more
intertwined with those of regular new businesses [ibidem]. In addition, the newest GEM Report
[ibidem] presents four crucial patterns. (1) 55% of social entrepreneurial activities are led by
male and 45% by female8. (2) 38% of the world’s social entrepreneurial ventures rely on
government funding. The rest relay on, inter alia, private funds, banks, investors and online
crowdfunding. (3) The majority of social enterprises in most economies around the world across
all economies are market based rather than non-market based (4) but between 50 and 70% of
operational social entrepreneurs are ‘value creators’ where generating value to society and
environment is more important than financial value. Besides the observed growth in social
entrepreneurial activities globally, the experts from the Harvard Business School [Rangan,
Herman, McDonald, 2008] admit that the direction of social entrepreneurship development
remains on the brink of several possible futures, including consolidation, entrepreneurial
growth, and expressive experimentation. In the consolidation scenario, funding will keep
growing and organizations will compete for resources by demonstrating performance.

The sector will consolidate, some efficient organizations gaining scale, some merging and then
growing, and some failing to achieve either scale or efficiency and eventually shutting down.
The entrepreneurial scenario predicts that the existing and new enterprises will apply strategies
to achieve and demonstrate performance, improving efficiency and effectiveness and attracting
innovative funding strategies and new entrepreneurial models. In the expressive scenario
rather than focusing exclusively on performance, funders and organizations may view their
investment as an expressive civic activity with an emphasis on employing concrete measures of
impact or efficiency.

In this scenario, funding will flow as social entrepreneurs experiment with new models based
on a range of individual priorities and relationships. The scenario that unfolds over the next 20
years will depend largely on the ability of social enterprise leaders to make a leap forward in
thought and action to capitalize on the abundant potential for social change [ibidem]. It seems,
additionally, that the future of social entrepreneurship highly depends on the young
entrepreneurs aged between 18-34 as statistically they contribution to social entrepreneurial
activities is the highest (see section 4, Figure 2).
The newest report of Global Entrepreneurial Monitor [Bosma, Schøtt, Terjesen, Kew, 2016]
shows that youth entrepreneurs at the age of 18–34 are more likely to set up socially oriented
business than commercial ventures. The statistic shows that the rate of EKONOMIA SPOŁECZNA
NR 2 / 2016 27 the young (at that particular age range) leading social entrepreneurial activities
at operation stage (post start-up stage) exceeds the number of those involved in regular
business, which unveils a new phenomenon in the global youth entrepreneurship (see Figure 2).

The discovered trend has influenced more focus on the youth education and professional
development in the area of social entrepreneurship. In the Ashoka network [Ashoka, 2013]
about 700 of the 3,000 social entrepreneurs already work directly with youth to help them
develop entrepreneurial skills to flourish in the social entrepreneurial area and to solve critical
global or national issues. The developing sector of social entrepreneurship needs talented
individuals who have the ability to turn the idea into profitable and sustainable long-term
business venture [Millennial Center for Social Entrepreneurship, 2016]. New generation
surrounded by online environment has an ability to connect with cultures across the world,
making it easier to understand and quickly respond to various global problems. Technology
provides all sorts of tools ranging from solution design, advertisement to sharing, collaborating
or networking. The technologically emboldened generation, with attention to capital, financial
sustainability and access to community or infrastructure, seems to have no barriers in creativity
and innovation [Kaplan, 2013; World Economic Forum, 2015].

Nevertheless, those who go into the direction of social innovation differ in terms of motivation
to engage in social activities: social entrepreneurs demonstrate a socio-moral motivation in
their entrepreneurial initiatives [Bacq, Hartog, Hoogendoorn, Lepoutre, 2011]. Shaw and Carter
[2007, as cited by Bacq, Hartog, Hoogendoorn, Lepoutre, 2011], found that social
entrepreneurs are more likely to be motivated by social aims, such as to affect change and
make a difference, to meet local needs or to tackle a social issue.

Dees [as cited in Johnson, 2003] identifies five criteria that social entrepreneurs possess:
adopting a mission to create and sustain social value; recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new
opportunities to serve that mission; engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation
and learning; acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand; and exhibiting
a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and to the outcomes created.

However, the today’s profile of millennial social entrepreneurs expands the previous
descriptions and majority of the specific traits are confronted with functional questions on how
millennials acquire resources for their social businesses, how they allocate resources, how they
build successful organizations, and how they achieve impact from social investment [Rangan,
Herman, McDonald, 2008]

A recent review of social entrepreneurship literature showed that young social entrepreneurs
are likely to share a series of behavioural characteristics with the commercial entrepreneurs,
such as: the ability to detect opportunities, the drive to innovate, the willingness to bear risk
and the display of proactive behaviour towards survival, growth and serving the market [Bacq,
Hartog, Hoogendoorn, Lepoutre, 2011]. Nevertheless, majority of early developing social
entrepreneurs have difficulty to make their ventures sustainable. Therefore, many countries
(especially those at higher level of economic development) offer supportive mechanism and
mentoring, coaching or co-working with experts at different stages of the social enterprise
development [Bosma, Schøtt, Terjesen, Kew, 2016].
The rise of social entrepreneurship

As the co-founder of The Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke
University, Greg Dees points out that these individuals are a "special breed" of leaders. Author
David Bornstein, who specializes in writing about social innovation, says, “What business
entrepreneurs are to the economy, social entrepreneurs are to social change.” 
We often think of entrepreneurs as those who start their own businesses with the sole purpose
of making money. Currently, there are 582 million entrepreneurs around the world. Social
entrepreneurs are cut from the same mold. However, these are individuals who seek to impact
a particular social cause, which benefits society and hopefully brings about positive change.
 

Types of social entrepreneurs

When it comes to driving change through social entrepreneurship, there are many definitions.
These individuals and companies represent a vast cross-section of what they are trying to
accomplish with their businesses. They also differ in terms of their strategies and goals for
bringing about social change.
Dr. Joe Johnson is an entrepreneur who has studied the field for over 25 years. He is the
founder of Welfont, which has funded and launched over a dozen start-ups. Dr. Johnson has
outlined what he considers to be the four most common types of social entrepreneurs.
 

1. The Community Social Entrepreneur

This entrepreneur seeks to serve the social needs of a community within a small geographical
area. These entrepreneurial initiatives could be anything from creating job opportunities for
marginalized members to building a community center. Social entrepreneurs on this scale are
usually individuals or small organizations. Microfinance loans are one example - offering
financial solutions to local people with no access to banking.
These entrepreneurs work directly with members of the community. This means more vested
interests and a slower decision process, but it comes with the advantage of long-term solutions.
Both community members and local organizations are likely to sustainably carry on with the
project even without the entrepreneur's direct involvement.
This is where most people start, as a change in your own community is instantly visible. You can
see the results of such social entrepreneurship almost immediately and talk to people you are
helping directly. All you need to do to start this type of endeavor is find a local isolated social
problem and apply yourself to solving it.
 
2. The Non-Profit Social Entrepreneur

These entrepreneurs are focused on social, not material gain, meaning they prioritize social
well-being over traditional business needs. They reinvest any profits into the business to
facilitate the further expansion of services
Non-profit social entrepreneurs are usually companies and organizations that choose to use
their power for social good. The story of Goodwill Industries serves as a great example: In 1902,
the company started employing poor residents to work with donated goods, reinvesting all
profits into job training programs.
These entrepreneurs are usually more likely to meet their stated goals due to readily available
funding. However, they are also dependent on its successful generation for social good.
This path is usually taken by more business-savvy entrepreneurs who want to use their skills for
creating change. While the results often take longer to manifest, they can take effect on a larger
scale. Joining a local non-profit or training program is usually a reliable way to start.
 

3. The Transformational Social Entrepreneur

These people are focused on creating a business that can meet the social needs that
governments and other businesses aren't currently meeting. The transformational category is
often what non-profits evolve to with sufficient time and growth. They become larger
organizations with rules and regulations - sometimes growing to the point of working with or
getting integrated into governmental bodies. 
Accelerators like The Social Innovation Warehouse are great examples of this social
entrepreneur type. They specifically empower other impact-driven entrepreneurs to create
positive change. This then creates a system of interconnected businesses focused on social
benefits.
Transformational entrepreneurs have an easier time getting top talent for these efforts.
However, they are also bound by a web of rules and regulations that larger organizations have
to create.
Such organizations usually recruit and foster talent in-house. If you apply for a job opportunity
or volunteer position and show social entrepreneurship skills, they are likely to help you enroll
in a mentorship program and facilitate your growth from there.
 

4. The Global Social Entrepreneur

These entrepreneurs seek to completely change social systems in order to meet major social
needs globally. It's often where big companies end up when they realize their social
responsibility and begin concentrating on positive change as opposed to just profits. It's also
where the largest charity organizations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,stand.
The global need in question can be anything from free access to education to clean water. This
is usually a lofty goal that spans continents and links many organizations and interests together.
However, the trade-off is in scrutiny - if global social entrepreneurs fail to meet the needs and
gather sufficient support, their failure has a bigger impact than those of smaller organizations.
These organizations are usually tied to a particular cause and work with other social
entrepreneurs to make it happen. As such, you are more likely to achieve these heights if you
connect with other social entrepreneurs and build a global community around solving social
issues.
Additionally, there is a growing number of organizations that blend the best for-profit practices
with non-profit missions. They fall under all types outlined above, being in different stages of
growth and scalability. We suggest finding a cause that works best for you and charting a way
forward from there.

A) Characteristics of the Ecosystem An ecosystem that is evolving: The SEE is perceived as an organism
that has been changing with more acceleration in the last ten years. There are two patterns to explain
such acceleration. First, the inclusion of the term Social Innovation in public policy and institutions. And
second, people who started to create support organisations brought knowledge from abroad, either by
opening international organisations (e.g. Socialab or The Impact HUB); or because they adopted ideas
from other countries (e.g. Filantropía Transformadora). One of the transformations causing the
evolution is the change in language and narratives around SE. The participation of the for-profit sector
and a new generation of social entrepreneurs have led to more narratives of entrepreneurs as heroes
and less of SE as a community activity (Calvo and Morales, 2013). This phenomenon can be contrasted in
interviews when people refer to cases of SE with the name of an individual first, and not with the name
of the organisation. Other milestones for the evolution of the ecosystem have been the specialisation of
the actors and the integration of innovation into their activities. Finally, the civil society is perceived as
the group which made the biggest efforts to take the ecosystem to a next level; instead of Government.
Colombia and Bogotá, for being the capital, have a perception of a region with such a problematic
history that social entrepreneurs have plenty of opportunities to create interventions. Calvo and
Morales (2013) also concluded this, highlighting the violent history of the country that reinforced and
created social problems along the territory. State of maturity of the ecosystem: "The ecosystem has had
a cycle that is normal, in the beginning everything was new and discovering the new opportunities…
Then we said let's do everything together, then we focused in growing our own projects, now we are
working together but more focused" Interviewee #15 "What I feel is in Colombia there's not a
consolidated ecosystem… In Bogotá there are plenty of social entrepreneurs innovating and creating
new things; but there is not fertile ground field where ventures can grow" Interviewee #04 Nathaly
Sepúlveda Ramos The University of Edinburgh 39 About the maturity of the ecosystem tow perception
paths emerged. First, there is a positive opinion about the maturity of the actors within the SEE.
However, the second path is a negative opinion about how those actors are not effectively connected.
Regarding the actors, a positive level of maturity is related to: • The presence of recognised social
entrepreneurs and big foundations or NGO. • Diversity in the types of organisations in the ecosystem. •
Support organisations aiming to organise the ecosystem and see social entrepreneurs as customers. The
last fact gives to social entrepreneurs a new status. When before they were people living just out of
charity now they are perceived as an interesting market that can afford to pay for specialised services. In
addition, entrepreneurs are sophisticating their endeavours, more social organisations are using
technology to expand their operations or the reach of their message. They are also appropriating
concepts from the private sector, as the idea of creating spin-offs. Which they use as a tool for getting
profits without losing the focus on their mission. But despite the increasing sophistication of the actors,
there is a collective notion of chaos in the way actors are connecting. The actors recognise how there
are long-term partnerships between organisations, but these are not enough. Small social organisations
do not know each other; therefore, efforts are being replicated. The capacity of private support actors
trying to connect the ecosystem is limited to cover all the demand. And most important, new social
entrepreneurs are not feeling part of the ecosystem; they do not perceive the ecosystem as a resource
that they can access to, and some of them do not even recognise the existence of the ecosystem. In
summary, the predominant judgement is the fact that the actors are there, in the market, but the
ecosystem is not mature enough to make connections and partnerships between actors in the most
efficient way. B) The network dynamics Network Creation, expansion and maintenance: Social
entrepreneurs are using the ecosystem through their networks, this is how they access and contribute
to it. They start to use networks since they are creating their team. They look for partners in events or
through connections made by friends or their professional network. From all the interviewed
entrepreneurs, none of them started their venture alone, this seems to be a relevant characteristic that
differentiates them from commercial entrepreneurs. ""We meet these organisations trough friends and
social media such LinkedIn, like in the case of Carbon Trust"" Interviewee #16 Nathaly Sepúlveda Ramos
The University of Edinburgh 40 From interviews, four strategies were identified to expand the networks
(Figure 4.3). Which also seem to happen in this order through time. 1) Friends, family and work. These
three are used especially in the early stages to find cofounders, first partners and seed capital. 2)
Commercial efforts. Having started the venture, entrepreneurs contact people they do not know yet to
partner or to get funding, this can happen through common acquaintances or technology tools, such as
social media and public e-mails. Nevertheless, for organisations that do not have the skills or access to
use the internet, it can become a disadvantage, losing opportunities to connect with others. 3) Formal
Networks. When entrepreneurs have proved their value proposition they access to formal networks
(e.g. Ashoka Fellowships, Aflora), this allows them to connect with mentors and other organisations. 4)
Reputation and brand recognition. For organisations which have built a brand, people and other
organisations start to contact them without any additional