About this, it is important to recognize that research in indigenous social entrepreneurship is an emerging theme in the literature of entrepreneurship. As mentioned by Dana [41], it has taken many years to develop at least an approach, not a theory, to indigenous social entrepre‐ neurship, which was a novel topic in 2001 when it was still pending recognition as a concept of indigenous entrepreneurship in business literature [42]. Moreover, while indigenous entrepreneurship is an emerging field of research in business, although not presently appro‐ priate to drawing conclusions thereon, there has been a major breakthrough while discovering the Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights (In Spanish: *Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra*) [43], which seeks to preserve the planet Earth based on the following six principles: harmony, collective good, guarantee of the regeneration of Mother Earth, respect for and defense of the rights of Mother Earth, no commercialism, and multiculturalism, all based on indigenous people in Bolivia as an example of culture, values, and worldview having a positive impact on human beings and the planet as a whole.

In this regard, one of the main contributions which has identified indigenous entrepreneurship is Peredo et al. [38], where they are characterized by their attachment to the heritage and culture of their ethnicity, their lands, and actively participate in the entrepreneurship and develop‐ ment. Moreover, social capital and social networks are important to understanding indigenous entrepreneurship. Contrary to the principles of the Entrepreneurship Theory, the incidence of the historical context, sources of capital, and the social network are key and the conceptuali‐ zation of these can be very different from what is commonly known [38]. In the case of indigenous issues, it is important to stress the importance of what it is to be considered part of their people and their territory, and that "creation" is an element of identity, which is why the indigenous entrepreneurship is often associated with notions of economic development based on the community and "any indigenous community comprises the following elements: 1. A plot of land, delimited and defined for possession; 2.  A language variant of the people, from which we identify our common language; 4. An organization defining the political, cultural, social, civil, economic and religious aspects; and, 5. A community system of law enforcement and administration of Justice" [44]. In this case, the community is explained through the concept of commonality and is composed of elements that "ensure their understanding, which are as follows: 1. The Earth, viewed both as a mother and as a territory; 2. The consensus decisionmaking in Assemblies; 3. Free service, as exercising authority; 4. Collective work, such as the act of recreation; and, 5. Rites and ceremonies, as an expression of communal gift" [45]. Whenever there is reverse work at any time in communal life, as explained [46] while an‐ nouncing that the work is given by decision in a community assembly; "Work in civil-religious hierarchy through coordination, work such as reciprocity through the collective construction work benefiting the community and work through the fiesta system".

Therefore, one can say, in the case of indigenous communities, this type of undertaking is different from other forms of entrepreneurship [47] in terms of the context of the enterprise [37]. To explain the foregoing, Dana [41] states that "There is rich heterogeneity among indigenous peoples, and some of their cultural values are often incompatible with the basic assumptions of mainstream theories of entrepreneurship," which has been created in a western culture with an economic model of capitalism and neoliberalism. In this case, indigenous peoples have a propensity for social entrepreneurship as these values lead them to think together as a unit [48]. Furthermore, Hernandez [49] points out that there is a big difference between the neoliberal economic models and indigenous values, since the former are geared toward "economic growth and export orientation, contrary to the cultural worldview of Indigenous peoples." In closing, the indigenous entrepreneurship tends to have explanatory noneconomic variables such as egalitarianism, trade, and communal activities, in contrast to capitalism and neoliberal economic model [41].

For example, Peredo [50] speaks of the Andean indigenous peoples who manage local development through community work, preservation of heritage, and common welfare balancing individual and collective sustainable benefits [38]. So also, we have found that there are differences in the Western venture [51]. Therefore, the indigenous social entrepreneurship is an emerging issue that may be able to deliver a new paradigm in entrepreneurship [41–43].

Anderson and Giberson [52] consider it a challenge to build in the field of entrepreneurship literature, a theoretic paradigm ad hoc to the context of such peoples, especially since the difference is based on communal enterprise values, with a strong link between entrepreneur‐ ship and earth, nonprofit, and decisions based on the common good [38, 51], among others, but one cannot ignore that it is an emergent investigation field for future projections [53].

So, what characterizes indigenous communities is their cultural and social background, where their attachment to their lands and traditions must be joined with economic development [54], and is key to cooperative venture projects.

Rooting gives identity and belonging to the community, where one of the key elements is Earth conceptualized as *Mother* defined as [43] "the living dynamic system consisting of the indivi‐ sible community of all systems of life and living beings that are interrelated, interdependent and complementary, and share a common destiny … '*Madre Tierra'* (Mother Earth) is consid‐ ered sacred, from the worldviews of nations and native indigenous peoples", that is, as the provider of all resources, therefore any action by an individual not only affects other people and living things, but also the environment and even supernatural beings [55], which shows that the social, political, and economic action taken has a worldview effect1 ; "as a basis for society on the characteristics and properties of their environment […] Each worldview implies a specific concept of human nature" [57].

In short, to understand the difference between social entrepreneurship and indigenous social entrepreneurship in a simple manner, Farrelly [58] explains this: one is indigenous because "the management is based on indigenous values culturally specific and visions of the world.

1 The world view is closely linked to religion, politics, economics, and the environment. In the cosmological systems of indigenous Mexican tradition, it has a huge weight [56].

Indigenous social entrepreneurship lays greater stress on creativity, innovation and risk-taking of entrepreneurial initiative, while prioritizing social welfare over economic benefits."

## **3.2. Social capital and social networks: impact on social entrepreneurship**

Therefore, one can say, in the case of indigenous communities, this type of undertaking is different from other forms of entrepreneurship [47] in terms of the context of the enterprise [37]. To explain the foregoing, Dana [41] states that "There is rich heterogeneity among indigenous peoples, and some of their cultural values are often incompatible with the basic assumptions of mainstream theories of entrepreneurship," which has been created in a western culture with an economic model of capitalism and neoliberalism. In this case, indigenous peoples have a propensity for social entrepreneurship as these values lead them to think together as a unit [48]. Furthermore, Hernandez [49] points out that there is a big difference between the neoliberal economic models and indigenous values, since the former are geared toward "economic growth and export orientation, contrary to the cultural worldview of Indigenous peoples." In closing, the indigenous entrepreneurship tends to have explanatory noneconomic variables such as egalitarianism, trade, and communal activities, in contrast to

For example, Peredo [50] speaks of the Andean indigenous peoples who manage local development through community work, preservation of heritage, and common welfare balancing individual and collective sustainable benefits [38]. So also, we have found that there are differences in the Western venture [51]. Therefore, the indigenous social entrepreneurship is an emerging issue that may be able to deliver a new paradigm in entrepreneurship [41–43]. Anderson and Giberson [52] consider it a challenge to build in the field of entrepreneurship literature, a theoretic paradigm ad hoc to the context of such peoples, especially since the difference is based on communal enterprise values, with a strong link between entrepreneur‐ ship and earth, nonprofit, and decisions based on the common good [38, 51], among others, but one cannot ignore that it is an emergent investigation field for future projections [53]. So, what characterizes indigenous communities is their cultural and social background, where their attachment to their lands and traditions must be joined with economic development [54],

Rooting gives identity and belonging to the community, where one of the key elements is Earth conceptualized as *Mother* defined as [43] "the living dynamic system consisting of the indivi‐ sible community of all systems of life and living beings that are interrelated, interdependent and complementary, and share a common destiny … '*Madre Tierra'* (Mother Earth) is consid‐ ered sacred, from the worldviews of nations and native indigenous peoples", that is, as the provider of all resources, therefore any action by an individual not only affects other people and living things, but also the environment and even supernatural beings [55], which shows

society on the characteristics and properties of their environment […] Each worldview implies

In short, to understand the difference between social entrepreneurship and indigenous social entrepreneurship in a simple manner, Farrelly [58] explains this: one is indigenous because "the management is based on indigenous values culturally specific and visions of the world.

1 The world view is closely linked to religion, politics, economics, and the environment. In the cosmological systems of

; "as a basis for

that the social, political, and economic action taken has a worldview effect1

capitalism and neoliberal economic model [41].

64 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

and is key to cooperative venture projects.

a specific concept of human nature" [57].

indigenous Mexican tradition, it has a huge weight [56].

Social capital is a multidisciplinary concept, having been the subject of interest from various disciplines, such as public politics, sociology, economics, among others; its importance is given, in part by socio-structural resources "real potential or that is linked to possession of a durable network of relationships (…) of knowledge or mutual recognition" [59] provides assets and facilitates actions [60], and provides support within them.

In this regard, in relationships of trust, friendship, and respect, "entrepreneurs with a high degree of trust are able to take advantage of their relations, according to Liao and Welsch [61]. The importance of social capital is given by elements such as rules, trust, reciprocity to strengthen cooperation [62], and finding a joint interest which increases the benefits [63].

In this sense, trust is *a sin equa non* for the existence of social capital, for it constitutes its base. So if the confidence is increased between different social actors, they will be willing to help each other, strengthening their ties and interdependence [64].

Therefore, in relations where a higher degree of trust is developed, the social capital probably increases, achieving influence over cooperative norms, facilitating new forms of partnership and innovation [61], impacting economic growth, and minimizing inequalities and ethnic differences [65].

It should be stressed that relations implanted in social capital give each person the value of trust in each other and provide the key elements to prosper through new forms of social cooperation to achieve common goals [64]. To do so, indigenous groups in Mexico "are continuing the tradition of decision-making through the community assembly, where the benefits and beneficiaries of public actions are agreed upon" [66].

According to Coleman [67], social capital is given on individual and community levels, manifesting the latter in Mexican indigenous communities, through the work called "hand back" where the benefit has direct impact on the community, especially for the preservation of traditions and customs such as the cargo system, community work, and decision making in the community assembly [55].

## **4. Indigenous entrepreneurship in Mexico**

Although one of the main characteristics of the indigenous peoples of Latin America is that they are so diverse, many of them share language, culture, and attachment to the land, which dates back their pre-Columbian ancestors. According to CEPAL [6], it is estimated that throughout Latin America there are between 50 and 60 million indigenous people, represent‐ ing about 10% of the total population, and in Mexico just over 11%.

This research is based on an exploratory study of three cases, to analyze the reality of the social actors immersed in social entrepreneurship. Because the issue of study *sui géneris*, which is being analyzed, it is important to emphasize the qualitative case study method, which allows for a profound knowledge of the subject under study to contextualize it in reality [68, 69].

In particular, with respect to entrepreneurship, there have been several authors who have used this method in their investigations [70, 71]. Precisely, the ultimate goal is to examine and analyze the reality of the characteristics of entrepreneurship in indigenous communities. As for the method of data collection, the semi-structured interview was chosen, according to the qualitative type of information requested. In this sense, very valuable information was obtained from the interviews from an exploratory point of view.

Each case study is contextualized by indigenous group that belong to companies that have been studied and are found in rural areas in indigenous communities in Mexico. Respondents were founders of three target companies. In addition, it was decided to perform a crossanalysis of cases to find the general characteristics of indigenous peoples' entrepreneurial ventures (**Table 1**).

**Table 1.** Comparison of the local characteristics of entrepreneurs indigenous groups.

This research has focused on the approach that marks the difference between the venture that currently collects literature and work on indigenous entrepreneurship such as Peredo et al. [38, 50], especially the work of Dana and Smyrnios [51], which summarizes these differences, and returns the context of the indigenous entrepreneur to the roots which provide the social capital he possesses.

In the case of Mexico, the indigenous ethnic language is one of the identifying characteristics of the people; however, maintaining it is not an essential factor for the existence of ethnic continuity. Indigenous groups are governed by their own authorities and customs; their justice systems allow conflicts to be resolved within the community, seeking a balance with the cosmos [1].

## **4.1. Case 1: State of Puebla**

being analyzed, it is important to emphasize the qualitative case study method, which allows for a profound knowledge of the subject under study to contextualize it in reality [68, 69]. In particular, with respect to entrepreneurship, there have been several authors who have used this method in their investigations [70, 71]. Precisely, the ultimate goal is to examine and analyze the reality of the characteristics of entrepreneurship in indigenous communities. As for the method of data collection, the semi-structured interview was chosen, according to the qualitative type of information requested. In this sense, very valuable information was

Each case study is contextualized by indigenous group that belong to companies that have been studied and are found in rural areas in indigenous communities in Mexico. Respondents were founders of three target companies. In addition, it was decided to perform a crossanalysis of cases to find the general characteristics of indigenous peoples' entrepreneurial

> Hand back Reciprocity and community participation in territory

> > Autonomous social organization by region. Each municipality has a president and counselors or *ediles*, peace judges and police subordinate to governments of each state. The *tata nohoch*, scribes (sacred) and *rezadores* (people who pray), form a select

group that is integrated into the municipal administration.

The life cycle of the cornfield and

*Ichcol*, the cornfield is in the center of

religious holidays.

Mayan communal flower

obtained from the interviews from an exploratory point of view.

66 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

**Attribute Puebla Morelos Quintana Roo**

Authority in charge of *Huehuechiques* like municipal assistants, who they are prestigious elders that serve as

counselors.

Dual of opposites.

positive and negative.

**Table 1.** Comparison of the local characteristics of entrepreneurs indigenous groups.

Heaven/earth, light/dark, male/ female, two main types of complementary and opposite forces, similar and invested, understood in terms of polarity:

This research has focused on the approach that marks the difference between the venture that currently collects literature and work on indigenous entrepreneurship such as Peredo et al. [38, 50], especially the work of Dana and Smyrnios [51], which summarizes these differences,

Language Nahuatl Nahuatl Maya

Hand back *momakue palo*, or *tequio*, both men

Politically, agrarian laws are fulfilled and titles are taken for ladder Religiously, group

Duality as a fundamental principle (male/female, cold/hot, day/night)

and women

decisions

Source: Authors, based on [72–74] y 46].

ventures (**Table 1**).

Exchange and reciprocity

Social organization

Features of worldview

Case 1 is an ecotourism company that offers services such as catering, accommodation, and other leisure and recreational activities. It is found in the state of Puebla, which is located in central Mexico, and belongs to the Nahua people.

In this case, the company has 68 worker-members, dedicated to ecotourism, who are grouped into *ejidos* (shared lands). The center is staffed by land-owners, all from the region.

The first stage of the project is, thanks to contact CDI (before INI2 ), made with landowners, through the coordinating office, inviting them to participate in an ecotourism project. To do this, the landowners met with the purpose of evaluating the possibility of entering the program. From the beginning, the CDI has been the consultant and project manager, according to the comments of the president of administration:

*The CDI before INI, has been the advisor and manager. As CDI meets the resource and they look for us to give them the information to make the project of some cabins.*

*All support has been from the CDI and it is the manager of the infrastructure, because the materials of the region are from the ejido.*

During the process of creating the community, the landowners met with the purpose of evaluating the possibility of creating the company, so ultimately, the decision was made communally.

Since the beginning of the project, the founding partner stressed to the ejido owners that they had to start getting involved, mainly in the acquisition of the necessary knowledge of the ecotourism sector, because they had gone about their normal activities and had never paid a service to a tourist. The infrastructure is based on compromise and respect for the environment.

The entrepreneur acknowledges that he has had very supportive family and friends, and they kept him motivated from the start, which helped him continue the project without abandoning it. He also explains that initially his family members did not understand the project objectives and who the landowners would be, so were hesitant. But having that knowledge, they became motivating and engaging; even more so, they have provided both emotional and physical support by helping launch the business, and actively participating by working at the company.

2 INI: Instituto Nacional Indigenista (National Indigenous Institute), which changed its name to Comisión Nacional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, CDI (National Commission for Development of Indigenous Peoples) on July 5, 2003.

## **4.2. Case 2: State of de Morelos**

The second case of indigenous entrepreneurship is located in the state of Morelos. In this community the indigenous Nahuatl language is spoken, therefore, those who originate from the zone are called Nahua.

The company consists of 24 members and its purpose is to offer ecotourism products, assuming that they benefit the conservation and protection of natural resources, preservation of culture and tradition of indigenous groups, mainly from the community of San Juan. This initiative was born within the community, and came from the idea of a few members of the community who saw the negative impact on the area from the lack of control of tourists who visit the zone, and decided to create a sustainable company, in which their home and heritage would be maintained. That is, its main purpose was directed to the preservation of the environment through education of their culture and tradition, as indicated by the entrepreneur interviewed:

*Our motive was born from the desire to preserve our environment […] to our community all the time we see that more people arrive to walk, but there is no control and so that was another of the causes, so we want a controlled tourism because we have also noticed that those arriving take things away with them, begin to plunder a plant, a stone […] and in that way they are extracting our resources and therefore we must have control, so we discussed the situation at a community meeting.*

*[Our families] initially had a little bit of incredulity, because they thought how is it possible to do, because in the past we repeatedly tried to do things and have not been achieved, obviously with other people. The important thing here is that several people, entire families, parents and children joined and said we come together.*

Therefore, the launching of a company is a form of resistance and defense of indigenous traditions and environment, whose main purpose of implementation was not to seek economic goals, but rather an impact on the indigenous community. Furthermore, commonality comes from the emphasis on the authorization of the project, which was agreed by the community assembly, where all community members supported the beginning of operations. The founder of the organization explains:

*The act of providing information, was what opened the doors to us […] everything was done as part of a community meeting to explain the project and community members said there was no problem, we can arrange, then to have the interest, we start somehow [promote] the project, but we knew we needed a collection and for that we managed the first [funding].*

Therefore, trust, as a key element, as well as the common good, supported the organization's creation from the first moment. Similarly, they have managed to obtain the "great advantage," as they call it, which is the existing unity within the community; besides knowing that their project comes from "social base" (as it has been named) and is a company that is growing internally, so they why and for whom is clear in what they are doing.

## **4.3. Case 3: State of Quintana Roo**

**4.2. Case 2: State of de Morelos**

68 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

the zone are called Nahua.

of the organization explains:

*first [funding].*

The second case of indigenous entrepreneurship is located in the state of Morelos. In this community the indigenous Nahuatl language is spoken, therefore, those who originate from

The company consists of 24 members and its purpose is to offer ecotourism products, assuming that they benefit the conservation and protection of natural resources, preservation of culture and tradition of indigenous groups, mainly from the community of San Juan. This initiative was born within the community, and came from the idea of a few members of the community who saw the negative impact on the area from the lack of control of tourists who visit the zone, and decided to create a sustainable company, in which their home and heritage would be maintained. That is, its main purpose was directed to the preservation of the environment through education of their culture and tradition, as indicated by the entrepreneur interviewed:

*Our motive was born from the desire to preserve our environment […] to our community all the time we see that more people arrive to walk, but there is no control and so that was another of the causes, so we want a controlled tourism because we have also noticed that those arriving take things away with them, begin to plunder a plant, a stone […] and in that way they are extracting our resources and therefore we must have control, so we*

*[Our families] initially had a little bit of incredulity, because they thought how is it possible to do, because in the past we repeatedly tried to do things and have not been achieved, obviously with other people. The important thing here is that several people, entire families,*

Therefore, the launching of a company is a form of resistance and defense of indigenous traditions and environment, whose main purpose of implementation was not to seek economic goals, but rather an impact on the indigenous community. Furthermore, commonality comes from the emphasis on the authorization of the project, which was agreed by the community assembly, where all community members supported the beginning of operations. The founder

*The act of providing information, was what opened the doors to us […] everything was done as part of a community meeting to explain the project and community members said there was no problem, we can arrange, then to have the interest, we start somehow [promote] the project, but we knew we needed a collection and for that we managed the*

Therefore, trust, as a key element, as well as the common good, supported the organization's creation from the first moment. Similarly, they have managed to obtain the "great advantage," as they call it, which is the existing unity within the community; besides knowing that their project comes from "social base" (as it has been named) and is a company that is growing

internally, so they why and for whom is clear in what they are doing.

*discussed the situation at a community meeting.*

*parents and children joined and said we come together.*

Case 3 refers to an enterprise located in the State of Quintana Roo, where the ethnicity is Maya. Quintana Roo is located in the South-East of Mexico. Entrepreneurship is contextualized in an indigenous Maya community. The identity of the indigenous Maya remains intact due to the concurrence of at least three related factors, "the daily use of the Mayan language, the persistence of religious rituals and customs, and social organization of autonomous commun‐ ities" [73].

The idea of entrepreneurship was developed with young workers at the Blue Lagoon, who, thanks to the proposal of a biologist, convinced the landowners in the area to participate in catchment courses. At that time the members attend these courses, they begin to conceive a possible business that may provide an alternative and sustainable income. So they began offering services such as interpretive trails, visits to the Cenote, swimming in the Blue Lagoon, camping, and kayaking. After 2 years, arose the idea of diversifying the business, by adding the rural community to tourism. So they created the cultural route, where community members are invited to demonstrate their festivities, customs, and values, such as the typical food, dances, traditional medicine, to present the world of bees, and storytelling.

*After two years we realized that we can offer more and we had more potential in the community, as [our] culture; and I sat down and started to think what else we can do, something like storytelling, make traditional food, traditional medicine dances, [to present] the bees Melipona. [with which] one says yes, my grandfather tell stories, listen, invite him for this, and so we were diagnosing, analyzing everything we had in the community, and then saw that there was that.*

To achieve the "cultural tour," a great deal of convincing was necessary for the members of the community, because they did not understand how tourists could be interested in their customs. Despite this, they managed to gather a group of people who offered typical Mayan food service and Mayan dancers, among other activities.

Other achievements emphasized by the founding member have been the responsible man‐ agement of waste from and care of the Blue Lagoon.  The way to reach them is through the school involvement in the project, with the aim of preserving and valuing the traditions, culture, and the environment.

The importance that the community places on the territory that belongs to them—ejido—is demonstrated in the organization of the company. Cooperative members are sons of land‐ owners and nonlandowners, so they do not have the same rights; therefore, they need the consent of the ejido to develop their activities. That is why on the ecotourism tour the guides are sons of *ejidatarios* (land owners) and on the cultural tour, in the absence of exploitation of ejido, the authorization of the Commissariat is not necessary.

*It is also why we created the cultural part, and the maintenance part of Blue Lagoon belongs to the ejido, we are only guides, it clearly benefits them and many people at this time. In* *community tourism we are the direct [CM] because we cater to the people of the Com‐ munity.*

One of their main objectives is that as much as the community, that tourists understand both the impact that man has on the environment, and why he should care.

## **5. Discussion of results**

While the indigenous populations studied are located in areas of Mexico where more poverty exists, through the case studies we can observe that the worldview of these indigenous peoples has put these types of businesses into motion, and have been successful, thanks to the possibility of alternative economic resources they provide to their communities.

The obtaining of an economic benefit is not the primary goal that drives these companies, but is an added incentive. Through the motivation to preserve the environment, tradition, and culture, both the entrepreneurs and the community benefit as a whole.

From the beginning, the decision to launch the company was based on consensus, in other words, they respected the views of the Community Assembly (in one case the ejidal organi‐ zation) for all matters concerning the company.

Without a doubt, the bonds that provide the social capital of a community greatly influence the achievement of the enterprises; confidence in the community, and attachment to the land, and the community is manifested when making the decision.

In the cases analyzed, the struggle between the preservation of their customs, culture, and environment and the pursuit of economic development was not a shock, because the indige‐ nous people have managed to balance their enterprises, within an external system that con‐ ceptualizes life, through the preservation of the environment, identity, and culture. This is reflected in the comparative table of the enterprises, showing the characteristics of indige‐ nous entrepreneurs (**Table 2**).

Source: Authors, based on [51].

**Table 2.** Summary of case studies.

## **6. Conclusion**

*community tourism we are the direct [CM] because we cater to the people of the Com‐*

One of their main objectives is that as much as the community, that tourists understand both

While the indigenous populations studied are located in areas of Mexico where more poverty exists, through the case studies we can observe that the worldview of these indigenous peoples has put these types of businesses into motion, and have been successful, thanks to the

The obtaining of an economic benefit is not the primary goal that drives these companies, but is an added incentive. Through the motivation to preserve the environment, tradition, and

From the beginning, the decision to launch the company was based on consensus, in other words, they respected the views of the Community Assembly (in one case the ejidal organi‐

Without a doubt, the bonds that provide the social capital of a community greatly influence the achievement of the enterprises; confidence in the community, and attachment to the land,

In the cases analyzed, the struggle between the preservation of their customs, culture, and environment and the pursuit of economic development was not a shock, because the indige‐ nous people have managed to balance their enterprises, within an external system that con‐ ceptualizes life, through the preservation of the environment, identity, and culture. This is reflected in the comparative table of the enterprises, showing the characteristics of indige‐

Environmental sustainability

as well as keeping the environment

Rate the local culture and the Mayan language

possibility of alternative economic resources they provide to their communities.

culture, both the entrepreneurs and the community benefit as a whole.

**Element Case 1 (Puebla) Case 2 (Morelos) Case 3 (Quintana Roo)**

Worldview Worldview Worldview

the region

Survival of the community

Goals Economic and noneconomic Economic and noneconomic Economic and noneconomic Community-based Community-based Community-based

zation) for all matters concerning the company.

Value Community Preserve the resources of

and the community is manifested when making the decision.

the impact that man has on the environment, and why he should care.

70 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

*munity.*

**5. Discussion of results**

nous entrepreneurs (**Table 2**).

Source: Authors, based on [51].

**Table 2.** Summary of case studies.

Concept ualization The main contribution of this study has been to show the differences between the indigenous entrepreneur and the profile identified by the literature specializing in entrepreneurship, through profound interviews of three indigenous entrepreneurs who belong to ecotourism businesses in the Mexican States of Puebla, Morelos, and Quintana Roo.

It is evidenced that the practices of entrepreneurship are embedded in the culture and values of the group to which the entrepreneurs belong. Through entrepreneurship they are seeking to publicize the cultural value of these indigenous groups. Their aim is to convey to the world the values of their culture and to emphasize their ethnic worldview.

Indigenous enterprises began looking for projects to serve the good of the community, where economic goals were not the driving force, but have also achieved economic gains from business activity. Furthermore, decisions were made by consensus, according to the organi‐ zation of the groups; thus it is discovered that the indigenous entrepreneur has a strong attachment to the land of his ancestors and wishes to be identified in his ethnicity. Therefore, it is observed that all the entrepreneurs interviewed feel the same sense of pride and identity.

In conclusion, one observes that the social entrepreneur profile, what we might call indigenous, is unlike the profiles commonly accepted in literature, where the need for achievement plays a predominant role [75]; because, in the case of the indigenous entrepreneur, the individual achievement is subordinate to the common good, and the entrepreneurial intention is de‐ pendent on the will and support from the community, in line with the point made by Dana and Smyrnios [51]. Forms of cooperation, collaboration, and reciprocity in the community as manifestations of social networks and social capital are evident.

## **Author details**

Virginia Barba-Sánchez1\* and Ericka Molina-Ramirez2

## **References**

[1] Navarrete F. Los pueblos indígenas de México [Indigenous peoples in Mexico]. México: PNUD-CDI, 2008. 141 p.

[12] Barba-Sánchez V, Martínez-Ruiz MP. Cambios en el modelo de desarrollo económico y creación de empresas: el emprendedor como factor clave del proceso de cambio [Changes in the model of economic development and entrepreneurship: the entrepre‐ neur as a key factor in the change process]. Boletín económico de ICE, Información Comercial Española [Spanish Trade Information, Economic Bulletin ICE]. 2006; 2882: 15–28.

[2] Ring JK, Peredo AM, Chrisman JJ. Business networks and economic development in rural communities in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 2010;

[3] Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C. Entrepreneurial behavior: impact of motiva‐ tion factors on decision to create a new venture. European Research on Management

[4] De Carolis DM, Saparito P. Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2006; 30(1): 41–56.

[5] Grossman E, Yli-Renko H, Janakiraman R. Resource search, interpersonal similarity, and network valuation: An empirical study of nascent entrepreneurs' network

[6] CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina [Economic Commission for Latin America]). Mujeres indígenas en América Latina [Indigenous women in Latin Ameri‐

[7] CDI (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples]). Programa de turismo alternativo en zonas indígenas. Evaluación de consistencia y resultados 2007 [Alterna‐ tive tourism program in indigenous áreas. Evaluation of consistency and results 2007]. México DC: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas [Alterna‐

tive National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples]. 2008.

[8] Barba-Sánchez V, Molina-Ramírez E. Efectos del apoyo emocional de las redes cercanas al emprendedor indígena sobre el éxito de la nueva empresa ecoturística en la mitad sur de México [Effects of social networks closest to the indigenous entrepreneur on new ecotourism companies' success Southern in Mexico]. Cuadernos de Turismo [Tourism Notebooks]. 2015; 36: 77–99. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/22 turismo.36.230891.

[9] Uygun R, Kasimoglu M. The emergence of entrepreneurial intentions in indigenous entrepreneurs: The role of personal background on the antecedents of intentions. International Journal of Business and Management. 2013; 8(5): 21–40. DOI: 10.5539/

[10] Kantis H, Ishida M, Komori M. Empresarialidad en economías emergentes: Creación y desarrollo de nuevas empresas en América Latina y del Este de Asia [Entrepreneur‐ ship in Emerging Economies: The Creation and Development of New Businesses in Latin America and East Asia]. New York: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo [Inter-

[11] Van de Ven AH, Hudson R, Schroeder DM. Designing new business startups: Entre‐ preneurial organizational and ecological considerations. Journal of Management. 1984;

ca]. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas [United Nations]. 2013. 159 p.

34(1): 171–195. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00307.x.

emergence. Journal of Management. 2012; 38(6): 1760–1787.

and Business Economics. 2012; 18(2): 132–138.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00109.x.

72 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

ijbm.v8n5p24.

1(10): 87–107.

American Development Bank]. 2002. 134 p.

[36] Vázquez-Maguirre M, Portales L. La empresa social como detonadora de la calidad de vida y el desarrollo sustentable en comunidades rurales [The social enterprise as a detonator of the quality of life and sustainable development in rural communities]. Pensamiento y Gestión [Thinking and Management]. 2014; 37: 255–284.

[24] Aldrich H, McKelvey B, Ulrich D. Design strategy from the population perspective. Journal of Management. 1984; 10(1): 67–86. DOI: 10.1177/014920638401000106.

[25] Johannisson B. Entrepreneurship as a collective phenomenon. In: GenescáE, Urbano D, Capelleras J, Guallarte C, Vergés J, editors. Creación de empresas. Entrepreneurship. Homenaje al profesor José María Veciana, Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la

[26] Szerb L. The changing role of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship in network organi‐ zations. In: Lengyel I, editor. Knowledge Transfer, Small and Medium-Sized Enter‐ prises and Regional Development in Hungary. Szeged: Jate Press. 2003. pp. 81–95.

[27] Johannisson B. The dynamics of entrepreneurial networks. In: Reynolds PD, Birley SJ, Butler E, BygraveWD Davidsson P, GartnerWB, McDougallPP, editors. Frontiers of

[28] Shapero A, Sokol L. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent CA, Sexton DL, Vesper KH, editors. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

[29] Kantis H. The emergence of dynamic ventures in Latin America, Southern Europe and East Asia: An international comparison. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 2005; 2(1): 34–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2005.006069.

[30] García PM, Sáez FJ, Barba-Sánchez V. Análisis del resultado de las empresas de nueva creación: Influencia de la estrategia y el sector de actividad [Analysis of the result of start-up companies: Influence of strategy and business sector]. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa [European Journal of Management and Business

[31] Mair J, MartíI. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business. 2006; 41(1): 36–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.

[32] Austin J, Stevenson H, Wei-Skillern J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2006; 30(1): 1–22. DOI:

[33] Zahra SA, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO, Shulman JM. A typology of social entrepre‐ neurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing.

[34] Peredo AM, McLean M. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business. 2006; 41(1): 56–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.

[35] Guzmán A, Trujillo MA. Emprendimiento social-revisión de literatura [Social Entre‐ preneurship-Literature review]. Estudios Gerenciales [Management Studies]. 2008;

2009; 24(5), 519–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.

24(109): 105–125. DOI: 10.1016/S0123-5923(08)70055-X.

Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley: Babson College. 1996. pp. 253–267.

Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. 2003. pp. 87–109.

74 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

Prentice-Hall. 1982. pp. 72–90.

Economics]. 1999; 8(3): 109–123.

10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x.

2005.09.002.

Smallbone D, editors. Handbook of Research on Strategic Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Hershey, US: IGI Global. 2014. pp. 398–420. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5962-9.ch019.

relationships? In: Development Network. New Zealand: Devnet Conference. 2010; pp. 1–3.

[59] Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson J G (comp.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986; pp. 241– 258.

Smallbone D, editors. Handbook of Research on Strategic Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Hershey, US: IGI Global. 2014. pp. 398–420. DOI:

[48] Dana L-P, Light IH. Two forms of community entrepreneurship among reindeer herding entrepreneurs in Finland. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 2011;

[49] Hernandez G. Indigenous perspectives on community economic development: A North–South conversation. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy

[50] Peredo A.M. Communal enterprises, sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty in rural Andean Communities [thesis]. University of Calgary. 2001.

[51] Dana LP, Smyrnios KX. The push-pull of indigenous Sámi family reindeer herding enterprises: A metaphor for sustainable entrepreneurship. In: Putziouris P, Smyrnios KX, Goel S, editors. Handbook of Research on Family Business. Cheltenham: Edward

[52] Anderson RB, Giberson RJ. Aboriginal entrepreneurship and economic development in Canada: Thoughts on current theory and practice. In: Stiles CH, Galbraith CS, editors. Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2003; pp. 141–

[53] Hindle K. Contrasting indigenous entrepreneurship in Australia and Canada: How three applied research perspectives can improve policy and programs. Small Enterprise

[54] Cahn M. Indigenous entrepreneurship, culture and micro-enterprise in the Pacific Islands: Case studies from Samoa. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An

[55] Gallardo ED. Lo público en los procesos comunitarios de los pueblos indígenas en México [The public in community processes of indigenous peoples in Mexico]. Polis Revista Latinoamericana [Polis Latin American Review]. 2012; 11(31): 169–182.

[56] Zolla C, Zolla E. Los pueblos indígenas de México: 100 preguntas [The indigenous

[57] Medina-Hernández A. La cosmovisión mesoamericana: Una mirada desde la etnogra‐ fía [Mesoamerican worldview: A view from ethnography]. In: Broda J, Báez-Jorge F. Cosmovisión, ritual e identidad de los pueblos indígenas de México [Worldview, ritual and identity of the indigenous peoples of Mexico]. México: CONACULTA-Fondo de

[58] Farrelly T. Indigenous community-based ecotourism as indigenous social entrepre‐ neurship (ISE): Sounds good, but what about culture-specific human-environment

International Journal. 2008; 20(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/08985620701552413.

peoples of Mexico: 100 Questions]. México: UNAM. 2004. 383 p.

Cultura Económica. pp. 67–163.

10.4018/978-1-4666-5962-9.ch019.

76 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

Research. 2013: 4(1): 6–24.

167.

23(5–6): 331–352. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2011.580163.

Elgar Publishing Limited. 2013. pp. 588–606.

Research. 2005; 13(1): 92–106. DOI: 10.5172/ser.13.1.92.

## **Social Entrepreneurship by Community-Based Organizations: Innovations and Learning through Partnerships**

## A.K.M. Shahidullah and C. Emdad Haque

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/62469

## **Abstract**

[73] Ruz MH. Mayas: primera parte [Maya: Part One]. México: CDI-PNUD. 2006. 91 p.

option=com\_content&task=view&id=629&Itemid=62 [Accessed: 2016-01-31].

Dirección [Accounting and Management]. 2007; 5: 121–138.

78 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

[74] CDI (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples]). Nahuas de Morelos [Nahuas of Morelos], 2009. Available from: http://www.cdi.gob.mx/index.php?

[75] Barba-Sánchez V. La necesidad de logro y la experiencia del emprendedor: elementos clave en el crecimiento de la nueva empresa [The need for achievement and entrepre‐ neurial experience: Key elements in the growth of the new ventures]. Contabilidad y

> This chapter examines the social entrepreneurship potentials of community-based organizations (CBOs) linked to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the implementation of development programs. The conceptual framework of the study draws on the existing literature on social entrepreneurship and cooperatives. The study highlights the social and ecological roles and significance of CBOs in the creation of social value at the local community level. The research findings reveal that NGO-CBO partnerships help to transform CBOs into social enterprises by creating revenue generation streams. Such partnerships also catalyze social innovations and social learning outcomes. In this chapter, three case studies from Bangladesh are examined, which demonstrate how the social entrepreneurial roles of these CBOs have been instrumental in the management of local natural resources and in fostering social learning. The case studies reveal that institutional support and favorable public policies are crucial in sustaining social entrepreneurship by CBOs.

> **Keywords:** community-based organization, NGO-CBO partnership, social entrepre‐ neurship, social innovation, social learning

## **1. Introduction**

Partnerships between nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) have become a significant force in efforts to address social issues through collective means [1]. In facing the challenges of attaining sustainability and other social objectives, NGOs are increasingly adopting an entrepreneurial approach. The most significant approach

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

that emerged in recent decades is the "social entrepreneurship" model in which small enter‐ prises are established to provide goods and services directly tailored to local needs and sustainability goals [2]. Such affiliated CBOs play important development roles in the rural and low-income areas of poorer-income countries, where the government is unable or unwilling to provide necessary social services [3,4]. It has recently been observed in Bangladesh that most CBOs partnered with development NGOs play catalytic roles protecting and promoting the management of local ecological resources, thereby supporting local sustainability [5].

NGOs are moving towards entrepreneurship and developing innovative means of revenue generation to enhance their financial capacity and sustainability [6,7]. However, the potentials of such shift in the case of their partner CBOs have seldom been explored, as the existing literature typically assumes that all CBOs are nonprofit organizations (NPOs) [8]. Although NPOs are nonprofit by mission, they still typically seek financial self-sufficiency to cover costs and provide needed services without relying on outside donations [9]. The study therefore inquires: (i) If NGOs can move towards social entrepreneurship for self-sufficiency and sustainability, could their partnering CBOs also adopt the similar path? (ii) Do CBOs entail social entrepreneurship potentials that could be harnessed to enhance their capacities to sustain? (iii) Can the NGO-CBO relation be leveraged to ensure social entrepreneurship by CBOs? The objective of the study is to examine whether CBOs are able to transform themselves into social enterprises and how this transformative process, which has reliance on partnership with NGOs, contribute to social innovations and learning.

## **2. Entrepreneurship by CBOs: partnerships and innovations**

The entrepreneurial potential of community groups has been debated since the 1990s. Although cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, and organizations not owned by shareholders have always existed, they have rarely been considered businesses or marketoriented organizations [10]. Instead, they were merely labeled as the "social economy" representing the so-called "third sector" [11]. This consideration was contested by numerous authors who argued that development organizations should evaluate the strengths of local organizations [12]. Other scholars [e.g., Refs. 13,14] also asserted that developmental activities that compromise CBOs are incapable of fighting poverty.

Based on the principle that enterprise development is the key to economic development [15,16], various development promoters undertook numerous projects aimed at establishing small businesses at the community level [17]. Since the 1990s, a key development in the operation of nonprofit ventures has been the adoption of microfinance—a phenomenon often referred to the "microcredit revolution." The microcredit-oriented development mechanism was adopted and expanded by NGOs using participatory development strategies. This approach recognizes the ability of local communities to take action to improve their economic and social conditions [18], leading to the creation of many CBOs, self-help groups, women groups, and peer groups around the world. The resulting partnerships between NGOs and CBOs encouraged interactive and adaptive learning processes among community memberswhat Berkes [19] termed as "social learning." As a result of these developments, social issues such as livelihood security and environmental conservation in poor communities—as well as that of fragile ecosystems—came to the forefront of the global development agenda [20,21].

Assessments of the validity of CBOs as self-sustaining entrepreneurial ventures vary. For instance, Chell [22] insisted that social and community businesses have a tendency to (i) be grant dependent, (ii) be non-self-sustaining, and (iii) employ nonentrepreneurial staff. These tendencies can undermine the social value of CBOs by forcing them to seek donations to fund interventions in their target communities. Forwarding a contrary view based on an empirical study of 250 CBOs in Bangladesh, Thompson [23] claimed that external supports are not necessary to the survival of CBOs, as most of them demonstrate the capability for selfsustainability and improvement with minimal support following the expiry of projects.

An innovative approach for CBOs to be self-governing and self-sustaining is advocated by Aryal [24]. The proposed approach suggests CBOs to seek the help of NGOs in accessing funding opportunities from commercial banks and developmental credit agencies. With such financial support, CBOs would be more easily able to undertake income-generating activities, while the partner NGOs oversee their entrepreneurial affairs for a reasonable period. Similarly, Datta [25] emphasized a functional partnership wherein CBOs can acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to become self-sustaining from their associated NGOs. Nonetheless, questions remain as to whether entrepreneurship by CBOs is tenable and whether develop‐ mental NGOs can adequately facilitate such transitions. Because CBOs have proven effective at managing local resources and addressing social issues, we argue that, to address complex social issues and challenges [26], long-term sustainability, especially the financial sustainabil‐ ity of CBOs, must be ensured by supporting their social entrepreneurial drive.

## **2.1. NGO-CBO linkage towards social entrepreneurship**

that emerged in recent decades is the "social entrepreneurship" model in which small enter‐ prises are established to provide goods and services directly tailored to local needs and sustainability goals [2]. Such affiliated CBOs play important development roles in the rural and low-income areas of poorer-income countries, where the government is unable or unwilling to provide necessary social services [3,4]. It has recently been observed in Bangladesh that most CBOs partnered with development NGOs play catalytic roles protecting and promoting the

NGOs are moving towards entrepreneurship and developing innovative means of revenue generation to enhance their financial capacity and sustainability [6,7]. However, the potentials of such shift in the case of their partner CBOs have seldom been explored, as the existing literature typically assumes that all CBOs are nonprofit organizations (NPOs) [8]. Although NPOs are nonprofit by mission, they still typically seek financial self-sufficiency to cover costs and provide needed services without relying on outside donations [9]. The study therefore inquires: (i) If NGOs can move towards social entrepreneurship for self-sufficiency and sustainability, could their partnering CBOs also adopt the similar path? (ii) Do CBOs entail social entrepreneurship potentials that could be harnessed to enhance their capacities to sustain? (iii) Can the NGO-CBO relation be leveraged to ensure social entrepreneurship by CBOs? The objective of the study is to examine whether CBOs are able to transform themselves into social enterprises and how this transformative process, which has reliance on partnership

management of local ecological resources, thereby supporting local sustainability [5].

with NGOs, contribute to social innovations and learning.

80 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

that compromise CBOs are incapable of fighting poverty.

**2. Entrepreneurship by CBOs: partnerships and innovations**

The entrepreneurial potential of community groups has been debated since the 1990s. Although cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, and organizations not owned by shareholders have always existed, they have rarely been considered businesses or marketoriented organizations [10]. Instead, they were merely labeled as the "social economy" representing the so-called "third sector" [11]. This consideration was contested by numerous authors who argued that development organizations should evaluate the strengths of local organizations [12]. Other scholars [e.g., Refs. 13,14] also asserted that developmental activities

Based on the principle that enterprise development is the key to economic development [15,16], various development promoters undertook numerous projects aimed at establishing small businesses at the community level [17]. Since the 1990s, a key development in the operation of nonprofit ventures has been the adoption of microfinance—a phenomenon often referred to the "microcredit revolution." The microcredit-oriented development mechanism was adopted and expanded by NGOs using participatory development strategies. This approach recognizes the ability of local communities to take action to improve their economic and social conditions [18], leading to the creation of many CBOs, self-help groups, women groups, and peer groups around the world. The resulting partnerships between NGOs and CBOs encouraged interactive and adaptive learning processes among community membersNGOs have been the basis of study of social entrepreneurship. According to Dart [27], "social enterprise" can be viewed as a set of strategic responses to a variety of environmental and social challenges that NGOs typically address. These responses lead NGOs to develop strategic partnerships with institutions based at the local community level. Such partnerships demand innovative approaches involving the creative reallocation of resources and reconciliation with traditional ways of operating in the sector [28]. There is ample evidence to suggest that such partnerships were instrumental to the development of local community-based enterprises worldwide [29–32]. Several studies observed that the lack or loss of such partners results in failure [33,34].

Both NGOs and CBOs perform different functions within a partnership. NGOs are well placed to explore opportunities and identify key resources as well as to provide services such as startup funds, institution building, business networking and marketing, innovation and knowl‐ edge transfer, technical training, research, legal support, infrastructure, and community health and social services that CBOs need to become self-sufficient [35,36]. In the partnership process, CBOs place their organizational capacity, bring local perspective, and use social capital to carry out the partnerships goals and NGO-devolved developmental responsibilities.

## **2.2. Social innovation and learning**

The present study is situated within the literature on social enterprises and is placed by reviewing the current theoretical models of non-profit-driven social entrepreneurship. The process of social entrepreneurship is not well defined, and there is a lack of theoretical and evidence-based research on these processes in the context of nonprofit operations [7,37]. This lack of clarity and consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship [38] creates ambiguity regarding society's expectations and norms related to services traditionally performed by the nonprofit sector. The authors, therefore, attempted to provide a clearer definition of social entrepreneurship, viewing it as a process that combines resources in new ways to stimulate social change and meet local needs.

Explaining how social entrepreneurship relate to social innovation, Austin et al. [39] asserted that it can be understood as a process of continuous realization of opportunities to pursue social innovations and adaptation of these innovations into social enterprises for further value creation in the society. In this context, social innovation is viewed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [40] as the key to social change and value creation, suggesting that the process (social innovation) should involve attributes and activities as key elements to create provisions for employment and participation. The OECD [41] definition links social innovation to local development and the formation of new relationships between local people and their environment; it clarifies that

"Social innovation refers to traditional innovation in terms of 'value creation.' It entails new strategies, concepts, ideas, and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds — from working conditions and education to community development and health — and that extend and strengthen civil society. Alternatively, it refers to innovations that have a social purpose — like microcredit and distant learning. Social innovation can take place within the government, within companies, or within the nonprofit sector between the three sectors. The different types of platforms need to facilitate such cross-sector collaborative social innovation. Its ultimate goal is not only to create economic value but also to enhance social institution. Therefore, NPO, civil society are to be involved, which are rather low key in field of traditional innovation as 'actor' in charge of leading innovation (p. 16)."

There are exemplary instances of social innovation by CBOs where social enterprises subsume local authorities as shareholders in their governance system. Yunus et al. [42] cited British and French "community interest companies/cooperatives" as examples. In Bangladesh, the "*nishorgo* network" and "integrated protected area comanagement" projects engaged with community organizations in forest conservation efforts on a benefit sharing basis are geared towards revenue generation [43,44]. The comanagement committees of those projects also operate several carbon sink programs with income provisions for the engaged community members. In all the cases, local authorities directly participate in projects that are likely to have a positive impact on local development in terms of social capital generation, sustainable employment creation, and provisions for services of general interest.

Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy [45,46]. It occurs mostly through joint problem-solving and reflection, with the sharing of experiences and ideas [19]. Social learning can also be conceptualized as achieving concerted action in complex and uncertain situations [47]. Earlier literature defined social learning as a process of iterative reflection that occurs when experiences and ideas are shared with others [48]. This study subscribes to the definition of Reed et al. [49], who view social learning as a process of social change in which people learn from each other in ways that can benefit wider socioecological systems. It pays particular attention to group-centered social learning, as this is increasingly seen as central to decision-making in environmental manage‐ ment. Pahl-Wostl and Hare [50] clarified that management is an ongoing learning and negotiation process; hence, management and learning are linked through communication, perspective sharing, and the development of adaptive group strategies for problem solving.

## **3. Methods and study area**

**2.2. Social innovation and learning**

82 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

social change and meet local needs.

between local people and their environment; it clarifies that

employment creation, and provisions for services of general interest.

charge of leading innovation (p. 16)."

The present study is situated within the literature on social enterprises and is placed by reviewing the current theoretical models of non-profit-driven social entrepreneurship. The process of social entrepreneurship is not well defined, and there is a lack of theoretical and evidence-based research on these processes in the context of nonprofit operations [7,37]. This lack of clarity and consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship [38] creates ambiguity regarding society's expectations and norms related to services traditionally performed by the nonprofit sector. The authors, therefore, attempted to provide a clearer definition of social entrepreneurship, viewing it as a process that combines resources in new ways to stimulate

Explaining how social entrepreneurship relate to social innovation, Austin et al. [39] asserted that it can be understood as a process of continuous realization of opportunities to pursue social innovations and adaptation of these innovations into social enterprises for further value creation in the society. In this context, social innovation is viewed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [40] as the key to social change and value creation, suggesting that the process (social innovation) should involve attributes and activities as key elements to create provisions for employment and participation. The OECD [41] definition links social innovation to local development and the formation of new relationships

"Social innovation refers to traditional innovation in terms of 'value creation.' It entails new strategies, concepts, ideas, and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds — from working conditions and education to community development and health — and that extend and strengthen civil society. Alternatively, it refers to innovations that have a social purpose — like microcredit and distant learning. Social innovation can take place within the government, within companies, or within the nonprofit sector between the three sectors. The different types of platforms need to facilitate such cross-sector collaborative social innovation. Its ultimate goal is not only to create economic value but also to enhance social institution. Therefore, NPO, civil society are to be involved, which are rather low key in field of traditional innovation as 'actor' in

There are exemplary instances of social innovation by CBOs where social enterprises subsume local authorities as shareholders in their governance system. Yunus et al. [42] cited British and French "community interest companies/cooperatives" as examples. In Bangladesh, the "*nishorgo* network" and "integrated protected area comanagement" projects engaged with community organizations in forest conservation efforts on a benefit sharing basis are geared towards revenue generation [43,44]. The comanagement committees of those projects also operate several carbon sink programs with income provisions for the engaged community members. In all the cases, local authorities directly participate in projects that are likely to have a positive impact on local development in terms of social capital generation, sustainable

Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy [45,46]. It occurs mostly through joint problem-solving and reflection, with the sharing of experiences and ideas [19]. Social learning can also be conceptualized as achieving concerted action in complex and uncertain situations [47]. Earlier literature defined social The study employed a qualitative case study [51] and participatory research [52] approach to achieve the research objectives. It explored the social entrepreneurial context and perspectives relating to the operations of an NGO in Bangladesh, namely, the Center for Natural Resources Studies (CNRS), with extensive CBO-aided entrepreneurial programs. The CNRS has imple‐ mented a green entrepreneurship development program in two intervention sites in Bangla‐ desh. This study was conducted at one of these sites located in the Moulvibazar district of the country. The CNRS has implemented green entrepreneurship development programs in five villages of Barlekha *upazila* (subdistrict) of the district. It also implemented several other programs focusing on sustainable environmental management, community-based fisheries, and wetlands biodiversity in the area. In all cases, this NGO made significant efforts to build and maintain partnerships with local CBOs.

The primary tools of investigation for this study were document reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and multistakeholder workshops. A review of institutional and operation-related documents for both the CNRS and local CBOs enabled the study to analyze the entrepreneurial dynamics of the NGO and the social entrepreneurial characteristics of CBOs. In-depth interviews of key executives (president, secretary, and cashier) of CBOs revealed their abilities and entrepreneurial potential. Three separate FGDs were held with three CBOs. We also interviewed two senior NGO executives, two NGO field managers overseeing entrepreneurship programs, one developmental entrepreneurship expert, and one policymaker. In addition, a multistakeholder workshop was organized at the local *upazila* headquarters (Barlekha) involving representatives from the regional government, the NGO, leaders of CBOs and local government, and members of CBOs to evaluate their (CBOs) entrepreneurial roles and capacities.

The study area is a wetland ecological region known as *haor*, characterized by numerous swampy bowl-shaped natural depressions (**Figure 1**)*.* A *haor* remains inundated for 6 to 7 months per year. The natural resource bases of *haor* consist of croplands, rivers, *beel* (large naturally depressed water bodies), canals, streams, riparian bushes and trees, reed lands, aquatic vegetation and swamp forests, open grazing areas (raised land locally known as *kanda*), and edges of roads and embankments. Apart from agricultural activities, the liveli‐ hoods of the local people are largely dependent on fishing from the surrounding water bodies and collection from other commons. Due to various natural and anthropogenic pressures, these natural resource bases are rapidly being depleted. Since 2000, with NGO guidance, local CBOs emerged as critical players in the preservation and management of these resources.

During the period of investigation, there were six CBOs operative in the five villages where the CNRS ran programs.

**Figure 1.** Map of the studied Hakaluki *haor* area in Barlekha *upazila,* Moulvibazar, Bangladesh [Source: Map drawn under Community-Based Wetlands Biodiversity Management Program (CWBMP) by the CNRS GIS unit, Dhaka].

## **4. Results: cases of social innovation by CBOs**

The emergence of CBOs in the study area can be attributed to interventions by the local developmental agencies aimed at increasing the livelihood security of rural communities through participatory management of *haor* resources. These NGO-guided CBOs have been in operation since 2005. Based on the purpose, objectives, and nature of planned programs or activities as set down in the constitutions of the studied CBOs, we divided these mission components into two categories: (i) economic mission and (ii) learning mission (**Table 1**).

**Table 1.** Economic and social missions of CBOs.

natural resource bases are rapidly being depleted. Since 2000, with NGO guidance, local CBOs

During the period of investigation, there were six CBOs operative in the five villages where the CNRS ran programs.  Map of the studied Hakaluki *haor* area in Barlekha *upazila,* Moulvibazar, Bangladesh [Source: Map drawn under Community-Based Wetlands Biodiversity Management Program (CWBMP) by the CNRS GIS unit, Dhaka].

The emergence of CBOs in the study area can be attributed to interventions by the local developmental agencies aimed at increasing the livelihood security of rural communities through participatory management of *haor* resources. These NGO-guided CBOs have been in operation since 2005. Based on the purpose, objectives, and nature of planned programs or activities as set down in the constitutions of the studied CBOs, we divided these mission components into two categories: (i) economic mission and (ii) learning mission (**Table 1**).

**4. Results: cases of social innovation by CBOs**

emerged as critical players in the preservation and management of these resources.

Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd.).

84 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

The CBO constitutions stipulate that they may pursue any combination of the above activities as per operational necessity. They also set out rules and procedures regarding membership, share and capital acquisition, lending, purchases, contracts, recruitment, office maintenance, business venture operation, and cash flow management. Their registration with "joint stock companies" requires them to maintain standard decision-making and reporting procedures.

In the process of implementing intervention projects focusing on areas such as sustainable environmental management, community-based fishery management (CBFM), and wetlands biodiversity management, the studied NGO (i.e., the CNRS) undertook bold initiatives to build partnerships with local CBOs. This initiative encompassed community knowledge and capacity-building measures, including raising awareness on the importance of local natural resources, the environment, and legal rights; training on livelihoods and alternative income generation skills; and facilitating networking and institutional linkage development efforts. The CNRS further involved CBOs in the decision-making process regarding project compo‐ nents related to local natural resource management issues. The partnerships thus advanced and lead to many innovative mechanisms. The initiatives contributed to social value creation and learning. We focused on three such initiatives.

#### **4.1. Case 1: Swamp forest restoration through cooperative entrepreneurship**

The studied communities in the wetland areas have a considerable degree of dependence on flooded or swamp forest resources, which include tree species, reeds, shrubs, and aquatic plants. These forest species are crucial to the *haor* ecosystem for four major reasons: (i) they provide natural resistance to rising waters and intense waves during monsoons and thus protect houses and homesteads from erosion, (ii) they are the primary source of fuel energy for household activities throughout the year, (iii) many are also used as thatching material for houses, and (iv) many local microentrepreneurs are dependent on them for handicrafts making (e.g., mats, cane furniture, baskets, and others).

Established in 2005, *Nishchintapore-Shahpur Bahumokhi Samobai Samity* Ltd. emerged as the local partner of the CNRS for implementing activities under a national program for sustainable environmental management in the study area **(Figure 2**). With organizational and technical guidance from the CNRS, this CBO identified that the rapid degradation of swamp forest resources in the area posed a major threat to local livelihoods and the ecosystem. In response, the CBO members created a common front to restore these degraded forests through plantation in common-property and open-access areas. The core mission of the scheme was to sustain the restoration initiative in the long term, simultaneously benefitting both the ecosystem and the livelihoods of the CBO members.

To carry out this initiative, the CBO received an endowment fund equivalent to USD 400 (BDT 30,000) from the partner NGO. With guidance and facilitation by the partner NGO, the CBO then set out the implementation, operation, revenue generation, and benefit sharing plans of the entrepreneurial venture, as described below.

The "implementation" activities included, among others, designing the plantation program and identifying potential lands for this purpose. Facilitated by the partner NGO, the CBO members conducted a participatory land use survey (PLUS), an extended community resource mapping method, to identify potential lands, such as *khas* (government-owned open-access areas), *kandha* (raised land areas inside the *haor* body), and *ijmali* (lands with gross ownership; i.e., with no exclusive title-holders). Knowledgeable elder members of the CBO were instru‐ mental in identifying these land areas, which were then vetted by local land-offices based on their own maps.

Subsequently, the *Nischintapur-Shahpur* CBO acquired a total of 5 km2 area in the locality to implement the plantation venture. The swamp forest species planted under the program were *Hizal* (*Barringtonia acutangula*), *Koroch* (*Pongamia pinnata*), and *Barun* (*Crataeva magna*).

partnerships with local CBOs. This initiative encompassed community knowledge and capacity-building measures, including raising awareness on the importance of local natural resources, the environment, and legal rights; training on livelihoods and alternative income generation skills; and facilitating networking and institutional linkage development efforts. The CNRS further involved CBOs in the decision-making process regarding project compo‐ nents related to local natural resource management issues. The partnerships thus advanced and lead to many innovative mechanisms. The initiatives contributed to social value creation

The studied communities in the wetland areas have a considerable degree of dependence on flooded or swamp forest resources, which include tree species, reeds, shrubs, and aquatic plants. These forest species are crucial to the *haor* ecosystem for four major reasons: (i) they provide natural resistance to rising waters and intense waves during monsoons and thus protect houses and homesteads from erosion, (ii) they are the primary source of fuel energy for household activities throughout the year, (iii) many are also used as thatching material for houses, and (iv) many local microentrepreneurs are dependent on them for handicrafts making

Established in 2005, *Nishchintapore-Shahpur Bahumokhi Samobai Samity* Ltd. emerged as the local partner of the CNRS for implementing activities under a national program for sustainable environmental management in the study area **(Figure 2**). With organizational and technical guidance from the CNRS, this CBO identified that the rapid degradation of swamp forest resources in the area posed a major threat to local livelihoods and the ecosystem. In response, the CBO members created a common front to restore these degraded forests through plantation in common-property and open-access areas. The core mission of the scheme was to sustain the restoration initiative in the long term, simultaneously benefitting both the ecosystem and the

To carry out this initiative, the CBO received an endowment fund equivalent to USD 400 (BDT 30,000) from the partner NGO. With guidance and facilitation by the partner NGO, the CBO then set out the implementation, operation, revenue generation, and benefit sharing plans of

The "implementation" activities included, among others, designing the plantation program and identifying potential lands for this purpose. Facilitated by the partner NGO, the CBO members conducted a participatory land use survey (PLUS), an extended community resource mapping method, to identify potential lands, such as *khas* (government-owned open-access areas), *kandha* (raised land areas inside the *haor* body), and *ijmali* (lands with gross ownership; i.e., with no exclusive title-holders). Knowledgeable elder members of the CBO were instru‐ mental in identifying these land areas, which were then vetted by local land-offices based on

**4.1. Case 1: Swamp forest restoration through cooperative entrepreneurship**

and learning. We focused on three such initiatives.

86 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

(e.g., mats, cane furniture, baskets, and others).

the entrepreneurial venture, as described below.

livelihoods of the CBO members.

their own maps.

The "operation" of the venture was primarily reliant on a project implementation committee (PIC) comprising seven CBO members. The PIC acted as the plantation subcommittee responsible for implementing and monitoring plantation activities and reporting on progress to all the CBO members. Discussions with the CBO executives combined with an examination of CBO-meeting resolutions and the partner NGO's project reports revealed the following salient operational features of the plantation venture:

**Figure 2.** Resource map of *Nishchintapore-Shahpur* CBO.

would be divided into five equal blocks, of which four blocks would undergo a rotational harvesting and remaining block would be conserved as permanent sanctuary.

**•** The CBO would not sell a whole tree but instead trim it rotationally to yield fuel wood to sell locally. It would also sell the understory grasses, plants, and shrubs to the locals in a controlled and sustainable manner.

The "revenue generation" stream of the entrepreneurial venture followed its operational principles. Based on the operational procedure, the projected cash flow of the CBO involved several sources of income, namely, selling tree branches for fuel and selling permits for collecting grass, fuel wood, and fodder (**Table 2**).

**Table 2.** Sources of cash inflow of *Nishchintapore-Shahpur Bahumokhi Samobai Samity* Ltd.

The "benefit sharing" mechanisms were also set down by the CBO members while planning this entrepreneurial venture. The general terms and conditions of benefit sharing are as follows:

Social Entrepreneurship by Community-Based Organizations: Innovations and Learning through Partnerships http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/62469 89

**Figure 3.** A restored area of swamp forest by the *Nischintapur-Shahpur* CBO

would be divided into five equal blocks, of which four blocks would undergo a rotational

**•** The CBO would not sell a whole tree but instead trim it rotationally to yield fuel wood to sell locally. It would also sell the understory grasses, plants, and shrubs to the locals in a

The "revenue generation" stream of the entrepreneurial venture followed its operational principles. Based on the operational procedure, the projected cash flow of the CBO involved several sources of income, namely, selling tree branches for fuel and selling permits for

> Based on the 2005–2006 projection, the CBO determined that fuel wood buyers would be charged BDT 400 (equivalent to ~USD 6) per tree

 The CBO set BDT 100 (USD 1.4) as the charge for a halfday grass collection permit

 The CBO charges BDT 50 (USD 0.80) for a half-day fuel wood collection permit

 The CBO charges BDT 50 (USD 0.80) for a half-day fodder collection permit

harvesting and remaining block would be conserved as permanent sanctuary.

**Source of income Harvesting principles Amount/rate**

 The CBO issues permits to local buyers interested in buying grass to halt wave action to protect homes from erosion. Permits only allow for halfday collection period to ensure sustainability of

 Local people also collect fuel wood materials from the shrubs, grasses, and plants in CBO forested areas. To ensure sustainability, the CBO allocates a half-day quota only for each collector, and the number of collectors is controlled based on the

 Fodder collection is in high demand among the locals, as cattle rearing is one of the major sources of livelihood. The CBO allocates a half-day quota only for each collector and also controls the

The "benefit sharing" mechanisms were also set down by the CBO members while planning this entrepreneurial venture. The general terms and conditions of benefit sharing are as

**•** 60% of income from harvested or restored (**Figure 3**) swamp forest products would be

**•** 25% of the yearly turnover would be transferred to the CBO's operational fund. The CBO would use this fund for the maintenance of the venture (maintenance costs were estimated

**•** The remaining 15% would be distributed to land owners or *union parishad* (the lowest

 The trees in four of five forest blocks undergo harvesting in a yearly rotation—one block per year. The trees are trimmed only to yield branches

and leaves for fuel wood

the resource base

available stock of wood

number of collectors

distributed equally among all members of the CBO.

**Table 2.** Sources of cash inflow of *Nishchintapore-Shahpur Bahumokhi Samobai Samity* Ltd.

to be <5% of the income) and overall community development.

administrative tier) depending on the nature of land ownership.

controlled and sustainable manner.

Sale of tree branches as fuel wood

Chailla grass (*Hemarthria protensa*) collection permit

Half-day permit for fuel wood collection

Half-day permit for fodder collection

follows:

collecting grass, fuel wood, and fodder (**Table 2**).

88 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

## **4.2. Case 2: "Four cows and a half-acre" model—a group entrepreneurship with multiple social and ecological benefits**

The *Nunua Mohila Samity* (Women Cooperative of Nanua) was formed in 2004 by female members of the Nanua village located at Hakaluki *haor* basin at Barlekha *upazila* (**Figure 2**). At the time of founding, 80% of the members were involved in household chores and 18% raised poultry in addition to their daily household activities. The CNRS facilitated the formation of this CBO to promote the engagement of women in wetland natural resource management. This move was unique, as it is typically difficult for women to join CBOs due to sociocultural pressures. The CNRS trained and helped them in developing the organizational action plan a process known as participatory action plan development (PAPD). The CNRS provided capacity-building measures to this CBO, whose outcomes until 2007 included the following:

**•** Successful records of microcredit program operation by the CBO enabled it to receive further funds (revolving credit) in the form of operational loans from the Bangladesh Rural Development Board to expand their microcredit program.

As its partnership with CNRS evolved, in 2008, the CBO received further skills training, assurance of technical assistance, and aids for enhanced entrepreneurial capacity. The NGO also provided them with irrigation equipment (such as a CBO-owned submersible water pump) and veterinary facilities for the cows. The NGO was able to arrange these facilities for the CBO from a CIDA-funded development project (named BEGCB) that it implemented in the area with a goal of sustainable resource management and support to local livelihoods. Subsequently, a group of five members of the CBO jointly planned a composite cow rearing and vegetable production venture requiring a larger (than usual microcredit loan) capital investment. For this, the group received an "enterprise loan" of USD 2000 (**Table 3**).

This group entrepreneurship model was based on four milch cows (pregnant or lactating at the time of purchase), and about half an acre of cultivable land for organic vegetable produc‐ tion. The CBO established a 4×7 m cowshed with provision for cement flooring, a raised floor to facilitate drainage, and a corrugated tin roof, which can house eight cows. Adjacent to the shed, is a biodigester to produce biogas and organic fertilizer. The biodigester can process up to 60 kg cow dung per day to produces 3.0 m3 biogas. A composting pit is also built beside the shed.

This mini-dairy and organic agriculture scheme required a start-up capital in the amount of BDT 339,900 (USD 4200) mainly to buy the cows, lease land, and build the shed and biodigester facilities (**Table 3.**) The group also raised a working capital to buy fodder for the cows as well as seeds and other materials for vegetable cultivation. The female group members reported that they would also rely on the help by their male family members to run entrepreneurial functions such as grass collection and day-to-day nurturing of the cows, land preparation and production activities for vegetable fields, and harvesting and marketing of products.

**Table 3.** Nature of investment, outputs, and outcomes of the composite agroenterprise.

The group members and the CBO leaders revealed that the farm would produce:

**•** Successful records of microcredit program operation by the CBO enabled it to receive further funds (revolving credit) in the form of operational loans from the Bangladesh Rural

As its partnership with CNRS evolved, in 2008, the CBO received further skills training, assurance of technical assistance, and aids for enhanced entrepreneurial capacity. The NGO also provided them with irrigation equipment (such as a CBO-owned submersible water pump) and veterinary facilities for the cows. The NGO was able to arrange these facilities for the CBO from a CIDA-funded development project (named BEGCB) that it implemented in the area with a goal of sustainable resource management and support to local livelihoods. Subsequently, a group of five members of the CBO jointly planned a composite cow rearing and vegetable production venture requiring a larger (than usual microcredit loan) capital

investment. For this, the group received an "enterprise loan" of USD 2000 (**Table 3**).

This group entrepreneurship model was based on four milch cows (pregnant or lactating at the time of purchase), and about half an acre of cultivable land for organic vegetable produc‐ tion. The CBO established a 4×7 m cowshed with provision for cement flooring, a raised floor to facilitate drainage, and a corrugated tin roof, which can house eight cows. Adjacent to the shed, is a biodigester to produce biogas and organic fertilizer. The biodigester can process up to 60 kg cow dung per day to produces 3.0 m3 biogas. A composting pit is also built beside the

This mini-dairy and organic agriculture scheme required a start-up capital in the amount of BDT 339,900 (USD 4200) mainly to buy the cows, lease land, and build the shed and biodigester facilities (**Table 3.**) The group also raised a working capital to buy fodder for the cows as well as seeds and other materials for vegetable cultivation. The female group members reported that they would also rely on the help by their male family members to run entrepreneurial functions such as grass collection and day-to-day nurturing of the cows, land preparation and

Fodder, treatment, seed, irrigation, and labor Operating cost

Biogas and firewood sticks for cooking Energy

Capital

Social

Ecological

production activities for vegetable fields, and harvesting and marketing of products.

Outputs Calves, milk, manure, and organic vegetables Products

Zero waste, greening, GHG reduction, and reduction of pressure

The group members and the CBO leaders revealed that the farm would produce:

**Table 3.** Nature of investment, outputs, and outcomes of the composite agroenterprise.

Investment Four cows, leased or owned lands, cow shed, biodigester, and

compost facilities

on forest covers

Outcomes Employment and income, health and nutrition, education, and productivity

Development Board to expand their microcredit program.

90 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

shed.

Biogas production reduces the use of conventional cooking firewood made from tree branches and manure. Two closely located households enjoy this biogas facility for cooking and lighting. It is estimated that approximately 5 tons of biomass are saved in a year as the families switch from conventional cooking energy sources to biogas. The female household members engaged in daily cooking reported that they will enjoy a better health, thanks to reduced exposure to smoke and ashes. The women are also free of the burden of collecting or making of fuel woods, which reduces their working hours by 40%. Uninterrupted lighting facilities allowed for extended study periods for the children, and other family members are able to finish more household chores and crafting jobs during the evenings.

Vegetable production will also add to the value of the project. The group members plan to produce organic winter and all-season vegetables both for family consumption and for sale in the market. They estimated a yearly cost reduction of 20% due to the resulting independence from regular vegetable purchase. It is also envisioned that much of their operating costs could be offset by vegetable sales. The enterprise also does not generate waste, as dung is recycled into fertilizer and compost. Methane emissions are also captured by the biodigester to produce biogas.

## **4.3. Case 3: Management of aquatic resource bases and afforestation**

In assessing Case 3, we primarily observed the transformation of the *Shapla* Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd. (*Shapla* CBO) of Boro Maidan village at Talimpur *union*, Barlekha. Established in 2004, the *Shapla* CBO emerged as a local fishery and forestry resource management body with the guidance of the partner NGO (i.e., the CNRS). As an implementing agency of the intervention program of CBFM, the CNRS facilitated the formation of local bodies to aid in resource management. It mobilized the community resource user groups and provided technical and institutional support to form a CBO. The institutional support components within the scope of the CBFM project are as follows:

With an endowment fund of BDT 50,000 (USD 800) from CBFM, the *Shapla* CBO planned to embark on an entrepreneurial venture with the dual objectives of meeting resource manage‐ ment goals and supplementing local livelihoods. About half of the CBO members (46%) were fishermen, whereas the rest had diverse occupations primarily relating to agriculture. As part of their national policy intervention, the CBFM program tested the efficacy of local manage‐ ment of Hakaluki *haor* water bodies. These water bodies were government owned and leased out for a period varying from 1 to 3 years by the Ministry of Land. The *Shapla* CBO succeeded in leasing *Gaimara beel* for 3 years using both the endowment and member-raised funds. In addition, as 54% of the CBO members were nonfishers, *Shapla* also undertook a plantation program to raise lumber trees.

All 22 members of the CBO were involved in implementing the fisheries and plantation ventures. Initially, they established a resource map of their community (**Figure 4**); and then developed a shared understanding and a set of norms for operating the ventures. A fivemember *beel* management committee, as well as a plantation subcommittee, was formed. These committees were responsible for liaising with the partner NGO and other line institutions with regard to the respective venture affairs. The CBO had to reach a tripartite agreement, the partner NGO (the CNRS) and Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (MoFL) being the other parties responsible for its operation, management, and harvesting policies. The CBO's forestry project planted 4000 saplings on lands owned by the Local Government and Engineering Department (LGED), which was not a partner agency of the CBFM program.

**Figure 4.** Resource map of the *Shapla* CBO

The CBO-operated fisheries and forestry ventures promoted conservation and greening in the locality. As per the agreed-upon operational policy (through the tripartite agreement), a portion of the *beel* was kept as a fish sanctuary (**Figure 5**) to ensure the conservation of brood fish; the brood fish were used for breeding purposes in the following year to maintain stocks. Although the lease entitled the CBO members to harvest fish from the *beel*, one of the conditions was to maintain a "closed season" harvesting ban during the early monsoon, which is the breeding season. The CBO members reported that the MoFL-imposed "closed season" usually spanned 3–4 weeks in the *haor* areas; this measure contributed significantly to the growth of fish stocks in the water bodies.

**•** Providing microcredit;

**•** Building community centers; and

program to raise lumber trees.

**Figure 4.** Resource map of the *Shapla* CBO

**•** Linking CBOs through networking.

92 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

With an endowment fund of BDT 50,000 (USD 800) from CBFM, the *Shapla* CBO planned to embark on an entrepreneurial venture with the dual objectives of meeting resource manage‐ ment goals and supplementing local livelihoods. About half of the CBO members (46%) were fishermen, whereas the rest had diverse occupations primarily relating to agriculture. As part of their national policy intervention, the CBFM program tested the efficacy of local manage‐ ment of Hakaluki *haor* water bodies. These water bodies were government owned and leased out for a period varying from 1 to 3 years by the Ministry of Land. The *Shapla* CBO succeeded in leasing *Gaimara beel* for 3 years using both the endowment and member-raised funds. In addition, as 54% of the CBO members were nonfishers, *Shapla* also undertook a plantation

All 22 members of the CBO were involved in implementing the fisheries and plantation ventures. Initially, they established a resource map of their community (**Figure 4**); and then developed a shared understanding and a set of norms for operating the ventures. A fivemember *beel* management committee, as well as a plantation subcommittee, was formed. These committees were responsible for liaising with the partner NGO and other line institutions with regard to the respective venture affairs. The CBO had to reach a tripartite agreement, the partner NGO (the CNRS) and Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (MoFL) being the other parties responsible for its operation, management, and harvesting policies. The CBO's forestry project planted 4000 saplings on lands owned by the Local Government and Engineering

Department (LGED), which was not a partner agency of the CBFM program.

The benefits from fish harvesting were equally shared between CBO members. The CBO reported an average 40% gross profit on their investment in the fisheries venture. However, the plantation venture did not flourish as the CBO failed to establish ownership of the plants, as the government department owning the planted land area refused to cooperate despite the best efforts of the partner NGO to intervene. As a result, young trees were either cut down by poachers for fuel wood or were damaged by cattle. The CBO reports that they are now raising only approximately 300 trees of the original 4000, the return on which has not exceed the investment cost. The CBO estimates a 50% loss on investment in this venture.

The examination of the yearly fish harvest reveals that the total yield increased under CBO management. The conservation effort by the CBO also enhanced species diversity and richness in the water body. The CBO drained the *beel* only once (as per the lease term) during the 3-year leasing period; many other leaseholders breached this agreement, dewatering every year and negatively impacting to the diversity and growth of fish stocks. The CBO also reported the presence of fish species in their *beel*, which were thought to be extinct in the local ecosystem.

**Figure 5.** A fish sanctuary made with brush pile kata, and marked with red flags (indicating no fishing zone) within a *beel* by *Shapla* CBO.

## **5. Discussion: social entrepreneurships and learnings through NGO-CBO partnerships**

CBOs working in concert with NGOs for natural resource management is a relatively new practice in the field of community-level development efforts. The findings of our study suggest that these CBOs typically emerge from local economic and social missions. Social missions concern the community or collective interests of the members, whereas the economic missions deal with the economic needs of the organization members and revenue generation for the organization's sustenance. There are embedded ecological missions within the economic and social ones, which have hardly been streamlined towards revenue generation by develop‐ mental mechanisms. It is the NGO-CBO partnership that leveraged those ecological missions of CBOs (e.g., swamp forest restoration, road-side plantation, conservation of fish habitat, organic cultivation, and others as evident from the cases).

The leveraged missions became goals, more specifically entrepreneurial goals, of CBOs that helped them generate revenue and thereby turned them into entrepreneurial entities. In all the studied cases, it was apparent that CBOs exhibited natural social entrepreneurship potential. With exploitation of that potential, the partner NGO helped to reinforce the capacities of CBOs for self-sufficiency. The NGO helped CBOs to access a range of services, such as endowment credit fund facilities for venture start-up, technical training on capacity building and skills development, innovation and knowledge transfer, and networking and cooperation, as indicated by Berkes [35] and Seixas and Berkes [36] regarding NGO-CBO partnership. All three initiatives sought answers to social problems by identifying and delivering new services and product to improve the quality of life at both individual and community levels—what the OECD [41] termed as welfare-oriented social value creation.

The degradation of swamp forests poses manifold threats to the lives and livelihoods of wetland communities. Case 1 (*Nishchintapur Shahpur* CBO) addressed this vital socioecological issue in the *haor* community. Usually, interventions by development programs for the restoration of such resources are time bound. More importantly, afforestation activities require long-term maintenance, which becomes uncertain upon project termination. By incorporating income generation as well as conservation mechanisms, the initiative has become a sustainable enterprise. The enterprise sustains itself financially through the sale of fuel wood, fodder, and grass and manages itself with appropriate operational and benefit sharing mechanisms. With this continuous care, swamp forests are thriving in the locality.

The diversified and innovative means of income generation by the group-run enterprise (Case 2) led the financial self-sufficiency of the community entrepreneurs and contributed to resource optimization in the society, which are the critical elements for community development [28]. The enterprise serves multiple social and ecological roles, including employment generation, creating income opportunities for women, offsetting greenhouse gases (GHG) and producing biogas as an alternative to fuel wood, and cultivation with manure to produce organic vegetables. It demonstrated how even four cows and a half-acre land can provide multiple benefits to the environment and society and enhance the health and livelihoods of the entrepreneurs. This entrepreneurial model is crucial for responding to climate change and enhancing well-being in poor communities.

**5. Discussion: social entrepreneurships and learnings through NGO-CBO**

CBOs working in concert with NGOs for natural resource management is a relatively new practice in the field of community-level development efforts. The findings of our study suggest that these CBOs typically emerge from local economic and social missions. Social missions concern the community or collective interests of the members, whereas the economic missions deal with the economic needs of the organization members and revenue generation for the organization's sustenance. There are embedded ecological missions within the economic and social ones, which have hardly been streamlined towards revenue generation by develop‐ mental mechanisms. It is the NGO-CBO partnership that leveraged those ecological missions of CBOs (e.g., swamp forest restoration, road-side plantation, conservation of fish habitat,

The leveraged missions became goals, more specifically entrepreneurial goals, of CBOs that helped them generate revenue and thereby turned them into entrepreneurial entities. In all the studied cases, it was apparent that CBOs exhibited natural social entrepreneurship potential. With exploitation of that potential, the partner NGO helped to reinforce the capacities of CBOs for self-sufficiency. The NGO helped CBOs to access a range of services, such as endowment credit fund facilities for venture start-up, technical training on capacity building and skills development, innovation and knowledge transfer, and networking and cooperation, as indicated by Berkes [35] and Seixas and Berkes [36] regarding NGO-CBO partnership. All three initiatives sought answers to social problems by identifying and delivering new services and product to improve the quality of life at both individual and community levels—what the

The degradation of swamp forests poses manifold threats to the lives and livelihoods of wetland communities. Case 1 (*Nishchintapur Shahpur* CBO) addressed this vital socioecological issue in the *haor* community. Usually, interventions by development programs for the restoration of such resources are time bound. More importantly, afforestation activities require long-term maintenance, which becomes uncertain upon project termination. By incorporating income generation as well as conservation mechanisms, the initiative has become a sustainable enterprise. The enterprise sustains itself financially through the sale of fuel wood, fodder, and grass and manages itself with appropriate operational and benefit sharing mechanisms. With

The diversified and innovative means of income generation by the group-run enterprise (Case 2) led the financial self-sufficiency of the community entrepreneurs and contributed to resource optimization in the society, which are the critical elements for community development [28]. The enterprise serves multiple social and ecological roles, including employment generation, creating income opportunities for women, offsetting greenhouse gases (GHG) and producing biogas as an alternative to fuel wood, and cultivation with manure to produce organic vegetables. It demonstrated how even four cows and a half-acre land can provide multiple benefits to the environment and society and enhance the health and livelihoods of the

organic cultivation, and others as evident from the cases).

94 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

OECD [41] termed as welfare-oriented social value creation.

this continuous care, swamp forests are thriving in the locality.

**partnerships**

Social innovations by CBOs that integrate community development and entrepreneurial objectives can also fail in the face of unfavorable policy regimes and tenural intricacies of public institutions. The *Sahpla* CBO (Case 3) that ventured into *beel* leasing and plantation schemes was unsuccessful, as it failed to gain ownership of the planted trees. The CBO activities in managing the *beel* contributed to enhancing the aquatic resource base in the locality, as it introduced sustainable harvesting practices for fish resources. The tree plantation schemes, if sustained, could enrich the local biodiversity and help support the livelihoods of the CBO members. This case indicated that supportive public policies and institutional arrangements are crucial for social enterprise to succeed.

The aforesaid mixed results confirmed the assertion made by Berkes [19] that joint problemsolving and sharing of experiences and ideas through partnership help promote social learning. Building on the embedded social missions of CBOs, the observed partnerships helped grow and strengthen many social learning components. Community people learned from each other in ways that benefited wider socioecological systems [49]. In this study, we paid particular attention to group-centered social learning and found that community members are increasingly becoming capable of engaging with local natural resource management processes. It is also evident from the cases that a wide array of learning components are nurtured and significant learning is taking place out of the management process of local natural resources and the ecosystems. It validates the claim of Pahl-Wostl and Hare [50] that management and learning are linked through communication, perspective sharing, and the development of adaptive group strategies for problem solving. The study found the following social learning processes and outcomes are occurring from the NGO-CBO partnerships (**Table 4**).

**Table 4.** NGO-CBO partnership outgrowths and social learning components.

## **6. Conclusions**

NGO-partnered CBOs have the potential to embark on entrepreneurial ventures that simul‐ taneously generate income and address socioecological issues. With initial guidance and supports from NGOs, CBOs can enhance their abilities to take action to improve local natural resource bases—especially in areas of forestry, fisheries, and agroresources. Streamlining the CBO operations towards income generation for long-term sustainability was the key to turn these organizations into social enterprises, meeting social needs and adding value to the society.

NGO-CBO partnerships bring about social innovation by diversifying the institutional goals of CBOs and building their capacities to pursue unique institutional goals in new and sus‐ tainable ways. The process also enables the NGO to pursue its own institutional mandate of adding value to society. In the past, NGOs typically delegated certain developmental respon‐ sibilities in shared roles to partnering CBOs within a project framework, therefore employing CBOs in a catalytic role for implementing development agendas at the local level. The transformation of CBOs into social enterprises has turned them into direct change-makers in the society rather than merely NGO operation catalyzers.

Social learning happens to be the most important spin-off of the NGO-CBO partnership process. The partnership generates a wide array of processes and components that enable the community members to learn in numerous ways—from actions, interactions, and examples. The social innovation school argues that social entrepreneurship creates new ways of re‐ sponding to social problems. We extend this claim by arguing that NGO-CBO partnershipbased social enterprises not only innovates to respond to social problems but also creates a platform for social learning. These social enterprises need institutional and policy supports to thrive, as they can play critical roles in ecosystems restoration and local natural resource management, especially in the developing countries.

## **Acknowledgment**

**Partnership outgrowth**

**6. Conclusions**

society.

Organizational venturing

**Resultant process and practice**

96 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

entrepreneurial

Microcredit program With endowment and revolving funds,

CBOs planned and embarked on

ventures with the guidance and assistance of the NGO

CBO members gained business management skills through training and practice

Transactions, banking, and saving operations

Group operation Group entrepreneurship, PICs, and plantation

transmission took place among CBOs and its members

**Table 4.** NGO-CBO partnership outgrowths and social learning components.

the society rather than merely NGO operation catalyzers.

management, especially in the developing countries.

were accomplished successfully

Division of labor, benefit sharing, and learning

**Social learnings and outcome**

social problems

affairs

cohesiveness

CBOs run microcredit programs Institutional lending and

subcommittees worked cohesively Team dynamics; group

NGO-partnered CBOs have the potential to embark on entrepreneurial ventures that simul‐ taneously generate income and address socioecological issues. With initial guidance and supports from NGOs, CBOs can enhance their abilities to take action to improve local natural resource bases—especially in areas of forestry, fisheries, and agroresources. Streamlining the CBO operations towards income generation for long-term sustainability was the key to turn these organizations into social enterprises, meeting social needs and adding value to the

NGO-CBO partnerships bring about social innovation by diversifying the institutional goals of CBOs and building their capacities to pursue unique institutional goals in new and sus‐ tainable ways. The process also enables the NGO to pursue its own institutional mandate of adding value to society. In the past, NGOs typically delegated certain developmental respon‐ sibilities in shared roles to partnering CBOs within a project framework, therefore employing CBOs in a catalytic role for implementing development agendas at the local level. The transformation of CBOs into social enterprises has turned them into direct change-makers in

Social learning happens to be the most important spin-off of the NGO-CBO partnership process. The partnership generates a wide array of processes and components that enable the community members to learn in numerous ways—from actions, interactions, and examples. The social innovation school argues that social entrepreneurship creates new ways of re‐ sponding to social problems. We extend this claim by arguing that NGO-CBO partnershipbased social enterprises not only innovates to respond to social problems but also creates a platform for social learning. These social enterprises need institutional and policy supports to thrive, as they can play critical roles in ecosystems restoration and local natural resource

Collective deliberation leading to social entrepreneurship to address

Venture operation and IGA skills; planning, organizing controlling, and leading skills and knowledge

borrowing knowledge and skills

Efficiency in handling financial

Participation, trust building, and transformative learning

We thank the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada for funding the doctoral field research of A.S. and the Global Affairs Canada for funding the BEGCB Project headed by C.E.H. We are grateful to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Insight Grant, for providing additional financial support to this research. Special thanks to Hasan Mahmud (Department of Geography and Environment, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh) for his assistance in preparing the maps and Gilles Messier (Winnipeg, Canada) for his editorial assistance. We are immensely thankful to the CNRS (Bangladesh) for its generous support in carrying out the field research.

## **Author details**

A.K.M. Shahidullah\* and C. Emdad Haque

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

## **References**

SUSTAINABILITY-Hailey-INTRAC-Briefing-Paper-41-2014.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2015.

[23] Thompson PM. Sustainability of community-based organizations in Bangladesh. Society & Natural Resources 2013;26:778–794.

SUSTAINABILITY-Hailey-INTRAC-Briefing-Paper-41-2014.pdf. Accessed 20

[8] Quarter J, Sousa J, Richmond BJ, Carmichael I. Comparing member-based organiza‐ tions within a social economy framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

[9] Alter K. Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC; Washington, DC: 2007;12. Available at: file:///C:/Users/319/Downloads/Social\_Enterprise\_Typology\_Updat‐

[10] Defourny J, Nyssens M. Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social

[11] Evers A, Laville JL, editors. The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

[12] Davis SH, Mundial B. Indigenous Views of Land and the Environment. 188. Washing‐

[13] Sachs W. Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Telengana: Orient

[14] Cornwall JR. The entrepreneur as a building block for community. Journal of Devel‐

[15] Drucker P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1985.

[16] Schumpeter J. Creative Destruction: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York,

[17] Peredo AM, Chrisman JJ. Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy

[18] Midgley J. Microenterprise, global poverty and social development. International

[19] Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management

[20] Nelson F. Sustainable development and wildlife conservation in Tanzanian Maasai‐

[21] Lyons TS. Building social capital for rural enterprise development: Three case studies in the United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 2002;7:193–216.

[22] Chell E. Social enterprise and entrepreneurship towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal 2007;25:5–26.

land. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2000;2:107–117.

December 2015.

2001;30:351–375.

ed\_Novem.pdf

Publishing; 2004.

Blackswan; 1997.

Entrepreneurship 2010;1:32–53.

98 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

ton, DC: World Bank; 1993.

NY: Harper & Brothers; 1942.

Social Work 2008;51:467–479.

2009;90:1692–1702.

opmental Entrepreneurship 1998;3:141–148.

of Management Review 2006;31:309–328.

[48] Keen M, Brown V, Dybal R. Social Learning in Environmental Management. London: Earthscan; 2005.

[36] Seixas CS, Berkes F. Community-based enterprises: The significance of partnerships and institutional linkages. International Journal of the Commons 2009;4:183–212. [37] Dees JG. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Draft report prepared for Holffman Foundation; 1998; 6 pp. Available at: https://entrepreneurship.duke.edu/news-item/

[38] Mair J, Marti I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,

[39] Austin J, Stevenson H, Wei‐Skillern J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same,

[40] OECD. Fostering Innovations to Address Social Challenges. Workshop Proceedings. pp. 1–99. Available at: http://www.OECD.org/sti/inno/47861327.pdf. Accessed 2

[41] OECD. SMES, Entrepreneurship and Innovations OECD Publication;Paris, 2010; pp. 1– 212. Available at: http://www.OECD.org/cfe/smesentrepreneurshipandinnova‐

[42] Yunus M, Moingeon B, Lehmann-Ortega L. Building social business models: Lessons

[43] De Cosse PJ, Sharma RA, Dutta U, Thompson P. Development of the collaborative governance model. In: De Cosse PJ et al., editors, Protected Area Co-management Where People and Poverty Intersect: Lessons From Nishorgo in Bangladesh. Bangla‐ desh: USAID; 2012. pp. 53–72. Available at: https://agrilinks.org/library/protected-

area-co-management-where-people-and-poverty-intersect-lessons-nishorgo-

[44] Sharma RA, De Cosse PJ. Incentives for community patrolling and protection. In: De Cosse PJ et al., editors, Protected Area Co-management Where People and Poverty Intersect: Lessons From Nishorgo in Bangladesh. Bangladesh: USAID; 2012. pp. 171– 180. Available at: https://agrilinks.org/library/protected-area-co-management-wherepeople-and-poverty-intersect-lessons-nishorgo-bangladesh. Accessed 6 January 2016.

[45] Parson EA, Clark WC. Sustainable development as social learning: Theoretical per‐ spectives and practical challenges for the design of a research program. In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS, editors, Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems

[46] Diduck A, Bankes N, Clark D, Armitage DR. Unpacking social learning in socialecological systems. In: Berker F, et al., editors, Breaking Ice: Integrated Ocean Man‐ agement in the Canadian North. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary Press; 2005,

[47] Ison R, Watson D. Illuminating the possibilities for social learning in the management

and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995.

of Scotland's water. Ecology and Society 2007;12:Art-21.

from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning 2010;43:308–325.

the-meaning-of-social-entrepreneurship/. Accessed 21 December 2015.

different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2006;30:1–22.

and delight. Journal of World Business 2006;41:36–44.

January 2016.

pp. 269–290.

tion.htm. Accessed 2 January 2016.

100 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

bangladesh. Accessed 10 January 2016.

**Social Enterprise Challenges**

## **Employees' Safety from Psychological Violence in Social Enterprises: State Subsidies or Private Initiative?**

Jolita Vveinhardt

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/62474

## **Abstract**

This study analyses the range of problems of the enterprises that integrate disabled persons into the labour market, evaluating the capacity of their staff to deal with the emerging problems of employees' safety from psychological violence in the cultural context. Attention is drawn to the fact that social enterprises implementing govern‐ mental programmes for the employment of persons with disabilities are oriented only to the guarantees of the physical working conditions, but the issues of psychological safety, psychological well-being, and social exclusion are not dealt with. The latter questions are not discussed neither in the government programme nor in policies of the enterprises; therefore, they are dealt with depending on the established business management culture. The management personnel of companies with the status of social enterprises perceives the function of the enterprise as a certain niche in the market, receiving the state aid for the implemented requirements to employ disabled persons and adapt the physical environment for them. This approach highlights such side effects as unaddressed (suppressed) discriminatory attitude towards employees with disabilities in enterprises, organisational weakness in dealing with interpersonal conflicts, the lack of competence of the managerial staff and the lack of systematic knowledge on work with personnel. In this case, there is a debatable question of whether the efforts of the state will reach the desired goal, i.e. the fully-fledged work and social integration of the people who the investments are intended for, or continue the traditions of silent social segregation? This study shows that it is necessary to critical‐ ly evaluate the selected model for fostering businesses to integrate into the labour market, in which the issues of psycho-social welfare and social initiative of enterpris‐ es are underestimated.

**Keywords:** social enterprise, psychological violence, employees' safety, psycho-social welfare, interpersonal conflicts, social integration

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **1. Introduction**

Corporate social responsibility can be a promising strategy on the markets, the participants of which raise the question of responsibility actively. The word actively is emphasised in order to consider cultural differences as well. Even taking the processes of globalisation into account, we have to admit that both societies and markets are culturally different, as well as their participants, raising the questions of social responsibility differently. Moreover, in practice, the situation where the initiative arises "from the top," that is, from the requirements formulated by the public authorities, is often encountered, and less frequently, when the public stakehold‐ er groups formulate requirements on the basis of which they join the national policy and become an incentive for its change. On the example of the new member states of the European Union, we can observe the tendencies, when after signing international agreements the business vigorously takes advantage of opportunities and benefits provided by a new policy. It uses, but often ignores, the social groups which the programmes were designed for, as the social groups did not show any significant initiative for some reasons. The deeper problem sources of this context should be left to scholars analysing the processes that take place in the Central and Eastern European societies, focus on the product of social policy, identified as a *social enterprise*.

**The aim of the research** is to evaluate how the safety of employees from psychological violence is ensured after discussing the specifics of organisation of work with staff in social enterprises, which carry out the state-supported function of integration of socially vulnerable groups into the labour market.

We can choose: *firstly*, to adopt a liberal, but limited model of the social enterprise, which, for example, has been implemented by the government of Lithuania, or, *secondly*, to evaluate its consequences in the context of safety of employees by analysing specific examples and, *thirdly*, to outline new directions for the change after evaluation of weaknesses recorded. That is, after evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the model, we will have more knowledge on how it corresponds to the interests of socially vulnerable groups.

Thus, in order to propose changes in the policies of the social enterprises, firstly, it is necessary to review the processes taking place in the society, to discuss the basic principles of the functioning model and problems arising in practice, to identify the criteria of the concept of a social enterprise analysed in international discourse and compare with the chosen functioning model, to evaluate to what extent the proposed models meet criteria of psychosocial safety, to diagnose how the chosen functioning model meets the criteria of psychosocial safety.

## **2. Social policy that has increased social exclusion**

Before starting to go deep into social policy that has increased social exclusion, we should overview the historical-social context in which the analysed model of the social enterprise was forming.

The problem of integration of persons with disabilities into the labour market in Lithuania was attempted to solve during the period of the Soviet Union, which lasted for about half a century. The declared social equality had to solve drawbacks of capitalist societies, and funds were allocated generously for its implementation.

**1. Introduction**

106 Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics In A Global Perspective

the labour market.

forming.