microfinance: social entrepreneurship? commercial entrepreneurship? or both?

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347091

DRAFT Work in Progress

TITLE

Microfinance: Social entrepreneurship?

Commercial entrepreneurship? Or Both?

ABSTRACT

The emerging social entrepreneurship literature has loosely characterized microfinance as entrepreneurship or social entrepreneurship, omitting much needed rigor. Through a theoretical synthesis of the entrepreneurship and microfinance literatures we unpack three different groups of entrepreneurs involved in microfinance with very different motivations: Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) are social entrepreneurs; Borrowers are necessity entrepreneurs; and, as we confirm with a descriptive content analysis of a popular field apparatus catalog, device manufacturers are commercial entrepreneurs. Building on Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2006) we advance our own framework that we believe more completely depicts the relationship between an entity’s profit orientation and social entrepreneurship.

INTRODUCTION

These days it seems like everybody likes microfinance. Microfinance borrowers like it.

(BYU Broadcasting, 2005) They are working their way out of poverty; their inspiring

progress catalyzed by these small uncollateralized loans. Donors and lenders like it.

Family foundations, NGOs and now even middle class internet users (on kiva.org or

microplace.com) feel great about helping out, and might even be earning a healthy return

in the process. Interest rates, though multiples of usury in a G7 context, are likely the

lowest cost option available to these destitute borrowers whose hard work always seems

to pay off with impressive ROI. (Akula, 2007) The Nobel Foundation likes it, awarding

their 2006 Peace prize to Grameen Bank founder Dr. Mohammad Yunus, PhD (Yunus,

All rights reserved: Geoffrey R. Archer [email protected]

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347091


2007). Venture capital firms like it. Silicon Valley’s elite and prescient Sequoia Capital

invested $11.5 million into SKS Microfinance India in 2007 (Brennan, 2007; Sequoia

Capital, 2008, Triodos, 2008). Notably, several other venture firms syndicated this deal,

bringing their total raise up over $75 million. Wall Street likes it. In April of 2007,

Compartamos was the first microfinance institution to IPO (Katz, 2008). Fortune 500

firms including Sun Microsystems, Deutsche Bank, eBay, Morgan Stanley, Goldman

Sachs and Hewlett-Packard also like it enough to be significantly involved (Callaghan,

2007; Sun Microsystems,2007; Baue, 2006; Damast, 2008) . Not surprisingly,

entrepreneurship scholars like microfinance too. What’s not to like? Entrepreneurs and

investors are building businesses and making money in a socially positive way. The

authors of this paper agree wholeheartedly; microfinance is great. Where concern

manifests, however, is in our haphazard, anecdotal treatment and apparent incomplete

understanding of the entrepreneurship of microfinance. Carrying the torch lit by Johanna

Mair and Ignasi Marti (2006), and building upon the framework advanced by Austin,

Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006), this paper uses a combination of theoretical synthesis

and a descriptive content analysis to locate and characterize the entrepreneurship

observed in three distinct groups who are part of the microfinance process. In the pages

that follow we will provide an overview of microfinance, explicate the two types of

entrepreneurial agency typically confounded in microfinance, introduce a third group of

entrepreneurial agents the literature has heretofore ignored, and finally, we explain if

microfinance is social entrepreneurship, commercial entrepreneurship, or both.



MICROFINANCE OVERVIEW

Microcredit

Microcredit programs extend small loans to very poor people for self-employment

projects that generate income, allowing them to care for themselves and their families

(Hoque, 2004). Examples of non-farm micro-enterprise in Sri Lanka include; two-wheel

tractor repair, Bajaj three-wheeler operation, Bajaj three-wheeler repair, motorbike and

bicycle repair, bee-keeping for honey production, food technology (processing and sale

of yogurt, cake and ice-cream), yarn production for rope making and mat production,

spinning and weaving, sewing and tailoring (especially ready-made garments),

batik/fabric painting, and mosquito net making (Sear, 1999). A 2003 World Bank report

followed “energy-intensive microenterprises” in Southeast Asia. “They covered a wide

variety of activities, such as the following: Garment making, Embroidery, Felt and

leather goods manufacture, Copper welding, Utensils manufacture, Baking, Cold storage,

Rubber stamp making, Beauty salons, Grain grinding, Threshing, Fish drying and

powdering, Soybean processing, Rice-husk charcoal briquette manufacture, Battery-

charging, Manufacturing of rice husk cookstoves, Spice drying, Beedi wrapping,

Cinnamon peeling, Rice processing…(Panjwani, 2003)” A typical loan might be $50 or

$75, although amounts up to several hundred dollars are not unheard of (Morduch, 1999;

Panjwani, 2003; Callaghan 2007).



Microfinance

Augmenting microcredit are the broader offerings of what is referred to as microfinance.

“What is Microfinance? In addition to loans, microfinance programs provide

economically active poor people with savings and other deposit products, remittances and

transfers, payment services, insurance, and potentially any financial product or service a

bank can offer to this market. Such programs also offer business training and networking

opportunities (Callaghan, 2007:115).” Essentially microfinance would be the larger

circle in a Venn diagram with microcredit at the center. They are very similar concepts

that share one focus (Hoque, 2004). “The hope is that much poverty can be alleviated –

and that economic and social structures can be transformed fundamentally – by providing

financial services to low income households (Morduch, 1999) .” While estimates and

historical accounts vary, there is general consensus about the basic facts of microfinance.

The practice has been around for about 30 years, starting first in Brazil, and soon

thereafter (independently) in Bangladesh (Yunus, 2003; BYU Productions, 2005;

Gallagher, 2007). These small, uncollateralized loans are given by at least 3000 different

institutions called MFIs (microfinance institutions) (Nelson, 2007). “What is a

Microfinance Institution? A microfinance institution is an organization that provides

financial services to the poor. An MFI can be broadly defined as a credit union,

downscaled commercial bank, financial NGO, or credit cooperative. (Callaghan, 2007).”

“Banks and MFIs complement each other well by servicing substantially different client bases. Banks lend and collect deposits mostly from a limited formal private sector and to the government, while MFIs service poor and rural households, and small entrepreneurs often in the informal sector (Basu, Blavy & Yulek, 2004:11).”



To date more than 110 million people have borrowed (Morduch, 1999; Nelson, 2007).

Repayment rates routinely exceed 90% and interest rates typically range from the high

teens into the low twenties, annualized ( Panjwani, 2003; Akula, 2007; Callaghan 2007).

Microfinance Trends

Currently three strong trends in the microfinance space are changing the way that funds

are raised, loaned and used. As we mentioned above this movement has received a lot of

positive attention lately, achieving, among other things, the 2006 Nobel Peace prize and a

2007 IPO. Venture capital firms have begun to invest in the sector. Fortune 500 firms

are active too. Together these events and entities are changing the way that MFIs raise

the money that they lend. Two internet start-ups have also changed the way that many

MFIs lend. In the Fall of 2005 the non-profit kiva.org was launched, enabling regular

people to browse through borrower profiles, and pick a worthy or appealing recipient of

their small loan (Kiva, 2005). About two years later, with the financial backing of parent

company eBay, Inc., Microplace.com launched a for profit fast follower site. Microplace

investors receive an annual return of about 3% on their small loans. Evolving on a

parallel timeline is the latest development in microfinance; microfranchising (Fairbourne,

2007). Microfranchising, which will be more thoroughly explained below, can be aptly

summarized as ‘a business in a box.’ Whether it is beekeeping, telephone booths,

popsicle sales or mobile eye exams, microfranchise businesses simplify and package

most of the elements of a microenterprise, providing a turn-key opportunity for the

borrower – one that aspires to reduce risk, like the franchise model it emulates.



THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP OF MICROFINANCE

Entrepreneurship

Our brief overview of microfinance has thus far depicted two basic groups of agents in the

microfinance process; borrowers and lenders (MFIs). Logically, the entrepreneurship scholar

should be wondering, “Who is the entrepreneur?” Lamentably, it would seem that in our rush

to embrace this nice or good example of entrepreneurship academics have generally skipped

right past this question, simply calling all of microfinance “social entrepreneurship” (Austin,

Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006). Our discussion below aims to unpack

and clarify who exactly is the entrepreneur in microfinance and, moreover, how their

motivations characterize them as a particular type of entrepreneur. It is our position that a

better understanding of the entrepreneurship of microfinance will enhance our ability to

improve entrepreneurial performance, uplift lives and benefit society. Our work here is

inspired by the following quotation:

“Entrepreneurship is particularly powerful from a social welfare perspective when, in the process of pursuing selfish ends, entrepreneurs also enhance social wealth by creating new markets, new industries, new technology, new institutional forms, new jobs and net increases in real productivity. This connection between private wealth seeking and social wealth creation forms a distinctive and legitimate domain for the field of entrepreneurship.” (Venkataraman, 1997: 133)

Social Entrepreneurship

Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern defined, “social entrepreneurship as innovative, social

value creating activity that can occur within or across the nonprofit, business or

government sectors.” They went on to further differentiate social from commercial



entrepreneurship, explaining that, “The key difference is that in commercial

entrepreneurship, the primary focus is on economic returns while in social

entrepreneurship, the focus is on social returns (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern,

2006).” Modifying Sahlman’s PCDO (People, Capital, Deal, Opportunity) framework

they advanced their own form with two important characteristics; 1) Sahlman’s

commercial “Deal” was subsumed by the SVP [Social Value Proposition], and 2) as you see

reproduced in Figure 1, the SVP is at the core of social entrepreneurship. “The distinctive nature

and central role of mission in social enterprises and the multifaceted nature of the social value

generated give the SVP [Social Value Proposition] a logical centrality in the framework (Austin,

Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006).”

Figure 1: SVP (Austin, et. al., 2006)



MFI Founders are Social Entrepreneurs

It is our position that founders of MFIs are therefore social entrepreneurs. The evidence we

advance is shown here in Table 1 which depicts the mission statements – a proxy for the Social

Value Proposition - of many prominent MFIs. We believe our position is also supported by the

cognitive work of Sarasvathy, Simon and Lave (1998). In think-aloud protocols designed to

determine if and how bankers think differently from entrepreneurs they found patterns which

clearly separate MFIs from the traditional banker, and liken them to entrepreneurs in a very

important way:

"It appears that entrepreneurs take personal values into account while making their decisions in all the five problems (even in the relatively mundane one of choosing a plot of land to build their factory); bankers, on the other hand, seem to have given up any personal considerations at all in any of these decisions. Even the references to the risk of human life and health were in the third person...(Sarasvathy, Simon & Lave, 1998:214)"



Table 1: Sample MFI Mission Statements

ORGANIZATION MISSION STATEMENT ACCION (Accion, 2008)

“The mission of ACCION International is to give people the tools they need to work their way out of poverty. By providing microloans, business training and other financial services to poor men and women who start their own businesses, ACCION's partner lending organizations help people work their own way up the economic ladder, with dignity and pride. With just a little capital, people can grow their own businesses. They can earn enough to afford basics like running water, better food and schooling for their children.”

Compartamos (Compartamos, 2008)

“We are a social enterprise committed to people. We create development opportunities in popular market segments that are based on innovative and efficient models, distributed on a massive scale and on important values that foster an external and internal culture. In this manner we are able to achieve permanent relationships based on trust and that contribute to a better world.”

FINCA International (FINCA, 2008)

“The mission of FINCA International is to provide financial services to the world's lowest-income entrepreneurs so they can create jobs, build assets and improve their standard of living.”

Grameen Foundation (Grameen, 2008)

“Grameen Foundation's mission is to enable the poor, especially the poorest, to create a world without poverty. With tiny loans, financial services and technology, we help the poor, mostly women, start self-sustaining businesses to escape poverty.”

SKS Microfinance India (SKS India, 2008)

“SKS Microfinance empowers the poor to become economically self-reliant by providing financial services in a sustainable manner.”

Unitus (Unitus, 2008)

“Unitus, an international nonprofit organization, works to reduce global poverty by increasing access to life-changing microfinance services.”

Borrowers are often labeled Entrepreneurs “Who are the clients? Because of their low incomes, microfinance clients typically are outside the banking system and at the mercy of money lenders who charge exorbitant rates…. In rural areas, they tend to be small farmers or engaged in small-scale activities such as food processing and petty trade. In urban areas, microfinance clients are more diverse and include shopkeepers as well as a broad variety of service providers and artisans (Callaghan, 2007:115).”



Some authors are careful not to label microfinance borrowers as entrepreneurs. Instead

they develop acronyms such as SSE (small scale enterprise) or VSB (very small business)

(Adeoti, 2004; Chakrabarti 2003; Estay, 2003 ; Ferro-Luzzi & Weber, 2006). This

creativity is atypical of microfinance literature. Many writings on the subject refer to

microfinance borrowers as “entrepreneurs” or “micro-entrepreneurs” (Basu & Yulek,

2004; Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Gine, 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006). In

general the literature in this area tends to interchange the words borrower and

entrepreneur liberally. Callaghan does this repeatedly in a confounding manner that

demonstrates exactly what is troubling about applying the general entrepreneur moniker

to microfinance borrowers. By using the very same word to describe penniless borrowers

and, “successful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and eBay founder Pierre Omydiar” he

would have us believe these two groups are one and the same; entrepreneurs (Callaghan

2007: 117).

Borrowers are not traditional (a.k.a commercial) entrepreneurs

Classic definitions from the entrepreneurship cannon, penned by venerable authors like

Aldrich, Baumol, Casson, Knight Schumpter, Stevenson & Jarillo, Venkataraman, etc.,

might beautifully describe the founders of the NASDAQ’s greatest hits, but we believe

that would look almost preposterous applied to a microfinance borrower. For example,

Stevenson & Jarillo (1991) say entrepreneurship is pursuing opportunity without regards

to resources under control.

“These entrepreneurs don’t create microenterprises because they are particularly interested in being in business for themselves; they are usually forced to set up small retail stores, stalls, and tables in order to survive – in order to have something to feed their families each day (Fairbourne, 2007:18)



Borrowers are Necessity Entrepreneurs

What Fairbourne describes is a total dearth of resources and a paucity of options. Recall

that MFIs are created to help the poorest of the poor. These borrowers are then de facto

living hand-to-mouth, their energies focused too low on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to

consider the stuff of traditional entrepreneurship - much less develop a Social Value

Proposition. Thus it is our position that microfinance borrowers are neither traditional

(a.k.a commercial) nor social entrepreneurs. There is, however, one particularly simple

and apt description in this domain. The 2001 GEM report explains the motivation behind

necessity entrepreneurship, “Because you have no better choices for work (Reynolds,

2002.)” In explaining the benefits of microfranchising Fairbourne supports our position:

“Microfranchising provides a solution to these core problems by first, providing those who do not possess an entrepreneurial skill set with a business blue-print that, if followed, will lead to greater individual economic success. Thus it is not necessary to have an entrepreneurial spirit in order to be a successful microfranchisee. In fact, a true entrepreneur would not be a good candidate as a microfranchisee (Fairbourne, 2007:8).” Introducing a third group of Entrepreneurs

To recap, it is our position that MFI founders are social entrepreneurs centered on a social

value proposition and that microfinance borrowers are necessity entrepreneurs forced into

starting a business to feed themselves. Though commonplace it would be misleading to

call either group by the general label ‘entrepreneur.’ That is not to say there is no

commercial1 entrepreneurship in microfinance. In fact, our research indicates that

commercial entrepreneurship pervades microfinance. One of our authors knows a

1 In juxtaposition to ‘social entrepreneurship’ Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern use the ‘commercial’ modifier for clarity.



venture capitalist who often says that he loves a business model that suits the idiom

‘selling shovels in the gold rush.’ With the growth, prospects and attention that

microfinance has generated lately it is no surprise then that shovel manufacturers abound.

Figure 2. Three Distinct groups of Entrepreneurs in microfinance.

Founder of MFI (Social Entrepreneur )

MFI Bank HQ

MFI Bank Regional or Field staff

Device Manufacturer (Entrepreneur)

Borrower (Necessity Entrepreneur)

Device Manufacturers

Peter Drucker said that, "Entrepreneurs innovate. Innovation is the specific instrument of

entrepreneurship (Drucker, 1985).” He then elaborated this parsimonious assertion with

an example that is very relevant to our inquiry:



“The American farmer had virtually no purchasing power in the early 19th century; he therefore could not buy farm machinery. There were dozens of harvesting machines on the market, but however much he might have wanted them, the farmer could not pay for them. Then one of the many harvesting machine inventors, Cyrus McCormick, invented installment buying. This enabled the farmer to pay for a harvesting machine out of his future earnings rather than out of past savings - and suddenly the farmer had 'purchasing power' to buy farm equipment…Innovation, as these examples show, does not have to be technical, does not indeed have to be a 'thing' altogether. Few technical innovations can compete in terms of impact with such social innovations as the newspaper or insurance. Installment buying literally transforms economies. Wherever introduced, it changes the economy from supply driven to demand driven, regardless all most of the productive level of the economy (which explains why installment buying is the first practice that any Marxist government coming to power immediately suppresses: as a communist it in Czechoslovakia in 1948, and again in Cuba in 1959) (Drucker, 1985:30-31).[emphasis in the original]

Device Manufacturers are Commercial Entrepreneurs

Of course microfinance is not the same thing as installment buying, per se. In both

paradigms a person borrows money to buy a device (e.g. a sewing machine), because she

lacks the cash to pay for it up front. There are three basic points of difference between

microfinance and installment buying; 1) if a device (e.g. an irrigation pump) is purchased

with a microloan, it is not demarcated as collateral for that loan, 2) credit reporting

infrastructure does not yet exist in the microlending sphere so the only ramifications for

default are social, and 3) if a device is needed it is chosen by the MFI, not the borrower.

It is also worth noting that although there are many microfinanced handicraft businesses

that do not require the purchase of any new devices, these projects may greatly benefit

from facilitating technologies (i.e. solar or battery-powered LED lighting.) Commercial

entrepreneurs large and small have been quick to observe the opportunity here, and are

approaching MFIs as a channel of distribution (See Figure 2). One industry expert we

interviewed, the former Director of Global Multi-sector Initiatives at a large computer

firm, explains:



“Now that people are trying to design and sell appropriate technologies, they are looking toward microfinance as a means of financing the acquisition of those devices. The Grameen Village Phone solution is an example.”

The Sustainable Village

Examples of the ‘shovels in this gold rush’ would include a solar oven designed by a

Silicon Valley architect, an off-the-grid refrigerator made by Amish craftsmen and a

photovoltaic panel from Siemens AG. Items like these are found in a popular field

catalog called The Sustainable Village2 – which several of the practitioners we spoke to

swear by. It is 192 pages long, and contains more than 10,000 products that might be

employed in a microfinanced business (see Figure 3). We believe that, although these

devices are used in an international development setting where they greatly improve

many borrowers’ quality of life, the entrepreneurs who make and market these devices do

not share the social motivations of MFIs. We have performed a descriptive content

analysis to help us determine whether or not these device manufacturers are social

entrepreneurs.

METHODOLOGY

Content Analysis “Content analysis is a summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that relies on the scientific method (including attention to objectivity-intersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability, validity, generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing) and is not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured or the context in which the messages are created or presented (Neuendorf, 2002: 10).” We have operationalized our search for the social entrepreneur’s central SVP by

considering the mission statement found on the ‘about us’ web page of a given device

manufacturer as a proxy. Knowing that, “in a scholarly content analysis, the variables 2 www.thesustainablevillage.com


http://www.thesustainablevillage.com/


should be linked in the form of research questions or hypotheses” we propose the

following hypothesis (Neuendorf, 2002):

H1: Device manufacturers’ ‘about us’ web pages do not describe their central social mission. Figure 3: A section of The Sustainable Village Catalog (p.28)



Research

Unfortunately The Sustainable Village catalog is not written in such a way that the

identity of the manufacturer of any given device is readily apparent. Sometimes a name

brand or a model name is woven into a product description, but this information is not

consistently provided. (See Figure 3) Hoping to catalyze our research efforts we

contacted the proprietors of The Sustainable Village catalog via email. We explained our

research agenda, and requested a list of their suppliers (or anything along those lines that

might speed this up). Predictably, they replied that they were unable to share with us a

list of their suppliers. So, we set out to build that list ourselves. A team of four

researchers read every product description in a pdf version of the catalog, looking for

keywords that through an internet search might facilitate the identification of a particular

device’s manufacturer. A few manufacturers appeared repeatedly in the catalog for

different devices, accessories, sizes, etc. Understanding that counting each SKU(stock-

keeping unit) separately would result in a bias for the larger manufacturers, we included

only unique manufacturers: A manufacturer was included on our list only the first time it

appeared, and after that was ignored. An internet search produced the ‘about us’ page

and the country of origin (from the ‘contact us’ page) for as many manufacturers as

possible. For U.S. based firms we also captured the state in which the business was

based (from the ‘contact us’ page) and determined if a business was public or private by

searching its name through finance.yahoo.com. Notably, we also observed that none of

these businesses were incorporated as a non-profit. Knowing that incorporation options

(i.e. LLC or LLP) vary from state to state we opted not to capture these businesses’ form

of incorporation. Though we did not operationalize the form of incorporation we did



think the fact that we could not find a single non-profit was something of a good

harbinger for our test of H1.

Sample Size

Following Dr. Kimberly Neuendorf’s Content Analysis Guidebook we determined that

our target sample size was n= 167. With a binomial variable (this company does or does

not describe a central social mission) that n would have afforded a 95% confidence level

with 5% error. Unfortunately our research efforts came up shy of this figure, and we

performed our analysis with an n of 130. While we do not know how many

manufacturers supply The Sustainable Village we suspect it is around 160. The thirty or

so suppliers that we could not find were either out of business, inadequately described or

totally generic. According the table on page 89 of Neuendorf’s Content Analysis

Guidebook, some of which is reproduced below, an n of 130 exceeds 96, and therefore

allows a 95% level of confidence with a 10% error.

Table 2: Target Sample Size

Sampling Error 95% Level of Confidence 99% Level of Confidence +/- 5% N=384 N=665 +/- 10% N=96 N=167

Coding

Two independent coders were hired to perform the analysis of these ‘about us’ pages.

These were highly educated people; a west coast attorney and an east coast MBA. A

copy of the codebook they received is given in Figure 4. Each coder was emailed a

spreadsheet of 80 links to analyze. Fortuitously, both coders misinterpreted our

codebook in the very same way.



Figure 4: Coding Instructions STEP ONE: You will evaluate the ‘about us’ web page of various manufacturing firms. These pages are listed in column A in the attached spreadsheet. Clicking on those links (or pasting them into a browser) will take you to the ‘about us’ page of a given company (or the next best thing if such a page does not exist). Please look only at this one page. Do not navigate around the company website that you are evaluating (as tempting as that may be). You are looking to see if the page you land on includes verbiage that suggests to you that a company is significantly driven by a social mission. We will define ‘social mission’ here as business activity that is not primarily motivated by the prospect of financial returns. Here is an example of a company that does not have a social mission on their ‘about us’ page: http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/index.html We can assume therefore that Mathworks is primarily motivated by the prospect of financial returns. An astute observer would note that Mathworks does indeed mention their commitment to a social mission - it is described on a different social mission page listed on the left navigation bar. Again I am asking you to ignore any such peripheral information, precisely because it is peripheral – it is not on the ‘about us’ page you are looking at. Since we are determining if a social mission is central to a particular business, having a social mission as an ‘extra’ does not count for the purposes of this study. Here is an example of a company whose ‘about us’ page clearly describes a central social mission: http://www.basabody.com/basa-story.html Bottom Line: If you believe that the page you are looking at describes a social mission that is central to the business you are evaluating then put a “1” in column B….if not, just enter a “0.” [Mathworks gets a 0; Basabody gets a 1] STEP TWO: A social mission could take many forms of course. Basabody’s mission is very clearly about making the women of Africa better off. Here is an example of a firm that is primarily concerned with care for the natural environment. http://www.interfaceflooring.com/default.aspx?Section=3&Sub=2 It is important to note that the simple act of manufacturing a solar panel or a windmill would not be considered evidence of being driven by a social mission that prioritizes care for the natural environment. Making such products might just be a good way to make money. We are looking at the ‘about us’ web precisely to see what it is that these firms say drives their work. If social or environmental issues are not mentioned here then we can assume they are not central to the business. Bottom Line: If the firm whose ‘about us’ page you are evaluating seems to prioritize care for the Natural Environment over other potential social agendas then enter a “1” in Column C ….if not, just enter a “0.” [Basabody ges a 0; Interface gets a 1]


http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/index.html

http://www.basabody.com/basa-story.html

http://www.interfaceflooring.com/default.aspx?Section=3&Sub=2


We had intended for our coders to first test for H1 by looking to see if the ‘about us’ web

pages that were provided to them included a central social mission and then look to see

for how many of those positives the social mission described was one that prioritized care

for the natural environment. Our codebook mislead both coders here. They coded these

two variables independently. In other words, they returned their spreadsheets with

several rows that appeared in a combination we had not imagined possible: “0” = no

social mission, and “1” = prioritization of care for the natural environment. We suspect

this unanticipated pattern was likely a product of both our poor writing and the academic

blinders we must have on. As management scholars we have bought into and contributed

to the theory that environmental or sustainable entrepreneurship is a subset of social

entrepreneurship (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Dean & McMullen, 2007). Apparently ‘normal’

people don’t think this way. For our coders these were two unrelated questions. The

result of this confusion is the happy accident of having more data. Trying our best to

think like ‘normal’ people we concluded that the column of data from this second

question would best be treated identically to the first. Because our coders thought of A)

central social mission and B) care for the natural environment as two different types of

non-financial agendas we could use either of them to test our original question

paraphrased as, “are these firms motivated by agendas other than financial rewards?”

Accordingly we modified our hypotheses as follows:

H1a: Device manufacturers’ ‘about us’ web pages do not describe their central social mission H1b: Device manufacturers’ ‘about us’ web pages do not describe their prioritization of care for the natural environment.



Intercoder Reliability

To test for intercoder reliability our two coders were both asked to code the same 33

firms. These data were input provided into the online intercoder reliability testing engine

ReCal23. The results below demonstrate excellent intercoder reliability along several

popular indices.

Table 3: Intercoder Reliability

Percent Agreement

Scott's Pi

Cohen's Kappa

Krippendorff's Alpha

N Agreements

N Disagreements

N Cases

N Decisions

Variable 1 (cols 1 & 2)

84.8% -0.082 -0.051 -0.066 28 5 33 66

Variable 2 (cols 3 & 4)

87.9% 0.431 0.436 0.44 29 4 33 66

RESULTS H1a was not rejected with only 18.46% percent of device manufacturers demonstrating a central social mission [ 95% confidence level, Confidence Interval 0.1220-0.2621] (Pezullo, 2007). H1b was not rejected with only 24.62 % percent of device manufacturers demonstrating a prioritization of care for the natural environment [ 95% confidence level, Confidence Interval 0.1749-0.3294] (Pezullo, 2007). We used Wessa’s Free Online statistics software to calculate Pearson’s product moment correlation of r=0.60 between these two variables. Those results are seen below in Table 3.

3 http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal2/


http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal2/


Table 4: Correlation

Pearson Product Moment Correlation - Ungrouped Data Statistic Variable X Variable Y Mean 0.184615384615385 0.246153846153846 Biased Variance 0.150532544378698 0.185562130177515 Biased Standard Deviation 0.387985237320569 0.430769230769231 Covariance 0.101490757304711 Correlation 0.602577588791197 Determination 0.363099750513413 T-Test 8.54244616587295 p-value (2 sided) 3.33066907387547e-14 p-value (1 sided) 1.66533453693773e-14 Degrees of Freedom 128 Number of Observations 130

Limits to Study Design

We see three limitations to our study design; possible green washing, poor website

design, and a lack of data on entrepreneurial orientation vis-à-vis firm age. First, it is

possible that some firms write things on their website that sound nice, but do not

necessarily map to their actions or true strategy. In the environmental context this is

referred to as ‘greenwashing’, and might be assumed to exist to some degree in this

population (Laufer, 2003). Second, our coders commented that awkward and unclear

website design/writing/layout often made it hard to analyze some of these sites. One

coder sent us a tongue-in-cheek email that asked, “does central social mission equal

[ugly] website?” Looking at the data now we suspect that heuristic might not be all that

far off the mark. More importantly we believe that it is possible that variations in website

design and site maps might have separated the variables we were seeking to code from

the ‘about us’ page we were evaluating. For the sake of replicability we instructed our


http://www.xycoon.com/arithmetic_mean.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/biased.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/biased1.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/covariance.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/pearson_correlation.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/coeff_of_determination.htm

http://www.xycoon.com/ttest_statistic.htm


coders not to stray from the ‘about us’ page, even in the rare even that they saw a ‘social

mission’ link on the periphery. We believe that if such a mission were central to a firm it

should be in their ‘about us’ text…but we could be wrong. Finally, we recognize that a

handful of the companies in our dataset are large established firms (i.e. Siemens AG, GE

Energy or Bosch USA). Controlling for firm age would have removed several such firms

from our sample. However, following Drucker’s simple definition of entrepreneurship,

"Entrepreneurs innovate. Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship”, and

observing the innovative nature of so many of the products in this catalog, we chose not

to exclude these firms from our study (Drucker, 1985; Kirkman, 2001; Witherden &

Tyler, 2004). A follow-on study might go further in this area, possibly checking these

large firms against a popular ‘most innovative companies’ list.

DISCUSSION

The fact that neither a central social mission nor a prioritization of care for the natural

environment was found to be prevalent on the ‘about us’ pages of these device

manufacturers’ confirms our theoretical assertion that the businesses who sell into

microfinance as a channel of distribution are not social entrepreneurs. For the most part

they are not mission driven. They do not appear to share motivations or values with the

MFIs or their donors. Practical implications of this academic distinction might inform

these manufacturer’s marketing strategies, MFIs’ vendor selection processes, and suggest

a coordinated alignment effort between vendors and MFIs who do share similar values

(Prahalad & Hammond, 2002; Emerson, 2003; Hart & Milstein, 2003, Hart, 2005;



Prahalad, 2005; Drayton, 2006; FIS Microcredito, 2006; Karlan & Valdivia, 2006;

Karnani, 2006; Drayton, 2007; Hammond, 2007; Simanis & Hart, 2008).

The non-profit heuristic

This paper utilized a content analysis built around Austin, et. al.’s SVP-centric

framework to confirm our theoretical proposition that most of the innovative businesses

that sell the devices that are used in microfinance are commercial, not social

entrepreneurs. In performing our analysis we saw also that none of these 130 firms were

incorporated as a non-profit. Although this particular data set did not therefore allow

further inquiry into the relationship between non-profit status and social

entrepreneurship, we think that it nevertheless deserves discussion. Until scholars reach a

quorum on this issue, and so long as we are just beginning to approach social

entrepreneurship with robust research design, this one heuristic must be evaluated: Is it

not correct to say that all non-profits are social entrepreneurs? Like using self-

employment as a proxy for entrepreneurship, or housing starts as an economic growth

indicator, this would certainly be a handy generalization to make. By definition non-

profits have a mission that is more important to them than profit. Does that not label

them squarely as social entrepreneurs per Austin, et. al.? Recall that, “the fundamental

purpose of social entrepreneurship is creating social value for the public good, whereas

commercial entrepreneurship aims at creating profitable operations resulting in private gain

(Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern, 2006).”



The matrix of Social Entrepreneurship

As is often the case in developing new knowledge and understanding, we believe that the

gray areas, the outliers, can be most informative here. If this heuristic were true it would

appear to work only in one direction. Non-profits must be social entrepreneurs, but the

opposite does not hold true. What about microplace.com, the eBay subsidiary that

enables regular peoples to invest in microfinance online - with a 3% return? They are

not incorporated as a 501( c ) 3? (They are part of eBay!) What about Girl Scout

cookies? They sure are tasty, and we know they are not health food. “Girl Scouting is the

leading authority on girls' healthy development, and builds girls of courage, confidence

and character, who make the world a better place (Girl Scouts, 2006).” Is selling lots of

unhealthy cookies not antithetical to this mission? Austin et. al. would have us arrange

these examples across a spectrum. “Note that the distinction between social and commercial

entrepreneurship is not dichotomous, but rather more accurately conceptualized as a continuum

ranging from purely social to purely economic (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006).” We

posit that a different shape does a much better job of handling the anomalies advanced above.

Below in Table 5 is a 2x2 matrix that we believe is more completely explanatory of the possible

combinations of profit orientation and social or commercial entrepreneurship seen in this

paper and the broader universe.

Table 5: Possible Combinations of Profit Orientation and Social Entrepreneurship SOCIAL Entrepreneurship COMMERCIAL Entrepreneurship FOR-PROFIT Microplace.com

Most device manufactures in The Sustainable Village catalog, WAL*MART, McDonald’s, ExxonMobil, GM, Pepsi, etc.

NON-PROFIT Kiva.org ‘Earned Income’ strategies for fund-raising, such as Girl Scouts selling cookies (Oster, Massarsky & Beinhacker, 2004)



SUMMARY

ET&P’s call for papers for this special issue on social entrepreneurship echoed Johanna

Mair and Ignasi Marti’s concern that, “existing studies are typically based on anecdotal

evidence or case studies….(Mair & Marti, 2006).” This perceived lack of rigor has been

a topic of discussion amongst entrepreneurship scholars for several years now. It is time

for a change. This paper is part of the cohort that will begin to vette and eventually

validate theoretical assertions in the social entrepreneurship space through the application

of more traditional, larger scale research design. In specific, this paper works to break

through (popular and academic) generalizations around microfinance and

entrepreneurship. In it we describe three distinct groups of entrepreneurs involved in

microfinance, only two of which have been discussed in the academic literature

heretofore: 1) Case studies of microfinance institutions (MFIs) and their founders are

found in the emerging social entrepreneurship literature; 2) Microfinance borrowers have

been loosely characterized as entrepreneurs in the development literature and therefore

also in the popular press; and 3) Until now, device manufacturers whose products are

purchased with microfinance loans have been completely ignored. Through a theoretical

synthesis of the entrepreneurship and microfinance literatures we explain that each of the

three groups of entrepreneurs involved in microfinance are distinct - with very different

motivations. MFIs are social entrepreneurs; Borrowers are necessity entrepreneurs; and,

as we confirm with a descriptive content analysis of a popular field apparatus catalog,

device manufacturers are commercial entrepreneurs in the main. Finally, we advance our

own 2 x 2 matrix framework that we believe more completely depicts the relationship

between an entity’s profit orientation (form of incorporation) and social entrepreneurship.



Practical implications of the academic distinctions made here might inform a

manufacturer’s marketing strategies, an MFIs’ vendor selection process, and suggest a

coordinated alignment effort between vendors and MFIs who do share similar values

(Prahalad & Hammond, 2002; Emerson, 2003; Hart & Milstein, 2003, Hart, 2005;

Prahalad, 2005; Drayton, 2006; FIS Microcredito, 2006; Karlan & Valdivia, 2006;

Karnani, 2006; Drayton, 2007; Hammond, 2007; Simanis & Hart, 2008). .

Intellectually, we believe this paper contributes to the field of entrepreneurship research

both in its theoretical developments around the profit orientation and in its pioneering

application of a research methodology that transcends anecdotes. Personally, we hope

that our extrication of the three very different types of entrepreneurs found in

microfinance will improve scholars’ understanding of the increasingly important social

phenomenon that is microfinance, thereby enhancing their ability to consult to improve

the performance of these agents. Lives and livelihoods hang in the balance.



REFERENCES

Accion 2008. Accion’s Mission, http://www.accion.org/Page.aspx?pid=501, accessed Dec. 31, 2008

Adeoti,. J. 2000. Small enterprise promotion and sustainable development: An attempt at integration, Journal of Entrepreneurial Development, 5 (1), 57-71.

Akula, V. 2007 CEO of SKS Mircrofinance India Keynote Presentation at Microfinance Chicago on May 25, 2007

Aldrich, H. E. 1999. Organizations Evolving, London: Sage Publications

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1-22.

BYU Broadcasting 2007. “Small Fortunes: Microcredit and the Future of Poverty” DVD available from www.small-fortunes.com

Basu, A., Blavy, R., and Yulek, M., 2004, Microfinance in Africa: Experience and Lessons from Selected African Countries, IMF Working Paper

Baue, W. 2006. “Top Five Socially Responsible Investing Stories of 2005” posted to http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1898.html on January 5th, 2006. Accessed Dec. 31st, 2008.

Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 893-921.

Brennan, M. 2007. “Sequoia Invests $11.5 Million in Microfinance Fund” posted to http://www.cnbc.com/id/17844093 on March 29, 2007. Accessed Dec. 31st, 2008

Callaghan, I., 2007, Microfinance- On the Road to Capital Markets, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Winter 2007, pp.115-125

Casson, M. 1982. The Entrepreneur. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, pp. 23-38; 364-383.

Chakrabarti, R., 2003, The Indian Microfinance Experience – Accomplishments and Challenges, Unpublished Working Paper

Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 29-49.

Compartamos 2008. Compartamos’s Philosphy, http://www.compartamos.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gADwNLcw93IwP_UHcXAyNjR6cgIy9TY29jM_1wkA6zeAMcwN


http://www.accion.org/Page.aspx?pid=501

http://www.small-fortunes.com/

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1898.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/17844093%20on%20March%2029

http://www.compartamos.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gADwNLcw93IwP_UHcXAyNjR6cgIy9TY29jM_1wkA6zeAMcwNFA388jPzdVvyA7rxwAsAPlcQ!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfUEgwOTdIRzIwT1VHRDAyM0FCUjJKNTNLSjM!/?mosHist=1



FA388jPzdVvyA7rxwAsAPlcQ!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfUEgwOTdIRzIwT1VHRDAyM0FCUjJKNTNLSjM!/?mosHist=1, accessed Dec. 31, 2008

Damast, A. 2008. “$100 Million for 10,000 Women: Goldman Sachs will fund management education for women in developing nations, to help them start and expand their own businesses” posted to http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2008/bs2008035_271887.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_business+schools March 5th, 2008. Accessed Dec. 31st, 2008.

Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 50-76.

Drayton, W., 2007, Ashoka’s Theory of Change, Ashoka Innovators for the Public, www.ssrn.com/abstract=980092

Drayton, W., 2006, Everyone a Changemaker: Social Entrepreneurship’s Ultimate Goal, Ashoka Innovators for the Public, www.ssrn.com/abstract=980722

Drucker, Peter (1985). Ch.2 Purposeful Innovation and the Seven Sources for Innovative Opportunity in Innovation and Entrepreneurship New York, NY: Harer & Row

Emerson, J., 2003, Where Money Meets Mission: Breaking Down the Firewall Between Foundation Investments and Programming, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2003, pp. 37-47

Estay, C., 2003, Very Small Businesses and Economic Development: From Support of Entrepreneurship to Long Lasting Structures, Unpublished

Fairbourne, J., Gibson, S.W., and Dyer, W.G. Eds., 2007, Microfranchsing: Creating Wealth at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham

Ferro-Luzzi, G., and Weber, S., 2006, Measuring the Performance of Microfinance Institutions, Working Paper, HEG (Haute Ecole de gestion de Geneve)

FINCA 2008. Misision & Vision, http://www.villagebanking.org/site/c.erKPI2PCIoE/b.2603941/k.BBB2/Mission_and_Vision.htm, accessed Dec. 31, 2008.

FIS Microcredito Social Investment Fund, 2006, Solar FIS Project, Argentina

Gallagher, T., 2007, Microfinance and Protection of the Natural Environment, Global News: The PlaNet Finance Network Newsletter, April, 2007, p.3




http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2008/bs2008035_271887.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_business+schools

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2008/bs2008035_271887.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_business+schools

http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=980092

http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=980722

http://www.villagebanking.org/site/c.erKPI2PCIoE/b.2603941/k.BBB2/Mission_and_Vision.htm

http://www.villagebanking.org/site/c.erKPI2PCIoE/b.2603941/k.BBB2/Mission_and_Vision.htm


Gine, X., et. al., 2006, Microfinance Games, Yale University Economic Growth center Discussion Paper No. 936

Girl Scouts, 2006. http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2006/historic_transformation.asp Accessed Dec. 31, 2008

Grameen Foundation 2008. Who We Are, http://www.grameenfoundation.org/who_we_are/, accessed Dec. 31, 2008.

Hammond, A., et.al., The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid, 2007, World Resources Institute: Washington, DC

Hart, Stuart L., 2005, Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World’s Most Difficult Problems, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River

Hart, S.L., and Milstein, M.B., 2003, Creating Sustainable Value, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, No. 2

Hoque, Serajul(2004)'Micro-credit and the reduction of poverty in Bangladesh',Journal of Contemporary Asia,34:1,21 — 32

Karlan, D., and Valdivia, M., 2006, Teaching Entrepreneurship: Impact of Business Training on Microfinance Clients and Institutions, Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper

Karnani, A. 2006, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid a Mirage: How the Private Sector can Help Alleviate Poverty, Ross School of Business Working paper Series, Working Paper No. 1035

Katz, R. 2008. “Compartamos Founders on its IPO” posted July 29, 2008 to http://www.nextbillion.net/newsroom/2008/07/09/compartamos-founders-on-its-ipo Accessed Dec. 31, 2008.

Kirkman, G.S., 2001, Out of the Labs and Into the Developing World: using appropriate technologies to promote truly global internet diffusion, Journal of Human Development, Vol.2, No.2, pp.191-237

Kiva 2005. http://www.kiva.org/about/release_20051012 accessed Dec. 31, 2008

Knight, F. H. 1957 [1921]. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. 8th edition. New York: Kelley and Millman, Inc.

Laufer, E. 2003. Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, No.3, pp. 253-261

Mair, Johanna, & Marti, Ignasi, 2006, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight, Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44


http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2006/historic_transformation.asp

http://www.grameenfoundation.org/who_we_are/

http://www.nextbillion.net/newsroom/2008/07/09/compartamos-founders-on-its-ipo

http://www.kiva.org/about/release_20051012%20accessed%20Dec.%2031


Morduch, J., 1999, The Microfinance Promise, The Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, No.4, pp. 1569-1614

Morduch, J., 2000, The Microfinance Schism, World Development, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 617-629

Nelson, E. 2007. MICROCAPITAL STORY: Taking Stock of Global Microfinance Statistics on Global Assets and Customers, from http://www.microcapital.org/microcapital-story-taking-stock-of-global-microfinance-statistics-on-global-assets-and-customers/, accessed September 21, 2008

Neuendorf, K.A., 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Oster, S.M., Massarsky, Massarsky, C.W., & Beinhacker, S.L., Eds. 2004. “Generating and Sustaining Nonprofit Earned IncomeA Guide to Successful Enterprise Strategies, New Haven: Jossey-Bass

Panjwani, A., and Cecelski, E., 2003. Major Activities and Actors in Energy, Poverty and Gender, The World Bank: Washington, DC

Pezullo, J. 2007. Exact Binomial and Poisson Confidence Intervals posted to http://statpages.org/confint.html Accessed Dec. 31st, 2008.

Prahalad, C.K. 2005, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits, Wharton School Publishing: Upper Saddle River, NJ

Prahalad, C.K., and Hammond, A., 2002, What Works: Serving the Poor, Profitably, Digital Dividend, World Resources Institute

Reynolds, P.D., 2002, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: GEM 2001 Summary Report

SKS India, 2008. About SKS – Background, http://sksindia.com/background.htm, accessed Dec 31, 2008.

Sarasvathy, S, Simon, H.A., and Lave, L. (1998) Perceiving and managing business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Vol.33, pp. 207-225

Schumpeter, J. A. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, NY: Harper and Row.

Sear, J. and Simon, D., 1999, Indigenous Microcredit and Enterprise Establishment: A Sri-Lankan Case Study, Unpublished Working Paper

Sequoia Capital 2008. http://www.sequoiacap.com/company/sks-microfinance/ accessed Dec. 31st, 2008


http://www.microcapital.org/microcapital-story-taking-stock-of-global-microfinance-statistics-on-global-assets-and-customers/

http://www.microcapital.org/microcapital-story-taking-stock-of-global-microfinance-statistics-on-global-assets-and-customers/

http://statpages.org/confint.html

http://sksindia.com/background.htm

http://www.sequoiacap.com/company/sks-microfinance/


Simanis, E. and Hart, S., 2008, The Base of the Pyramid Protocol: Toward Next Generation BoP Strategy, 2nd Ed., Cornell University: Ithaca

Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, J.C. (1991). A new entrepreneurial paradigm. In A. Etzioni & P. Lawrence (Eds), Socio-economics: Toward a new synthesis (pp. 185–208). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Sun Microsystems 2007. Commercial Viability of the Microfinance Market: White Paper.

Sustainable Village, Sustainable Village Catalog, Boulder, CO, Vol. 1, No. 1

Triodos Bank 2008. http://www.triodos.com/com/international_funds/micro_finance_and_fair_trade/general/?lang= Accessed Dec. 31, 2008.

Unitus, 2008. Mission, http://www.unitus.com/about-us/mission, accessed Dec. 31, 2008.

Venkataraman, S. 1997. The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor's Perspective. In J. Katz, & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wessa, P. 2008. Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.1.23-r3, URL http://www.wessa.net/

Witherden, M.S., and Tyler, G.W., 2004. New Technology for Sustainable Rural Development, Domestic Use of Energy conference, Durban Institute of Technology, Durban, South Africa

Yunus, M., 2003. Banker to the Poor, PublicAffairs: New York

Yunus, M., 2007. Creating a World Without Poverty, PublicAffairs: New York


http://www.triodos.com/com/international_funds/micro_finance_and_fair_trade/general/?lang

http://www.triodos.com/com/international_funds/micro_finance_and_fair_trade/general/?lang

http://www.unitus.com/about-us/mission

http://www.wessa.net/

microfinance: social entrepreneurship? commercial entrepreneurship? or both?

Documents