Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Response
To
address
the
mining-related
issues,
several
environmental
safeguards
and
social
development
programs
have
been
installed,
including
the
97
Environmental
Protection
and
Enhancement
Programs
(EPEPs),
23
Final
Mine
Rehabilitation
and/or
Decommissioning
Program
(FMR/DP),
387
Social
Development
Management
Programs
(SDMPs).
Mining
companies
have
committed
to
adopt
environmental
and
social
programs,
among
them
are
the
following:
(National
Economic
and
Development
Authority,
2011)
1. Implementation
of
some
400
approved
five-year
SDMPs
for
the
host
and
neighboring
communities
amounting
to
PhP1.89
billion
benefitting
over
700
barangays
nationwide;
2. Implementation
of
environmental
management
and
protection
activities
through
the
EPEP
amounting
to
PhP25
billion
and
for
mine
closure
through
the
FMR/DP
worth
PhP600
million;
3. Mining
forest
program
with
79
participating
companies
reforesting
or
afforesting
10,319
hectares
of
mine
affected
and
non-mining
disturbed
areas
with
9.3
million
seedlings;
and
4. Payment
of
royalties
to
indigenous
peoples
of
at
least
PhP330
million
between
2007-2009
Note
that
the
above
estimates
of
cost
of
investment
in
programs
that
are
intended
to
benefit
the
communities
are
way
below
the
average
social
cost
brought
about
by
each
typhoon
at
Php6.3
billion.
This
estimate
based
on
historical
figures
does
not
include
yet
other
externalities
such
as
health
disorders
and
diseases
resulting
from
mining
wastes.
As
for
forestlands,
only
60
percent
of
the
total
target
of
130,000
hectares
or
approximately
78,000
hectares
was
reforested
during
the
period
2004-2010.
As
of
2010,
the
government
(accounting
for
70
percent)
and
nongovernment
sectors
(30
percent)
reforested
a
total
of
over
1.9
million
hectares.
(National
Economic
and
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 15 of 43
Development Authority, 2011) This area represents only 18.6 percent of the total deforested land of the country.
Page 16 of 43
Taylor and Carandang (2010) proposed to address the environmental issues through the following: making local government units (LGUs) key implementers, creation of inter-agency committee, partnering with universities as monitoring agents, implementation of effective land use, and public-private partnership. While these proposals are local government-centric, Magno (2006), on the other hand, recognized that local participation contributes to effective environmental management, emphasizing the need for strong stakeholder (LGU-Civil Society Organizations [CSO]-Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR]) partnership. His proposition, which he proved in four city cases, is based on the principle that citizens, as represented by the CSOs, are considered not simply as voters, volunteers, and consumers; they are seen as problem solvers and co- producers of public goods (Boyte, 2005 in Magno, 2006). This paper takes the stand of Magno: that solutions to environmental concerns have to center on local participation, and not on the LGUs, albeit not discounting the role of government in the entire sustainable development strategy.
Page 17 of 43
There are three general subsectors of CSOs: NGOs, Peoples Organizations (POs), and the cooperatives (Figure 4). Figure 4: Major CSO Subsectors NGOs POs Provision of wide Promotion of public range of services interest and provision of public goods and services Organizations, Members on communities, voluntary basis individuals Middle-class led or Leadership from managed, with fullwithin time staff complement None Members Non-profit Non-profit Estimates range from Estimated at 100,000 15,000-30,000 to primary POs and 300 34,000-68,000 secondary POs
Function
Cooperatives Provision of public goods and services Members on voluntary basis Leadership from within Members For-profit 18,484*
Based on Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations by Abao, 2011 *From Cooperative Development Authority, 2010
NGOs
While
majority
of
the
NGOs
in
the
country
are
engaged
in
education,
training
and
human
resource
development,
and
community
development,
still
a
significant
number
is
also
engaged
in
sustainable
development
and
environmental
protection.
(Tuano,
Philippine
Non-Government
Organizations
(NGOs):
Contributions,
Capacities,
Challenges,
2011)
In
NGO
reports,
they
claimed
that
they
are
most
competent
in
areas
involving
deepening
of
knowledge
and
changing
the
orientation
of
individuals,
strengthening
organizational
capacities
of
groups,
and
pushing
for
policy
changes.
(Tuano,
Philippine
Non-Government
Organizations
(NGOs):
Contributions,
Capacities,
Challenges,
2011)
Unsurprisingly,
Serrano
(1994,
in
Tuano)
cited
two
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 18 of 43
characteristics of NGOs in the Philippines that distinguish them from others in Asia: 1) many NGOs have advocacy and lobbying components working at both the national and local government levels and in both legislative and executive levels; in fact, in many instances, the NGOs have won policy success; and 2) there are numerous networks and associations that have been established to coordinate the work of non-governmental groups. Despite these strengths of the NGOs, in the past decade or so those with community organizing work have decreased in number while those with social enterprise components increased; likewise, the number of corporate foundations has also increased over the same period. That the development NGOs are concentrated in large, urban centerswith high correlation between NGO density and average family income in the regionshows that the NGOs are created mainly by the middle class. (Tuano, Philippine Non- Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) Although transportation and communication infrastructures that enhance efficiency of operations may explain this phenomenon (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011), add to that banking and other enterprise support services, still, it runs counter to the theorists proposition: that the NGOs, because they work with the grassroots, would know the appropriate interventions better, use local resources more, and encourage participative process more effectively. Tuano (2011) recognized the need for the NGOs to assess their program and project impacts and outcomes. Assessment reports of the NGOs either focus on organizational status (e.g. employment generation, women in management) or indicate economic performance, which is very growth-led in nature and not transformation-led as espoused by alternative development. In the absence of impact assessments, the public has a general perception that the NGOs have limited
Page 19 of 43
success in their economic projects due to their choice of intervention as well as poor targeting strategies. Finally, the NGOs are generally dependent on the declining volume of grant funding, especially from abroad. (Tuano, A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges, 2011) This condition threatens not only the institutional sustainability of NGOs but also their capacity to facilitate endogenous development, as external fund sources can always make demands that may not necessarily be according to the needs of the local communities. As pointed out by Willis (2005), dependence on external assistance also means that many projects are more likely to react to the requirements and favored sectors of donors than to the needs of the local people. The above critique of the NGOs only shows that although they are at the forefront of alternative development, they do not necessarily serve best its principles. The NGOs in the country that focus on environment as their major thrust are only but a few; of these 14 identified NGOs, 4 organizations even specialize in legal assistance or policy advocacy (as opposed to program implementation; see Annex). As pointed out by the alternative development theorists, not all NGOs are equipped to be agents of alternative development, and consequently, of sustainable development. Those who are capable may very well represent Kortens voluntary organizations that pursue a social mission based on shared values; Friedmanns popular organizations that are non-profit, non-political groups from within the civil society of the poor, mostly funded by the membership dues; and Bebbington and Bebbingtons informal civil society groups that emerged from bottom up, are more inclusive, and are thus more often viewed as the source of alternative development.
Page 20 of 43
POs
Peoples
Organizations
(POs)
are
usually
defined
as
membership-based
organizations
formed
largely
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
function
as
community-sector
or
issue-based
groups
at
the
grassroots.
The
POs
in
the
Philippines
comprise
the
14
basic
sectors
identified
as
marginalized
groups
(i.e.
farmers,
workers,
women,
urban
poor,
and
social
sectors)
and
undertake
various
activities
such
as
provision
of
basic
services
(health,
education
and
nutrition,
water
and
sanitation),
environmental
services,
and
participation
in
local
government
affairs.
(Tuano,
A
Review
of
the
People's
Organizations
Sector:
The
Necessity
of
Strengthening
Partnerships
and
Exchanges,
2011)
The
strength
of
the
POs
lies
in
their
organizational
leadership
that
represents
well
the
concerns
of
the
members
in
the
local
and
national
councils,
as
well
as
in
international
agencies
such
as
the
United
Nations.
They
have
also
been
successful
in
influencing
the
crafting
of
laws
and
policies
that
benefit
their
served
sectors,
among
them
the
legislation
in
agrarian
reform,
urban
land
reform
and
socialized
housing,
fisheries
and
aquatic
reform,
and
labor
rights
and
welfare.
There
have
also
been
cases
of
successful
program
implementation
for
poverty
reduction
and
the
POs
attribute
them
to
community
mobilization
prior
to
implementation
itself,
support
to
the
PO
leaders
in
terms
of
moral
and
resources,
and
organizational
skills.
Similar
to
the
NGOs,
the
POs
are
able
to
provide
the
basic
needs
of
the
communities
they
serve
as
well
as
environmental
protection/management.
Likewise,
the
POs
are
also
able
to
represent
their
sectors
in
the
political
community
such
that
a
number
of
laws
and
policies
have
been
passed
as
a
result
of
the
PO
efforts.
That
the
POs
are
serving
the
14
marginalized
sectors
in
the
country
is
an
indicator
of
their
ability
to
reach
the
poor
and
thus
their
serving
their
raison
d'tre.
This
condition
also
facilitates
the
participative
and
endogenous
process
involved
in
alternative
development.
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 21 of 43
However,
as
in
the
case
of
the
NGOs,
the
POs
also
need
to
assess
their
programs
in
terms
of
outcomes
and
impact
to
the
beneficiaries,
beyond
the
passage
of
laws
and
policies.
Perhaps,
even
the
impact
of
these
laws
and
policies
should
be
examined
to
determine
how
and
to
what
extent
the
local
communities
benefitted
from
them.
The
POs,
like
the
NGOs
but
perhaps
in
a
lesser
degree,
are
also
experiencing
financial
constraints,
as
more
resources
are
allocated
to
service
provision
and
the
need
for
organization
capacity
building
de-emphasized.
At
the
present,
many
organizations
rely
on
their
internally
generated
funds,
including
membership
and
service
fees
(which
are
not
applicable
in
most
NGOs).
(Tuano,
A
Review
of
the
People's
Organizations
Sector:
The
Necessity
of
Strengthening
Partnerships
and
Exchanges,
2011)
According
to
the
Philippine
Cooperative
Code
of
2008,
a
cooperative
is
an
autonomous
and
duly
registered
association
of
persons,
with
a
common
bond
of
interest,
who
have
voluntarily
joined
together
to
achieve
their
social,
economic,
and
cultural
needs
and
aspirations
by
making
equitable
contributions
to
the
capital
required,
patronizing
their
products
and
services
and
accepting
a
fair
share
of
the
risks
and
benefits
of
the
undertaking
in
accordance
with
universally
accepted
cooperative
principles.
(RA
9520,
Ch.
1,
Art.
3)
As
of
2010,
the
cooperative
sector
had
an
asset
base
worth
Php158
billion
and
a
membership
of
over
7
million.
(Mina,
2011)
Cooperatives
consider
their
financial
assets
and
political
representation
their
primary
strength.
Four
of
the
five
party-list
organizations
supported
by
cooperatives
consistently
won
in
the
past
four
elections.
Among
the
laws
passed
included
the
cooperative
code
in
2008,
expansion
of
tax
exemption
incentives
for
cooperatives,
Comprehensive
Agrarian
Reform
Program
Extension
with
Reforms
Act,
and
strengthening
of
crop
insurance
program.
(Mina,
2011)
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 22 of 43
Cooperatives
Another
is
the
asset
base
or
financial
strength
of
cooperatives,
which
set
it
apart
from
the
NGOs
and
POs
whose
sustainability
becomes
an
issue
with
the
dwindling
funds
from
donors
here
and
abroad.
However,
the
cooperatives
financial
strength
could
very
well
be
its
weakness.
As
they
say,
rich
cooperatives
with
poor
members.
One
wonders
where
in
the
economy
the
billion-peso
worth
of
asset
lies.
Some
people
defended
that
although
the
cooperatives
become
rich
and
the
members
remain
poor,
the
organization
is
not
amiss
in
using
its
surplus
to
expand
and
reach
out
to
more
poor
members
of
the
community.
(Mina,
2011)
Cooperatives
are
also
criticized
for
not
attracting
the
poorest
members
of
the
communityfor
one,
the
membership
fee
and
capital
build-up
required
readily
exclude
the
poor
from
the
organization.
According
to
Mina
(2011),
while
it
is
true
that
cooperatives
are
not
successful
in
attracting
the
D-E
households,
it
is
because
(they)
require
a
different
strategy
for
poverty
alleviation.
Some
quarters
also
claim,
albeit
without
figures
or
studies,
that
many
cooperatives
are
cooperatives
only
in
name,
and
not
in
practice.
Like
the
NGOs
and
POs,
cooperatives
have
weak
documentation,
which
include
impact
assessment
of
their
programs.
Thus,
there
is
no
established
evidence
yet
showing
how
cooperatives
have
contributed
to
development.
Although
the
membership
has
been
increasing
(peaking
at
5
million
in
2003),
there
is
no
guarantee
that
the
members
belong
to
the
targeted
marginalized
members
of
the
communities.
Challenges
and
Limitations
of
the
Civil
Society
Organizations
The
assessment
of
the
civil
society
subsectors
often
focus
on
institutional
capacity
rather
than
on
their
outcomes
and
impacts.
From
these
assessment
reports,
common
concerns
among
these
organizations
have
been
identified.
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 23 of 43
First is the issue of sustainability, with the organizations relative dependence on external sources of funds and limited capacity to generate their own income. Sustainability in terms of institutionsuccession of leaders and attraction of members, who are at present mostly on voluntary basisis also an issue. It is not surprising to see that some NGOs have ceased operations or remained idle, as indicated by their websites that have not been updated for years. Second concern is governance. Many organizations are driven by the executive directors, while the board is perceived to be simply rubber stamps. Finally, these organizations recognize their need to build their capacities, specifically in the area of advocacy, lobbying, media relations, public relations, and research; fundraising, personnel, and governance. (Abao, 2011) The abovementioned needs of the CSOs are apparent indicators of their mindsets fundraising (external dependence) instead of income-generation (internal generation of funds or financial independence), lobbying and public relations (political) instead of socio-economic innovations, advocacy and research instead of impact monitoring and measurement.
The
concept
of
social
entrepreneurship
came
about
in
the
1990s
and
gained
popularity
beginning
the
2000s.
The
literature
presents
a
vast
array
of
definitions
and
descriptions
of
social
enterprises
and
social
entrepreneurship.
One
of
the
ways
of
defining
social
entrepreneurship
is
this:
a
creative
process
that
involves
ideas
generated,
propagated,
and
operationalized
by
groups,
networks,
and
formal
and
informal
organizations
(Nicholls
and
Young,
2008
in
Vickers,
2010).
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 24 of 43
According
to
Nicholls
(2006),
the
general
goals
of
social
enterprises
include
the
provision
of
goods
and
services,
which
the
market
or
public
sector
is
either
unwilling
or
unable
to
provide;
development
of
skills;
creation
of
employment;
and
social
integration
of
the
excluded.
Among
the
specific
activities
of
social
enterprises
are
poverty
alleviation
through
empowerment,
such
as
the
microfinance
movement;
health
care;
education
and
training,
including
widening
of
participation
and
the
democratization
of
knowledge
transfer;
environmental
preservation
and
sustainable
development;
community
regeneration;
and
advocacy
and
campaigning,
such
as
fair
trade
and
human
rights
promotion.
(Nicholls,
2006)
Because
of
these
functions,
social
enterprises
have
been
recognized
to
be
a
vital
source
of
new
business
approaches
to
fair
trade,
social
inclusion,
community
regeneration,
creating
jobs
for
those
most
marginalized
in
labor
market,
and
environmental
sustainability.
(Leadbeater,
2007)
For
Wong
and
Li
(2007),
the
activities
of
social
enterprises
include
offering
social
or
environmental
goods
and
services
(such
as
childcare
and
recycling);
trading
to
provide
social
or
environmental
goods
or
services
(such
as
the
trading
arms
of
some
charities);
and
using
processes
or
ways
of
working
that
have
a
significant
social
benefit
(such
as
co- operatives,
social
firms
and
fair
trade
organizations)
In
practice,
however,
some
social
enterprises
adopt
less
than
ideal
practices,
mimicking
the
usual
for-profit
business
enterprises.
Thus,
it
is
important
to
investigate
the
motivations,
ideas,
actions,
and
experiences
of
the
people
involved
in
entrepreneurial
processes
and
the
context
in
which
they
are
operating
as
well
as
the
organizational
forms
involved.
(Vickers,
2010)
Unlike
in
other
countries,
social
enterprises
in
the
Philippines
cannot
be
distinguished
from
other
organizational
forms,
as
there
is
no
formal
mechanism
yet
to
provide
them
with
a
distinct
legal
entityoften
they
come
in
the
form
of
a
non- profit
organization
or
a
regular
business
enterprise
or
corporation.
Thus,
given
the
social
enterprises
current
state,
they
can
only
be
identified
through
the
process
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 25 of 43
proposed by Vickers (2010); even their numbers in the country cannot be ascertained yet. Dacanay (2011) estimated that there are 30,000 social enterprises (with the poor as primary stakeholders) in the Philippines, which include some 500 microfinance institutions.
Page 26 of 43
Source:
Seelos
and
Mair,
2004
The authors explained that entrepreneurial efforts target three distinct levels: 1) individuals (provision of basic social needs); 2) large communities (establishment of structures and capacities to build sustainable communities); and 3) future generations (ensuring minimum constraints to meet their own needs). Such framework can facilitate identification of successful models that need to be supported or may be linked for replication and creation of a virtuous cycle. (Seelos & Mair, 2004) The framework also shows how the concept of social enterprises support of the principles of alternative development: it addresses the basic needs, provides structures for empowerment, and is sustainable in more ways than one. However, just as not all NGOs are equipped to be agents of sustainable development, so are social enterprises. Dacanay (2011) proposed another typology of social enterprises, according to their relationship with the poor or the community, using an expanded stakeholder theory: control model social enterprise treats the community as passive beneficiaries of their products and services, using a top-down approach collaboration model social enterprise engages in transactions with the community as suppliers, customers, and/or business partners
Page 27 of 43
empowerment model social enterprise enables or empowers the community to transform their lives, using a bottom-up approach The social enterprises using empowerment model, and to some extent those using collaboration model, are in the best position to influence the communities they work with toward sustainable development.
Tilly and Young (2009), recognizing the place of entrepreneurship in the ecological modernization theory, argued that entrepreneurs have the ideal characteristics required to experiment, take risks, and put into practice these elements of the model and move towards sustainability entrepreneurship. Hence, entrepreneurs should not only be considered as contributors in a successful economy, but the driving force of a sustainable society. According to Boyd, et. al. (2009) hybrid organizations such as social enterprises present important new model for combining environmental and financial sustainability which they see as being able to transcend the limitations of traditional nonprofits, notably their dependence on unreliable sources of donor funding. They argued that hybrid organizations might ultimately prove more effective than traditional for-profit or nonprofit organizations, notwithstanding the limits to their speed of growth and scale of impact, particularly for those organizations that are more place- or community-based. Among the social enterprises key features, which could potentially address the failure factors cited earlier, are the following: (Boyd, Henning, Reyna, Wang, & Welch, 2009) Capacity to develop innovative products and services with environmental features in niche and hard-to-reach markets, rarely competing on price;
Page 28 of 43
Their
utilization
of
business
practices
to
integrate
values
(particularly
in
relation
to
environmental
stewardship)
and
financial
viability;
Nurturing
uncommonly
close
personal
connections
with
suppliers,
producers
and
customers,
also
encouraging
shared
authority
rather
than
top-down
leadership,
with
an
emphasis
on
transformational
or
participative
leadership
styles;
Exhibiting
patience
amongst
all
stakeholders,
both
financial
and
non- financial,
as
a
pre-requisite
for
the
achievement
of
dual-minded
missions
across
generations;
Exhibiting
a
limit
to
growth
rate
(and
profitability),
given
the
challenge
for
hybrids
to
scale
their
business
while
balancing
mission/values
and
profit
goals.
Social
enterprises
showcase
relative
comparative
advantages
over
other
sectors
in
terms
of
input
mobilization
(better
than
CSOs),
innovations
(better
than
both
business
and
state),
social
capital,
cohesion,
and
common
purpose
(better
than
the
three
other
sectors),
and
the
ability
to
deal
with
systemic
changes
required
in
areas
such
climate
change,
among
other
things.
(Mulgan,
2006)
They
are
also
acknowledged
for
their
stable,
continuous,
and
autonomous
production;
minimization
of
agency
problems
and
opportunistic
behavior;
proximity
to
consumers
and
community;
and
effective
internal
organizations
(Bacchiega
&
Borzaga,
2001).
The
participatory
nature
of
social
enterprises
present
distinctive
advantage
in
its
capacity
to
engage
stakeholders
in
the
design
and
delivery
of
services,
contribute
non-monetary
resources,
identify
gaps
in
service
provision,
and
pioneer
new
services
leading
to
social
cohesion.
They
also
facilitate
social
inclusion
by
combining
training
and
skills
development
with
the
business
or
trading
operations
(Organisation
for
Economic
Co-operation
and
Development
and
Local
Economic
and
Employment
Development
Programme).
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 29 of 43
In
the
UK,
for
example,
policy
makers
have
supported
the
strong
role
of
social
enterprises
particularly
in
addressing
environmental
issues
while
also
addressing
social
objectives
of
the
local
communities.
The
social
enterprises
specific
areas
of
intervention
include
waste
management
and
recycling,
housing
(including
water
and
sanitation),
transport,
and
other
regeneration-
or
resource
recovery-related
activities.
Thus,
the
potential
of
social
and
hybrid
enterprises
and
their
claims
that
they
represent
alternative
organizational
models
for
balancing
social,
environmental,
and
economic
aims
needs
to
be
considered
(Thompson
and
Doherty,
2006;
Amin,
2009;
Boyd,
et.al.
2009;
Murray,
2009
in
Vickers,
2010).
Further,
social
enterprises
are
recognized
to
potentially
possess
a
comparative
advantage
in
operationalizing
alternative
technology
for
renewable
energysmall- scale
and
community-basedover
other
enterprises.
(Cato
et.
al.,
2008;
Van
der
Horst,
2008;
Walker
et.
al.,
2007;
Walker
and
Devine-Wright,
2008;
also
Patterson,
2007;
Allen
et.al.,
2008;
Smith,
2007
in
Vickers,
2010)
The
table
below
summarizes
the
features
of
social
enterprises
vis--vis
other
CSOs:
Dimensions NGO Alternative Development Principles Local participation/ Usually low endogeneity Input mobilization/ self-reliance Meets basic needs Low largely donor dependent Depends on the thrust of the organization PO High Medium mix of donation and income generation Depends on the thrust of the organization Cooperative Depends on the nature of cooperatives High for the large cooperatives; Low for smaller ones Depends on the thrust of the organization No record Depends on the nature of cooperatives Depends on the nature of cooperatives Low due to frequent election Social Enterprise Depends on the type of social enterprise High Yes usually by promoting livelihood and economic growth High Depends on the type of social enterprise High
Other Key Factors to Successful Sustainable Development Programs Innovations No record No record Social capital Low to Medium High middle-class driven Managerial capacity reporting, process documenting, impact monitoring Institutional sustainability / succession planning Low Low
Low
High
Page 30 of 43
In terms of policy administration process, the characteristics of the appropriate types of social enterprises cited above can help address the implementation issues and some of the review and assessment weaknesses (in green highlight in this figure): In the Philippines, the boundaries of these organizations are not neatly delineated just as some POs are also cooperatives, some social enterprises also take the form of NGOs and cooperatives. No mapping of social enterprises has been done yet although there are a few who have gained the attention of the public, both nationally and globally. Among them are the following: Figaro Coffee Companya for-profit corporation bringing locally grown coffee to the mainstream market to create better business for the coffee farmers (http://www.figarocoffee.com/about3.php) Catholic Relief Servicean NGO that aims to lift small-scale farmers from poverty by linking them with more profitable markets (http://crs.org/countries/philippines). For example, it trained the onion farmers in Nueva Ecija on how to grow their produce and manage their organization so they could serve the needs of Jollibee Foods Corporation. MicroVenturesa for-profit corporation that aims to become the partners of microenterprises by leveraging on microfinance (http://www.hapinoy.com/about_storeprogram.html); its flagship program is Hapinoy, which provides goods at lower prices, training, and business advisory to sari-sari stores.
Page 31 of 43
Philippine Center for Entrepreneurshipan NGO that, through its advocacy in GoNegosyo, forges partnerships with business corporations and entrepreneurs, academic institutions, non-government organizations (including business chambers and professional organizations), microfinance institutions, government agencies, and local government units to alleviate poverty through entrepreneurship (http://www.gonegosyo.net/about-us). The list of social enterprises in the country also includes the 500 or so microfinance institutions that provide capital to the communities, training them, and linking them to the distribution channels to get their products moving. These microfinance institutions also take the form of NGOs, cooperatives, and rural and thrift banks. Some social enterprises have articulated environment-related thrust in their pursuit of triple bottom line: profit, social and economic development, and environmental management. Examples of this kind of social enterprises are the following: Rags2Richesfor-profit corporation helping the communities of mothers transform and market waste clothing materials into rugs, bags, and designers accessories; its business is based on eco-ethical philosophy (http://rags2riches.ph/about-us/) ECHOstorefor-profit company assisting the communities in the design, production, and marketing of local products to the mainstream distribution channels (http://echostore.ph/whatweare.asp) Gifts&Gracesa fair trade organization that supports marginalized communities by assisting them in product development, marketing, and enterprise management (http://echostore.ph/whatweare.asp); it has a going green product category that uses recycled materials EcoIngenuitythe for-profit organization behind Jacinto&Lirio brand, a line of bags that use water hyacinth as raw materials. The company promotes ethically and sustainably produced items from indigenous materials. (http://www.jacintoandlirio.com/)
Page 32 of 43
Binalot Fiesta Foodsa for-profit food corporation that promotes Filipino culture and sustains the environment through quick service restaurant. The store chain uses banana leaves as substitute to the non-biodegradable styrofoam boxes and hence, in the process, creates livelihood for banana-growing communities. (http://www.binalot.com/index.php/about/) Many microfinance institutions, particularly those operating at the national and regional levels, have engaged in business development services that help the microfinance borrowers in product development, among other functions. Some of them in fact have been promoting sustainable development by encouraging the micro manufacturers and micro food producers and vendors to refrain from using plastic packaging materials and to employ eco-friendly alternatives such as banana leaves and recycled paper. Still some of them require their borrowers to plant trees every loan cyclehence, the potential environmental impact of the current 5 million microfinance borrowers if each would plant trees at least twice a year. These organizations only prove that indeed social enterprises can be agents of sustainable development, this despite the countrys still underdeveloped environment for social entrepreneurship.
Policy Recommendations to Create an Enabling Environment for Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development
If social enterprises are potential agents of sustainable development, then why are they not fully tapped? According to Wong and Li (2007), the particular abilities and values of social enterprises have not been properly understood outside the social enterprise sector. In particular: Policy makers have not considered social enterprises as a potential solution to social and economic problems Business support providers have not targeted social enterprises as their potential clients
Page 33 of 43
Finance providers have been unsure of the risk and appropriateness of lending to the social enterprise sector Mainstream businesses have not considered social enterprises as potential new partners Voluntary organizations have not recognized social enterprises as a possible means to help them move from reliance on grants towards greater self- sufficiency, and Following the argument of alternative development that state collaboration is necessary in the pursuit of alternative development, it is thus equally necessary emphasize the role of the state in sustainable development. In particular, policies have to be in place for the social enterprises to overcome the abovementioned obstacles to their becoming agents of sustainable development. Leadbeater (2007) argued that public policy should be guided by the outcomes it seeks: social impact and sustainability. Thus, he furthered that government needs a framework for social innovation in which social enterprises is likely to play a critical role, that is, providing innovation designed to find new ways to address issues, the environment, among them. Specifically, he suggested that policies were needed to increase supply of entrepreneurs (a question of incentives and skills) as well as the resources they had to work with (social venture capital). In establishing the value and gaining public acceptance of social enterprises, for example, the United Kingdom (UK) government has been building an evidence based on the economic, social, and environmental values of the social enterprise sector and has appointed 20 social enterprise ambassadors to disseminate the successful stories of social enterprises. In Spain, to complement the development of social economy, the government has developed a policy to promote corporate social Members of the public have not been inspired to set up social enterprises or have not considered such enterprises as a valid career or employment option
Page 34 of 43
responsibility
(CSR),
such
as
integrating
the
CSR
principles
in
public
administration
and
disseminating
good
social
and
environmental
practices.
(Wong
&
Li,
2007)
Following
these
practices,
certain
policies
may
be
implemented
in
the
Philippines
to
help
the
growth
of
social
enterprises.
First,
concerning
the
issue
of
incentives,
there
should
be
a
policy
recognizing
social
enterprises
as
a
distinct
legal
entity,
separate
from
the
NGOs
and
the
for-profit
corporations,
as
has
been
practiced
in
Australia,
Canada,
and
some
parts
in
Europe.
Doing
so,
social
enterprises
can
be
taxed
appropriatelynot
as
much
as
regular
for-profit
corporations
but
not
totally
tax- free
as
the
NGOs.
Creating
a
distinct
legal
from
for
the
social
enterprises
will
also
allow
them
to
accept
tax-free
donations,
which
will
also
address
the
issue
of
increasing
the
funds
available
for
social
venture
capital.
Currently,
the
social
enterprises
that
take
the
form
of
for-profit
corporationand
simply
because
of
their
registered
organizational
formare
taxed
like
any
other
business
entities,
including
the
donations
that
come
from
social
investors.
As
well,
the
microfinance
institutions,
including
those
that
take
the
form
of
NGOs,
are
taxed
on
their
net
income
like
regular
business
corporations
simply
on
the
ground
that
they
have
other
income-generating
activities
(which
make
them
financially
independent
from
donors).
In
short,
social
enterprises
get
taxed
by
the
government
despite
their
being
development
agents,
providing
social
benefits
to
the
people
which
the
government
should
be
doing
in
the
first
place.
Second,
as
for
the
issue
of
skills,
social
entrepreneurship
can
be
mainstreamed
in
the
formal
education
system,
perhaps
as
a
subtopic
of
entrepreneurship
or
a
parent
category
of
microfinance
courseboth
programs
have
been
offered
in
the
colleges
and
universities,
public
and
private,
as
a
regular
course
but
their
reach
is
still
limited
to
key
regions
in
the
country.
Currently,
social
entrepreneurship
programs
are
offered
in
private
institutions.
On
a
wider-scale,
the
public
needs
to
be
educated
on
the
role
of
social
enterprises
as
potential
partner
of
the
government
and
policy- makers,
the
business
sector,
and
nonprofit
organizations.
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 35 of 43
The following policy reforms may also be adopted in the Philippines for the greater participation of social enterprises in the promotion of sustainable development: Help social enterprises to scale up by linking them to the public sector, mainstream business, and the universities, for knowledge and people mobilization. (Leadbeater, 2007) For sustainability social enterprises to become prevalent, substantial incentives (e.g. tax haven status) supported by economic and regulatory framework must be in place. (Vickers, 2010) To facilitate social innovation, small-scale social enterprises need to be linked to larger organizations and regulations. (Vickers, 2010) Support services, including access to finance, knowledge sharing, and business support services must be provided to the social enterprises. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Local Economic and Employment Development Programme) Corollary to the previous point, networks of social enterprises must be enhanced further. Social enterprises have increasingly developed autonomous sector organizations and territorial networks as a way of facilitating collective responses to the needs and opportunities of the sector. Among other things, networks can facilitate alliances, foster human resource development, leadership, and knowledge dissemination. (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development and Local Economic and Employment Development Programme) Research capacity on the social enterprises contribution to the national and sub- national policies must be fostered. The collection of both quantitative and qualitative data and analyses on the sector and the contribution to public policy within and across countries is a necessary tool for improved policy and strategy making. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Local Economic and Employment Development Programme)
Page 36 of 43
Finally, the contributions and efficacy of social enterprises in promoting alternative development, especially poverty alleviation in communities which is often one of the goals of social enteprises, should be assessed, documented, and communicated. Cases have been written on some social enterprises and their business models; however, there are only few studies on their impact on household poverty levels, individual and community empowerment, and environmental preservation and/or rehabilitation. The outcome of the proposed research will thus help justify the development of an enabling environment for social enterprises as agents of sustainable development.
Page 38 of 43
Annex
List
of
Environment-Focused
NGOs
NGO PATH Foundation Philippines, Inc. Website (Source of information) http://www.pfpi.org/about.html Brief Description A private, charitable organization with established presence in the Philippines and USA (Hawaii) with a vision and mission to improve health, conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable development in the AsiaPacific region. Haribon takes the lead in caring for nature with people for the people. It is a membership-based organization committed to nature conservation through community empowerment, and scientific excellence. The Legal Rights & Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/FoE Philippines (LRCKSK/FoE Philippines), was founded in 1988 and joined FoEI in 1991. LRC-KSK is a policy and legal research and advocacy institution. They focus mainly on advocacy of indigenous peoples' rights, resource tenure, environmental management, and sustainable energy options. ELACs mission is to protect and assert environmental rights, and equitable access to and control of natural resource use by communities through effective developmental legal assistance, community-based resource management and advocacy. Ecolink Women's Network: Advancing women's rights in Mindanao PCSDIs Environmental Conservation & Research Program aims to promote the sustainable management, protection and rehabilitation of critical Philippine ecosystems and at the same time to improve the quality of life community members.
Haribon Foundation
http://www.haribon.org.ph
http://www.foei.org
Environmental Center
Legal
Assistance
http://www.elac.org.ph
Philippine Environmental NGO Network-ECOLINK Philippines Philippine Center for Sustainable Development
http://www.ecolink-asia.org http://pcsdi.org/?page_id=105
http://www.toxicspot.com/ military/philippines/ Updated 1999 http://www.kalikasan.org A network of people's organizations (POs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and environmental advocates. It aims to
Page 39 of 43
address environmental issues but in such a way that primacy is given to the peopleespecially in the grassroots levelwho constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. All environmental causes shall thus have the people's interest at their core. A Philippine-based multisectoral alliance of individuals and organizations engaged in climate change advocacy. This is in response to the growing global campaign to address the issue of climate change and to get underway a corresponding, yet, grassrootsoriented campaign in the Philippines. Since then a series of educational activities were initiated by the members of PCWA informing basic sectors such as peasants, fisher folks, women and urban poor on the issues of climate change. Formally established in mid 1999 as a non-profit, non-government organization whose primary purpose is to manage and implement environment restoration and prevention projects through the coordination and pooling of resources among various sectors, groups and individuals. Promotes the life-support system and enable the sustainable use and management of coastal and marine resources through partnerships for improved quality of life. Tanggol Kalikasan (defense of nature) is a non-stock, non-profit and non-governmental organization doing public interest lawyering in the Philippines. Greenpeace has directly helped bring about positive environmental by playing an instrumental role in the passage of landmark laws. Started on July 21, 1998, it is a media-based project supported by a multi-sector network of government agencies, private institutions, and non-government organizations. It was launched to serve as a catalyst in addressing the concern over the worsening state of the Philippine environment.
http://www.climatechangeaction.net/ orgs/philippine-climate-watch-alliance
The Global Environment and Nature Ecosystems Society (Phil.) Foundation (GENESYS),
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) Tanggol Kalikasan (A Public Interest Environmental Law Office)
www.pemsea.org
Greenpeace Philippines
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/
http://www.bantaykalikasan.com
Page 40 of 43
Works
Cited
Abao,
C.
V.
(2011).
Mapping
and
Analyzing
Philippine
Civil
Society
Organizations
(CSOs).
Civil
Society
Research
Institute.
Asian
Development
Bank.
(2007).
Overview
of
NGOs
and
Civil
Society
Philippines.
Retrieved
2010
29-March
from
Asian
Development
Bank:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Civil-Society-Briefs/PHI/CSB- PHI.pdf
Bacchiega,
A.,
&
Borzaga,
C.
(2001).
Social
Enterprises
as
Incentive
Structures
An
Economic
Analysis.
In
C.
Borzaga,
&
J.
Defourny
(Eds.),
The
Emergence
of
Social
Enterprise
(pp.
273-291).
London,
UK:
Routledge.
Bebbington,
A.,
&
Bebbington,
D.
(2001).
Development
Alternatives:
Practice,
Dilemmas,
and
Theory.
Area
,
33.1,
7-17.
Bello,
W.
(2002).
Deglobalization:
Ideas
for
New
World
Economoy.
New
York,
New
York,
USA:
Zed
Books.
Boyd,
B.,
Henning,
N.,
Reyna,
E.,
Wang,
D.
E.,
&
Welch,
M.
D.
(2009).
Hybrid
Organisations:
New
Business
Models
for
Environmental
Leadership.
Sheffiled:
Greenleaf.
Dacanay,
M.
L.
(2011,
August
8).
Social
Enterprises
and
the
Poor:
Enhancing
Social
Entrepreneurship
and
Stakeholder
Theory.
Copenhagen,
Denmark:
(unpublished).
Friedmann,
J.
(1992).
Empowerment:
The
Politics
of
Alternative
Development.
Malden,
Massachussetts,
USA:
Blackwell
Publishers
Inc.
Hammarskjold,
D.
(1975).
What
Now
Another
Development.
United
Nations.
International
Institute
for
Sustainable
Development.
(2007).
Successes
and
Failures.
Retrieved
January
25,
2012,
from
Briefcase
for
the
World
Summit
on
Sustainable
Development:
http://www.iisd.org/briefcase/ten+ten_contents.asp
Kirrin,
G.
(2000).
Social
Dimensions
of
Community-Based
Environment
Initiatives.
Washington
DC:
The
World
Bank.
Korten,
D.
(1990).
Getting
ti
the
21st
Century:
Voluntary
Action
and
the
Global
Agenda.
West
Hartford,
CT:
Kumarian
Press.
Page 41 of 43
Leadbeater, C. (2007 November). Social Enterpirse and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years. UK: Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector. Magno, F. A. (2006). Civil Society Participation in Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development at the Local Level. Ensuring Economic Security in the Countryside: Issues and Challenges for Local Government (pp. 38-54). Manila: Yuchengco Center, De La Salle University. Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, State, and Market A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Books. Mina, R. (2011). Philippine Cooperatives: Exploring New Frontiers. Civil Society Research Institute. Mulgan, G. (2006). Cultivating the Other Invisible Hand of Social Entrepreneurship: Comparative Advantage, Public Policy, and Future Research Priorities. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship New Models of Sustainable Social Chnage (pp. 74-103). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. National Economic and Development Authority. (2011). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. National Economic and Development Authority. Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010). Development Theory. Sage Publication. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998). My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development. Development and Change , 29, 343- 373. Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction . In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship New Models of Sustainable Social Change (p. 448). Oxford , New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Local Economic and Employment Development Programme. (n.d.). The Social Enterprise Sector: A Conceptual Framework. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2004 March). Social Entrepreneurship The Contribution of Individual Entrepreneurs to Sustainable Development . Anselmo Rubiralta Center for Globalization and Strategy Center for Business in Society. Taylor, R. W., & Carandang, J. S. (2010). Sustainability Planning for Philippine Cities. 1-22, 105-107. Manila, Philippines: Yuchengco Center, De La Salle University.
Page 42 of 43
Tilly, F., & Young, W. (2009). Sustainability Entrepreneurs: Could They Be the True Wealth Generators of the Future? Greener Management International (55), 79- 92. Tuano, P. (2011). A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Resource Center. Tuano, P. (2011). Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Research Institute. United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). GEO: Global Environment Outlook. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from United Nations Environment Programme: http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/045.htm Vickers, I. (2010, February). Social Enterprise and the Environment: A Review of Literature. The Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 22 , 1-31. Birmingham, UK: Third Sector Research Center. Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. New York, USA: Routledge. Wong, T., & Li, S. (2007). Social Enterprise Polices of the United Kingdom, Spain, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Legislative Council Commission.
Page 43 of 43