Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
The Role of Socially-driven Enterprise and the Poor in
Poverty Alleviation from a Business Model Perspective
Chureerat Haq*, Ram Vemuri** and Faiz Shah***
Social enterprises are designed from different business models to attend social
issues while operating business. This paper aims to examine roles of social
enterprises and the poor for poverty alleviation from a business models
perspective. The paper will adopt Alter's 2006 Social Enterprise Models as the
theoretical framework, which categorizes business models into seven
categories. The categories include entrepreneur support, fee-for-service,
employment, service subsidization, organizational support, market linkage, and
market intermediary. This paper will investigate the role of social enterprises,
the role of the poor, the key driver and mechanism of poverty alleviation of each
of the business model categorized. The investigation will extend to the literature
knowledge of social enterprise's contribution to poverty alleviation from a
business models perspective.
1. Introduction
The social enterprise concept continues to evolve and develop, entering mainstream
discourse as an alternative to traditional business models, particularly the one that has
potential for stemming rising income disparities even in relatively stronger economies.
This is largely due to its use of the power of the market to create economic opportunities
for poverty-strapped populations. The 1990s saw widespread developments that
characterize this trend. In particular, the widening acceptance of microfinance products
across a wide range of economic environments, or the steady growth of business in fairtraded consumer products. It reflects the viability of socially driven business models and
their potential for addressing economic, social, and environment issues.
While the links between the increasing ubiquity of socially driven business and reduced
levels of poverty may appear obvious from some vantage points, the fact remains that
not much generalisable evidence is currently available on how the success of social
business and the participation of the poor play a role in poverty alleviation. This
knowledge gap is even wider when seen from the business model perspective.
Using Alter‟s 2006 Social Enterprise Business Models as a theoretical framework, this
paper examines the role of social enterprises and the participation of the poor in poverty
alleviation from a business model perspective. As poor people are not homogenous and
conditions and circumstances poor face are not the same in all countries and in all
contexts, a practical question that arises therefore is which of the model is most
appropriate under which conditions?
_____________________
Chureerat Haq, School of Business, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia, Chureerat.Haq@cdu.edu.au
Professor Ram Vemuri, School of Business, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia, Ram.Vemuri@cdu.edu.au
Dr. Faiz Shah, Yunus Center AIT, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, fshah@ait.ac.th
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
Despite their recognised value, business models have not been studied extensively as
an interdisciplinary research topic in social sciences and business studies (Teece,
2010). The focus of this conceptual paper is on the social enterprises and the poor to
alleviate poverty from several business model perspectives highlighting aspects of what
is emerging as a discussion on "enterprise-led development" by examining key
stakeholder roles in how they might help or hinder success of a social business in
leading individuals and the communities out of poverty.
Within ongoing discussion on definitions, Yunus et al (2010) differentiate a conventional
business from a social business. Both types of business are identical in that they seek
to be profitable. Where they diverge is that while profits from a conventional business
enrich shareholders, profits from a social business are pumped back to grow the
enterprise in scope or scale, thereby serving to enrich whole communities. Thus, from a
business model perspective it is how profit is managed that differentiates a social
enterprise from a conventional one. When surplus from a social business drives
expansion of the enterprise, the result is wider and deeper impact for poverty-mired
target populations. As such, profits from social business are key growth drivers for
sustainable development in society (Yunus, 2006).
Understanding of models relevant to social business will process this study to inquiring
into the dynamics of roles and relationships between social enterprises and their
poverty-ridden target communities. Building an understanding the role of the poor, as
key stakeholders in enterprise-led development will guide the many actors, including the
poor themselves, as develop and implement initiatives towards to alleviate poverty.
2. Social Enterprises Business Models Category
Various authors such as Katzenstein and Chrispin (2011) and Bull (2007) have
attempted to categorise social enterprise business model from different purposes and
perspectives. So far the work of Alter (2006) contributes a singularly appropriate
categorisation of business models for the purpose of this paper. This paper sees social
enterprise business models in seven mutually exclusive categories, although in practice
overlaps and intersects may often be evident.
This study will use the seven models as a point of reference to explore the roles and
relationships that its key stakeholders establish, maintain and manipulate in each of the
models so as to achieve a measure of poverty alleviation through business success.
2.1 Entrepreneur Support Models
Social enterprises in this category provide business support and financial services to
target population, which typical comprises poor people. The target groups then create
value by selling their products and services in their local markets. Social enterprises that
employ this model most commonly include microfinance institutions, and small &
medium enterprises (SMEs) that deliver business or financial services.
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
In this business model, the major driver of poverty reduction is access to capital
otherwise not available, such as through micro-lending, creating opportunity through
financial inclusion triggering entrepreneurial prospects and micro-enterprises (Alter,
2006; McKague, 2012). Such social enterprises gain financial sufficiency from sales of
their services to clients to cover costs occurred from services provided to their clients
(Alter, 2006).
The strength of this model is that it focuses on poverty reduction (Marr and Awaworyi,
2012; Srnec and Svobodova, 2009; Brau and Woller, 2004). Microfinance has been
recognised as an effective entrepreneur support approach since more than thirty years
(Marr and Awaworyi, 2012; Emmons, 2007). Recipients of microcredit support were
traditionally viewed as an unprofitable segment due to high transaction cost, high risk
and less substantial collateral (Marr and Awaworyi, 2012; Mishra and Nayak, 2004), and
as such, remained financially and economically marginalised.
Since the underlying mechanism for driving poverty reduction is the stimulation of
economic activities for financial self-independence (McKague, 2012), including more
and more people in the microfinance net has created significant value in a number of
poor communities. This model allows the poor to assume the main role of being
entrepreneurs (McKague, 2012). There is evidence to support that access to financial
services not only reinforces economic wellbeing of poor people but also empowers
women socially, with demonstrable positive impacts on household income, decision
making, production, and children education (Baruah, 2010; Brau and Woller, 2004).
Credits are often seen as having temporary poverty relief than long term poverty
reduction such as asset creation and endure future economic and health related
(Baruah, 2010). A study from Hulme and Mosley (1996) reveals consistent results that
from 13 micro credits schemes in Asia, Africa and South America in improving incomes,
most clients benefited from the schemes were near the poverty line, not the poorest
(Mishra and Nayak, 2004). Among the main reasons are people with higher income
have better access to market information, the poorer are often able to only invest in the
least profitable entrepreneurial activities, and the limitation and saturation of rural
markets (Mishra and Nayak, 2004). The unspecified loan is often utilised for immediate
needy consumption purpose (Baruah, 2010; Mishra and Nayak, 2004).
Although credit is important, it is the first step (Baruah, 2010). This model does not take
account of the fact that not everyone want to become entrepreneurs (Mishra and Nayak,
2004). Without market knowledge and high value market access, many poor people
from the same areas receive credits then sell same products for same markets (Mishra
and Nayak, 2004). In developing economies where markets are highly imperfect and
unstable, the major constraint is in fact not financing but business issues such as
saturation, competition, product differentiation, competition information, and pricing
uncertainties (Baruah, 2010). This is fortified to provide micro lending for
entrepreneurship with a provision of business knowledge or training.
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
2.2 Fee-for-Service Model
In this model social enterprises provide social services of their specialty directly to
clients who include individuals, companies, communities or a third party payer (Alter,
2006). Social enterprises gain financial sufficiency from the fees they charge for
services to pay expenses to deliver services as well as expenses from business
operation (Alter, 2006).
Examples of social enterprises employing this business model are hospitals, schools,
universities, membership organisations, museums, power energy providers, and
publishers. In sectors such as publishing and advertisement, the publishers provide
affordable fee to social enterprise communities or the government to support social
programs or social event activities.
The primary role of the poor in this business model is being consumers or a third party
and the key driver of poverty reduction for this model is low cost consumption and
affordability (McKague, 2012). The value of this model is that many people can‟t afford
basic necessities such as health and education, the fee-for-service business model
provides more accessibility and affordability of living costs to the public thus reducing
cost of living for the poor (Wallace and MacEntee, 2012; Maharaj and Paul, 2011;
Hwang and Christensen, 2008). The bottom line of a demand of value from this model
can be defined as the ability to provide quality features for a lower price for target
population (Shortell et al., 1994).
Using McKague (2012) as an analytical framework, it is apparent that the key outcome
of poverty reduction from this model is the provision of access to innovative low cost
products and services. The underlying mechanism of poverty reduction of this model is
mutual value creation through fee charging and the provision of access to low cost
consumer products (McKague, 2012).
However, in business term, the challenge for social enterprises employing fee-forservice model is that, due to high operation costs for public services, only few are selfsufficient. Primary support, including financial and in-kind, usually comes from local
government, charitable donations from private sector (Maharaj and Paul, 2011). It is
critical for enterprises employing this model that receive public funding in part to
balance external and internal generated resources in order to allow meeting its
expenses while, irrespective of donor preferences, maintaining independency to
determine its program priorities (Maharaj and Paul, 2011; Alter, 2006).
2.3 Employment Model
In this model, social enterprises provide employment and training opportunities to their
clients by operating business and employ clients (Alter, 2006). Work integration social
enterprises (WISEs) is a form of employment model with slightly different names
worldwide, provides hard skill, soft skill training, work experience and in-house business
(Cooney, 2011).
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
Social enterprises that adopt this model are in manufacturing and retail services such as
woodworking, mechanical repair, light manufacturing book stores; personal care
services, domestic care services such as cleaning services; business services such as
messenger services; food services such as cafés, restaurants and bakeries, and travel
and entertainment services (Cooney, 2011; Ho and Chan, 2010; Alter, 2006). People
using the service of this model are people with high employment barriers such as
disabled, homeless, at-risk youth, ex-offenders, welfare to work recipients, mental
health and drug addicts (Lysaght et al., 2012; Alter, 2006).
Social enterprises gain financial sufficiency through selling products and services to
market to cover costs which include wages and employment related expenses from
hiring clients (Alter, 2006). Work is considered as one of the most effective tools for
acquiring social and practical skills (Ho and Chan, 2010). The key driver of poverty
reduction in this business model is the creation of opportunities for stable employment
(McKague, 2012). The value of this model is through producing, marketing and selling
products and services to the public while improving work related skill levels and
employability, providing opportunities for engagement, increased income and social
interaction of their employee with the public (Lysaght et al., 2012; Ho and Chan, 2010;
Alter, 2006).
As far as poverty reduction concerns, the major role of the poor in this model is being
employees. In this business model, the poor are encouraged to create personal
responsibility to find employment rather than passively given benefits, a transform from
welfare dependency to self-reliance (McKague, 2012; Ho and Chan, 2010).
However, studies show that the obtained employment is not sustainable and the work
experience involves low skills sectors in an entry level labour market which does not
develop into higher pay employment (Cooney, 2011). Many businesses with this model
structure their staffing by allowing the enterprises to expand quickly with demand and
cut back on hours when business is slow. This results in a small number of target
populations being offered full-time or substantial part-time jobs and creates unstable
working conditions (Cooney, 2011).
Furthermore, the key outcome of this business model does not only contribute to
poverty reduction but also social inclusion of disadvantaged groups in the labour market
by strengthening the target population with hard and soft skills, a sense of belonging
among marginalised groups, in particular people with disabilities and mental disorders,
and develop their social and supporting networks with each other. That is, it addresses
inequity and injustice existing in society (Zaniboni et al., 2011; Ho and Chan, 2010).
One of the challenges for social enterprises employing this model is to try to compete
with other businesses while employing people with barriers to work at full capacity in
addition from having to provide better job conditions (Cooney, 2011). The main
expenses in this model come from human resource costs linked with training and labour
protection (Ho and Chan, 2010). This challenge has seen many social enterprises
chose to survive financially by assisting less marginalised target (Cooney, 2011).
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
2.4 Service Subsidisation Model
According to this model, the social enterprises sell products or services to external
parties and use the profit to fund their social programs, hence social enterprises work as
financing mechanism to serve social mission to subsidise or wholly fund social services
(Alter, 2006). Social enterprises employing service subsidization can commercialise
social services such as consulting, counselling, employment training or marketing,
product-based retail businesses, and transportation (Alter, 2006).
Similar to the fee-for-service model, generally the role of the poor in this model is being
consumers and the key driver of poverty reduction in this context is low cost
consumption, affordability, and accessibility (McKague, 2012; Chitonge, 2010). In
theory, the value of social enterprises using this model is through providing their
products and services to poor people by subsidization for more accessibility and
affordability (Alter, 2006; Hwang and Christensen, 2008). Hence social enterprises with
this approach help lowering the cost of living for the poor and also encourage or
strengthen their target investment in, for example, education, health or employment
(Alderman, 2002). In terms of social equation, from the equity perspective, service
subsidisation addresses equity issue in that the approach ensures the poor have access
to basic necessities at expenses they can afford (Chitonge, 2010).
Policy implication has targeted food subsidies with the aim to achieve direct impact on
poverty. The assistance to consumers for each subsidised food is demonstrated as the
difference between the subsidised price of the food and what the target population
would have to pay for this food in the free market in the absence of food subsidies.
However, the pattern of failure from the approach has been criticised from perspectives
that poverty reduction could have been reached with much lesser costs (Besley and
Kanbur, 1988). Substantial rural poor do not receive equal benefits from food subsidies
which are their main daily expenses compared to urban areas due to the fact that they
either produce their own food and they trade directly from neighbours or they are cash
constraints (Alderman, 2002).
Since many poor people are producers, lower produce prices from subsidisation will
lower their incomes hence more problems with poverty reduction. This problem is
particularly severe in countries where production of food is more than the consumption
(Besley and Kanbur, 1988). Developing countries have moved their trade policy away
from heavily tax the major agricultural commodities and controlling prices to increasingly
providing short-term subsidies for the commodities (Laiprakobsup, 2011). However,
inefficiencies in the system such as corruption, unequal distribution, targeting
ineffectiveness, leakage, and cost ineffectiveness prevent the poor from receiving full
benefits from this business model (Baruah 2010). From poverty reduction perspective,
generalised subsidies, where both the haves and the haves not consume, in fact
creates more leakage to the rich. It is a trade-off of the approach (Besley and Kanbur,
1988).
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
2.5 Organisational Support Model
Social enterprises in this model sell products and services to external markets,
businesses, general public or target population (Alter 2006). Social enterprises with this
model act as funding mechanism or income generator to cover expenses of the parent
organisation‟s social programs. The primary role of the enterprise employing this
business model is to generate profit to feed the parent organisation and business
activities are unconnected from social programs (Alter, 2006).
Social enterprises adopting this business model generate income to feed parent
organisation so that target population of parent organisation can benefit from the
operation. In the context of poverty alleviation, the poor are program recipients or
program beneficiaries. The increased role of the poor could be fostered by the program
objectives. In this model, social enterprise can expand into different segments. The key
outcome of this business model depends on the results of the social programs set by
the social enterprises. The separate identity from parent organisation also allows the
flexibility of product proposition and operation.
The advantage of this model is that the social enterprise can enjoy the diversification of
products and services by choosing to operate in various businesses since the operation
of the organisational support enterprise is separate from the operation of the parent
organisation (Alter, 2006). Diversifying income sources has become a survival strategy
for non-profits for long term sustainability due to a decrease in funding (Alymkulova,
2005).
In competitive business environment, however, it is very challenging for social
enterprises with non-profit parent organisations employing this business model in terms
of income generation. It is due to crucial fact that this model is aimed to fund significant
income hence the enterprise must create substantial profit (Alter 2006). To succeed,
effective business management is highly required and the organisational culture of the
business in non-profit organisations needs to be business-ready.
Although this business model is employed widely among non-profit organisations,
private companies should be encouraged to engage in poverty alleviation using this
business model. With business-culture-ready, a company can create a social enterprise
unit to generate income to serve important issue such as poverty. Government can play
an important role in providing intensives to private companies aspiring to set up social
enterprises. Intensives include tax benefits, access to business knowledge and training,
distinct considerations in government contracts and so on.
2.6 Market Linkage Model
In this model social enterprise gains financial sufficiency by acting as a broker to
connect buyers to producers and vice versa, and charge a fee for the service or by
commercialising social services such as trade relationships, market information and
research services (Alter, 2006). Target groups for this model are individual small
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
producers, local firms or cooperatives. Sectors employing this model include importexport, market research and broker services. Trade associations, private sector
partnership and business development programs use this model to help poor people.
The difference between market linkage business model of social enterprises and
standard business is that the market linkage business model adds value by linking poor
producers with higher value markets and income from fee is used for self-finance to pay
operating costs and support their social programs, instead of sharing profits among
shareholders or business partners (Alter, 2006).
The major role of poor people in this model is being small producers or suppliers, both
individually and in a group. Producers or suppliers generally sell their products through
traditional brokers or local village markets with low prices hence the value of their
products is decreased by different services and transactions including local collectors,
brokers, traders and retailers (Kaganzi et al., 2009). Common feature of successful
linkage involves producers‟ participation in taking leading or sharing control in the
action. Despite of having market linkers, strong leadership within the producer group is
consistency shown to be one of the most important factors in identifying and maintaining
market linkage (Gebremedhin et al., 2006; Kaganzi et al., 2009).
It is critical that to be able to act as a broker, social enterprises employing this model
must be resourceful in social, technical and marketing skills (Kaganzi et al., 2009). In
this model, social enterprises are risk-neutral broker in that they do not trade on their
own account (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). To coordinate transactions, the linkers
perform match making and brokering activities, clear the markets, coordinate buyers
and sellers (Spulber, 1996).
The key driver of poverty reduction in this context can be identified as market
enhancement and growth (McKague, 2012). Market linkage model represents the need
for linking agents who have a capacity to provide poor producers or suppliers with
market awareness and knowledge to engage with business (Kaganzi et al., 2009;
Gebremedhin et al., 2006). In this concept, the presence of the third party strengthens
the business of the two parties (Khurana, 2002).
2.7 Market Intermediary Model
Market intermediary model is the seventh and last related model assessed in this paper.
Social enterprises adopting this model are usually in marketing, fair trade, consumer
products, retails, agricultural products, food, and beauty products. Social enterprises in
this model generate income to gain financial sufficiency through sales of their services
to external markets, often overseas clients (Alter, 2006).
Value of this model is created by purchasing client-made products at fair prices and
then sold to higher value markets at a margin, facilitating product development, market
access and credit services (Alter, 2006). In order to add value to the products and
services, market intermediaries often transform products and manage transactions such
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
as designing, transporting, repackaging, labelling, assembling, pricing, marketing,
inventory management, market and product information, certify and quality guaranty to
build or maintain a good reputation, access to market and financial credit, and
monitoring performance (Sodhi and Tang, 2011; Spulber, 1996). Hence, prominent role
of this business model is the reduction of transaction costs by centralising exchange
among different actors (Khanna and Palepu, 1999; Spulber, 1996).
Similar to the market linkage model, the major role of poor people in this market
intermediary model is being producers or primary suppliers who include individual small
producer, firms or cooperatives. Since small producers can only produce on a small
scale, it leads to high unit transaction costs. High value markets such as supermarkets
and their wholesale suppliers often deal with large scale producers due to quality and
quantity requirements. As a result, small producers cannot sustain or even have an
access to markets (Poulton et al., 2010).
One of the fundamental approaches for the market intermediary business model is to
ensure poor people receive a fair treatment in terms of value of their products in
markets and wages under safe working conditions. The approach encourages equal
partnership and restructures relationship between producers, consumers and social
enterprises themselves (Raynolds, 2002). This model theoretically places poor people
neither as passive receivers of assistance nor as courageous free-market entrepreneurs
(McKague, 2012). There are limitations to what poor people can achieve for themselves
and the market intermediary business model is crucial to provide support in terms of
maximising internal resources and gaining access to outside inputs (Khurana, 2002).
Using McKague (2012)‟s pattern of analysis, it is identifiable that the key driver of
poverty reduction of the market intermediary is market enhancement and growth. The
underlying mechanism of poverty reduction in this context is the redistribution of social
control to overcome market and government failures and this model represents
intermediary who have a capacity to provide poor producers or suppliers with market
enhancement and growth (McKague, 2012).
The key outcome of poverty reduction in this model is market structural developments
that create economically viable value chains (McKague, 2012). The improvement of
product quality and certification demands substantial increase of labour and
employment opportunities for local members for paid work are boosted (Spulber, 1996).
However, social enterprises adopting this business model have been under criticism on
the approach that they purchase products from suppliers. One example is from the
coffee industry where fair trade has established good reputation in helping small
producers. Raynold‟s (2009) work revealed that fair trade buyers have various
approaches in buying products from producers. Some buyers use social mission driven
approach to purchase products; products are purchased based on social, ecological
and placed-based. Some social enterprises purchase their products fundamentally
based on quality. Others have shifted the core social value of social enterprises into
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
commercially market driven enterprises by purchasing only products that are
competitive in the markets.
3. Conclusion
As an initial foray into what promises to be an extensive area of inquiry, this paper
focuses on only the poor as stakeholders in social businesses, whether as owners or
consumers, specified. It holds back attempting an analysis on other, which may well be
a future area of research, expanding to examine the role of other primary stakeholders
in poverty alleviation from a business model perspective.
These possible subjects of primary stakeholder-focused research include government,
investors and business partners, vendors and suppliers, customers and end-users, and
groups or individuals that play a watchdog role, for example the Green Movement, or
represent stakeholder interests such as Fairtrade International.
Such further examination is certain to accelerate the understanding of how relevant
stakeholders in social enterprise sector play drive or deter poverty alleviation.
4. Limitations and Future Research
The operations of social enterprises are often more complex than what frameworks are
able to capture. As such there is a high likelihood that this study will find a number of
hybrids, with perhaps one or more business model dominant, but carrying within it,
recognizable elements of others. This study therefore, will step away from exploring
mixed business models.
While this is a limitation to this study, it helps open the door to future research on hybrid
or mixed social business models and their impact on poverty alleviation. The key aim of
this paper, therefore, is to place the first marker on what might be a path to a clearer
and informed understanding of determinants of poverty alleviation arising out of the way
social business is structured and conducted. The practical action that this paper aims to
propose in improving performance of social enterprises as catalysts of poverty
reduction, remains at this stage, confined to a conceptual level, but this may not
diminish the value of the discussion on business models as a jumping board for
empirical study that involves an appropriate sample of key social business stakeholders.
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
References
Alderman, H 2002, „Subsidies As A Social Safety Net: Effectiveness And Challenges‟,
World Bank Social Safety Net Premier Series, pp. 1-19.
Alter, S K 2006, „Social Enterprises Models And Their Mission And Money
Relationships‟, In Nicholls, A, Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of
Sustainable Change, Oxford University Press, pp. 205-232.
Alymkulova, A & Seipulnik, D 2005, „NGO Strategy For Survival In Central Asia:
Financial Sustainability‟, Policy Brief #22, pp. 1-8.
Baruah, B 2010, „NGOs In Microfinance: Learning From The Past, Accepting
Limitations, And Moving Forward‟, Geography Compass, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 979992.
Besley, T & Kanbur, R 1988, „Food Subsidies and Poverty Alleviation‟, The Economic
Journal, vol. 98, no. 392, pp. 701-719.
Brau, J C & Woller, G M 2004, „Microfinance: A Comprehensive Review of The Existing
Literature‟, Journal Of Entrepreneurial Finance, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-27.
Bull, M 2007, „“Balance”: The Development Of A Social Enterprise Business
Performance‟, Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 49-66.
Chitonge, H 2010, „Who Is Subsidising Whom? Water Supply Cross-Subsidisation
Policy, Practice And Lessons From Zambia‟, The Journal Of Modern African
Studies, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 599-625.
Cooney, K 2011, „The Business Of Job Creation: An Examination Of The Social
Enterprise Approach To Workforce Development‟, Journal Of Poverty, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 88-107.
Emmons, G 2007, „The Business Of Global Poverty‟, Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge, 4 April 2007, pp. 1-2.
Fury, B 2010, „Social Enterprise Development In South Africa - Creating A Virtuous
Circle‟, Tshikululu Social Investments, pp. 1-15.
Gebremedhin, B, Hoekstra, D, & Tegegne, A 2006, „Commercialization Of Ethiopian
Agriculture: Extension Service From Input Supplier To Knowledge Broker And
Facilitator‟, IPMS (Improving Productivity And Market Success) Of Ethiopian
Farmers Project Working Paper 1, International Livestock Research Institute, pp.
1-36.
Ho, A P-Y & Chan, K-T 2010, „The Social Impact Of Work-Integration Social Enterprise
In Hong Kong‟, International Social Work, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 33-45.
Hwang, J & Christensen, C M 2008, „Disruptive Innovation In Health Care Delivery: A
Framework For Business-Model Innovation‟, Health Affairs, vol. 27, no. 5, pp.
1329-1335.
Kaganzi, E, Ferris, S, Barham, J, Abenakyo, A, Sanginga, P & Njuki, J 2009, „Sustaining
Linkages To High Value Markets Through Collective Action In Uganda‟, Food
Policy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 23-30.
Katzenstein, J & Chrispin, B 2011, „Social Entrepreneurship And A New Model For
International Development In The 21st Century‟, Journal Of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87-102.
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
Khanna, T & Palepu, K 1999, „Policy Shocks, Market Intermediaries, And Corporate
Strategy: The Evolution Of Business Groups In Chile And India‟, Journal Of
Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 271-310.
Khurana, R 2002, „Market Triads: A Theoretical And Empirical Analysis If Market
Intermediaries‟, Journal For The Theory Of Social Behaviour, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
239-262.
Klerkx, L & Leeuwis, C 2009, „Establishment And Embedding Of Innovation Brokers At
Different Innovation System Levels: Insights From The Dutch Agricultural Sector‟,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 849-860.
Laiprakobsup, T 2011, „Democracy, Organized Interests, And Rice Policy In Thailand‟,
Rangsit Journal Of Arts And Sciences, vol. January - June 2013.
Lysaght, R, Jakobsen, K & Granhaug, B 2012, „Social Firms: A Means For Building
Employment Skills And Community Integration‟, Work, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 455463.
Maharaj, S & Paul, T 2011, „Ethical Issues In Healthcare Financing‟, West Indian
Medical Journal, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 498-501.
Mare, A L 2008, „The Impact Of Faire Trade On Social And Economic Development: A
Review Of The Literature‟, Geography Compass, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1922-1942.
Marr, A & Awaworyi, S 2012, „Microfinance Social Performance: A Global Empirical
Study‟, Applied Econometrics And International Development, vol. 12, no. 2, pp.
51-68.
McKague, K 2012, „Making Markets Work For The Poor: Market-Based Approached To
Poverty Alleviation As Institutional Leveraging And Redistribution of Social
Control‟, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Mishra, B & Nayak, P 2004, „Limits Of Micro Credit For Rural Development: A Cursory
Look‟ In J K Gogoi (eds), Rural Indebtedness in North East India, Dibrugarh
University, Assam, pp. 185-200.
Poulton, C, Dorward, A & Kydd, J 2010, „The Future Of Small Farms: New Directions
For Services, Institutions, And Intermediation‟, World Development, vol. 38, no.
10, pp. 1413-1428.
Raynolds, L T 2002, „Consumer/Producer Links In Fair Trade Coffee Networks‟,
Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 404-424.
Raynolds, L T 2009, „Mainstreaming Fair Trade Coffee: From Partnership To
Traceability‟, World Development, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1083-1093.
Raynolds, L T, Murray, D & Taylor, P L 2004, „Fair Trade Coffee: Building Producer
Capacity Via Global Networks‟, Journal Of International Development, vol. 16,
no. 1, pp. 1109-1121.
Shortell, S M, Gillies, R R & Anderson, D A 1994, „The New World Of Managed Care:
Creating Organized Delivery Systems‟, Health Affairs, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 46-64.
Simanis, E, Hart, S & Duke, D 2008, „The Base Of The Pyramid Protocol: Beyond
"Basic Needs" Business Strategies‟, Innovations: Technology, Governance,
Globalization, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57-84.
Sodhi, M S & Tang, C S 2011, „Social Enterprises As Supply-Chain Enablers For The
Poor‟, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 146-153.
Spulber, D F 1996, „Market Microstructure And Intermediation‟, Journal Of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 135-152.
Proceedings of Eurasia Business Research Conference
16 - 18 June 2014, Nippon Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey,ISBN: 978-1-922069-54-2
Srnec, K & Svobodova, E 2009, „Microfinance In Less Developed Countries: History,
Progress, Present - Charity Or Business?‟, Agric. Econ, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 467474.
Teece, D J 2010, „Business Models, Business Strategy And Innovation‟, Long Range
Planning, vol. 43, no. 2-3, pp. 172-194.
Wallace, B B & MacEntee, M I 2012, „Access To Dental Care For Low-Income Adults:
Perceptions Of Affordability, Availability And Acceptability‟, J Community Health,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 32-39.
Yunus, M, Moingeon, B & Lehmann-Ortega, L 2010, „Building Social Business Models:
Lessons From The Grameen Experience‟, Long Range Planning, vol. 43, no. 1,
pp. 308-325.
Zaniboni, S, Fraccaroli, F & Villotti, P 2011, „Working Plans Of People With Mental
Disorders Employed In Italian Social Enterprises‟, Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 55-58.