You are on page 1of 29

Government

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.

Issues and Challenges


Reports mentioned that there was an increase in the number of civil society organizations (CSOs) worldwide in the last three decades, in response to the call to a better environmental management. However, sheer number does not indicate the level and quality of participation of the citizens in the process of environmental conservation. As emphasized in the 1987 WCED and the 1992 Rio Conference, participation of indigenous people or from the grassroots is critical in the successful implementation of the greening initiatives. The obstacles in implementing sustainable development programs in the Philippines do not differ much from the critique of the global initiatives. Indeed, the less-than-successful initiatives in the country are attributed to lack of public networking that could effectively lessen the barriers to sustainability, among others. (Taylor & Carandang, 2010) Despite the government policies that are intended to prevent deterioration and/or rehabilitate land resources and the promises made by the private corporation, effective outcomes yet remain to be seen. It also seems that the participation of the civil society, as far as government programs are concerned, is limited only to reforestation, based on the government agency report. Other factors to ineffective programs include insufficient education on the basic concepts, technologies, and programs related to sustainability; lack of trained manpower to implement initiatives; and lack of continuity in governance that enables sustainability initiatives to outlast the political changes. (Taylor & Carandang, 2010) Add to this list the current lack of standard resource and environment valuation. There is a need to have a cost-benefit analysis and standard parameters that will consider all relevant values, including nonmarket values. (National Economic and Development Authority, 2011)

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Civil Society Organizations in the Country


Having cited local participation as contributory factors to effective environmental management, consistent with the principles of alterative development, the following section discusses how the CSOs in the country have been performing in general and how they have contributed to the preservation and/or rehabilitation of the environment in particular. The Asian Development Bank (2007) concedes that the civil society sector in the Philippines is large and vibrant by developing country standards, even though most of the large number of organizations are small, struggle financially, and have weak capacity. The number of CSOs is estimated at 500,000, but only a few are registered as non-stock NGOs. (Asian Development Bank, 2007)

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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*

Group served Management

Ownership Financial operation Number

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

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable 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.

Strengthening Sustainable Development Programs through Social Enterprises


Definition of Social Enterprise

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.

Types of Social Enterprises


Wong and Li (2007) proposed the following classifications of social enterprises: 1. Charity trading arms, such as restaurants and bookstores established by charities to generate incomes for the pursuit of their charity goals 2. Social firms, such as businesses that provide employment opportunities for the disabled or disadvantaged 3. Community businesses, such as trading organizations owned and operated by people in local communities to facilitate community development and create self-supporting jobs for local people 4. Cooperatives, such as businesses organized for and by their members, who come together to provide shared services beneficial to members, and 5. Community development finance institutions, such as independent financial institutions that provide financial support to individuals and organizations in deprived or underserved areas to conduct business Seelos and Mair (2004), however, argued that social enterprises could play a powerful and complementary role in contributing to ongoing efforts to achieve sustainable development goals and presented a framework (see Figure 5) on how their roles can be analyzed more systematically by differentiating among the layers of social needs that underlie the sustainable development goals.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

Unique Features of Social Enterprises Relevant to 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;

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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

Low on voluntary basis

High

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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/)

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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)

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

Page 36 of 43

Direction for Further Research


The above policy recommendations can be more effective if supported with research and empirical data. First, the social enterprises in the country need to be mapped outthe players, their locations and areas of operations, their services and interventions, the types of clients and/or communities they serve, and the number of their clients/beneficiaires, at a minimum. However, since social enterprises do not have distinct legal entity of their own yet and take the various forms of organizations, tracking them could not be based soley on the registration records of government agencies (Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Trade and Industry, Philippine Council for NGO Certification, and the Cooperative Development Authority). Although these agencies can provide some leads, the mapping would require thorough research. As proposed by Vickers (2010) investigating the motivations, ideas, actions, and experiences of the people involved in entrepreneurial processes and the context in which they are operating would be necessary. In the long-run, this information will also help the government in determining the legitimacy of social enterprisesunder the assumption that a separate legal entity will be made for the social enterprisesas the creation of a new type of organization may be abused and exploited by those who seek tax shields, just as there are many NGOs that are NGOs only in name. Second, an in-depth study of the various social enterprises in the country can contribute to the body of knowledge by validating and testing two propositions: Seelos and Mairs framework (2004) on the roles of social enterprises in sustainable development and Dacanays expanded stakeholder theory (2011), which argues that certain types of social enterprises are more effective as development agents than the others. The results of these studies can serve as input to policy formulation (e.g. basis for the design of incentive programs) and/or refinements of the abovementioned policy recommendations to better fit the Philippine context.
The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development Page 37 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.

The 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

The Friends of Earth International

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

Campaign for US Base Clean Up

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

KALIKASAN: People's Network for the Environment

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development


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.

Philippine Climate Watch Alliance

http://www.climatechangeaction.net/ orgs/philippine-climate-watch-alliance

The Global Environment and Nature Ecosystems Society (Phil.) Foundation (GENESYS),

www .genesysph .org

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) Tanggol Kalikasan (A Public Interest Environmental Law Office)

www.pemsea.org

www.tanggol.org not accessible

Greenpeace Philippines

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/

ABS-CBN Foundation Bantay Kalikasan

http://www.bantaykalikasan.com

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

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.

The Social Enterprises as Agents of Sustainable Development

Page 43 of 43