1

A CHRISTIAN RATIONALE FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

*

Daniel Bryan
Aitreni Group
Michael T. Cooper
Trinity Graduate School
Introduction
As the world turns the page of the 21st century s first decade there
is much to reflect on. In an ever-increasing fashion human ingenuity,
creativity, and collaboration have gifted society with truly remarkable
things. This list is endless, ranging fromvaccinations that have saved
millions of lives, to technologies that allow the world to instantly com-
municate like never before; works of art that tell our most essential sto-
ries, a democratization of ideas that has opened up the reality of an edu-
cation to many for the first time, and much, much more. These things
must be celebrated.
This is of course only part of the story. In stark contrast to the
achievements lauded above, there is another state of affairs that cannot
be overlooked. Even in this age of sophisticated technology and un-
precedented opportunity, atrocity, injustice and senseless suffering exist
in as great or greater measure than any other point in human history. In
both the developing and developed world there are deep chasms dividing
rich and poor; countless acts of violence between nations, within nations,
and between individuals. Hunger, disease, and lack of opportunity leave
many of the world s citizens in poverty s grip with little hope of experi-
encing anything different.
Historically speaking, early Christianity was always on the side of
social good. There is clear indication that Christians cared for the dis-
eased and hungered as much as the enslaved and oppressed. Such care

*
Daniel Bryan is a co-founder of the Aitreni Group, a social entrepreneurial
venture focused on catalyzing the creation of social good in a variety of sectors
by joining movements of influence with movements of justice. He is a graduate
of Trinity Graduate School and holds an MA in Communication and Culture.
Michael T. Cooper is associate professor of Religion and Contemporary Culture
at Trinity Graduate School and directs the MA in Communication and Culture
program. Along with graduate students, he is exploring social entrepreneurial
opportunities in Haiti, Romania, Nicaragua and Pine Ridge Reservation, South
Dakota.

2
was an impetus to the early churchs growth.
1
The situation changed,
however, after the institutionalization of the church at the time of Em-
peror Constantine.
2
Saint J erome iterates the sentiment of the churchs
shift to power, Parchments are dyed purple, gold is melted into lettering,
manuscripts are dressed up in jewels, while Christ lies at the door naked
and dying (Ep. 22, 32). In the 21st century the church is confronted
with a different reality. While the evangelical movement successfully
turned the tide away fromthe social gospel in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, it came at an apparent expense of care for the very people that
might be called neighbor. Combined with recent data that indicates a
primary reason for people leaving the Christian faith as a view that the
church and her people are hypocrites who do not live out the teachings of
Christ, Christianity in the United States is experiencing steady decline.
3

The aimof this article is to highlight social entrepreneurship as an
effective framework for Christians to address social issues in the current
global context. Social entrepreneurship provides Christians with an op-
portunity for exhibiting the care of others as is inherent in Christian or-
thopraxis. We will argue that social entrepreneurship can be utilized in
Christian engagement of such issues both overseas as well as in the con-
text of the United States. Such engagement demonstrates concern for
ones neighbor and love for Christ. A Christian rationale for social en-
trepreneurship, then, seeks economic, social, environmental and spiritual
good of people to raise their quality of life and dignity as created in the
image of God.
Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship is a rather young field in terms of formal
recognition.
4
Its practitioners, however the entrepreneurs themselves
have been in existence for generations, long before anyone coined the
term. In the words of Mohammad Yunus, Do-gooders are the same
people who are sometimes referred to as social entrepreneurs in formal
parlance. Social entrepreneurship is an integral part of human history.
5


1
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus
Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a
Few Centuries (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 73-94.
2
Michael T. Cooper, From Christendom to Post-Christendom: The Con-
tinuing Evolution of the Western Religious Landscape and the Emergence of
New Religious Identities, in Perspectives on Post-Christendom Spiritualities:
Evangelical Reflections on New Spiritualities, ed. Michael T. Cooper (Sydney:
Morling, 2010), 1-18.
3
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Faith in Flux: Changes in Reli-
gious Affiliation in the U.S. (2009), 7. Internet resource available from
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/flux/fullreport.pdf (Accessed 13
February 2010).
4
Kai Hockerts, J ohanna Mair, and J effrey Robinson, Social Entre-
preneurship (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 2.
5
Muhammad Yunus, Social Business Entrepreneurs Are the Solu-

3
It occupies a crucial space that is both unique and necessary in address-
ing many of the world s social challenges.
Social Entrepreneurship in Theory
As Northwestern University s Nathaniel Whitmore has rightfully
asserted, social entrepreneurship is still in large part a nascent field.
6
Bill
Drayton, founder of Ashoka, remarked, By the nineteenth century, a
few modern social entrepreneurs began to appear. The anti-slavery
leagues and Florence Nightingale are outstanding examples. But they
remained islands. It was only around 1980 that the ice began to crack
and the social arena as a whole made the structural leap to this new en-
trepreneurial venture.
7
While the scholarship has multiplied exponen-
tially in the past decade with many great works by well-respected ex-
perts, a normative, universal definition of the discipline is elusive. In a
sense, this is to be expected. Given the broad diversity of social entre-
preneurship s applications in the real world, each venture is tailored in
such a way as to specifically address a social concern in its given con-
text(s). This is not to say there is not agreement or overlap between the
definitions offered by scholars and practitioners. As such, social entre-
preneurship is still very pliable and opportunity exists to shape the field.
Most attempts at defining it will incorporate something to the effect that
social entrepreneurship [is] the innovative use of resource combinations
to pursue opportunities aiming at the creation of organizations and/or
practices that yield and sustain social benefits.
8

It must be said at this point that a pursuit of a normative definition
of social entrepreneurship could go on in perpetuity. In fact, for some
scholars in the field, this is where they have primarily focused their ef-
forts. Paul Light, in The Search for Social Entrepreneurship explores the
difficulty of defining the field, particularly in regards to inclusiv-
ity/exclusivity. In one camp, scholars and practitioners have advocated
for a more exclusive definition, one that is located in the individual en-
trepreneur and their specific endeavor. On the other hand, many have
advocated for the inclusion of the organizations, networks, and now
scholarly pursuits that are successfully catalyzing the work of social en-
trepreneurs around the world. Perhaps Light s greatest point is a plea for

tion, in Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social
Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (New York: Oxford University Press, USA,
2008), 40.
6
Nathaniel Whitmore, About | Social Entrepreneurship |
Change.org. Social Entrepreneurship | Change.org.
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/about/primer (accessed Novem-
ber 16, 2009).
7
Bill Drayton, Everyone a Changemaker: Social Entrepreneurship's
Ultimate Goal. Innovations (MIT Press) Winter (2006): 1-16.
8
Kai Hockerts, J ohanna Mair, and J effrey Robinson, Social Entrepreneur-
ship (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 120.

4
the thought leaders in the field to keep social entrepreneurship from be-
ing yet another nomenclature that has been stripped of all meaning. He
holds up words like leadership and innovation as contemporary ex-
amples of the devastating erosion of language, citing J ames Phills who
called them, like a Rorschach test [full of] conceptual ambiguity.
9

Central to this idea, however it is defined, is the concept of blended
value.
10
Blended value, or dual/multiple bottomline is what results
when businesses, whether for-profit or nonprofit create value in multi-
ple dimensions economic, social, and/or environmental.
11
This is an
extremely important distinctive of social entrepreneurship leveraging
market concepts to fuel the work of justice, consequently creating more
justice in and between markets, all to fuel the work of social good.
The study of social entrepreneurship has been adopted by many of
the world s leading universities, and the list continues to grow.
12
There
is rising social consciousness among many MBA and graduate students,
faculty and society at large. Loic Sadoulet of Insead (The International
Business School in Fontainebleau, near Paris, France) describes the
trend, we have seen student interest shift frominvestment banking
and consulting jobs the dot.com get-rich model to social entrepre-
neurship, a socially conscious model. Googles motto, don t be evil,
resonates more and more with our students. Most now want jobs that
make sense.
13

Universities with dedicated social entrepreneurship programs in-
clude Harvard Business School, Oxfords Saiid Business School, and
Stanford Graduate School of Business. While others like Yale School of
Management, Brigham Young University, Kellogg Business School,
London School of Business & Economics, and MIT (and many more) are
offering some teaching and research.
14
Christian universities would cer-
tainly be in good company by engaging the field.

9
Paul Charles Light, The Search for Social Entrepreneurship
(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008), 1-21.
10
J ed Emerson, Blended Value. Blended Value.
http://www.blendedvalue.org/ (accessed 6 December 2009).
11
J ohn Elkington and Pamela Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable Peo-
ple: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets That Change the World (New
York: Harvard Business School Press, 2008), 4.
12
Matthew Mars and Sharon Garrison, Socially-Oriented Ventures
and Traditional Entrepreneurship Education Models: A Case Review,
Journal of Education for Business 84, no. 5 (2009): 290-296.
13
Nazanin Lankarani, Let your conscience be your guide; Business
students warm to idea of not just wealth, but making a difference, The
International Herald Tribune (Paris), November 3, 2009.
14
Alex Nicholls, Introduction, in Social Entrepreneurship: New Models
of Sustainable Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (New York: Oxford University
Press, USA, 2008), 8-9.

5
Toward Defining Social Entrepreneurship
While defining social entrepreneurship is a challenge, we under-
stand it as a venture that addresses issues of local and global concern by
catalyzing enterprises that create sustainable change for improvement of
the social conditions, quality of life and dignity of people as created in
the image of God. Such enterprises focus on economic, social, environ-
mental, and spiritual good of a community.
At this point it is important to briefly explore the idea of good.
Although a myriad of nuanced understandings exist that would be diffi-
cult to reconcile, a few distinct types of good are important to under-
stand. First, and most basic, is economic good. Economic good is ex-
actly as it sounds. This is the good generated by what has traditionally
been referred to as the for-profit or business sector of society. Eco-
nomic good, in relation to social entrepreneurship, is understood in the
sense of wealth creation that is sustainable and relevant to the cultural
and societal situation. It does not necessarily mean the propagation of
free market capitalism as such an economic system is culturally condi-
tion. That is, free market capitalism has been somewhat successful in a
culture with what Max Weber called a Protestant Ethic.
15
However, an
effective economic systemwill take into consideration the cultural par-
ticularities as it strives to become sustainable. Therefore, economic good
seeks the betterment of the quality of life of individuals as conditioned
on particular cultural presuppositions.
Second, and a bit more difficult to define, is social good. As Row-
ena Young points out, social good or social value is an essentially sub-
jective idea as a result of its social or communal location and derivation;
it means different things to different stakeholders. Rowena offers a help-
ful basic definition of social value as benefit[ing] people whose urgent
and reasonable needs are not being met by other means.
16
Basically,
social good represents the types of value added to society that are not
necessarily financial. A distinguishing feature of social entrepreneurship
is its focus on creating ventures that will address particular social chal-
lenges. Be they issues of justice or politics, such venture creation keeps
in mind the good of people in society rather than a singularly financial
bottom-line. Ventures in social concern focus on hot button issues such
as human trafficking, healthcare, human rights, public policy and politi-
cal advocacy.
In light of its increased attention across all sectors, a third type of
good that must be defined is environmental good. While it could be de-
fined as a mere sub-category of social good (and it definitely is), due to
the numerous innovations surrounding green and clean technology, cli-

15
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London:
Routledge, 1905 [1922]).
16
Rowena Young, For What it is Worth: Social Value and the Future of
Social Entrepreneurship, in Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustain-
able Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (New York: Oxford University Press,
USA, 2008), 57.

6
mate change, and alternative fuels, environmental good deserves a spe-
cific treatment.
17
As stewards of creation, social enterprises must take
into consideration the good of the environment. The unfettered exploita-
tion of earths natural resource as well as the over fertilization of soil
does more to propagate consumerismthan it does to care for Gods crea-
tion.
Fourth, a category of spiritual good must be included, particularly
when foundations for engagement are considered. When social entrepre-
neurship is catalyzed with a Christian worldview, a holistic understand-
ing of the person must include the care for their spiritual condition. Be-
lieving that Christianity offers freedomfrom social problems and that
lasting change can only occur at a deep worldview level, social entrepre-
neurship must enact spiritual good. This is particularly true outside the
Western world where religion remains an important aspect of peoples
lives. Seeking the spiritual good does not assume that Christian in-
volvement in social ventures will have a conversion agenda. On the con-
trary, Christian involvement recognizes the spiritual nature of people and
demands care for the least of these (Matt 25:40). Pure religion, after
all, is care for the marginalized (J as 1:27). In fact, Christians would ac-
knowledge the idea that social good, as well as economic and environ-
mental, are among the manifestations of spiritual good. They would ex-
pect to see change if there were change toward the spiritual good of peo-
ple.
Fallacious Dichotomy of Economic
and Social Good
In the last 80 years of formal development work, and in developed
cultures at large, these distinct types of good and the organizations tasked
with pursuing them have become increasingly compartmentalized.
While some specialization is necessary, and often effective, a case can be
made that economic and social good have drifted too far apart. This ex-
plains the failure of large-scale solutions such as the aid industry. Bill
Drayton, CEO of Ashoka and a long time pioneer in the field states:
For three centuries the social and business halves of society
drifted apart. So far apart that they developed different lan-
guages, styles, legal structures, and mutually negative stereo-
types of one another. This compounding division was an histori-
cal accident, a giant navigational error. Nonetheless, the inertia
of division remains strong. Every major need a person has - be it
housing or health care - is now served by separate business and
social systems that have not talked for centuries. It is hard to

17
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 4.

7
imagine a more incompetent way of doing things: or a bigger
opportunity - a huge society-wide productivity gain.
18

Although there are many that support this separation of economic
and social good (such as Milton Friedman), there is precedence for an-
other way. Even early 20th century business leaders and strategists like
Mary Parker Follet understood business as both a social and economic
institution.
19
This false dichotomy is part of what social entrepreneurship
successfully addresses, by re-integrating social good and economic good
as concurrent ends and as forces that fuel each other. J ohn Elkington and
Pamela Hartigan state, Currently, one segment of society is trying to
maximize profits without much concern for the impact on the well-being
of society as a whole, and another segment tries to deal with the fallout.
Overall, the systemis not working. It is time to change the rules of the
game.
20
Social entrepreneurship can and should be applied to local and
global contexts ranging in scope and scale; this applies to the poorest
areas of the world (i.e. the regions that are the target of the United Na-
tions MillenniumDevelopment Goals), but also to the social problems
that exist in the developed world.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is another movement related
to (and yet distinct from) social entrepreneurship. CSR has sought to
address the dichotomy between social and economic good in recent
years. Another term for CSR in the literature and public parlance has
been Creative Capitalism coined by the likes of such corporate giants
as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. In a book by the same title Gates and
others make the case for the world s greatest forces for capitalismto also
pursue doing good, making profits and also improving lives for those
who don t fully benefit from market forces. To make the system sustain-
able, we need to use profit incentives whenever we can.
21

This creative capitalism as described by CSR advocates is largely in
the formof corporate donations or aid which is certainly a wonderful
thing in some respects, but an aid-only approach is fundamentally not
enough to address the toughest social problems. To the extent in which
CSR can be employed to support sustainable, entrepreneurial ventures
that help developing nations help themselves it should be pursued to the
fullest. In many respects it is similar to the proposition of J effrey Sachs
that poverty could be completely annihilated in one big push, with a

18
Bill Drayton, The Citizen Sector Transformed, in Social Entrepreneur-
ship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (New York:
Oxford University Press, USA, 2008), 51.
19
Michele Simms, Insights from a Management Prophet: Mary
Parker Follet on Social Entrepreneurship, Business and Society Review
114, no. 3 (2009): 351.
20
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 82.
21
Bill Gates, A New Approach to Capitalism, in Creative Capital-
ism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Other Eco-
nomic Leaders, ed. Michael Kinsley (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster,
2008), 7-16.

8
large enough sumof money. This is not to say it is not valuable (some
critics like Easterly seem to fall prey to their own critique of dismissing
the good in search of the perfect ), CSR has a vital role to play, but it
is not social entrepreneurship,
22
and like foreign aid it should not be pur-
sued in a vacuum.
23

Social Entrepreneurship in Practice
What does the social entrepreneurship enterprise or organization
look like in reality? First, these types of organizations are not all the
same. This is analogous to the varying and multiple approaches to defin-
ing the field social issues are contextual, and so the entrepreneurial so-
lutions to these problems must also fit the context. Second, the organiza-
tional approaches are varied. This is not limited to either the for or
non profit sectors, in fact there are many clear examples of social en-
trepreneurship found in either one or a blend of the two.
The Kelley School of Business developed a typology based on the
dimensions of mission and outcomes, stating that while other factors are
clearly at play these two help identify at least four distinct types of entre-
preneurial ventures. First is a Social Purpose Venture. These types of
ventures are founded explicitly to solve a social problem, but the venture
is for-profit, seeking economic impact on the market. Second are Tradi-
tional Ventures, which have a primarily economic mission and no ex-
plicit social mission. Third are Social Consequence Ventures. Much
like the second category, there are social benefits, but they are not explic-
itly linked to the reasons why the organization is in business (this is the
closest to CSR discussed above). Fourth are Enterprising Nonprofits
which have earned income activities, but are primarily focused on social
mission. The authors of this typology (and others like Elkington s lev-
eraged nonprofit, hybrid nonprofit, and social business model
24
) do al-
low for a combination of one or more of the above models. In fact, the
hybrid in this typology is probably the best description of most social
entrepreneurial ventures.
25

As an emerging field, at least in terms of scholarship, social entre-
preneurship is in some ways most easily understood by a closer look at
some specific ventures themselves. Although it would be impossible to
capture every representative case study in this discussion, we will exam-
ine a few.

22
Heidi Neck, Candida Brush, and Elaine Allen, The landscape of
social entrepreneurship, Business Horizons 52, no. 1 (2009): 13-19.
23
William Easterly, Old-fashioned Capitalism Is Moral Enough, in Crea-
tive Capitalism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Other Eco-
nomic Leaders. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2008: 104-110.
24
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 31.
25
Heidi, Neck, Candida Brush, and Elaine Allen, The landscape of social
entrepreneurship, Business Horizons 52, no. 1 (2009): 15.

9
Some of the most remarkable practical examples of social entrepre-
neurship come from the field of microfinance. The Grameen Bank, in
Bangladesh is the venture that started it all. With only $27US of his own
money, Muhammad Yunus started a tidal wave that opened up credit to
many the world s poor for the first time. Historically, formal banks have
not leant to those in poverty because they have been deemed high credit
risks. Since its inception in 1976, Grameen Bank is 93 percent owned by
its borrowers (some of the poorest people in the world), has loaned $3.9
billion US to poor entrepreneurs, and boasts a 98 percent pay-back rate.
These are truly remarkable figures. More than figures, Grameen has in-
vested in over 40,000 villages, employs almost 12,000 people, and has
remained self-reliant by consistently turning a profit; proving that busi-
nesses with social objectives can and do work.
26

Another example from microfinance is the U.S. based Kiva
(www.kiva.org). Kiva has expanded on the local and regional example
of Grameen and connected networks of lenders and entrepreneurs around
the world. Kivas stated mission is to connect people through lending
for the sake of alleviating poverty.
27
Through their online platform,
Kiva has made it possible for anyone around the world to make a small
loan to qualified entrepreneurs to start businesses and other social ven-
tures. In just four years, roughly half a million individual lenders (regu-
lar people around the world) have donated as little as $25 at a time, to
reach a capacity of $100 million/year in loans (as of November 2009).
Gun Keshari Maharjan is a great example of the Kiva success story (and
there are many). Gun lives in Nepal. She and her husband worked me-
nial jobs making kitchen utensils and crafts to sell in the street. She had
a vision to open a grocery store. Through an initial loan of $150 dollars
she was able to open the store. It was so successful that she has since
been able to buy land, grow her own produce, pay for her children to go
to school, and has borrowed and repaid two more Kiva loans to further
her business.
28
Microfinance is not just for developing regions or far-
away places. It is also gaining traction as an alternative to government
programs like welfare in many developed nations like the United States.
Although microfinance is one of the leading examples, it is impor-
tant to say it is only one area of social entrepreneurship and the success
of microfinance lies in that it has found a way to fund and connect and
fuel multiple contextual ventures (like Gun), which are the true success
stories. Another example is Big Belly Solar (www.bigbellysolar.com).
Big Belly is an example of Social Purpose Venture in the Kelley ty-
pology. They manufacture and sell 100 percent solar powered trash
compactors that replace traditional trash bins in high traffic public cen-
ters. Its founder, J imBoss, explains, there are about 180,000 garbage

26
Muhammad Yunus, Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle
Against World Poverty (New York: PublicAffairs, 2007), 234-246.
27
See http://www.kiva.org/about (Accessed 1 March 2010).
28
What is Kiva?. Kiva: Loans that Change Lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about (accessed November 16, 2009).

10
trucks in the U.S. [that] burn over a billion gallons of diesel fuel and cost
about $50 billion a year the trash pick up frequency is driven by the
container, we use technology in the container to reduce the pickup fre-
quency by about a factor of five.
29
Big Belly is pursuing multiple bot-
tomlines by remaining a viable, profit turning business, and reducing the
harmful effects on the environment, and the waste (environmental, finan-
cial, etc.) incurred by all of those garbage truck trips.
Bunker Roy saw a social problemin the business of poverty in
India and so he founded Barefoot College. He became frustrated with
what he called a top-down approach to serving Indias rural poor it
was a system with resources focused on urban centers where experts
would devise plans to help meet the poor s most basic needs. Roy estab-
lished what is now the self-sufficient Barefoot College that recognizes
the poor as the experts, and gives themthe skills they need to meet the
needs of their neighbors in their local context.
This is the only college based in a rural area that is built by the
poor and managed by them. Barefoot engineers have solar-
electrified the college (the only solar-electrified college in India).
Barefoot solar engineers, many of them illiterate women, have
solar-electrified thousands of houses in eight Indian states. Bare-
foot water engineers installed the first hand pumps ever in
Ladakh, 14,000 feet up in the Himalayas, something that urban
experts had said was technically impossible.
30

Other examples include Good African Coffee
31
founded by Andrew
Rugasira that has managed to transform entire communities in Uganda
by engaging in the international trade of coffee, thus breaking the cycle
of reliance on aid. Family House, another hybrid social entrepreneurial
effort, was started by a Cordelia Taylor in Milawaukee, Wisconsin in one
of the worst neighborhoods over run by drugs and gangs. It has now re-
sulted in homes, jobs, medical care, and the transformation of an entire,
once devastated community.
32
There are of course many other examples.
The final example is, somewhat surprisingly, a large corporation
Whole Foods. At first glance it might seem as though this type of enter-
prise is outside the box of social entrepreneurship, but upon further in-
spection it is clear the value created by Whole Foods is incredibly consis-
tent with the criteria and working definition presented in this article. As
leading business expert Gary Hamel describes, Picture, if you can, a
company that doesn t think of itself as a company, but as a community of

29
Neck, Brush, and Allen. The landscape of social entrepreneurship, 17.
30
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 34-37.
31
Andrew Rugasira, Goodafrican - TRADE NOT AID: A NEW
PARADIGM. Goodafrican - Home.
http://www.goodafrican.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=29&Itemid=48 (accessed November 16, 2009).
32
Barbara J . Elliott, Street Saints: Renewing America's Cities. (Rad-
nor: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004), 15-21.

11
people working to make a difference in the world, where the mission
matters as much as the bottom line.
33
Whole Foods founder J ohn
Mackey (although not without scrutiny in recent years) wanted to change
the way America approached food. In 1978 he began with one small
store called Safer Way and it has grown to company of over $7 billion
US in 2007.
The reason this company s growth matters to the topic of social en-
trepreneurship is that while pursuing traditional economic growth
Whole Foods has done a great deal to drive whole food and organic
food concepts into the commercial mainstream a clear social benefit.
In Mackey s own words,
the orthodox view among free market economists [is] that the
only social responsibility a law-abiding business has is to maxi-
mize profits I strongly disagree. I m a businessman and a free
market libertarian, but I believe that the enlightened corporation
should try to create value for all of its constituencies for cus-
tomers, employees, suppliers, and the community.
34

Mackey and Whole Foods see profit as a means to accomplishing
the end of their social goals. We want to improve the health and well-
being of everyone on the planet through higher quality foods and better
nutrition we can t fulfill that mission unless we are highly profitable.
35

Although the current magnitude of Whole Foods enterprise would cause
some scholars to categorize it in the new terminology of corporate so-
cial entrepreneurship or (CSE),
36
it is clear fromthe beginning of the
Safer Way story that this is a perfect example of a social entrepreneur
taking a risk, achieving scale, and affecting true systemic social change.
The Opportunity for Social Enterprises
Social entrepreneurship seeks to blend the value offered by both the
for and the non profit sectors capitalizing on the power of their inter-
section. Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Laureate and the so-called father of
contemporary micro-lending says it this way, The more we can move in
the direction of business [in social ventures] the better off we are We
[then] have unlimited opportunities to expand and do more, and replica-
tion becomes so much easier.
37

Social entrepreneurship, we suggest, holds promise to address some
of the difficult social issues facing the world today. At the United Na-

33
Gary Hamel, The Future of Management (New York: Harvard
Business School Press, 2007), 69.
34
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 50-54.
35
Hamel, The Future of Management, 77.
36
J ames E. Austin, Herman B. Leonard, Ezequiel Reficco and J ane Wei-
Skillern, Social Entrepreneurship: It is for Corporations, Too, in Social Entre-
preneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls
(New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008), 170-180.
37
Elkington and Hartigan. The Power of Unreasonable People, 17.

12
tions General Assembly in 2000, the countries of the world adopted a
resolution to address developmental challenges confronting the planet.
Known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the UN objec-
tive is to eradicate poverty by 2015.
38
The assembly declared,
We solemnly reaffirm, on this historic occasion, that the United
Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human
family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspi-
rations for peace, cooperation and development. We therefore
pledge our unstinting support for these common objectives
[MDGs] and our determination to achieve them.
39

While much can be said about the UN s assertion regarding itself as an
indispensable common house its ambition to help people is commend-
able. The eight MDGs are to: 1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,
2) achieve universal primary education, 3) promote gender equality and
empower women, 4) reduce child mortality, 5) improve maternal health,
6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, 7) ensure environ-
mental sustainability, and 8) develop a global partnership for develop-
ment.
40

The Declaration was ushered in with great fanfare on the recom-
mendations and advocacy fromeconomists such as J effery Sachs and
celebrity activists such as Bono. Sachs, in The End of Poverty, paints an
inspiring picture of how the world s rich can and will end poverty in a
generation, primarily through a large-scale infusion of resources from
developed to developing nations in an effort to tip poverty.
41
Sachs
draws on historical examples like the Great Depression for precedent and
identifies the target of 2025 as when this dream could be realized, the
dreamthat we will be the generation to end poverty.
42

There has been positive progress. For instance, between 1990 and
2005 the percentage of those living in extreme poverty (less than $1
US/day) in developing regions dropped from about fifty to almost a

38
The United Nations. The MillieniumDevelopment Goals Report
2009. The United Nations.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_Report_2009_ENG.pdf
(accessed 16 November 2009): 4.
39
United Nations Millennium Declaration (8 September 2000), 9. Inter-
net resource available from
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf (Accessed 16 February
2010).
40
About the Millennium Development Goals. UNDP | United Nations
Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml (accessed
December 5, 2009).
41
MalcolmGladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can
Make a Big Difference (New York: Back Bay Books, 2002).
42
J effrey Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our
Time. (Boston: Penguin [Non-Classics], 2006), 2-26.

13
twenty-five percent.
43
Credit for this advancement (and others listed in
the 2009 UN MDG Report) must be given to the many development
mechanisms like the United Nations and the contribution of foreign aid
fromthe developed nations. The aspirations of Sachs and others are cer-
tainly admirable but the actualization of those aspirations in reality has
been another thing entirely. According to the 2009 Millennium Devel-
opment Report, the goals are far frombeing met (even though they re-
main optimistic), and the marshalling of the tremendous resources re-
quired (in the form of foreign aid) is an uphill battle a battle that is
highly unlikely to be won by 2015.
44

This approach to addressing the local and global social problems
laid out in the MDGs is not without critique from experts like William
Easterly, who calls it ill-fated saying developed nations consistently fall
prey to a utopian trap he terms the big push and end up missing the
proverbial forest for the trees (or the dreamof ending poverty with one
well-placed blow).
45
It is clear that foreign aid in and of itself is not
enough to solve these types of problems. There is the additional need to
catalyze enterprises that help raise the dignity of people by valuing them
as created for a purpose. Social entrepreneurship provides such an op-
portunity.
Current State of the Globe
46

There are approximately 6.7 billion people in the world today.
Twenty-one percent (1.4 billion) of the world s population lives on less
than 1.25 USD per day, an increase from 1.37 billion in 2006. The
United Nations estimated that the number of those living in extreme pov-
erty will have increased by 55-90 million in 2009. The situation does not
seem to be moving toward improvement with a global economy still feel-
ing the pangs of recession. Despite global economic growth in the early
part of this decade and the concomitant increase in employment, the un-
employment rate began to climb in 2008. Froma low of less than 2 per-
cent in 2007, unemployment spiked in 2009 to 6.6 percent. While the
global economy is recovering, unemployment is expected to be at 6.5
percent in 2010.
Eighty percent of the world s impoverished live in regions where Is-
lam, Hinduism and Buddhism are dominant. In those regions, unem-

43
The United Nations. The Millienium Development Goals Report 2009.
The United Nations.
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_Report_2009_ENG.pdf (ac-
cessed November 16, 2009): 4.
44
Ibid: 47-50.
45
WilliamEasterly, The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Ef-
forts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (Boston:
Penguin [Non-Classics], 2007), 37-40.
46
The data for this section is extracted from the 2009 MDG Report.

14
ployment reaches from 30-80 percent. The countries of these regions are
experiencing the fastest population growth. Having been asked about the
greatest challenges facing the world, former president J immy Carter in-
dicated in his Nobel lecture after being awarded the Peace Prize in 2002,
I decided that the most serious and universal problem [in the world] is
the growing chasmbetween the richest and poorest people on earth.
47

The problemis acutely felt in these regions.
Poverty is of course one of the leading factors to numerous social
issues. For example, one third of the child mortality rate of 9 million in
2007 was caused by under-nutrition. In fact, in 2008, an estimated 1.1
billion people were undernourished. Poverty places people in extreme
circumstances and contributes to the increasing numbers of individuals
caught in unfair labor practices. An estimated 12 to 27 million people
are enslaved in conditions where they are unable to acquire freedomdue
to constraints place on them by employers.
48
Such slave conditions oc-
cur primarily with women and children and many are often used in the
sex industry. Some 900,000 people are trafficked annually as slaves. In
one instance, according to UN International Labour Organization (ILO),
in 2005 approximately 9.49 million people were used in forced labor in
the Asia-Pacific region. Human trafficking is the third most profitable
illegal moneymaker in the current global economy.
49

While the countries of the developed world have taken notice and
provided monetary relief to improve social situations, they have often
done so blindly. Africa has benefited from foreign aid and has emerged
in pop culture as a preferred cause for consumers and corporations alike
over the past decade. Sub-Saharan African nations are at the heart of the
MDG discussion being the home of 50 percent of the world s poorest
people,
50
Aid relief in Africa has done an incredible job in providing
some relief. However, 70 percent of African governments are dependent
on foreign aid. The US sends $40 billion US in aid to Africa while only
$17 billion US is directed to investment. This has created a climate of
self-perpetuating bureaucracies and disincentives for development.
51

The result of foreign aid has not been positive. What was thought to
once be a help to African nations has in fact exacerbated poverty. Dam-

47
J immy Carter, Nobel Lecture, Oslo, Norway 10 December 2002.
Internet resource available from
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/carter-lecture.html.
48
See for example Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the
Global Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 8-9.
49
See U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report (Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of State 2004).
50
Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How
There Is a Better Way for Africa (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
2009), 5.
51
Mindy Belz and Alisa Harris, Minding Africas Business, World, (10
October 2009):37.

15
bisa Moyo, who is an economist and native African, points out in Dead
Aid that many African nations who have been on the receiving end of
about $1 trillion US over the past half-century are as poor or poorer than
they were 40 years ago.
52

Poverty is exacerbated by the number of refugees. Today there are
an estimated 15.2 million refugees and 26 million internally displaced
people. Lack of educational opportunities perpetuates poverty as well.
In 2007, 72 million children were denied the right to education. Nearly
half of out-of-school children have never had any education. Over half
of themare girls. This lack of educational opportunities forces families
into situation where children are used for forced labor, both physical and
sexual.
Disease is also a contributor to poverty. When people are ill they
are unable to work. Many illnesses today are easily preventable. In a
world were nearly one million people die each year from this preventable
disease, simple insecticide treated bed nets have proven to be an effective
means for the control of malaria. Still, approximately 330 million people
are infected annually. HIV/AIDS continues to be a burden. While there
are cultural peculiarities tied to this disease, two-thirds of the victims live
in Sub-Sahara Africa. Fifteen million children world-wide lost a parent
to AIDS in 2007. Over 47 million children in Sub-Sahara Africa have
lost one or both parents to the disease. Clean water would help in many
situations where diseases run rampant. Reality is, however, that 13 per-
cent of the world s population relies on unimproved water sources for
drinking, cooking and bathing.
In such conditions of poverty peace and stability are threatened.
Yunus, the Bangladeshi micro-lender, stated in his 2006 Nobel Peace
Prize address,
Peace is threatened by an unjust economic, social and political
order, absence of democracy, environmental degradation and ab-
sence of human rights. Poverty is the absence of all human
rights. The frustration, hostility and anger generated by abject
poverty cannot sustain peace in any society. For building stable
peace we must find ways to provide opportunities for people to
live decent lives.
53

Framework for Applying Social Entrepreneurship
There are numerous ways in which social entrepreneurial ventures
might be catalyzed to address the needs so apparent in the MDGs. Being
that the discipline is new and continues to be tested, its application is still
theoretical on many levels. Nevertheless, as Christians and Christian
universities explore the field it is important to keep at the forefront the

52
Moyo, Dead Aid, 5-35.
53
Muhammad Yunus, Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business
and the Future of Capitalism (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 238-239.

16
notion that social entrepreneurship is entirely contingent on the particular
cultural context in which a venture is launched. We have identified three
important steps in the process of catalyzing social ventures. First, we
suggest a phase called Pilot Project. The pilot project focuses on re-
search. This phase evaluates needs and possibilities for sustainable ven-
tures by sending research teams, in the university case, of students and
faculty to study the issues in a particular context. The pilot phase seeks
to develop relationships with key individuals in a community who will
be able to actualize and indigenize the potential venture. The pilot pro-
ject represents the initial efforts toward a sustainable venture and as-
sesses the feasibility for the continuation of the project.
The second phase would be Build Project. The building phase
takes the pilot project to the next level. It focuses on local entrepreneu-
rial leadership of the venture and moves it out of the hands of the re-
searcher. It looks for mechanisms that will assist in making the project
sustainable over the long term. The research teammay decide to con-
tinue with the project, but deliberate leadership change must take place
for the project to become indigenized. Finally, Sustain Project would
be the last phase. The ultimate goal in the social enterprise is for it to be
sustainable in the society. Sustainability is measured by leadership,
funding and viable connections to local and global markets. A sustain-
able venture will have its own sense of corporate social responsibility as
it gives back to the community.
Critique of Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship is not without its critics. Alix Rule, draw-
ing fromdie-hard free-market economists like Milton Friedman offers a
harsh critique. Rule defines approaches like social entrepreneurship and
their attempts to reintegrate social and economic bottom lines as the
Good-as-Money approach. Throughout the course of this article, that
integration has been represented positively; Rule sees it differently. Rule
fears the Good-as-Money approach is diminishing our capacity to deter-
mine what is social good, [it] makes it impossible to discuss the value
conflicts involved in social change by conceptually vacating the need to
do so once social value starts mimicking economic value, it is hard to
maintain a nice distinction between the two.
54
What Rule is essentially
afraid of here is the death of free market ideology essentially that as
any external impositions (like social bottom lines) creep into markets,
freedomdiminishes, and their ability to function could be restricted.
Rule clearly takes cues from Friedman, who in commenting on the
philosophy of CSR circa 1970, stated,
I have called [the doctrine of social responsibility] a funda-
mentally subversive doctrine in a free society. There is one and
only one social responsibility of business to use its resources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as

54
Alix Rule, Good-as-money, Dissent 56, no. 2 (2009): 86-95.

17
it stays within the rules of the game without deception or
fraud.
55

Friedman and Rule fear any encroachment of social pressure on the mar-
kets. If this were a unilaterally imposed proposition they might have a
fair point, but it appears they are offering a bit of a wedge argument or
straw man. Rule goes on, If privatization discharged responsibility for
social welfare to the lowest bidder, the drive to reconceive social good
has carried that doctrine one conceptual step further. A regime of good-
as-money abdicates the definition of social value to its financiers.
56

While a scenario like this would certainly not be desirable, this has not
been the effect of social entrepreneurship efforts around the world.
Peter Drucker agrees that Friedmans argument has merit while
suggesting it is not so simple, But it is also clear that social responsibil-
ity cannot be evaded. It is not only that the public demands it. It is not
only that society needs it. If the managers of our major institutions, es-
pecially business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no
one else can or will.
57
Where Friedman and Rule disagree slightly is
that Friedman sees blended value pursuits as socialist or collectivist
and says that you cannot pursue those means without eventually adopt-
ing their respective ways. His specific concern appears to be a Com-
munist government/economy (and given the climate of the time he was
writing this is likely the case). One of Rules primary concerns is that
the government will no longer be the locus of social change. This
seems a bit perplexing, as Rule aggressively advocates for free markets,
but seems to also advocate a socialist government-based philosophy of
addressing social problems. It all comes back to the fear that the
wrong voices (a subjective distinction to be sure) will be shaping what
is defined as good. This is perhaps a valid concern, but once again
lacking as a rationale for abstaining froma chance to affect positive so-
cial change.
Both critiques seem to rely on a slippery slope or worst-case argu-
ment both also ignore the potential (and proven) benefits. The goal of
social entrepreneurship is not to annihilate traditional ventures in either
sector. It is not calling for the death of the for-profit or the conversion
of every non-profit. Its aimis to leverage the opportunity of a blended
value approach, allowing the functioning of truly free markets to drive
social change (as evidenced in the examples above). Clearly the current
systems and structures have not proven to be complete solutions in and
of themselves. Further, a strong case could be made that government

55
Milton Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business, in Creative
Capitalism: A Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Other Eco-
nomic Leaders ed. Michael Kinsley (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2008),
287-297.
56
Rule, Good-as-money, 93.
57
Peter F. Drucker, People and Performance: The Best of Peter
Drucker on Management (New York: Harvard Business School Press,
2007), 257.

18
should not necessarily be the primary locus of social change, but instead
individual citizens and private groups can and should leverage their abili-
ties to improve the lives of those around them.
Finally, if the dangers Rule identifies are in fact true (the erosion of
truth claims, etc.), this should be motivation for engagement, not a ra-
tionale for retreat. Institutions and organizations committed to investing
in the leaders that will positively impact the world (like Christian univer-
sities) should be first in line to help shape theses types of conversations.
Criticismof Christian Involvement in
Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship as a strategy for advancing the cause of
Christ will undoubtedly fall under criticismfrommany sides. We can
anticipate the criticismfromthe secular world who will see such in-
volvement as simply manipulating social resources for proselytizing pur-
poses. Such criticismresults fromthe impression that Christians do not
care for anything but a person s eternal salvation. While this is a worthy
concern on the part of Christians, it will take the demonstration of faith
in acts of charity to recover a balance between concern for both the
physical and spiritual lives of people. This holistic approach is modeled
in the life of Christ himself. Near the end of his ministry and on his way
to J erusalem Christ taught that his sheep would be those who care for the
thirsty, hungry, naked, sick and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-40). Such care
must have a proper focus on Christ himself as Mary demonstrated at her
house in Bethany (Matt 26:6-13). It also needs to be balanced with mak-
ing disciples (Matt 28:18-20).
Criticismwill also come from within. Some evangelicals will con-
sider a focus on social entrepreneurship as reverting back to the early
20th century when, as David Bosch articulated, God and humans were
reconciled by deifying the latter and humanizing the former.
58
There is
certainly a danger for such a regression to a purely social gospel. Gerald
Anderson identified the effect that the social gospel had on missions. He
indicated that Christianity became one among many equally relevant re-
ligions. Evangelismby the proclamation of the gospel was superseded
by activities that focused on transformation of society. Thus, the social
gospel focused on salvation in this life resulting in a mission emphasis on
society rather than an individual.
59
These are important lessons that the
Christian engaged in social entrepreneurship must not forget. Doing so
will result in a social gospel and we must not repeat this part of Western
Christian history.

58
David Bosch, Transforming Missions: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of
Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), 322.
59
Ibid.

19
Successes
The question remains, are social entrepreneurs successful in ad-
dressing the most pressing social issues like those addressed in the
MDGs? Furthermore, while the shortcomings of foreign aid, and the
sustainability issues of other development approaches have been high-
lighted, is social entrepreneurship any different? The answer to both
questions is yes. Unlike multinational corporations, or bureaucratic gov-
ernments social entrepreneurs are able to contribute more effectively to
social, human and economic development.
60
In an in-depth study of the
74 social enterprises in the Schwab network, 76 percent are directly or
indirectly having positive effects on one or more of the MDGs. These
include efforts like ApproTEC, which impacts at least three MDG s by
distributing low-cost technologies like water pumps and seed presses;
and Transfair USA which certifies farmers to be Fair Trade breaking
theminto global markets and directly affecting three MDGs as well. The
efforts that were not deemed to be directly addressing MDG s were lo-
cated in countries that were too developed, which brings up a valid
point that social entrepreneurship is also effectively addressing social
issues within developed countries.
61

To gain an even deeper understanding, the UN has identified a Hu-
man Development Index (HDI) for the more intangible quality of life
factors that are more complex than statistics like $1/day. Of these enter-
prises studied, 60 percent were making strides in nations that were in the
lowest third of HDI essentially social entrepreneurship is working
where people need it most. Social entrepreneurship is addressing social
problems around the world by breaking the cycle and offering a proac-
tive way out.
62
This is happening in the poorest places on earth (i.e. the
Grameen Bank and Kiva,) and in some of the richest places on earth (i.e.
Whole Foods and Family House.) While the priority in the field should
be placed on the urgency of addressing the poorest regions and the
MDGs, it is clear that every society, no matter how wealthy, can benefit
fromthe efforts of social entrepreneurs.
Conclusion
Social entrepreneurship is a bourgeoning field in both academic
pursuit and real-world application. The efforts of social entrepreneurs
are making a positive impact all over the planet; many in regions where
positive social change is needed most. It is not a panacea, but it is a wel-
comed and much needed addition to the traditional approaches of doing
good like foreign aid, traditional nonprofit ventures, and government
programs. As institutions committed to being a force for good in the
world, Christian universities are uniquely suited to incorporate structures,

60
Kai Hockerts, J ohanna Mair, and J effrey Robinson, Social Entrepreneur-
ship (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 236-237.
61
Ibid., 242-254.
62
Ibid., 254-255.

20
resource and personnel that will empower future generations of social
entrepreneurs.
We argue that Christians and Christian universities need to consider
involvement in social entrepreneurship. Christians hold a high view of
humanity as created in the image of God. No matter their religious or
socio-economic situation, people matter to God and should matter to
Christians as well.
Christians also believe that God is concerned with issues of social
justice. It grieves the heart of God that people live in the impoverished
situations when resources are available to help. Christians also believe
that the proclamation of the gospel comes in both word and deed. The
two cannot be separated (Matt 25-28). Christians must always keep in
mind that behind the cultural issues are people who need Christ. So
while we might work to eradicate poverty, lasting change will not occur
until we engage people. Such people have both material and spiritual
needs.
To engage in these areas requires thoughtful identification of issues
of both local and global concern. As such, the Christian must be aware
of ones society as well as the issues shaping the sundry cultures in soci-
ety. An awareness of such issues comes by deliberate observation of and
dialogue with these cultures. In addition, awareness comes by the study
of the development of the issues and the worldviews of the people. Iden-
tifying cultural issues will always have in mind that behind themis an
individual who has the need for Christ.
Because Christians are concerned for the spiritual dimension of the
person, engaging such issues must be from a distinctly Christian perspec-
tive. Believing that God is omnipresent and omniscient as well as the
plenipotentiary continued work of the Holy Spirit, the cultural issues in
the world are not unknown to him. In fact, God continues to be at work
in cultures. It is the responsibility of the Christian to identify where God
is at work and participate in what he is doing with concerted efforts to
proclaimChrist s redeeming work in culture. Thus, it is necessary to
have a solid theological foundation in order to address the world s social
problems. Social entrepreneurship merits the attention of Christian uni-
versities.