social enterprises anD the poor transforming - isea … · 18 SOCiAL ENTERPRiSES AND THE POOR: ... fisher folk, workers ... Cresente Paez, Anthony Bravo, and Teodoro Baguilat,

m a r i e l i s a m . d a c a n a y

transforming

social enterprises anD the poor

iv S O C I A L E N T E R P R I S E S A N D T H E P O O R : T R A N S F O R M I N G W E A LT H

Social EntErpriSES and thE poor: tranSforMing WEalthPhilippine Copyright © 2013by Marie Lisa M. Dacanay and Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

All rights reserved. This book or any part of it may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the author and the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia.

Published in the Philippines by the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia, Oxfam , Oikocredit Ecumenical Development Cooperative Society U.A., and Ateneo School of Government.

Published and printed in the Philippines.

The National Library of the Philippines CIP Data

Recommended entry:

Dacanay, Marie Lisa M.Social enterprises and the poor : transforming wealth /Marie Lisa M. Dacanay .—Quezon City : Marie Lisa M.Dacanay and Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia,c2013.

p.324; 1.9 cm.

1. Social entrepreneurship—Philippines. 2. Social entrepreneurship—Philippines—Case studies. 3. Social entrepreneurship—Management. 4. Poverty—Developing countries.

HD60. 5P5 361.765 2013 P320130736ISBN 978-971-94545-1-9

9

CONTENTS

1 Acknowledgements7 Preface 11 Glossary

PArt I: UnderstAndInG sePPs18 ChAP ter 1 social enterprises and the Poor

PArt II: sIx storIes of emP owerment And InClUsIve Growth

33 ChAP ter 2 Alter trade Group: Enabling Suppliers as Transactional and Transformational Partners

84 ChAP ter 3 Upland marketing foundation, Inc: Suppliers as Transactional Partners in Value Chain Management

113 ChAP ter 4 national federation of Cooperatives of Persons with disability: Enabling Owner-Workers as Transformational

Partners

149 ChAP ter 5 tahanang walang hagdanan: Workers as Transactional Partners in Social Enterprise Management

10 S O C I A L E N T E R P R I S E S A N D T H E P O O R : T R A N S F O R M I N G W E A LT H

CONTENTS

180 ChAP ter 6 lamac multi-Purpose Cooperative: Owner-Clients as Transactional Partners

210 ChAP ter 7 Cordova multi-Purpose Cooperative: Owner-Clients as Transactional Partners

PArt III: sePPs In PersPeCtIve

238 ChAP ter 8 lessons and Challenges

265 ChAP ter 9 future links: sePPs in the Philippines

274 ChAP ter 10 Back story: sePPs and the Global

discourse

298 Key sources for the Case studies305 references315 About the Author317 About the Publishers

17

part i

UndErStanding SEppS


ChAPTER 1SOCiAL ENTERPRiSES AND THE POOR

THE POOR, wealth, and power: The equation is uncommon in a developing country like the Philippines. Instead, the picture that lingers in most people’s minds is that of the poor bound to poverty and powerlessness, from birth to death. Much has been said about the need for government to lift the poor, and very little about the poor themselves charting their own path to progress, so they may rise from poverty and want, by their own labor and resolve. This is the narrative that runs through six paths to wealth-creation that involve the poor as owners, suppliers, workers and clients of their own economic enterprises—associations, partnerships, cooperatives, and corporations—producing and providing various goods and services. These are six stories of SEPPS—Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders—bound by a common social mission to uphold their own financial, social, and ecological wellbeing. These are six SEPPS stories of the poor—farmers, fisher folk, workers in the informal sector, persons with disability, indigenous peoples, women, senior citizens, victims of calamities and disasters, youth and students, children, and informal settlers—transforming wealth and power. To be sure, these are not stories writ in flawless success, incorruptible heroes, straight-laced formula, and perfect blueprints.

19

In these SEPPS stories, the poor had met with big and small bumps in the road, not least of them a perennial shortfall of funds, missteps in dealing with donors and partners, and occasional policy discord within their ranks. But for the longest time, too, market forces have relegated the poor to the lowly status of being kasama, wageworkers, and contractual hands. The poor as owners of their own economic entities—that is an outlier, a dissonance that the market and the government have yet to fully grasp and grapple with. To this day, both market and government seem to think the poor are mere clients, workers or suppliers, effete beneficiaries of poverty-reduction and Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR initiatives, and largely shaky of resolve to be masters and managers of their own lives and enterprises. But these SEPPS stories are instructive, too, about the need for the poor to brush up on gut and wile so they may manage and engage market forces better, challenge market rules, as well as reorder how the economy works, according to their own terms. Uncritical engagement with the market may lead to the adverse result of the poor eventually morphing into the new traders, or owners bereft of social mission, other than making a profit. By all indications, these SEPPS offer great insights on how the Philippines may crack its current paradox of “jobless growth,” or one of the national economy charting record growth rates, even as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. In both the 15th Congress and the 16th Congress, draft bills have been filed seeking to institute a state program to promote SEPPS as a poverty-reduction program. The latest version, House Bill No. 1331 introduced by Representatives Cresente Paez, Anthony Bravo, and Teodoro Baguilat, is aptly titled “Ordaining the Promotion of Social Enterprises to Alleviate Poverty, Establishing for the Purpose The Poverty Reduction Through Social Entrepreneurship Program and Providing Incentives and Benefits Therefor.” The bill defines SEPPS as part of its program coverage. While broadly covering various legal forms of SEPPS including corporations and partnerships, the bill gives importance to social enterprises that “may be collectively owned by the poor in the form of cooperatives or associations where the poor are the exclusive owners or comprise a majority of the members,” as well as “NGOs or other organizations that engage in wealth-creating activities, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to finance the fulfillment of their social mission.” (H.R. 1331, 2013)

C H A P T E R 1 : S O C I A L E N T E R P R I S E S A N D T H E P O O R


Just as well, the bill proposes to set up a state-supported “Social Enterprise Development Fund” , special credit windows and a “Social Enterprise Guarantee Fund Pool with Non-Collateral Loans”. It also accords social enterprises “preferential right in the procurement process and in the implementation of procurement contracts by the government in all its branches, departments, agencies, 19 subdivisions, and instrumentalities, including in the government-owned and -controlled corporations and local government units.” Senator Paolo Benigno (Bam) Aquino IV has filed a counterpart bill in the Upper House. To support SEPPS, Senate Bill No. 1026 introduces the concept of “social value” as an additional criterion governing Philippine government procurement. Senator Aquino defines social value as additional benefits to society of procuring a good or service, including “support for poor communities or marginalized groups, advancement of human rights and social justice, protection of the environment and community development” (S. 1026, 2013) Senate Bill 1026 and House Bill 1331 are clear signals that the time for exploring the potentials of SEPPS in snatching the poor from poverty to relative sufficiency and power, through their economic enterprises that involve them as primary stakeholders, has finally dawned.

Why StUdy SEppS?Government and private sector groups have launched far too many ideas, programs, activities, and projects for and on behalf of the poor, in their common resolve to address the age-old problem of poverty in the land. Far too many of these projects, however, have tended to reduce the poor to the status of beneficiaries and clients, or in others, relegated as workers and suppliers of services. This study hopes to help bring the discussion to a new path, and celebrate examples of the poor speaking their own voice and claiming their honored place in the poverty discourse. It seeks to introduce and promote the concept and relevance of social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders (SEPPS) as vehicles for poverty reduction, equitable development, and inclusive growth. It aspires to provide insights and perspectives on how SEPPS could be better supported by state, civil society and corporate actors to confront the challenges they face as vehicles for poverty reduction, equitable development and inclusive growth.

21

It strives to popularize a framework for understanding effective and ineffective ways of how social enterprises engage the poor and address poverty. It seeks to demonstrate the power and limitations of the empowerment and collaboration models of engaging the poor, and how social enterprises and their support institutions could effectively pursue such models. In gist, the study aims to serve as an advocacy and lobby tool for government, civil society and other organizations to mobilize the poor to transform wealth and power.

thE StUdyThe poor into entrepreneurship?

The poor as customers, suppliers, workers, and owners of social enterprises?

The poor transforming wealth and achieving freedom from poverty through enterprise and financial endeavors?

Social enterprises as a way out of poverty?

And yes, can poverty and entrepreneurship mix? The questions are sure to raise not a few eyebrows, but to all, given the right roles for the poor as the primary focus of social enterprises, the answer could be simply, a resounding yes. Of the myriad efforts by governments and civil society organizations to address poverty, one path to progress has emerged in recent years: Social Entrepreneurship for and by the poor. This study seeks to offer a framework for understanding how social enterprises engage the poor and address poverty. It employs a case-based theory building approach (Eisenhardt, 1989) derived from the practice of six examples of SEPPS where the poor performed the roles of suppliers, workers, and customers. In half the cases, the poor were also owners. The voices and perspectives that emerge from this study are that of the poor themselves. From their own prisms, they talked about the routes and the roles they assumed, the migration path from inception to development, and on to renewal, of these social enterprises, and how across time, their roles changed or did not change.



Key informants, published and unpublished documents, and studies done by external consultants on the case subjects informed the research. From the cross-case analysis of the data, three models of stakeholder engagement in “social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders” or SEPPS emerged. These are the SEPPS models of control, collaboration, and empowerment. The control model is associated with mission drift. The collaboration and empowerment models have each their own upsides and downsides, in terms of how they foster social inclusion and achieve poverty-reduction goals. This research may resonate and apply in countries of the South other than the Philippines where the failure of state and market institutions to effectively address poverty tends to exacerbate, rather than uplift, the situation of the poor. Social entrepreneurship and stakeholder theories serve as framework for this study. But more than just hinging the case subjects on theory, this study reviews the practice of these SEPPS, precisely with a view to validating and enhancing these theories—and most important of all—to offer the poor a voice and honored place in social enterprises as stakeholders. After all, in most public policy discourses, the poor and the South remain largely underrepresented.

thE philippinES and SEppSA developing country marked by an unchanging or even a worsening poverty situation despite overall economic growth, the Philippines has evolved SEPPS examples that are learning paradigms in engaging the poor out of poverty. Data from the National Statistics Office (NSO) and the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) show that from a baseline of 45.3 percent (28.1 million people) in 1991, poverty incidence in the country, measured in terms of income poverty, slid to 30 percent in 2003 but rose again to 32.9 percent (27.6 million people) in 2006. With the global financial crisis of 2007-2009 and the natural disasters that continue to plague the country since 2009, the poverty situation could only have gotten worse. (Serrano, 2010) The poverty data released by the NCSB in April 2013 showed that the percentage of Filipinos living below the poverty line has remained almost unchanged in the past six years. The recorded poverty incidence for the first half of 2012 was 27.9 percent, slightly less than the 28.8 percent recorded

23

in the first half of 2006, and 28.6 percent in the first half of 2009 and 2011 (Torres, 24 April 2013) Yet amid the sea of poverty, in 2006 Forbes magazine listed three Filipinos in its annual roster of the world’s billionaires with net worth of US$2.3 billion to US$2.6 billion (Kroll, 2006). In July 2013, Forbes listed the 50 richest families in the Philippines as having net worth ranging from US$105 million to US$12 billion. (Forbes, 2013) The 2008 National Nutrition Survey (NNS) revealed that 3 out of 10 Filipino children were undernourished. The percentage of underweight children less than 5 years of age was comparable to the 2006 estimates for Sub-Saharan Africa of the United Nations Children’s Fund. Between 1980 and 2010, the Philippines’ Human Development Index (HDI) rose by 0.7% annually from 0.523 to 0.638, landing the country in rank No. 97 out of 169 countries. This places the Philippines in the medium human development category, but below the HDI average for the East Asia-Pacific region of 0.391 in 1980 to 0.650 in 2010. Not only has the Philippines been lagging behind its neighbors in terms of human development, it may just mean there have been more countries that have been worse off. While the Philippines posted a GDP per capita of US$ 3,600 in 2010, the country’s indicators for education and health were less encouraging. Public spending on health was placed at 1.3 percent of GDP, way below the 5 percent recommendation of the World Health Organization. On average, too, there were 32 Filipino children who died before age 5 per 1,000 live births. Meanwhile, public spending on education was 2.6 percent of GDP. About 80 percent of the population has had some form of schooling. The average number of years of adult enrollment was 8.7 in contrast to 11 years of expected schooling. Only 62 per 1,000 people had access to the Internet as of 2010, according to the United Nations Development Programme. (UNDP, 2010) In terms of the Basic Capability Index (BCI), the Philippines scored 77 out of a perfect score of 100, ranking it among countries with very low BCI. These countries were characterized as having a very low level of achievement in terms of meeting the basic needs and facing very significant obstacles in achieving the well being of their population (Social Watch, 2008). Despite the trend towards urbanization, poverty in the Philippines is still largely a rural phenomenon (Balisacan et al., 2008). In 2006, 75 percent of the poor were still found in the rural areas, up from 71 percent in 1991. The poor are the landless, homeless, jobless, underemployed, uneducated, sick,



malnourished, discriminated Filipinos. Many of them are women, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples, and tribal Filipinos (Serrano, 2010). A 2005 study commissioned by the Asian Development Bank, Poverty in the Philippines: Income, Assets and Access (Schelzig, 2005), detailed how poverty in the country was a deprivation of and lack of access to essential assets falling under the categories of human capital, physical capital, natural capital, financial capital, and social capital. It identified seven factors seen to be direct causes of poverty:

à Macroeconomic policies that have resulted to economic growth but have not reduced poverty;

à Unemployment and underemployment especially in agriculture, forestry and fishery;

à Unchecked population growth; à Structural issues in the agricultural sector including a problematic

agrarian reform program and ineffective policy and service support to small farmers;

à Governance concerns including corruption and an ineffective state that is unable to deliver basic services;

à Armed conflict especially in the poorest areas of Muslim Mindanao; and

à Disability caused by malnutrition, unsanitary living conditions, accidents and injuries, with most persons with disability living in poverty.

Studies in 1988 (World Bank) and 2002 (Balisacan & Pernia) have cited the distribution of land as a fundamental cause of rural poverty in the Philippines. Land reform, the main asset reform program of government, remains a major bottleneck with a large amount of land (1.4 million hectares) left that still needed to be distributed by the end of the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in 2008. Despite CARP being adopted by various Philippine administrations, much has to be achieved. Party-list legislators have assailed CARP as having failed to change the feudal landscape and to address the roots of land concentration in the hands of a few rural and urban elites (Bello et al., 2004). Effectively addressing poverty remains a big challenge to the administration of President Simeon Benigno Aquino III. If we are to use the 2012 State of the Nation Address of President Aquino as basis, the centerpiece of the administration’s effort to address poverty is

25

job generation through foreign direct investments, reducing corruption to improve public services and the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) scheme. The anti-corruption drive of this administration is laudable but by itself cannot reduce poverty. Job generation through foreign direct investments is part of a business as usual approach to economic development that has resulted to the poverty and inequality we have today. The CCT on the other hand is at best a safety net for the poorest—a palliative measure to assist these households keep their children in school and give attention to maternal and child health. With no clear long-term strategy towards directly reducing poverty, and with a business as usual approach to economic development, poverty and inequality would persist and worsen in the medium to long term. What is needed is no less than a shift in strategy and a mindset towards innovative solutions to these age-old problems of poverty and inequality. Within the business sector, most corporations, and small and medium enterprises continue to do business as usual even as a growing number has started to practice various forms of corporate social responsibility. Corporate citizenship, or the integration of social objectives into company philosophy and strategy, and of late, inclusive business, has been the advocacy of the Philippine Business for Social Progress. However, the dominant orientation of corporate social responsibility practice in the Philippines, especially among business firms in the agricultural sector, remains at the level of charity and public relations, with a few exceptions. The failure of state and market institutions to address the needs of the poor has spurred the growth of a robust civil society sector engaged in development work and advocacy over the years. Part of these strivings of civil society are innovations in the socio-economic realm, the most significant of which have become full-blown social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders or SEPPS, the subject of this study.



TAbLE 1.1 POvERTy SECTORS SERvED by SEPPS: THE CASE STuDiES naME of

Social EntErpriSE dEScription of povErty SEctor(S) SErvEd ScalE of rEach

altEr tradEagrarian reform beneficiary-sugar farmers; 1

Backyard growers of bananas (naturally grown Balangon variety)

820 sugar farmers in one province (negros occidental) and 3,493

banana growers spread nationwide

Upland MarKEtingcommunity-based producers of food:

majority are muscovado sugar producers and organic rice farmers

60 community-based enterprises with 3,000 poor producers as members/

partners in upland, lowland and coastal communities nationwide

pWd fEd Unemployed persons with disability (pWd) trained to manufacture school chairs

1,250 pWds organized in 15 cooperatives nationwide

tahanan Unemployed persons with disability trained in metal craft, woodwork, needlecraft

273 pWd employees, workers, producers and students

laMac Mpc

in lamac: upland farmers and livestock raisers, construction, domestic and

migrant workers and entrepreneurial poor in other areas: entrepreneurial poor

35,040 poor representing 90 percent of 38,933 members in various provinces located in the

visayan region2

cordova Mpcartisanal fishers, handicraft makers,

tricycle and trisikad drivers, workers, entrepreneurial poor

5,694 or 90 percent of 6,327 members spread in 1 municipality (cordova) and in one city (lapu-lapu) in cebu province3

TAbLE 1.2 AGE AND SizE OF SEPPS STuDiED

naME of Social EntErpriSE yEarS in ExiStEncE (yEar EStaBliShEd) annUal rEvEnUES (php MillionS)4

altEr tradE 21 (1988) php202.8 (2007)

Upland MarKEting 17 (1992)5 32.0 (2007)

pWd fEd 15 (1994) 48.0 (2007)

tahanan 36 (1973) 24.0 (2007)

cordova Mpc 38 (1971) 25.8 (2008)

laMac Mpc 17(1992)6 101.4 (2008)

[1] Former workers of big lands called haciendas that used to be owned by sugar barons or landlords, who were awarded part of the land they were tilling under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of government. [2] The other 10 percent of members are professionals and salaried employees like teachers, and government employees. [3] The other 10 percent of members are professionals and salaried like teachers, and government employees. [4] PhP stands for Philippine pesos, the local currency. Exchange rate is about Php 46 to 1USD [5] The Foundation was set up in 2000 but it evolved from an Upland Marketing Program set up in 1992. [6]Lamac MPC has its roots in the Lamac Samahang Nayon composed of farmers set up in 1973. After experiencing management and leadership problems resulting to its financial decline, the Lamac Samahang Nayon was reconstituted in 1992 into a multi-sectoral and multi-purpose cooperative called the Lamac MPC with a local professional group taking over the management.

27

dEfining SEppSThis study focuses on social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders or SEPPS that are defined thus:

SEPPS are social mission-driven wealth creating organizations that have a double or triple bottom line (social, financial, environmental), explicitly have as principal objective poverty reduction/alleviation or improving the quality of life of specific segments of the poor, and have a distributive enterprise philosophy.

This definition refers to a specific type of social enterprises that serve the poor as primary stakeholders and are emerging as important actors in addressing poverty and inequality. This definition of SEPPS derives from the following premises: one, sePPs are organizations driven by their explicit social mission to improve the quality of life of the poor, not only as workers, clients, suppliers or nominal owners, but more importantly, as decision makers and partners in their own poverty-reduction initiatives. two, sePPs are wealth-creating organizations with a double or triple bottom line—social, environmental, and financial. SEPPS are engaged in the production/provision and sale of goods and services. They create wealth to cover in part or fully their operations and to invest in other activities related to their mission. In short, to achieve their social bottom line of poverty reduction and improve the quality of life of the poor and their living environment. Their financial objective is not profit per se but financial sustainability for the SEPPS to pursue their social and environmental mission. three, sePPs promote a distributive enterprise philosophy. While wages or payments to suppliers are financial costs to be minimized for business or private enterprises, these are to SEPPS social benefits for primary stakeholders that need to be optimized. The surplus or profits accruing to the poor as dividends, reinvested back, or extended to activities that benefit the poor all aim to fulfill the social mission of SEPPS. This considerably “strong” definition locates the role of SEPPS as responses to pervasive state and market failures to serve the needs of the poor in developing country contexts. SEPPS, in this instance, provide the



poor a combination of services (transactional and transformational) so the poor may overcome what Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen calls their capability deprivation (Sen, 1999; Sen, 2009). On one hand, the poor are assisted to enact transactional roles as workers, suppliers, and clients, as well as partners in social enterprise or value chain management. On the other hand, the poor are assisted to enact transformational roles as full-fledged owners of social enterprises, and as organized partners practicing democracy through SEPPS governance, as well as in pursuit of community, sectoral, and societal transformation.

variationS of SEppS Six social enterprises that had existed for at least 10 years assume lead roles in this study of SEPPS in the Philippines. SEPPS have a long history in the Philippines, with development trends occurring at different junctures, giving rise to various segments, including:à Cooperatives; à Fair trade organizations; à Microfinance institutions; à NGO-initiated earned income enterprises; à Sector or area-based enterprises serving specific poverty groups; and à Small entrepreneur-initiated enterprises with a clear social agenda.

While not mutually exclusive, these segments have been identified as significant because these groups of SEPPS belong to identifiable networks. Sometimes, they are clustered together as partners of specific government agencies or resource institutions that support their agenda. The number of SEPPS in the country is difficult to establish though. There are conflicting statistics from secondary sources, especially involving cooperatives. Many cooperatives also mirror the trend toward communitarianism and exist as multi- stakeholder cooperatives where the poor may or may not be the majority members. Some cooperatives and associations that enjoin the poor as exclusive or majority owners are an important part of the SEPPS community. They include cooperatives or associations of agrarian reform beneficiaries or small holders who acquired lands under the government’s land to the tiller

29

program, savings and credit cooperatives that are engaged in microfinance operations, and cooperatives or associations providing various forms of social protection schemes, e.g. micro insurance. By this author's estimate, there were about 30,000 SEPPS in the Philippines as of 2007 when this study was started. About 28,000 of these were associations and cooperatives. A growing number then estimated at 500 were microfinance institutions that did not take the form of cooperatives. The balance of 1,500 included 26 fair-trade organizations clustered in one network, social enterprises initiated by NGOs and small entrepreneurs, and sector or area-based enterprises serving specific poverty groups including farmers, fishers, indigenous communities, the urban poor and persons with disability.7

cliEntS, WorKErS, SUppliErS, oWnErSThree networks or clusters of social enterprises are the focus of this report, each one representing the different pegs of engagement of the poor as suppliers, workers, and clients. Cutting across these clusters are social enterprises where the poor are also owners. This study highlights the roles that the poor played—and why and how these changed over time. It celebrates the lessons, and prove that where the poor are engaged as primary stakeholders—as transactional and transformational partners—social enterprises offer a good handle for poverty-reduction initiatives. Six social enterprises are the lead actors in this study. In terms of age or track record, they have been in existence for a period ranging from 15 to 38 years. Their annual gross revenues range from PhP24.0 million to PhP202.8 million.

[7] The author is currently leading a research jointly undertaken by ISEA and Oxfam to among others update this profiling of SEPPS in the Philippines.



1. Alter trAde GroUPEnabling Suppliers as Transactional and Transformational Partnersorigin: Established in 1998 (21 years in existence) annual revenue: P202.8 million (2007)poverty sector served: Agrarian reform beneficiary-sugar farmers; Backyard growers of bananas (naturally grown Balangon variety)scale of reach: 820 sugar farmers in one province (Negros Occidental) and 3,493 banana growers across the Philippines

2. UPlAnd mArKetInG foUndAtIon, InC.Suppliers as Transactional Partners in Value Chain Managementorigin: Founded in 1992 (17 years)annual revenue: PhP32 million (2007)poverty sector served: Community-based producers of food: majority are muscovado sugar producers and organic rice farmersscale of reach: 60 community-based enterprises with 3,000 poor producers as members/partners in upland, lowland and coastal communities nationwide

3. nAtIonAl federAtIon of CooPerAtIves of Persons wIth dIsABIlItyEnabling Owner-Workers as Transformational Partnersorigin: Founded in 1994 (15 years)annual revenue: PhP48 million (2007)poverty sector served: Unemployed persons with disability (PWD) trained to manufacture school chairs and to perform other economic activities scale of reach: 1,250 PWDs organized in 15 cooperatives nationwide

4. TAHANANG WALANG HAGDANANWorkers as Transactional Partners in Social Enterprise Managementorigin: Founded in 1973 (36 years)annual revenue: PhP24 million (2007)poverty sector served: Unemployed persons with disability trained in metal craft, woodwork, needlecraft and other economic activitiesscale of reach: 273 PWD employees, workers, producers and students

These six social enterprises are:

31

5. lAmAC mUltI PUrPose CooPerAtIveOwner-Clients as Transactional Partnersorigin: Founded in 1992 (17 years)annual revenue: PhP101.4 million (2008)poverty sector served: Mainly entrepreneurial poor and in Lamac includes upland farmers and livestock raisers; construction, domestic and migrant workers scale of reach: 35,040 poor representing 90 percent of 38,933 members in various provinces located in the Visayan region

6. CordovA mUltI-PUrPose CooPerAtIveOwner-Clients as Transactional Partners origin: Founded in 1971 (38 years)annual revenue: PhP25.8 million (2008)poverty sector served: Artisanal fishers, handicraft makers, tricycle and trisikad drivers, workers, entrepreneurial poorscale of reach: 5,694 or 90 percent of 6,327 members spread in one municipality (Cordova) and in one city (Lapu-Lapu) in Cebu province

Key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) together with a study of internal organizational documents and a review of previous studies on the case subjects were undertaken to gather data. At least 10 to at most 30 persons were interviewed for each case study. For all cases, these key informants included:➤ Top management (current and past)➤ Middle managers or senior staff➤ Chair or representative of the Board of Directors or Trustees➤ Representatives of key program and/or funding partners➤ Purposively selected partners among poverty sectors served➤ Experts from the concerned subsector, sector or industry

bOx 1.1. SOuRCES OF DATA

Documents

social enterprises anD the poor transforming - isea … · 18 SOCiAL ENTERPRiSES AND THE POOR: ... fisher folk, workers ... Cresente Paez, Anthony Bravo, and Teodoro Baguilat,