National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 508
Poverty alleviation through social innovation: The Gawad Kalinga Enchanted Farm
Model- A case study research
Teodoro S. Ocampo
De La Salle University
Abstract
This Research study attempts to link Poverty Alleviation and Social Innovation and
establish a causal relationship between social innovation initiatives and the level of poverty in
the Philippine setting utilizing The Gawad Kalinga Enchanted Farm social innovation model as a
point of comparison with other selected social innovation initiatives to address the Philippine
poverty situation. The Case Study Research framework of Robert Yin (2009) shall be used as the
main research methodology.
Keywords: Social Innovation, Poverty Alleviation, Social transformation, Subsistence
communities, Sustainable communities, Social business
Background and Academic Context This study is about Poverty and how Social Innovation addresses this malaise which since time
immemorial had been afflicting Philippine society. The research will attempt to dissect the
phenomenon of Philippine poverty and see why traditional, conventional solutions had been
ineffective since the beginning of Philippine society. The research is deemed worth the efforts
since it intends to highlight the more relevant and up-to-date studies of poverty and poverty
alleviation and how appropriate social innovation approaches could help provide a more
sustainable solution to reducing poverty level in the Philippine setting.
Many studies have been undertaken relating to Poverty in the Philippine setting.
One such study showed that according to the World Bank, despite the drop in extreme poverty
in developing regions in the world between 2005 and 2008, the Philippines has not seen the
same decline where 28.6% of Filipinos were still living on less than $1.25 a day in 2009
compared to 2006 with only 0.7 per cent decrease over three years. This indicates an almost
stagnant progress in addressing poverty (Welch, A., 2013).
Another study highlighted that Poverty and Inequality in the Philippines remain a challenge.
It indicated that in the past four decades, the proportion of households living below official
poverty line has declined slowly and unevenly and efforts and programs to reduce poverty
have been much slow. The study also highlighted twelve key findings and of these
twelve, five findings stood out as follows: a) Economic growth did not translate into poverty
reduction in recent years, b) Poverty remains a mainly rural phenomenon although urban
poverty is increasing, c) There is weak local government capacity for implementing poverty
reduction program, d) Multidimensional responses to poverty reduction are needed, and e) Further
research on chronic poverty is needed, (ADB, 2015). Another study stressed that the much-touted
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 509
Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program or 4P’s which is patterned after Conditional Cash Transfer
Programs implemented in other developing countries and involving monthly cash grants of P1,400
to the “poorest of the poor” families on condition their school-age children remain in school and
the mothers go for regular medical chech-ups has had no impact on poverty reduction at both micro
and macro levels. As of June, 2013, the program operates in 1,484 towns , 143 cities in 79
provinces and reported by DSWD to be benefiting close to 4 million Filipino families.(Social
Watch Group, 2013).
In this research, Poverty is defined as the state of human beings who are poor or they have little or
no material means of surviving- food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education and other physical
means of living or improving one’s life. Poverty alleviation, on the other hand, is the promotion
of economic growth that will permanently lift as many people as possible over the poverty line
and Poverty reduction measures are those that raise or are intended to raise, enabling the poor to
create wealth for themselves as a means for ending poverty forever(Wikipedia.org) Social
Innovation is defined as a novel solution to an unmet social problem that is most effective, efficient
and sustainable or just than the present solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily
to society as a whole rather than private individuals (Stanford Business, 2009).
The study on social innovation as a means of addressing unmet social needs, particularly poverty,
which has since 1999 registered at 1.6B poor worldwide decreased to 1.0B poor and for the East
Asia Region registered at 661M poor in 1999 declined to 206M poor(The World Bank Group,
2001) and while the Philippine poverty, despite the average 6% GDP annual growth remained
practically unchanged standing at 27.9%( 3 out of 10) of population are poor as of 1st semester,
2012 from the 2006 figure of 28.8% in 2006 (NSCB, 2012) cannot be over emphasized.
How do we then link the idea poverty with that of social innovation? Theoretical studies on social
innovation, particularly on the diffusion of innovation by Bates (2012) and the three-fold theory
of social change by Reeler (2007) tried to show this link. However, these studies do not yet
establish a clear causal link.
With this clear weakness, this presents a need to provide a new perspective that establishes a causal
relationship between poverty and social innovation. This gap in existing literature necessitates
some further studies on social innovation concepts that enhance poverty alleviation initiatives.
Review of Related Literature
The following researches were utilized to lend appropriate framework and theoretical concepts
to the study.
Poverty and Poverty Alleviation
This literature highlighted the work of Thomas, G. (1972) who identified two causal
explanations of poverty, the genetic and the scarce resource models, which are both non-social and
representing the extremes of a continuum from the sub-individual to the ecological. According to
Thomas, the genetic explanation asserts that poverty is biologically rooted in inferior genetic traits,
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 510
while the scarcity thesis contends that resources are inadequate to yield affluence or abundance for
all, at least in this historical period so that poverty for some is an unavoidable consequence. Both
these propositions, Thomas stresses place the sources of poverty beyond human intervention in the
short term. Neither theses, however, is supported by enough evidence to be taken seriously.
The literature of Jordan (2004) accentuated that there are competing theories regarding the causes
of poverty, particularly in the US , although these could be categorized into cultural/behavioral
and structural/political dimensions. The author contends that the behavioral/ cultural thesis of
poverty stemmed from the anthropological arguments of Oscar Lewis (1970) which later became
mistakenly correlated to laying blame for poverty on the poor themselves or on a government that
makes them continually dependent.(Patterson 2000). This situation, the author stresses tends to
perpetuate itself from generation to generation because of its effects on children. The author
underscores that the structural/ political school of thought contends that most poverty is ascribable
to structural factors inherent to either the economy and or to several interrelated institutional
environment that serve to favor certain groups over others generally based on gender, class or race.
At the end, the author attempted to synthesize these two competing schools of thought and
concluded that the structural variables seemed to overwhelmed the role of the behavioral/culture
variables.
Social Innovation
In the work of Bates (2012), she raised the various challenges plaguing society for generation-
poverty, hunger, terrorism, natural disasters, environmental damage, inaccessible health care, etc.
She contended that these issues are very complex and involve several different constituents with
competing objectives. These issues, therefore, defy the traditional means of solving problems
because they are caused in numerous ways, interwoven and difficult to untangle. The author called
these problems “wicked problems” and the key to solving them lies in defining them with
precision, clarity, and detail. She, then, proposed a Social Impact framework for Social Innovation
Initiative utilizing the following process: a) Define the Social Challenge, b) Understand and
Prioritize Needs, c) Examine the Opportunity, d) Devise a Workable Solution, e) Develop a
Business Model , and f) Diffusion of Innovation.
The literature of Mulgan (2007) highlighted that successful innovation thrives best when there are
effective alliances of key stakeholders and between small organizations and entrepreneurs or the
“bees” who are mobile, fast, and cross pollinate and the big organizations or the “trees” with roots,
resilience and size which can grow ideas to scale. He further accentuated that social innovation
can scale up along continuum from diffusion of ideas to organic growth of organizations.
According to Mulgan, the pattern of growth is dependent on the mix of environmental conditions
and capacities- managerial and financial. He further elaborated the “connected difference theory”
of social innovation with its three key dimensions, namely; a) Social innovations are usually new
combination of or hybrid of existing elements rather than entirely new idea, b) Putting them to
produce entails cutting across organizational, sectoral or disciplinary boundaries, and c) They
leave behind compelling new social relationships between previously disparate individuals or
groups, thus contributing to the diffusion and embedding of the social innovations. In his book,
Banker To The Poor, Yunus (2007) manifested that micro-lending for the poor, Social innovation
initiative can be much more effective than unwieldy and expensive aid program as exemplified
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 511
by the phenomenal success of Grameen Bank of Bangladesh.
After his success in micro-lending and his experience with the poor in Grameen Bank, the author
is currently delving into a new social innovation initiative, a dimension where human beings want
to be of help to other people, to create a new kind of world through economic activity, According
to Yunus, this requires a new kind of business he calls Social Business, a non-loss, non-dividend
enterprise, created with the intention to do good to people and bring positive changes to the world,
without any short-term expectations of deriving money out of it. This social innovation initiative
illustrates how Social Business can change the world and end poverty.
Leadership Traits
Kriss (2013) stressed the four key traits that drive sustainably successful social
innovators, namely; a) Systems Thinking (Brains) , where the social innovation leader is driven at
a systems, wholistic level and consider the interplay of multiple factors and forces within a
complex, interdependent environment, b) Deep Collaboration (Soul), where the social innovation
leader operates based on clear values plus deep collaboration perspective based on trust and realize
that he cannot operate as an island, but must reach out, listen, understand and engage other
stakeholders. He deeply recognizes that Trust among diverse collaborators is crucial to ensure
sustainable success, c) Empathic Innovator ( Heart) The social innovator must have as his key
motivator the passion to create social change. Empathy (the ability to understand and share the
feelings of others- A real understanding and sensitivity to the experience of another person) must
play a central role in the social innovation engagement and in order for innovation to be most
appropriate and useful, and d) World Visionary (Nerve) The social innovator see opportunities
which others see as obstacles. He must be skilled in integrative thinking and the ability to hold two
opposing ideas in the minds and reach a synthesis. He must be comfortable in navigating
ambiguities and seeing possibilities in the fragmented, complex nature of social reality as he
envisions a better future.
Reynolds, C. (2013) stressed that the key insights of Ashoka, a first mover in the field of social
innovation, stipulates “if you want to predict how things will turn out for a new idea, your best bet
is to focus on the person behind the idea”. As such, he emphasized that leadership is an extremely
important driver of social innovation, though very difficult to quantify. He cited that taking a good
idea to scale requires skillful strategy and coherent vision, coupled with the ability to marshal
resources and support and identify the key points of leverage and the weak links in
in the opponents’ walls. He continued that the key traits include boldness, accountability,
resourcefulness, ambition and persistence. Mulgan (2007) that such traits of strong observation
and communication skills are highly important.
Models of Social Change
The Reeler(2007) highlighted the three theories of social change as a) Emergent Social Change
Theory, b) The Transformational Social Change Theory and c) The Projectable Change Theory.
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 512
The Emergent Social Change Theory
The author describes this theory as the day-to-day unfolding of life, adaptive, uneven processes of
unconscious and conscious learnings from experience and the uneven changes that result from
those learnings as these apply to individuals, organizations, families, communities and societies
when they adopt to shifting realities as they try to improve and enhance what they have and do and
of building on what there is, step-by-step, uncertainly, but still learning and adopting however
well or badly.
According to the author Emergent Social Change is paradoxical, where perceptions, feelings, and
intentions are as powerful as the facts they engage with. He continued that there are two types of
Emergent Social Change. One is the less conscious Emergent Social Change which there is
unformed and unclear relationships, structures and leadership. This describes, in some ways, the
early stages of the existence of GK Enchanted Farm, where structures were unclear and
relationships were yet emerging. The other form is the more conscious Emergent Social
Change.
Here, the author stresses, identity, relationships, structures and leadership are more formed. The
environment is relatively stable and less contradictory.
The Transformative Social Change Theory
The author accentuates that in the development of all social beings there reaches a stage where
crisis or stuckness tend to develop through the natural process of inner development. He said this
happens for instance when a pioneer organization like GK Enchanted Farm starts to grow beyond
the limits of its informal structuring and relationship enters into a tense or contradictory
relationships with their world prompted by shifts in external, political, economic, cultural or
environmental context. He stresses crisis or stuckness sets the stage for transformative social
change and unlike Emergent Social Change, Transformative Social Change is characterized as a
learning process, in fact, more of the unlearning process.
The Projectable Social Change
The author accentuates that human beings identify and solve problems and imagine different
possibilities-think of themselves and their present stories into preferred future(in the case of Mr,
Tony Meloto, his dream to eradicate Poverty) and being able to project possible Vision or
Outcomes and formulate conscious plans to bring about change toward this Vision- transforming
the poor subsistence communities into sustainable communities. Projectable Social Change,
through appropriate, viable and doable projects, succeed where problems, needs, possibilities are
more visible, under relatively stable conditions relationships- where relationships are coherent,
stable and predictable enough and where relationships are coherent, stable and predictable enough
where unpredictable outcomes don’t threaten desired results. Projectable Social Change, according
to the author has two orientations, namely; a) Problem-based approach, and b) Creative approach.
In the problem-based approach, it involves identifying the problem and seeking a Fix. For
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 513
instance, in the Poverty problem, problem of low income is identified and ‘the Fix is the Cash
Transfer Program, a short-lived, non-sustainable approach. While the Creative approach involves
imagining and visioning desired results. (Eliminating Poverty by creating 500,000 social
entrepreneurs from the poor). It involves a leap of imagination into the future, rather than a direct
fix- A new source of water, rather than fixing the broken water tap. It starts from the future plan,
the desired results and backward to the present.
Stakeholders Participation
Hillman & Keim (2011) argued that investing in relationships with primary stakeholders can lead
to valuable, intangible competencies, which are important in gaining and maintaining competitive
as well as social advantage. This is further by the authors’ hypothesis that stakeholder management
lead to improved value creation.
In the work of Purvis et al.(2015), the authors underscored how expectancy theory explains that
motivation on the degree to which an effort is perceived leads to performance, performance leads
to rewards and the rewards offered are perceived to be desirable. Specifically, this explains how
understanding whether and to what degree stakeholders will participate in the implementation of
project management systems or other initiatives- social innovation, etc. The authors research
results supported that stakeholders assess the direction and strength of the psychological climate
and that their assessments shape their motivation to participate in active support, token support or
counter-implementation behavior and actions.
Research Problem
The problem that this Research attempts to address is the poverty situation in the Philippines and
why current approaches are hardly working, if at all, to address this.
Put in another way, how do social innovation initiatives reduce poverty level asapplied in the
Philippine situation?
The following hypotheses were crafted to answer the above question:
H1: Social innovation initiatives positively influences the reduction of poverty level. Yunus (2007)
strongly supported this hypothesis as manifested by his micro-lending social innovation initiative
in Bangladesh through his Grameen bank success in providing easy, accessible credit to the poor
that progressively elevated many of them out of poverty.
H2: Social innovation initiatives positively influence poverty level reduction if key leaders
possess strong social innovator traits. Reynolds, C.(2013) substantiates this hypothesis by
emphasizing that leadership is an extremely important driver of social innovation. This was further
supported by Ocampo (2014) in his interviews with the key associates of GK Enchanted Farm
ascribing to the phenomenal success of the GK Enchanted Farm to the notable leadership traits of
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 514
Mr. Meloto, the organization’s founder.
H3:The desirable leadership traits directly mediate social innovation in the reduction of poverty
level.
H4: The degree of stakeholders’ participation and commitment to social innovation initiatives
positively moderates achieving poverty level reduction. Purvis, et. Al (2015) corroborated this
hypothesis as these authors explained how understanding whether or to what degree stakeholders
will participate in the implementation of social innovation initiatives and that stakeholders assess
the direction and strength of the psychological climate and their assessment shape their motivation
to participate, either in active support, token support or counter-implementation behavior and
action.
The Conceptual framework being proposed in the study is as follows:
The above Conceptual Framework will be supported by the following Theoretical framework
SOCIAL INNOVATION
STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION
LEADERSHIP TRAITS
POVERTY LEVEL
SOCIAL INNOVATION
Bates, S. (2012) Mulgan, G. (2007) Yunus, M.(2007)
POVERTY LEVEL Thomas, S. (1972) Jordan, G. (2004) Yunus, M. (2007)
MODELS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
Reeler, D. (2007) Valentine, C.(1968)
STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION
Hillman,A. & Keim G.(2001)
Purvis , R et. Al(2015) Mulgan, G.(2007)
LEAIDERSHIP TRAITS Deiglmeier, K(2011) Reynolds, C.(2013)
Kriss, (2013)
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 516
Research Objectives
From existing literature and validated through surveys, interviews and observations of key
respondents of subject organization, GK Enchanted Farm and selected comparable social
innovation organization, the research study hopes to understand the positive influence of social
innovation in reducing poverty level in the Philippine situation.
Specifically, The research shall attempt a) To evaluate if the social innovation model of the
GK Enchanted Farm model is an appropriate model to utilize in order to effectively reduce
Philippine poverty, b) To propose the appropriate poverty reduction model/framework of social
innovation deem effective for Philippine setting.
Methodology and Methods of Inquiry
This study intends to utilize the Case Study Research Method of Yin (2009) following the
subsequent protocols, namely; a) The careful selection of the research subject of relevance, b) The
Planning and Design of how to address the research study & determination of relevant data to be
collected, c) Ensure unbiasness in the surveys & questionnaires, d) Treat each case individually
and then cross case the conclusions to be drawn, and e) Use analytic generalization rather than
statistically generalization.
The research will be primarily based on primary and secondary data using the following strategies,
namely;
1) Case study
2) Interviews of key participants combined with survey, and
3) Actual observations of key participants processes
The rationale of these strategies is to obtain first hand information and validate these
through a triangulation process based on one major organization, Gawad Kalinga Enchanted farm
and will be compared with other social innovation organizations- Go Negosyo, Echo Store,
Human Nature, Liter of Light.
The Unit of Analysis is the Founder of GK Enchanted Farm and his key associates and triangulated
with key personalities of other social innovation organizations. As earlier said, the data will be
obtained through surveys and interviews and actual observations as this approach will enable the
researcher to delve deep into the various nuances of social practices of comparable organizations
in the Philippine setting.
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 517
References
ADB (2015).
Babu, S. and Andersen, P.(2007). Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Developing
Capacity to Reduce Poverty and Hunger. International Food Policy Research
Institute. Washington D.C. USA
Bates, S. (2012). The Social Innovation Imperative. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. USA
Cohen, B., Smith, B. & Mitchell, R.(2006). Business Strategy and The Environment.
Vol 17(2) 107-119
Couillard, F. (2011). Social Innovation: A Simple Model. Retrieved from
http://www.strategies-direction.com/social-innovation-a-simple-model/
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
Approaches. London: Sage
Deiglmeier, K. (2013). Four Leadership Traits To Drive Social Innovation.
Deiglmeier, K., Phills Jr., & Miller, D.(2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Retrieved from
http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2008FA_feature_phills_deiglmeier_miller.pdf
Doane, D. and Gillivray, A.(2001). Economic Sustainability: The Business of Staying in
Business. Project Sigma, UK
Dobni, C. (2010). The DNA of Innovation: Crafting and Executing Strategy.International Journal
of Innovative Management Vol 14(2) 331-357.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Elsevier Ltd.
Eccles, R. and Serafeim, G. (2013). The Performance Frontier: Innovating for a Sustainable
Strategies. Harvard Business Review, May 2013 Issue.
European Union. (2014). Social Innovation: A Decade of Changes. Retrieved from http://
espas.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/social_innovation_
decade_of_changes.pdf
European Commission. (n.d.) Social Innovation. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/
index_en.htm
Frances Westley, P., & Antadze, N. (n.d.) Making A Difference: Strategies for Scaling
Social Innovation for Greater Impact. Retrieved from
http://sig.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/MAKING_A_DIFFERENCE_
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 518
SIG_Format.pdf
Gawad Kalinga(2011). Building Communities To End Poverty.
Godin, B. (2012). Social Innovation: Utopia of Innovation from c. 1830 to the Present.
Montreal Quebec, Canada: Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working
Paper No. 11 2012
Goldenberg, M., Kamoji, W. et al. (2009).Social Innovation in Canada: An update. Canadian
Policy Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.cprn.org/documents/51684
_EN.pdf
Gov.uk. (2014). Setting up a social enterprise. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/set-up-
a-social-enterprise.
Greeley, H. (1845). The Idea of Social Reform. The Universalist Quarterly (3) 136-347. In
Godin, B. Social Innovation: Utopia of Innovation from c. 1830 to the Present.
Working Paper No. 11 2012.
Habaradas, R. (2012). Shifting Philantrophic Motives: Shell’s Corporate Social Initiatives in
The Philippines. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 (17)
September 2012 Issue
Hetherington, D. (2008).Case studies in social innovation, Surry Hills, NSW: Per Capita
Organization: Jobs Australia
Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholders’ Value, Stakeholder Management &
Social Issues: Whats the Bottom Line?. Strategic Management Journal ,Vol 22(2),
125-139 February 2001 Issue.
Howaldt, J., & Michael, S. (2010). Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and
International Trends. Retrieved from http://internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/
Downloads/Trendstudien/IMO%20Trendstudie_Howaldt_englisch_Final%20ds.pdf
Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European
Union. Retrieved in April 15, 2015 from http://www.net4society.eu/_media/Social_
Innovation_europe.pdf
Jordan, G. (2004). The Causes of Poverty: Cultural vs. Structural. Can there be a Synthesis.
Koning,J. and Marcolin, L. (2013). An Overview and Conceptual Framework of Social
Innovation. SIMPATIC Project. Seventh Framework Programme, European Union
Kriss (2013) 4 Leadership Traits to drive Social Innovation
Center for Social Innovation, Stanford Graduate School of Business, San Francisco
USA
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 519
Ladha, A.,and Dixon, T. (2012). Principles For Social Innovation in 2012: Follow Emerging
Economies. Retrieved from Fast CoExist Social Innovation: http://www.fastcoexist.
com/1679128/principles-for-social-innovation-in-2012-follow-the-developing-
world
Levine, A., Kogut, B. & Kulatilaka, N. (2012). A New Approach to Funding Social Enterprises.
Harvard Business Review, January-February 2012c Issue.
Lok-Dessallien, R. (2000). Review of Poverty Concepts and Indicators. UNDP Development
and Poverty Elimination Division.
Mauuge, P. (2012).Center for Innovation Management Studies-What is Successful Innovation?
Retrieved from http://cims,ncsu.edu/what-is-successful-innovation/
McQuaid, K. (1975). The Businessman as Social Innovator. American Journal of Economics
And Sociology, 34 (4), 411-22.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Retrieved from MIT Press Innovation
http://www.socialinnovationexchange.org/sites/default/files/event/attachments/
INNOV0102_p145162_mulgan.pdf.
Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be
accelerated. Bethnal Green, LDN: The Young Foundation. Oxford Said Business School’s
Working Paper Archives. Retrieved from http://eureka.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/761/1Social_
Innovation.pdf.
Mshoro,I.(2015).A Strategy For Alleviating Poverty (SSIR).
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/a_strategy_for_alleviating_poverty>:.
Nisson, W. and Paddock, T. (2014). Social Innovation From The Inside Out. Retrieved from
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/social_innovation_from_the_inside_out
O’Byrne, L., Miller, M. et al.(2014). Social Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Seoul
Government. Journal of Economic & Social Studies (JECOSS), 4(1), 53-71
Ocampo, T. (2014).Social Innovation: The GK Enchanted Farm Model. A paper presented as
a requirement for a DBA course in Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility,
Management Organization Department, De La Salle University, Manila
Ocampo, T. (2014). Poverty Measurement and Analysis of Changes in Poverty over Time:
A Technical Note. A Paper submitted as a course requirement in the Ph. D. course
In MicroEconometrics, School of Economics, De La Salle University, Manila
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V. & Stamp, M. (2013).Innovating for Shared Values. Harvard
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 520
Business Review September 2013 Issue.
Phills, J.A. , Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D.T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34-43.
Pol, E. and Ville, S. (2009). Social Innovation: buss word or enduring term? Retrieved from
Research Online University of Wollongong: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1699&context=commpapers
Porter, M. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review
89 (1)
Poverty and Social Exclusion.(n.d.) Social Exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.poverty.ac.
uk/definitions-poverty/social-exclusion
Poverties.org (2011). Causes & Effects of Poverty: On Society, Children & Violence. Retrieved
from http://www.poverties.org/effects-of-poverty.html#sthash.UIGRu4rw.dpuf
Purvis, R.,Zagenczyk, T., & McCray, G. (2015). What’s in it for me? Using Expectancy Theory
and Climate to explain stakeholders’ participation, its direction & intensity.
Reid, B. (2005).Poverty Alleviation and Participatory Development in the Philippines.
. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 35(1), 29-52
Reeler, D. (2007). A Three-fold Theory of Social Change. Community Development
Resource Association Center for Development Practice.
Reyes, C. & Valencia, L. (n.d.) Poverty Reduction Strategy and Poverty Monitoring: Philippine
Case Study. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
Reynolds, C. (2013). Social Innovation: An Analysis of its Drivers and the Crowdfunding
Phenomena. A Thesis submitted as a partial requirement of the Masters of Law and
Business Degree of the Bucerius/WHU Master of Law and Business Program.
Santos, F. (2009). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Social Innovation Centre,
Insead Business School, Fountainblue, France.
Sargant, W.L. (1858). Social Innovators and Their Schemes. Smith, Elders and Co.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M.(2010),Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainability
Innovation: Categoriesand Interactions Business Strategy and Environment July 2010.
Wiley Online Library, DOI: 10.1002/ose.68z.
Social Innovation.(n.d.) Retrieved April 12, 2015 from http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/social
National Business and Management Conference 2015 | p. 521
Social Watch Group (2013).
Stanford (2015). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Retrieved from http://ssireview.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation/
Tarnawska, K. & Cwiklicki, M.(2012). Evaluation of the European Social Fund as a Measure
to Support Social Innovation in the Public Sector. Economic and Management,
17(1), 237-243
The Borgen Project (2014).The Five Effects of Poverty. Retrieved on August 15, 2015 from
http://borgenproject.org/5-effects-poverty/
The Conference Board of Canada (2014). Innovation defined. Retrieved from http://www.
conferenceboard.ca/cbi/innovation.aspx
The Center for Social Innovation. Stanford Graduate School of Business .(2009). Social
Innovation. Retrieved from http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/social-innovation.
The Social Innovation Generation (2015). Social Innovation. Retrieved from http://csi.gsb.
stanford.edu/social-innovation
Thomas, G. (1972). Poverty in the Nonmetropolitan South: A Causal Analysis. Lexington,
MA. Heath.
. Utterbach, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business Press 1996
Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA
. Viswanathan & Shridharan (2009). From Subsistence Marketplaces to Sustainable
Marketplaces: A bottom-up perspective on the role of business in Poverty Alleviation.
Ivey Business Journal, March-April 2009 Issue.
Vosti, S. & Reardon, T.(1997). Sustainability, Growth and Poverty Alleviation: A Policy
and Agroecological Perspective. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Walls, D.(1976) Models of Poverty and Planned Change: A Framework for Synthesis. Journal
of Sociology and Social Welfare Vol 5(3) 316-325
Wells, A. (2013).
Westley, F. & Antadze, N.(2010). Making a Difference:Strategies for Scaling Social
Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal, 3-6 2010.
World Bank Country Poverty Report (2013).
World Commission on Environment and Development(1987). 1987 Brundtland Report : Our
Common Future. UNDP Geneva, Switzerland