Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/ADVOCACY-PLAN--Social-Entrepreneurship-

1. 0
ADVOCACY PLAN:
Social Entrepreneurship as a Social Involvement
Program of the Ateneo de Manila Senior High School in
the K-12 Curriculum
By: John Frederick A. Lauron
(Social Development Policy Advocacy - SD 304)
Submitted to
Prof. Oscar Ferrer, DPA
College of Social Work and Community Development
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

2. 1
Introduction
Social entrepreneurship as a field of study is still in its early stage which provides a great
opportunity for those who would like to be a part of constructing the concept and to establish
empirical studies that would define it operationally. As of the moment, there are really no existing
dominant theories that would describe what social entrepreneurship is and is not. The current
literature generally explains specific cases and practical considerations for the practice and
improvement of social entrepreneurship and of the social entrepreneur.
In the late 90s there were two contending schools of thought regarding social
entrepreneurship namely: the Social Enterprise School and the Social Innovation School. Jerr
Boschee and Jim McClurg proposed the social enterprise school who asserts that “a social
entrepreneur is any person, in any sector, who uses earned income strategies to pursue a social
objective, and a social entrepreneur differs from a traditional entrepreneur in two important ways:
฀ Traditional entrepreneurs frequently act in a socially responsible manner: They donate money
to nonprofits; they refuse to engage in certain types of businesses; they use environmentally
safe materials and practices; they treat their employees with dignity and respect. Social
entrepreneurs are different because their earned income strategies are tied directly to their
mission: They either employ people who are developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill,
physically challenged, poverty stricken or otherwise disadvantaged; or they sell mission-driven
products and services that have a direct impact on a specific social class.
฀ Secondly, traditional entrepreneurs are ultimately measured by financial results: The success
or failure of their companies is determined by their ability to generate profits for their owners.
On the other hand, social entrepreneurs are driven by a double bottom line, a virtual blend of
financial and social returns. Profitability is still a goal, but it is not the only goal, and profits are
re-invested in the mission rather than being distributed to shareholders (Perrini, 2006).”
In the Social Innovation School, J. Gregory Dees and Beth Battle Anderson claim that
“social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:
฀ Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just provide value),
฀ Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,
฀ Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,
฀ Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and
฀ Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the
outcomes created”.
“Social entrepreneurship entails innovations designed to explicitly improve societal well-
being, housed within entrepreneurial organizations, which initiate, guide or contribute to change in
society (Perrini, 2006).”
In a book entitled Creating New Civilization through Social Entrepreneurship, social
enterprise and social entrepreneurship are considered as powerful tools that can help us achieve
an economy where the value of new ideas and business is measured by how they affect our

3. 2
human and natural environments. “Social entrepreneurship is a vital tool to achieve a more
balanced world and a social enterprise pursues a social or environmental mission using market-
driven approaches to increase impact and sustainability. Social enterprise can exist in all sectors,
business, nonprofit, government and philanthropy.” (Kagnaire in Petit, 2011)
Yunus, Lehman and Ortega (2010) cited that „in the capitalist system, there are two extreme
types of corporate bodies that can be distinguished. On the one hand, companies can be seen as
profit-maximizing businesses, whose purpose is to create shareholder value. On the other, non-
profit organizations exist to fulfill social objectives‟ (Yunus, Lehman, & Ortega, 2010). Social
business attempts to borrow from and merge these two opposing concepts. The figure below
shows a diagram that illustrates social business.
Figure 1: Social Business vs. Profit Maximizing Business and Not for Profit Organizations
In a social business, the cost has to be covered by the earnings of the business but investors
do not earn profit. Investors may claim the initial capital without interest after it is rolled over. Unlike
the profit maximizing business, investors in social business have to be cause-oriented rather than
profit oriented. As an organization, social business has to be managed like a „regular‟ business and
not like a charity, even though the objective is different from a profit-maximizing company. While it
attempts to achieve the social objective, social businesses need to recover their full costs so it can
be self-sustaining. The owners never intend to make profits for themselves as there are no
dividends. Surplus or profit has to be used either to expand the business to benefit more people
who do not have access to these products and services.
“[While] its primary purpose is to serve society, a social business has products, services,
customers, markets, expenses and revenues like a „regular‟ enterprise .It is a no-loss, no-
dividend, self-sustaining company that repays its owners‟ investments…” (Yunus, Lehman, &
Ortega, 2010.p. 311).

4. 3
In the book entitled, Building Social Business, Yunus (2008) identified two types of social
business. The type I social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company devoted to solve a social
problem and owned by investors who reinvest all profits in expanding and improving the business
(e.g. Grameen Danone, Grameen Veolia Water, BASF Grameen, etc.). The type II social business
is a profit-making company owned by poor people, either directly or through a trust that is
dedicated to a predefined social cause (e.g. Grameen Bank, Otto Grameen Textile Factory, etc). It
is important to remember that unlike a non-profit organization, social business has investors and
owners who don‟t earn a profit, a dividend, or any other form of financial benefit and will take back
their original investment amount over a period of time they define. Yunus made it clear that a social
business cannot be called as such, if there is an increase in the money going to investors beyond
the original investment and if there is financial benefit by those who establish the business.
The definition of social business is close to the definition of social entrepreneurship as
defined by Mair and Marti as „a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources
to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs‟. Yunus, Lehman
and Ortega (2010) asserts that „social businesses can be seen as a subset of social
entrepreneurship, which includes both profit and not-for-profit initiatives, and which can be
distinguished from conventional entrepreneurship through the „relative priority given to social
wealth creation vs. economic wealth creation. In business entrepreneurship, social wealth is a by-
product of the economic value created. All those who design and run social businesses are social
entrepreneurs - but not all social entrepreneurs are engaged in social businesses (some models,
for instance, still include conventional dividend payments to profit oriented shareholders).‟
In the Philippines, a social enterprise is usually in a form of fair trade organization,
microfinance institution, cooperative, and community-based enterprise serving the fishers, farmers,
and the indigenous people, social business and small and medium enterprise that have embraced
a social mission as the core of the business. Figure 2 shows the typology of social enterprises.
Figure 2: Social Enterprises Typology (Adapted from Dacanay, 2013)
Fair trade
organizations
Microfinance institutions
Cooperatives
Community-based
enterprises
Small & medium
enterprises
Social businesses
Social Enterprises

5. 4
A social business is a totally new form of business which is an alternative to charity but it is
not a charity organization. In social business, businesspeople may use their business skills and
creativity to solve social problems. Based on figure 2 which shows the typology of social
enterprises, one could conclude that all social businesspeople are social entrepreneurs but not all
social entrepreneurs are engaged in social business.
A. Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders (SEPPS) Framework
Social entrepreneurship is defined by many experts and organizations based on respective
contexts. Of the many definitions of social entrepreneurship, the most common component
includes the concept of innovation in a social organization that creates social value. In an
attempt to contextualize social entrepreneurship in the Philippines, Dacanay (2012) made a very
extensive and pioneering research on this field for her PhD dissertation at Copenhagen Business
School. Dacanay proposed that for one to understand what social entrepreneurship is, the
following elements have to be considered to differentiate social enterprises from private/profit
maximizing enterprises: 1) primary stakeholders and beneficiaries; 2) primary objectives; 3) and
enterprise philosophy (Dacanay 2004).
Table 1: Key Elements Differentiating Social and Business Enterprises
(Dacanay 2004)
Private Enterprise Social Enterprise
Primary Stakeholders and
Beneficiaries
Rich stockholders Marginalized sectors
Primary Objectives Bottom line: profit Double or triple bottom line
Enterprise Philosophy Accumulative Distributive
Dacanay‟s definition emphasized that the poor and marginalized should be the primary
stakeholders in a social enterprise which is established with the primary objective of triple bottom
line which considers people, planet and profit. What is distinct in social entrepreneurship as
compared to the traditional profit-maximizing enterprise is the distributive philosophy. This implies
that in a social enterprise the profit is being distributed to the stakeholders.
Dacany (2012) used the SEPPS or social enterprises with the poor as primary
stakeholders as her research framework in her dissertation:
„SEPPS are social mission driven wealth creating organizations that have at least a double
bottom line (social and financial), 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‟.
She argued that there are three aspects to the working definition of SEPPS as target
population:

6. 5
1. “SEPPS are social mission driven organizations explicitly pursuing poverty
reduction/alleviation or improving the quality of life of specific segments of the poor
as primary objective.
2. SEPPS are wealth-creating organizations that have at least a double bottom line
(social and financial).
3. SEPPS have a distributive enterprise philosophy. Unlike in a business or private
enterprise where payments or wages made to the poor are considered as financial costs
to be minimized, these are considered as social benefits for primary stakeholders that
need to be optimized. Moreover, the distributive philosophy is expressed in the surplus or
profits accruing to the poor as dividends as well as being reinvested back to the enterprise
to sustain the fulfillment of its social mission or in activities that benefit and assist the poor
in overcoming poverty or improving their quality of life.
Dacanay‟s definition of social entrepreneurship calls for a transformation of framework of from
a diluted neoliberal model with double or triple bottom line as proposed by Yunus to an alternative
model which is the social solidarity economy model. I find SSE as a framework that is aligned to
Dacanay‟s definition of social entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship in the neoliberal framework asserts that there is no alternative to the
invisible hand that dictates one‟s life. While one has to survive and compete in the free market
economy, a social entrepreneur thinks beyond survival and competition. He or she works using the
rule of the game in the free market economy but he/she ensures double or triple bottom line. My
critique in using the neoliberal framework to social entrepreneurship or social business is that core
principles of neoliberal framework do not fully align with the three elements of a social enterprise as
defined by Dacanay. There is a need to use an alternative development perspective that is focused
on people‟s wellbeing while considering sustainability. The Social Solidarity Economy (SSE) is a
promising model which is an alternative to the existing neoliberal economy, one which is deeply
rooted on solidarity and cooperation, rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest and
that promotes economic democracy, alternative models of local economic governance, equity and
sustainability rather than the unfettered rule of the market (Allard & Matthaei, 2013). Dacanay‟s
SEPPS or social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders are closely aligned to the SSE
framework.
B. Social Solidarity Economy and Social Enterprises
The previous chapter explains Dacanay‟s SEPPS framework of social entrepreneurship. It
appears that the SEPPS framework when compared with other models of social entrepreneurship
is very close to the social solidarity economy model. This chapter explains social solidarity
economy in relation to social entrepreneurship.

7. 6
According to Quinones (2013), “Solidarity Economy is a socio-economic order and new
way of life that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as
the goal of economic activity rather than maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the
market. It places economic and technological development at the service of social and human
development rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest. It is an alternative economic
model to neo-liberal capitalism which promotes attitudes and behaviors that values sharing, co-
responsibility, reciprocity, plurality, respect for diversity, freedom, equality, ethics, brotherhood, and
sisterhood (Arruda, 2008 in Quinones, 2013).
The Chantier Economie Sociale of Quebec cites five key principles to distinguish solidarity
economy initiatives. These are (Poirier 2007 in Quinones, 2013):
(1) the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving for
financial profit;
(2) the economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;
(3) in its statute and code of conduct, a democratic decision-making process is
established that implies the necessary participation of users and workers;
(4) it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and
surplus; and
(5) its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and
collective responsibility.
Solidarity Economy adopts conscious altruism and solidarity, not extreme individualism, as
the core of the new socioeconomic culture. It tends to favor cooperation, not competition, as the
main form of relationship among humans and between them and Nature (Poirier 2007). On the
other hand, social entrepreneurship with the poor as the primary stakeholder promotes altruism
and solidarity with the poor and marginalized. It also promotes cooperativism as a norm rather than
competition.
Therefore, Social Solidarity Economy model is the closest framework that explains the
nature of a social enterprise with the poor as a primary stakeholder that employs transformational
service rather than just transactional.
C. Social Entrepreneurship Education
Chapter V Section 11 of the House Bill 6085, The Magna Carta for Social Enterprises
states: “Toward strategically developing the nation‟s human resource capability in social
entrepreneurship, the DepEd and the CHED shall cause the integration of SE content and inclusion
of SE courses in the curricula at all levels, especially in the secondary and tertiary levels.” This
advocacy plan aims to strategically develop models of social enterprise education that can be
mainstreamed in K-12 senior high school level which embraces the SEPPS Framework..

8. 7
At present, the Entrepreneurs School of Asia (ESA) under the Institute for Social
Entrepreneurship Education (I4SEE) facilitates a program called Teenpreneur Challenge. Teams
from different high schools undergo workshops, trainings and site visit. The students work with a
product owner, a Nanay who comes from partner communities of ESA to improve her existing
product so that it would be marketable. After three months of product improvement workshops and
actual development of products, the students will then compete in a bazaar highlighting innovation
and marketability of the products of their partner Nanay. This program usually runs from July to
October every year. Participating schools with the most innovation and with highest sales are given
an award. For the past years, the school‟s program provided high school students actual
experience in handling a social enterprise with the poor as the primary stakeholder. In the case of
Teenpreneur Challenge, the Nanay is the primary stakeholder of the enterprise because she owns
the business. The students help her come up with more innovative ideas and marketing strategies.
D. Problem Situation
The Philippine economy grew by 6.8 percent in 2012 and 7.2 percent in 2013, one of the
fast growing economies in Asia. However, the country's strong economic growth failed to translate
into the improvement of the figures in the jobless rate as unemployment rose to 7.5 percent in April
2013 from the previous year's 6.9 percent (Cerda, 2013). The National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) said that the country's unemployment rate increased by 0.6 percent due to a
lower level of employment amid a slightly higher labor force level. Majority of the unemployed were
high school graduates (31.7 percent), college graduates (21.3 percent) and college
undergraduates (14.6 percent), the state agency noted. About half (48.2 percent) of the
unemployed were aged 15-24 years old, 27.5 percent of which are male while 20.7 percent are
female (Cerda, 2013).
The unemployment rate ranges from 6.1 percent to 8.0 percent from 2009 to 2012. The
figure may not be very high as compared to other countries but it is important to note that a
significant number of Filipinos are employed abroad. If these OFWs lose their employment, the
unemployment rate would have been higher than the existing unemployment rate.
The country is experiencing the so-called jobless growth. While the GDP increased, there
is no corresponding increase in employment for the working class. With policies and laws that favor
the business sector, the existing profit-maximizing business models marginalize the working class
who generate the wealth for the capitalists.
As the country aspires to attain inclusive growth, there is a need to rethink business
models that would not leave the poor and the workers behind. What is alarming is that the gap
between the rich and the poor is very evident in the Philippines as compared with neighboring
Southeast Asian countries (Ho, 2011). The Philippines registered a Gini coefficient of 44 percent in
2010, higher than Thailand‟s 42.5 percent, Indonesia‟s 39.4 percent, Malaysia‟s 37.9 percent and

9. 8
Vietnam‟s 37.8 percent. The Gini coefficient measures the inequality of distribution of income.
Higher Gini coefficient means higher inequality (Ho, 2011).
The neoliberal capitalist model of doing business may have improved the macroeconomic
status of the country but whether its benefit truly trickles down to the poor remains to be a question.
This advocacy plan asserts that social entrepreneurship is one of the possible ways to address the
big gap between the rich and poor. With the K-12 reforms, highlighting the importance of
entrepreneurship to basic education especially in the senior high school level, there is hope that
inclusive growth can be attained and the country‟s inequality may be decreased.
E. Problem Identification
The problem that this advocacy plan would like to address is the lack of livelihood or job
opportunities of poor and marginalized Filipinos, especially the partner communities of the Ateneo
de Manila High School‟s Christian Service and Involvement Program (CSIP). It is grounded on the
spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola, which is finding God in all things and the aspiration for social
justice, equity and equality.
Background: The Christian Service and Involvement Program (CSIP) of the Ateneo de
Manila High School aims to expose all high school students to the current realities of the world
outside the classroom, that they may appreciate their blessings and heed Christ‟s call to serve Him
through His people. The Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP) is the basis for such a program.
More than simply providing experiences, the CSIP encourages each student to process and reflect
on their experiences, and calls them to action. The CSIP handles social involvement for the first
three years of high school as a prelude to the senior year Tulong Dunong program (Inquirer,
December 10, 2005).
In the Freshman Exposure Program, popularized as DUNGAW, students visit partner
institutions such as the Boys‟ Home, Foundling Home, and White Cross and communities like the
Gawad Kalinga Blue Eagle Village in Payatas Trese.
Sophomores undergo the DAMA Christian Service Program, wherein they serve in
assigned institutions for 5 to 7 times, usually on a Friday afternoon or Saturday. Some of these
institutions are the Kaisahang Buhay Foundation in Barangay Escopa, Cubao; Boys‟ Home;
Foundling Home, Commonwealth Elementary School, and Corazon Aquino Elementary School.
The program is essential in the formation of the student‟s character and in the deepening of his
relationship with Jesus by developing an understanding of the situation of the poor in society,
enabling him to respond to the problems of the society. During the whole term, students will be
given character development formation modules that tackle the following: Experiencing God‟s
Love, Commitment to Love Others, Praying over One‟s Commitment, Values Clarification, and
Alternative Lifestyle.

10. 9
The DAMAY Immersion Program invites juniors to live for one weekend with a family in an
urbanized rural community in Area F, Sapang Palay, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, fishing
community in Cabangan in Zambales, and farming community in Old Boso-boso, Antipolo. During
the immersion, students experience what it is like to be a typical marginalized Filipino, who must
struggle in order to satisfy basic needs. The students undergo processing sessions in order to
deepen their experience and reflect about the most important things in life that really matter.
The Tulong Dunong (TD) is the heart of the integrated fourth year Christian Life Education
and Social Studies program of the Ateneo de Manila High School. Seniors spend an hour a week
tutoring public elementary school students in English or Mathematics. For an entire school year,
each Ateneo High School senior is responsible for four Grade 5 or Grade 6 students. The aim of
TD experience is that TD kids from public schools may learn and grow along with their Ateneo High
School kuyas. The public school children receive crucial supplementary education in Math and
English, which gives them a critical advantage in high school and college. Their engagement with
the Ateneo and with Ateneans also helps expand their horizons and inspire them to excel and
complete their education. Meanwhile, Atenean tutors witness themselves the poverty and the
social problems that they study in their religion and social studies classes. This encounter invites
them to orient their dreams and fledgling plans towards lives of service. Both TD kids and TD tutors
witness a world which they otherwise might not see, and the TD experience continues to be a
catalyst for profound transformation and empowerment. TD supports its public school tutorial
program with the Tulong Dunong Scholarship Program (TDSP), which provides talented TD kids
with high school scholarships in the Ateneo High School, Miriam College and St. Scholastica‟s
Academy (Inquirer, December 10, 2005).
The existing social involvement program has been very effective in the formation of the
youth entrusted to the Ateneo‟s care. As the school embarks on the challenge of K-12 reform, there
is a need to develop a developmentally appropriate social involvement program that will cater to
senior high school‟s grades 11 and 12 in SY 2017-2018.
As the school begins to plan its curricular and co-curricular offerings for the senior high
school, it is essential to look into the social issues of existing partner communities that contributed
to the formation and development of students; to be the springboard for the creation of a social
involvement program for Grades 11 and 12. The challenge for the school is to develop social
involvement program that is “outward-looking” as opposed to the “inward-looking” formation
programs. The focus of CSIP in the junior high school level is on student‟s formation and character
development. In this proposal, this is referred to as the “inward-looking” formation program which is
developmentally appropriate for the age group in grades 7 to 10. It is deemed appropriate to give
back to the same community who formed the students to become “men-for-others”.
The challenge therefore of the senior high school unit, is to create a social involvement
program that would have a high social and economic impact to the partner communities while

11. 10
ensuring students‟ learning from the experience. It is through the said initiative that the school with
the help of other stake-holders will be able to “defeat poverty” and help build the nation. In a memo
to the university community by Fr. Jett Villarin, S.J. on April 16, 2012, he said,
“In view of our three strategic thrusts, we are exploring three university-wide strategies (i.e.
means) that will enable us to attain our goals in mission-identity, nation-building, and
environment-development. These three institutional anchors (which can later evolve into
programs or centers or institutes or even schools) are envisaged to be hubs for culture and
the arts, leader development, and sustainable development”.
Cultural, leadership and sustainable development may be attained through social entrepreneurship
program for the senior high school.
There are several issues that confront the school‟s partner communities. Some of them are
as follows:
1. Access to quality health services in the community level which is currently addressed
through a yearly medical mission of foster families which is coordinated by CSIP team;
2. Financial resources to support the education of children of foster families which is slowly
addressed by CSIP‟s effort to facilitate scholarship grants given by AHS students, faculty
and parents;
3. Job opportunities or economic activities that would improve foster family‟s income in order
to promote social development in the community;
4. Social capital or network for marketing foster family or partner community‟s products and
services;
5. Absence of a community organizer in partner communities that would provide the parallel
Ignatian formation program for them, organize the community and serve as the link
between the partner communities and the school;
6. Absence of a structure or program that would facilitate students‟ effort to give back to
partner communities and that would ensure sustainability of development projects or
interventions in the community level.
This advocacy plan aims for the establishment of a social entrepreneurship education
program in the senior high school that would promote entrepreneurship that is people-centered and
grounded on the principles of social justice, equity, equality and human dignity. It is a type of
entrepreneurship that is environmentally sustainable and that does not marginalize the vulnerable
sectors, especially the poor.

12. 11
F. Past Actions
The Government is a signatory to the following United Nations instruments, conventions,
treaties, and mandates that relate directly or indirectly to social, economic and sustainable
development, especially of the poor and marginalized in society:
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development
 Millennium Development Goals (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger)
 International Labor Organization - Convention on Tripartite Declaration of Principles
Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
Philippine laws anchored on these conventions and treaties are:
 The Social Enterprise Bill –House Bill No. 6085 (April 2012 by Lorenzo R. Tanada)
 Republic Act No. 8289 - Magna Carta for Small Enterprises (1997)
 Republic Act No. 9178 - An Act to Promote the Establishment of Barangay Micro Business
Enterprises (2002)
 Republic Act No. 8762 - Retail Trade Liberalization Act (2000)
 Republic Act No. 7882 - An Act Providing Assistance to Women Engaging in Micro and
Cottage Business Enterprises (1995)
 Executive Order No. 226 - The Omnibus Investments Code of 1987
Directly related to capacity building of social enterprise is found in Chapter V: Development
of Social Enterprises of the Magna Carta for Social
Enterprises of 2012 which states that,
SECTION 11
“…Toward strategically developing the nation‟s human resource capability in social
entrepreneurship, the DepEd and the CHED shall cause the integration of SE
content and inclusion of SE courses in the curricula at all levels, especially in
the secondary and tertiary levels.”
If the House Bill number 6085 becomes a law, then there will be a clear mandate from the
government to institutionalize social enterprise capacity building in secondary schools. There is a
need to look into the development of such program in the Ateneo de Manila Senior High School K-
12 curricular and co-curricular for its senior high school program offering. Since the Ateneo is
deregulated, it is expected that the school implements curricular and co-curricular programs that
are beyond what is mandated by the government and the Department of Education. In the spirit of

13. 12
“magis” and “cura personalis”, the Ateneo de Manila will continue to aspire to give the best
educational experience for their learner that is suitable to the challenges of the 21st century. The
establishment of the “KAAGAPAY Social Entrepreneurship Education Program” could be a
proactive response to the mandate of the government, to integrate social entrepreneurship in
secondary schools.
G. Ongoing Initiatives: Katipunan Fund Drive of the Ateneo de Manila High School and
Participation to the Teenpreneur Challenge of the Entrepreneurs School of Asia
The institution has taken the initiative to provide opportunities for students to learn social
entrepreneurship through two specific activities namely: Katipunan Fund Drive and Teenpreneur
Challenge.
The Katipunan Fund Drive is a yearly activity of the school wherein all classes sell
products or organize an event in order to raise funds to benefit calamity victims and partner
communities of the CSIP. The whole activity runs for the whole month of September every year. In
SY 2013-2014, some classes volunteered to source their products from a partner community.
The Teenpreneur Challenge is organized by the Entrepreneurs School of Asia wherein a
group ten students represent the school and will be partnered with a “Nanay” from partner
communities in Malabon and Mandaluyong. They help in the product improvement, operations
management and marketing of Nanay‟s products, hoping that through their interventions, the
Nanay‟s livelihood will become sustainable.
H. Alternative: The Advocacy Plan
The goal of the advocacy plan being proposed is for Ateneo de Manila HigH School to
develop a social entrepreneurship program for the Senior High School Unit which will open in
school year 2017-2018. This advocacy aims to address the lack of job opportunities and livelihood
of partner communities, especially those areas where the Junior High School visit for their Damay
Immersion.
Specific objectives are as follows:
1. Form a team who will advocate for the establishment of the social entrepreneurship
education program of the school;
2. Assist the CSIP in creating the specific plan of activities including the proposal for
mainstreaming social entrepreneurship education in the senior high school level;
3. Assist the school in increasing the awareness of Ateneo High School community
(parents, teachers, personnel, and staff) through round-table discussion, fora and talks
by successful social entrepreneurs who are alumnus of the school;

14. 13
4. Include social entrepreneurship in the career exploration sessions of students‟
guidance program.
I. Strategies and Activities
Initiating the advocacy work is the Christian Service and Involvement Program of the
Ateneo de Manila High School where the writer is connected. The CSIP currently facilitates the
Dungaw, Dama and Damay Program. The CSIP will assist will assist in planning, drafting,
implementing, and monitoring the advocacy work to establish the social entrepreneurship program.
Proposed program and policy changes in the Ateneo will be submitted to the School
Council and the Vice President for Basic Education.
Below is the time frame for the implementation of the advocacy work and the planned
activities:
April
1. Meet with the principal to discuss initial plans
2. Draft the proposal to the VP for Basic Education
May
1. Conduct training program for CSIP faculty on Social Entrepreneurship during the May In-
Service Sessions to strengthen their background on social entrepreneurship that will
enable them to push for the advocacy
June
1. Present proposal to the VP for Basic Education and University President
July
1. Organize a forum on Social Entrepreneurship to faculty members, parents and students
August
1. Develop modules on social entrepreneurship
2. Have the modules approved by the CSIP Head
September
1. Test run the modules to students who are doing their KFD projects
2. Form a committee to develop curricular framework for the development of social
entrepreneurship program

15. 14
Bibliography
Books & Journals
Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship: The Art of Mission-Based Venture
Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CARE. (n.d.). CARE: Women's Empowerment. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from
http://www.care.org/newsroom/publications/whitepapers/woman_and_empowermen
t.pdf
Dacanay, M. L. (2004). Creating Space in the Market: Social Enterprise Stories in Asia. Makati
City: Asian Institute of Management and Conference of Asian Foundations and
Organizations.
Dacanay, M. L. (2009). Measuring Social Enterprise. Quezon City: Institute for Social
Entrepreneurship in Asia.
Dacanay, M. L. (2013). Social Enterprises and the Poor: Transforming Wealth. Quezon City:
Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia.
Danna Greenberg, e. a. (2011). The New Entrepreneurial Leader: Developing Leaders Who Shape
Social and Economic Opportunity. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Dichter, Tho as, Harper, Malcol . 8. What’s Wro g with Microfi a ce?.Warwickshire:
Practical Action Publishing.
Durkin, R. G. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach. Bristol: The Policy Press
University of Bristol.
Hechanova, M. R. (2009). For the People, With the People: Developing Social Enterprises in the
Philippines . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Isidore Ekpe, N. B. . The Effect of Microfi a ce Factors o Wo e E trepre eurs’
Performance in Nigeria : A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Business and
Social Science.
Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts Over Credit: Re-evlauating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to
Women in Rural Bangladesh. World Development, 29.
Ledgerwood, Joanna.2002. Sustainable Banking with the Poor Microfinance Handbook.
Washington D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Lont, Hotze, Hospes, Otto.2004. Livelihood and Microfinance: Anthropological and Sociological

16. 15
Perspectives on Savings and Debt. Amsterdam: Eburon Academic Publishers.
Manders, H. M. (2009). Women's Empowerment: Comparing Concepts & Assessing Implications
for Microfinance. Oikocredit.
Matthaei, J. A. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2013, from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7ipVo40GxUoJ:www.geo.coo
p/sites/default/files/SE%2520Definitions%2520and%2520Themes_SEN_draft.doc+&cd=
1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph
Mercado, R. C. (2009). Solidarity Economy and the Cooperative Experience. Quezon City: UP
School of Labor and Industrial Relations.
Muhammad Yunus, B. M.-O. (2010). Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen
Experience. Long Range Planning, pp. 308-325.
Perrini, F. (2006). The New Social Entrepreneurship: What Awaits Social Entrepreneurial
Ventures? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Petit, P. U. (2011). Creating a New Civilization through Social Entrepreneurship. New Jersey: Goi
Peace Foundation.
Roy, Ananya. 2010 . Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development.
Mandaluyong. Asian Development Bank.
Sebastian. 2010. Blue Way 2 Ateneo Graduate School Business Case Book: Case Studies on Social
Business. Pasig. Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Villafuerte, Nelly Favis.2007. Microfinance Handbook (Philippines). Makati: Apples of Gold
Publishing.
Wankel, C. (2008). Alleviating Poverty through Business Strategy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yunus, M. (2003). Banker to the Poor. New York: Public Affairs Books.
Yunus. 2010. Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism. USA. Public Affairs
Dissertation
Dacanay, M. (2012). Social Enterprises and the Poor Enhancing Social Entrepreneurship and
Stakeholder
Theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Copenhagen Business School
Dissertations. (PhD Series 30.2012)

17. 16
Internet Sources
OECD-DAC Secretariat. Creditor Reporting System database, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/55/
38898309.pdf (accessed February 20, 2014).
http://rags2riches.ph/v2/, accessed on accessed February 20, 2014
http://ateneophysicshandbook.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/three-strategic-anchors-or-hubs-of-
ateneo-de-manila-university/, accessed on accessed February 20, 2014
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2479&dat=20051210&id=Hlc1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=hyUM
AAAAIBAJ&pg=2869,5206281, accessed on accessed February 20, 2014
http://www.un-documents.net/cope-dec.htm, accessed on accessed February 20, 2014
http://www.un.org/esa/population/cpd/cpd2012/Agenda%20item%208/Decisions%20and%20r
esolution/Resolution%202012_1_Adolescents%20and%20Youth.pdf,
accessed on accessed February 20, 2014
http://www.wju.edu/academics/bus/iscm/Ostasiewski2.pdf, accessed on accessed February 20,
2014
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---
multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf, accessed on accessed February 20, 2014