Post on 08-May-2018
1
Managing Social Enterprise Organizations
Semester: Fall 2015
Class meeting time: T/Th 10:10-11:30 am
Classroom: Evans Hall #4430
Professor: Kate Cooney, Ph.D. (kate.cooney@yale.edu)
Office hours: Thursdays 12:15-1:30pm, by appointment
Office 5th
floor North side, #5218
This course provides the opportunity to examine, through a set of case studies, key issues related
to managing social enterprise organizations. Following initial content reviewing perspectives on
the trend of social enterprise, topics covered include: industry analysis for organizations with a
double or triple bottom line, stakeholder analysis, organizational design (choosing the right
organizational legal form), the challenge of integrating interdisciplinary human resources, using
metrics for performance management, calculating a SROI (social return on investment), raising
capital at different stages of the organizational lifecycle, scaling a social innovation/ product, and
protecting social mission during exits.
Syllabus:
Date Topic Readings Case/Assignments/Guests
1 9/3 Introduction to
course:
What is Social
Enterprise?
Alter, S. K. (2006). Social
enterprise models and their mission
and money relationships. In A.
Nicholls (Ed.), Social
Entrepreneurship: New Models of
Sustainable Social Change (pp.
205-232). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J.,
Dorsey, C. (2012) In Search of the
Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Summer.
Santos, F., Pache, A. C., &
Birkholz, C. (2015). Making
Hybrids Work. California
Management Review, 57(3), 36-58.
Reading discussion Qs:
1) Review the Alter article, think
of a social enterprise that you are
familiar with—which model does
it follow? Do the pros and cons
described by Alter for this model
correspond with your experience?
Be prepared to talk about it in
class.
2
2 9/8 Industry
Analysis,
Competitive
Strategy and
Social
Enterprise
Porter, M.E. (2008) The Five
Competitive Forces that Shape
Strategy. Harvard Business Review
(HBR)
Porter, M.E. (1996) What is
Strategy? HBR.
CASE#1 –Zara and Fast Fashion
CASE#2- Veja: Sneakers with a
Conscience
Reading discussion Qs:
1) Drawing on Porter (2008),
analyze the five forces in the fast
fashion industry from Zara’s
perspective. How did Zara’s
practices differ from rivals in the
fashion industry? What is Zara’s
strategic position and competitive
advantage?
2) Zara is not a social enterprise.
This case sets the stage at the
industry level for understanding
the forces an SE must contend
with in launching a business with
social dimensions. What are the
opportunities for social value
creation in the fashion industry?
3) Drawing on the Porter
readings, compare the five forces
in the eco-fashion business vs.
fast fashion and describe Veja’s
competitive strategy.
3 9/10 Stakeholder
Analysis and
the Ecosystem
Perspective
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., &
Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a
theory for stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle
of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review,
22(4), 853-886.
Bloom, Paul N. & Dees, G. (2008).
Cultivate your Ecosystem. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, Winter
Dorado, Sylvia. (2006). Social
entrepreneurial ventures: Different
values so different process of
creation, no? Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship,
11(4), 319-343.
Kumar, P., Dass, M., & Kumar, S.
(2015). From competitive
advantage to nodal advantage:
Ecosystem structure and the new
five forces that affect
prosperity. Business Horizons.
Reading Discussion Qs:
1) Drawing on Dorado, how do
the entrepreneurial processes of
opportunity spotting, resource
development and organization
building differ for Veja vs. Zara?
2) Drawing on Bloom and Dees
article, create an eco-map for
Veja Sneakers company.
1) 3) Drawing on the Mitchell, Agle,
& Wood article, prepare a
stakeholder analysis on the Veja
case.
2)
3
4 9/15 Organizational
Structure &
Multiple
Institutional
Logics
Depedri, S. (2010) The competitive
advantages of social enterprises,
pp.34-54 in Becchetti, L. and
Borzaga, C. The Economics of
Social Responsibility: The World of
Social Enterprises, New York:
Routledge.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010).
Building sustainable hybrid
organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance
organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(6), 1419-
1440.
Besharov, Marya. (2013). The
relational ecology of identification:
How organizational identification
emerges when individuals hold
divergent values. Academy of
Management Journal, amj-2011.
Reading Discussion Qs:
1) 1) What are the competitive
advantages of SEs, according to
Depedri?
2) What is the management
challenge that the Battilana &
Dorado article centers on? In the
Battilana & Dorado article, how
do the two MFIs differ in terms of
their hiring and socialization
policies? How generalizable do
you think these findings are?
2) 3) What does the Besharov study
findings add to our knowledge
about hiring and socialization
policies in hybrid SE
organizations? How
generalizable do you think these
findings are? Can you imagine
exporting them to a SE setting
that you are familiar with?
3) 4) Assignment 1 small groups-be
prepared to discuss your project
for assignment #1
4)
5 9/17 Nonprofits and
Social
Enterprise
Cooney, K. (2006). The
institutional and technical
structuring of nonprofit ventures:
Case study of a US hybrid
organization caught between two
fields.Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 17(2), 137-155.
Gruber and Mohr (1982). Strategic
management for multi-program
nonprofit organizations. California
Management Review, vol. xxiv,
no.3, Spring, pp.15-22.
CASE: CARE Kenya: Making
Social Enterprise Sustainable
Case Qs:
1) George believes that REAP’s
Central Management Unit (CMU)
is not commercially viable over
the long term and that the
projections in case Exhibit 4 are
optimistic. Is CARE’s financial
model for the CMU feasible?
2) Identify the key stakeholders,
their strengths and weaknesses,
and determine what they stand to
gain or lose from REAP. What
insights are generated from this
analysis?
3) As George, what would you do
to make REAP sustainable?
4) How might the decision
making matrix from Gruber and
Mohr guide these analyses?
4
5) What are the drivers of the
tensions described in the Cooney
study? How applicable are these
to the CARE Kenya case?
6 9/22 Corporations
in the
Sustainability
Space-Strategy
& Marketing
Lee, Matthew, & Jay, Jason. (2015).
Strategic Responses to Hybrid
Social Ventures. California
Management Review, 57(3), 126-
148.
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A.
(2000). Why the Microbrewery
Movement? Organizational
Dynamics of Resource Partitioning
in the US Brewing Industry.
American Journal of Sociology,
106(3), 715-762.
Unruh, Gregory and Richard
Ettenson. (2010). Growing Green:
Smart paths to developing
sustainable products.
CASE: The Clorox Company
Goes Green
OPTIONAL: Campbell, J. L.
(2007). Why would corporations
behave in socially responsible
ways? An institutional theory of
corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review,
32, 946-967.
OPTIONAL: Eccles, R. G.,
Perkins, K. M., & Serafeim, G.
(2012). How to become a
sustainable company. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53(4), 43-50.
Assignment #1 Due
Case Qs:
1) Analyze the Clorox
Company’s strategies for
developing and marketing
GreenWorks products. Draw on
course readings to assess pros and
cons of their strategy.
2) Examine why Clorox chose to
develop a new brand instead of
acquiring an existing brand or
extending its household cleaner
product lines.
3) Compare Clorox’s pricing
strategy to competitors.
4) Discuss whether Clorox’s
partnership with the Sierra Club
is essential for new products or
product lines.
5) Discuss if Clorox can leverage
the success of GreenWorks in
other areas.
7 9/24 Multi-nationals
and BOP
initiatives
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R.
(2011), Creating Shared Value,
Harvard Business Review, January-
February.
Davis, Gerald F. and Christopher J.
White. (2015). Changing Your
Company from the Inside. Harvard
Business Review Press. Chapters 2,
Case Qs:
1) What are the key features of
Shakti?
2) What was the motivation for
the Shakti initiative? Was it a
CSR initiative?
3.) How can Shakti make a
contribution to HLL’s bottom
5
3 and 8.
CASE: Unilever in India:
Hindustan Lever’s Project Shakti
line? Make an economic case?
4.) What is the Economic Value
created by Shakti? What is the
social value?
5.) What are the critical
challenges facing HLL in making
Shakti work? What should
Shakti’s managers do?
6.) If Shakti cannot become
profitable, should HLL continue
the program? Why?
8 9/29 Benefit Corps Hans Rawhouser, Michael
Cummings, Andrew Crane. (Spring
2015). Benefit Corporation
Legislation and the Emergence of a
Social Hybrid Category
California Management Review,
Vol. 57 No. 3, (pp. 13-35).
Nardia Haigh, Elena Dowin
Kennedy, John Walker. (Spring
2015). Hybrid Organizations as
Shape-Shifters: Altering Legal
Structure for Strategic Gain.
California Management Review,
Vol. 57 No. 3, (pp. 59-82).
Andre, Rae. (2015). Benefit
Corporations at a crossroads: As
lawyers weight in companies
weight their options. Business
Horizons, vol. 58 (3): 243-252.
Cooney, Koushyar, Lee & Murray
(2014). Benefit Corporation and
L3C Adoption: A Survey. Stanford
Social Innovation Review
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/benefit_
corporation_and_l3c_adoption_a_s
urvey
CASE #1- B-Lab: Building a New
Sector of the Economy
CASE #2-B-Lab: Can it Scale
Business as a Force for Good?
Case Qs:
1) What is the value added to
companies of becoming a B
Corporation? What would you
recommend B Lab do to grow the
number of B Corporations?
2) How do you assess their work
to gain legal recognition for the
benefit corporation? How
important is it to get legal
recognition in all 50 US States?
How do they approach and
interact with the growing benefit
corporation community?
3) What is your assessment of B
Lab’s tripartite mission and
strategy? Is it the secret sauce or
their albatross? If the former,
what synergies exist between the
different elements? If the later,
how do you recommend they
change their objectives?
4) How should they approach the
Etsy IPO?
6
9 10/1 Cooperative
Models
Hansmann, H. Cooperative Firms in
Theory and Practice. LTA 4/99
p.387-403.
Hansmann, H. (1990). When Does
Worker Ownership Work? ESOPs,
Law Firms, Codetermination and
Economic Democracy. The Yale
Law Journal, 99 (8), 1749-1816.
Ellerman, David. 1984. "Workers
Cooperatives: The Question of
Legal Structure." In Worker
cooperatives in America, edited by
R. Jackall and H. M. (Eds.) Levin,
p. 257-274. University of California
Press.
Abel, Hillary. (2015). Worker
Coops-Pathways to Scale.
http://community-
wealth.org/sites/clone.community-
wealth.org/files/downloads/Worker
Coops-PathwaysToScale.pdf
OPTIONAL: Ted Howard
speaking in Memphis TN at
event sponsored by the St. Louis
Federal Reserve (link on V2)
Guest speaker:
Ted Howard, Evergreen
Cooperatives
Class Prep: From the readings,
choose one management issue
raised as a challenge for
Cooperative models and prepare a
question for Ted Howard related
to the issue. Email the question
before class begins at 10:10am.
7
10 10/6 Guest lecturer Kai Hockerts. (Spring 2015).
How Hybrid Organizations Turn
Antagonistic Assets into
Complementarities. California
Management Review, Vol. 57 No.
3, (pp. 83-106).
Ingrid Mittermaier and Joey
Neugart. (2011). Operating in Two
Worlds: Tandem Structures in
Social Enterprise
The Practical Lawyer.
Case 12: The story of Greyston
Bakery (pdf-Kate)
Greyston in NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/top/refe
rence/timestopics/subjects/f/food
/index.html?query=GREYSTON
%20BAKERY&field=org&matc
h=exact
60 Minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/
watch/?id=7380292n
Guest speaker:
Mike Brady, President
Greyston Bakery, Inc.
Class Prep: From the readings,
choose one management issue
raised as a challenge for
nonprofits like Greyston. Topics
for a query might include:
a) From Mittermaier and
Neugart: challenges and
opportunities for
nonprofits with a for
profit entity
b) From Hockerts:
challenges and
opportunities on the issue
of ‘open hiring’.
Be specific and per usual,
email the question before
class begins at 10:10am.
8
11 10/8 Choosing the
Right
Organizational
Form
Dees and Anderson, (2002).
Blurring Sector Boundaries:
Serving Social Purposes Through
For-Profit Structures, CASE
Working Paper Series No. 2.
Cooney, K. (2012). Mission
control: examining the
institutionalization of new legal
forms of social enterprise in
different strategic action
fields. Social Enterprises: An
Organizational Perspective, New
York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 198-
221.
Bromberger, Allen R. Social
Enterprise: A Lawyer’s Perspective
Wexler, Robert A. and David
A.Levitt. (2012). Using New
Hybrid Legal Forms: Three Case
Studies, Four Important Questions,
and a Bunch of Analysis
The Exempt Organization Tax
Review.
Stout, Lynn. (2012). The
Shareholder Value Myth. Chapters
1, 2 and 3.
In-Class Exercise on
Organizational Design /
Midterm Review
12 10/13 Social Business Yunus, M. (2010) Building Social
Business, chapters 1, 2 & 5. Public
Affairs, LLC.
CASE: Danone Grameen (ch.2 in
Yunus book)
Davis, G. F. (2014). Corporate
power in the 21st century.
(Instructor copy)
Davis, G. F., & Chu, J. S. (2015).
Stability and Change in Corporate
Governance. Emerging Trends in
the Social and Behavioral Sciences:
An Interdisciplinary, Searchable,
and Linkable Resource.
Eccles, Robert G, Ioannou, Ioannis,
& Serafeim, George. (2014). The
impact of corporate sustainability
Guest speaker: Corinne Bazina,
Danone, former Managing
Director of Grameen Danone
Class Prep: From the readings,
choose one management issue
raised as a challenge or
opportunity Social Business
models and prepare a question for
related to the issue. Email the
question to the TA and CC: me
before class begins at 10:10am.
9
on organizational processes and
performance. Management Science,
60(11), 2835-2857.
13 10/15 Midterm Covers all content on
Organizational Legal Forms
10/20-
10/22
No Class-SOM Global Studies Week
14 10/27 Sector
Selection
Frumkin,P. and Sosa,S. (2012)
Spectrum Filters: Toward a
Normative Theory of Sector
Selection, Paper presented at ISTR
Conference Siena, Italy 2012.
CASE: Acumen Fund and
Embrace: From the Leading
Edge of Social Venture Investing
Assignment #2 due
Case Questions:
1) Drawing on course readings,
discuss 3-5 specific advantages to
the nonprofit form and discuss 3-
5 specific advantages to the for-
profit form for social enterprise
organizations.
2) Introduce and apply the Soza
& Frumkin model for sector
selection to answer the question:
Should Embrace convert to a for-
profit or hybrid organizational
structure? Why or why not?
3) Describe with some detail the
specific organizational structure
design that you recommend.
Note: For the purposes of
Assignment 2, “hybrid” in the
Frumkin and Soza model
indicates a nonprofit-for profit
joint structure such as a NP
with a FP subsidiary or a
brother-sister NP-FP tandem
model.
The FP category includes L3C
and Benefit Corps in addition
to traditional FP forms.
15 10/29 Managing the
double and
triple bottom
line
Trelstad, B. (2008). Simple
measures for social
enterprise. innovations, 3(3), 105-
118.
Case questions:
1)What are the key strategic
issues that the KaBOOM! Board
of Directors needs to monitor to
ensure that the organization
prospers?
10
Diane Holt, David Littlewood.
(2015). Identifying, Mapping, and
Monitoring the Impact of Hybrid
Firms. California Management
Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, Spring 2015;
(pp. 107-125).
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K.
(2014). What Impact?.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY, 56(3).
CASE-Playgrounds and
Performance (A & B)
(HBS)
2) As a Board member, what
measures would you want to see?
How would you want them to be
presented? How often would you
want them to be collected and
reported?
3)Choose, and prepare to defend,
a reasonably well-defined strategy
–meaning a rough distribution of
effort and attention across Lead,
Seed and Rally. Should Lead
continue to grow? How much
effort would you devote to
rapidly expanding Seed? To what
extent would you try to build
KaBOOM!’s future through
Rally?
4)Are the metrics and information
needs different for Home Depot
and KaBOOM!? How much
information and evidence on
social impact should Home Depot
demand on this and their other
CSR expenditures?
16 11/3 Measuring
Impact: SROI
Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004).
Guidelines for social return on
investment.California Management
Review, 46(3), 116-135.
Reeder, Neil, Colantonio, Andrea,
Loder, John, & Jones, Gemma
Rocyn. (2015). Measuring impact in
impact investing: an analysis of the
predominant strength that is also its
greatest weakness. Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment,
1-19.
Ryan, P. W. and Lyne, I. 2008.
Social Enterprise and the
Measurement of Social Value:
Methodological Issues with the
Calculation and Application of the
Social Return on Investment.
Education, Knowledge and
Economy, 2(3): 223–37.
CASE: Robin Hood Foundation
Case Qs:
1) The head of Sunshine Homes
was honored as a Robin Hood
hero for the wonderful work she
has done. Now the foundation
says she has just received her last
grant. This BC methodology must
be incredibly smart or just plain
dumb. Which is it?
2) How valuable is the
methodology for comparing
apples to oranges, that is,
investments in different
portfolios?
3) How should the Robin Hood
Foundation assess its own
performance?
4) What has RHF done to support
and build its approach to
performance measurement and
what more could it do?
11
5) If you were going to the RHF
tomorrow in Weinstein’s place,
how many of you would keep its
measurement approach?
17 11/5 SROI examples
CASE: Ace Social Venture Fund:
Estimating Social Value Creation
SROI Methodology resources:
REDF:
1. REDF (2001) SROI
Methodology. Retrieved from
www.redf.org
2. REDF (2009) SROI Act II:
http://community-
wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-
articles/01-10/paper-gair09.pdf
Robin Hood
1. Weinstein, M.M. (2009). How
Robin Hood Estimates the Impact of
Grants, New York: Robin Hood
Foundation.
2. Robin Hood Metrics Formulas
Sept. 2014
https://www.robinhood.org/sites/def
ault/files/user-uploaded-
images/Robin%20Hood%20Metrics
%20Equations_BETA_Sept-
2014.pdf
NEF:
NEF Guide to SROI
Examples of SROI studies:
Cooney, Kate and Cerullo-Lynch,
Kristen. (2012) Jewish Vocational
Services, Greater Boston (JVS)
SROI
Position papers on SROI:
1. Moody, M., Littlepage, L. and
Paydar, N. (2015), Measuring
Social Return on Investment.
Nonprofit Management and
Leadership.doi: 10.1002/nml.21145
Case Qs:
1) Consider the three measures
suggested by Matt in Appendix A
to measure the social impact of
the VF’s philanthropy. Analyze
each methodology’s benefits and
limitations. Specify the trade-offs
between the three approaches.
What is the most demanding
approach, requiring a
comprehensive collection and
measurement of costs and
outcomes? Which is the least?
Why is the focus only on the
costs of the approaches and not
the benefits?
2) The three proposals described
in Appendix B are indicative of
the mission, business purpose and
philosophy of the more than 25
proposals for funding received by
the ACE VF.
a-For each program, list with as
much detail as possible, the data
that the NPOs would have to
collect, both internally and
externally, under each of the three
approaches.
b-Given the nature of the
proposals and the possible data
constraints, which approach or
metric is most effective in
evaluating the various proposals
for funding? Why?
c-Suggest any other approach or
metric that ACE VF could use to
evaluate the various proposals.
Would it be more effective than
the three measures suggested by
Matt? Why?
12
2-Cooney, Kate, & Lynch-Cerullo,
Kristen. (2014). Measuring the
Social Returns of Nonprofits and
Social Enterprises: The Promise and
Perils of the SROI. Nonprofit Policy
Forum, 5(2), 367-393.
3-Millar, Ross, & Hall, Kelly.
(2012). Social Return on
Investment (SROI) and
Performance Measurement. Public
Management Review, 15(6), 923-
941.
4-Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring
social value. Stanford Soc Innov
Rev, 8(3), 38-43.
5-SROI position paper, New
Philanthropy Capital
18 11/10 Financing and
Capital
Structure
Chertok, M., Hamaoui, J. and
Jamison, E. (2008), The Funding
Gap. Stanford Social Innovation
Review. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.44‐51
Spiess-Knafl, W., & Jansen, S. A.
(2014). Social Enterprises and the
Financing of Different Scaling
Strategies. In Emerging Research
Directions in Social
Entrepreneurship (pp. 67-83).
Springer Netherlands.
Brest, P., & Born, K. (2013). When
Can Impact Investing Create Real
Impact?. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 11, 22-27.
CASE: Good Capital and Better
World Books
OPTIONAL: Cheng, Beiting,
Ioannou, Ioannis, & Serafeim,
George. (2014). Corporate social
responsibility and access to finance.
Strategic Management Journal,
35(1), 1-23.
Case Qs:
1) Is BWB a good investment for
GoodCap?
2) How can Selke and GoodCap
structure the deal so that BWB’s
social and environmental mission
is preserved upon exit?
3) What should Selke and
GoodCap do about BWB’s
inconsistent philanthropic giving
scheme?
4) What should David Murphy,
president and CEO, and the BWB
management team consider before
accepting an equity investment
from GoodCap?
13
OPTIONAL: Ioannou, Ioannis, &
Serafeim, George. (2014). The
impact of corporate social
responsibility on investment
recommendations: Analysts'
perceptions and shifting
institutional logics. Strategic
Management Journal.
19 11/12 Democratizing
Finance
Fred Block, “Democratizing
Finance,” forthcoming in Politics &
Society Marguerite Mendell and
Rocío Nogales, “Solidarity Finance:
An Evolving Landscape,”
Universitas Forum, Vol. 3, No. 2,
June 2012
Matt Flannery “Kiva and the Birth
of Person-to-Person Microfinance,”
Innovations/ winter & spring 2007
pp. 31-56
Kevin Lawton and Dan Marom,
The Crowd-funding revolution
(McGraw Hill, 2013). chapter 5,
“the rise of crowdfunding” and
chapter 9, “Infrastructure and
ecosystems” pp. 47-66; 121-144
Stemler, Abbey R. (2013) The
JOBS Act and Crowdfunding:
Harnessing the Power and Money
of the Masses. Business Horizons.
56(3): p.271.
Case: Kiva Vs. MYC4: Business
Model Innovation in Social
Lending (HBS)
Case Qs:
1) What problem are Kiva and
MC4 attempting to solve? What
is the value proposition (problem,
target market, solution)?
2) Compare Kiva and MYC4 in
terms of the system of
activities—the key flows of
activities in the businesses.
3) How similar/different are the
Kiva and MYC4 business
models?
4) Which business model do you
think is more scalable, why?
5) In addition to scalability, what
are the other key characteristics or
dimensions of a good business
model in SE space?
6) Compare and contrast the two
models based on these additional
factors.
20 11/17 New Financial
Vehicles:
Social Impact
Bonds
Liebman, J. (2011). Social Impact
Bonds. Report for Center for
American Progress:
http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/
social_impact_bonds.pdf
CASE: Social Finance, Inc.
Case Qs:
1) How do the proposed Social
Impact Bonds work?
2) How should Social Finance
structure the financial instrument?
As a bond? As equity? As some
hybrid?
14
3) Consider SF’s proposed
structure form the standpoint of
the government, the social sector
and private capital? What are the
strengths? What are the
weaknesses?
4) What type of project should SF
target? Homelessness, education,
or youth recidivism? Should it do
one, two or all three?
21 11/19 Social Impact
Bonds in
Action
Guest speaker: John Grossman,
Third Sector Capital Partners,
Inc.
11/20
Assignment #3 (SROI) due, upload by midnight Friday
11/23-
11/27
No Class-SOM November Break
22 12/1 Models for
Growth: Social
Franchise
Gillis, W., & Castrogiovanni, G. J.
(2012). The franchising business
model: an entrepreneurial growth
alternative. International
Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 8(1), 75-98.
Weber, Christiana, Arne Kroger,
Kathrin Lambrich. (2012). Scaling
social enterprises—A theoretically
grounded framework. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 32(19),
Article 3.
Tracey, Paul & Jarvis, Owen.
Toward a Theory of social venture
franchising. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice. 31, 5, 667-685.
Kistruck, G. M., Webb, J. W.,
Sutter, C. J., & Ireland, R. D.
(2011). Microfranchising in Base‐of‐the‐Pyramid Markets:
Institutional Challenges and
Adaptations to the Franchise
Model. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 35(3), 503-531.
Case Qs:
1) From the Gillis and
Castrogiovanni reading, what are
the advantages and disadvantages
of franchising as a growth
strategy?
2) From the Kistruck et al. article,
how is franchising different at the
BOP?
3) Role play: Shah (CEO) and
Sateesh (franchisee in Vasai)—
Shah brings up the issues
uncovered during the surprise
visit and Sateesh defends the
operation.
4) What should Shah do with the
Vasai franchise?
5) Should social buy-in to the
mission be a requirement for all
the franchisees?
15
CASE-Sarvajal: Water for All
OPTIONAL: Epstein, M. J., &
Bing, E. G. (2011). Delivering
health care to the global poor:
Solving the accessibility problem.
innovations, 6(2), 117-141.
OPTIONAL: Jishnu Das and
Jeffrey Hammer
Location, Location, Location:
Residence, Wealth, And The
Quality Of Medical Care In
Delhi, India Health Affairs, 26, no.3
(2007):w338-w351
OPTIONAL: Rao, K. D.,
Sundararaman, T., Bhatnagar, A.,
Gupta, G., Kokho, P., & Jain, K.
(2013). Which doctor for primary
health care? Quality of care and
non-physician clinicians in India.
Social science & medicine, 84, 30-
34.
6) What are the current operating
problems (aside from the general
franchising concepts already
discussed) that may affect future
expansion?
7) Considering these insights, is
Sarvajal poised for growth?
Assess the limitations,
opportunities, vulnerabilities,
competition and execution. If yes,
how should Sarvajal scale?
23 12/3 Scaling Impact Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., &
Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling
Social Impact:
Strategies for Spreading Social
Innovations. Stanford Social
Innovation Review 1(4): 24-32.
Desa, G., & Koch, J. L. (2014).
Scaling Social Impact: Building
Sustainable Social Ventures at the
Base-of-the-Pyramid. Journal of
Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 146-
174.
Jaffee, D. (2012). Weak coffee:
Certification and co-optation in the
fair trade movement. Social
Problems, 59(1), 94-116.
CASE: Fair Trade USA:
Innovating for Impact
OPTIONAL: Aubry, R. (2004)
Taking your venture to scale,
pp.281-301 in Oster, S.M.,
Massarsky, C.W., and Beinhacker,
Case Qs:
1) The case opens with the
collapse of the price of coffee due
to oversupply in the 1990s. How
is this situation an opportunity for
Fair Trade USA?
2) What are the benefits of
moving to Fair Trade suppliers
for retailers? What are the
constraints?
3) What are the key factors that
will drive growth for Fair Trade
products? What is FT USA’s plan
for growth in market share?
4) What are the arguments for and
against expanding the FT model
to include larger coffee estates?
5) Do you think Paul Rice made
the right decision? Why or why
not?
16
S.L. (Eds) Generating and
Sustaining Nonprofit Earned
Income, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
24 12/8 Exits and the
Public Market,
part 1
In the next two sessions, we will
examine successful for-profit social
entrepreneurs and their exit choices
by comparing the acquisitions of
Ben & Jerry’s and StonyfieldFarms:
Exit 1: Ben & Jerry’s
CASE: Preserving Mission and
Brand Within Unilever
Ben's Big Flop, Edward O. Welles,
Inc., September 01, 1998.
Unilever Funds Anticapitalists:
Groups Gain Millions through Ben
& Jerry Takeover, Financial Times
(London), October 6, 2001.
Teather, David. (2010, April 3).
Sold up but not sold out, Ben and
Jerry’s are still the poster boys for
fair trade. The Observer, Sunday
edition.
Page, Anthony and Robert Katz
(2012). The Truth about Ben and
Jerry’s. Stanford Social Innovation
Review.
Assignment #4 due:
Class will be divided into groups.
Each group will prepare an oral
presentation of their case analysis
(of one of the two cases listed for
Session 25).
Team presentations should
include: 1) a detailed description
of the specific deals negotiated by
the focal SE with the larger
acquiring company; 2) an
assessment of the SE’s alternative
options at the time; and 3) an
argument either pro or con that
this deal represented the best
option for preserving social
mission of the SE.
The teams and the pro or con
position will both be assigned by
the instructor.
25 12/10 Exits and the
Public Market,
part 2
Exit 2: Stonyfield Farms
CASE: Gary Hirshberg and
Stonyfield Farm
Online case: Strategic Mission-
Driven Sustainable Business:
Stonyfield Yogurt
Goodman, David (2003). Does the
selling of Stonyfield Farm yogurt
signal the end of socially
responsible business—or a new
beginning? Mother Jones,
January/February.
Assignment #4 due:
Class will be divided into groups.
Each group will prepare an oral
presentation of their case analysis
(of one of the two cases listed for
Session 25).
Guidelines for presentations will
be posted on V2.
The teams and the pro or con
position will both be assigned by
the instructor.
17
Rose, Julie (2002). Selling His Soul
to Dannon? Forbes Small Business,
December 2001/January 2002
MacDonald, Christine. (2011). The
Big Green Buyout. The
Environmental Magazine Organics, Stonyfield and
O’Naturals in 2012,
SustainableBusiness.com, June/July
2002.
Additional:
Murray, J. H. (2013). Defending
Patagonia: Mergers and
Acquisitions with Benefit
Corporations. Hastings Bus. LJ, 9,
485-539.
26 12/15 Wrap Up
*Bruck, Connie. (2006). Millions
for Millions: This year’s Nobel
Peace Prize winner and some high-
tech entrepreneurs are competing to
provide credit to the world’s poor,
The New Yorker, 30 October 2006.
Simon-Moya, V., Revuelto-
Taboada, L., and Ribeiro-Soriano,
D. (2012). Are success and survival
factors the same for social and
business ventures? Service Busines,
6:p.219-242.
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., &
Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing
Social-Business Tensions. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442.
Kreutzer, K., & Mauksch, S.
(2014). The One and the Many
Sides of Social Business: A Critical
Reflection. In Social Business (pp.
225-237). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Discussion Qs:
1) Review the Bruck article. What
are the implications for social
enterprises operating in a mixed
industry of strong FP oriented
SEs and hybrid or pure NPs?
Consider both the social and the
economic value proposition in
your response.
2) What is the most valuable take
away for you from the course
readings/discussions/guest
speakers/assignments?
3) What is the burning question
you still find yourself asking
about managing social enterprise
organizations?
Time allotted for students
working on their own
entrepreneurial social
enterprise projects to present as
aspect of their project to the
class for feedback and input.
18
Course Grading, Assignments and Policies:
(15%) Class participation This is a case-based course and preparation for class case discussions and
small group work is a key requirement of the course. Case and reading questions are included on the
syllabus for each week. Students should be prepared for cold -calling on these questions. Each week you
will receive a score based on your contributions to class discussion according to the evaluation rubric for
class participation below. Attendance: Attendance is very important for a discussion based class and
missing class will affect your grade. However, if you have to miss class for an excused absence, to
remain in good standing, submit a write up of the case questions for that week to the instructor and
TA by email.
Points Criteria
0
1
very infrequent involvement in discussion.
2
show evidence of trying to interpret or analyze them.
straightforward information (e.g., straight from the case or reading), without
elaboration or very infrequently (perhaps once a class).
called on.
radic involvement.
3
implications of them.
n an ongoing way: responds to other students' points,
thinks through own points, questions others in a constructive way, offers and supports
suggestions that may be counter to the majority opinion.
4
Demonstrates excellent preparation: has analyzed case exceptionally well, relating it to
readings and other material (e.g., readings, course material, discussions, experiences, etc.).
ts together pieces of
the discussion to develop new approaches that take the class further.
responds very thoughtfully to other students' comments, contributes to the cooperative
argument-building, suggests alternative ways of approaching material and helps class
analyze which approaches are appropriate, etc.
Additionally, there is a Midterm and a set of Assignments (see next page).
19
Assignment #1: Eco Mapping, Industry and Stakeholder Analysis-due Session 6
Working individually or in a group of up to three other people*, prepare an industry analysis, stakeholder
analysis, and eco-map for an organization that you are familiar with through your work, interning,
volunteering or consulting activities. Use the frameworks discussed in class. Details posted on the V2
website.
20% of grade
Deliverable: 5-7 page paper.
Midterm: Legal Structure and Organizational Design, Session 13
10% of grade
Assignment #2: Organizational Structure/ Sector Analysis -due Session 14
Write a 3 to 5 page case analysis for the case listed as the option for Assignment 2 or assess the
possibilities for organizational structure and sector choice for a SE organization that you are familiar with
through your work, interning, volunteering or consulting activities. Case questions are posted on the class
V2 site.
15% of grade
Deliverable: 3 to 5 page paper.
Assignment #3-SROI -due Friday after Session 21 at midnight
Work alone or with up to three other people* in the class to complete an SROI calculation for the case
given or for another organization you are familiar with through your work, interning, volunteering or
consulting activities. Be precise. A guide for the analysis will be posted on the V2 site.
30% of grade
Deliverable: 5-7 page paper.
Assignment #4-SOCIAL ENTERPRISE EXITS-due Sessions 24 and 25: Class will be divided into
groups. Each group will give a presentation arguing for or against the strategies deployed for protecting
social mission in mature social enterprise organizations described in one of the two cases. Cases will be
assigned by the professor. The assignment is to prepare and deliver an oral presentation to the class.
There will be two pro teams and two con teams for each case/session date. The pro teams will be
responsible for laying out the details of the exit deal. The con teams can add to what has already been
said about these details, if something was missed or underemphasized. The pro teams will each have 12
minutes to present their arguments followed by two 12 minute presentations by the con teams. In the
rebuttal round, the representatives across the pro teams will have 7 minutes total to make a rebuttal and
the same for the con teams. Then we will open it up for class discussion.
10% of grade
Deliverable: In class power point presentation.
*Note: For the assignments where group work is an option, teams that incorporate the diversity of the
degree programs in the class (e.g. MBA, MAM, FES, SPH, etc.) receive +1 point on the assignment grade
for each new degree program in the group mix. For example, if a team has 2 MBAs and 1 FES, the team
will get +1 on the assignment grade. If the team has 1 MBA, 1 FES and 1 SPH, the team will get +2 on
the assignment grade. This incentive is there to encourage cross program learning opportunities and to
take into consideration that this kind of cross disciplinary learning on a team assignment can be hard,
scheduling can be difficult, and it takes effort to get out of your comfort zone.
20
Policies:
Assignment submissions and due dates-Identify yourself on your papers by your student ID only.
Please upload all assignments to V2. No late assignments will be accepted unless student submits a
written accommodation request from the appropriate Yale administrator.
Grading-Assignments will be graded on an A, B, C, D, F basis and then converted to the grading rubric
associated with your school. For this course, we will be following the guidelines for grading an elective
with a mixed population of students from MAM, second year MBA, HCM and non-SOM students.
According to this policy, an aggregate grading pool will be constructed and students will be ranked
according to weighted scores across all assignments. For Yale SOM students, High Honors is awarded to
those falling within the top 10 percent of the class, Honors to the next 25%, Proficiency to next 55 percent
and Pass awarded to those falling within the lowest 5% of the ranking. F is an absolute standard. Non-
SOM student final grades will be translated from final numeric grade and rank to the grading guidelines
from the home school.
Laptop, etc. Policy-In keeping with general Yale SOM practice, there is a no laptop policy during case
discussion to emphasize the importance of your attention and participation in the class discussion. If you
are found to be utilizing phone, tablets, laptops or other devices for non-class related uses and this is
disruptive to other students, you will be asked to power down.
Attendance- Attendance is very important for a discussion based class and missing class will affect your
grade. However, if you have to miss class, to remain in good standing, submit a write up of the case
questions for that week to the instructor by email and receive partial points for the class session.
Office hours-Office hours will be held weekly on Thursdays from 12:15pm until 1:30pm. Please make
an appointment. To sign up for a timeslot for office hours, email my outlook calendar with a request. If
you do not make an appointment, I may schedule other meetings during that time. Email is also a good
way to reach me (kate.cooney@yale.edu). My office is located on 5th floor, north of Evans Hall, #5218.
Email-For questions on assignments, please email the TA (Greg Pfeiffer) and cc: me. Greg will
handle routine questions and more complicated questions I will field the first time through. After that,
Greg will respond if it is a repeat question. For questions about access to course reserve materials,
please email Rhona Ceppos and cc: me.
MGMT 621 Teaching Assistant
Greg Pfeiffer
gregory.pfeiffer@yale.edu
(860) 992-3852
Faculty Support for Course Website:
Rhona Ceppos
Rhona.ceppos@yale.edu
203-436-8861