SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - VII

June 3, 2004: No class

Session 11: June 10, 2004

11. Leadership (III): Individual Philanthropy and Alternative Investment

Study questions:

1. What are the three most relevant new trends in individual philanthropy?

2. What should social entrepreneurs such as Rodrigo Baggio, Martin Fisher and Nick Moon, Gisèle Yitamben and Rory Stear do to capitalize on these trends?

3. Do you see a professional place for yourself in this space? If so, where and why?

R-29 Business Week. 2002. “The New Face of Philanthropy: Today’s Donors Are More Ambitious, Get More Involved, and Demand Results.” Business Week, December 2, 2002. [4 pages]

R-30 Prince, Russ Alan, and Karen Maru File. 2001 [1994]. The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to Cultivating Major Donors. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass: 1-11, 173-201. (introduction, chapter 11, conclusion) [39 pages] 

R-31* Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. 2003. World Wealth Report 2003. http://www.ml.com/about/press_release/pdf/wwr_2003.pdf [22 pages]

Session 12: June 17, 2004
12. The “Big Picture” Revisited: Social Entrepreneurship as a New Strategic Space Final discussion, no readings; students present projects Study questions:
1. What are the main characteristics of the strategic space explored in this course?
2. For the development of social entrepreneurship, what are key levers, critical issues and blockers?
3. Based on your exposure to social entrepreneurship in the past eleven sessions, how has your definition of social entrepreneurship changed?
4. What are your next personal action steps?

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - VI

R-20 Letts, Christine W., and Ryan A. Grossman. 1997. “Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists.” Harvard Business Review. [6 pages]

R-21 Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. 2002. “The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship.” Geneva: Schwab Foundation for Social

Entrepreneurship. http://www.schwabfound.org/docs/web/schwab_case.pdf [13  pages]

R-22 Ashoka. 2004. “Ashoka’s History.” http://www.ashoka.org/what_is/history.cfm [1 page]

R-23 Acumen Fund. 2004. “Background.” http://www.acumenfund.org/home/background.html [1 page]

R-24 Skoll Foundation. “Skoll Foundation History.” http://www.skollfoundation.org/about/history.asp [1 page] May 20, 2004: No class

Session 10: May 27, 2004

10. Leadership (II): Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility Study questions:

1. As the CEO of Cisco, which is the best case for corporate social responsibility to make to your board? To your investors? To your clients? To the public?

2. ASAFE operates the sole Cisco Networking Academy in Africa outside of a university. Are there any specific guidelines you would suggest to Gisèle to follow in establishing and executing partnerships with corporations such as Cisco?

3. What does exercising public leadership mean for a CEO? Which role should the private sector play in addressing the most pressing challenges of our times? Should companies support social entrepreneurs? What is the competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy?

R-25 Arrillaga, Laura K., and David Hoyt. 2003. “Cisco Corporate Philanthropy.” Stanford GSB Case PM 48. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University. [23 pages]
R-26 Arrillaga, Laura K., and David Hoyt. 2003. “Corporate Philanthropy.” Stanford GSB Case PM 55. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University. [4 pages]
R-27 Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. 2002. “The Competitive Advantage of
Corporate Philanthropy .” Harvard Business Review, 56. [11 pages]
R-28* Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). 2004. “Overview of Corporate Social
Responsibility.” Issue Brief. San Francisco: BSR.
http://www.bsr.org/BSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=48809 [21
pages]

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - V

R-14 Paton, Rob. 2003. Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises. London: Sage
Publications: 1-19, 37-51, 137-154. (chapters 1, 3 and 8) [54 pages]
R-15 AccountAbility. 2003. “Access: An Inception Report.” London: AccountAbility:
6-20.
http://www.accountability.org.uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/Inception%20Report2.p
df [14 pages]
R-16* Vaughan, Diane. 1999. “The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster.” Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 271-305. [34 pages]
Session 8: May 6, 2004
8. Performance (II): Freeplay¾Getting the Investor Structure Right Study questions:
1. Why is Freeplay a social enterprise?
2. Which option should Freeplay pursue: MBO, IPO, or a strategic partnership?
3. How would you assess and measure the impact of the Freeplay Foundation?
R-17 Mair, Johanna, and Emma Coles. 2004. “The Freeplay Energy Group and Foundation.” IESE-Schwab Foundation Case Study Series on Social Entrepreneurship. Barcelona: IESE Business School. [15 pages]
R-18 Edens, Thomas. 2002. “Strategic Success Options: Alternatives for the Closely Held Business.” Collector (July): 50-53. [4 pages].
http://www.marionfinancial.com/pdfs/succession.pdf
R-19* Grace, Kay Sprinkel. 2002. “Treating Your Donors as Investors.” In: Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit, J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson, and Peter Economy, eds. Pp. 117 - 140. New York: Wiley. [23 pages]
Session 9: May 13, 2004
9. Innovation (II): The Intermediary Landscape Study questions:
1. Based on the cases of CDI, ApproTEC Kenya, ASAFE and Freeplay, what are the most important constraints a social entrepreneur faces in scaling up his or her initiative? How can intermediaries help?
2. What is the Schwab Foundation’s niche in the intermediary landscape?
Acumen’s? Ashoka’s? Skoll’s?
3. Presume that you have decided to invest 25 million Swiss Francs to set up a Foundation that supports social entrepreneurship. Which services would you offer to social entrepreneurs?

Invitan a empresas, grandes y pequeñas, al V Foro de RSE

l V Foro Internacional de Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (RSE) es el espacio para que pequeñas, medianas y grandes empresas puedan conocer las herramientas para generar un valor y crecimiento compartido entre la empresa y la sociedad. El evento inicia mañana 26 de octubre -de 8:30 a 13:00 horas- en el salón auditorio “Luka Vranicic” del Centro Logístico de Comercio Exterior, ubicado en la avenida Kyllmann Nº 1681 (exaeropuerto). La inversión para estudiantes, consultores y particulares es de Bs 100. Más información en Cadexco, a través del teléfono 4599428-19-21 o al correo rse@cadexco.bo, pml@cadexco.bo.

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - IV

R-10 Rangan, Kasturi V. 2002. “ApproTEC Kenya: Technologies to Fight Poverty and
Create Wealth.” Harvard Business School Case N9-503-007. Boston, Mass.: HBS Publishing. [19 pages]
R-11* Taylor, Melissa A., J. Gregory Dees, and Jed Emerson. 2002. “The Question of
Scale: Finding an Appropriate Strategy for Building on Your Success.” In: Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your
Enterprising Nonprofit, J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson, and Peter Economy, eds.
Pp. 235-266. New York: Wiley. [31 pages]
April 15, 2004: No class
Session 6: April 22, 2004
6. Leadership (I): ASAFE¾Preventing Mission Creep
Study questions:
1. Should ASAFE go into HIV/AIDS projects? Or should the organization keep promoting e-readiness in Cameroon? Why or why not?
2. What is adaptive work? How do you see Gisèle’s role as a grassroots leader in catalyzing adaptive work in Cameroon?
3. When do leaders lead? When do they mislead?
R-12 Martin, Maximilian, and Andreas Ernst. 2003. “ASAFE: Strategic Challenges for E-Commerce Promotion in Central Africa.” Schwab Entrepreneur Case Study, 2003-01. Geneva: Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. (see

R-13 Heifetz, Ronald. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: 13-48. (chapters 1 and 2) [25 pages]
Session 7: April 29, 2004
7. Performance (I): Nuts and Bolts of Social Impact Measurement
Study questions:
1. Why do we need to measure performance? Is it not enough to be doing good?
2. If you were to set up a performance measurement system, what criter ia would you want it to fulfill?
3. What are the pros for adopting a balanced scorecard or a dashboard in measuring and managing social enterprises? What are the cons?
4. Do you consider a generally accepted reporting standard for civil society organizations desirable? Feasible? Why or why not?

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - III

Session 3: March 25, 2004
3. Setting the Stage (II): The Actors – Social Entrepreneurs, Corporate Citizens
and Philanthropists
Study questions:
1. What is individual philanthropy? What is corporate philanthropy?
2. Why do people give? Which roles do social ties and long-term involvement
play?
3. Why do corporations give? Does there always have to be a “business case”?
R-7 Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative. 2004. “Global Corporate Citizenship: The Leadership Challenge for CEOs and Boards.” Geneva and London: World Economic Forum and the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum.
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCCI/GCC_CEOstatement.pdf [18 pages]
R-8 Ostrower, Francie. 2001. Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press: 3-49, 132-141. (introduction, chapter 1, conclusion) [54 pages]
Session 4: April 1, 2004
4. Setting the Stage (III): The Field of Forces – Creating Social Value in a Globalizing World
Study questions:
1. Does a social entrepreneur like Rodrigo Baggio benefit from globalization? Why or why not?
2. How does the role of risk change in a globalizing world? What does this
mean for social entrepreneurs?
3. Do social entrepreneurs contribute to deepening democracy? If so, how?
R-9 Giddens, Anthony. 2002. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives, rev. ed. London: Profile: 24-53, 85-100. (chapters 1, 2 and 5) [44 pages]
Session 5: April 8, 2004
5. Forming a Social Entrepreneurial Identity: ApproTEC Kenya
Study questions:
1. What business is ApproTEC in: R&D? Creating entrepreneurs?
Manufacturing? How does the business model work?
2. How should ApproTEC scale up? Which countries? Which products? Or
should it “scale deep”?
3. Why are Martin Fisher and Nick Moon social entrepreneurs? What is
different about them, compared to other NGO leaders? If there is such a
thing as a “social entrepreneurial identity,” what are its key elements?

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS - II

Session 2: March 18, 2004
2. Innovation (I): The Case of the Committee for Democracy in Information Technology

Study questions:

1. What is CDI’s business model? What is innovative about it?

2. Where do you see the biggest challenges ahead for CDI?

3. What do you consider the five most important characteristics of an innovative organization? Why?

R-4 Mair, Johanna, and Sergi Verges. 2004. “Committee for Democracy in Information Technology.” IESE-Schwab Foundation Case Study Series on Social Entrepreneurship, DG-1453-E. Barcelona: IESE Business School. [18 pages] 

R-5* Dees, J. Gregory. 2001. “Mastering the Art of Innovation.” In: Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs, J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson, and Peter Economy, eds. Pp. 161-198. New York: Wiley. [37 pages]

R-6* Wejnert, Barbara. 2002. “Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 297-326. [29 pages]

SCHEDULE, READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Session 1: March 11, 2004

1. Setting the Stage (I): Opening Lecture on Social Entrepreneurship Study questions:

1. What is a social entrepreneur?

2. What is the difference between a social entrepreneur, a NGO leader and a social activist?

3. What would you like to learn about social entrepreneurship?

R-1 Dees, Gregory. 2001 [1998]. “The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship.” Working Paper. Stanford: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf [5 pages] R-2 Martin, Maximilian. 2004. “Toward an Empirical Analysis of the Performance Revolution in the Social Sector.” Unpublished Manuscript. Geneva: Schwab

Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. [35 pages]

R-3* Dees, J. Gregory, and Peter Economy. 2001. “Social Entrepreneurship.” In: Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs , J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson, and Peter Economy, eds. Pp. 1-18. New York: Wiley. [18 pages]

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the course and the written assignment, and will be available throughout the course of the semester via e-mail. Andreas Ernst, who holds a Master’s degree in business administration and has done case research on social entrepreneurs, as well as Jamil Hebali, who is a Ph.D. candidate at HEC, support the instructors. They will be available for review sessions. Students who have not

previously taken seminars in English ought not to be discouraged¾the seminar pr ovides an opportunity to expand your skill set, and we will seek to help you manage the workflow as productively as possible

COURSE POLICIES

Late policy for written work. All course requirements must be completed by the date on which they are due.

¶ Final grade. The final grade of the course is based on oral seminar participation and attendance (50%), and the final paper presentation and paper (50%).

¶ Writing, format, and citation. Oral and written communication is a crucial part of the seminar. Development of good speaking and writing skills is essential to your success as a professional. A good paper has a clear thesis, is well organized, and employs solid logical analysis. Analytic arguments based upon verifiable facts must precede any value judgments you wish to make. Reflection-based arguments are useful only if grounded on one’s genuine desire for sincere introspection and personal development. A good paper will address the problem posed by the assignment. Academic honesty requires that you properly cite all sources on which you rely for evidence. Students should strive for their papers being stylistically and grammatically correct and free of typographical and spelling errors. You should proofread your papers. Please use standard paper size,

margins, font type, and font size (A4, double-spacing, Times New Roman font, 12-point).

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING

This course assumes no previous knowledge except a reasonable command of English and a willingness to learn. Attendance is mandatory at all regular class meetings; English is the sole language of instruction. Enrollment is limited to 30 and the seminar is open to auditors upon consultation with the instructors only. The course consists of twelve sessions in room M2130.

There will be two different types of assignments:

¶ Attendance and seminar participation. 50% of the grade. Attendance is mandatory at all regular class meetings. Class discussion is an essential component of the course. Your full participation is expected in the discussion of the assigned cases, readings and general themes of the course. Be prepared to “open the case,” and to actively participate.

¶ Final paper and presentation. 50% of the grade (20 pp. per student). By April 1, 2004, you will choose a final paper topic from one of the following thematic threads. You will then complete the respective following background reading and serve as a resource person on your chosen subject during class discussion:

Ÿ Group 1: Innovation. Core reading: Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovation, fifth ed. New York: Free Press.

Ÿ Group 2: Performance. Core reading: Paton, Rob. 2003. Managing and Measuring Social Enterprises. London: Sage Publications.

Ÿ Group 3: Leadership. Core reading: Heifetz, Ronald. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers . Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ÿ Group 4: Identity. Core reading: Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.
After you have familiarized yourself with the literature on the subject, you will choose one social entrepreneur from the Schwab Foundation’s network of social entrepreneurs and “dig deeper,” i.e., write a mini-case study that focuses on one of the four thematic subjects. For your mini-case, you will draw on input from the social entrepreneur in question (e.g. via email) and undertake additional desk research. Students are welcome to work in groups, but will each need to submit a separate paper that analyzes some
aspect of a joint project in detail.

READINGS

Required readings (“R”) will put relevant social entrepreneurship theory and practice and related texts for each topic at your disposition. The readings are selected from the course reading packet. Additionally, throughout the semester, the course packet readings may be supplemented with short current readings and handouts by email. You are expected to complete the readings and cases assigned for each session in advance of that session, and to attend class prepared to discuss the ideas set forth in the texts. On

average, you should calculate six hours of reading time and preparation for each class session. The study questions are intended to facilitate your engagement with the articles and cases. Please prepare them well. They will serve as a springboard for class discussion.

In case you would like to read further, we have added background readings. They are marked with an asterisk (“R*”). They are recommended, but not mandatory.

INSTRUCTORS

Dr. Pamela Hartigan is the Managing Director of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. She holds advanced degrees in international economics and education, as well as a Ph.D. in human developmental psychology. Dr. Hartigan has focused her career on working with youth, health and development. Prior to joining the Schwab Foundation, she served as the WHO’s Director of Health Promotion, and as Director of its Department for Violence and Injury Prevention.

Dr. Maximilian Martin is Head of Research at the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship and a Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University. He holds advanced degrees in anthropology and economics and a Ph.D. in economic anthropology. Dr. Martin’s current research focuses on the relationship between globalization, enterprising public leadership and philanthropy. He also continues to pursue work on the political economy of the Caribbean.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

At the end of the course, students can expect to:

¶ Have gained a solid understanding of social entrepreneurship from a theoretical perspective;

¶ Be familiar with the overall strategic space and possible points of insertion for those who wish to work with social entrepreneurs (rather than becoming social entrepreneurs themselves); and

¶ Have met several of its leading practitioners, highly successful social entrepreneurs who have combined innovation, resourcefulness and opportunity to address complex social problems around the world.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

¶ Part one sets the stage. Before getting into the intricacies of the plot of a Greek drama, one must develop a basic understanding how actors, chorus, and stage relate to each other. Likewise, to pace our work effectively, the course first sets the stage by introducing social entrepreneurs and the actors they routinely interact with: corporate citizens and philanthropists. We also examine the broader field of forces that contributes to the rise of social entrepreneurship.

¶ Part two highlights select social entrepreneurs. To provide a practical introduction, the course looks at examples of social entrepreneurship through a variety of case studies. To ensure rigor, four thematic threads structure the discussion. 

Ÿ Innovation. Social entrepreneurs are innovators who create systemic change. Which factors do they rely upon to accelerate the diffusion of their innovations?

Ÿ Performance. Measuring outcomes is very important. Which are the tools available to measure the impact and effectiveness of social enterprises?

Ÿ Leadership. If it were not for their leadership skills, social entrepreneurs would never manage to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. What are the characteristics of social entrepreneurs’ leadership?

Ÿ Identity. Social entrepreneurship provides a new identity for social sector leaders who do not fit into any of the existing “boxes.” What is distinctive about social entrepreneurs’ identity?

¶ Social entrepreneurs increasingly benefit from a growing number of organizations whose mission it is to specifically support their work. Part three examines new trends in the foundation landscape as well as corporate and individual philanthropy. We first analyze the niches and strategic choices of players in the intermediary space such as  Acumen, Ashoka, and the Schwab Foundation. Two subsequent sessions look at dynamics in two capital transmission channels which social entrepreneurs can access to raise funds, corporate and individual philanthropy.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW STRATEGIC SPACE FOR SOCIAL VALUE CREATION

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Social entrepreneurs draw on market-based mechanisms to create positive change in the domains of education, the environment, fair trade, health, human rights and other social issues. Combining their passion to solve social problems with an entrepreneurial outlook on life, they find innovative ways to leverage scarce resources in the pursuit of social value.

As a novel approach to solving intractable issues, social entrepreneurship has begun to attract substantial attention. A decade after first beginnings in the U.S., the concept of social entrepreneurship has sparked media interest and is subject of government policy and think tank papers in the U.S. and the U.K. Interest in social entrepreneurship is rising worldwide, and a corresponding support and research infrastructure is emerging fast. Social entrepreneurship has become a new strategic space that is increasingly seen as a powerful alternative to traditional social policy and development interventions. 

Young professionals aiming for careers in international and non-profit organizations, corporate citizenship units, and innovative wealth management divisions are therefore well-advised to familiarize themselves with this new space and the options it offers to those who want to combine professionalism and entrepreneurship with the pursuit of a social purpose.

This course provides a comprehensive introduction to social entrepreneurship. It is divided into three parts.

Experto dice que seguimos retrasados en el tema RSE

En un foro organizado por la Cainco y bajo la presencia de 190 empresarios, Gonzalo Muñoz, experto internacional y cofundador del "Sistema B" de empresas que superaron la frontera de la Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (RSE), dijo que aún Latinoamérica está lejos de superar este eslabón que tiene que ver con la solución de los problemas sociales y ambientales. "Yo creo que el diagnóstico en Latinoamérica es bastante peor que solo el daño ambiental. Es también un problema de pobreza, desigualdad y de bajo bienestar. Por tanto, los desafíos que tenemos son enormes", señaló. Un modelo nuevo. El foro, más que una reflexión fue un conocimiento de nuevas técnicas y experiencias orientados a un nuevo concepto de hacer empresa exitosa y competitiva a nivel de los negocios y la RSE. "Es un tema bastante novedoso esto de empresas B. Primero, que no es una fundación, ni una corporación. Es una empresa desde un punto de vista de estructura legal que define su visión para resolver problemas sociales y ambientales. Lo importante, eso lo coloca los estatutos, de manera obligatoria y vinculante para cada uno de los directivos de una compañía", explicó Muñoz, de nacionalidad chilena. En su exposición ha dejado en claro que el reto de ser empresas innovadoras hoy pasa por ser socialmente responsables. En ese sentido el Sistema B se ha convertido en una herramienta efectiva que posibilita entre otros aspectos generar valor a todos sus diferentes grupos de interés de la empresa, no solo a sus accionistas sino a sus "stakeholders". Experiencias cercanas. Una de las características de este sistema ya viene siendo aplicado en Chile. Según su gestor del nuevo modelo, se utiliza el poder del mercado, entiende y alienta los rendimientos financieros, sin que ello sea la más importante de ser de la empresa. "Chile tiene en ciertos ámbitos buenos estándares, en otros aspectos son muy malos. En términos de desigualdad es uno de los peores del mundo. Y para los niveles económicos que tiene esa brecha pasa a ser mucho más dura", enfatizó. Dice que es mucho más comprensible esta situación en países como Bolivia, donde los niveles de pobreza son generales. Pilares de cambio. "Lo primero es no tener responsabilidad social empresarial. El solo mencionar significa que algo está mal", precisó Muñoz. Ante esa reflexión el foro de ayer culminó con el desarrollo de un conversatorio sobre el rol del Gobierno, la empresa y la sociedad. Los participantes abordaron la problemática a través de cómo comportarse de manera ética y con responsabilidad al interior de los negocios. Al final concluyeron señalando que el éxito y la rentabilidad de las empresas en el futuro es pensar en la vida y no solo en el mundo frío y calculador de los negocios.

Question Bloc 3: Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

“Short” questions:

9. What is venture philanthropy? Please define the concept and explain its role in the promotion of social entrepreneurship.

Answer:

OR

10. What is corporate social responsibility? Please define the concept and explain its role in the promotion of social entrepreneurship.

Answer:

“Long” questions:

11. Should entities wishing to promote social entrepreneurship cite the Grameen Bank as a stellar example of social entrepreneurship? Why or why not? Please support your claims with evidence from the readings.

Answer:

OR

12. On a flight to London, you happen to sit next to the well-known analyst who writes for the Financial Times (FT), Martin Wolf. You manage to excite Wolf about social entrepreneurship, and he agrees to consider writing a FT column on the subject. However, Wolf insists that you first clarify whether the model of

social entrepeneurship differs with respect to the provision of public and private goods. Please provide your answer below.
Answer:
Good luck !

Question Bloc 2: Strategic Challenges for Social Entrepreneurs

“Short” questions:

5. Please define the concepts of “scaling up” and “scaling deep”. Provide a set of rules to guide an entrepreneur in assessing when to scale deep, and when to scale up.

Answer:

OR

6. Please compare and contrast the economic drivers behind microinsurance and microfinance.

Answer:

“Long” questions:

7. Should Gisèle Yitamben accept the funds for the HIV/AIDS project (as outlined in the case study on ASAFE)? Why or why not?

Answer:

OR

8. Please explain the core elements of David Dror’s innovation. In taking his innovation to market, which three suggestions can you give him based on the course readings on innovation?

Answer:

Question Bloc 1: What is Social Entrepreneurship, and Why Do We Need It?

“Short” questions:

1. Please clarify the difference between social enterprise and social entrepreneur, and define both concepts.

Answer:

OR

2. What are the main differences with respect to the functioning of the boards of business enterprises and social enterprises?

Answer:

“Long” questions:

3. You have agreed to address a dinner chaired by Larry Summers, the President of Harvard. Larry has asked you to make the three most relevant points about social entrepreneurship, and to be accessible to people who are brilliant in their academic fields, but may have never even heard the term “social

entrepreneurship.” Please type your dinner speech below.

Answer:

OR

4. Is social entrepreneurship a recent or a perennial phenomenon? Make sure you provide the pros and cons you consider most important. You may want to refer to the handouts that were provided in class to guide you in constructing a well-written and well-substantiated argument.

Answer:

Exam Questions

The exam contains a selection of questions from each of the three “blocs” of the seminar. For each “bloc”, there are two “short” and two “long” questions.

WITHIN EACH BLOC, choose 1 short and 1 long question. When you finish this exam, you should have answered three short questions and three long questions, a total of six questions in all. Answers to long questions should not exceed two pages; answers to short questions should not exceed one page (hence, the total length of all your answers will not exceed nine written pages).

Please answer only one of each of the two long and short question sections from each bloc of the seminar. In providing your answers, please ensure that they are properly numbered, and remember to support your claims with evidence (e.g. from the course reading packet).

LEVERAGING MARKET-BASED ACTION FOR POSITIVE CHANGE: A SEMINAR ON SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Exam Guidelines

This is a 24-hour, open-book exam. This exam is optional, and substitutes for the 15-page seminar term paper. You may consult all your notes as well as the reading materials you wish to answer the exam questions.

You will receive the exam questions at 9 a.m. Swiss time on either one of the following dates that you requested in advance: June 30, 2003, July 1, 2003, or July 2, 2003.

You must return your answers to the questions within 24 hours, i.e., the latest by 9:00 a.m. Swiss time on the following day. Please write your answers in this 

Word document.

Please send your exam answers to all following three email addresses: pamela.hartigan@schwabfound.org, maximillian_martin@harvard.edu, and devyani.rana@weforum.org. Late submissions will not be considered.

Please note that by taking the exam, y ou agree to neither consult with other students or individuals on the exam questions nor to share nor compare your answers.

Failure to comply with these guidelines will be considered as a case of academic dishonesty, and will result in a failing grade for the exam.

Desarrollo de la demanda energética - Apéndice

población: la población de la OCDE Europa alcanzará casi los 550 millones de individuos alrededor de 2030. Después de esta fecha, experimentará una disminución hasta 510 millones para el año 2050.

PIB: se espera una subida media del PIB ajustado por PPP de un ritmo anual de 1,7%, con tendencia a triplicarse para 2050. El PIB per cápita seguirá siendo uno de los más altos del mundo, más del doble de la media mundial.

intensidad energética: bajo el escenario de referencia, la intensidad energética se reducirá un 1,1% anual, provocando una reducción de la demanda final de energía por unidad de PIB del orden del 40% entre 2003 y 2050. Bajo el escenario de [r]evolución energética se producirá una caída de la intensidad energética de casi el 75%. demanda energética final: bajo el escenario de referencia se producirá un aumento de la demanda energética de más del 30% de la cifra actual de 50.000 PJ/a a 68.000 PJ/a para 2050. Bajo el escenario de [r]evolución energética se producirá una bajada estable a 41.000 PJ/a para

2050, dos tercios del consumo proyectado bajo el escenario de referencia.

demanda de electricidad: bajo el escenario de [r]evolución energética se espera un incremento de la demanda de electricidad hasta 2040, con una disminución de alrededor de 3.300 TWh/a para 2050. Comparado con el escenario de referencia, las medidas de eficiencia energética permiten evitar la generación de 1.100 TWh/a. demanda de calor: bajo el escenario de [r]evolución energética, la demanda de calor casi se doblará. Comparado con el escenario de referencia, se evita el consumo de 13.000 PJ/a gracias a las mejoras en eficiencia energética.

Sistemas de cuota para las renovables - II

Las compañías eléctricas están obligadas por ley a adquirir una proporción cada vez mayor de energía renovable. Países que han adoptado este sistema son el Reino Unido, Suecia e Italia en Europa, y muchos estados en EEUU, donde se conocen como RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard-Normas de cartera de renovables).

Comparado con el precio fijo de las licitaciones, el modelo de CVN presenta más riesgos para el inversor debido a las fluctuaciones diarias de los precios, a menos que se creen mercados efectivos para contratos certificados (y de electricidad) a largo plazo, un tipo de mercados que no existe aún. El sistema es también más complejo que otros mecanismos de pago.

¿Cuál de estos sistemas de incentivos funciona mejor? Según la experiencia pasada, está claro que pueden diseñarse políticas basadas en tarifas fijas y primas que funcionen más eficazmente, aunque su implantación no es ninguna garantía de éxito. Casi todos los países con experiencia en mecanismos de ayuda de las energías renovables han utilizado en algún momento el sistema de primas, pero no todas han contribuido a un aumento de la producción de electricidad de las renovables. Es el diseño del mecanismo, junto con otras medidas, lo que determina el éxito.

Tal vez sea demasiado pronto para poder sacar conclusiones definitivas sobre los impactos potenciales

de todas las políticas disponibles dado que se encuentran aún en fase experimental sistemas más complejos como aquéllos basados en certificados verdes negociables (CVNs). Se necesita más tiempo y experiencia para poder sacar conclusiones fiables sobre su capacidad para atraer inversiones y ofrecer nuevas capacidades. La elección de un marco adecuado a nivel nacional depende también de la cultura y la historia de cada país, del grado de desarrollo de las renovables y de la voluntad política para lograr los resultados deseados.

Sistemas de cuota para las renovables - I

Se han utilizado dos tipos de sistemas de cuota para las energías renovables: los sistemas basados en licitaciones y los certificados verdes.

Los sistemas basados en licitaciones permiten la licitación competitiva de contratos para construir y operar un proyecto en particular, o bien una cantidad fija de capacidad de renovables en un país o un estado. Aunque se tienen en cuenta también otros muchos factores, invariablemente gana la oferta de menor precio. Este sistema se ha utilizado para fomentar el uso de energía eólica en Irlanda, Francia, Reino Unido, Dinamarca y China.

El inconveniente de este sistema es que los inversores pueden pujar por un precio demasiado bajo desde el punto de vista económico para hacerse con el contrato, para después abandonar el proyecto. Por ejemplo, bajo el sistema de licitación inglés NFFO (Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation-obligación de compra de energía de fuentes no fósiles), muchos de los contratos se quedan sin realizar, por lo que se optó por abandonarlo. Pero si se diseña de manera adecuada, con contratos de duración, un vínculo claro para planificar acuerdos y un precio mínimo posible, la licitación de proyectos de envergadura podría resultar efectiva, como ha ocurrido en la extracción de petróleo y gas en alta mar en el Mar del Norte europeo. 

El sistema de los certificados verdes negociables (CVNs) funciona ofreciendo “certificados verdes” por cada kWh generado por un productor de energía renovable. El valor de estos certificados, que puede negociarse en un mercado, se añade al valor base de la electricidad. Un sistema de certificados verdes funciona en general en combinación con un aumento de la cuota de generación de electricidad renovable. 

sistemas de precios fijos

El sistema de precios fijos incluye el de subvenciones a la inversión, el sistema de primas en las tarifas y los créditos fiscales.
Las subvenciones a la inversión son pagos de capital realizados generalmente sobre la base de la potencia homologada (en kW) del generador. Generalmente se reconoce que los sistemas que basan el monto de la ayuda en el tamaño del generador en lugar de en el rendimiento eléctrico pueden llegar a un desarrollo menos eficiente de la tecnología. Por ello la tendencia global es a alejarse de este sistema de pagos, aunque pueden resultar efectivos cuando se combinan con otros incentivos.
El sistema de primas en las tarifas FIT, adopta0do en casi toda Europa, ha probado ser un sistema de gran éxito a la hora de expandir la energía eólica en Alemania, España y Dinamarca. Los productores reciben un precio fijo por cada kWh de electricidad que vuelquen a la red eléctrica. En Alemania, el precio abonado varía según la madurez relativa de cada tecnología y se reduce cada año para reflejar la caída de precios. El coste adicional del sistema recae en los contribuyentes o los consumidores de la electricidad.

La ventaja principal de un FIT es su sencillez administrativa y su fomento de una mejor planificación. Aunque el FIT no se asocia con un acuerdo de compra de energía (PPA) formal, generalmente las compañías de distribución están obligadas a comprar toda la producción a las instalaciones de energía renovable. Alemania ha reducido el riesgo político de cambio del sistema con la garantía de los pagos durante 20 años. El problema principal asociado con un sistema de precio fijo es que no se presta fácilmente a ajustes – ni al alza
ni a la baja – para reflejar los cambios en los costes de producción de las tecnologías renovables.
Los sistemas de prima fija, denominados en ocasiones mecanismo de “bonos medioambientales”, funcionan añadiendo una prima fija al precio base final de la electricidad. Desde el punto de vista de un inversor, el precio total recibido por kWh es menos predecible que bajo el sistema de primas en las tarifas, ya que depende de un precio de la electricidad en cambio constante, pero desde una perspectiva de mercado, se afirma que una prima fija es más fácil de integrar en el mercado de la electricidad porque todos los implicados reaccionarán a los síntomas de los precios de mercado. España es el principal país en adoptar un sistema de prima fija.
Los créditos fiscales, tal como se utilizan en EEUU y Canadá, ofrecen un crédito contra los pagos fiscales por cada kWh producido. En Estados Unidos el mercado ha estado regulado por un crédito de impuesto para la producción (PTC) federal del orden de 1,8 céntimos por kWh que se ajusta anualmente según la inflación

Mecanismos de ayuda para las energías renovables

En la presente sección se ofrece un resumen de los mecanismos de ayuda existentes y las experiencias sobre su funcionamiento. Los mecanismos de ayuda siguen siendo la segunda mejor solución para corregir los fallos del mercado en el sector eléctrico, su introducción es una solución política práctica pero reconoce que, a corto plazo, no existen otras vías prácticas para aplicar el principio de “el que contamina paga”.

En resumen existen dos tipos de incentivos para promover el desarrollo de la energía renovable, que son el sistema de precios fijos, donde el gobierno regula el precio de venta de la electricidad (o prima) abonado al productor y deja al mercado que determine la cuota de contribución de las renovables al mix, y el sistema de cuota (en EEUU se denominan Normas de Cartera de Renovables- Renewable Portfolio Standards), donde el gobierno regula la cantidad de electricidad renovable y deja que el mercado determine el precio. Ambos sistemas crean un mercado protegido basado en un fondo de subvenciones, generadores convencionales subvencionados y depreciados cuyos costes medioambientales externos no se tienen en cuenta. Su objetivo es ofrecer incentivos para mejoras tecnológicas y reducciones de costes, abaratando el precio de las renovables que pueden así competir con fuentes convencionales en el futuro.

La principal diferencia entre los sistemas basados en la cuota y los sistemas basados en el precio es que el primero fomenta la competencia entre los productores de electricidad. De todas formas, existe competencia entre los fabricantes de tecnologías, que es el factor crucial para abaratar los costes de la producción eléctrica, independientemente de si el gobierno regula los precios o las cuotas. Los precios abonados a los productores de energía eólica son actualmente mayores en muchos sistemas europeos basados en la cuota

(Reino Unido, Bélgica, Italia) que en los sistemas de precios fijos o los basados en las primas (Alemania, España, Dinamarca).