The social entrepreneurial process: case study on APOPO - Student ...

MEMOIRE
Présenté en vue de l'obtention du Master en Ingénieur de
gestion, finalité spécialisée
<strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>: <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> on
APOPO
Aurore Flament
Directeur: Professeur Philip Verwimp
Commissaire: Professeur Olivier Witmeur
Année académique 2011-­‐2012
Année académique 2011-­‐ 2012
1

Summary
<strong>The</strong> following <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> on the enterprise APOPO analyses how two product engineers
succeeded, by leading their venture through several stages of growth, to set up a successful
<strong>social</strong> enterprise, despite the challenges they are constantly confronted with. <strong>The</strong> objective of
this <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> is to give students a better understanding of how the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong>
<strong>process</strong> differs from the traditional commercial <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> one, as described in the
literature. <strong>The</strong> <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> also highlights how <strong>social</strong> enterprises operate, how they grow,
and what difficulties <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs might encounter.
APOPO is a successful Belgian <strong>social</strong> enterprise, based in Tanzania, training giant African
pouched rats to support life-­‐saving activities, through olfactory detection methods: “APOPO
researches, develops and disseminates detection rats technology for humanitarian purposes.” 1
Effective detection for landmines and tuberculosis has already been proven. As a matter of fact,
APOPO offers landmine detection services in Mozambique, Thailand, and soon in Angola,
releasing land from explosive remnants of war. Moreover, through APOPO’s tuberculosis (TB)
research program, 5 to 15 patients per week are diagnosed TB-­‐positive by the rats, whereas
initially diagnosed TB-­‐negative by microscopy analysis. APOPO is also conducting research for
further applications such as tobacco detection and salmonella detection. In brief, APOPO
developed a unique detection technology, which is quick, reliable and affordable, and therefore
particularly adapted to developing countries.
This <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> has been designed specially for a course in entrepreneurship, to
introduce <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship, compared to traditional commercial or business
entrepreneurship. 2
A thesis under the form of a teaching <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> consists of three essential parts: the
technical note, the <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> as such, and the teaching note.
• <strong>The</strong> technical note includes the analysis concepts that enable a richer discussion during
the class. <strong>The</strong> technical note of this <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> is composed of the following topics: the
1 Note : statement on APOPO’s website.
2 Note : it should be mentioned that the <strong>case</strong> does not always reflect accurately the reality of the enterprise, to the
extent that data may have been simplified or modified for teaching purposes.
2

traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> according to Timmons, followed by the “People,
Context, Deal and Opportunity” framework, and the stages of development of an
enterprise. It also contains a brief description of the trends in the <strong>social</strong> sector,
introduces the “Triple Bottom Line” framework, defines several terms related to the
<strong>social</strong> sector and explains the “Social Opportunity Assessment Tool” developed by Jill
Kickul and Thomas S. Lyons. This Assessment Tool enables <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs to take
a more reasoned decision on whether or not to launch a <strong>social</strong> venture to create the
intended <strong>social</strong> impact. Finally the technical note includes as well a description of the
so-­‐called “Social Entrepreneurship framework”, and “Social Entrepreneurship Process
Model”.
• <strong>The</strong> description of the <strong>case</strong> enables students to apply the concepts of the technical note
to a concrete real-­‐life example of a <strong>social</strong> enterprise: APOPO.
• <strong>The</strong> teaching note is exclusively intended for the <strong>case</strong> instructor. It gives a detailed
outline of a teaching plan that the instructor can follow to conduct his class. It suggests
questions and answers to conduct class discussion, and it presents synthesis slides.
In preparation for the class, the instructor should ask students to read note 1 and note
2 of the technical note. As a matter of fact, to facilitate class discussion, students should have
some preliminary knowledge on the traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> frameworks that have
been developed, and should be familiar with some elements of the <strong>social</strong> sector. Some
preparatory questions are included at the end of the <strong>case</strong>, to guide students’ reflection in
advance.
At the end of this <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>, students should have developed a good knowledge on
<strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship. Especially, they should come to the conclusion that the success of
<strong>social</strong> enterprises requires the same fundamental elements as commercial enterprises: an
opportunity, an entrepreneur or <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> team, and adequate resources. Like
commercial enterprises, <strong>social</strong> enterprises need a clear definition of their business, strategic
planning, etc. to ensure successful growth. In the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, however,
these elements are put together to sustain a <strong>social</strong> value proposition.
As a synthesis, the main issue addressed in this <strong>case</strong> is the following: “How does the
<strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> differ from the traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> as defined in
the literature?”. This issue is analyzed through several sub-­‐questions divided into four
categories: the three fundamental elements of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> and the context in
which they interact.
3

Acknowledgements
In this section, I would like to thank those who have helped me and contributed to the
development of this thesis. In particular:
-­‐ Professor Verwimp, professor in development economics, working at the “Université Libre
de Bruxelles”, who accepted to be my advisor.
-­‐ Katarzyna Cieslik, PhD student under the supervision of professor Philip Verwimp, who
helped me throughout the completion of my thesis, and gave me very useful advice.
-­‐ Professor Witmeur, professor in entrepreneurship at the Solvay Business School of
Economics and Management, who advised me to write my thesis as a teaching <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>, and
who accepted to be my reviewer.
-­‐ Anne Henricot, managing director at the Marie&Alain Philippson foundation, who gave me a
lot of background information on APOPO, and on the role of the Philippson Foundation in
APOPO’s development.
-­‐ Bart Weetjens, founder of APOPO, who welcomed me with open arms at APOPO, taking time
to answer my numerous questions. Several interviews enabled me to substantially progress in
the writing of my thesis.
-­‐ Christophe Cox, CEO of APOPO, who welcomed me at APOPO with open arms as well, and
spent a lot of time giving me very useful information on APOPO.
-­‐ Management team of APOPO, who was very open to discussion, and gave me useful
informal information on the organization.
-­‐ Professor Jongen, former professor of linguistics, who kindly read my thesis over.
-­‐ My family, who supported me throughout the whole year, and gave me sound advice. I would
like to thank especially my father, who has always been there to help me, who read my thesis
and gave me interesting recommendations.
<strong>The</strong> trip I made to Tanzania, in APOPO’s headquarters, to gather the necessary
information for my thesis was made possible thanks to the financial intervention of the
“Conseil interuniversitaire de la Communauté française de Belgique -­‐ Commission
universitaire pour le Développement” (Rue de Namur, 72-­‐74, 1000 Brussels -­‐ www . cud.be ),
which I thank as well.
4

Table of Content
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4
Table of Content ............................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7
<strong>The</strong> <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> ................................................................................................................................ 9
Part A : Technical note .......................................................................................................................... 9
NOTE 1: <strong>The</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> .......................................................................................................... 9
1. Timmons model of the Entrepreneurial Process ........................................................................................ 9
2. <strong>The</strong> “People, Context, Deal, and Opportunity” (PCDO) framework .................................................. 10
3. Development stages of enterprises ................................................................................................................ 11
NOTE 2: <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> sector ............................................................................................................................... 13
1. Description of the <strong>social</strong> sector ........................................................................................................................ 13
1.1. Trends ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 From single bottom line to triple bottom line ................................................................................... 13
1.3 Social entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................. 14
1.4 <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> enterprise in context .............................................................................................................. 14
2. <strong>The</strong> Social Opportunity Assessment Tool .................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Social Value Potential .................................................................................................................................. 16
2.2 Market Potential ............................................................................................................................................ 17
2.3 Competitive Advantage Potential ........................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Sustainability Potential ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Overall Potential ............................................................................................................................................ 19
NOTE 3: the Social Entrepreneurial Process .......................................................................................... 20
1. <strong>The</strong> Social Entrepreneurship Framework ................................................................................................... 20
2. <strong>The</strong> Social Entrepreneurship Process Model ............................................................................................. 21
Part B : APOPO – the story of a <strong>social</strong> enterprise ...................................................................... 23
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 23
2. <strong>The</strong> context: the devastating effects of landmines ...................................................................... 23
3. APOPO ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.1 <strong>The</strong> team .................................................................................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Research centre in Belgium ............................................................................................................................ 25
3.3 Transfer of APOPO’s headquarters and R&D centre in Tanzania .................................................. 26
4. Business evolution .................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Operations in Mozambique ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.2 International expansion: Thailand, Angola .............................................................................................. 28
5. Further research for other applications .......................................................................................... 29
5.1 Tuberculosis (TB) application ....................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Other applications ............................................................................................................................................... 31
6. Becoming a <strong>social</strong> enterprise ............................................................................................................... 31
7. Preparatory questions ............................................................................................................................. 34
8. Exhibits .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Part C : Teaching note ......................................................................................................................... 40
1. Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
2. Positioning .................................................................................................................................................... 40
3. Pre-­‐requisites .............................................................................................................................................. 40
4. Synopsis ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
5. Suggested assignment ............................................................................................................................. 41
5.1 Introductive questions ...................................................................................................................................... 41
5.1.1 APOPO’s activities ...................................................................................................................................... 41
5.1.2 Stages of development of APOPO ........................................................................................................ 42
5

5.2 Assignment questions ....................................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.1 Analysis of the “People” pillar .............................................................................................................. 43
5.2.2 Analysis of the “Opportunity” pillar ................................................................................................... 47
5.2.3 Analysis of the “Resources” pillar ....................................................................................................... 51
5.2.4 Analysis of the “Context” ........................................................................................................................ 52
5.2.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3 Teaching plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 54
5.4 Key learning ........................................................................................................................................................... 56
5.5 Additional theory ................................................................................................................................................ 57
5.6 Teaching Note Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 61
6

Introduction
In a context where traditional organizations and institutions -­‐ designed to answer the
basic needs and rights of individuals in society -­‐ constantly fail to serve large segments of the
population, new alternatives are being developed such as <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship. As a matter
of fact, this kind of entrepreneurship plays an increasingly important role in today’s economy.
Social entrepreneurship makes use of the tools and techniques of traditional business
entrepreneurship, as well as of its professionalism, its mindset, and the working <strong>process</strong>es it
develops, but aims at solving <strong>social</strong> problems.
To meet this new field of interest, many university courses and programs have been
developed recently. Similarly, literature on <strong>social</strong> enterprises and <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship is
facing a non-­‐negligible boom. However, very few <strong>case</strong> studies have been written for teaching
purposes.
<strong>The</strong> following <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> on APOPO might bring a better view on how the <strong>social</strong>
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> differs from the traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, as described in
the literature. <strong>The</strong> <strong>study</strong> proposes to look at the way <strong>social</strong> enterprises operate or should
operate, and at how they grow. <strong>The</strong> challenges <strong>social</strong> enterprises might encounter are tackled
as well.
At first, I intended to write a traditional thesis on <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship, building,
confirming or contradicting the existing theories through an in-­‐depth analysis of APOPO. Yet
taking professor Witmeur’s advice, as well as discovering APOPO’s characteristics, thanks to
my stay at its headquarters and research and development center in Tanzania, I came to the
conviction that the form of a teaching <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> would be of great use to introduce a class on
<strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship, seen the characteristics of APOPO. As a result, the decision to prepare
and write a thesis as a teaching <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> has been motivated by the educational and
pragmatic aspects of this type of thesis, which enables to apply <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> concepts to a
concrete <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> situation. So I was influenced in my choice by APOPO’s
characteristics, and not the other way around.
<strong>The</strong> methodology that was adopted is described hereafter. <strong>The</strong> first step has been to
contact the <strong>social</strong> enterprise on which the <strong>case</strong> has been built: APOPO. Christophe Cox, one of
APOPO’s cofounders, with whom I had email exchanges, greeted enthusiastically my project,
and sent me useful information on the organization. Feeling it was important to visit APOPO’s
7

headquarters and R&D center in order to have a better vision of their way of working, a one-­month
stay at APOPO in Tanzania was arranged. To begin with, I gathered on the subject as
much information as possible through extensive literature review. A meeting with Anne
Henricot, managing director from the Marie&Alain Philippson Foundation, was arranged as
well. This was of great use as a partnership between APOPO and the Philippson Foundation
had been concluded in 2008 (and ended in 2010). This foundation supported APOPO
financially, and helped the organization to become a real <strong>social</strong> enterprise, capable of managing
its quick growth.
Once in Morogoro (Tanzania) -­‐ where APOPO breeds and trains its rats, conducts R&D
activities, and where the top management works -­‐, I was given the opportunity to familiarize
with the organization, and experience everyday life there. Field observation enabled me to
gather information on the work <strong>process</strong>es of the organization, the interactions between the
different actors, etc. Further qualitative and raw quantitative data were gathered through
formal semi-­‐structured interviews with Christophe Cox and Bart Weetjens, the two co-­founders
of APOPO, and through informal interviews with the rest of the management team
and PhD students working at APOPO. <strong>The</strong>n came the writing of the <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> as such, and of
the technical and teaching notes.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>case</strong> was tried in professor Verwimp’s course of “Development Economics and
Management”, with students in their third year of Bachelor. However it turned out to be a
lecture more than a class discussion, as the students had not been given the theory and <strong>case</strong> in
advance. After several modifications, the <strong>case</strong> was tried once more on a small group of students
in their last year of Master. <strong>The</strong>y were given the theory and <strong>case</strong> in advance this time. Due to
time restrictions, I conducted the session myself. This session highlighted some elements that
still had to be changed or clarified.
8

<strong>The</strong> <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>
Part A : Technical note
This note consists of three distinctive parts. <strong>The</strong> first part provides an introduction to the
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, through two cutting-­‐edge models: “Timmons” model, and the “People,
Context, Deal and Opportunity” model. <strong>The</strong> different stages of development an enterprise
usually goes through is also briefly described in this section. <strong>The</strong> second part provides an
introduction to the <strong>social</strong> sector. It identifies the global trend of moving towards more <strong>social</strong>ly
responsible businesses, and introduces the triple bottom line concept. <strong>The</strong> terms “<strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship” and “<strong>social</strong> enterprise” are defined, before determining where <strong>social</strong>
enterprises are located in the spectrum of enterprises. <strong>The</strong>n the “Social Opportunity
Assessment Tool”-­‐ used to assess whether an idea has a potential as a <strong>social</strong> opportunity-­‐ is
described. Finally, the third part provides an introduction to the “Social Entrepreneurial
Process Model”.
NOTE 1: <strong>The</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>
Several models have been developed in order to portray the <strong>process</strong> by which an
enterprise is formed and sustained to pursue a viable opportunity and maximize its impact.
<strong>The</strong> models that will be further developed in this section are the cutting-­‐edge ones.
1. Timmons model of the Entrepreneurial Process
In the classical <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, entrepreneurs identify an opportunity, assemble
the required resources, and start to implement their action plan. As a matter of fact, according
to Timmons (2007)-­‐Figure 1, the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> brings together three essential
elements: an opportunity, an entrepreneur or <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> team, and resources. <strong>The</strong>se
elements are closely linked, and are essential to the survival of a company in its environment.
<strong>The</strong> only way for the enterprise to remain healthy and survive is the entrepreneur’s
successfully keeping the opportunity, team and resources in balance. As the opportunity grows
over time, the team and the resources must grow as well.
Figure 1: Adapted from Timmons Model of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> (Timmons, 2007)
9

<strong>The</strong> opportunity plays an important role in Timmons model. An opportunity arises when
an entrepreneur discovers a possibility of value increasing for the customer. However, as not
all new ideas are always good opportunities, their recognition and evaluation is crucial. Good
opportunities are the ones that have an underlying market demand for the product or service,
because of its value-­‐added properties. It can be profit for traditional enterprises, or the
creation of self-­‐sufficiency for not-­‐for-­‐profit organizations. <strong>The</strong> ability to financially sustain the
enterprise must be apparent too, and the timing must be right in order to provide maximum
benefit to the enterprise’s customers.
<strong>The</strong> resources include financial and physical resources. <strong>The</strong> team as well as the size and
type of opportunity determine the level of resources required. Even though most resources are
scarce, high potential opportunities and a good management team attract more easily money
and other resources.
Finally, the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> team is another key ingredient to achieve <strong>entrepreneurial</strong>
success. Entrepreneurs are characterized by several behavioral traits, such as determination
and persistence, risk tolerance, creativity but focus at the same time, adaptability, opportunity
obsession, leadership, communication, etc. and by the purpose of their action.
It is important to note that this model does not show explicitly the context in which the
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> activity takes place.
2. <strong>The</strong> “People, Context, Deal, and Opportunity” (PCDO) framework
This other model was developed by four Harvard Business School professors (Sahlman et
al., 1999) to explain the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>. As shown in figure 2, the context in this
model is put explicitly in the middle, surrounded by the opportunity, the deal and the people.
Figure 2: <strong>The</strong> PCDO framework (Sahlman et al., 1999)
10

<strong>The</strong> context represents all the factors that are beyond the entrepreneur’s direct control
such as political, legal, cultural or economic events, affecting the nature and outcome of the
opportunity. <strong>The</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> is impacted by the context wherein it takes place, yet
without being constrained by it.
As in Timmons model (2007), the opportunity is of vital importance, and it is therefore put
at the top of the PCDO frame. It is what initiates the creation of a business.
“People”, known as “Team” in Timmons framework, represents the human capital
necessary to successfully operate a venture. It includes financial investors (such as bankers,
venture capitalists, angel investors, etc.) in the enterprise as well. <strong>The</strong>se financial investors are
part of “resources” in Timmons model.
<strong>The</strong> PCDO framework replaces the heading “resources” by “deal”, giving it furthermore
another meaning. Actually, the term “deal” refers to how and to whom benefits of the
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> activity are dispersed. It tackles the following questions: who is in the
venture, what do beneficiaries bring and what do they receive, at what times (economic
contribution and benefits, decision rights, etc.). This is implied in Timmons model.
3. Development stages of enterprises
Once these fundamental elements are assembled, enterprises typically go through five or
six developmental stages, forming an “S”-­‐curve, as already noticed in 1983 by Churchill and
Lewis. <strong>The</strong> vertical axis of figure 3 reflects the size of the enterprise, its geographic diversity
and the complexity of its products, whereas the horizontal axis represents the maturity of the
enterprise.
Figure 3: Stages of development of an enterprise (adapted from professor Witmeur O.)
11

During the seed phase, the opportunity is recognized, and the product or service exists as a
prototype. <strong>The</strong> team is very small, and often merely composed of the founders. <strong>The</strong>
organization is informal, and funds are necessary for the prototyping, market research and
business plan. Capital and other resources have to be acquired. Once in the start-­‐up stage, the
customers have validated the product/service, and the roles within the organization are better
defined, even though there is little or no hierarchy. <strong>The</strong> business has demonstrated that it is
workable and that it can survive. Some enterprises tend to stay for some time in this stage,
earning marginal returns on invested time and capital. <strong>The</strong> early growth stage is characterized
by the success of the new venture and the need to acquire new managerial skills. A proper
management team is formed, and an experienced board gives advice to the company. At this
stage, demand is often greater than capacity. <strong>The</strong> decision that has to be taken here is whether
to expand thanks to the company’s accomplishments, or to keep the company stable and
profitable. Once in the expansion stage, systems, policies and procedures are in place. <strong>The</strong> key
difficulty now is to have sufficient funds to manage a rapid growth of the company. <strong>The</strong>
organization then reaches a phase of stagnation, where sales become stable or even decline,
which leads to the renewal of the business, or in the worst <strong>case</strong> to the death of the company.
Controlling financial gains, brought on by the previous rapid growth, is important at the
maturity stage.
12

NOTE 2: <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> sector
1. Description of the <strong>social</strong> sector
1.1. Trends
Globalization, privatization and liberalization have brought into light various challenges
such as the emergence of complex <strong>social</strong> problems. <strong>The</strong> gap between rich and poor widened for
example these last year, and inequalities increased. <strong>The</strong> majority of the world’s population still
lacks access to the main basic services such as water, energy, health, financial services, etc.
Governments and public authorities have tried to counter these <strong>social</strong> issues, but have not
been able address them correctly until now. <strong>The</strong>re is therefore an urgent need for a new
approach to solve these <strong>social</strong> problems. As far as businesses are concerned, their priority has
increasingly been to cut costs, which led to many hidden <strong>social</strong> and environmental impacts.
However, the trend has recently been towards a growing awareness of corporate malpractice.
As a result, a growing demand for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Socially-­‐
Responsible Investing (SRI) has been noticed. « Impact Investors » have emerged, such as the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Schwabb Foundation, etc. who in addition to financial
success, seek <strong>social</strong> and environmental results. In this context, new metrics have been
developed to evaluate a business performance.
1.2 From single bottom line to triple bottom line
Before, assessing the sustainability of a business meant looking only at the economic
performance of the enterprise. Nowadays, however, increased attention is given to the
assessment of <strong>social</strong> and environmental performance as well, to better understand the impact
of an organization's activities. It is believed organizations can be <strong>social</strong>ly and environmentally
responsible only if they measure their <strong>social</strong> and environmental impact.
In the mid-­‐1990s, John Elkington developed a new framework to measure the performance
of corporations, known as the triple bottom line (TBL). This framework goes beyond the
traditional measures of profits, return on investment (ROI), shareholder value, etc. and
includes environmental and <strong>social</strong> dimensions as well. <strong>The</strong> TBL dimensions are also known as
the three Ps: people, planet and profits, described hereafter.
-­‐ People dimension: determines how <strong>social</strong>ly responsible an organization has been
throughout its operations. <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> consequences of the organization’s activities have
13

to be analyzed considering all the stakeholders.
-­‐ Planet dimension: determines how environmentally responsible an organization has
been throughout its operations. <strong>The</strong> objective is to assess the impact of the
organization’s activities on the ecosystem.
-­‐ Profit dimension: measures how well the organization performed in economic and
financial terms.
One limitation of the triple bottom line is that the 3Ps do not have a common unit of
measure, and therefore cannot easily be added up. It is difficult to measure the planet and
people dimensions in the same terms as financial profits for example.
1.3 Social entrepreneurship
<strong>The</strong> global trend of going towards more responsible organizations, and the recognition of
potential <strong>social</strong> opportunities, led to the emergence of a new type of entrepreneurship, known
as <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship.
<strong>The</strong> concept of <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship can be seen as the work accomplished by a <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneur, who according to the Ashoka definition is :
“an individual with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing <strong>social</strong> problems. Social
entrepreneurs are ambitious and persistent, tackling major <strong>social</strong> issues and offering new
ideas for wide-­‐scale change.”
Social entrepreneurship typically refers to a <strong>process</strong> or behavior, and can be defined as (Mair
and Marti, 2006, p.37):
“a <strong>process</strong> involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue
opportunities to catalyze <strong>social</strong> change and/or address <strong>social</strong> needs.”
<strong>The</strong> organizational context in which <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship occurs (in newly created
organizations or in established organizations) differentiates <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship from
other more loosely structured initiatives aimed at <strong>social</strong> change such as activist movements.
1.4 <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> enterprise in context
<strong>The</strong> term <strong>social</strong> enterprise refers to any private or public organization that conducts
14

activities for the public interest, organized with an <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> strategy, not driven by the
need of maximizing its profit, but driven by <strong>social</strong> objectives, furthermore having the capacity
to bring innovative solutions to <strong>social</strong> problems (Haugh, 2005). <strong>The</strong> eventual profits made are
usually reinvested in the business or distributed to the community, and not to those with
controlling interests in the enterprise. As defined by the UK Government (Social Enterprise -­‐ a
strategy for success DTI, 2004):
"A <strong>social</strong> enterprise is a business with primarily <strong>social</strong> objectives whose surpluses are
principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than
being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners.”
So <strong>social</strong> enterprises are directly involved in producing goods or providing services to a
market. Yet, contrarily to traditional businesses, they have explicit <strong>social</strong> and/or
environmental aims such as job creation, training, or the provision of local services.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> enterprise lies at the intersection of traditional nonprofit companies and
traditional business. This can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Spectrum of enterprises (adapted from Kim Alter, 2007, p.14)
<strong>The</strong> primary purpose of the organizations on the right hand side of the above spectrum is
shareholder return and therefore profits, whereas <strong>social</strong> impact is the primary purpose of the
left hand side organizations. <strong>The</strong> organization’s activities, culture, vision and mission will differ
according to where it is situated in the spectrum. Social enterprises can have a nonprofit
structure, a for-­‐profit structure, or can be organized as a hybrid model. A nonprofit
organization is a <strong>social</strong> enterprise when it deliberately aims at optimizing the <strong>social</strong> benefits
(improvements of the living conditions of the beneficiaries of a <strong>social</strong> project) generated
through its activities, and when it gets organized accordingly. This means all fund allocation
decisions, objectives, strategic choices, etc. have to be consistent with the <strong>social</strong> enterprise
characteristics. A for-­‐profit structure for <strong>social</strong> ventures follows the same conventions as
15

traditional for-­‐profit companies. <strong>The</strong> main difference is that <strong>social</strong> enterprises pursue a <strong>social</strong>
mission. Most for-­‐profit <strong>social</strong> ventures opt for the corporation structure. More recently,
hybrid models of <strong>social</strong> enterprises arose. An example is the creation of a for-­‐profit
organization, with nonprofit subsidiaries, or a nonprofit organization, with for-­‐profit
subsidiaries. Social entrepreneurs who create these structures generally look for more legal
and financial flexibility to pursue their missions.
2. <strong>The</strong> Social Opportunity Assessment Tool
Before creating a <strong>social</strong> venture, however, <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs should assess whether
their idea has a potential as a <strong>social</strong> opportunity. This can be determined using the new tool
developed by Jill Kickul and Thomas S. Lyons early 2012. It comprises four principal categories
the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur should look at: the Social Value Potential, the Market Potential, the
Competitive Advantage Potential, and the Sustainability Potential. <strong>The</strong>se four categories are
assessed along five criteria, enabling <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs to decide whether or not to proceed
with creating the <strong>social</strong> venture, and to invest time and resources on it. It can help <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurs to open their eyes for unanticipated strengths and weaknesses. It is a tool to use
with carefulness and relative distance, as none of the questions raised in the assessment tool
can be answered definitely.
2.1 Social Value Potential
<strong>The</strong> following table (Table 1) shows the five criteria that have to be analyzed in order to
assess the <strong>social</strong> value potential of an idea. According to the characteristic of the idea, each
criterion will determine if the idea should be classified as a strong or weak opportunity.
Criterion Strong Opportunity Weak Opportunity
Service or product directly Service or product addresses
Social need
addresses an identified need need only indirectly
Mission alignment
Service or product is in direct
alignment with mission
Service or product can fulfill
Achievable impact
identified <strong>social</strong> need in a
measurable way
A strong effectiveness to cost
Social return on investment
ratio
Service or product will be
Community support
positively perceived and
endorsed by the community
Table 1: Kickul J. and Lyons T.S, 2012, p.52
Service or product is only
indirectly aligned or is
misaligned with mission
Service or product will only
minimally address the need
A weak effectiveness to cost
ratio, or exceed impact
Service or product will not be
well accepted by the
community
16

To begin with, a <strong>social</strong> opportunity, to be viable should have the potential to create value
for the targeted beneficiaries (who are not always the customers). It should therefore meet a
true <strong>social</strong> need, clearly identified as such, through a survey of the prospected beneficiaries for
example. <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> opportunity should also be aligned with the <strong>social</strong> enterprise’s mission.
This criterion applies more to <strong>social</strong> enterprises that are already in operation, exploring new
opportunities to pursue. Further, to be viable, the opportunity has to yield an achievable <strong>social</strong>
impact, demonstrable in some way. To guarantee right away that a given project will have a
strong impact is difficult, but a system to measure the stated goals can and should be put in
place. In the same spirit, the “Social Return On Investment” (SROI) criterion should be used in
order to assess the <strong>social</strong> value potential of the opportunity, as <strong>social</strong> investments should
produce <strong>social</strong> gains that exceed the value of the initial investment. Yet to calculate the SROI is
not always easy as monetizing saved lives for example is a great challenge. Finally, there
should be clear support within the community, otherwise pursuing it might be difficult.
2.2 Market Potential
Table 2 shows the five criteria that have to be analyzed in order to assess the market
potential of an idea.
Criterion Strong Opportunity Weak Opportunity
Target beneficiary both needs Target beneficiary is
Customer need or want
and wants the service or indifferent to the service or
product
product
Window of opportunity Timing is good Timing is poor
Evidence of philanthropic, Evidence of little or no
Investor interest
government, or private-­‐sector interest by philanthropic,
financial interest
governmental, or private
investors
Market size Large Small
Market share attainable
An open market, with little or
no competition
Table 2: Kickul J. and Lyons T.S, 2012, p.52
Very competitive market,
with several substitutes
To be viable, a <strong>social</strong> opportunity should also benefit from a relatively attractive market.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> idea should in fact address a customer need and wish. Even though there is an
apparent need to solve a problem, it may not be sufficient if the customer does not desire the
product or service. <strong>The</strong>n the opportunity should be seized during a period of time in which
conditions are good for a favorable reception of the product or service, in order to maximize
the impact of the <strong>social</strong> enterprise. In order to have market potential, a <strong>social</strong> idea must also
attract investors as they represent a market as well. Finally, <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs should seek
to reach as many “customers” as possible in order to maximize their mission achievement. <strong>The</strong>
17

openness of the market and as a result the amount of competition will determine if the <strong>social</strong>
enterprise will be able to capture the adequate market share to be sustainable or not.
2.3 Competitive Advantage Potential
To better understand one’s opportunity, assessing the competitive advantage of an idea
in more details can be interesting. Table 3 summarizes to five criteria that should be analyzed
in order to assess the competitive advantage potential of an idea.
Criterion Strong Opportunity Weak Opportunity
Barriers to entry
High, many
Low or nonexistent
Prospective partnerships or Many potential partners Few potential partners
alliances
Control over costs Substantial control Little or no control
Compelling mission
Highly compelling;
Less compelling; little
widespread sympathy understanding or sympathy
Management team Strong, complete skill set Incomplete skill set
Table 3: Kickul J. and Lyons T.S, 2012, p.52
If the obstacles are high for new ventures, the already existing <strong>social</strong> enterprises benefit
from an important competitive advantage. <strong>The</strong>se barriers to entry are for example access to
<strong>social</strong> networks and to other resources, knowledge about the norms and rules of the industry,
etc. Being a first mover in that kind of industry is therefore a plus. As <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs are
not really in competition for market shares, their competitive advantage lies more in their
ability to attract and build strategic partnerships in order to acquire the necessary resources.
<strong>The</strong> possibility to develop partnerships and alliances should therefore be assessed as well.
Moreover, controlling costs is of high importance for <strong>social</strong> enterprises. However, <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurs are limited in their control as the customers are often low-­‐income, not able to
afford the enterprise’s product or service. This means the enterprise is often highly dependent
on subsidies and philanthropic investments. <strong>The</strong>refore, the ability of <strong>social</strong> enterprises to
attract investors and customers is very important. Finally, a strong team with complementary
skills, able to effectively operate the venture can be seen as a competitive advantage.
2.4 Sustainability Potential
<strong>The</strong> last element to assess in order to determine the potential of the idea is its
sustainability. As a matter of fact, starting a <strong>social</strong> enterprise is of little use if it cannot be
sustained over time. Table 4 summarizes the five criteria to take into account.
Criterion Strong Opportunity Weak Opportunity
Venture capacity
Sufficient physical resources
to start and maintain the
venture
Insufficient physical
resources to start and
maintain the venture
Venture capability Sufficient skilled Insufficient skilled
18

Investor interest
Ability to generate earned
income
Compelling mission
Table 4: Kickul J. and Lyons T.S, 2012, p.53
entrepreneur(s), staff, and
board
Evidence of philanthropic,
government, or private-­‐sector
financial interest
High potential for charging
user fees and/or selling goods
or services
Highly compelling;
widespread sympathy
entrepreneur(s), staff, and
board
Evidence of little or no
interest by philanthropic,
governmental, or private
investors
Low potential for charging
user fees and/or selling goods
or services
Less compelling; little
understanding or sympathy
<strong>The</strong> first criterion consists in assessing whether the physical resources (such as facilities,
equipment, etc.) necessary to operate the enterprise over time are sufficient. Similarly, venture
capability assessment is important as well in determining the sustainability potential of the
enterprise. It consists in assessing the combined skills of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> team, staff and
board members. Investor interest is a useful indicator of sustainability potential as well, as
<strong>social</strong> enterprises are very dependent on external funds, seen that they have merely in
exceptional <strong>case</strong>s sufficient earned-­‐income activities to break-­‐even. As a result, looking at the
ability of the <strong>social</strong> venture to generate earned-­‐incomes indicates the financial sustainability of
the opportunity. Finally, a crucial factor in sustainability potential is having a compelling
mission, in order to attract financial investments more easily.
2.5 Overall Potential
Once each factor of each category has been evaluated, an overall assessment for each
category can be made according to the following scale: high-­‐medium-­‐low.
Social Value Potential High Medium Low
Market Potential High Medium Low
Competitive Advantage Potential High Medium Low
Sustainability Potential High Medium Low
Table 5: adapted from Kickul J. and Lyons T.S, 2012, p.53
Finally, a composite assessment can be made for the idea. A “High” score suggests that
the idea is likely to be a true opportunity that is worth pursuing. A “Medium” score suggests
the idea could still be a viable opportunity, with maybe some modifications. A “Low” score
indicates that the idea might not be viable and that the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur would be well-­‐
advised to abandon the idea. Yet this tool has to be used with a certain distance, as several
ideas of <strong>social</strong> change have been successfully pursued in spite of their perceived low potential
for success. In fact, <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship is a <strong>process</strong> and that is why the development of a
<strong>social</strong> venture goes through many adjustments to counter continuous obstacles.
19

NOTE 3: the Social Entrepreneurial Process
1. <strong>The</strong> Social Entrepreneurship Framework
<strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship framework, developed by Wei-­‐Skillern et al. (2007),
portrays the <strong>process</strong> by which a <strong>social</strong> enterprise is formed and sustained to pursue a viable
opportunity or generate <strong>social</strong> impact. As shown in figure 5, it identifies three major elements,
as in the Timmons <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> framework or PCDO framework. <strong>The</strong>se elements are: the
opportunity, people and capital.
Figure 5: Social Entrepreneurship Process (adapted from Wei-­‐Sillern et al., 2007, p.23)
<strong>The</strong> opportunity is the essence of an enterprise and stands for the possibility to add
value to customers’ lives by meeting their needs. “People” includes the management team,
employees, vendors, etc., but not the financing providers as in the PCDO framework. Capital
refers to all sources of capital. <strong>The</strong> particularity of this model is that these three elements are
brought together in a Venn diagram. <strong>The</strong> overlapping area represents the purpose of the <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship: achieving <strong>social</strong> impact (or “<strong>social</strong> value proposition”-­‐ SVP), typical of <strong>social</strong>
enterprises. <strong>The</strong> SVP is in the middle of the model because it represents the result of the
coming together of the three fundamental elements of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, and
because it lies at the core of the <strong>social</strong> enterprise’s purpose. <strong>The</strong> context is the environment
within which all <strong>social</strong> enterprise activities take place. <strong>The</strong> surrounding environment of a
20

<strong>social</strong> enterprise affects the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, but the <strong>social</strong> venture can affect the
environment as well, as indicated on the framework by the dotted circle surrounding the three
fundamental elements. To achieve <strong>social</strong> impact, “a state of alignment both externally and
internally” (Wei-­‐Skillern et al. 2007, p.17) must be achieved.
2. <strong>The</strong> Social Entrepreneurship Process Model
<strong>The</strong> Social entrepreneurship Framework developed by Wei-­‐Skillern et al. (2007, p.23)
is an interesting model. However, it leaves out the “idea-­‐generation” <strong>process</strong> of creating a
<strong>social</strong> opportunity. <strong>The</strong> “idea-­‐generation” <strong>process</strong> refers to the fact that a promising idea is
firstly generated from unmet <strong>social</strong> needs, and then developed into a viable opportunity,
attractive to a variety of stakeholders.
In order to take into account both <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship <strong>process</strong> and the “idea-­‐
generation” <strong>process</strong>, Jill Kickul and Thomas S. Lyons developed early 2012 a new hybrid
model: the Social Entrepreneurship Process model, depicted in figure 6.
Figure 6: Social Entrepreneurship Process Model (adapted from Kickul J. and Lyons T.S., 2012, p. 34)
This model is composed of two stages that follow each other:
• Stage 1: An idea is generated through the joining together of the entrepreneur’s
individual motivation, influenced by his or her background, the <strong>social</strong> need to be
addressed, and the current resources available to meet that need (the capacity of the
community or society to fulfill the need). At this stage, the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur does not
know yet whether a viable <strong>social</strong> venture can be built around the idea. As a result, to go
21

further, the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur must assess the feasibility of the idea. This can be done
with the help of the Social Opportunity Assessment Tool, as described above. If the idea
is indeed a good <strong>social</strong> opportunity, then a <strong>social</strong> enterprise should be created to
complete the <strong>social</strong> mission coming from that opportunity.
• Stage 2: <strong>The</strong> confirmed opportunity and the human and other resources to pursue it
(capital and physical resources) are brought together to complete the <strong>social</strong>
enterprise’s mission and achieve positive <strong>social</strong> impact.
<strong>The</strong>se two stages of activities take place within a context of different systems that affect the
<strong>social</strong> venture. As the context is permeable, is enables interaction between it and the <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship effort.
22

Part B : APOPO – the story of a <strong>social</strong> enterprise
1. Introduction
After an intense meeting with the board members in Belgium on the future growth strategy
of APOPO, Bart, founder of APOPO, could finally have a good rest on his return flight to
Tanzania. APOPO’s growth had gone through many different stages since its creation, and even
though it was performing well and constantly growing, it was becoming more and more
difficult to obtain sufficient funds because of the increasing competition on the philanthropic
funding market. Projecting to withdraw away from its grant-­‐funded charity model towards a
fee-­‐for-­‐service <strong>social</strong> enterprise, APOPO had to decide on what strategic steps to follow, and all
the board members had finally come to an agreement, after several years of discussion.
Bart was going to lean back and close his eyes, when his seatmate wondered: “Are you
feeling all right sir? You look very pale!”. “I’m fine, I just had an exhausting week” answered
Bart. Apparently willing to continue the conversation, his seatmate said “Exactly like me! Alex
Walker, nice to meet you. So tell me all about it, we have plenty of time.” Always happy to talk
about APOPO, Bart started the story by giving him some background on the challenges APOPO
was trying to address.
2. <strong>The</strong> context: the devastating effects of landmines
Landmines and other explosive remnants of war are a threat to many communities in
post-­‐conflict areas; they have devastating <strong>social</strong>, economic and environmental consequences.
According to the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD, 2007, p.17),
more than 100 million landmines are probably still under the ground around the world, likely
to explode at any moment. Certain regions are particularly affected, like Africa with 20.5
million landmines, found mainly in Angola, Mozambique, Somalia and Ethiopia, or the Middle-­‐
East, with 21 million landmines in Irak and Afghanistan, without forgetting Asia, where
landmines are found in Thailand, Cambodge, Vietnam, Birmania, etc.
Not only are landmines responsible of many deaths and injuries (1367 deaths and 4296
line-­‐related injuries were recorded across 68 countries in 2006 alone). <strong>The</strong>y are also a real
obstacle to the development and economic growth of these countries. Mine-­‐affected countries
remain dependent on an imported expertise to respond to landmine detection problems, but
they rarely have the sufficient funds in the national budget to support mine action activities.
23

In 1989, the UN appealed for funds around the world to solve the important landmine
problem in Afghanistan. This led to a real boom of mine action NGOs developing mine action
programmes.
Mine detection technologies can be classified into 3 categories: manual detection,
machinery detection and animal detection. <strong>The</strong> traditional methods include the hand probe,
the mechanical mass detector, ground penetrating radars, infrared, and the smell of dogs. None
of these methods is rapid, secure, of low cost nor easy to use simultaneously, which are key
success factors for the implementation of such technologies in a developing country.
“I am not convinced by these traditional demining methods” said Bart “they don’t go in
the sense of an independent Africa vis-­‐à-­‐vis foreign aid, and none of these methods is
satisfactory from all points of view”.
3. APOPO
APOPO, Dutch acronym for “Anti-­‐Persoonsmijnen Ontmijnende ProductOntwikkeling”,
which can be translated in English as Anti-­‐Personnel Landmine Detection Product
Development, is a Belgian <strong>social</strong> enterprise. It trains giant African pouched rats in Tanzania, to
support life-­‐saving activities using olfactory detection methods. 3 APOPO’s first detection rat
application was landmine detection. Alex was all ears and eager to know more about this rat
story. He could recognize a good business opportunity when he heard one. “How did you get
involved in this?” he wondered. “Well it all started when a guy I met at a conference showed
me an article written during WW1 on rodents and their ability to detect explosives in a
laboratory” said Bart. Fascinated by the article, he immediately started to exploit the idea with
rats.
3.1 <strong>The</strong> team
Bart Weetjens (Belgian native) had studied product engineering at the University of
Antwerp. After graduation, he started to work in a car company, but did not go along with the
vision of the company, and felt he would never be able to be himself in that kind of traditional
enterprise. He therefore decided to try some different jobs, in the hope of gaining “life”
experiences and finding the job that would fit him. However, his vision on life darkened, and he
went through a rather profound existential crisis. He therefore decided to devote himself to an
activity that would not harm anyone: painting. In 1997, though, after he read the aforesaid
3 See Exhibit 1 for APOPO’s vision, mission and core values
24

article, Bart finally knew what kind on meaning he would be able to give to his life. Together
with a good university friend, Christophe Cox, he started several research activities on
“detection rat technology”. Bart had since many years a passion for Africa. Moreover, already
from a child, he had had the opportunity to play with domestic rats and to gather a lot of
experience on them. Through the years, he developed a real passion for rodents, and began
breeding mice, hamsters and rats during his adolescence, selling them to pet shops to earn
money. Christophe Cox, on the other hand, had developed some experience in management in
West African countries, where he had lived and worked several years.
“Together,” explained Bart, “we started in-­‐depth research and feasibility studies on
imported African giant pouched rats from Tanzania. Through operant conditioning methods
(where the rat learns that the “click” sound is associated with a food reward), we quickly
realized those rats had an exceptional sense of smell and other non-­‐negligible advantages.” A
biologist and a supervisor joined the team the first and second year respectively.
3.2 Research centre in Belgium
“In 1997, we started our research operations as a traditional non-­‐profit making
research centre in a temporary laboratory at the university of Antwerp” explained Bart.
“Breeding the rats was an important challenge in the beginning. <strong>The</strong> rats, which we had put in
the same cage, fought to the death, so improvements in the breeding <strong>process</strong> had to be made”.
Once this problem solved, the two co-­‐founders of APOPO developed a unique training method.
Very soon, they realized these African rats were capable of detecting in a reliable way any kind
of scent, including explosive scents, after only 12 months of training. Mine detection dogs
(MDD) for example, which are the closest alternative to mine detection rats (MDR), require at
least 18 months of training. Rats present other advantages as well compared to dogs: they are
less expensive in terms of breeding, feeding, housing, and transportation, and contrary to dogs,
rats can work with different handlers as they show weaker bonds. Moreover, African rats resist
much better to tropical diseases. “So as you can see, even though the rat is usually associated
with sewers, APOPO wants to give it a <strong>social</strong> value and utility”, said Bart laughing.
“I love to hear about how passionate people develop unexpected technologies to
address <strong>social</strong> problems! But tell me, where did you find the money required to start all these
activities?” asked Alex. “Well, we started our research program in Belgium thanks to a 250.000
Euros-­‐grant we received from the « Belgian Directorate for International Co-­‐operation», to
develop the concept” answered Bart. “For the first two and a half year, we lived without any
salary. When we moved our headquarters and Research and Development centre to Tanzania,”
25

continued Bart, “we received grants from the Belgian government” 4 . Surprised, Alex asked Bart
to tell him more about this strategic move to Tanzania.
3.3 Transfer of APOPO’s headquarters and R&D centre in Tanzania
In 2000, APOPO decided to transfer its headquarters and R&D centre in Tanzania, in
Morogoro, a small village located near the economic centre of Dar-­‐Es-­‐Salam, through a
partnership with the Sokoïne University of Agriculture (SUA). <strong>The</strong> idea of moving to an African
country was in the founders’ minds since the beginning. This new step in APOPO’s
development was made in order to breed and train the animals in near-­‐to-­‐real conditions, and
to develop a more independent Africa towards foreign aid. “African communities are too
dependent on foreign expertise for their development. I think it is possible to tackle certain
issues with local population and resources” argued Bart.
“Through this partnership, APOPO builds local expertise and capacity. SUA on the other
hand supports APOPO not only by housing its physical headquarters, but also by providing
access to local human resource pools, legitimacy in the hiring <strong>process</strong>, etc. And more
importantly, it gives a local face to the organization. Furthermore, because it is under the
umbrella of the government (SUA is a public university), we don’t face as much corruption as
other organizations. But of course this partnership is also responsible of some challenges,” said
Bart, “all of APOPO’s tangible assets for example are the property of the University, and salaries
are paid through the University, on a government-­‐established pay scale. Our partnership with
SUA certainly has an impact on our growth”.
“But why did you choose Tanzania rather than another African country?” asked Alex.
“Well, it is true we could have started in Kenya for example, where education is higher than in
Tanzania, and where things might have gone more quickly, or in Mozambique where the
landmine problem is more important, but in reality, the choice of Tanzania came quite
naturally” answered Bart. <strong>The</strong> department of Biology of the University of Antwerp had a long
cooperation history with SUA in the field of rodent research, and the place was ideal to train
rats. SUA was at first reluctant to the idea of having a minefield in its university. Yet an
agreement was found, and APOPO received logistical support from the Tanzanian Peoples
Defence Force to establish a training and test minefield of 24 hectares at SUA.
“And how do you communicate there? Do you speak the local language?” wondered Alex.
“Yes, we speak Kiswahili now, which is the local language. Tanzanian people particularly
4 See Exhibit 2 to know more about APOPO’s funding model evolution accross the years.
26

appreciate it, and as a result they respect us more. However, when I arrived in Tanzania, I
knew only a few words, and it made things much more difficult. Building the minefield for
example was a great challenge, and I wish I had known more Kiswahili at that time to make
things go faster. An advice I would give to any entrepreneur wanting to start an activity in a
foreign country, is to take first a few months to learn the language spoken in that country. We
offer courses of Kiswahili to all our expat managers. I think it is really important.“
4. Business evolution
4.1 Operations in Mozambique
Seven years of R&D were necessary to put into place this new mine detection
technology with rats, and make the verification studies, before the “Geneva International
Centre for Humanitarian Demining” (GICHD) validated the technique through its accreditation
in 2004. In this same year, APOPO achieved demining accreditation from the “National
Demining Institute of Mozambique”, which allowed APOPO to definitely undertake official
demining activities in Mozambique. “Our HeroRATS could finally use their olfactory
capabilities on real field!” exclaimed Bart with a satisfactory smile.
APOPO started offering its mine detection services to local NGO’s in Mozambique, who
needed a detection tool in their mine action program. But that appeared to be very difficult as
APOPO’s technology was not yet the trend. So APOPO decided to create its own branch in
Mozambique, providing a complete package of services, including survey work, field
preparation, detection of landmines with APOPO’s rats and manual clearance. As a result,
APOPO nowadays manages all the aspects of demining, from the beginning to the end, and
works in close collaboration with national demining authorities, while adhering to the
« International Mine Action » standards. 5
“<strong>The</strong> program of mine action in Mozambique employs 150 full-­‐time employees, and is
partially funded by the United Nations Development Programme, and by the Belgian, Flemish
and Norwegian governments. Our demining service costs 1,5 USD per m 2 compared to 2 USD
per m 2 when traditional methods are used”. Bart continued: “Since the beginning of our
activities in Mozambique, over 1,700 landmines have been discovered and destroyed by our
“HeroRATS”, which rendered about 2.7 million m 2 of land accessible again. In half an hour, one
of our rat is capable of doing the detection work wherefore a human needs one day. Over 51%
of the country has already been inspected, and four northern provinces are now out of danger.
5 See Exhibit 3 for more information about the <strong>process</strong> for the landmine activities
27

<strong>The</strong> objective is to eliminate all known minefields in the country by 2014.”
<strong>The</strong> mine action community is of a risk averse nature, and the adoption of a new
technology is slow and often requires additional « proof of practice » before it is accepted. <strong>The</strong>
significant support from the GICHD helped APOPO to gain credibility, and to achieve its current
levels of industry acceptance and accreditation for its detection rat services. In fact, the GICHD
plays a key role in anti-­‐mine policy setting and standards development for mine clearance
practice. It highly influences the funding priorities and accepted practices of mine action
organisations. “I didn’t know the mine clearance industry was so difficult to penetrate” reacted
Alex. “Oh yes, it is a very difficult industry indeed” answered Bart “and it took us several years
to enter it. A large network and a lot of perseverance and motivation is the key!”.
Mine Detection Technologies also require 100% accuracy, which is a significant
challenge. Quality control is therefore of huge importance. “This is a difficult part of our job,
because we have to train our rats over and over again in order to get to the required
performance. We constantly try to improve our methodology and training procedures, but rats
remain animals, and their behaviour might not always be the one expected. Human follow-­‐up
is really important at APOPO”. Finally, securing funds for operational mine activities is a
constant struggle as it is highly dependent on financial support from western countries. “So to
survive in the mine detection industry”, continued Bart, “we must offer a cost-­‐compared and
high quality service”.
“I see…” said Alex thoughtful “these two elements are a necessity, so what is your
competitive advantages?”. Bart then explained to Alex that APOPO has the advantage of being
first mover in MDR technology, and because of its geographical position, the organization has a
non-­‐negligible advantage over competitors based in Europe or the United States in its
understanding of African logistics, cultural and political issues. In addition, some companies
may prefer to hire service providers who employ primarily African staff. In fact, all the trainers,
handlers, laboratory technicians, and other personnel are locals, even though the majority of
APOPO’s management team members come from western countries.
4.2 International expansion: Thailand, Angola
“Do you still want me to continue with my rat story?” asked Bart after a fresh glass of
water. “Of course”, was Alex’s answer, “what happened next?”
28

“We started to expand geographically, and proposed our land release services to the
Thailand “Mine Action Centre” in 2010. We started conducting a field survey in the provinces of
Trat and Chantaburi, along the Thai-­‐Cambodian border. <strong>The</strong> project was worked out through a
partnership with the local Thai NGO “Peace Road Organization”, to determine which suspected
hazardous areas really contained landmines. We might send our rats there one time.”
Bart continued: “ And now our technology is taken seriously, and the costs of it are low,
mine action organizations are coming back to us to use our services. So we could benefit from a
service-­‐model now, gaining earned-­‐incomes by charging these organizations per square meter.
But to get to that service-­‐model, we first need to gain partnership experience again. So
through a partnership with a Norwegian NGO, we are now going to start operations in Angola.
We are currently training around 40 rats at Morogoro to send them to Angola. We are not
going to establish a branch there like in Mozambique. We merely plan to send some of our
trainers to Angola (with the 40 rats) to transfer our technology.”
5. Further research for other applications
5.1 Tuberculosis (TB) application
“But I didn’t want my rats to stop there… If they can smell explosives, why not other
scents?” said Bart. “In 2003, we won 163.000 USD from the “World Bank Development
Marketplace Global Competition” which enabled us to start research on tuberculosis
detection.” <strong>The</strong> principle is the same as for mine detection, but this time the exceptional good
sense of smell of the giant African pouched rats is used to detect the “mycobacterium
tuberculosis” in patients’ sputum samples we collect from DOTS (Direct Observation and
Treatment Strategy) centres. 6 “In the beginning we have had some difficulties with incorrect
labelled samples. <strong>The</strong> DOTS centres we pay were not doing their job properly. So now APOPO’s
driver labels all the samples as he collects them. This may result in operational inefficiency,
and it is of course not the optimal solution, but we cannot afford to loose our access to the
supply of samples”.
TB detection is a promising new application for APOPO’s rats. In fact, the actual
technology used to detect TB is the microscope, which is relatively slow, expensive, and only
40 to 60% reliable in African countries. If a lab technician is able to analyse only 40 samples a
day, the rat is capable of analysing the same quantity in only 7 minutes! “Moreover”, continued
6 See Exhibit 4 for more information about the <strong>process</strong> of tuberculosis detection
29

Bart, “we did a <strong>study</strong> in 2010, where on 12 347 patients, 1 671 were diagnosed TB positive
with the conventional microscope method. Our rats then screened the same samples, and 716
other patients (about 5%) were identified as TB positive. A second microscope analysis
confirmed these results. Of course, we send these results back to the DOTS centres to enable
patients to be treated accordingly. So second line rat screening increases the detection rates to
around 43%.”
“This is phenomenal”, exclaimed Alex, who remembered he had red an article lately on
the devastating consequences of tuberculosis. Two million people die every year from
tuberculosis, and about 9 million new <strong>case</strong>s of tuberculosis are detected every year. As a
matter of fact, left untreated, a person with active tuberculosis, infects 10 to 15 new people
each year. In a context where the United Nations objectives of the Millennium for the
development is to stop the growth of tuberculosis by 2015, a faster, more accurate diagnostic
technology is needed to help curb the spread of this deadly disease. With its unique
combination in terms of speed, accuracy and costs (low), Alex realized how APOPO’s rats could
change drastically the medical approach to detect TB <strong>case</strong>s in the future.
“It is indeed a more appropriate detection technology for developing countries, as it is
quicker, more reliable, and more affordable than traditional methods. Yet before we can
commercialise this method, it has to be scientifically proved irrefutable. In 2010, we received
the necessary funding to launch a three-­‐year research plan to examine more in detail the
effectiveness of detection rats in the diagnosis of tuberculosis, in collaboration with the World
Health Organization. <strong>The</strong> screening technique is currently undergoing final testing. But it is
again a relatively hard market to penetrate, because the Tanzanian government is reluctant to
our technology. Medical institutions find it difficult too to accept the idea of using rats for
medical purposes… So we need to gain credibility first”. Alex could totally understand this final
remark. Rats are not the best symbols of cleanness!
“But we recently received the approval and funding to expand our TB detection
program into Mozambique as well, and an NGO which distributes anti-­‐viral medication
recently showed its interest in our screening technology. We therefore think of developing
commercial TB detection services. So the perspectives are good!” concluded Bart.
30

5.2 Other applications
Remote scent tracing (RST) is another area where APOPO is conducting research. This
kind of application involves collecting samples of air or dust from defined locations. <strong>The</strong>
samples are then presented to mechanical or animate detectors in a remote location. “In 2011,
our team conducted a number of new pilot studies, carrying out experiments to determine the
rats’ capabilities in detecting illicit tobacco, salmonella bacteria, and bedbugs. Another
preliminary research was conducted in an application we named CameRAT. It consists in
training young rats to search for humans and to respond to a command to come back. All these
research programs may lead to operational applications in the future, which could be
commercialised. But practical aspects such as funds or contracts need to be secured first. We
are constantly tempted to conduct research for new applications. Rats could be used for so
many things… It is really frustrating not to be able to work out some interesting projects
because of the lack of funding and because we have to stay somehow focused!”
6. Becoming a <strong>social</strong> enterprise
“Your achievements are really impressive!”, commented Alex very seriously, “I feel that
APOPO has grown very rapidly since its foundation. But according to what you told me, it
seems like you evolved without any real strategy supporting it, taking the opportunities as they
came. Am I wrong?”.
“Well, your are not totally wrong” answered Bart. “During the first years, APOPO was
growing fast, and things were changing so quickly that we couldn’t keep up. When we started
our research activities in Tanzania in 2000, there were less than 10 of us. Nowadays, APOPO
employs more than 230 people. We couldn’t go on working as a small family enterprise. It is
our partnership with the Marie&Alain Philippson Foundation in 2008 that brought us to work
in a more professional way. We developed a more effective governance structure, and an
explicit strategic framework. <strong>The</strong> Foundation provided us with management tools (like
strategic planning, business plan, legal structure, etc.) and helped us to implement them. <strong>The</strong>re
was financial support as well, which enabled us to employ a specialised consultant (from
Virtue Ventures) who helped us moving towards a <strong>social</strong> enterprise model, capable of
managing its growth. Putting our strategic and business plan on paper for the first time was
intimidating because we didn’t have the necessary background to do it. But I wish we had done
this earlier, as it helped us to answer tough questions and further develop our -­‐until then-­‐
implicit strategy.”
31

In 2009, APOPO decided to change its legal status from “non-­‐profit making
organization” to “non-­‐governmental organization” (keeping its non-­‐profit structure). APOPO
had no sustainability prospective at that time, and was based only on research grants. So one
way to receive structural funding from the Belgian Ministry of Development Co-­‐operation was
to become an NGO, which is what APOPO did. <strong>The</strong>reby, the credibility of the organization was
also increased . “This took us a lot of time, and we put a lot of efforts in it” said Bart.
“<strong>The</strong>n, with the increasing competitiveness in the donor funding sector, for the
implementation of our operational demining applications and for the new TB application, we
recognized the importance of capturing both <strong>social</strong> and financial value creation opportunities
in order to maximize our impact, and protect our actual leadership position. We therefore
decided to start to move from a time-­‐bound project oriented organization (depending only on
funders) to a Centre of Excellence in rat detection technology, capable of earning incomes, in
order to ensure successful implementation of future applications, while continuing our
research activities. But these <strong>social</strong>ly <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> goals require the necessary support
systems such as capacity (including governance, facilities, etc.), branding, funding, R&D, etc.
With the help of the Philippson Foundation, we made several changes in order to help the
organization to become a real <strong>social</strong> enterprise, more strategic and market-­‐driven.”
Changes in the governance structure were undertaken. <strong>The</strong> Board of Directors,
composed only of university professors had initially developed informally, without any
capacity assessment beforehand. <strong>The</strong> composition of the Board was therefore reviewed, and
new influential members from the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> sector joined. A reporting template was also
established to ensure a good communication between the Board in Belgium, and the
management team in Tanzania. Moreover, the two co-­‐founders who initially worked as co-­directors,
separated their roles. Cox is now the CEO of APOPO, while Weetjens is responsible
for the development activities, looking for the new business opportunities for the organization,
and handling all the media relations. <strong>The</strong> roles and responsibilities of each management team
member was also (re)defined. “Yet we still have a problem. <strong>The</strong>re is a high turnover in the
management team, because they are expats. <strong>The</strong>y usually don’t stay more than two years.
When they introduce a new project, tool or system, we often don’t manage to keep it when they
leave. So there is a lack of efficiency here, for which we definitely have to find a solution” said
Bart.
Changes were also undertaken in the financial accounting system. While initially, the
accounting was done by merely recording the incomes and expenses, a proper format is now
32

used, with a balance sheet, income statement and cash-­‐flow statement. “This enables us to gain
credibility, and to be considered more professional. We can give clearer information to our
supporters as well now” explained Bart.
“So as you can see, we have recently gone through many important organizational
changes. But changes require time, and we are still working on improving our way of working
as a <strong>social</strong> enterprise to increase our <strong>social</strong> impact as much as possible.”
“I imagine you understood I am a very optimistic person ”, said Bart turning to Alex,
“but our current success is the consequence of many failures and a lot of doubts. Every positive
result we achieve comes with new challenges to tackle. Yet the satisfaction I get through my
work is enormous, and it is so rewarding when people support you and your work! I was
named Fellow by the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship and endorsed by Ashoka.
More recently, I also received the Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. Doing the work I do
is really worth it, even though it is difficult”, Bart said finally, smiling.
“That being said, here we are now!” concluded Bart “I just had this very week a meeting in
Belgium with the board to discuss our growth strategy for the following years. It has taken us
several years, but all of us finally agreed to grow through a more hybrid structure. <strong>The</strong> exact
legal form that APOPO will take is not decided yet, but I am thinking of a cooperative society. It
would enable us to keep not for profit, purely humanitarian activities, and at the same time
develop for-­‐profit activities, and become our own donor for our non-­‐profit activities”.
<strong>The</strong> plane just landed, confirming so to speak that the story had ended. “Well, thanks for
telling me your story so openly” Alex said; “I should have mentioned it earlier, but I work for a
<strong>social</strong> venture capital firm, and we’re always looking for new investment opportunities, so if
you are interested…” He handed Bart his card. “Stay in touch.”
33

7. Preparatory questions
o
Identify the different stages of development APOPO went through. At which of the 6
stages is APOPO now?
o
How does the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> for traditional enterprises, as described in the
theory, differ from the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>? Look at the differences or
similarities in the context and at the three elements considered to be essential for a
successful enterprise: People, Resources, and Opportunity. (Base yourself on the
APOPO <strong>case</strong> and use your general knowledge)
o
What is the potential of the idea of using rats for tuberculosis detection as an
opportunity, according to the <strong>social</strong> opportunity assessment tool as described in the
theory?
34

8. Exhibits
Exhibit 1: APOPO’s vision, mission and core values
35

Exhibit 2: Evolution of APOPO’s funding model and sources
• Funding model of APOPO: 2001-­‐2010 (by percentage of the total amount)
Source: Author
NB: A particular effort was made to raise private, independent funding through the
development of a website and the “Adopt-­‐a-­‐Rat” program.
• APOPO Private Funding Sources: 2002-­‐2011
Funding Source Currency Amount Project
Private Foundations
UBS Optimus Foundation CHF 1,800,000 TB Detection
Skoll Foundation USD 1,000,000 Capacity Building
Charities in Defense of Nature Trust Fund EURO 550,100 TB & MDR
World Bank Development Marketplace USD 163,000 Capacity Building
Lien Foundation USD 158,000 Mine Action Thailand
Philippson Foundation EURO 120,000 Strategic Planning
Peery Foundation USD 75,000 Capacity Building
Swift Foundation USD 60,000 TB Detection
Symphasis Foundation CHF 50,000 Mine Action Angola
Flora Family Foundation USD 45,000 General Support
Roviralta Foundation EURO 35,800 Capital Investments
Lee & Gund Foundation USD 10,000 General Support
Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation USD 6,500 General Support
Private Corporations
Imperial POUNDS 165,000 Local Staff Tanzania
TIB MOLBIOL EURO 50,000 HeroRat Adoptions
Johnson & Johnson EURO 20,000 TB Detection
Ernst & Young USD 10,000 General Support
Kriegskindernothilfe (KKNH) EURO 6,000 HeroRat Adoptions
Research Institutions
Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining CHF 1,085,171 Research MDR/REST
National Institute of Health USD 150,000 TB Research
Source: APOPO
36

• Allocation of APOPO’s philanthropic funds – 2011
Source: APOPO’s annual report 2011, p.22
37

Exhibit 3: <strong>The</strong> Landmine detection application
<strong>The</strong> <strong>process</strong> is the following: land must first be cleared from vegetation with an armoured bush
cutter, and trainers and handlers then clear manually “safe-­‐lines” to walk through. A rope is
then strung between two handlers, and the rat, attached to the rope through a small harness
walks from one handler to the other, indicating a suspected landmine by scratching the ground
with its paws. Finally, to ensure accuracy throughout the <strong>process</strong>, a second rat survey is done.
<strong>The</strong> indicated landmines can then be removed manually.
38

Exhibit 4: <strong>The</strong> Tuberculosis detection application
<strong>The</strong> <strong>process</strong> is the following: the rats have to sniff a series of holes, under which human
sputum samples are lined up for evaluation. <strong>The</strong>se samples are collected from four DOTS
centres in Dar Es Salam each week. When a sample containing the TB bacteria is identified, the
rat scratches at the hole. If the sample is known positive, the rat receives a food reward
(banana or peanut). If the rat’s indication is on an unknown sample, it is verified using
microscopy. Samples that are in fact TB positive are then reported to the hospitals where the
samples come from. <strong>The</strong> patient is warned and can be treated.
39

Part C : Teaching note
1. Objectives
<strong>The</strong> objective of this <strong>case</strong> is to give students a first contact with the world of <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship. <strong>The</strong> <strong>case</strong> aims at introducing to <strong>social</strong> enterprises, and at highlighting the
essential differences between the traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, and the <strong>social</strong>
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>. How <strong>social</strong> enterprises arise, how they develop and grow is the main
thread of the <strong>case</strong>. <strong>The</strong> challenges <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs have to deal with are also addressed. At
the end of this <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>, students should have developed a good knowledge on <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship. <strong>The</strong>y should come to the conclusion that <strong>social</strong> enterprises, to be successful,
require the same fundamental elements as commercial enterprises: an opportunity, an
entrepreneur or <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> team, and resources, interacting in a specific context.
However, contrarily to commercial entrepreneurship, the <strong>social</strong> value proposition (essence of
the <strong>social</strong> enterprise’s mission) is at the heart of the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> model.
2. Positioning
This teaching <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong> is essentially designed for a bachelor or master course in
entrepreneurship, where <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship is discussed in the program.
3. Pre-­‐requisites
Basic knowledge on traditional entrepreneurship, and on the way enterprises function
might be useful for this <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>. No previous knowledge on <strong>social</strong> enterprises is expected.
On the contrary, the <strong>case</strong> is intended to be an introduction to <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship.
4. Synopsis
In a hostile context, where landmines and tuberculosis are a real obstacle to the
development and economic growth of developing countries, two entrepreneurs, Bart Weetjens
(passionate about rodents) and Christophe Cox (with management experience in Africa) seized
the <strong>social</strong> opportunity in front of them. <strong>The</strong>y developed a new, quick, efficient and low cost
detection technology with giant African pouched rats, to counter these <strong>social</strong> problems in
Africa, and go in the direction of an independent Africa vis-­‐à-­‐vis foreign aid. In 1997, they
created their venture under the acronym of APOPO. APOPO is today a successful Belgian <strong>social</strong>
enterprise, based in Tanzania, training rats to support life-­‐saving activities, through olfactory
detection methods: “APOPO researches, develops and disseminates detection rats technology for
40

humanitarian purposes.” 7 This would never have been achieved without the essential financial
resources that APOPO found on the philanthropic funding market.
5. Suggested assignment
In preparation for the class, students should receive and read carefully note 1 and note
2 from part A (the technical note), as well as part B (the <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>). After having read the <strong>case</strong>,
students should have a better idea of how <strong>social</strong> enterprises work, and should be able to
answer the preparatory questions. Note 3 of part A (the technical note) should be distributed
to the students only at the end of the class.
5.1 Introductive questions
It is suggested that the instructor starts class discussion with the following introductive
questions. <strong>The</strong>se questions are aimed at refreshing the students’ mind, and obtaining their full
attention.
5.1.1 APOPO’s activities
To begin with, the instructor could simply ask students: “what type of enterprise is
APOPO”. <strong>The</strong> answer is straightforward: APOPO is a <strong>social</strong> enterprise. <strong>The</strong> instructor could
continue by asking someone to read out loud the mission of APOPO (see Exhibit 1 of the <strong>case</strong>
<strong>study</strong>): “developing a detection rats technology to provide solutions for global problems and
inspire positive <strong>social</strong> change”. <strong>The</strong>n, the instructor should ask the students to enumerate
APOPO’s different activities, classifying them by their type: core or support activities. <strong>The</strong>
instructor could use the board plan provided in Exhibit TN-­‐1 for this question. An example of
the solved question can be found in Exhibit TN-­‐2.
Students could mention the following points:
• APOPO’s core activities:
-­‐ Breeding and training rats
-­‐ Operational activities: full landmine clearance, TB detection
-­‐ R&D on new applications (Tobacco, salmonella, etc.)
• APOPO’s support activities include amongst others:
-­‐ Fundraising
-­‐ Marketing
-­‐ Business development
7 Note : statement on APOPO’s website.
41

<strong>The</strong> instructor could then sum up saying that APOPO’s core business is to research,
development and disseminate a detection rat technology for humanitarian purposes.
5.1.2 Stages of development of APOPO
In order to give students a clearer view of what APOPO is, and of how it developed
through time, the instructor could ask a student, “At what stage of development do you think
APOPO is now? Can you explicit each stage of development APOPO went through?”. <strong>The</strong>
instructor might invite the student to answer these questions on the blackboard, reproducing
the six usual stages of an enterprise’s development, in casu applied to APOPO. <strong>The</strong> instructor
can use the board plan of Exhibit TN-­‐1 to guide the student. An example of the solution for this
question can be found on Exhibit TN-­‐3.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could start by asking the student to draw the curve that represents the
growth of an enterprise, according to the different stages of development it usually goes
through. He could then ask the student when APOPO was in its first stage of development, and
why he thinks so.
• Seed stage: APOPO was in its seed stage when it started research at the university of
Antwerp and then transferred to Tanzania. Bart and Christophe recognized an
opportunity, and as co-­‐founders, they developed a product, still in its research and
prototyping stage during the initial phase. <strong>The</strong> team was very small, composed only of the
two founders, both directors of APOPO, managing the project. After some time, two other
people joined the team: a biologist and a supervisor. Yet things were still very informal in
the organization at that time. Thanks to their partnership with the Sokoine University of
Agriculture, the team acquired the necessary resources to continue research in Tanzania.
<strong>The</strong> Belgian Directorate for International Co-­‐operation and the Belgian government
provided APOPO with the initial necessary funds.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could then ask the student if he thinks APOPO went on to the second
stage of development, at what moment, and why.
• Start-­‐up stage: APOPO can be said to have moved to the start-­‐up stage at the time the
Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining validated its detection rat
technology and when it received the accreditation to start official work in Mozambique.
Marketing and communication became important as APOPO had to convince governments
to use its demining technology. In order to satisfy the increasing demand in Mozambique,
42

APOPO created a branch in this country, and hired and trained local people for demining
activities. <strong>The</strong> roles within the organization started to be better defined, even though there
was still very little hierarchy. <strong>The</strong>re was the management team on the one hand -­‐
considered as a big block without any clear understanding of their respective roles -­‐ and
the trainers on the other hand.
Once more, the instructor could continue by asking the student if he thinks APOPO
moved on to the third stage of development, and why.
• Early growth stage: Students should realize that APOPO is for the moment at an early
growth stage. In fact, APOPO is successful, and needs to acquire new managerial skills to
further develop. It decided to diversify its activities by looking for new markets (Thailand
and Angola) and developing new products (TB, Tobacco and salmonella detection).
Moreover, it made several changes in the management and board, in order to become a
more strategic-­‐oriented organization focused on the market, in order also to adapt to its
growth and increasing complexity. <strong>The</strong> company formed a more structured management
team indeed, with split roles and responsibilities. <strong>The</strong> co-­‐founders’ responsibilities were
split. <strong>The</strong> other members of the management team were given specific titles and
responsibilities. <strong>The</strong> hierarchy within the company became more explicit. Changes were
made at the board’s level as well, in order to benefit from the advice of more experienced
people.
5.2 Assignment questions
Through the following questions, students will have a better global view of <strong>social</strong>
traditional entrepreneurship. <strong>The</strong> questions are grouped into 4 categories, which coincide with
the traditional <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>. <strong>The</strong> final objective is to come up with a new model of
this <strong>process</strong>, one adapted for <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship, combining the same fundamental
elements of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, in a slightly different way. At the end, the instructor
could take a further step and look at the limitations of this model, handing out note 3 of part A
(technical note).
5.2.1 Analysis of the “People” pillar
In order to analyze the first pillar of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> as defined by
Timmons, the instructor could start by analyzing the behavioral characteristics of the <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurs of this <strong>case</strong>. <strong>The</strong> first question that could be asked is: “What motivated Bart
43

Weetjens and Christophe Cox to act and create an enterprise to overcome an unmet <strong>social</strong>
need?”
Students could mention the following elements:
• Dissatisfaction with the status quo: First of all, what motivated Bart’s <strong>social</strong> change
fostering is his negative impression of life. He is dissatisfied with the way traditional
enterprises work, and does not feel sharing in that world. His past experiences highly
influence his point of view. <strong>The</strong> article he read on rodents and their ability to detect
explosives was the trigger, giving him directly the idea to go back to the basics, and use an
abundant African resource: rats, for detection purposes to save lives.
• Not convinced by traditional methods: Bart is not convinced by the traditional demining
methods for example, which do not go towards an independent country vis-­‐à-­‐vis foreign
aid, which are not rapid, secure, of low cost and easy to use all at the same time, this being
precisely what is needed in landmine affected countries. Even though the demining
industry is a very conservative industry, difficult to penetrate and very fund dependent,
Bart and Christophe see a great opportunity in this industry, whereas others might see
only chaos.
• Personal satisfaction: Christophe Cox, who had working experience in Africa, saw in this
project the opportunity to put his knowledge to good use and gain <strong>social</strong> recognition. For
Bart Weetjens, it meant flourishing.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could then move on to another, related question: “What drives Bart
Weetjens and Christophe Cox in their daily lives?”
Students could mention the following points:
• Passion: the dominant characteristic put forward in this <strong>case</strong> – and worth mentioning-­‐ is
the true passion that moves Bart Weentjes and Christophe Cox in their day to day lives.
• Frustration and desire to address <strong>social</strong> problems: Bart likes rodents and Africa, but is
frustrated that Africa remains terribly dependent on foreign aid as far as detection
technologies are concerned. This frustration, and his desire to address <strong>social</strong> needs
convince him to continuously look for other detection applications with his rats.
In order to summarize this section, and to get a more general view on <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurs, the instructor could ask the following question: “How are <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs
different from commercial entrepreneurs (looking at their behavioral traits and the purpose of
44

their action)?”. <strong>The</strong> instructor could synthesize the answers on the blackboard, using the board
plan of Exhibit TN-­‐1.
Traditional business entrepreneurs are often characterized by the following behavior
and/or attitudes (J. Timmons & al., 2007): strong motivation, commitment, determination,
tolerance of risk and uncertainty, opportunity obsession, courage, leadership, etc. Social
entrepreneurs need the same <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> skills. However, as seen in APOPO’s <strong>case</strong>, they
are characterized by their dissatisfaction with the status quo, their action-­‐oriented behavior,
their capacity to identify a <strong>social</strong> problem and organize, create, and manage venture to make
<strong>social</strong> change. Social entrepreneurs recognize opportunities where others merely see chaos
and confusion. Actually, the landmines detection industry is an unattractive one, but this is
where APOPO started. Moreover, rats are often associated with dirt and diseases, but APOPO
sees a great opportunity in using these exceptional creatures for humanitarian purposes.
Because <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs often operate in resource-­‐scarce environments, they use very
creative approaches to attract non-­‐traditional resources and assemble them in new ways, to
tackle the challenges government and private-­‐sector companies failed to solve.
<strong>The</strong> biggest difference between traditional and <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs lies in the purpose
of their action. For <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs, the primary goal is mission-­‐related impact. While
business entrepreneurs focus on building a business, on earning profits and on wealth
creation, the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs' purpose is to create <strong>social</strong> change.
Once filled, the table could look like this:
Entrepreneurs
Behavioral
traits
Purpose of their
action
Traditional Entrepreneurship Social Entrepreneurship
-Strong motivation
-Commitment
-Determination, courage
-Tolerance of risk and uncertainty
-Opportunity obsession
-Etc.
-Attracted by money
-Serve markets that can afford
the product/service
-To create wealth and earn
profits
-Not satisfied with status-quo
(want <strong>social</strong> change)
-Recognize a <strong>social</strong> problem
-See opportunities where others
see chaos; creativity
-Serve neglected, disadvantaged
populations
-To create <strong>social</strong> change
45

<strong>The</strong> instructor could then go through some complementary questions regarding <strong>social</strong>
and human capital, which have such an important place in the <strong>social</strong> sector. <strong>The</strong>se questions
could be tackled as well at the end of the third section on resources. <strong>The</strong> instructor might invite
the students to investigate the role and the importance of partnerships for <strong>social</strong> enterprises,
especially in the <strong>case</strong> of APOPO. He could start by asking students to list the different
partnerships APOPO was able to build, and then identify the advantages of these alliances.
• Partnership with the Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA): enabled APOPO to have
access to the resources necessary to continue R&D in Tanzania; resources it might not
have been able to obtain on its own. In fact, SUA provided APOPO with a place for its
headquarters, a training minefield for its rats, access to local human resource pools, etc.
Moreover, the partnership with SUA gave APOPO a local face, which is a considerable
advantage, certainly in the demining industry. As a matter of fact the demining industry is
known to be reluctant to change, and is therefore not prone to use a new mine action tool.
Yet knowing that the enterprise employs local workforce and uses local resources helps in
the <strong>process</strong> of gaining acceptance.
• Partnership with the Marie&Alain Philippson Foundation: enabled APOPO to have access
to several management tools and to a specialized consultant, which helped the enterprise
to become more professionalism, and move towards a real <strong>social</strong> enterprise model.
• Partnership with the Thailand NGO: enabled APOPO to expand, to put a foot in Thailand,
and start an analysis of suspected hazardous areas.
• Partnership with a Norwegian NGO: enabled APOPO to start operations in Angola.
• Partnerships with DOTS centers: without these partnerships, APOPO would not have
access as easily to samples of sputum, indispensable to its research on TB detection with
rats.
Students should conclude that partnerships are essential, particularly to <strong>social</strong>
enterprises. While traditional enterprises make partnerships to benefit from economies of
scale and increase their profitability, working in partnership for <strong>social</strong> enterprises is of high
importance, as it helps to pool resources and develop capabilities that would not be affordable
individually. Students might also remark that for a <strong>social</strong> enterprise, in the view of the
constraints it is faced with, it is critical to develop a large network of contacts to expand the
organization’s capacity with limited capital. While <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs seek to attract capital
for the <strong>social</strong> good rather than for financial returns, they rely decisively on a robust network of
contacts and partnerships enabling to get access to funding, board members, management,
staff and other resources.
46

<strong>The</strong>n, the instructor could invite the students to have a closer look at the human capital
available to <strong>social</strong> enterprises, and ask: “Do <strong>social</strong> enterprises have access to the best talents?
On what kind of human capital do <strong>social</strong> enterprises rely? Why do you think it is like that?”
To begin with, <strong>social</strong> enterprises’ access to the best talents is limited. As a matter of
fact, if commercial enterprises often have the financial capital or the incentives necessary to
recruit and retain talent, <strong>social</strong> enterprises can rarely pay the market rates salaries, they are
even less able to offer other equity incentives like stock options. So <strong>social</strong> enterprises often rely
on volunteers in the board or staff. APOPO’s board members were initially mere professors
from the Antwerp University, acting on a voluntary basis. This caused some inefficiencies and
challenges. <strong>The</strong> management has less authority than it would with traditional employees.
Finally, in order to conclude, the instructor could stress out the fact that <strong>social</strong> (and
environmental) considerations are of uttermost importance to <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship. To do
so, the instructor could ask a student to come up to the board, and help to come up with the
graph proposed in Exhibit TN-­‐1. <strong>The</strong> graph represents the relative importance of each
variable (People, Profit and Planet) of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) for <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship, compared to traditional entrepreneurship. <strong>The</strong> student should draw a
square for example with S (standing for <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship) and another one with T
(standing for traditional entrepreneurship) for each variable, placing them according to the
relative importance of measuring the impact of impact of this variable. <strong>The</strong> “S” squares should
be on the right hand side for the variables “People” and “Planet”, whereas the “T” squares
should be more on the left hand side. For the “Profit” variable, the two squares should be closer
to each other, as <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship still needs to be financially sustainable, and as a
result it should measure its eventual profit. However, financial metrics are less important to
<strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship than to traditional entrepreneurship.
After having briefly investigated this first pillar of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, the
same can be done with the second pillar: the opportunity.
5.2.2 Analysis of the “Opportunity” pillar
<strong>The</strong> instructor can start this section by asking a student: “What type of opportunity is
APOPO seeking? How is that opportunity different from commercial entrepreneurship?”
In APOPO’s <strong>case</strong> -­‐as with any <strong>social</strong> venture-­‐ the opportunity is <strong>social</strong> more than
47

commercial. Like business entrepreneurs, <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs need to identify the needs and
wants of their “customers”. However, the focus of <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship is on <strong>social</strong> returns,
and often on serving basic needs more effectively, whereas the focus of commercial
entrepreneurship is on financial returns, concentrating on developing breakthroughs and new
needs. Moreover, commercial entrepreneurs, see an idea as a good opportunity when it has a
large or growing total market size, and when the industry is attractive. Social entrepreneurs,
on the contrary, do not need all those characteristics, as for them, a recognized need, demand
or market failure consists already of a sufficient market size. Finally, in the commercial sector,
finding an unexploited and profitable opportunity is relatively hard. For <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs
however, <strong>social</strong> opportunities are abundant.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could complement the previous question by asking the same student
what opportunities APOPO saw more specifically in the demining industry and after in the
healthcare industry in Africa, and if the timing was right.
• In the demining industry: landmines in Africa and other countries with explosive remnants
of war have devastating effects. Not only are they responsible for numerous injuries and
deaths, but they constitute also a real obstacle to the development and economic growth of
these countries. <strong>The</strong> need for an efficient mine detection technology was therefore very
present when APOPO was created. Moreover the UN appeal for help for the landmine
problem in Afghanistan opened a window of opportunities for <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs
seeking to overcome the landmine problem. <strong>The</strong> time period during which APOPO was
created was therefore the good one, namely during the big boom of mine action NGOs. All
attention was given to mine action programs, and funds went into that direction at that
time.
• In the healthcare industry: tuberculosis has negative repercussions on the economy of
African countries, as they are highly affected by this contagious disease (in some African
countries, more than 35% of the population is affected by tuberculosis). A reliable, cheap
and effective tuberculosis detection tool is therefore highly needed as well.
More generally, developing countries keep being very dependent on imported expertise to
solve the landmine and tuberculosis detection problems. Bart Weetjens saw there the
opportunity to develop a more adapted technical innovation. In actual fact, he was not
convinced by the existing methods used, such as detection dogs for landmine detection or
microscope for tuberculosis detection. Those traditional methods are relatively expensive, and
do not go towards an independent Africa vis-­‐à-­‐vis foreign aid. <strong>The</strong>y are not satisfactory from
48

every point of view, and Bart was convinced his giant African rats would meet these important
<strong>social</strong> needs more effectively.
It is interesting then to have the students assess for example APOPO’s idea of using rats
to detect tuberculosis, in order to determine its potential as an opportunity. <strong>The</strong> instructor
should suggest them to use the Social Opportunity Assessment Tool (as presented in note 2,
section 2 of the theory) as far as it is possible, relying on the information given in the <strong>case</strong>, and
using their general knowledge as well. <strong>The</strong> instructor could invite the students to get into
groups of four and compare their answers, and then ask a group of students to come and solve
the question on the blackboard. <strong>The</strong> instructor could use the board plan of Exhibit TN-­‐1 for
this question, and ask to put a cross for each category in the high, medium or low column.
• <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> value potential of the idea:
<strong>The</strong>re is clearly a true <strong>social</strong> need for a quicker, cheaper and more reliable tuberculosis
detection technology. Microscopy detection is the traditional method used. However, only 40%
to 60% are reliable, which is not sufficient to reach the objectives of the Millennium
development goals for the tuberculosis by 2015, in view of the fact that an untreated person
can contaminate 10-­‐15 people a year. Detecting tuberculosis with rats is aligned with APOPO’s
mission, which is to “Develop detection rat technology to provide solutions for global problems
and inspire <strong>social</strong> change”. Furthermore, the opportunity has a measurable <strong>social</strong> impact as
APOPO keeps track of the number of <strong>case</strong>s of tuberculosis detected by the rats, and informs the
medical centers when a patient is diagnosed TB-­‐positive by APOPO’s rats (whereas it was
diagnosed TB-­‐negative by the first microscopy analysis). <strong>The</strong> DOTS centers call back those
patients who can then be treated in the right way. <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> return on investment (SROI)
though is more complicated to calculate. <strong>The</strong> only criterion that makes APOPO’s idea a weaker
opportunity is community support. In fact it is hard to convince medical institutions to use rats
as a detection tool, because rats are associated with dirt and illness. However, it can be
concluded that the <strong>social</strong> value potential of APOPO’s idea in general is high.
• <strong>The</strong> market potential of the idea:
APOPO’s idea addresses a need and an apparent will. Moreover, the timing is good as the
Millennium development goals opened a window of opportunities for <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs
wanting to solve the tuberculosis problem. We can see that APOPO’s idea actually attracts
investors: there are many funders supporting the TB-­‐detection research program (see Exhibit
1 of the <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>). Usually this criterion has to be assessed before launching the idea. Yet,
being today in its research phase, the TB-­‐detection program supplies some indication on the
49

ability of attracting other sources of funding for APOPO’s TB-­‐detection program. <strong>The</strong> potential
market size is rather important, inasmuch as the tuberculosis affects in some African countries
more than 35% of the population. Moreover, real substitutes are scarce, because the
requirements are high. So competition is low in that market. <strong>The</strong> conclusion for this part is that
the market potential of APOPO’s idea is high.
• <strong>The</strong> competitive advantage potential of the idea:
<strong>The</strong>re are important entry-­‐barriers in the TB-­‐detection industry. As a matter of fact, the
technology needs to be reliable, quick and cheap at the same time, which is not easy. Moreover,
APOPO benefits from a good knowledge of the customs and ways of working in Africa, in view
of its history. <strong>The</strong> support from the WHO, and APOPO’s already existing <strong>social</strong> network are
other considerable advantages. APOPO’s potential partners for its TB-­‐detection program are
numerous, as once accepted by the community, the probability is high that other DOTS centers
will want to build a partnership with APOPO. <strong>The</strong> control over the cost criterion is less positive
though, as APOPO is highly dependent on philanthropic investments, in the view of the
countries it targets. However, APOPO’s mission is very compelling, likely to attract many
investors. Finally, APOPO has built over the years a management team with complementary
skills. Yet their turnover is high, which causes some important inefficiencies. As a result, the
competitive advantage of APOPO’s idea can be considered as medium.
• <strong>The</strong> sustainability potential of the idea:
<strong>The</strong> physical resources to start are sufficient. Rats are plentiful, and their breeding is controlled
by APOPO itself. In <strong>case</strong> of quick growth, APOPO would have to increase its facilities. This
would not be a challenge as APOPO is located in the Sokoine University of Agriculture, where
new buildings could easily be added. APOPO’s capability is strong, as a highly skilled board
supports it, and because it benefits from a competent management team, and employs very
motivated local trainers. As mentioned before, APOPO’s mission is compelling, and there is
evidence of philanthropic, government and private investors interest. However, there is a
potential for charging fees (very low) to hospitals or to patients for APOPO’s TB-­‐detection
services, which would lower APOPO’s dependency on philanthropic funding. So the
sustainability potential of APOPO’s idea might appear to be high.
As a result, the composite assessment of APOPO’s idea to use rats as TB-­‐detectors can
be considered to be high, and the idea is likely to be a true opportunity.
50

5.2.3 Analysis of the “Resources” pillar
<strong>The</strong> analysis of the financial resources available to the enterprise is the last pillar of the
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>. In order to analyze this pillar for <strong>social</strong> enterprises, the first question
the instructor could ask to one student might be: “Where do APOPO’s funds come from?”.
As shown in Exhibit 2 of the <strong>case</strong> <strong>study</strong>, APOPO benefits from several sources of
funding to support its activities and projects:
-­‐ Grants: Belgian Government, Norwegian Government, Province of Antwerp, Flemish
Government
-­‐ Public fundraising: Adopt-­‐a-­‐Rat platform
-­‐ Funds from foundations: Skoll Foundation, Philippson Foundation, Swift Foundation, etc.
-­‐ Funds from corporations: Johnson&Johnson, Ernst&Young, etc.
-­‐ Funds from research institutions: GICHD and the National Institute of Health
<strong>The</strong>n, the instructor could ask: “How did APOPO’s funds evolve through time?”.
It can be observed that in the beginning APOPO had only financial resources from
governments, and more precisely from the Belgian Government. However, it soon diversified
its financing sources in order to support its growth more effectively. <strong>The</strong> instructor should
stress out that philanthropic capital is really the fuel that powers a <strong>social</strong> venture. It is
effectively the <strong>case</strong> for APOPO; without funds, APOPO would not be able to survive. As a result,
by considering investors as partners in the creation of a meaningful impact rather than just
funding sources, <strong>social</strong> enterprises such as APOPO can build more scalable and effective
enterprises.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could then move on to the analysis of the differences between the
financial resources available to <strong>social</strong> enterprises, compared to the ones available to
commercial enterprises. <strong>The</strong> instructor can use the board plan shown in Exhibit TN-­‐1 for this
question.
-­‐
To facilitate the discussion, the instructor could start by asking on which type of capital
market commercial and <strong>social</strong> enterprises rely.
o Traditional enterprises rely on commercial capital market, and benefit from a wide
range of financial instruments available at every stage of their growth.
o Social enterprises on the contrary rely on a highly fragmented philanthropic
capital market. <strong>The</strong>y rely on various and numerous actors -­‐ as has been seen
51

-­‐
-­‐
through the precedent question (such as individual contributions, foundation
grants, government payments, etc.). <strong>The</strong>se actors have a wide variety of
motivations and expectations.
<strong>The</strong> instructor could continue by asking how important sources of funding are to <strong>social</strong>
enterprises and why.
o As <strong>social</strong> enterprise operations rarely attain the breakeven point without some
form of donor support, they are highly reliable on these sources of income.
<strong>The</strong>refore, most of the competition in the <strong>social</strong> sector concerns fund raising. As a
result, <strong>social</strong> enterprises spent a lot of time on finding funds.
o Commercial enterprises on the contrary generate earned incomes, and rely less if
not at all on donor support. <strong>The</strong> financial instruments available to them are
numerous (bank loans, venture capitalists, etc.), and they therefore spent less time
on finding funds to sustain their business.
Finally, the instructor could also ask how the investments in commercial enterprises differ
from investments in <strong>social</strong> enterprises.
o Whereas investments in traditional enterprises are based on objective measures
and consist of big and long-­‐term amounts of money and for a long term,
investments in <strong>social</strong> enterprises are based much more on personal preferences,
are smaller and for rather limited terms.
<strong>The</strong> following table summarizes the previous arguments.
Resources
Financial
Resources
Traditional Entrepreneurship Social Entrepreneurship
-Commercial capital market with -Philanthropic capital market
many financial instruments highly fragmented, with few
-Attract capital for financial instruments
returns
-Attract capital for <strong>social</strong> good
-Generate earned incomes -Usually no earned incomes: very
-No time spent on finding funds reliable on donor support
-Big investments usually for a -High competition for funding: a
long period of time
lot of time spent on finding funds
-Investments based on
-Small investments usually for a
objective measures
small period of time
-Investments based on personal
preferences
5.2.4 Analysis of the “Context”
In order to look closer at the context for <strong>social</strong> enterprises, the instructor can question
students about the importance of the context to APOPO.
Students could mention the following points:
52

-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
<strong>The</strong> context is of special importance to <strong>social</strong> enterprises in general, and to APOPO in
particular. It gives the term “<strong>social</strong>” in <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship significance by providing a
source of opportunities to <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs to add <strong>social</strong> value.
<strong>The</strong> context is not only source of many opportunities; it is also source of some challenges.
APOPO has to bear for example with the African culture, different from the European one,
having its own <strong>social</strong> norms. <strong>The</strong> economic environment is different, as well as the legal
and political systems, etc. Social enterprises, as noticed in APOPO’s <strong>case</strong> compete with each
other for philanthropic dollars, grants, volunteers, community acceptance, political
attention, and attention from clients or customers, etc.
<strong>The</strong> context in which <strong>social</strong> enterprises operate affects what they do, and how they do
things. So APOPO has to adapt to its context, but the other way round, APOPO can also
have an influence on it. APOPO for instance is progressively changing the idea of an Africa
dependent vis-­‐à-­‐vis foreign technology, as it highlights the fact that local resources can be
used to solve local problems.
<strong>The</strong> instructor can then ask students how <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs react to an inhospitable
context, compared to traditional entrepreneurs.
An inhospitable context will not stop <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs from pursuing an
opportunity. On the contrary, inhospitable environments usually bring new needs of change
and new opportunities, and can bring considerable <strong>social</strong> impact. As a result, what might be
seen as an unfavorable contextual factor for market-­‐based commercial enterprises can be
considered as an opportunity for a <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur who aims to address <strong>social</strong> needs
arising from market failures. This is exactly what happened with APOPO. <strong>The</strong> demining
industry is an unattractive industry, very conservative and not changing easily form one
technology to another. Yet available technologies are not satisfactory as they are not rapid,
secure, of low cost and easy to use at the same time. APOPO sees there an opportunity, and it is
not stopped by the inhospitable context.
5.2.5 Conclusion
In order to conclude, the instructor may ask a student to summarize the key difference
between commercial entrepreneurship and <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship. <strong>The</strong> answer should
include the following elements:
-­‐ Social entrepreneurs focus on <strong>social</strong> mission achievement as opposed to the commercial
entrepreneurs who focus on profits for the enterprise’s owners.
-­‐ <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> value proposition is key to <strong>social</strong> enterprises.
53

Now that the students acquired a better global view of the differences between
commercial entrepreneurship and <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship, the instructor could draw on the
blackboard the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship <strong>process</strong> as developed by Wei-­‐Skillern et al. (2006,
shown in Exhibit TN-­‐1, and Exhibit TN-­‐4), with the help of the students.
<strong>The</strong> instructor should highlight the fact that the <strong>social</strong> purpose is in the center of the
model, as it is really the driver of the framework. As a matter of fact, one should note that the
greatest difference between the commercial <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> and the <strong>social</strong>
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> lies in the <strong>social</strong> value proposition, which has a central role in the
<strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> model. <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> impact of the enterprise activity (<strong>social</strong> value
proposition) is effectively the goal of all the actions from the <strong>social</strong> enterprise. <strong>The</strong> opportunity
is represented at the top of the framework (see Exhibit TN-­‐4) by a circle. It is the departure
point for entrepreneurship. People and capital resources are represented by circles as well,
and placed at the bottom. <strong>The</strong>y are the enabling variables in the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>.
<strong>The</strong> three circles intersect, to reflect the overlapping and interdependent nature of the
variables. <strong>The</strong> instructor could finally point out that despite the differences between <strong>social</strong> and
commercial entrepreneurship, as analyzed through the previous questions, both types of
entrepreneurship employ the behaviors, skills, <strong>process</strong>es, tools and techniques of
entrepreneurs: opportunity recognition (adding value by addressing needs), bootstrapping
(being creative and efficient when assembling resources), risk tolerance, etc.
5.3 Teaching plan
<strong>The</strong> following teaching plan can be used for a 100 minutes class discussion. <strong>The</strong>
questions that are intended to guide class discussion are indicated by “Q”. <strong>The</strong> instructor is
advised to read the analysis provided in the previous section before using this teaching plan.
(Time) 0 :00 Introduction
Q: What type of enterprise is APOPO? What are APOPO’s activities? (Exhibit TN-­‐1 +
Exhibit TN-­‐2)
Q: Identify the different development stages APOPO went through. At which of the 6
stages is APOPO nowadays? (Exhibit TN-­‐1 + Exhibit TN-­‐3)
-­‐ Draw the curve that represents the growth of an enterprise, and write down the
different stages of development it usually goes through.
-­‐ When was APOPO in its first stage of development, and why?
54

-­‐
-­‐
Do you think APOPO went on to the second stage of development? At what
moment? What characterizes that stage for APOPO?
Do you think APOPO moved on to the third stage of development? What
characterizes that stage for APOPO?
0:10 Analysis of the “People” pillar of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> framework
Q: What behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs are exhibited in this <strong>case</strong>?
Q: What factors motivated Bart Weetjens and Christophe Cox to act and create a <strong>social</strong>
venture to overcome unmet <strong>social</strong> needs?
Q: How are <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs different from commercial entrepreneurs (in terms of
behavioral traits and the purpose of their actions)? (Exhibit TN-­‐1)
0:25 Questions to go further in the analysis of the “People” pillar:
Q: List the different partnerships APOPO was able to build, and identify the advantages of
these alliances.
Q: Do you think <strong>social</strong> enterprises have access to the best talents? On what kind of human
capital do <strong>social</strong> enterprises rely? Why do you think it is like that?
Q: Represent the importance of the “People, Planet, Profit” variables of the triple bottom
line (TBL) framework for traditional and <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship in the graph of
Exhibit TN-­‐1.
0:35 Analysis of the “Opportunity” pillar of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> framework
Q: “What type of opportunity is APOPO seeking? How is that opportunity different from
the opportunities in commercial entrepreneurship?”
Q: What opportunities did APOPO see in the demining industry, and after in the healthcare
industry, in Africa? Was the timing right?
Q: What is the potential of the idea of using rats for tuberculosis detection as an
opportunity, according to the <strong>social</strong> opportunity assessment tool? (Exhibit TN-­‐1)
1:05 Analysis of the “Resources” pillar of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> framework
Q: Where do APOPO’s funds come from? How did this situation evolve through time?
Q: What differences are there between the financial resources available to <strong>social</strong>
enterprises, compared to the ones available to commercial enterprises? (Exhibit TN-­‐1)
-­‐ On which type of capital market do commercial enterprises and <strong>social</strong> enterprises
rely ?
-­‐ How important are sources of funding to <strong>social</strong> enterprises, and why?
55

-­‐
How are the investments in commercial enterprises different from the investments
in <strong>social</strong> enterprises?
1:15 Analysis of the “Context” of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> framework
Q: How important is the context to APOPO?
Q: How do <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs react to an inhospitable context, compared to traditional
entrepreneurs?
1:25 Conclusions
Q: Summarize briefly the key difference between commercial entrepreneurship and <strong>social</strong>
entrepreneurship.
Q: Draw a framework representing the <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>. (Exhibit TN-­‐1 +
Exhibit TN-­‐4)
1:35 Key Learning (slide)
5.4 Key learning
<strong>The</strong> instructor can conclude the class discussion by presenting the slide of Exhibit TN-­‐
5, mentioning the following points:
-­‐ <strong>The</strong> <strong>social</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong> is quite similar to the commercial
<strong>entrepreneurial</strong> <strong>process</strong>, but particular importance is given to the <strong>social</strong> value
proposition and the context.
-­‐ Social entrepreneurs focus on <strong>social</strong> mission achievement while commercial
entrepreneurs focus on profit creation. In fact, the commercial entrepreneur’s final
objective is wealth creation. For the <strong>social</strong> entrepreneur, however, wealth creation
is simply a means to an end.
-­‐ Social entrepreneurs are unhappy with the status quo.
-­‐ <strong>The</strong>y see opportunities where others see only chaos.
-­‐ Social enterprises are often highly dependent on philanthropic money. Finding
sources of funding is where there is major competition for <strong>social</strong> ventures.
-­‐ <strong>The</strong> context provides <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurs a source of opportunities to add <strong>social</strong>
value.
-­‐ <strong>The</strong> context is permeable, and can be influenced by <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship.
56

5.5 Additional theory
Finally, the instructor could give the students the short part of theory referred to as
“Note 4: the Social entrepreneurship Process Model” in “Part A : Technical note”, at the end of
the class, for further reading. In fact the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> model that is developed in that
chapter is a very recent model that goes beyond the “Social Entrepreneurship Framework”
created by Wei-­‐Skiller et al. (2007, p.23), and discussed in class.
57

5.6 Teaching Note Exhibits
Exhibit TN-­‐1: Board Plan
Source: author
58

Exhibit TN-­‐2: APOPO’s activities
Source: Philippson Foundation
Exhibit TN-­‐3: APOPO’s stages of growth
Source: author
59

Exhibit TN-­‐4:
Source: Wei-­‐Sillern et al. (2007, p.23)
Exhibit TN-­‐5: Key Learning (slide)
Source: author
60

Bibliography
Articles:
-­‐ Abell D. (1997), “What makes a good <strong>case</strong>? Technical note”, International Institute
for Management Development
-­‐ Alter K. (2007), “Social Entreprise Typology”, Virtue Ventures LLC
-­‐ BEPA-­‐Bureau of European Policy Advisors (May 2010), ‘”Empowering people,
driving change: Social innovation in the European Union”
-­‐ Churchill C. and Lewis L. (May-­‐June 1983), “<strong>The</strong> Five Stages of Small Business
Growth”, Harvard Business Review
-­‐ Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining: Guide to Mine Action and
Explosive Remnants of War (2007)
-­‐ Haugh, H (2005) “A research agenda for <strong>social</strong> entrepreneurship”, Social Entreprise
Journal, 1 (1): 1-­‐12
-­‐ Mair J., Marti I. (2006) “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction, and delight”, Journal of World Business, 41:36-­‐44
-­‐ Phills Jr. J. A., Deiglmeier K. and Miller D. T. (2008), “Rediscovering Social
Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review.
-­‐ Roberts M.J (2001), “Developing a Teaching Case (Abridged)”, Harvard Business
School.
-­‐ Wei-­‐Skillern J., Austin, J.E., Leonard H., Stevenson H. (2006), “Social and commercial
entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship <strong>The</strong>ory and Practice,
30 (1): 1-­‐22
Books:
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Fayolle A. (2007), “Entrepreneurship and New Value Creation: <strong>The</strong> Dynamic of the
Entrepreneurial Process” , Cambridge University Press
Leenders M.R., Erskine J.A. and Mauffette-­‐Leenders L.A. (2001), “Writing Cases”,
Fourth edition, Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario
Metz Cummings A. and Hehenberger L. (2011), “A guide to venture philanthropy
for venture capital and private equity investors”, p.15, European Venture
Philanthropy Association
Sahlman W.A., Stevenson H.H., Roberts M.J., Bhide A.V. (1999), “<strong>The</strong> <strong>entrepreneurial</strong>
venture”, Harvard Business School Press
61

-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Timmons J., Spinelli S., (2007), “New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21 st century”, McGraw-­‐Hill/Irwin
Vyakarnam S. and Hartman N. (2011), “Unlocking the enterprise inside! A book of
Why, What and How!”, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte.Ltd
Wei-­‐Skillern J., Austin, J.E., Leonard H., Stevenson H. (2007), “Entrepreneurship in
the <strong>social</strong> sector”, Harvard Business School, SAGE Publications
Websites:
-­‐ APOPO website: http://www.apopo.org/home.php?lang=en, page consulted the
25/05/2012
-­‐ WHO website: http://www.who.int/en/, page consulted the 25/05/2012
-­‐ Entrepreneurship knowledge hub (Olivier Witmeur): http://www.olivier-­witmeur.net/teaching/master/introduction-­‐entrepreneurship,“
Introduction to
Entrepreneurship, Session 6 – Start-­‐up & growth strategies”, page consulted the
25/05/2012
62