Farming is not a joke: the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises

ACSEnt

= Ateneo Center for Social Entrepreneurship;

ASEAN

= Association of Southeast Asian Nations;

BSMED

= Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprise;

CEO

= Chief executive officer;

DLSU

= De La Salle University;

DTI

= Department of Trade and Industry;

FSSI

= Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc.;

GDP

= Gross domestic product;

GKEF

= Gawad Kalinga Enchanted Farm;

LGUs

= Local government units;

LSEED

= Lasallian Social Enterprise for Economic Development;

MSMEs

= Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises;

NSTP

= National Service Training Program;

PRESENT

= Poverty reduction through social entrepreneurship;

PSA

= Philippine Statistics Authority;

SEED

= School for Experiential and Entrepreneurial Development; and

TESDA

= Technical Education and Skills Development Authority.

In Filipino culture, what is the word that describes the person who is the lowest in the rung? They are called hampaslupa, which means hitting the soil. When a student fails and gets a zero in school, they are often insulted by the term nangingitlog, which means laying eggs, because zeros look like eggs. When a person is slow-witted, they are belittled and considered nangangamote, meaning being like a sweet potato. When people are slacking off, they are often shamed and told, “Sa kangkungan ka pupulutin,” which literally means, “You will end up/will be picked up from a cluster of water spinach.” Water spinach is found growing in streams, ponds, rivers and flooded rice fields, where slums are usually located.

As one would not have initially noticed, these insults, deeply ingrained in our everyday conversations, are related to the profession of those who are tilling the soil to grow and provide us with food but, in turn, have nothing to eat. These words insult our farmers, who, despite working under the heat of the sun, remain the poorest of the poor in the Philippines.

With more than one-third of the global population that relies on the agricultural sector as their source of income, most of this population resides in Asia (Food and Agricultural Organization, n.d.). Hence, according to the World Bank (2018), the agricultural sector is an important engine that can help improve the living standard of 80% of the world’s poor who are heavily dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.

In the case of the Philippines, an emerging Southeast Asian country, the agricultural sector is the third largest contributor to its gross domestic product (GDP). Despite this, those who are economically active in the said sector – the farmers and fishermen – remain to have a higher poverty incidence than the general population (Jodloman, 2017). This can be associated with underinvestment in the Philippine agricultural sector. Compared to the five percent average (of GDP) expenditure in the infrastructure of other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, the Philippines only spends an average of two to three percent (Villegas, 2018) for infrastructure. This, in turn, results in higher logistics, distribution and processing costs and lower productivity for the farmers.

The average daily basic pay in agriculture in 2015 was almost the same as in 2001 (Briones, 2017). The number of enrollees and graduates in agriculture-related courses like forestry, fishery and veterinary medicine has also been decreasing (Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, 2017) as well as the number of male and female farmers in the country (National Economic Development Authority, 2017). In the Philippines, the average age of farmers is 57 years old. This is expected to result in a shortage of farmers in about 15 years, creating a possible human resource gap (Dela Paz, 2017).

With this comes the rise of social entrepreneurs interested in operating a social mission-driven business that enables the poor and the marginalized sector to live a better life by becoming key economic players (Philippine Social Enterprise Network, 2017). In the Philippines specifically, one-fifth of the total number of social enterprises focus on agriculture (PhilSEN, 2017).

As these enterprises are expected to alleviate poverty by generating financial returns and social value that can leave a positive impact on their beneficiaries, it is essential to foster an environment that is conducive for social entrepreneurs to establish and conduct business (Kabbaj et al., 2016). However, these social enterprises also encounter numerous barriers to growth, given that the industry is relatively new. Currently, there are no distinct policies intended to protect and support social enterprises (PhilSEN, 2017). Social entrepreneurs also experience difficulty recruiting employees (Schnabel, 2016) and have limited access to financing (British Council, 2015). With this, to maximize the potential and impact of social enterprises in the Philippines, particularly agricultural social enterprises, there is a need to understand and define the context of the current social entrepreneurial environment to enable the development of strategies that will ease the interaction in the ecosystem (Kabbaj et al., 2016).

We also realized the need to determine the external factors that affect the creation and growth of these ventures and analyze the roles and interdependencies of the different factors enumerated in the model of Isenberg (2011). Although Isenberg’s model of the entrepreneurship ecosystem enumerated six domains, which are policies, finance, supports, culture, human capital and markets, we only focused on four, which are policies, supports, culture and human capital domains.

We conducted this study to explore the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises in the Philippines so that we can understand how the different domains (policy, culture, supports and human capital) interact to address human capital development in this sector. Specifically, we seek to answer the main research question: How do the different domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem interact to address human capital development in the agricultural social enterprise sector in the Philippines? More specifically, we wish to address the following objectives:

• Explore the roles and initiatives of key stakeholders within the policy, culture, supports and human capital domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises in the Philippines;

• Examine how these domains interact and contribute to addressing human capital development in the agricultural social enterprise sector; and

• Identify the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in the ecosystem’s approach to human capital development in the context of agricultural enterprises.

To better understand the context of the agricultural social entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Philippines, it is essential to review the existing literature on the key domains and factors influencing social entrepreneurship. This we have discussed in the succeeding section.

In this literature review, we thought of providing a comprehensive overview of the existing research we found on the entrepreneurship ecosystem and its role in human capital development, particularly on agricultural social enterprises. We seek to understand the current state of knowledge in this field and identify the research gaps that we want to address by synthesizing key concepts and findings from relevant studies. We organized the review into subsections, each focusing on a specific domain of the entrepreneurship ecosystem: policy, culture, supports and human capital. We structured it in this approach to illuminate readers of the complex dynamics at play within the ecosystem and their potential impact on human capital development in the context of agricultural social enterprises.

Entrepreneurship ecosystem refers to the interdependency of different external factors, like policies, finance, culture, supports, human capital and markets, that enable or prevent entrepreneurship from arising (Stam and Spigel, 2016). Studies on the social entrepreneurship ecosystem have been increasing because of the need to understand the context of their entrepreneurial environment to enable the development of strategies that will help foster an environment that is conducive for social entrepreneurs to do business (Kabbaj et al., 2016). What we have come to know is that while previous studies have explored social entrepreneurship ecosystems, there seems to be limited research focusing primarily on agricultural social enterprises. We address this aperture by doing a comprehensive examination of the agricultural social entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Philippines using qualitative methodology. We displayed in Figure 1 the entrepreneurship ecosystem as suggested by Isenberg (2011). To further discuss the social entrepreneurship ecosystem, enumerated below are four out of six (Isenberg, 2011): policy, culture, supports and human capital domains.

In developing countries, where social entrepreneurship can be an avenue to alleviate poverty, there are limited policies that are specifically intended to benefit social enterprises. Hence, practitioners find difficulty in accessing opportunities that can help sustain and scale up their businesses. For example, the Philippine Go Negosyo Act (or the Philippine Republic Act 10644) supports business centers and start-up funds and provides training and assistance to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). The Philippine Magna Carta for MSMEs (Republic Act, 9501) also aims to help MSMEs by giving reasonable incentives, improving their networks and facilitating access to funding and support services.

Consequently, there is a pending bill in the Philippine Congress that is dedicated to promoting a conducive environment for the growth and development of the social enterprise sector, which is the Poverty Reduction through Social Entrepreneurship (PRESENT) Act of the 17th Congress. However, according to Habaradas (2018), there are inadequate and lacking provisions in the bill. For example, a consensus on the definition of “social enterprises” who are the bill’s intended beneficiaries. This became one of the factors that impeded the progress of passing the PRESENT Bill (The Manila Times, 2017).

An ecosystem’s culture may either help or hinder social entrepreneurship. According to Roundy (2017), social enterprises are more likely to grow in a supportive community or ecosystem that is cooperative and has a “give-before-take” culture rather than a system that is unsupportive and uncooperative. Furthermore, as social enterprises are based on value creation, philanthropy and altruistic behaviors, a culture that promotes these values, rather than a culture that solely promotes capitalism without a social mission, will aid in allowing these types of businesses to thrive (Miller et al., 2012). This is evidenced by a Moroccan study that we have encountered by Kabbaj et al. (2016), which showed that combining social and economic goals was perceived by society as malpractice, therefore, making culture an obstacle in promoting social enterprises.

In the Filipino business culture, the concept of pakikisama, which means strong personal relations and bayanihan or teamwork (Sison and Palma-Angeles, 2017), is observed. This shows the obligation of a business to help the community and those in need, making it a conducive environment for social enterprises. Because of a large income gap, few families can afford to support social enterprises, creating a disparity between producers and consumers (Hansen, 2014). Thus, most of the market still patronizes commercially available brands that offer a lower price.

Agricultural social enterprises deal with traditional business problems, such as relationship management in the supply chain and influencers of the chain (Morris and James, 2017). Innovations in the transportation and telecommunications sectors disrupt the normal operations of social enterprises, similar to how traditional businesses are disturbed. Ibrahim et al. (2018) also states that the agribusiness sector uses the recent developments in information technology and the internet. As a further matter, he emphasized that using information technology is significant for the sector’s competitive advantage.

In terms of the utilization of support structures available in the sector, according to Ballesteros and Llanto (2017) of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a social enterprise, Rags2Riches, partnered with Netsuite, a leading global provider of cloud-based business solutions, for creating their accounting system. Hence, support systems are needed to maximize the growth potential of social enterprises.

We come to know that social enterprises experience difficulty in hiring employees who have entrepreneurial mindsets or business skills (British Council, 2015). The Philippine agricultural sector also experiences the same difficulty, with a steady decline of farmers – from 31 million to 29.1 million (PSA, 2017). In terms of educational institutions, there are higher education and research institutions that provide programs and courses on social entrepreneurship and, at the same time, support to social entrepreneurs (British Council, 2015). Currently, there are also undergraduate and graduate degree programs in agriculture and agribusiness management available in the country.

The ecosystem is a complex network and interconnected system (Khan, 2013). This concept was used by Moore (2013) in the management field to compare a business ecosystem to a biological ecosystem where companies and stakeholders build several relationships in an environment called the “ecosystem.” On the other hand, Isenberg (2011) proposed a model for an entrepreneurship ecosystem. The model has 13 factors, which are leadership, government, financial capital, success stories, societal norms, nongovernment institutions, support professions, infrastructure, educational institutions, labor, networks and early customers. These factors are then further classified into six categories: policy, markets, finance, culture, supports and human capital (Isenberg, 2011). We have summarized in Figure 1.

Although this concept is typically used for traditional, for-profit businesses, the term can also be applied to research on social enterprises mainly because a social entrepreneur is another type of entrepreneur (Roundy, 2017). Therefore, we thought of adopting this model as this paper’s conceptual framework. The model shows that the entrepreneurship ecosystem is composed of six domains:

1. Policy. The Oxford University Press defines this as a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual. Isenberg (2011) enumerated leadership and government as the main focus of the policy domain;

2. Finance. This is crucial for any enterprise to form and subsequently operate. The use of capital in a business startup is shown to have important implications for the business operation, failure risk, firm performance and the business’ potential to expand (Cassar, 2004). Isenberg (2011) included financial capital as the finance focus in the ecosystem;

3. Culture. Culture is defined as the set of values, norms and knowledge that is shared among the ecosystem’s participants (Doney et al., 1998). Success stories and societal norms, according to Isenberg (2011), are important contributors to culture;

4. Supports. All organizations that work toward promoting social entrepreneurship and supporting social entrepreneurs are considered support structures (Kabbaj et al., 2016). These support structures are infrastructure, support professions and nongovernment institutions, according to Isenberg (2011);

5. Human capital. Social enterprises mainly comprise permanent staff and volunteers (Kabbaj et al., 2016). Isenberg (2011) also enumerated labor and educational institutions as the focus of human capital in the entrepreneurship ecosystem; and

6. Markets. According to Isenberg’s (2011) entrepreneurship ecosystem, markets consist of players such as early customers and networks. These are the stakeholders that support and buy the products a company offers.

We have operationalized the framework by formulating questions based on each domain of Isenberg’s entrepreneurship ecosystem model. These questions served as a guide and starting point in the interviews that we had with the stakeholders. Table 1 features the guide that was used in the case study. These helped us generate insights to address the study’s propositions, as well as the objectives.

Despite the growing research on social entrepreneurship ecosystems, we realized there is still notable interstice in the literature. First, there is tight research focusing specifically on agricultural social enterprises and their ecosystem dynamics. Second, we come to encounter a few studies that have comprehensively examined multiple ecosystem domains and their interactions in the context of social entrepreneurship in the Philippines. Our study addresses these gaps where we have provided a holistic exploration of the agricultural social entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Philippines while considering the interplay between policy, culture, supports and human capital domains. For us to achieve this, we considered a comprehensive methodology that combines qualitative research methods with an ecosystem analysis framework (Isenberg, 2011). In the next section, we detail the research design, data collection procedures and analytical techniques we used to investigate these dynamics.

As researchers, we were fascinated by the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises, a significant phenomenon in the Philippine business landscape. To better understand this ecosystem, we chose to conduct an exploratory study using a single-embedded case study research design, as defined by Yin (1994). This design allowed us to dive deep into the ecosystem and observe patterns across each domain, focusing specifically on the case of agricultural social enterprises. We wanted to ensure that our findings were reliable and unbiased, so, we used a methodological triangulation approach, as suggested by Graue and Walsh (1998). This involved combining multiple data collection methods, including document analysis, semistructured interviews and participant observation (Kabbaj et al., 2016). We wanted to gather rich and diverse data that would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the entrepreneurial landscape of agricultural enterprises by using these different methods.

To begin our research, we administered a thorough document analysis, reviewing existing documents on the history of all the organizations and stakeholders involved in this study. This helped us to gain a better understanding of the context and background of the ecosystem and also served to prevent bias in our analysis (Graue and Walsh, 1998). Next, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from each domain of the entrepreneurship ecosystem, as outlined by Isenberg (2011). During these interviews, we asked questions specifically designed to address our research question and gain insights into the role of each stakeholder in the ecosystem, their profile and initiatives and their contribution to human capital development in the agricultural sector.

During the interviews, we were very mindful of any ethical considerations and took steps to ensure that our research was conducted responsibly and respectfully. We obtained informed consent from all participants and explained the purpose of our study and how their data would be used. We also assured them of confidentiality by protecting their identities using pseudonyms and storing their data securely.

In addition to document analysis and interviews, we also conducted participant observation to gain a more immersive understanding of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. We attended relevant events and meetings, such as workshops, conferences and networking sessions, where we observed the interactions and dynamics between different stakeholders. These observations typically lasted between 2 h and 4 h and provided us with valuable insights into the real-world workings of the ecosystem. As researchers, we took on the role of observers, taking detailed field notes and reflecting on what we had seen and heard.

To analyze the interview data, we used narratives, which allowed us to interpret the answers of the different stakeholders and construct a vivid picture of the agricultural social entrepreneurship landscape. We immersed ourselves in the data, carefully reading through the interview transcripts and identifying key themes and patterns that emerged. We were able to gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics at play within the ecosystem with what we have done.

In selecting our research participants, we relied primarily on primary information gathered through interviews. We believed that this approach would allow us to better understand the effect of each stakeholder on agricultural social enterprises, as well as the relationships between them. Given our focus on human capital development in the agricultural sector, we carefully identified the most relevant respondents for our study. To ensure that we had a diverse and representative sample, we chose participants based on the subdomains specified by Isenberg (2011) in the entrepreneurship ecosystem (as seen in Figure 1). We purposively selected interviewees from each of the four domains: policy, culture, supports and human capital. We selected the interviewees based on their expertise, experience and involvement in the agricultural social entrepreneurship sector in the Philippines. We targeted individuals who could provide us with rich insights into the ecosystem dynamics and the challenges and opportunities faced by the said enterprises.

For the policy domain, we interviewed key policymakers and government officials who have been involved in developing and implementing policies related to social entrepreneurship and the agricultural sector. In the culture domain, we selected social entrepreneurs who have successfully established and operated agricultural social enterprises, as they could share their firsthand experiences and perspectives on the cultural factors influencing the ecosystem. For the support domain, we interviewed individuals from support organizations, incubators and accelerators that provide resources and assistance to these kinds of enterprises. Finally, in the human capital domain, we included educators and experts involved in developing skills and knowledge relevant to this enterprise.

We were fortunate to have the opportunity to interview a range of stakeholders. Each of these stakeholders brought a unique perspective to the table, and their insights were invaluable in helping us to understand the complexities of the issues presented in this study. The interviewees were identified through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling techniques. We initially identified key informants based on their positions and expertise, and then used their networks and recommendations to identify additional interviewees who could provide us valuable insights.

The data analysis process followed an iterative approach, combining elements of thematic analysis and cross-case synthesis. We began by thoroughly reviewing the interview transcripts, field notes and documents we collected during the research. After our careful reading and reflection, we were able to identify key themes and patterns that emerged from the data, focusing on the experiences, challenges and opportunities shared by the interviewees. We then coded the data using a combination of deductive and inductive coding techniques. The initial coding scheme was based on the four domains of the framework (policy, culture, supports and human capital) and the research questions guiding the study. As we progressed through the coding process, we remained open to emerging themes and refined the coding scheme accordingly. Throughout the analysis process, we constantly compared the findings among the different domains and cases. We seek to identify patterns, similarities and divergences. This cross-case synthesis allowed our team to develop a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem and the interactions between these domains.

To ensure that what we have found is trustworthy and credible, we considered using several strategies throughout the research process. First, we used triangulation, comparing and contrasting data from different sources (documents, interviews, observations) to identify any consistencies and divergences. This helped us to build a more comprehensive and reliable picture of the ecosystem. Second, we conducted member checking, sharing our preliminary findings with some of our research participants and asking for their feedback. This allowed us to validate our interpretations and ensure that we had accurately captured their perspectives. Finally, we engaged in peer debriefing, discussing our research with colleagues and other experts in the field. This provided us with an opportunity to test our ideas, receive constructive feedback and refine our analysis.

In other words, as you can see, our chosen methodological framework – a single-embedded case study design with methodological triangulation – was well-suited to addressing our research question and objectives. We were able to gather rich and diverse data that contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the entrepreneurship ecosystem of agricultural social enterprises in the Philippines by combining document analysis, interviews and observation. Our focus on ethical considerations, trustworthiness and credibility ensured that our findings were all at the same robust and reliable. We were able to explore the roles and initiatives of key stakeholders within the policy, culture, supports and human capital domains of the ecosystem through this methodology. We were able to examine how these domains interact and contribute to addressing human capital development in the agricultural social enterprise sector. And we identified the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in the ecosystem’s approach to human capital development, which we have discussed later in this article.

We presented in Table 2 who we interviewed for the policy domain. To gain insights into the policy domain, we interviewed three key individuals: R1, a former senator who has been a strong advocate for social entrepreneurship; R2, a current senator with a focus on agriculture and rural development; and R3, a senior official from a government agency who oversees programs supporting micro, small and medium enterprises. With this, we realized the following insights through the interviews.

We found that numerous policies, initiatives and projects have been proposed and set by different legislators and government agencies that are available for the enjoyment of particular sectors. However, the implementation and success rates of these projects lie in the execution of local government units as well. In the case of Go Negosyo, the business registration process has hastened immensely because of how the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) streamlined processes and promoted the ease of doing business. However, before a business can officially commence, bottlenecks appear as they approach their respective local government units. This is because before issuing business permits, they must ensure that regulations, such as sanitation and the like, are in place. According to a respondent:

That takes time, especially (because) the local government does not have a lot of people and resources to do it right away. Since there are a lot of applicants every day, they need to really site visit (each business) (R3).

On another note, one respondent wishes for local government units to take the initiative, as they are now allowed to:

We observed that as compared to other nations and neighboring regions, the Philippines still has a lot to learn. For instance, regarding agriculture, R2 believes that we do not value and respect food security, as well as our farmers. According to him, the country can learn from China’s attention to food security because, as he learned from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture:

If we can not feed 1.4 billion people, we will have many Chinas broken into different regions (R2).

In the case of Thailand:

Moreover, in the business sector, best practices from other countries are valued, as DTI believes that we can learn all that we can from them to replicate those practices in the country. As stated by the respondent:

After this, these representatives are asked to accomplish a report on the strategies and best practices that they learned and how the Philippines can replicate them to benefit potential target markets, clients or the industry.

We have come to realize through this study that personal advocacies remain one of the main factors that policymakers consciously or unconsciously consider when they file or introduce bills. With a strong passion for agriculture and a heart for the farmers, alongside being a farmer himself, R2 became the principal author and sponsor of the Sagip Saka (or Save Farming) Act of 2016. Aside from this, he has also refiled several bills in the 18th Congress, such as the Coconut Farmers and Industry Development Act of 2016, the Expanded Crop Insurance Act of 2016, the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act of 2016, the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act of 2016. Furthermore, R1, who has pushed for laws supporting MSMEs, as well as social enterprises, noted:

In the culture domain, we had the opportunity to speak with three social entrepreneurs who have founded successful agricultural social enterprises: R4, the cofounder of a social enterprise that produces and distributes locally-grown herbal teas; R5, the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of a dairy cooperative that supports small-scale farmers; and R6, the founder and CEO of a community-supported agriculture initiative. We have presented the list in Table 3.

All social entrepreneurs that we have interviewed said working in social enterprise is not easy. Despite this, they all choose to stay in the profession and operate their social enterprises. Three evident values seen among social entrepreneurs are accountability, professionalism and passion for social purpose. Accountability is one of the values that made social entrepreneurs stay. A respondent said:

Another respondent also mentioned:

To become a social entrepreneur means that you are impacting people’s lives. So, if you cannot take it to the end, do not even start (R5).

Without a high sense of accountability or ownership in their line of work, these social entrepreneurs would have left their social enterprise.

Another value that we saw in the frustration of the social entrepreneur is the value of professionalism. Two of the three social entrepreneurs we interviewed came from a corporate background, and in this type of set-up, deadlines and punctuality are highly regarded. However, Filipino farmers do not know the value yet, as some fail to deliver their commitment on time. At times, the quality of their agricultural produce is also questionable. With this, the three entrepreneurs strive to remind their partner farming communities about their importance in the value chain of the enterprise so that, in turn, they will be empowered to perform better.

Finally, all the social entrepreneurs we interviewed came from well-known universities, backgrounds and personal experiences where they had the opportunity to be exposed to the importance of social purpose. This exposure opened them to a sense of using their skills and experience to help improve society.

For some people, growing up with a sense of privilege naturally develops an interest in social entrepreneurship. This is the case for an entrepreneur, as she mentioned:

Because of these trends, most social entrepreneurs once thought there was a need to have a prestigious background for one to be a successful social entrepreneur. However, this belief remains solely a notion because, as an entrepreneur mentioned:

The most significant lesson that most social entrepreneurs imparted is the importance of asking for help. They believe that the reason why most social enterprises fail is because they fail to ask for help from the rest of the players in the ecosystem. An entrepreneur said:

He also emphasized the help from Gawad Kalinga Enchanted Farm (GKEF) that made him the successful entrepreneur he is today:

Asking for help from other characters of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem enables the social entrepreneurship ecosystem enables social enterprises to accelerate their growth. On the other hand, one entrepreneur emphasized crucial resources that a business could receive through reaching out:

There are a few steps or processes that businesses can perform alone, but at a certain point, asking for help is crucial if an entrepreneur aspires to expand and scale their businesses to another level.

Most social entrepreneurs ventured into social entrepreneurship because of their desire to give back to society. Moreover, these entrepreneurs tend to integrate their interests into choosing the nature of their social enterprise. For example, R4 chose to innovate tea because he was genuinely interested in iced beverages. R6 advocates for organic farming because of her desire to consume organic food. Finally, R5 also chose CalaBoo Dairy Co. because of her love for dairy.

To understand the supports domain, we interviewed three individuals who play key roles in supporting social enterprises: R7, the head of a well-known social enterprise incubator; R8, a development specialist at a university-based center for social entrepreneurship; and R10, the executive director of a foundation that provides funding and capacity-building support to social enterprises. We presented them in Table 4.

With GKEF offering its shared services to social enterprises under its incubation process, Lasallian Social Enterprise for Economic Development (LSEED) is also known for its relatively new incubation program. A support professional said:

Another support professional, on the other hand, said:

The two organizations serve multiple social entrepreneurs at the same time, hence maximizing available resources like mentors and industry experts in accounting, marketing and sales.

In terms of scope, GKEF and LSEED primarily support social enterprises that are in their startup phase, while Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc. (FSSI) supports those that already have a stable economic performance. According to a support professional:

Regarding proximity, access to LSEED is primarily offered to De La Salle University (DLSU) students. A respondent said:

At the same time, FSSI caters to social enterprises from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. This was mentioned by another respondent:

On the other hand, GKEF, which chiefly serves social entrepreneurs from Luzon, aims to increase the accessibility of their shared services in Visayas and Mindanao by planning their expansion in those areas.

To ensure the quality of services that social enterprises get, support structures usually hire experienced professionals, those who have corporate backgrounds, for the specific position needed. This was evident when a support professional said:

Two interviewees, R7 and R9, focus on the agricultural sector for their beneficiaries, with GKEF being located in Bulacan:

While the other respondent told us:

Hence, most of their social enterprises are engaged in the agricultural sector. For FSSI, their funds are generally geared toward supporting cooperatives in provinces.

In the human capital domain, we also spoke with three individuals who are actively involved in developing the skills and knowledge of current and aspiring social entrepreneurs. We interviewed again R8, the director of a university-based center for social entrepreneurship and R7, the one who heads a school for experiential learning, while R10 is the one who leads a social enterprise incubation program at an educational institution. We presented them in Table 5. Through them, we were able to come to know the following.

We came to know that the modules being developed by Ateneo Center for Social Entrepreneurship (ACSEnt) are not only designed for social entrepreneurs. Private companies or professionals can adapt these modules to integrate social entrepreneurship into their systems. As one respondent said:

Accent also believes that anyone can contribute to the development of the ecosystem as long as the universal concepts about social entrepreneurship are applied in their different fields. At the same time, SEED Philippines and National Service Training Program (NSTP) classes by LSEED have also developed modules tailored to introduce and instill the concept of social entrepreneurship in students.

The need for concepts is driven by the fact that social enterprises are not solely profit-driven institutions but also socially driven. Most business concepts today are solely focused on creating a healthy single bottom line, while none are focused on balancing a triple bottom line. As quoted by the respondent:

Today, the challenge for the academe is how to incorporate traditional business concepts into the dynamics of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem.

The approach of this human capital in developing other domains is through understanding the nature and demand of other domains. The respondent said:

ACSEnt willingly caters to their specific training and program requests as they already have modules prepared. ACSEnt was also able to create a system that allows stakeholders an efficient way of learning. Moreover, they were also able to accelerate the body of knowledge of social entrepreneurship by being the first and only school in the Philippines to offer a master’s degree program in social entrepreneurship. For LSEED, students learn about different methodologies and strategies, as well as how to use informal business models and community profiling to create viable projects for their partner communities based on the issues that they have identified. Finally, the SEED program also offers its students the following courses: communication, agriculture and business and management. This holistic approach equips the students with the right mindset and skills needed when starting their social enterprises.

Poverty remains a barrier for students in the Philippines to pursue social entrepreneurship. According to one respondent:

However, different stakeholders in the ecosystem still strive to push forward the integration of social entrepreneurship into the Philippine education system. With the SEED program as a Technical Education and Skills Development Authority-accredited two-year course under GKEF, Ateneo pioneering the master’s program in social entrepreneurship and De La Salle University including social entrepreneurship as one of the NSTP choices, these are recent steps that players in the domain initiated to integrate social entrepreneurship into their respective academic programs so that social entrepreneurship will become a viable career option.

We learned that LSEED contributes not only to accelerating the growth of startups but also to the business aptitude of the social entrepreneur. As a respondent said:

Moreover, he believes that:

We used these insights in the next parts to understand the dynamics of the Philippine social entrepreneurship ecosystem. GKEF, a support structure that serves as a social incubator, started initiating programs like SEED, which aims to accelerate human capital in the country.

Policy. Government institutions and legislators create policies that, theoretically, should address key issues in society, with the ultimate goal of eliminating poverty. Through their initiatives, the key contributions of the policy domain, composed of government sectors, to human capital development include the creation of projects and laws promoting the ease of doing business in the country, the creation of partnerships with organizations and private sectors to provide better training and support for beneficiaries, resource allocation and budgeting for their respective programs and proper project implementation resulting in clear outputs such as increase in wealth and income for farmers.

Culture. This domain functions as the “vision” setter of the ecosystem, determining the future and the direction of Philippine social entrepreneurship. As the domain continuously seeks to create an inclusive future for the development of the agriculture sector of the Philippines, the key contributions of R4, R5 and R6 are creating opportunities for local farmers, translating personal interests into significant agricultural innovations and actualizing their envisioned future.

Supports. Support functions as the “backbone” of the ecosystem that enables social enterprises in the early phase to progress. Captured under this domain are nongovernment institutions (e.g. FSSI), support professions and infrastructure, such as incubators (e.g. GKEF and LSEED). The domain continuously seeks to enable social enterprises to progress and actualize their vision. The key contributions of GKEF Shared Services, LSEED and FSSI are providing business support such as accounting, legal, operations, branding and finance, ensuring accessibility of these services to social enterprises and connecting social entrepreneurs to the right partners. All these outputs aim to ensure a progressive and enabled social entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Human capital. This domain functions as the “brain” of the ecosystem that enables effective and efficient coordination among the domains in the social enterprise ecosystem. Characters in this domain seek to develop the informal structures, systems and processes into an understanding that is comprehensible to all stakeholders. Human capital has the intellectual capability of defining the roles of all the characters in the social enterprise system as it is not only focused on the direct development of social enterprises or social entrepreneurs but also on the development of social entrepreneurial business incubators and other support structures in the ecosystem. The three organizations, ACSEnt, LSEED and SEED Philippines, are known to be the thought leaders of the social enterprise ecosystem.

The human capital domain continuously seeks to develop the capability of current and future social entrepreneurs. The key contributions of ACSEnt, LSEED and SEED Philippines are adapting traditional business frameworks and concepts, conducting formal training and lectures to different stakeholders and ensuring a healthy supply in the talent pool of social entrepreneurs. All these outputs ensure synergy and coordination in the social entrepreneurship ecosystem. We have summarized the findings on the interdependence of the sectors in Table 6. With this, we also presented in Table 7 the analysis of the indicators and insights on why the different domains are connected or disconnected.

We have come to conclude that this study was able to effectively fulfill the objectives set, address the research question and explore the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector in the Philippines through policy, culture, supports and human capital domains (Isenberg, 2011). Through the insights that the researchers gained from the respondents, it can be concluded that each domain works well individually and does its part as a single entity.

However, it is seen that when put together as a whole, the ecosystem connects and disconnects at certain parts and some institutions even play roles and provide additional services that are not limited to their main domain or role in the ecosystem. Aside from this, some of the initiatives offered by some sectors are being underutilized due to a lack of awareness or because they are not specifically what is needed by the entrepreneur. Due to disconnections in the ecosystem, there is still a need to further reinforce these connections to build a stronger social enterprise ecosystem. This should be done through further collaboration and openness between all the sectors to achieve the ultimate goal of building a social enterprise ecosystem.

To add to this, although the Philippines is a very conducive place for doing business, with different resources available for social entrepreneurs to make use of, even without the passing of the PRESENT Bill, the agricultural sector is still very much lagging. It is still the most neglected industry in the country. Growth in the agricultural sector has remained stagnant for many years, and farmers have faced the same challenges over the years. Thus, here lies the need for agricultural social enterprises to continue in their mission of helping farmers nationwide achieve inclusive growth.

On the other hand, despite the apparent presence of social entrepreneurs engaging in the agricultural sector, different players in the ecosystem can work together to engage more people to normalize social entrepreneurship in the country. Furthermore, our propositions were addressed. According to the findings, all propositions are validated. Table 7 presents a summary of the propositions testing.

Regarding the first proposition, the study confirmed this to be true primarily regarding the passing of the PRESENT Bill, given that the government would like to limit the definition of a social enterprise for practical reasons despite different forms and models of social enterprises. As a further matter, there is the notion of government agencies that social enterprises are just another form of business, and there are already several laws in place for support and ease of doing business.

The second proposition is to encourage students and aspiring entrepreneurs to create social enterprises, human capital and support structures, exposing them to social entrepreneurs who share their success stories. In the case of R4, a motivation to go into social entrepreneurship was his attendance in talks created by ACSEnt involving successful social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, one of R5’s motivations for growth was to become the “Human Nature” of carabao milk products. Finally, R6 was inspired to pitch the current business model of Good Food Community because it was apparent that the same business model worked for other countries. Hence, a refined version of the model tailored to the context of the agricultural sector in the Philippines may work for the business.

For the third proposition, there is a growing number of support structures accessible to social entrepreneurs. This includes incubators such as Gawad Kalinga and LSEED, giving budding social entrepreneurs the boost they need to start their businesses. Moreover, there is a vast number of shared services given not only by these support structures but also by the government. The use of machinery, space, access to credit and financing and marketing support are all readily available for entrepreneurs. However, the gap remains because first, not all aspiring entrepreneurs are aware of these support systems, as verified by one of three interviewed social entrepreneurs or second, there may be no support systems available close to their area.

For the last proposition, training and other information sessions are given by different ecosystem domains. ACSEnt already has established modules for social entrepreneurship that larger corporations also use. For students who want to start a social enterprise, LSEED introduces them to social entrepreneurship and gives them lectures and learning sessions facilitated by successful social entrepreneurs. Although not specifically tailored to social entrepreneurship, DTI has a range of training programs and seminars catering to MSMEs through the Philippine Trade Training Center and Negosyo Centers. For agriculture, the newly passed Sagip Saka Act of 2016 provides skills development and capacity building for farmers. With this, and the proper utilization of these available capacity-building programs, the knowledge gap will be addressed and the growth and productivity of the social entrepreneurs and their partner communities will improve in Table 8.

What we have discovered in this study offers valuable insights that can be practically applied by many stakeholders involved in the agricultural social entrepreneurship ecosystem. For social entrepreneurs, the findings highlight the relevance of actively seeking support from ecosystem actors. For example, incubators, accelerators and mentors. Social entrepreneurs can gain access to critical resources, networks and knowledge that can help them navigate the challenges of establishing and scaling their ventures by leveraging these support systems. We also emphasize the significance of building strong relationships with local communities and understanding their unique needs and contexts. Social entrepreneurs can consider these insights by adopting a more community-centric approach and engaging closely with their target beneficiaries to cocreate solutions that address real-world problems.

Policymakers, on the one hand, can consider these findings to develop more targeted and effective policies and programs that support the growth of agricultural social enterprises. We have identified key policy gaps and challenges, such as the lack of a clear legal framework for social enterprises and the need for more tailored support mechanisms. One way for policymakers to address these issues is by working closely with social entrepreneurs and support organizations to design policies that create an enabling environment for social innovation. What they can do, for example, is to provide tax incentives, simplify regulatory processes and establish dedicated funding schemes for these agricultural social enterprises.

For support organizations, such as incubators, accelerators and non-government organizations, the results show perspectives on the specific needs and challenges agricultural social enterprises usually face. Support organizations can consider these insights by designing more targeted interventions that address the unique requirements of social enterprises operating in rural and agricultural contexts. They may want to provide specialized training and mentorship programs, facilitate access to markets and networks and offer customized financial and technical assistance. We have also highlighted the importance of collaboration and coordination among support organizations to create a more cohesive and effective support ecosystem for social enterprises.

In addition to these stakeholder-specific implications, we can also consider broader insights that can be applied to strengthen the ecosystem as a whole. For instance, the findings suggest that there is a need for greater awareness and recognition of the potential social entrepreneurship to drive positive change in the agricultural sector. What practitioners can do is collaborate to develop awareness-raising campaigns, educational initiatives and knowledge-sharing platforms that showcase the impact and potential of these such enterprises. Moreover, the importance of fostering a culture of innovation, experimentation and continuous learning within the ecosystem was also highlighted. Practitioners can work together to create spaces and opportunities for social entrepreneurs to test and refine their ideas, share best practices and learn from each other’s experiences. They may want to organize hackathons, innovation challenges and peer-learning networks that bring together diverse stakeholders from across the ecosystem.

While our study focuses on agricultural social entrepreneurship in the Philippines, we thought the insights and conclusions from this research may have broader relevance and applicability to social entrepreneurship in other international settings. First, the importance of a supportive ecosystem for social enterprises is likely to be transferable to other contexts. The key domains – policy, culture, supports and human capital – are not unique to the Philippines and have been recognized as crucial elements of social entrepreneurship ecosystems in other countries (Bloom and Dees, 2008; Isenberg, 2011). The insights that were captured from examining the interactions and dynamics between these domains in the Philippine context, we believe, can provide valuable lessons for practitioners and researchers seeking to understand and strengthen social entrepreneurship ecosystems in other parts of the world.

Second, the challenges and opportunities that we have identified, including the need for more tailored support mechanisms, the importance of engaging with the community and the potential for social entrepreneurship to drive rural development, are likely to resonate also in other developing and emerging economies. We have come to know that many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America face similar issues of rural poverty, agricultural underdevelopment and limited access to resources and support for social enterprises (Kerlin, 2010; Sengupta and Sahay, 2017). The strategies and approaches practiced by Philippine social entrepreneurs and support organizations to address these difficulties can serve as recognizable examples and inspiration for their counterparts in other locations.

However, it is important to recognize that the transferability of our findings may be limited by the specific sociocultural, political and economic conditions of the Philippines. The historical, institutional and cultural factors that shape the Philippine social entrepreneurship ecosystem may differ from those in other countries and therefore, the specific insights and recommendations we can derive from this may need to be adapted and contextualized to suit different national and regional contexts. Nevertheless, the total approach and framework we have used – combining ecosystem with qualitative research methods – serves as a full template for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and map the social entrepreneurship ecosystems in their own locations. The study’s methodology, which involves engaging with multiple stakeholders across domains, can be replicated and adapted to suit different research contexts and objectives.

Furthermore, this can contribute to the growing body of international research on social entrepreneurial ecosystems, adding important comparative insights and adding to the global knowledge base on this topic. We wish to inform and enrich the global dialogue on social entrepreneurship and its role in driving sustainable development by sharing the lessons learned and best practices identified in our own local context.

Although the study gained insights from the different players in the ecosystem, how they connect and how they develop human capital in the agricultural sector, below are recommendations for future studies to explore this topic further. Given that there are still limited studies done on the social enterprise landscape, specifically in the agricultural sector, future researchers are suggested to explore this sector on a deeper level. First, as suggested by R2, personally getting to know the stories of the farmers, as well as conducting farm visits, are important aspects to gain a true benchmark of their situation and the potential impact that this study could have brought.

Second, studies should not be limited to social enterprises whose beneficiaries are only within Luzon. Visayas and Mindanao should also be explored. Luzon only captures about half of the percentage share in the total value of agricultural production (PSA, 2019), while the other half comes from Visayas and Mindanao, with shares of 17.43% and 35.84% each, respectively. Third, domains beyond the four discussed should also be explored to fully capture the entire ecosystem, as proposed by Isenberg (2011). A suggestion is that future studies include the interactions between all six domains, including finance and markets, as there are still many insights that can be harvested from these domains.

The authors would like to thank all the participants who made the research successful – the social enterprises and their representatives, policymakers and support organizations – their perspectives and experiences gave invaluable empirical contributions. Also, the authors sincerely appreciate the research competence provided by De La Salle University’s Management and Organization Department for this exploratory case study on the agricultural social entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Philippines.