The woven nature of upgrading : an analysis of upgrading in social enterprises engaged in the revival of sericulture and silk weaving in Cambodia

The Woven Nature of Upgrading

An Analysis of Upgrading in Social Enterprises Engaged in the

Revival of Sericulture and Silk Weaving in Cambodia

Danielle D’Silva

MSc International Development Studies

University of Amsterdam January 2016

The Woven Nature of Upgrading

An Analysis of Upgrading in Social Enterprises Engaged in the Revival of

Sericulture and Silk Weaving in Cambodia

Name: Danielle D’Silva Student Number: 10918744 MSc International Development Studies

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

January 2016

Supervisor: Dr. Niels Beerepoot Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Joyeeta Gupta

me with tremendous support without which it would have been an insurmountable struggle to get here. First, I would like to extend my gratitude to our lecturers who were an integral part of my development as a student, researcher, and thinker. Next, to my classmates: congratulations on how far you’ve come and thank you for being a source of commiseration, reassurance, and perseverance—all precisely when needed most. I thank my family and friends, old and new, for listening to the comprehensive and at times inappropriately jargon-filled explanations of my anxieties and successes. I feel lucky to have the continued love and support from many for whom my being here means our relationships are virtual and across oceans and time zones. To the people I’ve met in Amsterdam who I gratefully call my friends, you are the subjects of some of my favorite memories and I can only hope that you remain characters in my future stories. I also extend my sincerest gratitude to Christine Gent, Men Sinoeun, Anak Norm, and the translators with whom I worked in Cambodia. To my mother, Lucy, you have overwhelmed me with your willingness to read and comment on drafts in their worst conditions, not only with corrections and suggestions, but also with words of encouragement, love, and admiration. Finally, I would like to thank Joyeeta Gupta for making it possible to pursue this research and her readiness to explore new topics, and Niels Beerepoot for his guidance—often in the form of provocative questions—that has motivated my own critical thinking and consideration on a topic close to my heart.

preservation of sericulture and silk weaving in Cambodia using an adapted Global Value Chain (GVC) analysis in order to highlight how firm activities interact and thus how SEs can tackle their goals in a multifaceted manner. Current literature addresses economic and social upgrading and downgrading but fails to consider the environmental and cultural activities that are common in alternative trading organizations such as SEs. The research is framed by the question, "How do the forms of upgrading present in Cambodian social enterprises (SEs) working towards the revival and preservation of sericulture and weaving interact?” Data was gathered using in-depth interviews and extensive informal conversations with directors and representatives of SEs, observation, and the collection of press releases and information available on the websites of the SEs. A literature review on SEs and the GVC approach is included to give theoretical context and inform the synthesis of theory.

This study found that in addition to social and economic upgrading and downgrading, these SEs are engaging in forms of cultural and environmental upgrading activities, all of which contribute to overall upgrades. Furthermore, all categories of upgrading activities and upgrades are deeply interrelated. By examining the SEs in Cambodia, this thesis concludes that traditional GVC analysis model excludes proper recognition of the alternative forms of upgrading and therefore cannot properly evaluate the association between types of upgrading. At the practical level, this research concludes that the use of golden silk is fundamental to the SEs in achieving their mission through facilitating a number of upgrading activities at the firm level. Additionally, the supplemental use of white silk is beneficial to diversify end-market reaches. In regards to theory, this thesis proposes the addition of environmental and cultural upgrading to GVC theory to create a more inclusive and comprehensive framework for studying alternative businesses.

Keywords: Social Enterprise; Global Value Chain Analysis; Upgrading; Sericulture; Silk Weaving;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III

ABSTRACT IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS V

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VIII

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IX

1. INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS 1

1.3 RESEARCH LOCATION 2 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 3 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4 1.5 THESIS STRUCTURE 5 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION 6

2.2 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 6

2.2.1SOCIAL ENTERPRISE THEORY ₆

2.2.2SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT 8

2.2.3CONVERGENCE OF SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT 10

2.2.4CHARACTERISTICS OF A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 10

2.2.3 LEGAL STATUSES OF SES 11

2.3 GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN (GVC) 12

2.3.1 GVCAPPROACH ₁₂

2.3.2 GVC,ALTERNATIVE TRADE, AND SE IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 13

2.3.3 UPGRADING 14

2.4 CONCLUSION 18

3. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 20

3.1INTRODUCTION 20

3.2 EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY 20

3.3 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME 21

3.6 UNITS OF ANALYSIS AND CASES 23

3.7 SAMPLING AND CASE SELECTION 24

3.8 METHODS 24

3.9 ANALYTICAL PROCESS 26

3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 26

3.11 RELIABILITY,CREDIBILITY, AND VALIDITY 27

3.12 LIMITATIONS 27

3.13METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTION 28

3.14CONCLUSION 29

4. EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND 30

4.1 INTRODUCTION 30

4.1.1 PRE-KHMER ROUGE HISTORY 30

4.1.2 KHMER ROUGE ERA ₃₁

4.1.3 POST-KHMER ROUGE AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ₃₂

4.2 SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN THE CAMBODIAN CONTEXT 34

4.3 RESEARCH CASES 35

4.4 ARTISAN PROVINCES 35

4.5VALUE CHAIN 38

4.6CONCLUSION 39

5. CAMBODIAN SES: EXPLORING THE SUB QUESTIONS 40

5.1 INTRODUCTION 40

5.2 SELF-IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES 40

5.3 CAMBODIAN SEUPGRADE INDEX (ECONOMIC,SOCIAL,ENVIRONMENTAL) 42

5.4 CULTURAL UPGRADING 48

5.5 CONCLUSION 50

6. CAMBODIAN SES: ANSWERING THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION 51

6.1 INTRODUCTION 51

6.2 CULTURAL UPGRADING RELATED TO OTHER FIRM ACTIVITIES 51

6.2.1PRESENTING THE RELATIONSHIPS 51

6.2.2CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC UPGRADING RELATIONSHIPS ₅₂

6.2.3CULTURAL AND SOCIAL UPGRADING RELATIONSHIP ₅₄

6.2.4CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL UPGRADING RELATIONSHIP 55

6.3 OTHER UPGRADING RELATIONSHIP 55

6.3.1 PRESENTING THE RELATIONSHIPS 56

6.4 UNRELATED UPGRADING ACTIVITIES AND OVERALL UPGRADES 57

6.5 GOLDEN SILK RELATION NETWORK 58

6.6 CONCLUSION 58

7. CONCLUSION 60

7.1 INTRODUCTION 60

7.2 RESULTS 60

7.2.1 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 60

7.2.2 REVISITING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 62

7.2.4 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ₆₃

7.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 65

7.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 65

7.5 SCALING OUT 66

REFERENCES 67

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS 76

CMT –

C

UT

M

AKE

T

RIM

GCC –

G

LOBAL

C

OMMODITY

C

HAIN GDP –

G

ROSS

D

OMESTIC

P

RODUCT GPN –

G

LOBAL

P

RODUCTION

N

ETWORK GVC –

G

LOBAL

V

ALUE

C

HAIN

FT–

F

AIR

T

RADE

ILO –

I

NTERNATIONAL

L

ABOR

O

RGANIZATION LDC –

L

EAST

D

EVELOPED

C

OUNTRY

NGO –

N

ON-

G

OVERNMENTAL

O

RGANIZATION

OECD –

O

RGANIZATION FOR

E

CONOMIC

C

OOPERATION AND

D

EVELOPMENT PRK –

P

EOPLE’S

R

EPUBLIC OF

K

AMPUCHEA

PSD –

P

RIVATE

S

ECTOR

D

EVELOPMENT R&D –

R

ESEARCH AND

D

EVELOPMENT SE –

S

OCIAL

E

NTERPRISE

SME –

S

MALL AND

M

EDIUM

E

NTERPRISE

UNCTAD –

U

NITED

N

ATION’S

C

ONFERENCE ON

T

RADE AND

D

EVELOPMENT WISE –

W

ORK

I

NTEGRATION

S

OCIAL

E

NTERPRISE

Tables

Table 2-1 Social Entrepreneur and Social Enterprise ... 11

Table 3-1 Operationalization Table ... 22

Table 4-2 Social Enterprises in Study ... 37

Table 5-1 Categorized Upgrading Activities ... 50

Table 6-1 Economic, Social, Environmental Upgrading Relationships ... 56

Table A-1 Informant Table ... 76

Table A-2 Field Visits ... 76

Figures

Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework ... 21

Figure 6-1 Cultural Upgrading vs. Economic, Social, Environmental ... 51

Figure 6-2 Overall Relation Network ... 58

Figure 7-1Revised Conceptual Framework ... 62

1.1 Introduction

As inclusive development continues to be a priority, social enterprises (SEs) are uniting small-scale Southern producers and Northern buyers, opening a discussion on ethical consumerism and facilitating the use of the private sector for inclusive growth. While private sector development approaches have received critique for insincerity among other characteristics, scholars argue for development studies “to have a future, it needs, among other things, to incorporate a more realistic and nuanced perspective of how the private sector actors operate” (Knorringa & Helmsing, 2008, p. 1054). Similarly, Sen asserts it is “hard to imagine that any process of substantial development can do without very extensive use of the markets” (Sen, 1999, p. 7). This is not to say the private sector alone is either responsible or capable of addressing the myriad of problems pervasive in the developing world, but rather the private sector has the potential to harness far greater coercive and economic power than civil sector and government agencies, leading to more successful development projects and large-scale impact (Leturque et al., 2010).

In regards to poverty reduction, “most successful developing countries have achieved their success through trade” (Stiglitz 2006, p. 63). In a time where globalization has taken over the formation of the market, there lies an opportunity to adjust it from the inside. SEs can take advantage of the diversified and transnational value chains that are present in the international market, seeking to connect local producers to Western buyers and implement a ‘trade, not aid’ framework fueled by ethical consumers. Furthermore, increased participation in global value chains (GVCs) and therefore diversification of market reaches, along with upgrading and value adding within them, is linked to substantial increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, particularly in developing countries (UNCTAD, 2013). Better understanding how SEs interact within a GVC context enables the maximization of their potential for poverty reduction, and in the case of the Cambodian SEs included in this research, cultural preservation.

1.2 Social Enterprises and Global Value Chain Analysis

While the economic growth created by stable and flourishing private sector firms contributes positively to development in itself (UNCTAD, 2013), SEs in the Global South further contribute by targeting social concerns and creating sustainable reinventions of pre-existing aid programs locally. For a country such as Cambodia, SEs play an important role of re-empowering populations, improving working conditions,

and creating alternative job opportunities for those who would otherwise turn to oppressive factories or exploitative sex and labor trafficking systems (Clean Clothes Campaign). Beyond their social missions, many SEs, and those featured in this research, are striving for the preservation of cultural traditions (particularly sericulture and weaving) that are at risk of disappearing (Quan & Li, 2014; Chaudhary, 2013).

Social Entrepreneurship combines economic value generating ventures with social value creation, helping to bring fairer trading practices into the currently ‘unfair’ market, as well as create economically and environmentally sustainable socially motivated endeavors (Perrini and Vurro, 2006). Emerging in the 1980s, SE has expanded out of the developed world, finding a place in least developed countries (LDCs) and emerging economies and bolstering the partnership between private sector and development. Finding a balance between traditional nonprofit and for-profit status, SEs strategically use their different types of value creation to continue to upgrade and access higher-value chains.

In order for these SEs to succeed both economically and in their social mission, proper evaluative tools are necessary. For this, GVC analysis can support these SEs in strategically upgrading and downgrading, economically or socially, in order to access desired-value chains. GVCs allow for the examination of the entire value chain. With the globalized state of the world, value chains are similarly transnational, making it difficult to facilitate good governance practices throughout, as well as gather a conclusive view of the total system (Gereffi, 1996). GVC analysis allows one to examine any and all parts of the chain, focusing specifically on economic and social upgrading in order to ascertain how a firm can access a higher-value chain and the various affects of their actions. We must now “not only take account of changes in the organization of production and trade on a global scale, but also examine the role of emerging economies as new sources of demand and production competencies in the global economy” to fully understand complex value chains and the market in their new globalized form (Gereffi & Lee, 2014, p. 12).

1.3 Research Location

The Southeast Asian country of Cambodia has been overwrought with inter and intra national conflict and corruption for decades, stagnating the country’s development and leaving development efforts in disarray. Many of the issues that plague the country today can be traced back to the Khmer Rouge era in which one quarter of the population was killed at the hands of Pol Pot and his followers (Chandler,

1992). While the genocide is well known, few realize the cultural decimation that simultaneously occurred, ending the transfer of cultural knowledge and ridding the country of the resources necessary to carry them through to the next generation (Falls & Smith, 2011).

While in the 1980s Cambodia received an unprecedented number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and NGO workers, the current period is seeing the transition from NGO to social business (Quan & Li, 2014). These enterprises are tapping into the alternative trade markets address untraditional demands they dictate, such as social and environmental standards. An identifying feature of many Cambodian SEs is their mission to revive and preserve the fading traditions of sericulture and silk weaving. Their innovation and ability to weave together their cultural mission with very real economic, environmental and social outcomes warrants attention.

The SEs included in the study employ artisans across many of the country’s provinces, primarily including Phnom Penh Municipality, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom, Takeo, and Siem Reap. Many of these provinces are traditionally weaving areas and are of the poorest provinces in the country.

1.1 Problem Statement

SEs in Cambodia are ambitiously tackling economic, social, and environmental concerns while they attempt to preserve and revive the ancient craft of golden silk production and weaving. In order to be successful in their mission, they must integrate into the appropriate global value chain and recognize how the complex network of activities in which they engage and how they contribute to their overarching and various goals. While the SEs themselves are located in the cities of Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, their artisans live in rural villages across several of the country’s provinces. With successful access to markets and stronger and informed cohesion among their activities, these SEs have the potential to aid in poverty reduction, increase rural livelihoods, and preserve and revive the waning traditions of sericulture and weaving, which are emblematic of Cambodian history, identity, and pride. To better understand the activities taking place within the SEs to both reach markets and fulfill their social and cultural missions, this research is influenced heavily by Gereffi’s body of work on GVC analysis, his collaborative papers on social upgrading, and Marchi et al.’s (2013) approach to the inclusion of environmental upgrading. This research explores the relationship between all types of upgrading occurring in the firms. Existing value chain analysis is disproportionately focused on economic activities, despite the need to sufficiently address the full range of SEs’ activities and social motivations.

While recent GVC literature has expanded to include analysis of social and environmental upgrading and downgrading, cultural value generating activities are still not unexplored. In the context of alternative trade, it is crucial to expand upon the cultural value generation occurring as an outcome of these SEs’ actions. In order to generate these findings, qualitative research was conducted throughout Cambodia exploring the activities of five SEs specifically seeking the preservation of weaving and sericulture.

1.4 Research Questions

The aim of this research is to explore the types of upgrading, particularly cultural, occurring in Cambodian SEs that are devoted to the revival and preservation of sericulture and weaving in order to contribute a new concept to GVC and SE theory and provide empirical evidence for such an addition. To explore this, the following question frames this thesis:

How do the forms of upgrading present in Cambodian social enterprises (SEs) working towards the revival and preservation of sericulture and weaving interact?

In order to answer this question effectively, the following sub-research questions are employed. 1. How do SEs in Cambodia define ‘Social Entrepreneurship’?

This sub-question contributes to the collection of data showing how the SE representative themselves conceptualize the SE and the firm activities.

2. What are the dimensions of cultural upgrading, and how is cultural upgrading performed by the research cases?

2. What are the forms of upgrading taking place in the research cases?

This research identifies the categories of upgrades occurring in social enterprises in order to examine their relationship to one another.

3. What upgrading is present in the SEs?

By answering this sub-question, and framing it in the context of the previous sub-question, we are able to better understand the activities at the firm level in SEs in Cambodia and use the findings to answer the overall research question.

1.5 Thesis Structure

Following this first introductory chapter, the second chapter will present the theoretical framework, exploring the concepts of social entrepreneurship/enterprise and GVC analysis. It will illustrate the similarities in the discourse surrounding the two topics, as well as the practicalities in combining them. Finally, it will discuss the gaps in theory that this thesis seeks to identify and provide evidence for enhancing the GVC approach for the purposes of evaluating the value chains in which social enterprises are embedded.

The third chapter will present the methodology used in this study, exploring the conceptual scheme, operationalization of concepts, description of research design, population and units of analysis, methods of observation and analysis, validity and reliability, ethical considerations, and finally limitations.

Chapter 4 explores the research context providing the history of Cambodia and its current state. It continues with a brief section on SEs in Cambodia followed by a presentation of the selected cases. The chapter highlights the provinces in which these SEs operate, the value chain in which they are embedded, and the features of the SEs.

Chapter 5 presents the first phase of data by answering the sub research questions. It begins with a discussion of how the cases articulate their identity as SEs. It also elaborates on the proposed concept of cultural upgrading, giving its dimensions and empirical evidence for its inclusion. Its final section examines the upgrading activities identified in the research and categorizes them.

Chapter 6 delivers the final data analysis, exploring the relationships between the activities detailed in Chapter 5. Presenting graphical and written analysis of the data, the chapter first explores cultural upgrading’s relationship with the other forms of upgrading and subsequently explores the relationships that occur between the remaining three categories of upgrading.

The final and seventh chapter ends the thesis with a discussion of the findings and their practical and theoretical contributions. It also contains suggestions for future research and policy recommendations, as well as providing evidence of potential application of the research findings in other contexts.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the concepts of social enterprise (SE) and social entrepreneurship, as well as Global Value Chain (GVC) analysis and types of upgrading to give the theoretical context to this study and highlight the ways in which the two theoretical points of departure intersect and assist each other in investigating private sector development (PSD) in LDCs. It will begin with an introduction to social entrepreneurship, discussing the difficulties in formulating a precise definition, and thus breaking it down into its sub-parts of ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘social’. By exploring the traditional concept of ‘entrepreneur,’ this theoretical framework provides the reader with a base from which he can explore the nuanced definition of the fused concept. The theoretical framework will then explore the idea of ‘social’, the difficulties and error in asserting there is one singular social good, and finally, the idea of social value creation. It will provide common characteristics of SEs and their role in economic growth and development as well as a brief overview of the literature contemplating the implementation of SE legal frameworks.

Following the section on social enterprise and entrepreneurship, the theoretical framework will give an introduction to GVC analysis, its origin, and the need for such an approach. The section will then turn to GVC in relation to alternative trading organizations (ATOs) in the Global South, in order to integrate the ideas of SE and GVC. This section highlights the similarity in discourse of the two concepts in regards to their normative power, as well as their ventures to adjust the current market system. The next section presents the three categories of upgrading present in the literature—economic, social, and environmental—their dimensions, and the significance of including them in GVC analysis. Finally, the theoretical framework will conclude with a short section on theoretical gaps that are to be explored as a result of this research and case study.

2.2 Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

2.2.1 Social Enterprise Theory

Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are in many ways blanket terms to collectively identify agents of social change and social value creation supporting their mission with their own innovation and entrepreneurial economic activities (Perrini and Vurro, 2006; Austin, 2006; Haugh, 2006). While socially mindful businesses or similarly identified enterprises have existed since at least the nineteenth century,

‘social entrepreneurship’ as a concept did not exist until the 1980s with the establishment of Ashoka by Bill Drayton, a pioneer in SE (Dees, 2007). The reassertion of entrepreneurs in the market economy during the 1970s led to their redefinition from agents of change in industry to agents of social change (Audretsch et al., 2011). Since then, many of these SEs emerged both in developed and developing countries, innovatively tackling some of the persistent societal problems, as well as driving socially mindful business practices in the market (Schuyler, 1998).

As the concept of social entrepreneurship emerged first in practice, the theoretical conceptualizations of the notion have been slow and difficult to develop (Johnson, 2000). Thus, this theoretical framework begins with the same setback as many in interdisciplinary topics—defining the concept. Social entrepreneurship suffers from being an unforeseen combination of “innovation and social change” within the private sector, which are both difficult to define singularly (Perrini and Vurro, 2006, pp. 57). The theory of social value creation is still in early stages of development, and therefore concise definitions, operationalization, and measurement can be difficult (Dees, 1998). However, quite generally, social value creation is the generation of positive societal externalities through a wide range of activities, products, and processes (Austin et al., 2006). Cho (2006) points to the ‘tautological nature’ of definitions of social entrepreneurship, puzzling over the “social”. He states “the prevailing definitions in the field generally fail to explain or investigate the concept of the ‘social’, treating it as a predetermined and exogenous concept, or one so patently obvious as to require no further explanation” (p. 38). This is problematic, as strong operationalization of ‘social’ is required to be able to investigate further the potential for social value creation in an enterprise.

It seems in order to make the concept of ‘social’ manageable we have reduced it to something more simplistic than it is. As seen in the later section regarding social upgrading in GVC analysis, this often pertains to labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO) (Selwyn, 2013). However, there are many avenues and manifestations of social change. Helen Haugh (2006) argues the difference between indirect and direct economic outcomes, stating that traditional evaluations of enterprises emphasize only the direct outcomes. However, she fails to carry this concept over to that of social outcomes.

It is thus difficult to hinge the identification of social enterprises on their positive impact on society, as this can be an extremely subjective reality. Pointing to issues related to relativity, what may be to the

benefit of one societal group may seem to be an assault on another’s freedom. In this case, who decides? Cho suggests, “if there exist multiple conflicting interests, values, and discursive communities that possess oppositional worldviews and social projects within the public sphere, then to speak of ‘the’ social good may be to engage in an act of discursive marginalization” (Cho, 2006, pp. 42). This then forces one to reconceive the ideas behind social entrepreneurship and the intentions of a social enterprise and makes it necessary to assess the reasoning behind social initiatives and evidence of them existing for ‘the’ greater societal good. Thompson’s (2002) discussion of the social businesses, asserting that in order to be classified as such, profit may not be the driving motivator and the business itself must “belong to society” instead of “identifiable shareholders” or “to the state” indicates that government, society, and private shareholders are separate (p. 415). Indeed, much literature has been set on separating the public from the private and the state (Habermas, 1989; Calhoun, 1992), but social entrepreneurship can, and in many cases does, recombine all three, providing difficulty in embedding the concept in literature and theory (Mair and Noboa, 2003).

2.2.2 Schools of Thought

SE theory includes two major schools of thought, as presented by Dees & Anderson (2006). The first is the Social Enterprise School of Thought, which generally includes NGOs or charities that have added trading functions in order to support their social missions. This school of thought also includes the alternative composition of economic and social ventures—traditional businesses attempting to enhance their social value added and create social impact (Huybrechts & Defourney, 2008). This often occurs in an LDC context, where nonprofits are adding income-generating activities to support their social missions and forming SEs as ‘reinventions’ of nonprofits to create economically viable projects in the wake of large-scale decreases in funding for development efforts (Perrini and Vurro, 2006). In other cases, SEs were formed for the purpose of implementing long-term and self-sustaining offshoots of temporary development programs (Quan & Li , 2014).

Dees & Anderson (2006) define a second school of thought: the Social Innovation School of Thought. This school of thought is closely linked to theory of entrepreneurship and thus innovation. To best understand the theory behind this conception of SE, one should first examine entrepreneurship and then social value.

Though ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘entrepreneur’ are terms frequently used in academic and non-academic contexts, there is not a clear agreement on the definition of the concept (Audretsch, 2003; Bull &

Willard, 2003; Baumol, 1993, Cheah, 1990). Like most multi-dimensional concepts, ‘entrepreneurship’ appears in several scholarly veins, contributing to the lack of clarity in definition (Bull & Willard, 1992; Baumol, 1996). The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) definition of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs acts as a strong foundation for theoretical exploration of social entrepreneurship:

Entrepreneurs are agents of change and growth in a market economy and they can act to accelerate the generation, dissemination and application of innovative ideas. Entrepreneurs not only seek out and identify potential profitable economic opportunities but are also willing to take risks to see if their hunches are right. OECD 1998, p. 11., as cited in Audretsch et al., 2006, p. 7. In this sense, entrepreneurs are the pioneers of the market economy, responsible for both the expansion and innovation of industry as well as the risks associated with it. Entrepreneurs are able to fill this roll; compared to “large corporations [that] resist change” small-enterprises and entrepreneurial firms are more pliable and can maneuver frequent innovation and reinvention of methods and ideas (Audrestch, 2003). While in the past innovation stemmed from large-firms’ respectively large R&D departments, in the current market, Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are able to innovate through non-technological measures as well as utilizing partnerships with a variety of actors (OECD, 2010). Additionally, in terms of entrepreneurship, innovation can be displayed through a number of different activities and is relative. This idea is particularly important when discussing entrepreneurial activities in an LDC. An enterprise may approach a product or service creatively in comparison to its competitors, but may also be considered innovative when it successfully integrates a product or service present in the global market to a domestic market in which it has not yet been introduced (Audrestch, 2003).

Innovation is a key element in distinguishing entrepreneurial activities from other economic ventures. However in the case of social entrepreneurship, the idea of innovation has been shifted. While the traditionally defined role of an entrepreneur is “to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention, or more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way” (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 132), social entrepreneurs are innovative in the social realm, rather than the economic. Some have argued (Dees & Elias, 1998; Reis, 1999; Dart, 2004) that the innovation required to reinvent nonprofits as social enterprises to compete in local and global markets is innovation enough to be considered entrepreneurial for an SE in a Southern context. However, others argue (Perrini & Vurro, 2006; Mair and Marti, 2006, etc.) that innovation emerges in the ways social enterprises seek to handle and mitigate the constantly changing societal

problems they have been formed to address. SEs then become agents of social change through innovative measures and by the means of the economic value they are able to create, establishing a new hierarchy in value generation in their businesses calling for an augmented approach, as this research seeks to explore.

2.2.3 Convergence of Schools of Thought

Dees & Anderson (2006), having presented both of the previously explained schools of thought and still dissatisfied with the exclusivity of each approach, explore the option of synthesizing the two schools and creating a unified Enterprising Social Innovation School of Thought. This particular argument comes from the necessity to have aspects of innovation for a social enterprise to have theoretical basis (Dees & Anderson, 2006). Concurrently, the European Thematic Network (EMES) which has independently developed theories and definitions of SE also proposes the need to include both innovation and enterprise theory within the discourse (Defourney, 2001). To do so, Evers (2001) proposes the use of the concept of ‘social capital’ in order to better align the dual mission nature of social enterprises in an economic context. In this way, theory can reflect the hybrid nature of SE.

2.2.4 Characteristics of a Social Enterprise

At the most fundamental level, in order to be classified as a social enterprise, the firm must engage in “social value creation” (Austin et al., 2006). Differing from traditional enterprises, SEs use their income as a means to create social value and therefore have reversed both the order and importance of types of value (economic and social) (Dees, 1998). Whereas previous models argue that economic value creation leads to social value creation, theory of social entrepreneurship argues the bi-directionality in types of value creation.

Social entrepreneurs are often the driving forces behind social enterprises. The following table presents common characteristics for both.

Social Entrepreneur Social Enterprise

i. Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value

ii. Searching for and pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission

iii. Continually innovating, adapting, and learning, in pursuit of the mission

iv. Acting boldly without consideration of resources

i. Have a clear social and/or environmental mission set out in their governing documents

ii. Generate the majority of their income through trade

iii. Reinvest the majority of their profits iv. Be autonomous of state

current in hand

v. Being accountable for outcomes of activities Dees (1998, p. 4)

social mission

vi. Be accountable and transparent Social Enterprise UK (2012) Table 2-1 Social Entrepreneur and Social Enterprise

The table above lists the defined characteristics of a social entrepreneur, and accordingly, the characteristics of a social enterprise. One can see that there are no criteria based on the field or sector in which an SE will embed nor the types of service or product that shall be created. Furthermore, the social aims for which a firm is labeled an SE is undefined.

SEs cover a wide range of services and goods as their specific social initiatives and methods through which they achieve them bear no importance on their status as an SE (Defourney & Nyssens, 2010). However, a common ancillary goal providing continuity between many SEs is “help[ing] low qualified unemployed people who are at risk of permanent exclusion from the labor market and […] integrat[ing] these people into work and society through a productive activity” (Ibid., p. 37). Such SEs are identified as ‘work integration social enterprises’ (WISEs), and as the ‘productive activity’ through which they achieve their inclusive practices is undefined, WISEs can differ in everything from field to service to size.

Lastly, SEs play a strong role in the ‘trade, not aid’ debate, which has risen over the dependency created in recipient countries in the traditional donor-recipient model and emerged out of the Fair Trade movements in the mid 1900s (Rugasira, 2007). While NGOs and other grant-funded programs attempt to boost economic growth, the reality is instead that “there is no positive correlation between aid and economic growth” (Ibid., p. 58). On the other hand, “value added trade contributes some 28% to countries’ GDP on average” (UNTCAD, 2013, p. iii) while studies have shown increased SMEs are coupled with spurred economic growth (OECD, 2010; Audretsch et al., 2001).

2.2.3 Legal Statuses of SEs

As theory has grappled with how to best navigate the multi-mission aspects of social enterprises (Defourney, 2001), SEs also bend legal structures. Many countries in Europe have implemented a modified legal category, which bridges the traditional for-profit and not-for-profit statuses (Defourney & Nyssens, 2008). On the other hand, some academics argue that the non-profit sector has always included some level of commercial activity and therefore a new status is not necessary (Raz, 2012). The question becomes, then, what effect is there on the SE if a legal status is implemented? While this question needs to be considered on a local level, some initial arguments for and against it can be made

universally. Generally, SEs are forced to choose between non-profit and for-profit status, neither of which effectively reflect the modified nature of their entrepreneurial activities. However, a designated SE legal status would open up the option for alternative funding sources—for instance, an enterprise would be able to continue its commercial activities while simultaneously applying for grants, potentially related to its social mission (Raz, 2012). Furthermore, these ‘single mission’ structures force social enterprises, or ‘blended enterprises’ (as some literature on their legality refers to them and their missions), to similarly apply a single mission governance structure (Reiser, 2010). There are also tax implications associated with which legal structure SEs have available to them, which is something to consider in local contexts (Buzzacott, 2011). While for this research, the context of LDCs is important, studies on newly implemented legal structures for SE has largely been done on the European countries of Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Poland, the UK, and Italy (OECD, 2009). It is argued that “the law can be directed to legitimize a social phenomenon, enlarging a legal concept” and that “legislation is enacted to promote the development of a form of enterprise that over the last decades has shown its potential in terms of efficiency and efficacy” (OECD, 2009 p. 26). Legality of SE in both contexts of developed countries and LDC needs to be further considered in order to inform this debate.

2.3 Global Value Chain (GVC)

2.3.1 GVC Approach

Given the prevalence of private sector development models, be it social entrepreneurship or large industry outsourcing, an effective tool is needed to map and analyze the entirety of private sector activities as they relate to developing countries (Gereffi et al., 2001; Gereffi et al., 2005). For this, the Global Value Chain (GVC) approach has been developed out of several bodies of literature within economics, trade, and development (Bair, 2009; Barrientos et al., 2011; Gereffi, 1994; Kaplinksy & Morris, 2001, Mitchell et al., 2009).

The GVC approach broadly emerged from the World-System’s theory literature, while more specifically developing through the value chain concept introduced by Michael Porter in his book Competitive Advantage (Jackson et al., 2006). According to Porter, firms can achieve access to higher-value chains by better governance of the inter-firm and actor relations throughout the value chain (Porter, 1985). The GVC approach adapts the original value chain analysis to a developing world context while also implementing mechanisms to handle the cross-sector, cross-boundary nature of private sector development models (Gereffi, 1996). Where other trade analysis tools are sector confined, economically

limited, and narrow in nature, “the value chain describes the full range of activities which are required to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use” (Kaplinksy & Morris, 2001, p. 4). GVC has been selected over alternatives such as value threads, links, systems, commodity chains, etc., as the overarching framework as it is the most inclusive of the several variations and allows one to garner a comprehensive understanding of the entire system, conditions, etc..

GVC is a revision of Gereffi’s Global Commodity Chain (GCC) concept and also shares many similarities with the filiere analysis of French scholarship (Bair, 2009). GCC was originally intended to “pose questions about contemporary development issues that [were] not easily handled by previous paradigms” and carefully examine the “macro-micro links between processes that are generally assumed to be discreetly contained within global, national, and local units of analysis” (Gereffi & Korzeniewicz, 1994, p. 2). The distinguishing features of the modern GVC approach and this previous GCC framework is the immense care given to the governance within value chains and systems (Keane et al., 2009), while its treatment of non-static systems and ability to cross national boundaries distinguishes it from the filiere analysis (Kaplinksy & Morris, 2001). Though some use the terms GCC, value chains, systems, links, threads, etc. interchangeably, others, including Gereffi himself, argue for more specificity in the theoretical discussions of GCC and GVC (Bair 2005; 2009; Gereffi 1994).

2.3.2 GVC, Alternative Trade, and SE in the Global South

In simultaneously analyzing literature written on alternative trade and concepts of changing the market from the inside out, the GVC approach organically emerges as a tool for analyzing these development efforts. Alternative trade theory functions under the assumption that alternative trade, through standards and consumer demand, will redirect traditional trade into a more ethical and mindful activity and connect Southern producers to global markets (Fridell, 2007). Literature on GVCs uses similar language: “GVCs show the web of firms that make up the global economy, highlighting the governance structures within them and allowing for the ‘reshaping’ of ‘the traditional patterns of international production and trade’” (Lee & Gereffi, 2015, p. 321). Again in Bair, “not only can local firms access international markets via such chains, but the implications is that firms can actively seek to change the way that they are linked to global chains in order to increase the benefits that they derive from participating in them” (Bair, 2009, p. 30). Lastly, Mayer and Pickles view social upgrading, which will be

discussed in the next section, “as a potential counter-movement to profit driven economic upgrading” (2011, p. 79).

GVC analysis thus becomes a powerful tool in empowering small-scale firms in developing countries from the comprehensive understanding of the overall market structure to the Northern buyer or lead firm. In that, it is possible to consider “how it might also constitute a form of politics—not only a method for unveiling the prevailing social relations of production but also a means for resisting the exploitation and alleviation that they entail” (Bair, 2009, p. 32). By simultaneously focusing on the overarching structure and the individual firms along with their tools to, as stated before, “maintain or advance” within their chains or to higher-value chains, GVC analysis supports alternative trade’s mission to change the market from the inside out (Low and Davenport, 2005).

SE literature largely deals with SEs in a developed country context, rather than developing or emerging economies. This difference alters the way SEs operate, are defined, and ultimately, are evaluated. Many of the evaluative tools for SEs are not designed to consider the nuances that are present in a developing world context, and therefore are insufficient (Storey, 1991). However, GVC analysis successfully combines market and trade approaches with considerations necessary for an emerging economy, and thus can assess how access to global markets can improve livelihoods in LDCs, as intended by ATOs, and how firms can consistently interact in high-value chains (Pegler, 2015; Reed, 2009)

GVC analysis helps combat the failures of individual firms and clusters of firms that are unable to compete in the global market. It explores the way producers can become involved in the global economy by “focusing on all links in the chain (not just production) and on all activities in each link” in order to distinguish between the return generating and return depreciating activities, and finally, contributing to policy recommendations rooted in dynamic and long-term understanding of the global market and its competiveness (Kaplinksy & Morris, 2001, pp. 23-24). Furthermore, GVCs cross-sector flexibility allows for collaboration and communication between the private, public, and civil sector (Hess and Yeung, 2006). This permits an examination of the “conditions under which social value and benefits are likely to be co-created within and across” the sectors (Lee & Gereffi, 2015, p. 322).

2.3.3 Upgrading

This section introduces the concept of upgrading. While in original GVC literature ‘upgrading’ was synonymous with economic upgrading, over the past decade scholars have been expanding their

understanding of firm activities, ultimately recognizing non-economic forms of upgrading. It briefly presents economic, social, and environmental upgrading as in the literature and illuminates the gap in theory in which a new concept, cultural upgrading, belongs.

Economic Upgrading

In early GCC and GVC literature, ‘upgrading’ generally was used to refer “a move to higher value added activities in production, to improve technology, knowledge and skills, and to increase the benefits or profits deriving from participating in [Global Production Networks] GPNs” (Barrientos et al. 2011, p. 323). In recent years, however, GVC scholars have argued the concepts of upgrading must be further specified, and have thus presented the concepts economic and social upgrading. Economic upgrading has been defined as “involv[ing] changes in business strategy, production structure and technology, policy and the organization of markets” (Gereffi 2005, p. 171). Economic upgrading at a firm level can be conceptualized in four divisions (Barrientos et al. 2010, p. 6):

1. Process upgrading: creating higher efficiency in production 2. Product upgrading: the production of higher value added products

3. Functional upgrading: adjustment of set of activities in which a firm engages (May be either diversification or specialization)

4. Chain upgrading: shifting to more technologically advanced value chains (Ibid.)

Traditional trades analyses have for many years focused solely on economic development, and economic upgrading, but have often ignored the societal aspects that are heavily affected by these markets and firms (Milberg & Winkler, 2011).

Social Upgrading

Social upgrading (and downgrading) pertains to the living standards, working conditions, gender equality, working rights, etc. within a value chain, providing a glimpse into the conditions that cause improvement or degradation and highlighting the assumptions that have been made in less nuanced approaches. Embellishing on Barrientos et. al. (2011) with literature from Bernhardt and Milberg (2011), a comprehensive definition of social upgrading is “the process of improvement in the rights and entitlements of workers as social actors, which enhances the quality of their employment” ensuring job mobility, better “working conditions, protection and rights” not only for the purpose of “improving the well-being of worker” but to “also help their dependents and communities” (Barrientos et al., 2011, p. 324; Bernhardt and Milberg, 2011). Examples of social upgrading include but are not limited to wage raises and heightened labor standards (Berhanrdt and Milberg, 2011, Barrientos et al., 2010). Such dimensions of social upgrading have been conceptualized through the ILO Decent Work Agenda (Selwyn,

2013). While social upgrading can encompass a wide range of activities, which have positive societal externalities, the concept can be considered to have two dimensions: ‘measurable standards and enabling rights’ (Elliot and Freeman, 2003; Barrientos and Smith, 2007, as cited in Barrientos et al., 2010). Measurable standards are easily quantified indicators such as wage, or wage increases, where as enabling rights, such as good governance and women empowerment, can be more difficult to measure, but nonetheless are vital social upgrades.

By having access to measurements for both the social and economic activities and separating their cause, effect, and influence, one is able to study the relationship between economic and social upgrading. This has been done in several different ways, including overall country upgrading and downgrading and firm level (Rossi, 2013; Bernhardt and Milberg, 2011, Barrientos et al., 2010, etc.). At this point, many of the vital studies on upgrading have revolved around labor, as labor can be seen to be both a ‘productive factor’ and also ‘socially embedded’ (Barrientos et al., 2011, p. 323). However, despite the extensive study, there still is lack of information and understanding of how quality and quantity of labor relate (Selwyn, 2013). This is illustrated in the following passage:

“Our hypothesis is that there are competing pressures for both outcomes within GPNs as suppliers balance higher quality with lower cost. For example, since functional upgrading implies the need for a stable, skilled and formalized labor force, we can assume that economic and social upgrading (especially in its measurable standards) can be positively correlated, especially when it increases workers’ productivity. At the same time, pressures to reduce cost and increase flexibility might lead employers to combine economic upgrading with social downgrading (for example by outsourcing employment to a labor contractor), although this raises questions about commercial sustainability if quality is to be assured. Barrientos et al., 2010, p 14

This illuminates some of the questions one can ask when looking at the relationship between forms of upgrading, specifically at the firm level. Social downgrading can occur tactically or out of necessity, and in some situations, a social downgrade for some may be a social upgrade for others (Rossi, 2011). Social downgrades can also occur for other reasons: many firms are often faced with the decision of cutting jobs or a implementing a social downgrade (Barrientos et al., 2011). The question then becomes whether more jobs at lower wages, less rights, poorer conditions is more favorable than a superior condition and fewer jobs (this disjuncture can be explored in depth in relation to the SE movement, especially in regards to the garment factory competitors). This example illustrates just one of the many difficulties in measuring impact in the social aspects of a firm, value chain, or entire value system.

GVC approach allows for an analytical framework that is equipped to handle both the economic trends as well as social trends, looking at their unique relationship to one another, as well as the conditions under which strategic upgrading an downgrading can be beneficial to the market, firm, and employee (Milberg and Winkler, 2011). One pitfall of much of the literature pertaining to economic and social upgrading is the assumption that the first leads to the latter (Lee & Gereffi, 2015, Knorringa & Pegler, 2006). However, this is untrue, and unfortunately does not reflect the exploitative nature of much of the industry in the developing world. Barrientos et al. (2011) argues that care must be given to worker’s rights and firms must employ social upgrading to satisfy the demand for high quality products: “to maintain or advance their position in GPNs, suppliers have to engage in a balancing act between maximizing quality (to meet buyers standards) and minimizing costs/prices (to remain competitive to the market)” and does this through ‘tactical’ upgrading and downgrading, both economically and socially (Barrientos et al., 2011, p. 333). In traditional trade, social upgrading can lead to higher quality and therefore a higher-value chain (Milberg and Winkler, 2011). In alternative trade, higher-value chains are achieved whether or not the social upgrading leads to a heightened quality. More simply, social upgrading itself grants access to the higher-value chain, while other components of alternative trade regulations such as environmental sustainability and cultural mindfulness can also provide entry to alternative markets (Renard, 2005).

Environmental Upgrading

Beyond economic and social upgrading, environmental upgrading has also been addressed in GVC literature, though its presence is less established and literature is still limited. Environmental upgrading is defined “as the process by which economic actors move towards a production system that avoids or reduces the environmental damage from their products, processes or managerial systems” (Marchi et al., 2013, p. 65). In the same publication, Marchi et al., provide dimensions of environmental upgrading using economic upgrading as its model: 1) process upgrading: ‘eco-efficiency’; 2) product upgrading: ‘eco-branding’ (ibid). Environmental upgrading is a combined framework of environmental strategies and GVC, allowing GVC to better assess green strategies as they relate not only to the firm, but how the firm is positioned in international trade. While there are still few articles published on environmental ‘upgrading’, the idea emerges in conjunction with more common (and therefore published) ideas such as ‘greening the supply chain’ or other discussions environmentally sustainable value chains. The analysis of environmental upgrading differs, however, in viewing it as “a consequence of the overall

strategic, quality, marketing and production mandates of the companies involved” (Jeppeson & Hansen, 2003, p. 262).

Assessing the Gaps

As noted, economic, social, and even environmental upgrading has been addressed in the literature, yet GVC theory still fails to recognize cultural value added in production. This may be due to the attention given to traditional enterprises, rather than SEs often working within or parallel to the Fair Trade market, often comprised of Southern producers of culturally significant goods for Northern buyers. Many of the arguments used for the inclusion of environmental upgrading in GVC literature can be applied to the inclusion of cultural upgrading. Marchi et al. explain, “GVC literature also seems an appropriate framework in understanding environmental upgrading because it has an explicit focus on activities spanning international borders, yet acknowledges the importance of local and national institutions” (2003, p. 66). However, by replacing ‘environmental’ with ‘cultural’, the argument is still valid. The simultaneous inter and intra-national nature of GVC theory creates space to recognize the local context, including culture and cultural heritage, in the analyses of firms embedded in GVCs. Proponents of culture in development efforts argue that protecting culture is paramount in efforts to alleviate poverty, and to “provide innovative and cross-cutting solutions to complex issues” (UNESCO, Power of Culture for Development). Furthermore, the deficiency of upgrading analysis is particularly lacking in instances when GVC literature is used to examine ethical trading practices and CSR (Goger, 2012), as this type of innovation is present in many ethical businesses and social enterprises prevalent in the developing world, and therefore, such a measurement of cultural activities and cultural value adding necessitates a place in GVC theory.

2.4 Conclusion

This theoretical framework sought to give the reader an introduction to the theory behind Social Entrepreneurship and GVC analysis as they pertain to each other and to a LDC context.

While social entrepreneurship emerged in a practical sense, it is slowly being embedded into a theoretical and academic discourse, from which this theoretical framework drew its findings. While entrepreneurship in the classic sense is rooted in profit-driven motivations and innovation in its products and services, social entrepreneurship instead is socially driven, using its economic value as a

means of achieving its social mission, and innovative in the methods through which it mitigates social problems. The ‘social’ is difficult to define, and many researchers treat it as a topic that does not warrant definition. However, it is necessary to operationalize it for a meaningful and successful discussion surrounding SE in the future.

GVC analysis is a powerful tool in market driven development efforts and aids firms throughout the entire value chain and in all contexts to achieve positions in higher-value chains. It is equipped to discuss social outcomes due to enterprise activities, but has often failed in recognizing the flexibility in cause and effect between the economic and social factors. Recently, scholars have pointed to this fault and have reopened the discussion, asserting that in some cases social upgrading can lead to economic gains, as well as access to higher-value chains. However, GVC’s treatment of social considerations, as social entrepreneurship, is limited. Finally, as can be seen from section 2.3.3, few scholars have published research on the topic of upgrading, particularly the distinction between forms of upgrading, supporting the call for increased attention to this topic.

3. Methodology and Methods

3.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the methods and methodology used in this research, explaining why these decisions were made in order to effectively answer the research questions using the theories presented in the previous paragraph. The chapter first highlights the epistemology and ontology that frames the research. It then presents the conceptual scheme and the operationalization of key concepts used in this research. It will also present the qualitative methods and methodology used for both data collection and analysis. Finally, a brief reflection of ethics, reliability, and validity will be explored.

3.2 Epistemology and Ontology

The position of this thesis is critical realism, attempting to “retain an ontological realism (there is a real world that exists independently of our perceptions, theories, and constructions) while accepting a form of epistemological constructivism and relativism (our understanding of this world is inevitably a construction from our own perspectives and standpoint)” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 3). This research recognizes the intrinsic role that the researchers and informants play in developing an understanding of the world and how they may influence varied interpretations of reality. However, the actions of these social enterprises result in real outcomes and activities within the contexts they are operating, which this research seeks to uncover as best as possible, while recognizing the different perspectives that are contributing to the conceptualization of this phenomenon.

3.3 Conceptual Scheme

Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework [Figure 3-1] above shows the concepts examined in the study. It includes the three types of upgrading explored in theory—economic, social, and environmental—with the addition of cultural upgrading. GVC theory has examined the relationships between economic upgrading and social upgrading, as well as economic upgrading and environmental upgrading. However, GVC theory does not explore the relationships present between social and environmental upgrading, as similarly, it neglects to address cultural upgrading entirely. This research seeks to confirm that 1) cultural upgrading exists and 2) given its relationships with the other forms of upgrading, warrants examination.

Meta-Concept Concept Dimension Variable Indicator Social Enterprise Engaging in Revival and Preservation of Sericulture and Weaving (RPSW) Social Enterprise

Social (at least one of the variables must be indicated)

Women Empowerment

How many women employed vs. men? Do women hold positions of power in the SE?

Is any sort of training provided to women for the purpose of empowerment?

Employment of Disabled and Elderly How does the SE ensure employment of disabled and elderly? Rural Jobs Are the majority of jobs provided in rural areas?

Others? ‘How else does the SE contribute to social wellbeing of artisans or _{community?’}

Enterprise

Sale of SE produced goods Sale How does the SE reach its market?

Product What products does the SE produce and sell? _{What are the other income generating activities?} Majority of revenue from sales Does the SE receive external funding?

Do the sales of products generate majority of income? Revival and Preservation of Sericulture

and Weaving

Sericulture Does the SE use golden silk? _{Does the SE produce its own golden silk?} Weaving Do the SE artisans use manual looms?

Does the SE produce some traditional product?

Upgrading

Social Measurable

Working Conditions How is the working condition improved? Fair Wages Does the SE pay a fair wage? _{How do they define fair wage?}

Healthcare Does the SE provide healthcare or help access healthcare? Unmeasureable Women Empowerment See women empowerment above

Economic

Process Upgrading What activities increase process efficiency? Product Upgrading What activities increase product quality? End-Market Upgrading How do the SEs diversity their end-market?

Functional Upgrading How is the SE adjusting the activities in which they engage? Environmental Process Upgrading

How does the SE engage in environmentally sustainable production process?

Product Upgrading How does the SE elevate environmentally sustainability of the end _product? Cultural Explored in Research Explored in Research

3.5 Qualitative Rationale and Research Design

Given that the aim of this research was to explore the types of upgrading taking place in the Cambodian social enterprise that have a mission of reviving and preserving the cultural tradition of sericulture and silk weaving, and not their impact, qualitative methods were used to explore the topic in depth. Creswell notes, one “conduct[s] qualitative research because a problem or issue needs to be explored. This exploration is needed, in turn, because of a need to…identify variables that can then be measured” (Creswell, 2007, p. 39-40). Precisely, it is the identification of alternative forms of upgrading and their relationships that are explored in this research, laying the groundwork for possible impact analysis and other quantitative methodologically inclined research in the future. Through the in-depth analysis that qualitative methods deliver, this research is able to identify and evaluate the association between forms of upgrading activities and overall upgrades in SEs.

This research is a multiple-case study of SEs in Cambodia working in the silk sector, which strives to better understand their business model and contribution to development efforts, as well as how they can achieve greater success in reaching higher-value chains. Case study research has been defined as “in depth, qualitative studies of one or a few illustrative cases” (Hagan 2006, p. 240) to “effectively understand how the subject operates or functions” (Berg 2007, p. 283). Furthermore, following Berg’s definition, a case study may explore “simple or complex phenomenon, with units of analysis varying from single individuals to large corporations and businesses” (Berg 2007, p. 283). This research intends to contribute to the broader theories of Social Entrepreneurship and Enterprise and Global Value Chain analysis, blending them in order to create a basis for future studies. The authority with which the research can make its arguments is strengthened by its multiple case nature (Yin, 2003). As there is a lack of research on the silk industry and its preservation, as well as SE in Cambodia, this research is exploratory and attempts to contribute to this body of knowledge (Bryman, 2008).

3.6 Units of Analysis and Cases

The units of analysis for this research are the social enterprises with the common goal of reviving and preserving sericulture and silk weaving in Cambodia. There are five cases that have been included in the units of analysis varying in size, makeup, location, and products. Supplemental information from web content and press releases regarding several other organizations has been included in the study.

3.7 Sampling and Case Selection

This research initially employed purposive sampling in the selection of cases and informants. Purposive sampling is necessary in studies that collect cultural data as opposed to individual data (Bernard, 2000). Cultural data refers to the data that reflects wider trends rather than individual behavior. Cases were selected based on the definition of the concept provided in the table above. Given the lack of legal status for SE in Cambodia, potential cases must both identify themselves as social entrepreneurial in addition to matching the criteria outlined above.

Once the initial cases were selected, the directors or high-level representatives were contacted for interviews. From these interviews, the research continued with snowball sampling, asking the informants to recommend other SEs who were engaging, in their opinion, successfully in cultural revival and preservation and had strong social missions. Snowball sampling often helps researchers gain access to informants to whom they may not have been able to contact previously as their informants act as gatekeepers (Bernard, 2000). This provided a more in-depth and diverse analysis of SEs in Cambodia. Purposive and snowball sampling were similarly used in the selection of non SE-representative informants such as experts and artisans.

3.8 Methods

There were three main methods employed in the research process: observations, interviews—informal and in-depth, and web content and press release analysis.

Observation was conducted for the first portion of the research period in field locations to better understand the profile of the SE, their producers, and the products. Given the exploratory nature of this research, the observational period inspired and solidified the proposed operationalization of concepts and thus the conceptual scheme. It was during this time that “an intuitive understanding” emerged (Bernard, 2006, p. 355) and initial stages of rapport were built (Bryman, 2008). The researcher was permitted to conduct observation in addition to every interview, providing extensive information for supplementation. A list of field visits from which field notes were developed and used in presenting and analyzing data is detailed in Appendix A.

Both informal and in-depth interviews were employed to gather data from all categories of informants used in the study. Representatives were most often directors from the SEs selected for this research. In-depth semi-structured, and inherently formal, interviews often served as an initial point of access to the SE through an SE representative. This was the chosen method for these informants as “semi structured interviewing works very well in projects where [one is] dealing with high-level bureaucrats and elite members of a community” as “it demonstrates that you are fully in control of what you want from an interview but leaves you and your respondent free to follow new leads” (Bernard, 2006, p. 212). This style of interviewing allowed for flexibility for the informant to express concerns regarding the future of SE and the economic, social, and cultural development of Cambodia that may not have been shared had it been a fully structured interview. Following the formal interview, SE representatives often permitted the researcher to spend time getting to know their SE either by visiting their rural workshop or spending time in their offices, allowing for extensive informal interviews from which much of the data has been gathered.

When speaking with artisans, informal interviews were conducted. This style of interviewing “is perfect for talking to informants who would not tolerate a more formal interviews” as “structured interviewing can really get in the way of your ability to communicate freely with key informants” (Bernard, 2012, p. 183). Often these informal interviews were conducted in field visits with the presence of SE staff and representative. Their endorsement allowed for access to informants, yet when the interviews became too structured, it seemed as though the artisans were put off by the rigidity of the conversation. The relaxed style of the informal interview assisted in alleviating this tension. Artisans were also interviewed in group settings. Though the format of these group interviews did not align with what is traditionally referred to as a ‘focus group interview’, they did facilitate the “gathering of a large amount of information…in relatively short periods of time” and did permit the exploration of “related but unanticipated topics as they [arose] in the course of the group’s discussion” (Berg, 2007, p. 148). A list of interviews and corresponding relevant information is included in Appendix A.

The third collective source of data collection used in this research is web content and press releases. Every selected SE has extensive information about their practices on their website, addressing their intended actions and outcomes. The SEs provided their own press releases when relevant. These sources of data highlight the activities in which the SE is engaging, thereby revealing their overall social and cultural mission, and ultimately their unique identity as a social enterprise.