澳大利亚留学生英语论文

在德国一个命名为欧宝的公司首先制造了的缝纫机。后来欧宝成为自行车公司并引入他们的产品阿森纳后，成为全球认可的品牌。

1899年欧宝进入不断增长的汽车市场，欧宝专利的电机车系统，三十年后成为通用汽车公司的一部分。

经营战略

欧宝的业务策略被定义为一个过程，即在对于该公司而言确定业务的最适当的领域中活动。

企业战略被称为成功的关键因素，是在最合适的地区业务的长期计划。有经营策略，经营目标以及成功的关键因素。

成功的关键因素：只有当企业的经营目标已经确定。商业策略的主要目的是确定成功的关键因素

从长远来看对于一个组织来说，一个健全的经营策略是必要的。战略分析是关于变化的大环境是如何影响企业的命题。

公司的经营策略是提供较少，笔耕文化传播，更快，更大，更好的服务或产品。

In German a Company named Opel begins by manufacturing dependable sewing machines. Opel become a brand recognized worldwide after adding bicycles to their product arsenal.

In 1899 Opel entered growing automobile market with the Opel patent- motor wagon system and become a part of General Motors thirty years later.

Business Strategy
Business Strategy is defined as a process, that is, a set of activities which determine the most appropriate areas of business as far as the company is concerned.

Business strategy is a long term plan of the business which identifies the most appropriate areas known as Critical Success Factors. In business strategy, there are business objectives as well as Critical Success Factors.

Critical Success Factors should be determined only when the business objectives have been identified. The main objective of Business Strategy is to identify Critical Success Factors

A sound business strategy is necessary for the sustenance of an organization in the long run. Strategic analysis is about how changes in the wider environment affect the business proposition

The company business strategy is to provide fewer, faster, bigger and better services or products.

The company believes in improving its revenue and profit performance and in order to achieve the same, the company has developed the Vision into Action Plan (VIA) which is a 4-year plan for 2008 to 2011.

The business strategy and the Enterprise System which is the Information system (IS) can be aligned (supported or connected or related or overlapped) each other through the use of various techniques Driver analysis, Balanced scorecard and Critical Success Factors (CSFs).

For the sake of this study, Critical Success Factors technique has been selected.

Initially, Critical Success Factors are defined as areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management.

If the company wants to achieve its settled goals, Enterprise System (ES) has to be taken as part of the overall system of business. Implementation of Enterprise System will support the business strategy of the company in following ways:

The most important support of Enterprise System is on accounting applications. It can integrate cost, revenue and profit information and present them in a granular (integrated) way.

Enterprise system can also change on how the product has to be produced, there is a dating structure which can be settled up which can permit the company to have information on when the product(s) should be updated, that assist the management to keep track of their products by ensuring higher level of quality.

Order tracking is made easier by Enterprise Systems. Particularly if a company receives orders, the ability to track the same can permit the company to have detailed information on their customers.

Since the company wants to be efficient ,Enterprise System has a tendency of connecting various software packages which exists ,therefore, in creating an interface between the softwares, Enterprise System can support the same

There are number of processes that the company may wish to integrate, one of those is design engineering. If the company decides to design a product, the process of actual designing, it is just as crucial as the end result. Enterprise System can be useful in assisting a company to find its best design process.

Enterprise System can also help management on the area of security. That is to say, it can protect the company against crimes such as industrial espionage and embezzlement.

Enterprise System serves as the backbone of the company’s information needs. It offers necessary information needed for business processes in real-time manner. Informations on

Supply and demand can be perfectly coordinated. It assists Managers to know each stage of company operations and performance with just a click of the mouse.

Enterprise Systems are different from other Softwares, they not only change the view of the screen on the Manager’s Computer, but they re-invent the way a company and its entire workforce operate. In other words, a change in the Information System (example a decision to use ES) also will force the company to change its business operations.

Since Enterprise System is various types, ERP HCM (that is, Human Capital Management).It can be supportive in a way of management of Human Resource whereby, ERP HCM can be used to attract the right type of people, develop them, leverage their talents and align their efforts with corporate objectives and finally retain the top performers.

Logically in the third part we have applied the knowledge of Social entrepreneurship and its current practices worldwide to the state of Social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, suggesting and questioning government policies, with a clear goal of proposing a policy package that would help the emergence of a capable and competitive Social entrepreneurship that is ready to face the social problems of the society.

第一部分

社会企业家精神

Part I
The need for Social entrepreneurship
Over three hundred years ago with the arrival of modern capitalism a new era dawned, promising economic prosperity and material progress beyond any anticipations. After the fall of the Soviet Union and dominance of free markets throughout the world, the notion of commercial development and wealth was high in the air. Technological innovations, scientific breakthroughs, social and educational progress, are all without a doubt product of those changes. However more than two decades later the demise of the Soviet Union and communism the perception of all-encompassing change and fortune is waning.

It is true that businesses are growing, technological change is gaining momentum, corporations are increasing their hold all over the globe, and even though due to the financial crises the economy isn’t booming at the present time, capitalism is doing pretty well. Conversely not everyone is getting to enjoy its remunerations. If we look at the global distribution of wealth, we can observe another story: More than sixty percent of people must survive on less than four percent of world income, while the other forty something percent enjoy on ninety six percent of world proceeds. Some regions of the world are worse than others, namely the southern part of Africa, South America and Southern Asia. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider, not only regionally but nationally as well. If we look at the United States, one of the biggest and richest economies in the world, social progress and justice is lacking. For example more than forty million people in the USA don’t have medical insurance and have issues receiving the basic medical care (Obama medical care reform, PPACA is a step in right direction but the actual results are to be seen).

These problems have not been overlooked. In 2000, United Nations have created a Millennium Goal, promising to reduce the world poverty by half in 2015. Today in 2012 we can discern that they still have a long way to go and that their promise might not be fulfilled. Indeed some targets have been met, primarily access to safe drinking water and reduction of extreme poverty (population that lives on less than one US dollar per day), but then again the results in venerable unemployment and lack of food (more than 15% of the world population lives in hunger) are worrying. [1] 

In the words of Muhammad Yunus:

“What is wrong? In a world where the ideology of free enterprise has no real challenger, why have free markets failed so many people? As some nations march toward ever greater prosperity, why has so much of the world been left behind?

The reason is simple. Unfettered markets in their current form are not meant to solve social problems and instead may actually exacerbate poverty, disease, pollution, corruption, crime and inequality.” [2] (Muhammad Yunus, 2008, p. 5)

So what or who can solve these problems?

Some may argue that the government is the solution. If free markets suffer from inefficiencies and problems, governments can use rules and regulations to make things right. Moreover governments are supposed to represent the interest of the nation and all the people within it, so it’s only logical that governments must play a determining role. Furthermore there are social and other issues that can’t be tangled by private corporations or individuals and must fall in to the jurisdiction of the government (for example: financial regulation and monitoring through the central bank, the educational and medical system, etc.). Governments have in their power, the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and policies. They can use a wide variety of measures, including taxes to gain significant resources to address various topics of interest. Yet we can observe that problems are present in social, economic and other spheres. In other words, governments alone can’t be given all the responsibility to solve underlying problems of our society. As any other big and powerful system, they are slow and inflexible, inefficient and can suffer from bureaucracy and corruption. Politics can also play a role in inhibiting the efficiency and effectiveness of a government.

If the government can’t be the universal cure for the society’s social problems, could the non-government nonprofit agencies be the answer? Looking at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, a charitable organization that has given more than 26 billion US dollars to global development, education, health and other areas we begin to wonder how big the impact of NGOs is. [3] Furthermore charity and giving to the less fortunate has been a part of our society as long as we can remember. We could even say that charity, or aiding one in need is native to our core as humans. However charities, non-government agencies, non-profit social enterprises and philanthropic foundations all suffer from a major flaw. They rely on the continual influx of donations and sponsorships from governments, private corporations or individuals. If for some reason (economic crises, natural disasters, environmental catastrophes, etc.) that influx is interrupted, NGOs fall short (they are usually not sustainable). It is only reasonable to conclude that they can’t be held accountable for solving all the social problems due to their naturally set boundaries in efficiency and effectiveness, as well as their limited reach.

One might argue that perhaps multilateral institutions (International institution with governmental membership/funding, spanning several regions) like the World Bank, the IMF or the UN could be the force that will get in the ring with social problems and eliminate poverty, promote economic development and convey the necessary changes. Then again multilateral institutions suffer from similar issues like governments and NGOs: sluggishness, bureaucracy, lack of flexibility and slow adaptation. Moreover the politic influence in these organizations could mean that their goals significantly differ from the social needs of the regions in question (for example World Bank is mostly interested in increase of GDP, no matter the position of poor or people in need).

If we focus more narrowly on the problem and try to reach closer to the communities itself, we can wonder if putting a part of the responsibility for global poverty and other social issues on the shoulders of businesses in the form of Corporate Social Responsibility can provide results. Being more aware of the impact of enterprises on our society and environment while keeping them in line will yield certain benefits. Unfortunately their effect is limited and sometimes even distorted (prime concern for companies is profit and sometimes profit alone), as the companies can use the image of Corporate Social Responsibility for their selfish gains and do more harm than good.

Finally we can look at the individual. It is our belief that an individual or better said enterprising individual, with the support of the government can become a driving force in making social changes and advancing the economy. A social entrepreneur backed by the community and government (in form of government policies and support) can be more efficient, more aware and more dedicated then any government, NGO, multilateral institution, or enterprise by itself. Of course this approach in our opinion would require a dedicated entrepreneur, suitable entrepreneurial setting and responsible government ready to assist as well as a number of other factors.

To summarize we are confident that social entrepreneurship (nurtured and reinforced through government polices) can be a bridge that could link the development of economy and social wellbeing for all, by utilizing entrepreneurial skills and approach for generating not only financial profit but also a much needed social value.

Definition of Social Entrepreneurship
The term “social entrepreneur”, was first presented and coined in 1972 by J. Banks, who noticed that social issues could be resolved using managerial skills and practices. Social entrepreneurship gained relevance during the 1970s and 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s it enticed interest of academics, governments and businesses. One of the people who can be considered responsible for the rise of the term "social entrepreneur" is Bill Drayton (founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, a nonprofit organization dedicated to finding and fostering social entrepreneurs worldwide) [4] .

Even though social entrepreneurship has grown in importance and brought forth the rise of different theories of social entrepreneurship there is no actual agreement on what social entrepreneurship actually is and what it is not. We could say it is a multi-interpretable concept, which is frequently used in a wide variety of things. [5] It is perhaps of importance to mention that there are several schools of social entrepreneurship: the Social Innovation School, EMES, the Enterprise School and the UK approach school.

We could try to define social entrepreneurship as follows:

“Social entrepreneurship can be defined as the development of innovative, mission-supporting, earned income, job creating or licensing, ventures undertaken by individual social entrepreneurs, nonprofit organizations, or nonprofits in association with for profits.” [6] (Pomerantz, 2003)

In other words social entrepreneurship could be seen as a recognition of a social problem and the use of entrepreneurial skills to start and govern a social venture with the goal to generate a wanted social change. Traditional entrepreneurship theory measures performance in profit and return on investment while social entrepreneurship adds a positive return to society (it adds creating social value to the mix) to this. Social entrepreneurship is usually connected to the voluntary and non-profit field but social entrepreneurship can be for-profit as well. In other words a business that dedicates a part of its efforts to a social mission and reinvests profits in the cause can be considered social entrepreneurship. [7] 

Furthermore we could say that Social Entrepreneurship stresses social change instead of profit. Traditional businesses adopt a strategy to pursue short-term profit at the high cost in long-term benefits to society; Social entrepreneurship emerges as a counter measure.

History of Social Entrepreneurship:
The terms social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship although relatively new have appeared in one form or another throughout the history. As mentioned before, the first use in literature was in the 1960s and J. Bank and Bill Drayton are perhaps most responsible for their emergence. Nonetheless we should mention Michael Young (social activist and politician who coined the term "meritocracy") as a leading promoter of social enterprises. [8] If we put aside the term social entrepreneurship, we can actually find that the very concept of social entrepreneurship was present for centuries.

There were several pioneers of social entrepreneurship in the 19th century: Florence Nightingale (famous social entrepreneur that started the world’s first nursing school and was a strong influence on contemporary nursing practices), Robert Owen (a mill owner who pioneered better working conditions in factories and founder of infant child care in Britain, know as well as a founder of the cooperative movement), Henry Durant (French businessman that petitioned for national voluntary relief organizations to help nurse wounded soldiers during the war; his determination induced the establishment of internationalRed Cross) and William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army).

Social entrepreneurship in the early 20th century was a natural continuum. Some of the notable social entrepreneurs: Dr. Maria Montessori (known for the Montessori Method and her Children’s House in Rome), John Muir (Naturalist, writer and inventor who founded the Sierra Club) and Franklin Roosevelt (US President, who can be considered a social entrepreneur for the Tennessee Valley Authority during the Great Depression).

More modern and recent examples of social entrepreneurs could be found in: the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (led by a group of Oxford professors and social activists in 1942), Michael Young (a pioneer of Corporate Social Entrepreneurship and a “father” of schools for social entrepreneurs), Muhammad Yunus (founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh providing micro-financing for the socially endangered) and Jeff Skoll (first president of eBay and philanthropist, known for the Skoll Foundation). [9] 

Seeing these examples and feats of social entrepreneurs throughout the history, it becomes apparent how social entrepreneurship has filled the gaps in society, needs overlooked by the government and how it cooperates with public organizations for mutual good. From their accomplishments we can start to see how business ethics combined with social goals can help deliver substantial social and economic value to a society.

Current Practice
We can observe that in today’s world NGOs, nonprofits organizations, philanthropic foundations, governments, and individuals alike play an important role in promoting, funding, and counseling social entrepreneurs. At the same time social as well as sustainable entrepreneurship is becoming a hot topic and a focus of interest to a growing number of parties. On universities and educational institutions worldwide, we can see a number of programs focused on instructing and preparing social entrepreneurs.

Contemporary social entrepreneur and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 Muhammad Yunus played an important part in conveying the message of social entrepreneurships importance. Muhammad Yunus is a founder and manager of the Grameen Bank. Grameen Banks humble beginning was in 1976 when Muhammad Yunus, then a head of the Rural Economics Program at the University of Chittagong, initiated a research project to examine the possibility of designing a credit delivery system to provide banking services targeted at the rural poor (as the poor were unable to qualify for the loans of traditional banks, due to lack of collateral, high risks, etc. they were left to fend for themselves and endure the low quality of life). The Grameen Bank Project (in Bangla language - Village Bank) started up with the following objectives: offer banking services to poor women and man, eliminate the abuse of local money lenders, create work opportunities in the form of self-employmentfor a vast majority of the unemployed, educate the deprived women so they can be able to run their own business and most importantly reverse the circle of "low income, low saving & low investment" into "low income, injection of credit, investment, more income, more savings, more investment, more income". [10] The project was tested in Jobra (a small village next to professor Yunus’ University) and several neighboring villages, in the period of 1976 to 1979. The Grameen Bank Project soon received the sponsorship and support from the national bank and extended its reach to a wider area. At the end of the year 1983 the Grameen Bank was converted into an independent bank through government legislation. An extraordinary feat is that today the Bank is owned by the rural poor whom it serves (10% of the shares is owned by the government and 90% by borrowers themselves).

Comparable for-profit projects have also been setup in India. A recent example is billionaire Vikram Akula, the founder of SKS Microfinance, who initiated a micro lending scheme in villages of Andhra Pradesh. Even though SKS Microfinance is for profit, it has initiated a sharp social change amid poor women from the villages. Yet some might argue, since this social venture is for profit, that SKS is trying to capitalize on the large number of poor around the world (as the interest rate is 27% compared to Grameen Banks 20%, 8% and 5% respectively, depending on what the loan is used for).

Taking a turn from microfinance we can take a look at youth social entrepreneurship. Youth social entrepreneurship presents an approach to attract and involve young people all over the world to help solve social problems. Youth organizations and programs around the world stimulate efforts of young people to become involved in the social entrepreneurship. One of those organizations is Young Social Pioneers in Australia. The Young Social Pioneers program presents a one year platform of investment, education, skill development and networking for a small group of motivated young people under 29 years old. The idea behind it is to empower young minds to help and drive the change in the society and help make a difference. [11] 

There are many organizations that play a pivotal role in fostering, promoting and developing social entrepreneurship. For example organizations like Ashoka: Innovators for the Public (an organization that supports the development of social entrepreneurship), the Skoll Foundation, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, Athgo (Alliance Toward Harnessing Global Opportunities), Root Cause (nonprofit research and consulting firm that partners with different nonprofits, philanthropy, government and businesses in order to find solutions for current social issues), Canadian Social Entrepreneurship Foundation, New Profit Inc. (a venture philanthropy fund based in Cambridge), National Social Entrepreneurship Forum (a non-profit organization supporting youth-driven social innovations and entrepreneurship in India) and Echoing Green (a New York City non-profit organization operating in the area of early-stage social sector investing, providing seed capital and advice), etc. [12] 

Internet and social networking sites have proven to be a valuable resources for the success and collaboration of social entrepreneurs. Internet allow ideas to travel faster and further, which made them reach a wide variety of interested parties, help networks and investors to advance to global level and achieve their set objectives with virtually no start-up capital. For example we can look at the USA based nonprofit organization Zidisha that utilizes the internet and mobile technology in developing a specific online micro lending platform where destitute individuals in developing countries can interact directly with potential lenders worldwide and find small business loans at a significantly lower cost than otherwise possible (for example Zidisha has so far financed more than 600 businesses and provided financial aid in forms of low interest loans worth of almost 300 thousand US dollars) [13] . Moreover internet permits for the sharing of design resources using open source ideology (open source can be a catalyst for sustainable development as it enables people to collaborate globally on solving various local problems).

We can notice that there is a wide variety of current practices of social entrepreneurship. Some are actualized in the non-profit area, some in profit and some somewhere in between. What is apparent is the trend and practice of Social Entrepreneurship is on the rise and we can expect further developments in years to come.

To summarize social entrepreneurship is a consequence to numerous factors worldwide as well as individual preferences and beliefs. Its importance has been acknowledged by the governments worldwide who are initiating diverse programs to aid its development. Social entrepreneurship is needed as there is inequality in world wealth distribution, government inefficiency and limited funding, calls for social responsibility, increasing awareness (that something needs to be done to better this world) and the rise of post-materialist values.

Organizational models of Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship can take different forms and organizational models. The main concern is if a business can be considered social if it generates a profit. There was a long rooted belief that social entrepreneurship should lay in the field of NFP organizations, since the idea is to find new means -ends relations to generate, deliver and sustain social value. Yet from many examples we can see that social entrepreneurship can simultaneously create social value and generate profits, while the social goals are not being compromised. Some might argue that social entrepreneurship can never reach its true potential without including generation of profit and return on investment, adding that revenue must be incorporated in its core(as this factor is crucial for sustainability). Even so in a recent survey ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ seems to be linked in over 80% of the cases with not for profit sector. [14] 

Based on a Schwab Foundation framework for social entrepreneurship and the utilization of profit in social entrepreneurship we can differ among three different organizational styles: [15] 

Leveraged non-profit ventures

The entrepreneur creates a NFP organization with an ambition (using a social innovation) to solve a market or government shortcoming. In the process the entrepreneur involves a section of society, including private and public organizations, to help drive forward the innovation creating synergetic effect. Leveraged non-profit ventures critically depend on outside funding (usually philanthropic in nature), but the long term sustainability is often enhanced given that the partners have a vast interest in the persistence of the venture.

Hybrid non-profit ventures

The entrepreneur creates a non-profit organization but the model includes some degree of cost-recovery managed through the sale of goods and services to a cross section of institutions (either public or private), as well as to a targeted group in population. Frequently, the entrepreneur forms several legal entities to accommodate the earning of an income and the charitable expenditures in an optimal structure. To be able to sustain the conversion process in full and address the needs of customers, who are often deprived or marginalized in society, a number of different sources of funding are mobilized from the public or philanthropic sectors (funds appear in the form of grants or loans, and sometimes quasi-equity).

Social business ventures

In this case the entrepreneur creates a for-profit legal entity or enterprise to deliver a social or ecological product or service. Although the profit is ideally generated, the main goal is not on maximizing monetary returns for shareholders but on growth of social venture, so that it can reach out to a bigger group of people in need. Capital accumulation does not present a high priority and the profits made are usually reinvested in the enterprise to induce growth. The entrepreneur of a social business venture pursues investors who are interested in creating social value and financial return (in other words combining profits and doing good).

Corporate Social Entrepreneurship
At the end of World War II, with the recovery of post war destruction and the hope of prosperity, joined with the development of the international corporations, many assumed that the corporation would become the new “community”, in which individuals who share common interests and goals would undertake social tasks (for example education or health). Unfortunately this idea overlooked the fact that vast majority of social issues are located outside the boundaries of corporation. Nevertheless this notion presents the very core of the concept of Corporate Social Entrepreneurship.

The notion of the CSE was first mentioned in 2002 in a conceptual working paper which was published in the Hull University Business School. The paper claimed that Corporate Social Responsibility can be motivated by an altruistic desire compelled by managers’ personal values, in addition to apparent economic and political aims for CSR. We could say that Corporate Social Entrepreneurship (CSE) presents a process aimed at supporting business to progress to more progressive and powerful forms of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSE presents a combination of three compatible frameworks: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. Key elements of CSR are: creating and enabling environment, fostering corporate social intrapreneurs, increasing corporate purpose and values, producing double value and building strategic alliances. [16] In other words it’s a phenomenon where a corporation behaves entrepreneurially and socially responsible, keeping in mind the wellbeing of the community in general. There is no clear consensus on what exactly are the boundaries to Corporate Social Entrepreneurship, so consequently it’s not easy to say what companies employ CSE. Therefore it would be possible to see a highly profitable companies like Ben & Jerry as a CSE enterprise (as they claim to be committed to profitability and social/environmental responsibility), Starbucks Coffee (that claims to hold CSR in high regards) as well as nonprofit organizations like Charity: water (non-profit organization bringing clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations. 100% of public donations directly fund water projects) and Greenpeace (a world known independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace). [17] 

Social Enterprise
Taking in consideration everything we have stated above concerning social entrepreneurship, its practices and organizational models we can conclude that social enterprises find their place situated somewhere in between traditional private businesses and public organizations.

European Union definition for social enterprise is as follows: “Social enterprise means an enterprise whose primary objective is to achieve social impact rather than generate profit for owners and stakeholders. It operates in the market through the production of goods and services in an entrepreneurial and innovative way, and uses surpluses mainly to achieve social goals. It is managed in an accountable and transparent way, in particular by involving workers, customers and stakeholders affected by its business activity.”

In other words we can see that social enterprises incorporate highly motivated social aims with entrepreneurial drive of private sector. Using that as a starting point we can create a short overview between social and economic dimensions of the social venture. The economic and entrepreneurial dimension encompass the following aspects: continual activity of producing goods or services, high degree of autonomy, economic risk and minimum amount of paid work. The social dimensions include: an active group of citizens, decision making authority not entirely based on capital ownership, participatory nature, limited profit distribution and clear goal to benefit the community.

In the European Union, or better said in its member states social enterprises have their own position. Due to unclear legal models for social enterprises, they are present in numerous forms: private companies, voluntary organizations, charity funds, associations, social cooperatives and even as unincorporated organizations.

Although their legal model might differ they are active primarily in the next three areas: Work Integration (in form of training and reintegration of unemployed persons), Personal services (for example, care of elderly, childcare services, help for disadvantaged people, etc.) and Local development of disadvantaged areas (in form of neighborhood development, social enterprises in remote rural areas and so on). [18] 

第二部分
社会企业家精神在荷兰的历史

Part II
The history of social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands
Just like social entrepreneurship is a relatively new study in the field of management theory it is a relatively new concept in the Netherlands. Although charity has always had its place in the very religious history of the Netherlands a real entrepreneurial environment for social enterprises didn’t exist until relatively recently. Databases on Dutch charities date back to 1793 [19] when the ‘Zeister Zendingsgenootschap’ was founded. This Christian charity is still active worldwide with their missionary work. Another memorable moment in the history of charities is the first public action to support people in need. This occurred in 1953 after the ‘Watersnood Ramp’ in Zeeland and the South Holland isles. During this disaster the sea dikes broke and big parts of land where flooded during the night. The disaster caught a lot of people off guard. It killed more than 1.800 people and left 100.000 people homeless. The public action ‘Beurzen open, dijken dicht’ raised over 138 million gulden, an enormous amount for that time. [20] 

The current system of social entrepreneurship finds its basis in the rise of the Dutch ‘verzorgingsstaat’ or welfare state in English. This is the system in which the government takes a big responsibility in providing for the wellbeing of its citizens. In the Netherlands this meant the government took accountability for an increasingamount of aspect in the peoples life from the early 20th century and onward. The biggest fields being: employment, healthcare, education and social security.

During World War II the expansion of the system got a huge boost as more and more people became in need of help. This expanding trend however didn’t stop after things started to look better after the Second World War. They system of social security and the welfare state as a whole kept expanding and expanding until in the 1980’s it became unmanageable for the government and almost completely collapsed because of the insane expenditures needed to keep it up. During this time big reorganizations took place within the system to lower the costs. A big part of this was abandoning certain parts of the governmental responsibility and privatizing its efforts in certain fields. This is where the new market for social entrepreneurship emerged, taking over and expanding on government policies looking after the wellbeing of citizens and the community. [21] 

Because there was room for private social initiatives again and there were quite a few social problems to be addressed, regulation for privately run social oriented companies was needed. In November 1994 a trade organization was setup for social enterprises the ‘Vereniging Fondswervende instellingen’. This was followed by the establishment of the trademark of the Central Bureau of Fundraising which provides trademarks for social enterprises labeling them as trustworthy to possible donators. The CBF currently has a total of 1452 registered charity organizations. [22] Next to the regulation of fundraising non-profit enterprises a big increase in for-profit social enterprises has been seen and with this also an increase in for-profit social entrepreneurship platforms.

The current state of social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands
Now that we have had an insight in the history of charities within the Netherlands and have seen how most of the markets for social entrepreneurship have come into being this paragraph will focus on the current state of social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. For this review we will be using a 2011 research by Willemijn Verloop and McKinsey & Company: Opportunities for the Dutch Social Enterprise Sector. In contrast to the previous paragraph, which almost completely focused on non-profit fundraising enterprises, this research focuses completely on the new population of for-profit social entrepreneurs. They define their research subjects as follows: “A Social Enterprise is a company with the primary goal to deliver social value in a financially sustainable and independent way.” So what is the current state of social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands and how does this compare to for example the rest of Europe?

At the moment the Netherlands counts anywhere between 4.000 and 5.000 socially oriented companies. These are all fairly small companies that do not offer a lot of employment or generate big revenues. Our biggest social enterprises have on average a 5,5 times smaller turnover than the biggest social companies in the United Kingdom. The current employment realized by the social sector is about 26.000 jobs. Most of these businesses are active in six different sectors: Cleantech, Biosystems, Civic Engagement, Health and Wellbeing and Education. [23] 

There are many different reasons for the fact that there is such a small amount of social enterprises in the Netherlands. We think that one of those is the current stance of the general entrepreneurial spirit in Dutch society. The Netherlands and the European Union as a whole have had trouble with the image of entrepreneurship and especially its risks for a long time now. In the Netherlands a mistake is in general not seen as a learning opportunity but as failure. Even when someone is completely without blame for what happened the public opinion towards that person will still be negative. When making mistakes generates such fear within the society, this could pose a big barrier for new entrepreneurs, especially when they risk their image for a cause that is not necessarily their own. In 2007 the European commission presented an article dedicated to breaking the stigma around bankruptcy that prevents unlucky entrepreneurs from getting a second chance. Their research pointed out that 47% of all people would be reluctant to trade with entrepreneurs that have already been bankrupt before. Next to this 51% would never invest in businesses that are in financial trouble as they probably think that it is the entrepreneurs own fault and that he should deal with it himself, even though this most of the times isn’t the case. This all leads to a very small amount of bankrupt entrepreneurs to make a second start, even though that is what they really want. A striking example of an entrepreneur who was wrongfully disadvantaged by the bankruptcy of his company is Job Nijs. When his company On The Road Media went bankrupt in 2005 Job Nijs was, as CEO of the company, blacklisted by almost all banks while fraud or personal mistakes had no part in the bankruptcy. This made it near impossible for him to even get a bank account for his savings at any bank, almost ruining him. [24] This is nowadays forbidden by law but gives a good insight in where the entrepreneurial environment is coming from. [25] 

At the present time, five years after the publication of this report, there is still a long way to go towards a more compassionate environment towards entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. The Director of Entrepreneurship at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Rinke Zonneveld also pointed this out as one of the continuous problems in Dutch society. Giving us a disadvantages when compared to for example the United States where a mistake is a lesson learnt and bankruptcy isn’t something to be ashamed of. [26] 

Going back to the research by Verloop and McKinsey & Company (2011) we will take a look at the financial part of social enterprises in the Netherlands. One of the most outstanding findings is that in all sectors almost half of the social companies does not break-even at this moment and that more than half of the companies have a turnover of less than