Phase I: Negotiating Impact for Resources

  • Urs JägerEmail author
  • Felipe Symmes
  • Guillermo Cardoza


This chapter introduces the first step of the three phases to creating a scaling strategy. These three phases facilitate an “outside-in” perspective as, in the first phase, social entrepreneurs begin to compile their strategy by exploring actors with whom they can potentially negotiate impact in exchange for the resources needed to scale. This includes actors in the same geographical area where the social enterprise works, as well as national and international actors interested in the issues it addresses. A market approach assumes that the value of a social enterprise’s impact depends on how others evaluate impact. For example, a particular impact investor’s means of evaluating impact opens space to negotiate the amount of resources that they are willing to put toward the issue that the social enterprise is trying to tackle, and at what percentage interest. A contextual study can help social entrepreneurs map accessible sources of resources (i.e., public organizations, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), private companies, individual impact investors, institutional impact investors, customers, etc.). These actors have economic and/or non-economic resources and are interested in negotiating the social enterprise’s impact in exchange for these resources. The contextual study also helps social entrepreneurs understand the standards (i.e., which standards are in place and which are missing) for both financial and impact return (e.g., rates of interest, social impact indicators, etc.), and structure their negotiation and scaling strategies accordingly. Thus, phase I takes an “outside-in” approach to scaling by including an analysis of: impact, resources, standards, and negotiation.


  1. 1.
    Goldsmith, A. A. (2011). Profits and alms: Cross-sector partnerships for global poverty reduction. Public Administration & Development, 31(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider, F. (2012). The shadow economy and work in the shadow: What do we (not) know? (Discussion Paper 6423). Bonn, Germany: IZA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, M. A. (2006). Rethinking the informal economy: Linkages with the formal economy and the formal regulatory environment. In B. Guha-khasnobis, R. Kanbur, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Linking the formal and informal economy: Concepts and policies (pp. 75–92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kistruck, G. M., Webb, J. W., Sutter, C. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2011). Microfranchising in base-of-the-pyramid markets: Institutional challenges and adaptations to the Franchise model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 503–531.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jäger, U. (2010). Managing social businesses: Mission, governance, strategy and accountability. Houndsmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jäger, U., & Schröer, A. (2013). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. Voluntas, 25, 1281–1306 (Published online: 3 July 2013).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martínez, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial decisions in strong institutional voids: Opportunity recognition and exploitation, access to financing, and venture capital decision-making (Dissertation). University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leme, A., Martins, F., & Hornberger, K. (2014). The state of impact investing in Latin America. B. Company.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. (2011). Resumen Ejecutivo, Estudio Nacional de Reciclaje. Bogotá, Colombia: Organismo Ejecutor AAsociación de Recicladores de Bogotá.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INCAE Business School & VIVA IdeaAlajuelaCosta Rica
  2. 2.Viva IdeaSan JoséCosta Rica
  3. 3.INCAE Business SchoolAlajuelaCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations