Extended abstract

There is confusion in the conceptual framework when we talk about social entrepreneurship and the social activities of the church. In many cases, the activities of the church and social entrepreneurs overlap and produce approximately the same results for the benefit of society. However, it is important to know that these are not identical phenomena, and each has its own specificities. In addition to understanding the nuances and significance of these concepts, it is crucial to be familiar with the ways they can interact effectively and competently. This is because, from the research conducted for the preparation of this report, it was found that despite their differences, these two concepts can support and complement each other in a real-world environment.

In literature, these two processes are often described separately. An exception is the study by Siregar et al. (2024), where we read that a meeting point between diakonia and social entrepreneurship is possible. The research results show that the church becomes a social entrepreneur by helping the poor through funding education. Additionally, the church provides training to increase the community's knowledge so that they can create their own businesses. The church becomes a social entrepreneur and shapes its community to also become social entrepreneurs, which is a key finding of this research.

However, the question arises whether this is the case in all churches, or if there are differences. It is important to understand what these differences consist of. In a small attempt to explore these differences, we focus specifically on a relatively lesser-known religious community to the broader public, namely Orthodox Christians and their churches.

The concept of "diakonia" is described in different ways by researchers on the topic. According to Sivov (2015), diakonia can be of three types:

Parish groups without legal entity status,

Small groups with legal entity status (usually stemming from the first), and

Purely church structures created within the church's system.

A study by Molokotos-Liederman (2010) highlights the differences between Orthodox diakonia and the social activities of Catholic and especially Protestant churches. The research presents the specific Orthodox approach to the issue. According to the author, the Orthodox Church does not always succeed in adequately responding to the challenges of the environment. As a result of comparing the work of different churches, the study identifies five factors distinguishing Orthodox diakonia from the social activities of other major Christian communities, namely:

l Otherworldliness and mysticism;

l Lack of a centralized approach;

l Ethnic and national ties;

l Lack of public visibility;

l Limited financial resources.

Schröer, A. (2016), on the other hand, proposes a very successful approach for how diakonia and social entrepreneurship can be combined through the creation of so-called diakonia laboratories. These are groups that apply entrepreneurial practices within existing organizations, with a focus on diaconal social services. The results of a one-year study show that the cooperative laboratory for promoting social entrepreneurship has increased the entrepreneurial competencies of participants and contributed to the creation of new social services.

There is a lack of more data in the literature on how each of the possible groups engaged in diakonia can be trained and which training methods are applicable to the respective groups and contexts. It would be beneficial to deepen the understanding of how these groups function in a real-world environment and what educational needs they have so that these needs can be adequately met.

The research question of the report is: how can Orthodox diakonia and social entrepreneurship be integrated through the methods of andragogy to improve the social impact of the Orthodox Church on vulnerable groups in Bulgaria?

The research problem addressed by the report is the insufficient integration of Orthodox diakonia and social entrepreneurship in Bulgaria. This weak integration limits the church's ability to respond to the social needs of society, while social entrepreneurs also miss opportunities to be helpful. Over time, this problem deepens as society increasingly needs solutions to the growing social challenges it faces. The lack of integration of knowledge represents a missed opportunity for society, which is why it deserves efforts to overcome. Offering a solution in the direction of integrating knowledge and bringing it to the real working environment of church groups and social entrepreneurs, through andragogic and heutagogic methods, is the main research problem of the report.

Challenges for Entrepreneurs involved in regenerative business practices

An increasing number of businesses are recognizing the urgent need to shift toward sustainable, or even regenerative, practices to align with both nature and the societies in which they operate. Several pressing global challenges—such as climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and growing social inequality— are posing challenges for business. Traditional business models, which often prioritize profit maximization without fully considering their environmental and societal impacts, have contributed significantly to these crises. For example in the coming decades, an estimated 40% of all insect species are projected to go extinct, with a loss rate of approximately 2.5% per year, largely due to biodiversity decline in favour of companies’ operations (natuurmonumenten.nl). In response, there is growing recognition that business logic on value proposition, creation and capture has to fundamentally change to align with planetary boundaries, promote broad prosperity, and support a sustainable society.

A sustainability narrative that focuses on the active restoration and regeneration of social-ecological systems is recently being identified in companies en therefore explored as a new topic for management literature. Regenerative sustainability origins from biology and seeks “to cultivate relationships, which provide both life-support and life-enhancing conditions for the global human community within a healthy ecosystem” (Zhang & Wu, 2015, p. 39). The regenerative worldview adopts a systems and holistic approach and acknowledges the interconnectedness of all living beings and their environment (Gibbons, 2020; Hahn & Tampe, 2021). Reed (2007) "ladder of regeneration" conceptualizes regeneration in stages, where sustainability is neutral (not causing harm), but higher levels emphasize regeneration, which improves entire systems. Regenerative practices extend beyond restoration by addressing ecosystem disruptions, recognizing the importance of improving ecological and social systems rather than merely sustaining them. At the same time, they offer a distinct perspective compared to sustainability or circularity models. That is, because it goes beyond net-zero approaches, critically examines the human-nature relationship and takes a holistic, integral approach.

Recent studies explored the implications of regenerative sustainability for organizational studies, providing first definitions and characteristics of regenerative business models. Authors such as Konietzko et al. (2023), Hahn and Tampe (2021), and Wakkee and Drupsteen (2024) point to the development and implementation of regenerative business models by individual companies, cooperatives and/or chains. These regenerative business models are aimed at creating, delivering and capturing multiple values, prioritizing the restoration and regeneration of social-ecological systems. The business logic is reinvented, resulting in the re-organization of the relationships between companies, society and nature. To realize the ambition to aim for net-positive value across all stakeholders, co-creation and collaboration are key (Amir et al., 2023; Konietzko et al., 2023; Robinson & Cole, 2015). Moreover, regenerative business models are place-sensitive and embedded within the local context (Hahn & Tampe, 2021; Robinson & Cole, 2015). Despite these valuable studies, the concept needs further development aligned with empirical cases that are aiming for regenerative business practices.

While literature remains abstract, entrepreneurs already pioneer in this field and can offer valuable insights into how regeneration manifests in practice. This presentation offers exploratory empirical insight into the practice of entrepreneurs that identify themselves as regenerative entrepreneurs. The aim of this study was to gain more insight into their key challenges in striving for regeneration through business activities, in particular the impact they generate. The overall research question of this study was ‘What are key challenges that entrepreneurs face when creating, strengthening and scaling regenerative impact?’

Methods

For this exploratory study, as a start of a larger project, 12 individual interviews and two focus groups were held. The interviewees were selected through snowballing, starting with two entrepreneurs from the network of the researchers. Each of them were asked to propose two other entrepreneurs within the Netherlands that they considered to be frontrunners in this field. In total sixteen entrepreneurs were invited to participate, of which twelve accepted. Table 1 in the results shows an overview of the fields in which the participants work.

All interviews were open and unstructured interviews. The participants were invited to have a 45 minutes conversation to ‘share how they currently contributed to regeneration and what their key challenges where in scaling their regenerative impact’. Each interview was conducted by two researchers, which resulted in extensive notes being taken and discussed afterwards, but no audio record is available.

Results

What stands out in the interviews is that although all participants work on regeneration and are considered pioneers in this field, most of them keep struggling with definitions. As one of the interviewees noted: we wanted to be regenerative, without really knowing what it was (I-3). So, we just started one day and from there we still keep learning. A commonality over all interviews was however that regeneration is about ‘giving back to nature’ and being nature positive. Also, they agree that creating a longer term perspective is key: to think about the impact on seven generations after you (I-1). Noteworthy is that most of the entrepreneurs also incorporated this in their personal life as a way of living: ‘slow and in connection with nature’.

About the challenges

In particular about the challenges being faced by participants, they all mention that building a business around regenerative activities is complicated and difficult. One of the participants noted for instance that in his sector (building and construction) it is almost unachievable, because current construction practices always creates emission and damage to nature (I-7). Nevertheless, they still continue to offer designs of their buildings and the use of regenerative materials as their core business to contribute to regeneration.

A challenge that is listed by multiple participants is to create sufficient revenue to create a financially healthy enterprise, while striving for regeneration. In doing so, a tension that arises is to make choices between short term impact (often financial) and longer term impact, such as restoring nature. This also means that the entrepreneurs sometimes accept B2B assignments with limited impact, but that contribute to survival of the enterprise (e.g. I-1, I-3 and I-8). An additional challenge is that regenerative impact is hard to measure and to show to others; therefore they are not yet able to put a price on the value they deliver.

Some interviewees claimed to have a sustainable model and focus on scaling their impact, either through scaling their organisation or through influencing others to generate more impact. With respect to scaling impact, it was mentioned that this could mean several different things to different people, such as: scalable, replicable, reproduceable in another context. Most important is, as one of the interviewees underlines: scaling impact is not necessarily the same as scaling the organisation (I-12). The only interviewee that aims to scale impact through scaling the organization (I-4) indicates that their key challenge is to hold on to their core values, their impact-driven culture, when the team grows. Another participant (I-5) wants to increase the operational scale, but does not foresee any challenges. Their key challenge lies in changing the sector, including competitors. Mostly the interviewees indicate that they aim to create more impact through inspiring, influencing and facilitating others. Interviewees 1, 4 and 6 want more individual consumers to learn about regeneration (and act accordingly). Interviewees 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 aim to transform their sectors, starting with other businesses in their supply chain or client group. One entrepreneur does not specifically mention the aim to influence others, but does mention the need to collaborate with others in the sector, to reduce fragmentation (I-11).

A key challenge that is listed when transforming the building, agricultural or horticultural sector is the regulatory context. Certification, local rules or national legislation can be hindering. How these different categories hinder each of the entrepreneurs did however not become clear from this study.

Conclusion

This study showed three topics that condense the key challenges participants experience when creating, strengthening and scaling regenerative impact. These topics could act as foundation bricks for further studies:

• Regenerative business model logic: This challenge revolves around the creative process needed to reinvent the business logic for regeneration. How to develop unique selling points and offer a clear value proposition. How to balance value creation and value capture? How to integrate the regenerative worldview throughout the business?

• Scaling impact and maintaining cultural integrity during growth: How can you maintain an impact-driven culture during rapid growth? This also concerns expanding regenerative business models on a larger scale without losing their core values.

• Engaging supply chains and broader market dynamics: How can supply chains be better integrated into regenerative business models? What is the potential of collaborative business models to facilitate regenerative business practices? This also involves broader market dynamics, such as convincing consumers of sustainable alternatives and promoting collaboration in sectors like construction or agriculture.

Several of the identified challenges seem to align with earlier findings from other purpose-driven enterprises, such as social enterprises. The presentation will therefore put these preliminary findings in the context of earlier studies about scaling impact in social enterprises (O’Reilly et al., 2023; Ciambotti et al., 2023) and tensions between commercial and social goals (Audretsch et al., 2022; Battilana et al., 2015; Drupsteen and Meerstra-de Haan, 2024; Siegner et al., 2018).

The Circular Economy (CE) is envisioned as a way for business to collectively use scarce resources more sustainably. While business models for the circular economy have been investigated extensively, the spatial dimension of the circular economy remains under-investigated. In this paper we investigate how frontrunners in circular construction – an industry with salient spatial implications – navigate space. We compare Norway with the Netherlands and Belgium – two contexts with different spatial configurations. The results of 50 interviews, supplemented with relevant policy documents, notes, and observations, indicate that frontrunners in the CE carve distinctions between structure, space, and embedment, with distinct temporal associations. Respondents reconfigure place and embedment in function of respectively social and environmental value, while seeing structure as temporary. In addition, among respondents emerges a novel concept of organic scaling which closely follows spatial and temporal developments in the natural environment. This research illustrates the importance of the spatial dimension of the CE in several ways. It stresses the need to distinguish between different spatial concepts depending on time and function, thus bringing analytical clarity to the CE. Practical implications for the CE are that CE professionals tend to conflate the need for structure, which can have temporary solutions, with requests for place or embedment with long-term social and environmental impacts.

The principal framing of the story of Plato's dialogue Republic is of course the infamous and dazzling war of words between Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus over the definition of justice in Book I. Socrates first juggles a number of conventional ideas around the term justice, but then becomes rudely interrupted by an angry Thrasymachus, who tries to demonstrate in an impassioned argument that the concept of justice, as laid down in the laws of a country, is nothing but the codification of 'the advantage of the stronger' (338c).

But prior to this incident, Plato introduces another element that plays a background role in the framing of the dialogue as a whole. This section is introduced by the family history of the host, Cephalus and his son Polemarchus, in whose house in the port district of Piraeus the entire dialogue takes place. This background framing is the idea of ​​economic rationality, both as a motive for individual action and as a basis for institutionalization.

Princeton professor Josiah Ober has shown in a recent book (Ober, 2022) how fruitful the lens of economic rationality can be when studying the ethical and political ideas of the ancient Greeks. In this article I will discuss this relatively little-studied theme among the ancient Greeks on the basis of a number of well-known and lesser-known passages from literature.

Three preliminary comments about the method used: firstly, Ober always approaches his various projects as a 'multidisciplinary endeavor', with which he consciously crosses existing standard academic divisions between the academic domains of history, philosophy and literature (1998: 3). And although he does not mention these disciplines by name, it is sufficiently clear that he also makes extensive use of the concepts and instruments of social sciences in all his projects. Secondly, Ober studies Greek antiquity carefully and in detail, not as an end in itself but with the ambition to apply it to contemporary questions of politics and ethics. Thirdly, the selections of original Greek texts that Ober picks out for developing teh arguments of his various studies are emphatically not limited to the great well-known classics because he - following Quentin Skinner - uses the approach and methods of the so-called 'historical school'. The idea is that the true meaning and timeless validity of insights from great classics, such as Plato's Republic, is best expressed against the background of a tapestry of works by lesser-known, 'minor' authors (Skinner, 1978).

In this way we will successively discuss the following fragments/episodes from classical Greek literature:

1) the dialogue between Socrates and the arms dealer Cephalus in Republic I (328c-331d);

2) a little further on in Republic I, the manner in which Socrates invokes Homer and other poets in his warning about the corruptive influence that poets can have on the education of the youth (amongt other locations 334a-b);

3) the artful parallel in the story of the Iliad between Agamémnon's initial decision not to accept the ransom offered by Khryses to redeem his daughter (I.10-42); and the main theme of Homer's poem: the quarrel between Agamémnon and Achilleus over the girl Briseis, which endangers the entire Greek mission;

4) the principle on the basis of which the sophist Protagoras calculates his fee in the dialogue named after him (328c);

5) Socrates as depicted in Xenophon's Memorabilia shows even more clearly his contempt for the sophists' pretension that wisdom can be taught and sold in an instrumental manner.

6) the reconstruction of the creation of the first city in Republic II

7) Aristotle's analysis of epikeia in Nicomachean Ethics V

Based on these and other fragments, I will seek to elaborate what the theme of economic rationality means for our current views on business and society.

Because of the size requirements imposed on this abstract, I will restrict myself to discussing below only the first-mentioned fragment, the dialogue between Socrates and Cephalus in Republic I, by way of illustration.

At the opening of the dialogue, Socrates relates how he returns to the city in the company of his friend Glaucon after attending a religious festival in Piraeus. He is then persuaded by Polemarchus and Adeimantus, other friends from his group of followers, to return to the house of Cephalus, a wealthy merchant and arms manufacturer. Once they arrive, a conversation ensues with the master of the house.

Socrates indicates that he likes to talk to the elderly because we can learn a lot from them. This is, he says, because old people ‘have travelled a long road, as it were, which we too perhaps will have to travel, I think we should find out from them what kind of road it is. Is it rough and difficult, or easy and passable?’ (328^e).

In any case, that path has been benificient for Cephalus. He can look back on a successful career. He is surrounded by friends and family and has plenty of time to focus on matters that are important to him. The question then is whether he was successful owing to his own merit or through his inherited wealth. For Cephalus wealth is only an instrument, which enables a just person (epieikēs) like him to be honest in everything (329e-330a). If one is rich enough, one does not have to make difficult choices between self-interest and following the rules of justice.

At that point Socrates asks whether he has inherited the majority (ta pleiō) of his wealth or whether he has earned it himself. Cephalus takes that question to mean how much (poia) he himself has earned (330b). Note that although neither of them mentions numbers, Socrates and Cephalus both argue in terms of quantities: apparently they assume that a person's wealth can be measured on an ordinal scale, probably in terms of a monetary standard such as silver talents or drachmai. Cephalus then gives a brief summary of his family history. He sees himself as a good chrēmatistēs (330b). This Greek term refers to the art of acquiring wealth, which we could well translate as enterpreneur ('one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risk of a business or enterprise' (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary). In terms of the quality of his entrepreneurship, Cephalus places himself somewhere on a sliding scale between his father and his grandfather. On the one hand is the record of his grandfather, Cephalus I, who approximately inherited the capital from which Cephalus II, the interlocuter of Socrates, started and which he managed to double several times. He concludes from this: 'For my part I am content if I pass on to my heirs not less (mē ellatō) but a little more [brachei … pleio] than I hererited.'

Two conclusions follow from this passage: the family must have been wealthy for a long time and, like his grandfather, Cephalus II managed to further expand the family capital. So although Cephalus does not indicate which part of his current wealth he inherited and which part he earned himself, he does say that both forms of wealth growth apply to him. He inherited a smaller fortune and managed to expand it on his own. But partly inherited, partly self-earned is clearly not the answer Socrates wants to hear. What matters to him is that Cephalus does not have that all-consuming obsession with money that is common to many self-made people.

‘Those who have made money take it seriously, as their own creation (hōs ergon keantōn), as well as valuing its use, ‘as other people do’. Socrates compares the mental frame in which self-earned money is seen as one's own creation with the bond that poets have with their poems, or parents with their children. But these kinds of self-made people are often unpleasant company (unlike people who have inherited their wealth (chalepoi … sungenesthai)), Socrates argues, because they have no eyes for anything other than a lot of money (ploutos 330c). Precisely for that reason, Scrooge McDuck is mostly an unsympathetic character in the story of Donald Duck.

In view of the objectives of this paper project, we can underline that this doctrine in Republic I corresponds very closely to what Aristotle says in NE IV (1120b1-14): ‘Men who have inherited a fortune are reputed to be more generous than those who have made one, since they have never known what it is to want. moreover, everybody is especially found of a thing that is his own creation: parents and poets show this’.

A further parallel can be seen in the story of the wealth-hoarding oligarchs in Republic VIII. (to be expanded in the full paper).

Socrates here expresses the aristocratic position that looks down on the compulsive urge to earn money (as opposed to owning money itself) because it is vulgar and corrupting.

Cephalus' family history makes it clear that family heads in all generations had experience with entrepreneurship. Cephalus himself, although not as good as his grandfather, had earned at least part of his fortune himself, and was proud of it.

Socrates' condescension prevents the interlocutors from further discussion about the process by which wealth can be acquired. Hence, instead of elaborating on the question of how the mania for making money is related to an unruly character and a materialistic view of life, Socrates inquires what is actually the greatest advantage that possessing wealth has brought to Cephalus? The outcome of this query is that a wealthy person can afford to remain honest and speak the truth. He can give fellow citizens and gods their due. And Cephalus also puts that principle directly into practice when he ends the conversation with Socrates to devote himself to his offerings to the gods (328c, 331d). Apparently the greatest advantage that Cephalus thinks he has derived from his wealth is that he does not have to fear retribution in the afterlife for any wrongdoing he may have committed during his life.

Based on Cephalus' family history, we may wonder how previous family heads acquired their wealth. And was Cephalus I, the entrepreneur par excellence, also an honest person? Was Cephalus II, who inherited a greatly reduced fortune but managed to restore it to its original level, always able to avoid injustice? And if that was the case, why is he so concerned about his fate in the afterlife at his age?

The dialogue between Cephalus and Socrates concludes with the refutation of a contractual definition of justice as 'telling the truth and returning what we have received from someone' (331c). Socrates' refutation takes the form of a counterexample of a man who borrows a knife from another person, whereby the other person subsequently becomes incompetent. In such a situation, it would be wrong to return the knife because the incapacitated borrower could injure himself and others.

Polemarchus

As the eldest son and heir of Cephalus, and member of an entrepreneurial dynasty, we can expect Polemarchus to also develop into a moneymaker. Where should we place him on the scale of enterpreneurial expertise? The name Polemarchus stands for War-Leader. Together with the military metaphors he uses (e.g. 335e), this is reminiscent of the model timocrat and man of honor in the company, Glaucon. But it is not immediately clear from the rest of the passage to what extent Polemarchus has mastered the entrepreneurship and art of making money to which his family owes its wealth. Socrates applies the counterexample of the knife of the loaner turned-mad to the practice of money lending.

‘if two people are friends, and one gives back money depostited [parakatathemōi] with him to the other whe het exchange is going to cause harm [say having gone mad, he intends to buy a knife], the one returning the money is not giving the other what is owed to him (332a-b)

Figure I: Cephalus’ family measured on the scale of enterpreneurial expertise

See PDF version

Interpretive question about Plato's text:

1. What exactly is the dramatic function of the change between Cephalus and Polemarchus, probably a less good entrepreneur?

More general questions raised by the dialogue between Socrates and Cephalus:

2. To what extent can we measure the quality of entrepreneurship in terms of financial performance?

3. To what extent can we measure the quality of entrepreneurship solely in terms of financial performance?

4. In what sense does (inherited) wealth facilitate entrepreneurship?

5. Is (inherited) wealth a necessary condition for entrepreneurship?

6. How does inherited wealth compare to self-earned wealth?

7. Is an instrumental view on making money (love for money) a necessary condition for financial performance?

Literature.

Lysias, 1930. Against Eratostenes, pp 221-277 in W.R.M. Lamb, Loeb Classical Library 244, Harvard UP.

Ober, Josiah 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People, Princeton UP.

1998. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens. Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule, Princeton UP.

2022. The Greeks and the Rational. The Discovery of Practical Reason, U of California P.

Skinner, Quentin 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge UP.

The fashion industry faces pressing challenges regarding sustainability, prompting a shift towards models prioritizing ethical production, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. In this context, empowering rural artisans emerges as a promising avenue for sustainable fashion, particularly in India's culturally rich landscape. This paper explores the intersection of empowering rural artisans and sustainable fashion in India, examining opportunities, challenges, and implications through interdisciplinary perspectives. Through case studies, literature review, and methodological framework, key themes are analyzed, including traditional craftsmanship, socio-economic dynamics, environmental implications, technology, innovation, and policy implications. Findings reveal the transformative potential of empowering rural artisans, emphasizing cultural preservation, economic empowerment, and environmental sustainability. The discussion underscores the need for collaborative efforts involving policymakers, practitioners, scholars, and consumers to harness this potential and build a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable fashion industry in India and beyond. The paper contributes to ongoing scholarly debates and practical interventions aimed at advancing sustainable development goals within the fashion industry.