Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Social Entrepreneurship: Case Study in Unilever Food Solutions’ Trusted Hands Food Safety Online Training Program

Written By

Pınar Başar

Submitted: April 6th, 2017 Reviewed: September 12th, 2017 Published: December 20th, 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70955

Chapter metrics overview

1,612 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The social entrepreneurship is important in meso (organizational) and macro (policy-making) levels. This paper focuses on a case study in Turkey. “Trusted Hands Food Safety Online Training Program” by Unilever Food Solutions is examined as an example of social entrepreneurship. It is aimed to support food safety awareness in the industry to create and certificate the chefs. Unilever Food Solutions has received the Food Security Special Award, a project developed and implemented by the Food Safety Association. In the first year, 5000 chefs in Turkey intended to complete the education of this field and to have a certificate. It started with the support of professional associations. The sustainability and private sector involvement plays an essential role in this case, which is such an important issue such as health and hygiene.


  • social entrepreneurship
  • social value
  • business models
  • innovation
  • sustainability
  • social impact
  • bottom or base of the pyramid (BOP)
  • growing inclusive markets (GIM)
  • business opportunities

1. Introduction

Social entrepreneurship offers opportunities to improve society using practical, innovative, and sustainable ways. A social entrepreneur is an individual or organization who seeks out to find solutions surrounding social issues environment fair trade, education, health, and human rights. Social concerns are conducting more than financial or market opportunities. It has to be financially sustainable. Entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship also maintain employment opportunities. A social enterprise also facilitates employment for disadvantaged groups. There are niche opportunities for social entrepreneurs which are not suitable for entrepreneurs. Social initiatives represent a concept for the access to services for disadvantaged groups and protection for the environment.

Current fiscal regulations dissuade social enterprises. The tax regulations make it harder to operate social actions. On account of this, the maintenance of nonprofit economical enterprises is risky, while they are treated the same as commercial enterprises.


2. Differences between business and social entrepreneurs

The entrepreneurs emphasize innovation and creativity. They seek new ways to define existing needs. Social entrepreneurs are those who take responsibility and risk for civil society needs.

The authors Say, Schumpeter, Drucker, and Stevenson have important contributions to the issue of the entrepreneurship. Other researches also indicate the connection of the subjects’ entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship [8]. The social entrepreneurs challenge some unique problems [11].

Business entrepreneurs tend to focus on new needs, while social entrepreneurs tend to focus on existing environmental and social problems more effectively on long-term goals through new approaches. Social entrepreneurs are those who take responsibility for civil society needs. While traditional entrepreneurs take risks on behalf of shareholders, social entrepreneurs take risks on behalf of stakeholders. The objectives of social entrepreneurs differ from those of business entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs are motivated in different ways than commercial entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs face similar problems such as establishing and institutionalizing their enterprises. Social entrepreneurs can also experience problems such as defining opportunities and needs, planning, support, obtaining information and resources, creating marketing and demand, and creating organizational structure. Since social entrepreneurs have different motivation and aim from commercial entrepreneurs, they differentiate from commercial entrepreneurs in the way of leadership style also. The leader focuses on change and processes, is a part of the group, and controls group structure and processes. Social entrepreneurs are not a part of the group that is affected by the group or working in the group (Table 1) [28].

Entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship
Tend to focus on new needs Tend to focus on serving more effective long-term goals. Through new approaches
They take risks on shareholders or their names They take risks on behalf of stakeholders
They try to create a business/business They try to create a change
The main motivating factor for entrepreneurs is the idea of starting a new business, starting to work on it, and getting a financial gain The main objectives are the social change from the pursuit of profit and the development of the customer group
The risk of entrepreneurs goes to gain preference and respect Social entrepreneurs are those who take responsibility and risk for civil society needs
The main purpose is profit They can also participate in profit-oriented activities, but they see it as a means to reach their goals

Table 1.

The differences between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

Source: Özdevecioğlu and Cingöz [31].

Another proposal is that the two entrepreneurial types will have different requirements, especially in terms of access to financial markets and risk capital. Finally, in terms of performance management, it has been emphasized that commercial entrepreneurs can develop and use concrete and quantitative metrics more easily and that social entrepreneurship is a front line for nonmaterial elements (and therefore more difficult to measure). The social value opportunity in social entrepreneurship arises at the intersection of human resources and financial resources. Social entrepreneurs must have the ability to bring these internal resources together in an external context. The components of social entrepreneurship are to produce social value, being innovative, and creating resources and sustainability. The social organization mentioned at this point can be a new constitution, or it emerges in the form of joint projects of the existing social institutions in order to increase the scope of influence [7].

Social enterprises are separated from ethical or socially responsible companies precisely at this point. In contrast to companies, the measure of success in social enterprises is not the profits that are achieved, but the positive impact created on society. Another point that distinguishes social enterprises from these companies is that they should be accountable not to their shareholders but to the communities they serve [28].

It is suggested by Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship to establish a board for managing the social enterprises effectively. The corporate governance assures the credibility, complies with social values, and presents the enterprise responsibilities against stakeholders [2].

Another study presents scale of four dimensions about the measurement of social entrepreneurship orientation with a two-stage design with Delphi study. It indicates the combination of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship aspects together [24].

As a result of the case studies, it is understood that the predetermined dimensions of social entrepreneurship are examined extensively. The researches have focused on conceptualizing and not developing a mass-interaction measurement tool that SCALERS gave to name their social entrepreneurship. In traditional entrepreneurial countries, meaningful interventional activities tend to have more social entrepreneurial activities [3]. Social entrepreneurship is built and works for a social purpose. The profits are used for social purposes [10].

The difficulty of the performance measurement conducts the social investor to quest for the control and monitor. The research Rosenzweig [30] shows “impact value chain” first. The main antecedents of the measurement are figured as inputs, which are resources put directly into the venture (e.g., assets, volunteering, or money), outputs, which are consequences of the project managers’ measurement, and outcomes, which are the intended global changes. After the comparison of the desired outcomes with internal output, measures can show an accomplishment [30].

Garrigós, Lapiedra, and Narangajavana researched social entrepreneurship and social value measurement in the Colombian construction industry. The social value rise with the leakage reduction is assumed. The policy aims the effectiveness and economic multiplier [11].


3. Social entrepreneurship and social value

Most of the movements can be seen as small and extent worldwide, but they are interconnected and mutually strengthening each other. When all these things are taken together, it means more than the sum of their components. There is a synergy of these movements. Through social missions and entrepreneurial approaches, all social enterprises create and disseminate social, economic, and environmental values. Whatever the type or sector of the pioneering organization is, “creating value for all” is a precondition for the growth of more inclusive markets [7]. The concept of “sociality” includes adapting the principles of entrepreneurship to social problems instead of profit maximization. Thus, social enterprises are emerging as entrepreneurial or free market-based organizations in solving social problems.

There are many definitions of social entrepreneurship. Social enterprises aim social impact. Social entrepreneurship involves corporate initiatives that invest in individual, or in the form of the profit generated by a new entity, which is planned to be opened by the individual, within the framework of social objectives [7].

According to the definition of GEM, the economic expectations of social entrepreneurship projects are determined according to the costs of the strategies to be implemented. Corporate social project practices, which have become an important part of corporate strategies, have made it possible to achieve common achievements within this understanding. The difference of social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship mentions entrepreneurship as a context, actor (people/resources), deal, and opportunity together: as the PCO equilibrium. The first proposition here is that market failure creates different opportunities for social and business entrepreneurs. The second factor is that the understanding of economic success and social value creation differs between the two concepts.

Social entrepreneurs are individuals who realize social transformation in an innovative way. These individuals are making social enterprise “with the enthusiasm of entrepreneurship, the methods of business, the creation of innovation, and the courage to abandon general practices” [7].

The entrepreneurs create innovations in different ways like “product or process innovation, or a new product or a changed product, or a combination of any” according to the definition of OSLO MANUAL. Product innovations are made through “the use of new materials; use of new intermediate products; new functional parts; use of radically new technology; fundamental new functions (fundamental new products) and process” and the process innovations through “the new production techniques; new organizational features (introduction of new technologies); new professional software” [25]. The social and/or ecological value creation motivates the social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs also aim innovation in a new product, a new service, or a new method like entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs transform the society in economic and social ways.

They may be in the form of cooperative or hybrid models, legally organized as nonprofit-making institutions. Although social initiatives are not yet defined as separate entities in most countries, there are some steps taken in this direction [7]. In the United States, there is differentiation between the Community Interest Company and the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company because of the focus of profitability [1, 24]. Benefit corporation (BC) is another definition according to United States law, which describes a new legal for-profit business entity. It contains the responsibility to return profits to shareholders [33].

The aims of projects that are realized by companies and social organizations are based on three themes. First, identifying the social, cultural, and environmental objectives that are deployed as the basis of the project, second prioritizing the social objectives identified during the project, and third going for profit for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of project implementation.

Social entrepreneur targets to find solutions for the environment, the youth, and various socioeconomic indexed social problem areas. It accentuates that providing employment and income-generating activities for religious, ethnic, economically marginalized groups emphasize the self-sufficiency of individuals. They aim to increase their visibility within the community they live in and to reduce their commitment to social safety nets in a rational way.

The access in long-term capital and the lack of strategic planning, especially in developing countries, constitute the biggest obstacle in front of entrepreneurs. The talent, money, and interest in social enterprises around the world are increasing recently. There are debates about what social initiatives are and what they do in various national and international platforms.

Systematic change is the most important objective. Social entrepreneurs aim to create systematic change, disseminate their solutions, and gain support from the community in the long run, eliminating the problem, while improving similar cases in the areas they deal with. To describe the difference between the social intervention approach and others is that social initiatives are not for to teach only fish or fishing, but instead aim to radically change the fish industry [9].

It is considered that there is a big difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship also in the implementation process. They are so connected like the parts of a whole system. The partnerships like universities and other stakeholders contribute to the efficiency and the innovation. Social entrepreneurs aim to reach two different goals under the roof of a single establishment: to provide social benefit and profit [8].

Social enterprises that function as a commercial enterprise by producing goods and services in free market conditions also direct the income they derive from these activities to social purposes. In this method, the business activity may be directly related to the social problem, but it is also possible that there is no direct connection between them. CSOs adopting such an approach perceive social enterprise activities as an alternative to reduce their dependence on donations and grants and to increase their fiscal sustainability.

Another way social enterprises pursue is the empowerment and capacity building of individuals and communities by creating employment and income-generating activities for disadvantaged groups (women, youth, people with disabilities, minorities, and so on).

Contrary to the first approach, commercial activity itself is seen as an effective tool for social change in this method.

Another approach that is observed in social enterprises is to act in a creative, bold, and entrepreneurial spirit in their commercial activities. Solution-focused, experiential transformations of barriers can be much more profitable than traditional methods of business ventures.

Another common point is that most social enterprises are initiated and maintained by social entrepreneurs. Like entrepreneurs who change the face of the business world, social entrepreneurs are also important tools of social change [10].

The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship offers “models of sustainable social innovation.” The global, regional, and industry transformation and the association with the other stakeholders of the World Economic Forum is in the focal point of The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship [18].

Social entrepreneurship is a concept, which needs awareness and development in Turkey. Social support of universities, associations, and foundations through awards, courses, and studies and governmental support through tax regulations are expected to raise the awareness and interest in social entrepreneurship. The attainment of consumer markets is easier through the internet access and popularity of social media. Additionally, entrepreneurship is the period for innovation development and application. Economic development and also social development are not only evolved through innovation [32].

Entrepreneurship is a combination of production resources and aims the profit. Social entrepreneurs do not focus on profits, mostly the social benefits. The development of social entrepreneurship must be accentuated in the society.

Increasing knowledge-based economies promote entrepreneurship. Social inclusion and economic development constitute synergy for social entrepreneurship. Social enterprise can be defined as “businesses that trade for social purposes.” They are nonprofit entities, which are implementing commercial methods to accomplish their social objectives. The concept is summarized as “mission-driven business approach” [23].

The researches execute the antecedents and the consequences of social entrepreneurship in social constructionist approach [23].

Social capital can be defined as the assets that have as a consequence of the relations of one with others and (in a correlated way) of the participation in organizations: these relations facilitate the access to other resources [5].

Social enterprise must be constructed as a social organizational identity [23]. The social capital is an important determinant for business support. The concept of social entrepreneurship technology is affected through rapid technological change. The changes are adapted for creating social value. New methods are internalized [14].

Social capital is the feature of commercial conglomerates, which have shared values, trust, and culture. So trust is an important dimension of social capital [6]. Entrepreneurs use their connections for funding or receiving credit from suppliers without any formal contract, which is very crucial for the sustainability. Social capital is crucial for equalization and continuance for human development. German and Japanese cooperative and long-term oriented cultures induce them for innovation and industrial development. So the social capital is remarkable in these countries (Table 2) [32].

The Different Organizational Models of Social Enterprises are examined in Table 2. The entrepreneurial approach and social focus are their common point.

There is a “traditional NGO” managed by volunteerism, income-based donations, and social services, while at the other end there is a commercial enterprise which is the main goal of profit. Social enterprises are in the midst of these two extremes as commercialized institutions at various levels in their functioning. For example, many social enterprises employ professional staff, receive consultancy services, and make income-generating investments. However, social enterprises also provide employment and social services to disadvantaged groups, advocate, and thus interfere with various social problems. No social initiative is the same as another (in terms of purpose, target mass, methods, and institutional structures). However, no matter how diverse the commercialization, the approaches, and the environments in which they function, it is possible to find some common interests between social enterprises in terms of purposes and methods [10].

“A leveraged nonprofit enterprise” is not working through an income-earning strategy. The sustainability is maintained through partnerships and funding of traditional donor-dependent model. Its sustainability strategy constitutes dependent independent resources [1]. Leveraged nonprofit ventures’ sustainability is influenced by the partners’ attention.

“Hybrid enterprise” conglomerates features of the for-profit and nonprofit legal models. The various legal structures are used in different countries. In the United States, the low-profit entities are structured as Limited Liability Company. In the United Kingdom, the sustainability of the social activities is afforded by a profit subsidiary in the form of “Community Interest Company.” The entrepreneur establishes numerous legal entities to sustain it financially. It is financed with grants, loans and/or own resources [24].

“Social entrepreneurs” aim to create social change in education, health, environment, and enterprise improvement. A social entrepreneur accomplishes major and sustainable social change through innovations [18]. The entrepreneur establishes a for-profit entity or business which is social or ecological driven. The social entrepreneurs’ main objectives are social and then profit [22].

Entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs are using the same tools and endeavor in market principles and forces for driving change. Social entrepreneurs provide opportunities for marginalized and poor. They find solutions for social issues like education, health, welfare reform, human rights, workers’ rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, and so on [18].

Social entrepreneurship is tried to be encouraged with educational programs and competitions. The financial returns are low, and it complicates the presence of these organizations [10].

A strong financial system is a requirement of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurs create jobs, and so they help to reduce the unemployment rate. Turkey’s economy is growing. The collaborations with international organizations promote economic progress through entrepreneurship. Table 1 summarizes the differences between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

There are many suggestions for the improvement of social entrepreneurship [23]. One of the problems they face is institutionalization which is difficult because the social initiatives are dependent on the social entrepreneurs and it is not easy to survive [3, 4].

The institutionalization of social entrepreneurship education is impeded through limited presidential support, a clear and well-defined vision, and financial problem [27].

The strategies to simplify the increase of social enterprises are legal recognition and regulation; combination of the most innovative organizational solutions; replication process; protection of consumer’s rights; and avoidance of isomorphism. Quasi-market strategies require unusual mix of resources and conformance to local dimension. The network plays important role to accomplish this. It is recommended to change the implementation of employment subventions for long-term unemployed to reduce labor costs. It can be used to lower productivity [4].

3.1. The concepts of new business models

The competiveness forces the companies for a search of new business opportunities. Growing Inclusive Markets (GIM) and Base of the Pyramid (BOP) can be taken into account as important concepts when considering the size of the population.

3.1.1. Growing Inclusive Markets (GIM)

The macro-level approach is based on the creation of opportunities and innovation through defining the markets in another way. There are important aspects of social entrepreneurship. The concepts aim at taking “business for poor” and raise prosperity of the society. Social entrepreneurship operates in a global structure with many stakeholders. The growing inclusive markets (GIM) Initiative is a stakeholder of UNDP. The aim is to find solutions for the global development with inclusive business models. They try to create new chances for better lives of poor people. GIM endeavors for the millennium development goals (MDGs). This initiative creates a big network [19].

UNDP Private Sector Division is working toward the inclusive market policies and projects with sections The GIM Initiative and the Business call to action (Cat). The Inclusive Markets Development (IMD) program is for the advancement of new opportunities. The Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative has two purposes. The enhancement of the recognition includes business models and finds solutions for sustainable human development. The other purpose is structuring market environment improvements with taking actions with stakeholders and changing the policies [16].

As the empirical research conducted by the GIM Initiative reveals, these constraints include limited market information, problems about the infrastructure, reaching the knowledge and skills, difficulties by compensating the financial needs, and ineffective regulatory environments. In addition to the potentially unnecessary bureaucratic processes that can be undertaken in general by interventional efforts, many laws do not recognize social enterprises as separate legal structures. Conditions, laws and regulations may limit their capacity to seek financial and social returns, and force such organizations to merge into profit-oriented or non-profitable legal entities. Social entrepreneurs need to ensure financial stability [1].

Social entrepreneurship encompasses three main types of inclusive business models, as documented in the final report of the Social Entrepreneurship Information Network and shaped in many GIM case studies. First, they can get members to come together and get more value; for example, strong bargaining power, efficiency and volume develop, value chain, and product development increase [29]. The business model is based on the production of handcrafts that are low cost, require intensive labor, consume little energy, and perform with low technology. Table 3 summarizes the Socially Inclusive Business Model according to the social value and the economic value [5]. The initiatives analyzed found business opportunities in low-income sectors. Socially Inclusive Businesses produce economic and social values [26].

Social enterprise
Philanthropic/charitable, and nonprofit organizations Leveraged nonprofit Enterprising nonprofit Hybrid model (an organization with two legal entities: for-profit and nonprofit OR an organization registered under a hybrid legal entity, such as in the United States and Britain) Social business Commercial business/corporations
(Nonprofit legal entity) (Nonprofit legal entity) (Nonprofit legal entity) An organization with a social mission (For-profit legal entity) (For-profit legal entity)
Relies entirely on donations, grants, and subsidies A financially sustainable nonprofit A financially sustainable nonprofit Financially sustainable through its own income generation activities A company with a social mission Generates revenues and maximizes profits to shareholders
Relying entirely on strategic partnerships for sustainability Generates some income, making it more sustainable and strategic Reinvests 50% or more of its revenues back into its core activities

Table 2.

The Spectrum of social enterprises (arranged by legal form and revenue source).

Source: Abdou and Fahmy [1].

Table 3.

Profits and Social Impact in Socially Inclusive Business.

Source: Marquez [23, 26].

3.1.2. Base of the Pyramid (BOP)

The base of the pyramid (BOP) approach can be explained as creating and distributing goods and services for poor people. There are not many companies using the opportunity to supply goods to this group. The international finance corporation reveals that purchasing power is annually $5000 billion of this 4 billion people. The transformation is aimed of this people to customers. The multinational companies have to look from a different window to find out the opportunities in the market of four billion people and assure the capital efficiency.

Prahalad and Hart [13] explained the BOP approach in their study “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” as “The aspiring poor present a prodigious opportunity for the world’s wealthiest companies. But it requires a radical new approach to business strategy” [13]. Prahalad (2004), Hart (2005) and London (2007) are the authors, which have mentioned the base (bottom) of the pyramid (BOP) theory first. The poor society, which is living on less than US$ 1.25 per day, is defined as “resilient and creative entrepreneurs” and “value-conscious consumers” (Prahalad 2004: 1). The concept suggests to create economic openings with collaboration of multinational corporations. It recommends the strategic association with persons at the base of the world’s income pyramid. It assumes to the radical change in the business model. The poor is presented as solution itself and as a resource. In that way can be a win-win position created. The demand of the over three billion poor people is attracting the entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. The financing and social value has to be balanced with low-cost consumer goods. It is contrasting to the mission-driven corporate social responsibility approach [26]. The BOP concept brings “mutually beneficial economic and social incentives” together. It is purposed to produce the own revenues. It is revealing that the partner’s involvement depends on the potential of venturing the needs of the poor people [26].

Based on the study of the famous Indian economist Amartya Sen (1999), which sees the rise of freedom as including the economic possibilities as “a fundamental solution to a basic solution and development” to provide sustainable human development, UNDP considers the markets to be more inclusive. This means that the poor people can buy his needs at affordable prices, meaning that venture capitalization is an opportunity rather than a necessity, access to decent business opportunities, and the ability to contribute to companies’ value chains as suppliers and distributors. Social enterprises contribute to the development of “containment markets” either by supporting development and can change the role of the disadvantaged groups. They are able to demand the products and services as customer and buyers or supply as employees, producers, and entrepreneurs. Such initiatives can be developed by all types of institutions (social enterprises, multinational corporations, large public entities, or SMEs), and these business models carry a number of common characteristics as outlined below [7].

Some firms like Nirma have implemented solutions with product innovation and new manufacturing process. Of course, in this business model, it is not possible to aim the traditional high margins. A different perspective is needed for the competitiveness [29]. It is expensive to research for the development of products and services sustainability and enter and continue in distribution channels and communication networks. MNCs have know-how to bring together a global knowledge rather to local entrepreneurs. Leaders can use the interpersonal and intercultural skills to customize the products and services to local BOP markets [29].

The economically sustainability and generation of social and environmental benefits are important to define the inclusive businesses [26, 31]. Despite the significant benefits of the social enterprise model, such as increasing financial capacity and independence from donors, increasing scale of operations resulting from income strategies is achieved, and thus greater social impact, and social enterprises also faced some potential difficulties. First, while social enterprises are developing market models of pyramid-based coverage, they face market constraints that are similar to traditional markets. Social enterprises use solutions like organizations operating in low-income markets adopt according to formulate products and processes for BOP markets, which has different conditions, increasing the buying power and bringing the potential resources with other partners. The researchers indicate that the success of the business models is dependent on the organization’s main mission, capacities, and the segment it addresses and when it reaches a suitable scale.


4. Methodology

Methodology of the research is case study. Case study approach is an effective way to build solid ground to make positive argument on subject where it is rather easy to compare theoretical information and arguments with applied cases. It is also aimed to encourage other social entrepreneurship initiatives by mentioning good examples like Trusted Hands Food Safety Program Online. This case provides opportunity for awakening the social interest. This case is appropriate for the use of the subject matter covered which includes concepts that are globally discussed. However, various examples determine the value.


5. Unilever food solutions and trusted hands food safety online training program

The study researches “Food Safety” training of Unilever Food Solutions. An independent company conducted the Turkey Chief Survey, and 80% of the chiefs identified as the most important need Food Safety training. The “Trustworthy Hands” Food Safety Training Program is prepared online in order to reach all kitchen teams throughout Turkey. The project aims to complete 5000 chief trainings in the first year. It is planned to have a food safety certificate by participating in trainings of 30,000 chiefs in 3 years.

Trustworthy Hands Food Safety Training consists of five separate sections, cross contamination, physical and chemical hazards, cleaning, production safety, and HACCP applications. In order to meet the lack of knowledge and development needs of the chefs in the field of food safety, the Food Security Association organized an introductory meeting with the participation of sector representatives for the “Trustworthy Hands” Food Safety Training Program. Food Security Association, Food Industry Association, Tourism Restaurant Investors and Businesses Association (TURYİD), and the Union of the Cooks supported the project. Turkey emphasized that they have launched the first and only comprehensive food safety training program. It is to launch the online training modules in other countries too.

It is declared that 350,000 people are working in the catering sector. In 77,000 restaurants in Turkey, millions of meals are eaten every day. More than 30,000 of the restaurants are located in Istanbul. TURYİD serves 165 brands in 480 points. It creates an industry of two billion endorsements annually. It is 10% of the general food and beverage sector. The associations increase their strength in the direction of goals through cooperation with the sectorial knowledge, communication, and training issues [20, 21].

It is stated that 325,000 are hospitalized and 5000 people died because of food poisoning every year in the world. In 2013, the number of people who lost their lives due to “external injuries and poisonings” in Turkey is 20,000,409, but this number has decreased to 16,000,018 in 2014. According to the World Health Organization, in 2010, a total of 582 million people were poisoned from 22 different food items in the world. Interestingly, 40% of the 582 million people are under 5 years old. The bacterial cause of food is found in raw poultry, unpasteurized milk, red meat, and untreated water which are the most common factors of poisoning with Campylobacter. Unpasteurized milk, eggs and raw egg products, raw meat, and poultry have to be controlled carefully because of the Salmonella. Listeria, nigella (traveler’s diarrhea), and clostridia are other dangerous factors for food poisoning [15].

It is stated that Unilever Food Solutions reached to one of the two businesses in the nonhouse food sector. Food Safety Association has indicated that 50% of the chefs have completed five videography trainings in the “Trustworthy Eller” food safety training. Unilever Food Solution has launched a training course for the kitchen teams [17].

The chefs are able to see the article “Get Your Food Safety Training and Certificate Now” on Knorr products and access training videos prepared with the passwords on the product packages by entering the Food Security section where it also can be reached via Training program consist of five short videos produced by the Food Safety Association as an education, and at the end of each training video, questions about that section must be answered in order chefs to be entitled to receive special certificates for the names of Food Safety Association certified ones. It is emphasized that there are plans to reach the chefs through not only digital channels but also product packages because of the presence of Unilever Food Solutions products at every one of them. They also note that they are taking care to be part of Unilever Food Solutions products.

The main objective is to ensure that food is healthy and maintains its nutritive properties and continues. Food safety involves the processing, preparation, transport, storage, and disposal of foodstuffs to prevent biological, physical, and chemical agents that cause food-borne illnesses. It is an approach that addresses the process of submitting to consumers. Safe food is defined as food that has been made suitable for consumption by eliminating all kinds of deterioration and contagious factors, and everything that is done to achieve this is the technical direction of the business. “He added that Food Safety Inspections in Turkey are done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Many countries, including Turkey, are developing and implementing standards and management systems related to food safety.” The latest method to ensure food safety is published as national standards in countries with the HACCP system. Many countries have accepted that “ISO 22000: Food Safety Management Systems Standard,” which was prepared by ISO in 2005, is included in Turkey in order to ensure the use of a common system of accreditation in international trade and a common system of food safety standards all over the world. In Turkey, TS EN ISO 22000, which was put into practice in 2006 by TS 13001-HACCP Standard, has been applied in food and food-related enterprises.“HACCP plan for the establishments identifies and monitors biological, chemical, and physical properties that are food-borne hazards. It is preventive, rather than reactive, and is an effective risk management tool [23].

Taking the risk factors into consideration, necessary precautions must be taken before delivering to the customer. “Trusted Hands” Trainings is a project that aims to raise awareness about food safety in the chiefs and close the information gap. The Turkish Food Safety Association prepares and sends the certificates to the chefs who have completed the training.


6. Conclusion

The social considerations in Turkey are rising in recent years. The society’s consciousness is increasing and also became aware of social, environmental, and health issues. The number of successful social entrepreneurs increases trends and behaviors through social actions.

Social entrepreneurs produce services and products. The disadvantaged groups can use the employment opportunities. Social entrepreneurship implements similar tools like entrepreneurs. They face the same problems and take the same risks also. The existence is dependent on the support mechanisms. In this case, the public and private support for social entrepreneurship plays an important role. The legal arrangements are needed for the financial continuance. Consultancy, knowledge sharing through awards, courses, and studies builds a net. The youth and children can be elaborated in education system. People in lower segments of society can also be informed about the social issues.

In this study is examined the project of Unilever Food Solution in the framework of the awakening consciousness in society and in the sector about food safety which is an important issue of health. It is also a good example of the collaboration of publıc and private sectors.

The suggestions made in the literature can be summarized in three points: first highlighting success stories and case studies; second accumulating the best practices; and third forming a High-Impact Entrepreneurship Index and planning exercise. These efforts will guide the new actions also [12].

There are many difficulties of continuance and establishment of social enterprises but also many advantages like the technological, financial, and human resources. Internet facilitates communication and cooperation. The definition of legal form and other problems are waiting solutions from governments [12].

The other problem is that the short-term approach will complicate the existence of the social enterprises. Tax exemptions are needed for the maintenance. The long-term focus can facilitate the partnerships. These resources can be used more effectively, and the social impact can be enhanced [10].

Private sector is an important project partner and also creates financial sources. The material contribution or sponsorship builds a synergy and a win-win position to public and private sector also. The public benefit can be taken in terms of its scope and coverage, because the society’s awareness and purchasing power will be enhanced. The wealth arises [10].

The improvements are promising for the future of social entrepreneurship. The society, the companies, and the government are more aware of the social, environmental, and health issues. It is expected to raise the interest about the research topic. This case intends to show key points in its successful implementations can be followed. The results of this research enlighten social entrepreneurial form that is likely to become much more extensive in new economy. Tables and definitions aim to present the understanding of business model and its importance. The most important contribution is intended to observe a good practice. The research enables to open the horizons in the business start-ups and explore a new way of thinking for win-win. The outlined phenomenon in an exploratory approach involves an in-depth analysis of a case for the guidance of new cases.


  1. 1. Abdou E, Fahmy A, Greenwald D, Nelson J. Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East: Toward Sustainable Development for the Next Generation. Wolfensohn Center for Development, The Middle East Youth Initiative Working Paper, 10; 2010
  2. 2. Achleitner A-K, Heinecke A, Mayer J, Noble A, Schöning M. The governance of social enterprises: Managing your organization for success. TUM School of Management, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, European Business School. Geneva; 2012. Retrieved from
  3. 3. Aslan G, Araza A, Bulut Ç. Sosyal Girişimciliğin Kavramsal Çerçevesi. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi. 2012;7(2):69-88
  4. 4. Bagnasco A. Trust and Social Capital. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. 2012;33:252. ISO 690
  5. 5. Bebbington A. Estrategias de vida y estrategias de intervención: el capital social y los programas de superación de la pobreza. En: Aprender de la experiencia: el capital social en la superación de la pobreza-LC/G. 2005. 2275-P-2005-p. 21-46
  6. 6. Buzinde C, Shockley G, Andereck K, Dee E, Frank P. Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies. In Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism. 2017. Springer International Publishing. pp. 21-34
  7. 7. Çınar B. (Yay. Haz.)Büyüyen kapsayıcı piyasalar: Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik vakaları. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi; 2012. p. 2012
  8. 8. Dees JG. The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. 1998. [Online] Available:
  9. 9. Denizalp H. Toplumsal Dönüşüm İçin Sosyal Girişimcilik RehberiA. Ankara common: Odak Ofset Matbaacılık analogy; 2007 used
  10. 10. Ersen TB, Kaya D, Meydanoğlu Z. Sosyal Girişimler ve Türkiye İhtiyaç Analizi Raporu. İstanbul: TÜSEV Yayınları; 2010
  11. 11. Garrigós Simón FJ, González-Cruz T, Contreras-Pacheco O. Policies to enhance social development through the promotion of SME and social entrepreneurship: A study in the Colombian construction industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 2017;29(1-2):51-70
  12. 12. Goldin I. Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World. In Excerpt from the Report of the Global Redesign Initiative, World Economic Forum; 2010
  13. 13. Hart S, Prahalad CK. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+ business. 2002;26(1):54-67
  14. 14. Helvacioğlu E. Sosyal Girişimcilik Boyutunda Kütüphaneler. Bilgi Dünyası. 2013;14(1):199-203
  15. 15. “Güvenilir Eller” Gıda Güvenliği Eğitim Programı [Internet]. Available from: [Accessed: 27-07-2016]
  16. 16. (Access date.14-06-2017)
  17. 17. Unilever, ‘Güvenilir Eller’ Gıda Güvenliği Eğitimi düzenledi [Internet]. [Accessed: 27-07-2016]
  18. 18. (Social Entrepreneurs, 31-05-2017), What Is a Social Entrepreneur?
  19. 19. (Access date.14-06-2017)
  20. 20. 318868, (Access date 05-06-2017)
  21. 21. Html (Access date 31-05-2017)
  22. 22. Elkington J, Hartigan P. The power of unreasonable people: how social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press. 2008
  23. 23. Johnsen S. Revisiting the concept of Social Enterprise in a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) context: a social constructionist view (No. 1516). CIRIEC-Université de Liège. ISO 690. 2015
  24. 24. Kraus S, Niemand T, Halberstadt J, Shaw E, Syrjä P. Social Entrepreneurship Orientation: Development of a Measurement Scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 2017;23(5)
  25. 25. Manual O. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data; (2005)
  26. 26. Marquez P, Reficco E, Berger G. Socially Inclusive Business: Engaging the Poor Through Market Initiatives in Ibero‐America. Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. Ni H, Tian J. Sendra L. Enos: Service-Learning and Social Entrepreneurship in Higher Education; 2017
  28. 28. Özdevecioğlu M, Cingöz A. Sosyal girişimcilik ve sosyal girişimciler: Teorik çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009;32:81-95
  29. 29. Prahalad CK, Hart SL. Strategies for the bottom of the pyramid: creating sustainable development. Ann Arbor. 1999;1001:48109. ISO 690
  30. 30. Rosenzweig W. Double Bottom Line Project Report: Assessing Social Impact in Double Bottom Line Ventures. UC Berkeley: Center for Responsible Business; 2004 Center for Responsible Business. Retrieved from:
  31. 31. Sprague C. Vida Gás: Powering Health Clinics and Households in Mozambique with Liquefied Petroleum Gas. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2007
  32. 32. Tracy M. The State of Entrepreneurship in Turkey. Paper 11. ed. Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship; 2013. DOI:
  33. 33. Hiller JS. The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013;118(2):287-301

Written By

Pınar Başar

Submitted: April 6th, 2017 Reviewed: September 12th, 2017 Published: December 20th, 2017