Global Leadership Training Programme in Africa 2014
RESEARCH REPORT
Potential and Challenges of Social Enterprise Engaging with Smallholder Farmers and Rural
Women in Beekeeping Sector: A Case of Honey Care Africa in Kenya
Tomoko Ichiyanagi (Ph.D. student, Department of International Cooperation Studies,
Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University)(Host University: Kenyatta University, Kenya, January 16- April 11)

English Summary
Social enterprises are for-profit or not-for-profit socially entrepreneurial organizations. They are increasingly active in poverty alleviation as they incorporate low-income producers and suppliers into their businessactivities. Early research emphasized the importance of economic self-sustainability and scalability of social enterprises, focusing on the productivity and transactional constraints of producers to create greater local value.
However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence on whether and to what extent for-profit social enterprises canachieve these outcomes for low-income producers and suppliers. More work needs to be done to understand howsocial enterprises can build mutually beneficial partnerships with producers or suppliers and how the commercial
viability imperative impacts or conflicts with the development agenda in practice. This report presents a case studyof the pioneering social enterprise, Honey Care Africa (HCA), and its Business in a Beehive program with microfinance Kiva in rural Kenya, which aims to increase the income of the poor smallholder farmers and rural women
who participate in the supply chain. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 48 women smallholders (including 38 Kiva borrowers) who contract with HCA and Kiva. This case suggests that a long-range multidimensional
assessment of producers’ outputs, outcomes and impacts is required to understand the value in the local context.
Further discussion of supply chain relationships between social enterprises and participants can shed light on how
business activities and positive development outcomes can be linked.

Japanese Summary
近年、社会的企業（営利・非営利を含む）が、途上国低所得層（Base of the Pyramid: BOP）生産者の貧困課題を解決する開発アクターとして注目を集めつつある。社会的企業（あるいは社会起業、ソーシャルビジネスなどとも呼ばれる）は、ビジネスを通じて社会的課題を解決する取り組みとして認識されている。BOP 生産者と社会的企業に関する先行研究では、社会的企業の経済的持続性や規模拡大、あるいはBOP 生産者のもつ生産や取引上の制約の解決に焦点をあてたものが多い。しかし、ビジネス手法を取り入れる社会的企業の活動はBOP
生産者のニーズを満たすものなのか、社会的企業の生産チェーンに参加する機会を得た生産者との関係は公平で互恵的なものであるか、これらの点に焦点をあてた実証研究はまだ少ない。そこで本調査では、ケニアの社

1

会的企業ハニー・ケア・アフリカとマイクロファイナンス機関Kivaとの連携による養蜂プロジェクトを事例として、プロジェクトに参加する農村女性を対象に質問票を用いた訪問聞き取り調査を行った。事例から、BOP
生産者支援のためには生産チェーンにおける社会的企業とBOP生産者の関係性を検討する必要があること、またBOP生産者にかかる成果、影響については社会的文脈を考慮しながら長期的かつ多面的に検証する必要があることが示唆された。

Introduction
A “social enterprise” or “social entrepreneurship” has “dual social and financial objectives that guide their
managerial decision-making and determine their success” (Dees & Anderson, 2003, p. 2). This model is seen as“a promising approach toward solving social issues and societal problems by applying business techniques withan entrepreneurial mindset” (Achleitner, Heister & Spiess-Knafl, 2014, p. 154). In international development,social enterprise is considered a key actor in poverty reduction for the so-called base (or bottom) of the pyramid(BoP) – the poorest segment in developing countries.
In recent years, for-profit social enterprise businesses have been seen as one of the most promising ways ofraising BoP producers’ livelihoods within an economically sustainable and profitable business model, offering a
potential win-win scenario (Pervez et al., 2013, p. 61). More recent studies suggested that for-profit social enterprise can also address BoP producers’ constraints by helping to stabilize and strengthen supply chains, achieving
economic returns and alleviating local poverty (Sodhi & Tang, 2011; London et al., 2010, p. 590).
However, as yet there is no consensus on what constitutes a social enterprise (George, 2009, n.p.), with someemphasizing social value creation as their primary purpose and others focusing on mainstream business strategies
to make profits and scale up their businesses (Hammond, 2011). In some cases, the boundaries between for-profit
social enterprises and commercial enterprises are not clear (Kamal et al., 2010, p. 252). Social enterprises also
vary according to the socio-economic contexts in which they operate (Kerlin, 2009). In Kenya, social enterprises
are mostly identified as small˗ or medium-sized local businesses, with most studies focusing on the agriculturaland health sectors (Griffin-EL et al., 2014; Smith & Darko, 2014; Panum & Hansen, 2014). These empirical studies
collected data from interviews at the management level; they provide limited information on the relationships
between social enterprises and their participants. Social enterprise ventures are currently seen to be a critical business actor to bring economic growth and innovation (UNDP, 2004, p. 9; Seki, 2008, p. 47). However, there is stilla paucity of empirical evidence for this claim.
This study aims to better understand the benefits and challenges of social enterprise for participants in the
supply chain using the case of beekeeping in rural Kenya under the Honey Care Africa (HCA) program. This
report will briefly explain the case and the research site, present some research findings and finally conclude withsome remarks for further research.

2

Case Selection and Study Area
Honey Care Africa Ltd. Honey Care Africa Ltd. (HCA) is one of the pioneering social enterprises partneringwith Kenyan small-scale honey producers. It was established in 2000 by social entrepreneur Farouk Jiwa. Its mission is to “partner with smallholder farmers across East Africa to strengthen incomes and grow Africa’s ‘family
honey company’ through sustainable beekeeping” (HCA website). HCA supplies Langstroth beehives1 and professional hive management extension services to smallholder farmers, guarantees a market for the honey at a fairpurchase price, and provides supplemental incomes to smallholder farmers. HCA is a member of the World Fair
Trade Organization and introduced a quality control process for food safety standards (HACCP: Hazard Analysis& Critical Control Points).
HCA and its founder have a history of gaining both domestic and international acclaim, including the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) Equator Initiative Award in 2002. Most recently, they won the Nestlé
Creating Shared Value Prize during the Global Creating Shared Value Forum, co-organized by Nestlé and theUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 2014 (Burrus, 2014, October).
HCA has two major indicators for the social impact of their current business model: (1) the total number ofsmallholder farmers and households generating supplemental income from honey production, and (2) increase inannual household income generated by honey sales (Swiss Re Foundation, 2014, Project Report Q1). HCA currently focuses on the social impacts or local/social value creation mostly from increasing the number of member
farmers and their annual household incomes through their business approach.
Study Area. The HCA Kakamega cluster is located near Kakamega Forest National Reserve in Kakamega County(Figure 1). According to the Ministry of Devolution and Planning (2013), the county covers an area of approximately 3,050.3km². It is one of four western region counties and is bordered by Vihiga County to the south, Siaya
County to the west, Bungoma County to the north, and Nandi County to the east. The main tribe is the Luhya. The
average land holding size is 0.57ha. Agriculture accounts for 84.6% of household income in the region, and theaverage farm size is 3 acres. The main crops grown in the county are sugar cane, maize, beans, cassava, finger
millet, and sorghum. Regarding poverty level, 51.3 % of Kakamega’s population, for a total of 917.713 people,
live in national (“absolute”) poverty (p. 37) – which is defined as “total expenditure (food plus non-food) for
households whose food expenditure is close to the food poverty line” (KES49.97 per adult equivalent per day inurban areas and KES32.94 in rural areas) (Schreiner, 2011, p. 9).

1 Langstroth hive was named after the investor, Rev. Lorenzo Langstroth. Langstroth patented his design in 1860. It was originallydesigned for comb honey production, and now has become the standard style hive for 75% of the world's beekeepers (see the detail:
http://www.mdbka.com/aboutHives.html)

3

Figure1: Mapofthe
theStudy
StudyArea
Area
Map ofFigure1(Showing location of HCA Kakamega Cluster)

Location of Kakamega County

Research Area in Kakamega County

KAKAMEGANAIROBIThe Study Area,
HCA Kakamega
ClusterKakamega
ForestSource: Google map

Methodology
The report seeks to explain a social phenomenon (Yin, 2014, p.4) and is based on a case study which “investigatesa contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16).
Data collection. The study uses both secondary and primary data, collected under a research permit from the
National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) in Nairobi and with authorizationfrom the Kakamega County Commissioner. Secondary sources include various studies on HCA such as academic
case studies, newspaper articles, organizational reports, and video interviews available on websites. The primarydata investigates the actual relationships at play and provides insights into actors at the micro level in the local
context.

Some Research Findings
The following summarizes some findings from interviews with the HCA contracted women (n=48), of whom 38
received loans through Kiva.
Basic features of HCA contracted women interviewed. Of the 48 respondents, 38 contracted with HCA in 2013,
5 started in 2014 and 5 began prior to 2012. Most (71%) are married, 23% are widowed and have no male at thehead of the household, and 6% are single or single mothers. Eighty-one percent are over 41 years of age and theaverage household consists of six family members. Forty-five percent of the respondents received some primaryeducation, 36% received secondary education and 15% graduated the college level. The majority of respondents4

(76%) farmed on less than 3 acres of land. More than half (69%) perceived themselves as farmers as well ashousewives. Twenty-nine percent of the members have no resources outside of farming and HCA beekeeping,
10% earn day labor wages, and 19% of them receive government pensions through their husbands. Others receive
funds through occasional remittances from relatives (4%), house rent (2%), and primary school teacher’s salaryand so on. The respondents first learned about HCA from neighbors (13%), self-help groups (33%), or village
leaders (15%) who are often religious leaders in rural communities. Others were introduced at village gatherings
called baraza, a common practice in rural Kenya.
Kiva Borrowers. Of the 48 women interviewed, 38 had received loans through Kiva. Among them, 31 borrowers
contracted with both HCA and Kiva in 2013, 4 started in 2014 and the remaining 3 had already begun participating
prior to HCA’s partnership with Kiva began in December in 2012. Almost all borrowers (95%) said they had not
had access to loans for beekeeping at a comparable level to that of Kiva.

Beekeeping. Within the 48 respondents, the majority of the members (92%) did not have any beekeeping experience prior to contracting with HCA. The other 8% had already engaged with traditional log hive or Kenyan Top
Bar hive (4%), and Langstroth hives (4%). Most respondents stated that they check on the hives near their apiaries.
Over half of them (60%) stated that they had not yet harvested honey since contracted with HCA. Thirty-one
percent had harvested once or twice and 6% had harvested three or four times. Few members (2%) had harvested
more than four times, but they had contracted with HCA before the Kiva loan program started in 2012.

Figure 2: Beekeeping (n=48)
Experiences of beekeeping

Caring for beehives per month

Times of harvesting

Source: Author’s fieldwork, 2015

Income from the Beekeeping Program. It was found that 80% of the respondents had not yet received any
income from the beekeeping program. Among them, some of the Kiva borrowers said that they had harvested onceor twice but had allowed HCA to divert their income towards their loan repayment so that it could be paid off
faster. Thus, they did not receive income. Nine percent had earned less than 1,000 Kenyan shillings, 11% had
5earned between 1,000 and 3,000 Kenyan shillings, but none had received more than 3,000 Kenyan shillings by thetime of the interview.

Discussion and Conclusion
It was found that the HCA beekeeping program creates income-generating opportunities for rural womenwith no beekeeping experience. However, the projected benefits to the smallholders are not so easily captured.
HCA’s aim was for participants to increase their incomes, but it may take time for them to realize an increase,especially for those who did not harvest as initially scheduled. According to the Kiva repayment schedule (a document provided to borrowers), hives are supposed to yield honey 6 months after installation, generating income
every four months. However, despite the efforts of HCA’s hive management extension services by hive technicians,
over half of the respondents (60%) stated that they had not yet harvested honey since contracted with HCA. There
could be several factors behind this. One possible reason is the difficulty of visiting all the hives, which are spreadout over a wide area. One HCA hive technician is expected to manage approximately 400 beehives (Esper et al.,2013, p. 13). They use motorbikes, but still have difficulty inspecting all the hives regularly at the right time.
Consequently, if that challenge is not remedied, beekeepers may lose their motivation for the project over time,
affecting the production of honey.
With the trend towards mainstream business strategies for targeting and including the BoP in commercial
activities, the boundaries between social˗ and commercial enterprise are becoming more ambiguous. It is importantto pay closer attention to the process of creating social value for the BoP within local contexts in order to benefit
people whose urgent and reasonable needs are not being met by other means (Young, 2006, p. 56). In line of this,the further study of supply chain relationships between social enterprises and participants will contribute to a better
understanding of how business activities and positive development outcomes can be linked. As this case study
shows, the benefits of including low-income smallholders’ into the supply chain is not easily captured in a shortterm. Feedback mechanisms to collect the voices of the participants are critical for mitigating possible internal
conflicts and securing long-term relationships. Social value creation at the BoP by for-profit social enterprises
should be studied further in order to enhance the benefits of market-based solutions. In this respect, it is also
necessary to do long-range multidimensional assessments to measure the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of value
created at the BoP.

Reflections on the GLTP in Africa
It was a great opportunity to join this Global Leadership Training Program (GLTP) in Africa. Through thisprogram, I gained a wide range of field experience in a challenging environment. I believe that it trained me wellto do social research in a developing country. To begin with, it was difficult to set up a work environment that was
conducive for my study. Water, electricity and the internet which are vital for living and studying, were not always
stable or easy to get. Fortunately, I was able to live in an international dormitory inside the campus of the host
university, though, it took time for me to create an acceptable study environment.
6

Meeting people was also a challenge in Kenya. I learned that meeting and talking with people directly isimportant for making things progress; communicating through emails and phone calls was not enough. Therefore,
I needed to visit places to make appointments first, and by the second, or even the third time, I could actually meet
people. Obtaining research materials, especially in Nairobi, was also not an easy task. Since I could not move off
campus alone due to safety concerns, every time I needed to go out, I had to ask someone to accompany me. Then
once I was out it took at least half a day to travel there and back because of traffic jams and so on.
Regarding field research, what I learned from the supervisor at Kenyatta University that impacted my research the most was the significance of preparation before doing fieldwork. More specifically, the importance ofdeveloping appropriate questionnaires. I had made questionnaires in Japan, but after receiving his advice, I noticed
the importance of considering whether the questionnaires would actually answer research questions in my study,
and whether the formulated questions would be easy toanswer for the intended respondents. Also, I learned I
should allocate extra time to do a pre-test of the questionnaire when utilizing it in the field. It was often necessary
to spend time making adjustments to take into account the
local context.
Thanks to the supervision and support of faculty
members from Kenyatta University, my field work wasvery much improved. The rest of the work of this research
will be developed as an academic paper. I will try to utilize what I learned through this program in the field ofinternational cooperation in the near future.

7

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Global Leadership Training Program (GLTP) in Africa, which is promotedby the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. Advice and support from
GLTP staff have been a great help throughout the program. I would also like to express the deepest appreciation
to Dr. Manguriu, the Chairman of the Environmental Education Department at Kenyatta University. Also, myheartfelt gratitude goes to Dr. Muriuki, Dr. Koske, Dr. Wemali, Dr. Nyerere and Allan Mwangi at Kenyatta University. Without their guidance, warm encouragement and persistent help, this research would not have been possible. My special thanks to Honey Care Africa for giving me this research opportunity and to Caleb Musambayi
8

for his research assistance. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Janet White for her
invaluable help.

References
Achleitner, A, Heister, P. & Spiess-Knafl, W. (2014). What really matters: a theoretical model for the assessmentof social enterprise performance. In P. H. Phan, Jill Kickul, S. Bacq, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), Theory and empirical research in social entrepreneurship (pp. 154-173).Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Burrus, I. (2014, October). Honey Care Africa Wins 2014 Nestlé CSV Prize. Retrieved from:https://sharedvalue.org/groups/honey-care-africa-wins-2014-nestl%C3%A9-csv-prize
Dees, J.G. & Anderson, B.B. (2003). For-Profit Social Ventures. In, M. L. Kourilsky, W. B. Walstad (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. Dublin, Ireland: Senate Hall Academic Publishing. A special issue of the International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2, 1-26.
Esper, H., London, T. & Kanchwala, Y. (2013). Diversified Farm Income, Market Facilitation, and their Impact
on Children: An Exploration of Honey Care Africa. Impact Case Study No. 3. Ann Arbor: The William Davidson Institute.
George, A. M. (2009). Identifying Social Entrepreneurs Serving the Poor at the BoP. William Davidson InstituteWorking Paper Number 972. Retrieved from the University of Michigan Web site:
http://wdi.umich.edu/files/publications/workingpapers/wp972.pdf
Griffin-EL, E., Darko, E. (with Chater, R. & Mburu, S.) (2014). A case study of health and agriculture social enterprises in Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/8876.pdf
Hammond, A. (2011). BoP Venture Formation for Scale. In T. London, & S. Hart (Eds.), Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid: New Approaches for Building Mutual Value (pp.193-215). Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Honey Care Africa Ltd. (2015). Retrieved from: http://honeycareafrica.com/
Kamal, M., Ansari, S., & Gregg, T. (2010). Beyond the Hype: Taking Business Strategy to the "Bottom of the
Pyramid ". Globalization of Strategy Research, 27, 247-276.
Kerlin, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). Social enterprise: A global comparison. Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press.London, T., Ravi, A., & Sateen, S. (2010). Creating mutual value: Lessons learned from ventures serving base of
the pyramid producers. Journal of Business Research, 63 (6): 582-594.
London, T., Ravi, A., & Sateen, S. (2010). Creating mutual value: Lessons learned from ventures serving base of
the pyramid producers. Journal of Business Research, 63 (6): 582-594.
Ministry of Devolution and Planning (2013). Kakamega County development Profile. Nairobi: Government
Printer, Kenya.
Panum, K, & Hansen, M.W. (2014). Successful Social Enterprises in Africa: Case Studies of Six Social Enterprises in Kenya. CBDS Working Paper No. 02.
9

Pervez, T., Maritz, A. & de Waal, A. (2013). Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship at the Bottom of the Pyramid - A Conceptual Framework, South African Journal Economic Management Sciences, 16(5):54-66.
Schreiner, M. (2011). A simple poverty scorecard for Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Kenya_EN_2005.pdf
Seki, C. (2008). Kaihatsu tojyokoku-niokeru syakaikigyo-oyobi CSR katsudo (Social Entrepreneurship and CSR
Activities in Developing Countries). Tokyo: JICA.
Smith, W. & Darko, E. (2014). Social Enterprise: Constraints and opportunities – evidence from Vietnam and
Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/8877.pdf
Sodhi, M.S. & Tang, C.S. (2011). Social enterprises as supply-chain enablers for the poor as producers. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, 45:146-153.
Swiss Re Foundation (2014). Honey Care Africa Project Report Q1 2014. Retrieved from: http://media.swissre.com/documents/Progress+report+Q1+2014.pdf
UNDP. (2004). Unleashing Entrepreneurship. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP. (2012). Honey Care Africa, Kenya. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. Retrieved from:http://www.equatorinitiative.org/images/stories/winners/84/casestudy/case_1348161137.pdf
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Fifth ed. California: SAGE.
Young, R. (2006). For What It Is Worth: Social Value and Future of Social Entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls(Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change (pp. 56-73). New York: Oxford
University Press.

10