How Corporate Social Consciousness Changes Business: The Jamie Oliver Case

How corporate social consciousness
changes business: the Jamie Oliver

case
Antonin LEONARD
Mark BARRAUD
December 2010
A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 1 ~ PFE 2010

Contents
Contents.............................................................2
INTRODUCTION:...................................................4
Context:.......................................................................4
Jamie OLIVER................................................................5
Jamie Oliver: a committed businessman....................................................7
...Or a Social Entrepreneur, damn good at doing business?......................7
What is social entrepreneurship?........................10

Social Entrepreneurship, a need for definition:.............11
Definition of the terms “social” and “entrepreneur”:. . .12
Starting with “entrepreneurship”:............................................................12
How “social” changes business entrepreneurship:..................................14
Definition of Social Entrepreneurship:..........................16
Boundaries of Social Entrepreneurship:.......................21
Further questioning and areas of research on Social
Entrepreneurship:.......................................................22
Jamie Oliver, a Social Entrepreneur?...................24
An Entrepreneur.........................................................24
The roots/seeds of a food entrepreneur...................................................24
Jamie Oliver a true Entrepreneur.............................................................26
An Entrepreneur with a Social Heart............................35
The roots of a Social Entrepreneur ..........................................................35
The Social Entrepreneur taking actions...................................................36
Discussing Jamie Oliver’s social ventures................................................41
A true Social Entrepreneur.......................................................................44

The reasons why a more social company model
would benefit business: ....................................48
The emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
..................................................................................49
More social consciousness increases business
performance:..............................................................50
Attract new customers or boost sales:.....................................................50
Risk avoidance:........................................................................................51
Build connections within the community:................................................54
Bolster recruitment and retention of quality employees:.........................55
Better working conditions:.......................................................................56
Anticipate future legislation:....................................................................56
Increase access to capital:.......................................................................56
How can the company’s stakeholders make a change and
encourage the emergence of this socially responsible
corporate model.........................................................58
Stakeholder vision....................................................................................58
Governments:..........................................................................................59
Investors’ role:.........................................................................................60
Employees’ role:......................................................................................61
Customers:...............................................................................................62
The civil societ:........................................................................................63
Impulse social change: the Social Entrepreneur’s role. .63
Remaining obstacles:..................................................64
Conclusion.........................................................67
Bibliography:.....................................................69

INTRODUCTION:
Context:
The recent striking economic crisis, coupled to growing environmental
concern and increasing development disparities around the world has
triggered off a new social consciousness. In the late twentieth century, new
social theories and structures such as social entrepreneurship, sustainable
development or Corporate Social responsibility experienced an important
diffusion amongst media and mainstream opinion. A main idea emerged:
that we should create and encourage alternatives to government and
traditional social programs for helping the poor and disadvantaged in
countries throughout the world. A parallel movement during this period was
the growing number of non-government organizations, or NGO’s. While
NGO’s are not a new concept, their recent growth occurred because of a
belief that neither government nor the traditional private sector could solve
all economic or social problems (BORNSTEIN, 2004). A manifestation of this
conviction was a series of conferences and summits held in the 1990's on
economic development one of whose outcomes eventually became known as
the Millennium Development Goals. In 2000, the United Nations unanimously
adopted a resolution called The Millennium Declaration, which called for
initiatives for a more peaceful, just, and prosperous world. Here are the
following goals1 that the UN set itself, with a target year of 2015:
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
2. Achieve universal primary education.
3. Promote gender equality and empower women.
4. Reduce child mortality.
5. Improve maternal health.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
7. Ensure environmental sustainability.
8. Develop a global partnership for development.
1
www.unitednations.org, December, 2005

Is the social landscape any better today? Have private and business
initiatives managed to come to grips with these noble but yet alarming
goals? We have decided to study the cases of Social Entrepreneurship and
Corporate Social Responsibility by the lens of one amazing businessman and
social activist: Jamie Oliver.
The present study is organized as followed:
First, we define social entrepreneurship and examine what are the

differences with more traditional entrepreneurship.
In a next step, we draw a portrait of Jamie Oliver and determine the

characteristics which help us to coin him as a social entrepreneur.
We conclude with a description of a new company model which integrates a

strong social consciousness in its way of doing business and interacting with
its stakeholders. Our aim is to show how these socially responsible
companies can benefit from the belief that the bottom line should be more
than profits only and that business is a way of positively transforming society
on the long haul.
Jamie OLIVER
Jamie Oliver is a British cook who became a TV presenter, a successful
business man and a “Fresh food, teach your children how to cook”
evangelist.
Discovered by a BBC producer, Jamie Oliver became famous with his first TV
show « the naked chef », released for the first time in 1998. Jamie Oliver is
not an “old-school” chef: his aim is to make good food affordable through
easy to prepare, tasty and cheap recipes. With his authentic, outgoing style,
he succeeded in giving another perception of the rigid and traditional world
of chefs. He is also a well-known activist (we’ll discuss further the relevance
of the term) who fights to draw public attention to the changes British,
Americans and now Australians need to make in their lifestyles and diet.
“Do you know Jamie Oliver?” Having been working on this thesis for months,
we had the opportunity to ask many people from all over the world if they
knew about him. We were surprised by the number of people who did. This
first impression was confirmed by a look at his influence through Social
Media. We live a time in which Social Media are a relevant metric to assess

somebody’s popularity and influence. Jamie Oliver has more than 550,000
followers on Twitter, he’s ranked among the 350 people more followed on
the planet and among the top 50 if you exclude American citizens. His official
Facebook webpage has a total of more than 350,000 fans. He is of course
the most famous cook in the world, but he is a lot more than that.
Before detailing Jamie Oliver’s amazing career, let us introduce him in 10

events of his life:
• The Naked chef (his first series) was launched when Oliver was only
23.
• In 2000, Oliver became the face of UK supermarket chain Sainsbury's

through an endorsement deal worth £2 million a year.
• In 2001, J.O decided to open a training restaurant for young people

who were not in full time education or employment, Fifteen.
• In 2003, at the age of 28, he was awarded an MBE (Member of the

British Empire).
• He was named most inspiring British political figure of 2005 by Channel

4 news annual viewers’ poll.
• His programs have now been broadcasted in over 50 countries

including the USA, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Japan and Iceland to
name a few.
• His books are translated in 26 languages and sold at more than 13

million copies.
• Jamie Oliver was one of the top 100 richest people under 30 in the UK
and, at the age of 34, he is now amongst the top 1000 richest people
in the UK2
• In December 2009 Oliver was awarded the 2010 TED Prize3 for his
campaigns to "create change on both the individual and governmental
level" in order to "bring attention to the changes Englanders and now
Americans need to make in their lifestyles and diet.
2
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/04/19/tv-chef-jamie-oliver-among-britain-s-richest-people-
115875-22195923/
3
http://www.tedprize.org/jamie-oliver/

• August 2010: After UK and the USA Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution has
been launched in Australia...
We’ll describe and discuss further Jamie Oliver’s both ability to do business
and commit for better, fresher food. Yet these ten facts help us to get a
glimpse of the phenomenon behind Jamie Oliver.
Jamie Oliver: a committed businessman...

There are few examples of such a mixture between a very talented
businessman and a committed citizen who fights for a better world (with his
skills rather than his money). One may refer to Bill Gates or other successful
businessmen generously investing in foundations 4. But there are major
differences: Jamie Oliver belongs to another kind of “committed”
businessmen. We pointed out two main differences between Jamie Oliver and
other kinds of philanthropic businessmen:
1) Oliver did not wait to be rich to become a “social activist”. He even took
financial risks to make his projects real such as Fifteen.
2) Not only did he invest money, he also put a lot of himself into his projects:
fifteen, ministry of food, Jamie’s food revolution.
Oliver perfectly knows how to promote himself and exploit his name as his
company flag. In that sense, he may be compared to Richard Branson but,
once more, there are major differences. Jamie Oliver built his own brand
through his personality while Branson used his charisma to promote the
company he had been working for over years. In a sense, Oliver’s
commitment seems to be much more authentic although Branson’s TV and
commercial apparitions work as well.
...Or a Social Entrepreneur, damn good at doing

business?
As a matter of fact, Jamie Oliver makes things happen. In 2005, after
delivering a 271,000 signature petition to Tony Blair, he got the British
government to spend £280 million on improving school lunch in dinner halls5.
4
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-
challenge/
5
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4391695.stm

In August 2010, he had obtained more than 615,000 signatures from
American citizens since the launch of his “Food Revolution”. As a result, an
improving Nutrition for America's Children Act is now been discussed at the
American Senate6.
Now what does it mean to be a social entrepreneur? And can Jamie Oliver be
coined as one of these appealing people driven by social change and
transforming society at a large scale? As we move forward into this thesis
and define what it is a social entrepreneur, we will discuss whether Jamie
Oliver could and should be called a Social Entrepreneur and if so, what this
would imply for the definition of the term “social entrepreneur”.
Clearly, Jamie Oliver does things on the grand scale and wants to change the
whole picture. It is not only about improving the School lunch in one peculiar
city, it is about changing people’s habits and inventing a new, financially
sustainable environment in which children could eat better and fresher food
every day. In that sense, rapidly speaking, Jamie Oliver could be called a
Social Entrepreneur because he’s building a new and repeatable equilibrium.
What’s astonishing with Jamie Oliver is his ability to build a genuine business
empire while keeping fully committed to the diverse food improvement
processes he has been involved in. Whether or not he should be called a
Social Entrepreneur, the success of his unstopping commitment leaves no
room for discussion. While he seems to have a peculiar ability to make a
difference, he’s also a talented and highly successful businessman who
established himself as a powerful brand.
Now aged 34, Jamie Oliver presides over a pretty extensive and lucrative
empire that includes a dozen of companies7 from Italian restaurants8 to a
creative design agency9, including kitchen products10 and retail food sold in
supermarkets and food stores.
Jamie Oliver attributes his success to continuous innovation and courage to

questioning existing business processes. In an interview to the European
Union review for Regional Policy11, he explained that “very few companies
and organizations are structured in a way that promotes innovation [...].
[Companies] need to either inspire existing staff to be creative or bring in
6
http://www.jamieoliver.com/news/school-food-revolution-still-in-session
7
http://www.jamieoliver.com/jobs/Org-Jamie_Feb-10.pdf
8
http://www.jamieoliver.com/italian/
9
http://www.theplant.co.uk/
10
http://www.jamieoliver.com/jme/index.html
11
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/panorama/pdf/mag29/mag29_en.pdf

staff that can be creative and shake things up a bit. Be bold and don’t be
afraid to experiment with new ideas.”
As we go deeper in the analysis of Jamie Oliver Ltd’s strategy, we’ll discuss

the degree of interdependence between Jamie the brand and Jamie the
person. Should it be distinguished from Jamie’s actions? To what extent
business and Social activism help and feed each other..? Has Jamie Oliver
invented a new way of doing business? This may lead us to eventually
discuss strategic opportunities for companies to move towards Corporate
Social Responsibility.
Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart are other successful people with personal
brands which include a vast array of different companies involved in distinct
sectors. Yet is this multiplatform approach to business a guarantee for
success? Is it possible to maintain the true nature of a brand with so many
and different businesses?
In a nutshell, this paper has two main objectives:
• Focusing on Jamie Oliver’s figure and social achievements, we would

like to provide a humble and hopefully meaningful insight on what it
takes and what it means to be a Social Entrepreneur.
• Exploring J.O.’s approach to growing and maintaining a diverse

portfolio, we hope to contribute to a strategic thought on innovative,
more responsible ways to organize and run businesses.

What is social entrepreneurship?
Since the late 1990’s we are witnessing the proliferation of the concept of
“social entrepreneurship” amongst scholars and practitioners of both
business and social sectors. Although the phrase is new, the origins of this
phenomenon are much older. The concept takes its roots in the individual
will to come to grips with social problems. There is something inherently
interesting and appealing about social entrepreneurs. But beyond, the
phenomenon of popularity and fascination, community members are
realizing that existing institutions are struggling to assess major inequalities
such as poverty, unemployment, education or housing. On the one hand,
major social sector institutions are often viewed as ineffective, inefficient and
unresponsive to these problems. On the other hand, the non-profit sector is
facing intensifying demands for improved effectiveness and sustainability in
light of diminishing funding from traditional sources and increased
competition for these scarce resources. As a result, many poverty reduction
programs have turned into global charity rather than serving local needs. A
lack of community intervention, collaboration and ownership, coupled to
inexistent measurement of social value creation can explain this pessimistic
landscape. Social entrepreneurship appears to be a credible alternative to
traditional welfare institutions and emerges as a new source to drive a
lasting, transformational benefit to society. Catford (1998) eloquently
summarizes this context, underlying that social entrepreneurship could be a
solution: “Traditional welfare-state approaches are in decline globally, and in
response new ways of creating healthy and sustainable communities are
required. This challenges our social, economic and political systems to
respond with new, creative and effective environments that support and
reward change. From the evidence available, current examples of social
entrepreneurship offer exciting new ways of realizing the potential of
individuals and communities...into the 21st century”.
Nevertheless, before being able to explain in which respects Jamie Oliver can
be coined as a social entrepreneur it is necessary to define this young and
fuzzy concept. To do so we suggest answering the following questions: What
do “social” and “entrepreneur” mean in the phrase social entrepreneur? In
which respect are social entrepreneurs different from business
entrepreneurs? What are the boundaries of social entrepreneurship? What
are the personal characteristics of this special breed of entrepreneurs?

Social Entrepreneurship, a need for definition:
Despite manifestations of Social Entrepreneurship as early as the founding of
Grameen Bank by Professor Muhammad Yunus in 1976 which aims at
eradicating poverty and empowering women in Bangladesh, SE has only
recently attracted the interest of researchers (Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004;
Dees & Elias 1998). The direct consequence is the lack of clear boundaries
and a debated, non-unanimous definition. Indeed, SE means different things
for different people. Many associate it exclusively with not-for-profit
organizations starting for-profit or earned income ventures. Others use it to
describe anyone who starts a not-for-profit organization (Gregory DEES, the
meaning of social entrepreneurship, 1998). SE also suffers from
socioeconomic and cultural determinism as its meaning varies from one
region to another. Here are examples of the heterogeneity of definitions
given by different group of researchers:
• One of them refers to social entrepreneurship as not-for-profit

initiatives in search of alternative funding strategies, or management
schemes to create social value (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skiller, 2003;
Boschee, 1998).
• A second group understands it as the socially responsible practice of

commercial businesses engaged in cross-sector partnerships (Sagawa
& Segal, 2000; Waddock, 1988).
• And a third group views social entrepreneurship as a means to

alleviate social problems and catalyze social transformation (Alvord et
al., 2004).
Moreover, confusion around social entrepreneurship is due to the use of

other terms to describe similar activities and initiatives, including: social
purpose venture; community wealth venture; non-profit enterprise; venture
philanthropy; caring capitalism; social enterprise (Cannon, 2000); and civic
entrepreneurship (Henton et al., 1997).
The concept needs to be defined to enter mainstream conscious without

being diminished and influenced by other resources from the social sector
and to liberate the great potential associated to this new kind of venture. It is
only by doing so that SE will attract new researchers which have the power

of reaching the business sector and governments, assuring a large-scale
promotion and development of the concept.
Definition of the terms “social” and

“entrepreneur”:
Any definition of the term “social entrepreneur” must start with the word
“entrepreneurship”. The word “social” simply modifies entrepreneurship
(Roger L. MARTIN & Sally OSBERG, 2007, Social Entrepreneurship: The
case for definition).
Starting with “entrepreneurship”:

There are two sides to the term entrepreneur, a positive and a negative one.
On the positive side, it characterizes a special, innate ability to sense and
seize opportunities, combining out-of-the-box thinking with a unique brand of
determination to create or bring something new to the world. On the
negative side, entrepreneurship is an ex post term as it takes some standing
back and a certain laps of time before determining its impact. For instance,
somebody who exhibits all the personal characteristics of an entrepreneur
but who does not achieve economic success in his venture will not be called
an entrepreneur but a business failure. This aspect tends to make the
definition more complex and ill-defined as success can be reached
immediately or after a few years of activity.
The concept of entrepreneurship originates in French economics as early as

the 17th and 18th centuries. The word comes from the French “entreprendre”
which qualifies somebody who “undertakes”. Jean Baptiste SAY first
described the entrepreneur as one who “shifts economic resources out of an
area of lower into an area of higher productivity and greater yield”.
Entrepreneurs create value.
A century later, the Austrian economist Joseph SCHUMPETER described

entrepreneurs as the change agents in the economy, driving the “creative-
destructive” process of capitalism. There role, both generative and disruptive
is paradoxical: “the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize
the pattern of production”.
But for the contemporary Peter DRUCKER, entrepreneurs are not necessarily
agents of change themselves but sees them as exploiting the opportunities

that change creates (in technology, social norms, consumer preferences, …).
According to DRUCKER, “the entrepreneur always searches for change,
responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity”, a premise identified by
Israel KIRZNER, who considers “alertness” as the entrepreneur’s most critical
ability.
The Harvard Business School theorist, Howard Stevenson added the notion of
resourcefulness to DRUCKER’s opportunity-oriented definition. After
attempting to define what makes entrepreneurship different from other
forms of administrative management, he suggested that entrepreneurial
management was “the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources
currently controls”. Entrepreneurs do not allow their own initial level of
resources limit their options.

To sum up, Roger L. MARTIN and Sally MARTIN consider that
“entrepreneurship describes the combination of:
• A context in which an opportunity is situated,
• A set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue this

opportunity,
• The creation of a particular outcome.”
The definition obtained by the complementary ideas of SAY, SCHUMPETER,

DRUCKER, and STEVENSON is convenient for us, as it can easily be applied to
entrepreneurship in both the business and social sector. More than limiting
itself to a type of business venture (many people assume that
entrepreneurship is synonym to start-up ventures), this definition describes a
mind-set and a kind of behavior that can be manifest anywhere.
How “social” changes business entrepreneurship:

Now we have defined entrepreneurship, let us determine the social element
in the definition and what makes SE different from business
entrepreneurship. First of all, it is essential to come to grips with the
common thoughts polluting the concept of social entrepreneurship. It would
be simplistic to follow the mainstream idea that entrepreneurship in the
business sector is determined by the pursuit of profit whereas social
entrepreneurship is an expression of altruism. For instance, despite a strong
sense of moral responsibility and social awareness, social entrepreneurs’
motives can include much less altruistic reasons such as personal fulfillment.
Moreover, business entrepreneurship can also have strong social virtues. As
VENKATARAMAN puts it, ‘‘entrepreneurship is particularly productive from a
social welfare perspective when, in the process of pursuing selfish ends,
entrepreneurs also enhance social wealth by creating new markets, new
industries, new technology, new institutional forms, new jobs, and net
increases in real productivity’’. Finally, the idea that social entrepreneurship
is a not-for-profit venture and that for-profit activities are reserved to its
business counterpart is flawed. We believe that social entrepreneurship can
take both forms and that the choice between these two types of ventures is
due to the nature of the mission undertaken, the resources needed and the
capacity to capture economic value. Nevertheless, the wealth created is

usually just a mean to a social end, only ensuring the structure’s financial
viability. In fact, boundaries between non-profit and for-profit tend to vanish,
social entrepreneurship being at the crossroad of the public, private and
voluntary sectors (figure 1: Sources of the Social Entrepreneur Sector,
LEADBEATER, 1997):

Figure 1: Sources of the Social Entrepreneur Sector
Therefore, Johanna MAIR and Ignasi MARTI in Social entrepreneurship

research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight (2006),
consider that “in social entrepreneurship, social wealth creation is the
primary objective, while economic value creation, in the form of earned
income, is necessary to ensure the sustainability of the initiative and
financial self-sufficiency”. This emphasis on the social mission is also the
main difference between the two forms of entrepreneurship for J.Gregory
DEES (2001). He considers that for social entrepreneurs, the “mission-related
impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation”. Unfortunately
this opens the doors of a major difficulty for SE: how do we measure the
creation of social value? Unlike business entrepreneurship which is
confronted to market discipline which constantly evaluates its value creation,
social entrepreneurship lacks this discipline. This essential evaluation role is
played by the venture’s stakeholders and especially the people paying the
fees or providing the resources with all the risks and bias it implies.
Definition of Social Entrepreneurship:

After having described the elements making up social entrepreneurship we
must bear in mind that the definition of this original social venture must
incorporate the constituting elements of entrepreneurship described earlier
by SAY, SCHUMPETER, DRUCKER, and STEVENSON. Social entrepreneurship

combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like
discipline.

For J. Gregory DEES (2001), social entrepreneurs play the role of change
agents in the social sector, by:
• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private
value),
• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that

mission,
• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and

learning,
• Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and
• Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served
This is an idealized definition and presents a major limit in our attempt to

demonstrate whether Jamie Oliver is a social entrepreneur, it is highly
unfunctional. Indeed these elements can be reached in different ways and to
different degrees. Although we can define the following elements in the
definition, there will always be some place for subjectiveness and
interpretation. Rather than taking this risk we prefer to follow the path
opened by Roger L. MARTIN & Sally MARTIN (Social Entrepreneurship:
The case for definition, 2007), in which social entrepreneurship is a spinoff
of business entrepreneurship, combining its three entrepreneurial
components (context, characteristics and outcome) with a social orientated
mission. Social entrepreneurship is defined by the combination of the three
following elements:
• identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes

the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity
that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any
transformative benefit on its own;
• identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a

social value proposition, and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity,
direct action, courage, and fortitude, thereby challenging the stable
state’s hegemony;
• forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential

or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation
and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium

ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society at
large.
The authors illustrate their definition with the example of the Noble Price
Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and father of microcredit.
We find it interesting to develop this case as it will help us to study and
evaluate Jamie Oliver’s achievements.
First, the inherently unjust but stable equilibrium he identifies consisted in

poor Bangladeshi’s limited access to the tiniest amounts of credit. This huge
population was left aside of the credit market, there only possibility of
borrowing money being from local moneylenders at exorbitant interest rates.
This situation fostered the country’s endemic poverty and perpetuated this
stable but highly unfortunate equilibrium.
Then, Yunus confronted the system, proving that the poor were extremely
good credit risks by lending 27 dollars from his own pocket to 42 women
from a poor village. The women repaid the entire loan. He realized that these
women invested in their own capacity for generating income which enabled
them to repay the loan but also buy food, educate their children and finally
lift themselves up from poverty. This was his social value proposition which
was triggered off by his inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and
fortitude invested in his venture.
Finally, he proved his model’s viability, and over two decades launched a
global network of other organizations that replicated or adapted his model to
other countries and cultures. This corresponded to the advent of the
microcredit industry worldwide: a new equilibrium ensuring a better future to
millions of people was born.
Now we have defined social entrepreneurship, an interesting aspect of our

work is to identify the qualities of the individuals who drive this social
transformation. Although there is not an exhaustive list describing the
perfect social entrepreneur, we believe that some common features
emanate from this special breed of entrepreneurs. According to Charles
LEADBEATER in The rise of the social entrepreneur (1997), successful
social entrepreneurs are also: leaders, storytellers, people managers,
visionary opportunists and alliance builders:
• Leadership: social entrepreneurs are good at setting a mission for an

organization and mobilizing people around it. In the absence of market

control, the guiding purpose is set by the entrepreneur’s sense of
mission. This mission has to be coherent and clear enough to
command support, but flexible enough to allow growth. Social
entrepreneurs have to be good at both mission management and
mission setting.
• Storytelling: social entrepreneurs have to be good at communicating

the mission. They communicate their values and motives through
stories and parables rather than analytically. This ability to
communicate an inspiring vision is essential in order to recruit and
inspire staff, partners and volunteers.
• People management: the main resource of these ventures being the

people – the knowledge and ideas of staff, helpers and users – social
entrepreneurs must show strong relational and people management
skills.
• Visionary opportunism: social entrepreneurs are visionary; they

communicate their aims in moral terms. They are also realistic,
pragmatic and opportunistic.
• Alliance building: social entrepreneurs are good at networking in order

to maximize their resources and assure their survival via networks of
support. Their leadership is collaborative in order to bring diverse
parties to the table, identify common ground and take joint action.
• To these qualities we can add strong social ideology: their primary

mission is to lead social change by addressing a concrete social
problem in their community or more broadly in society.
Once more, CATFORD (1998) summarizes these issues nicely in his eloquent
discussion of social entrepreneurs. “Social entrepreneurs combine street
pragmatism with professional skills, visionary insights with pragmatism, an
ethical fibre with tactical thrust. They see opportunities where others only
see empty buildings, unemployable people and unvalued resources....Radical
thinking is what makes social entrepreneurs different from simply ‘good’
people. They make markets work for people, not the other way around, and
gain strength from a wide network of alliances. They can ‘boundary-ride’
between the various political rhetorics and social paradigms to enthuse all
sectors of society”.
After defining social entrepreneurship and inventorying the main personal

characteristics of social entrepreneurs, MARTIN & OSBERG consider that a

good way of clarifying the concept is to explain what doesn’t fit in the
definition.
Boundaries of Social Entrepreneurship:

Undefined boundaries appear to be a major risk for the concept of social
entrepreneurship. The scope of the word social is so vast that many other
social activities, yet highly meritorious, can interfere with SE leaving the
term meaningless. These activities simply do not fit in the definition we
established.
There are two primary forms of socially valuable activity that MARTIN &
OSBERG believe need to be distinguished from social entrepreneurship. The
first type of social venture is social service provision. Like SE, a courageous
and committed individual identifies an unsatisfactory stable equilibrium -
AIDS orphans in Africa, for example – and develops a program to address it –
for example, a school which ensures that the children are cared of and
receive education. The new school will definitely change these children’s life
but unless it is designed to achieve large scale or encourages a legion of
imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a superior new equilibrium.
This is what makes social service provision different from SE. Their impact is
constrained and their services remain confined to a local population which
will not enable them to forge a new equilibrium.
A second class of venture is social activism. In this case, the identification of

an unjust equilibrium and several aspects of the actor’s characteristics –
inspiration, creativity, courage and fortitude – are the same. What differs
from SE is the type of action followed by the actor. Social activists, who may
or may not create ventures to reach their aims, attempt to create change
through indirect action, by influencing others to take action: governments,
NGOs, consumers, workers, … . Successful activism can result in great
progress of existing systems and even result in a new equilibrium but the
nature of the action is different. Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Vaclav Havel
are social activists and it would only confuse the public opinion to now coin
them as Social entrepreneurs.
Figure 2: Pure forms of social engagement (MARTIN & OSBERG, 2007)

Despite the distinction between these three pure forms of social
engagement, we must bear in mind that in practice, many social actors use
an association of these forms or create hybrid models to advance the
changes they seek. Without detailing these hybrid models it is very likely
that Muhammad Yunus used social activism to accelerate and amplify the
impact of Grameen Bank.
Further questioning and areas of research on

Social Entrepreneurship:
Defining social entrepreneurship enables us to set the landscape for the
development of our work. Meanwhile it would be selfish and non-academic to
go on with this paper without mentioning the main issues still needing to be
addressed.
An important challenge is related to the monitoring and/or evaluation of

social entrepreneurship projects. This may be a particularly relevant area for
organizations and individuals seeking funding and investment from public
sector sources where monitoring and evaluating activities would be a
requirement. Unfortunately, many consider it very difficult, if not impossible,
to quantify socio-economic, environmental and social effects. As EMERSON
pointed out, ‘‘for many of those active in the social sector, it has been taken
as a virtual given that most elements of social value stand beyond
measurement and quantification’’ (2003).

Another issue identified is to develop the adequate environment to support
the emergence of social entrepreneurs. Given the radical new approaches
that social problem solving demands, social entrepreneurs appear to be a
dynamic group with a viable and highly sustainable approach which needs to
be supported. Yet because the concept of social entrepreneurship - in its
current phrase - is relatively new, there are few institutional mechanisms in
place to support this work.
Detailed models of “good practice” are also lacking in the literature, as are
guidelines for operationalizing partnerships and/or collaborations between
the public, private and non-profit sectors. Which structure should social
entrepreneurs implement? With which partners? The following questions lay
the emphasis on the need of gathering the public, private and voluntary
sectors together.
Through this presentation of the concept of Social Entrepreneurship, we have

delimited the boundaries that will help us to comment on Jamie Oliver’s
Actions. In a nutshell, Social entrepreneurship combines the passion of a
social mission with an image of business-like discipline. Social Entrepreneurs
are neither Social service providers, nor Social Activists because they’re
directly acting on their environment, by creating a new and sustainable
market equilibrium. Successful social entrepreneurs seem to share some
characteristics; they are leaders, storytellers, people managers, visionary
opportunists and alliance builders. In the light of this definition, we will now
study Jamie Oliver’s achievements and bring an insight on what it means and
what it takes to be a social Entrepreneur.

Jamie Oliver, a Social Entrepreneur?
An Entrepreneur
“He knows what he’s got”, said a friend of his. “He has a killer instinct, a
warrior instinct. He sees what he wants, and gets it. He’ll never give up -he’s
that type of guy- and that’s quite inspirational.” Jamie Oliver himself would
probably say that it is all down to being in the right place at the right
moment, and a lot of luck besides. He might also say that his childhood
shaped his entire career. Psychotherapists would probably agree.
The roots/seeds of a food entrepreneur

Childhood is often useful to explain the path of a career, scientific literature
clearly indicating that vocational development begins during childhood.12 The
theory of vocational personalities and work environments asserts the
importance of childhood experiences and that "a person's career or
development over the life span can be visualized as the long series of
person-environment interactions and their outcomes that all people
experience as they grow-up" (Holland, 1997). Entrepreneurs seem to be
aware of that. As Guilhem Bertholet13 puts it, “it is funny to notice that when
you interview entrepreneurs, you almost always get back to childhood time
so as to explain their innate sense of business. Most of them used to sell
event tickets, create stuff, organize travel and so on. Through these early
experiences, many developed a strong sense of business affairs, a will for
freedom, and most importantly, realized their entrepreneurial abilities.”14 …
Jamie Oliver is not reluctant to talk about his childhood and his early
entrepreneurial experiences. He might even say that his childhood shaped
his entire career.
His parents:
Undoubtedly his parents‘vision was a source of inspiration for him. An ex-
bank worker, Sally was as good with figures as Trevor was with his staff.
Managing a pub of his own was what Jamie Oliver’s father, Trevor had always
wanted. Starting with a rather humble pub, he managed to make The
12
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/183870354_2.html
13
French Entrepreneurship consultant
14
http://www.guilhembertholet.com/blog/2010/10/01/ma-toute-premiere-creation-
dentreprise/

cricketers a highly successful place, “gaining a reputation for using freshly
prepared best quality ingredients as opposed to the ubiquitous frozen scampi
and chips and 'boil in the bag' of the 1970s”. Jamie Oliver has often said that
his father was the one who inspired his strong self-confidence: “Dad taught
me to believe that anything is possible.”15
His childhood:
Jamie Oliver was born in the countryside and had limitless horizons to
explore. His sense of adventure, of never seeing any limits in the goals he
sets himself may well come from that experience.”When I was younger I
used to dream that I could fly”, he once said. “I can recall quite clearly that
when I was about five, I dreamt of hovering above the sofa. In my vivid
imagination I felt I could float wherever I want to go.” Anna-Marie, his sister
has said they both believed they could take on the world. “he had his life
mapped out from the beginning and, he’s achieved it.” She has her own
explanation for Jamie’s self-confidence. “Growing up in a pub made us both
very confident,” she told the Biography Channel. “You get exposed to a lot of
teasing and criticism that most kids don’t come across.”
School:
School was not exactly a place of academic achievement for Jamie Oliver.
Although he obtained an Art and Geology GCSE, school was more a
confirmation for his innate sense of action. He proclaims on the website of
the fifteen foundation : “Having not been the brightest banana in the bunch
myself, I realized that my biggest weapon in life was determination,
enthusiasm, hands-on and “actions speak louder than words” approach my
father taught me and I wanted to get this across to others especially those
interested in food.”16
The food:
Jamie’s sister Anna-Marie recalls they were unusual among their peers.
Children were not eating avocados in the Seventies,” she said. Jamie’s love
for tasty food is said to come from there. “He’s genuinely excited about
feeding people tasty delicious healthy food that makes them happy”, said his
mentor chef Alice Waters (at Panisse). “It thrills me to give a child a beautiful
ripe peach and watch them fall in love with it. I’m a missionary and my aim is
to get good food into peoples’ mouths. [Jamie] thinks the same way: he
15
The Jamie Oliver effect, Gilly Smith
16
http://www.fifteen.net/mission/Pages/default.aspx

knows how to make things tasty, and he loves children, that’s what drives
him. It’s very simple.”
Early entrepreneurial experiences:

His father believed everyone had to work for their own money and his son
was not excluded. As soon as Jamie wanted more than usual toys, he offered
him to do some washing in the pub’s kitchen. Oliver revealed a taste for
business early in his life. Inspired by his father and mother he started to buy
sweets at wholesale prices from the cash and carry used by his parents,
which he would then resell in school, making 30 pounds a week.
As we can see with the example of Jamie Oliver, childhood is useful to

explain what it takes to be an Entrepreneur. There is a never-ending debate
on the foundations (nature vs nurture) of Entrepreneurship: are
entrepreneurs born this way or can they be made? 17 There is no clear
scientific answer to this question and it is easy to bring reasonable
arguments for one or the other point of view. Besides, the question involves
an evident ideological content. What is definitely true is that education and
culture shape identity. Studies suggest that willingness to take risk and trust
others are inherited.18 Willingness to take risk is at the heart of the
Entrepreneur’s psychology and was critical in Jamie Oliver’s achievements.
As he puts it, “Dad taught me to believe that anything is possible”, it seems
that Oliver’s family background was decisive in building himself as an
Entrepreneur.
Jamie Oliver a true Entrepreneur

Jamie Oliver is more than a celebrity chef with a bankable image, he is at
heart an entrepreneur. Over the decade after his first appearance he has
displayed determination to maintain as much control over his business
activities while at the same time extending the potential of his main
company (Jamie Oliver Holdings) to increase its revenues and profits through
a series of enterprises.
Following the definition developed in the first chapter, we have identified ten
qualities Jamie Oliver shares with other Entrepreneurs.
17
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/27/can-entrepreneurs-be-made/
18
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061128140652.htm

Specialized Knowledge in one field
It is easier to start a successful business with a deep knowledge of the
market one decides to pursue. Having a specialized knowledge helps to aim
at a niche market. Consciously or not, Jamie Oliver developed strong abilities
to popularize elitist food and make tasty fresh recipes affordable. Through TV
programs, books and restaurants19, he also specialized in Italian food
following his own taste for this kind of food. Doing so, he has proved able to
build an image of a cook with a specialized knowledge, and especially in one
kind of food, which is valuable for customers. He now possesses more than
15 Italian restaurants all over the world.
Self-confidence:
Self confidence is a key entrepreneurial skill for success. The maintenance
and enhancement of self-esteem has always been identified as a
fundamental human impulse. Philosophers, writers, educators, and of course
psychologists all have emphasized the crucial role played by self-image in
motivation, affect, and social interactions. Self-confidence is concerned with
how a person feels about his ability. Therefore, self-confidence is at the heart
of the entrepreneur’s psychology because it makes him believe he deserves
to be successful. A successful entrepreneur believes in his abilities. He is not
scared to explore unchartered territories, take risk and make difficult
decisions.
Jamie Oliver has not always dreamt himself as an Entrepreneur: he became

an Entrepreneur, following his instincts and because he had gained celebrity.
At the very start of his career, in 1996, Jamie Oliver was working at The River
Café20, a restaurant he had chosen for its new approach of Italian food and
philosophy based on respect for food and people. A close friend of Jamie
Oliver’s said it was The River Café attitude which was the most formative
experience of his career. “That’s where Jamie did the bulk of his learning. He
learnt to make food really accessible.” Another reason why the River Café
experience proved instrumental in Jamie Oliver’s career is because he
participated to a documentary filmed on The River Café, only six months
after he had started working there.
19
http://www.jamieoliver.com/italian/
20
http://www.rivercafe.co.uk/rc_page.php

Ruth Rogers, owner of The River Café who had recruited Jamie remembers
the moment when it life changed for him: “He could talk to the camera and
be himself, and that’s a very difficult thing to do. You’re doing two things;
you’re trying to inform and educate, and you have to be at ease with
yourself and the camera and the camera in order to do that – and he was
there.” Months later when the program was finally aired, his colleagues at
the restaurant were among the many that were astonished by him.
“Everybody told him he was amazing”, said Ruth Rogers. A prodigiously
talented new TV chef was born. This TV apparition offered Jamie many jobs in
media, including one for BBC2 which would turn out to be a springboard for
his career.
One could argue that Jamie Oliver’s career is a question of luck. If he had not
been in the right place at the right moment, he would not have become a TV
chef and gained the celebrity that enabled him to take Social actions. That is
true, Oliver himself would agree. However his natural self-confidence made a
clear difference when this documentary was released. Self-confidence is also
linked to perseverance.
Determination and Perseverance:

“He’ll never give up and that’s quite inspirational.”One of Jamie Oliver’s
friends
Among all the characteristics of Entrepreneurs, perseverance is probably the

quality every entrepreneur would agree on and it seems quite natural.
Creating a company, were it social or not, implies difficulties. Things hardly
happen as planned and an Entrepreneur should be ready to persevere when
dealing with difficulties. The saying "If at first you don't succeed, try and try
again" means that few individuals are able to achieve great things without
first overcoming some obstacles. Just like Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs,
Jamie Oliver proved able to continuously try new projects which for many
seemed to be destined for failure.
Jamie Oliver’s perseverance has something to do with these two brilliant

inventors and entrepreneurs. Like Edison, he did not seem to be made for
success. Very soon in life, Oliver was diagnosed dyslexic, as a result he did
not prove very good at school. Like Jobs, he experienced success early in his
life, becoming a TV star at the age of 23. The first Naked Chef (the program
that made Oliver famous) was aired in April 1999 and by the end of the
summer he was bombarded by press and public looking for a piece of him.

With five million viewers watching the BBC2 show Oliver became a big star in
5 weeks only.
With his first book, Oliver went straight to the top of the British bestseller list
and things stayed that way as the books accompanied the success of the
series. The third in the trilogy - Happy days with the Naked chef- became an
immediate bestseller and was the official No.1 in the British non-fiction chart
in 2001. The Naked Chef was the first British cookery program to be sold to
France, Italy and Spain. By 2001 the program was broadcasted on 60
channels, in 34 different countries.
Aw will comment on later, after these early successes, Oliver felt it was
about time to “give a little back and inspire others. Oliver’s idea was to train
a team of unemployed kids from inner London to become cooks in his very
first restaurant. The idea was ambitious but not easy and Oliver had to prove
perseverant to get the project to an end. The idea had first been offered to
the BBC but it was rejected. Channel 4 gave him the opportunity to achieve
his project, and, with average weekly audiences of over five million, Jamie’s
Kitchen became one of the channel’s top two shows of the year in 2002.
Outside-the-box thinking:
Innovation is the basis of Entrepreneurship. As an entrepreneur, one is
offering something new to the market. An entrepreneur’s quality is to be
able to think out of the box, take risks and step up to major challenges. That
is exactly what Jamie Oliver constantly did since he committed to improving
people’s food. Fifteen21 (the restaurant launched after Jamie’s Kitchen was
aired) was a very ambitious idea: opening a restaurant is not an easy job, but
opening a restaurant while training a team of unemployed kids is even
tougher. Besides, think fresh is one of Jamie Oliver Ltd’s six values (the
company behind Jamie Oliver).22
Being inspirational:
Just like political leaders, entrepreneurs need to build a team of followers.
There are two types of followers: employees and fans.
21
http://www.fifteen.net/Pages/default.aspx
22
http://jamieoliver.me.uk/var/docs/jo_bb_about018.pdf

To build his company, the entrepreneur needs very committed people who
will work very hard (including week-ends) for a lower salary than in a big
corporation. In order to achieve that, an entrepreneur needs to get his team
motivated from day one to the end. That is why being inspirational is so
important. Your early employees need to believe in and follow your vision.
They should believe that they are working for something more important
than just making money (otherwise it makes no sense to work in a small
company).
As for fans, they correspond to the early clients that will trust you. People
usually are not eager to trust products or services provided from a young
company. So it is very important to get people to believe in your vision. The
early clients do not buy a product or a service from your company, they buy
a “why”, they buy the answer to “why you created this company”, they buy
your vision. This brings them in a position of partners.
That is why an entrepreneur needs to be an Evangelist of his vision. Jamie

Oliver is the perfect example of great inspiring individuals. Through his
programs (The Naked Chef, Jamie’s Kitchen, Jamie’s School Dinners, Jamie’s
Ministry of food…), he inspired millions of people to eat better and fresher
food. Jamie also perfectly knows how to transmit his vision and use the
media to promote it. He is a perfect communicant using both traditional
media (TV, books) and Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Twitpic and
others…).
One of Jamie Oliver’s teachers said one day: “I always thought that Jamie
was much brighter than his tests and exam results revealed”. “He had a gift
for talking to people with the sort of honest, wide-eyed enthusiasm that’s
hard to resist. There is no side to him at all.”

Enthusiasm and optimism:
“I prefer the errors of enthusiasm to the indifference of wisdom.” Anatole
France
Enthusiasm is predominant in the Entrepreneur’s success. Enthusiasm is

related to all the other qualities, and is probably at their basis. The
Entrepreneur is by nature optimistic, otherwise he would not create and try.
Furthermore enthusiasm is necessary to inspire others and our self in order
to transcend our limitations and make a real difference (it is also much
easier to share a vision with a smile, just think of Mandela, Gandhi,
Obama…).
More important maybe, enthusiasm and optimism are necessary to bolster

one’s determination and perseverance. It is usually because you believe
positively that great things happen. Henry Ford said that “You can do
anything if you have enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the yeast that makes your
hopes rise to the stars. Enthusiasm is the spark in your eye, the swing in
your gait, the grip of your hand, the irresistible surge of your will and your
energy to execute your ideas. Enthusiasts are fighters, they have fortitude,
they have staying qualities. Enthusiasm is at the bottom of all progress! With
it, there is accomplishment. Without it, there are only alibis.”
As his teacher explains, Jamie Oliver has this “sort of honest, wide-eyed
enthusiasm [which is] hard to resist” and which helped him bring barriers
down. This enthusiasm has been his “hallmark” since the very beginning of
his programs. It is also why he managed so well to inspire so many people in
the UK, the USA and now in Australia to change their food habits.
Willingness to seize opportunities

The willingness to take chances is an essential part of the make-up of an
entrepreneur.
One could argue that Jamie Oliver did not really take risks as he was already
famous (and success was almost guaranteed) when he started his first
business, which, by the way was simply a publishing company, producing his
own books. But this willingness to take controls at an early stage is, in itself,
the proof of an entrepreneurial spirit. After the success of his first book
(Something for the weekend), the time came to negotiate on the second

book. Oliver had hired an agent to get a better deal. By the time his fourth
book (Happy Days with the Naked Chef) hit the shelves, production company
Optemon was no longer part of the royalties deal.
On one level, Oliver’s willingness to drive his business reflects nothing more
than an awareness of his own rising stardom. Thanks to his celebrity, he
could dictate terms rather than comply with the production company’s
standard book deal. But it was also an early indicator that as his career
developed he would be very much his own man, choosing business partners
on his own behalf and in his own best interests.
But Jamie Oliver’s first move into the restaurants came in the surprising form
of the Fifteen chain. Why is it surprising? Given the success that Oliver had
enjoyed in the UK and around the world at this point, we could have
expected him to capitalize on his fame by opening restaurants that would
bring hum easy money. But Fifteen was social venture, set up by Jamie
Oliver as a way to train disadvantaged young people for a career in catering.
As we will discuss further, It was (and it is) run as a commercial venture that
has to finance itself but the profits are all reinvested rather than intercepted
by Jamie Oliver as dividends.
Jamie Oliver has also been creating and funding more than ten different
companies, showing his willingness to always innovate and create something
new. In addition to the core activities of TV production and book publishing,
Jamie Oliver has been opening restaurant chains and quality food shops; he
has also designed a range of kitchenware products. But his business empire
has expanded into rather more surprising areas. Recently Jamie Oliver has
given his name to a video game on a cookery theme and launched a series
of videos downloadable from mobile phones.
In short he has used his celebrity –his personal brand- as a means to kick-
start an array of different but interrelated ventures. Strategists would
probably question the relevance of such diversity in Jamie Oliver’s empire. It
seems Jamie Oliver has sometimes been investing trusting his feelings and
his heart instead of listening to his financial advisers, showing his willingness
to seize opportunities. The creation of Fifteen is a perfect example of this
wilingness.

Curiosity
Entrepreneurs need to understand how things work; they are constantly
driven by innovation. Astonishingly some entrepreneurs share one seemingly
weakness: dyslexia. Why is that so? According to experts, dyslexics share
certain traits and are generally highly creative individuals. They use the
brain’s ability to alter and create perceptions; and are usually curious about
how things work.
Dislexia was also shared by Jamie Oliver, which caused him some trouble at
school. His curiosity pushed him to always learn new things, which made him
so successful. His employers at The River Café, chefs Ruth Rogers and Rose
Gray, agreed that this was the first sign that he would make a great chef.
“He was always asking questions, always”, said Gray. The diversity of his
business has a lot to do with this curiosity.
Luck
This is maybe the most controversial part. Entrepreneurs usually do not
believe in luck and firmly believe that success and failure lie within their
personal control or influence. Yet they are more prone to acknowledge that,
at some point of their venture, they were lucky. Jamie Oliver himself once
said that his career “is all down to being in the right place at the right time
and a lot of luck behind.”
Manage a team/Hire talented people:

This is a common issue for successful entrepreneurs managing fast-growing
businesses. Young businesses are usually shaped by the personality and
vision of their founders. It is relatively easy for an entrepreneur to keep a
close check on everything when the business is starting. As the business
grows, it changes. More staff, more customers, complexity. The business
organization has to evolve and it is no longer possible for the founders to run
the show unaided.
Along his career, Jamie Oliver managed to hire talented people in every field
he undertook new things. As a program maker, he has worked closely with
Dominique Walker, a commissioning editor at Channel 4 and series producer
on Jamie’s school Dinners : “he knows when to delegate to other people.
“The thing about Jamie is that he spots talent, recognizes what everyone

else’s strengths are and then lets you do what you’re good at”, she told the
Guardian in 2006 before going on to describe the freedom she was allowed
to make the program. “Jamie didn’t come and see the [School Dinners] until
it had been signed off by Channel 4. His attitude was “you tell me what you
need”. He understood we needed great TV moments, as program makers.”23
Now that we understand better what made Jamie Oliver an Entrepreneur, let
us focus on the “Social part” of his ventures. How did Oliver turn out to be
more than a traditional entrepreneur?
23
Brown, Maggie, « What’s Jamie cooking now ? » The Guardian, May 2006

An Entrepreneur with a Social Heart
We will distinguish three different Social ventures initiated by Jamie
Oliver:
• Fifteen (2002)
A social venture restaurant whose purpose “is to inspire disadvantaged
young people to believe that they can create great careers for
themselves in the restaurant industry”.24 Fifteen has four restaurants
worldwide: London, Cornwall, Amsterdam and Melbourne.
• Jamie’s school Dinners / Feed me better (2003)

A School Food campaign whose mission is "to transform school
food and food skills, promote the education of health of children
and young people and improve the quality of food in schools."
• Food Revolution (2010)

A campaign that seeks to “educate American people about food
and cooking, address the quality of the food served in school
lunch halls and inspire food retailers to provide good quality,
fresh, local food to their customers.” The campaign is funded
solely by donations made from the USA. “Jamie's Food
Revolution combines the ambitions of both Jamie's Ministry of
Food and Jamie's School Dinners and exists to tackle the obesity epidemic in
America.”
The roots of a Social Entrepreneur

Jamie Oliver usually comments on the beginning of his first social venture,
Fifteen, explaining that he wanted to give something back to the industry
that had given so much to him. His parents and the education he received
are also a good way to explain his will to give to others. “Trevor and Sally are
the perfect parents,” said Gennaro Contaldo, who would become Jamie’s
“London dad” when he gave him his first job. “They’re very warm and
24
http://www.jamieoliver.com/foundation/

humble. They say “This is what we are... This is a bit of bread, let’s share it.”
Jamie is just like them – he will share what he has with anyone. He loves
people, he loves children and he loves challenge. He is an unbelievable
family man.”
The Social Entrepreneur taking actions

Fifteen
It all started with an idea... “About seven years ago, when I had just started
working at the River Café’, Jamie wrote in Jamie’s Kitchen “I was having a
cup of tea with my friend Kirsty. At the time she was working with problem
children –aggressive and bad-tempered, they weren’t fitting into their school
or home environment very well- and she was explaining to me that the main
thing was to inspire and empower them to give them some hands-on
responsibility. She said that cooking classes had been going very well with
them because they could feel, smell and create things, and above all it was
fun. Plus they could eat what they’d made! I realised that my biggest
weapon in life was the determination, enthusiasm, hands-on and “actions
speak louder than words” approach my father taught me, and I wanted to
get this across to others, especially those interested in food. Having had five
really great years, I felt it was about time to give a little back and inspire
others.”
The idea was ambitious. Young people with dysfunctional problems need a
lot of time and dedication. And most of the time there is just not enough time
to invest in them. Jamie’s idea was to train a team of unemployed kids from
inner London to become chefs in his very first restaurant. He was not looking
for slaves as early critics suggested. Fifteen was this was an opportunity to
take learning to cook to a new level through the magic of TV (the entire
project was broadcasted on channel 4).
Furthermore, Jamie Oliver invested his own money in this venture. As he was
not allowed to make a loan to fund Fifteen, Jamie Oliver decided to mortgage
his house. Since then, he has continued to invest money into his foundation,
Jamie Oliver Foundation. In 2007, after a profit fall announcement, a
spokesman for the Jamie Oliver holding said “the main reason for the profits
fall was a decision to funnel £2.5 million of royalties from his bestselling book
to his charity restaurant venture Fifteen.”25
25
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23420179-chef-jamie-takes-a-1m-pay-
cut.do

The idea behind Fifteen was to offer hope to young people whose personal
problems had prevented them from finding their own way in life. The idea
behind Fifteen was not to plan a business venture: “he couldn’t think of a
business idea”, said a member of the Fifteen crew, “that wouldn’t be the way
he thought up Fifteen. It’s a heart-felt thing he did without a doubt. It was a
gut reaction and no business plan.”
Jamie’s vision was quite optimistic. He would open a first-class restaurant in

a London already full of good restaurants and run it as a charity: when profits
would arise, they would be used to finance scholarships and give graduates
the opportunity to work with some of the best chefs in Britain, Italy, France,
Australia and Japan. Teaching these kids was not an easy task (some had to
leave the adventure) and financial issues caused to delay the opening but
Fifteen eventually opened, just as planned.
When the day of the grand opening came, Fifteen had became the place to
be in London (thanks to Jamie’s fame and the success of Jamie’s kitchen
program,). “We were so popular that we had to turn away Jennifer Lopez and
Justin Timberlake, said one of the pupils, Elisa Roche. Meanwhile, ordinary
families took their seats and congratulated the kitchen. I never shook so
many hands. Everyone from the potwashers to the front-of-house staff loved
working there.”
Most of critics reviews were great, like this one from Victor Lewis-Smith of
the Guardian ‘From first to last, it was exceptional”, he wrote in the
Guardian.
Creating a new equilibrium
Experiencing a loss in their first years of activity is something that should be

expected by cook entrepreneurs. However, the press pointed out that Sweet
as Candy, the management company behind Jamie Oliver the brand at that
time26, had to bail Fifteen out after losses were becoming unmanageable
Accounts published in 2005 showed that the total figure of losses to be set
against future tax was £ 1.23 m. But by the end of 2005 profits were finally
made and used to finance the charity, with figures as high as £600,000.
The fifteen concept had proven successful, it was now time to get it scalable
around the globe with restaurants opening in Amsterdam in 2004, and
26
It would become JamieOliverLtd

Melbourne as well as another in Britain (Cornwall) in 2006. It was a triumph
in Social Politics.
Jo Bates who works with young offenders in Brighton gives has an interesting
explanation for the Fifteen miracle. “It’s about seeing real results.”27“It’s
about young people having something to hold that they’ve achieved. I think
structure is great for guiding young people once they’ve realised that they
can gain something from this. For many of them, they’ve just never had any
experience with structural environments like school, family or youth clubs.
They often don’t have the mentality. So if you could offer them something
with boundaries and outcomes, and high expectations as well, why not?
Some of the amazing people I’ve ever met have been the kids in the youth
justice system – very creative, very inspirational young people.”
Trevor CLAWSON explains in the book The Unauthorized guide of doing

business the Jamie Oliver way the link between Fifteen and Jamie Oliver:
“Bringing all this together requires a huge amount of energy and
commitment and, while the driving force behind Fifteen appears to have
been a genuine desire to make a difference, the idea would not have got off
the ground without Jamie Oliver’s ability to organize and motivate. For the
truth is, ideas are worth very little unless followed up by action. Fifteen
wasn’t established to make Jamie Oliver rich – in fact it was a drain on his
resources for some years – but the story of how the project was implemented
provides a neat illustration of how the entrepreneurial mind works.”
Before discussing why Fifteen is a genuine example of Social

Entrepreneurship, let us have a view on the social campaigns Jamie Oliver
launched after Fifteen to understand why they differ by nature of the Fifteen
venture.
Jamie’s School Dinners

The School Dinners program was a second step in Jamie Oliver’s fight against
the junk food industry.
Jamie’s School Dinners was about drawing attention on the standard of food
served in school canteens all over Britain, with the believe that improving
27
She was quoted in Gilly Smith’s book The Jamie Oliver effect

the quality of the food served would enhance the lives of pupils, improve
behaviour and learning ability.
The project was centred on one idea: the unquestioned focus on cutting
catering costs had resulted in a lunchtime diet of processed food with little or
no nutritional value. At that time, Junk food was a natural dish on the menu
of English pupils and almost no opportunity given to them to pick fresh
vegetables or fruits. Obesity had been rising in England over years and Jamie
was determined to draw public and political attention on this issue.
Again through the magic of TV, Jamie Oliver eventually managed to persuade
the government to tackle this issue. How did he do so? Trevor Clawson puts
it that way: “Oliver changed the nature of the debate with a mixture of
passionate enthusiasm for good food, the facts and figures necessary to
swing the argument in his direction and costed solutions that could be put to
ministers. Studiedly apolitical, he emerged as a consummate politician.”28
The UK Education Secretary pledged to finance the project and the
government ultimately agreed to £280m over three years.
Throughout the Jamie School Dinners’ campaign Jamie Oliver was not simply
a campaigner, he was a real player. His role was more the one of an activist
than a Social Entrepreneur though and we will discuss this further.
Jamie’s Food Revolution

“This Food Revolution is about changing the way we eat. We need to start
cooking again, to make sure our children don’t grow up on a diet of
processed food, at school or at home, and so they won’t have to battle
obesity and diet-related illnesses when they grow up. Cooking is one of the
most important skills a person can have and it has been proven that families
who cook together eat better. A small change in your kitchen in could save
the life of someone you love. America needs to do something now, before it’s
too late.”29 Jamie Oliver
The Food Revolution started in 2010 with a show on the American channel
ABC. Just like Jamie’s School Dinners, it is an educational show whose aim is
to tackle the obesity epidemic in America. In 2009, Jamie Oliver spent three
months with the people of Huntington30 WV, filming the TV series, trying to
28
The Unauthorized Guide to Doing Business the Jamie Oliver way, 2009
29
http://www.jamieoliver.com/jfr-beta/pdf/Jamie-Oliver_Platform-for-change.pdf
30
Sadly known as the city with highest obesity rate in the country with the highest obesity
rate, the USA.

tackle three challenges: “replace the processed school food with meals that
were cooked from fresh ingredients, show families that cooking at from
scratch is better for them, get the whole town cooking again.”31
The program has been called Revolution because it turned out to be more
than a mere show. A whole community has been generated around the idea,
Americans were asked to sign a petition in favour of the movement. More
than 620,000 people have signed it so far32, including personalities such as P.
Diddy, Eva Longoria, Larry King or Jennifer Aniston. This enabled Jamie Oliver
to receive funds from people from all over the states to help financing the
movement. Jamie Oliver also won the 2010 TED award after his speech33
which has now been seen by more than 250,000 people so far. The
campaign also relies on new Social Media such as Facebook34, Twitter35,
Youtube36, Bebo37 or Myspace38.
The Food Revolution has been about pressurizing the American government
to take actions to tackle the obesity issue. Seven measures have been
suggested:
• Put meals cooked from fresh food at the heart of the school lunch
program.
• Find more money for better food
• Make radical improvements to school nutrition standards
• Love your lunch ladies
• Put professional cooks in charge.
• Teach every child in America to cook.
Thanks to Michelle Obama’s support, some measures have already been

taken like the introducing of 6,000 salad bars in U.S. schools in the next
three years.39
31
http://www.jamieoliver.com/jfr-beta/pdf/Jamie-Oliver_Platform-for-change.pdf
32
http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution
33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&feature=player_embedded
34
http://www.facebook.com/FoodRevolutionCommunity?ref=ts
35
http://twitter.com/jamie_oliver
36
http://www.youtube.com/jamieoliver
37
http://www.bebo.com/OfficialJamieOliver
38
http://www.myspace.com/jamieoliver
39
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/food-safety/130399-michelle-obama-inspires-school-
salad-bar-initiative

Jamie is now launching the same kind of campaign in Australia.40
In the case of the American Revolution, Jamie Oliver has been trying to push
government into action and also to set a new connected community of
people from different horizons (NGOs, Corporations, Local Government,
Cooks, Activists) to tackle the obesity issue. For this reason, his role shares
some characteristics of the activist (drawing public attention on a particular
issue to force government to take actions) but also others of the Social
Entrepreneur (inventing a hopefully sustainable equilibrium).
Discussing Jamie Oliver’s social ventures

Following the definition introduced in the first part, we will comment on
Jamie Oliver’s actions, explain why only Fifteen should be tagged as a Social
Venture and discuss the impact of all his initiatives.
An Entrepreneur taking on various “social” roles

What is interesting when analyzing Jamie Oliver’s achievments is that he
happened to be famous before undertaking social ventures. His aim was to
“give something back”: all he did was not perfectly planned, at least not as a
Social Entrepreneur might do.
As we explained in the case of fifteen, he had the idea during a talk with a
good friend of his. Of course, Jamie Oliver had a beginning of a plan; of
course he hired social business experts41 and food researchers42 to help him
through his campaigns and legitimate his fight. But his first aim was to have
a positive social impact in general and contribute to make the world a place
where people eat better food, in particular.
Let’s try to step into Jamie Oliver’s shoes back in 2001 before he launched
fifteen. As a friend of his said once, “he knows what he’s got”, so Jamie
Oliver was aware of the cards in his hands: great communication skills, great
knowledge of the food industry and the TV world, growing celebrity. You
40
http://www.jamieoliver.com/news/jamie-s-ministry-of-food-australia-launc
41
As a trustee of Fifteen, he built an experienced management team. Among the key players
was Fifteen’s director Liam Black, founder of the Furniture Resource Centre, one of Britain’s
pioneering social enterprises.
42
Some of the information he used during the making of Jamie’s School dinners was drawn
from earlier work on school meals carried out by the Soil Association and campaigner
Jeanette Oray.

know you have these assets and you want have a positive impact, what
would you do?
As we said before, every move Jamie Oliver made was not necessarily
planned but for sure, everything was under control. As the path of his career
proved, Jamie Oliver has always remained close to his comfort zone. He
knows what he’s got but he also knows what he is not. Back in 2001, before
the launch of Fifteen, Jamie Oliver wanted to do something good. He did
something like a strategic overview of his assets that push him to take
advantage of the “magic of TV” using his celebrity and knowledge of the
catering industry to set up a restaurant aimed at offering a second chance to
young people, and he made it. Having acquired an even greater celebrity
and the legitimacy of a Social Activist, he could tackle another issue: School
meals in UK. With the success of this fight, he then moved to an even bigger
country and an even more dramatic issue: the epidemic of obesity in the USA
and now in Australia.
Our first point is that Jamie Oliver did what he did (social venture, social
campaign, and revolution) first and foremost because he had the mean to
prove successful in every venture he undertook at the time he undertook
them. Back in 2001, if he had started a revolution in the USA, he would
certainly have failed.
Our second point is that Jamie Oliver, strategically speaking, took

alternatively the role of a Social Entrepreneur, social activist and campaigner
with a strong sense of which one could make the greater impact. Being a TV
star with good intentions, he has taken advantage of the magic of TV to
undertake social actions. He might have wondered the best way to use his
fame for a good purpose. Back in 2001, being still very young and with no
legitimacy, he could not undertake a public campaign or if he could, odds are
he would have failed. At that time he wanted to prove the catering industry
he could set up a restaurant with high standard being focused on a social
purpose at the same time. He needed to prove the industry he was a cook
and a manager on his own before taking the form of the activist, what he did
after that.
The difference between Fifteen and the other campaigns

As explained in the first part, a social Entrepreneur is not an activist because
he is looking to create a new, sustainable equilibrium abiding by the rules of
capitalism. Fifteen can be tagged as a social venture because it generates

income and pays wages whereas Jamie’s School Dinners and Jamie’s Food
Revolution rely on donations and the work of volunteers. As the names of
these initiatives illustrate, Fifteen is a venture in its own right whereas
Jamie’s School Dinners and Jamie’Food Revolution mainly relied on Jamie’s
involvement.
Counting less on Jamie was and remains a big challenge for Fifteen. As
Fifteen’s 2009 Report acknowledged: “As Fifteen became stronger, [Jamie]
moved from hands-on operational involvement to a more strategic role as a
board member of the foundation.”
Penny Newman, formerly of The Body Shop and Fairtrade coffee company
Caffédirect, has been Fifteen’s chief executive since 2008. Talking to The
Guardian in 2009, she spoke of her plans to step up the scope of Fifteen’s
training operations: “The nucleus of my vision for Fifteen is that we can
become a training hub for the whole hotel industry, offering young people
skills in every aspect of the restaurant, such as sourcing and procurement or
front-of-house. So you don’t need to want to become a chef in order to come
through our program.”43
Newman admitted she was facing challenges: among those challenges,

raising revenues and profits and rejuvenating the Fifteen brand were the
highest. She felt that people may not even be aware that the “Social side”
-the apprenticeship- still existed. As Trevor Clawson puts it “the continuing
association between Oliver and the venture he created represents something
of a double-edged sword. On the plus side is the indisputable fact that
without his energy and enthusiasm (and his financial backing) there would
be no Fifteen. On the other hand, with Oliver no longer around, the
restaurant business must now establish itself as an attractive destination in
its own right.”44
Now we have discussed the forms of Jamie Oliver’s social involvement, let’s
comment on the qualities of a great Social Entrepreneur.
43
Kelly, Anne, “The numbers game”, The Guardian, March 4 2009
44

A true Social Entrepreneur
According to Charles LEADBEATER in The rise of the social entrepreneur
(1997), successful social entrepreneurs are also: leaders, storytellers, people
managers, visionary opportunists and alliance builders. We explained in the
first part what these qualities mean to M. LEADBEATER. It seems to us
interesting to reuse these qualities to justify that, according to us, Jamie
Oliver should be considered as a Social Entrepreneur.
Leadership:
“Social entrepreneurs are good at setting a mission for an organization and
mobilizing people around it.” The mission statement of Jamie Oliver Ltd and
Jamie Oliver Foundation leaves no room for ambiguity. Jamie Oliver and his
companies aim “to help as many people as possible eat better food and live
a better life.”45 This statement is a way to give coherence to the company
message but also a commitment which embraces all activities from TV
programmes through recipe books to branded kitchenware.
Secondary goals are also very clear. According to the official guide to his
business activities, Oliver’s companies operate according to three guiding
principles: creativity, sustainability, big social heart. Oliver wants his
companies to demonstrate “big social heart” whenever it’s possible. Even
though the expression “big social heart” remains quite vague, it definitely
shows Oliver’s commitment towards social improvement, inside or outside
the company.
Storytelling:
Social entrepreneurs have to be good at communicating the mission. They
communicate their values and motives through stories and parables rather
than analytically which encourages other staff to think imaginatively.
Communication was at the heart of every social initiative Jamie undertook,

which is not surprising for a TV program maker. Jamie Oliver has taken
advantage of both traditional media (TV programs, books) and new, “social”
media. His website is real platform introducing both his companies and
foundation, where people can post a recipe comment on his actions, or even
45
Oliver’s primer on his organization http://jamieoliver.me.uk/var/docs/jo_bb_about018.pdf

find a date46. Jamie Oliver is famous for directly expressing to his fans
through videos. He posts one video per week on Youtube, where he has a
dedicated channel47 (more than 3,500,000 views since the launch in 2006).
46
http://www.jamieoliver.com/dating
47
http://www.youtube.com/jamieoliver

People management:
The main resource of these ventures being the people – the knowledge and
ideas of staff, helpers and users – social entrepreneurs must show strong
relational and people management skills.
As Trevor CLAWSON puts it, “Jamie Oliver’s approach to recruitment mirrors

his own work ethic and commitment. He likes to surround himself with
talented and inspiring people who do a good job and are ready to try new
things.”48
“I’m not interested in people getting pissed on a Sunday night and coming to
me on Monday when I’m paying their wage” Jamie Oliver told the Guardian in
2005. “If you want doors to open, then I’ll open them for you, buy you’ve
gotta be consistent, every day, day in, day out.”
Visionary opportunism:
Social entrepreneurs are visionary; they communicate their aims in moral
terms. They are also realistic, pragmatic and opportunistic.
How Jamie Oliver took advantage of the magic of TV to draw attention on

social issues like the obesity epidemic in the USA is a good way to illustrate
his opportunism. He has been very criticized for it but has always proved
more focused on the “social impact” than on “the audience impact.”
Alliance building:
Social entrepreneurs are good at networking in order to maximize their
resources and assure their survival via networks of support. Their leadership
is collaborative in order to bring diverse parties to the table, identify
common ground and take joint action.
Throughout all his fights, Jamie Oliver was careful to welcome any
government investment and help while continuing to push for more. The
Food Revolution in the USA was the result of an alliance with Michelle
Obama, who is also known for her fight against the obesity issue.
48

To conclude this part and before starting a discussion on how to integrate
social consciousness into the corporate world, it is useful to remind that the
social impact is truly at the heart of both Jamie Oliver’s foundation and
corporate empire. What is interesting in Jamie Oliver’s case is that his social
Involvement and the brand’s image feed each other: it is because Jamie
Oliver was famous that he could undertake such social initiatives. On the
counterpart the benefits of social involvement for the brand were
immeasurable. The social campaigns he undertook opened the door to new
food programs that focused on hot topics rather than recipes while still
attracting mass audience. Who knows how long Oliver would have remained
a TV star otherwise? Like for any other famous figure, the public could have
got bored. Instead, Jamie Oliver continues to develop his career, developing
an image which combines altruism, campaigning zeal and self-interest.

The reasons why a more social company
model would benefit business:
After discussing Jamie Oliver’s social achievements we can ask ourselves

how to promote these values and skills across the business world in order to
integrate social consciousness in every company. Unfortunately a lot of
business analysts and businessmen still expose a sceptical view of corporate
benevolence. A couple of years ago, two broadly sold newspapers gave a lot
of voice to these positions. In The Miami Herald, Henry MILLER wrote an
article entitled: “Businesses do not have social responsibilities, only people
do”, whilst The Economist made a harsh criticism about companies
financially contributing to the 2004 tsunami relief effort as they were
“spending other people’s money”. Now this position towards social
consciousness in business is far from being new. In the 1970’s, Michael
FRIEDMAN then declared: “There is one and only social responsibility of
business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase
its profits”. Michael PORTER and Mark KRAMER in Strategy and Society:
The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social
Responsibility, defend a strategic vision of CSR but they also remind us
that there is a moral purpose of business: “By providing jobs, investing
capital, purchasing goods, and doing business every day, corporations have
a profound and positive influence on society. The most important thing a
corporation can do for society, and for any community, is to contribute to a
prosperous economy”. Therefore we should always have in mind the
Market’s importance and that social measures should be anchored in a
company’s business to be successful. Nevertheless, what happens when the
Market creates always more inequalities and Governments fail in their
mission to reduce them? Finally what role should companies play in our
modern society?
We are convinced that creating a new more socially responsible corporate

model is a way of lifting up both corporations and individuals by giving a
clear sense to one’s work. We also believe that there is a positive
relationship between a company’s social and financial goals. Now let’s take a
closer look to the reasons encouraging us to promote this social change.

The emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR):
Social entrepreneurship is without a doubt the strongest form of integration
between business and society. Addressing social issues is the core driver of
these business ventures. Nevertheless, there are other ways of bringing
together business and community expectations. A modern answer to this
request of making corporations more aware and responsible of their global
environment (social, environmental, …) is the concept of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). The recent popularity of CSR which started to gain
ground amongst scholars at the beginning of the 1990’s, takes its roots in
the general opinion’s reaction to a series of mediatised scandals. Enron’s
bankruptcy and the loss of retirement for thousands, the sub primes crisis
and the thousands of families having their houses ceased or more recently
BP’s deepwater platform oil spill have fuelled criticism and generated a
growing demand for CSR in response. The increasing power of multinational
groups operating all over the world - some of them having more influence
than many governments worldwide - has lead to the development of a strong
and loud counter power in the voice of social activism.
The resulting growing popularity makes scholars predict that CSR will be one
of the dominant issues in the future. A series of actions make us believe that
the increasing interest for social issues in politics and business is here to
stay. As early as March 2000, the British government appointed a CSR
minister in charge of promoting responsible business practices in the UK. A
growing number of MBA students are attracted by social impact functions.
For example, the Social Enterprise Club has become the largest student club
at Harvard Business School. Finally, socially responsible investment
strategies now attract over $2.7 trillion in assets representing over 10% of
total US investments.
Meanwhile, CSR is not a new concept, the initiative was constructed many
years before it became popular. In fact, a lot has been written about CSR,
giving birth to a great number of theories, approaches and terminology. Let’s
see how CSR encourages a new way of doing business.

More social consciousness increases business
performance:
For many companies, implementing CSR measures is no longer seen as an
additional cost but above all a way of achieving higher business results by
increasing sales, improving innovation, decreasing production inefficiencies,
limiting future risks, facilitating access to capital, … . In Three Models of
Corporate Social Responsibility, Elizabeth REDMAN’s second model is
called “Corporate Social Responsibility brings in the cash”. Despite the roar
formulation, the idea is to say that by doing good you can do better. Today,
the examples of positive returns on CSR investments are clear and
numerous. Whatever the reason, it would be absurd for Senior Executives
not to take the risk of socially transforming their company. Here are the main
reasons why CSR improves business performance:
Attract new customers or boost sales:

For most CEO’s, reputation is considered to be their company’s most
valuable asset. CSR, if it is well implemented can have a strong positive
effect on the way customers see the firm. CSR can be used as a strategic
marketing tool whether its aim is to enter a new niche or simply believing
that their good work will one day be recognized and rewarded by customers
and other stakeholders. Kara HARTNETT of Business for Social Responsibility
(BSR), describes the utility of CSR by explaining that “Brand differentiation is
important for known companies and that social responsibility can set them
apart”. At Microsoft, where CSR is all about the bottom line, the objectives
are clear: achieve the biggest market share possible and become the market
leader. In order to better sell their X-box they used the results of a study
showing that potential buyers were concerned about environmental and
labour issues. In response Microsoft decided to comply itself to this demand
and re-examine the environmental rules of the countries in which the
manufacturers were. Finally, better sourcing which was impulsed by higher
consideration of potential customers’ expectations lead the company to a
commercial and ethical success.
The Body Shop case:
The Body Shop is also a good example of how strong social values can boost
the company’s results by attracting new responsible customers. The Body
Shop’s CSR program operates around 3 core business areas. First it

developed a sustainable Supply chain strategy called “Community Trade”49
whose goal is to purchase natural ingredients and accessories from socially
or economically marginalized communities around the world. It gives these
producers access to a market that would otherwise be out of reach and
provides a fair and reliable income, as well as a commitment to creating a
sustainable business. For example, the company’s moisturizing socks is
produced by a Community Trade supplier, Craft Aid in Mauritius, which
provides employment to 160 people, 40% of which have disabilities. The firm
decided to go even further by launching an “Ethical trade program” which
aims at improving working conditions for people operating on the supply
chain.
The second aspect of the Body’s Shop CSR strategy is to engage the
Community through “community based development projects”. A way of
reinforcing the company’s business sustainability is to engage the wider
community into the core business activity so that communities become
embedded in corporate supply chain strategy. We can illustrate this fact with
the Body’s Shop 2008 “Stop Violence in the Home campaign”. By providing
practical tools to empower women to provide support to friends in need, the
campaign aimed to be a source of inspiration and support for millions of
women around the world. The campaign raised £1.9 million by 2008 and
reached 56 markets. In each market, all the funds raised were donated to
the chosen non-profit charity organization, to help fund vital projects of
prevention, support, and protection for women and children.
The last aspect of the Body Shop’s social strategy is “Corporate

Philanthropy”. In its efforts to be more socially responsible, the firm donates
a portion of its pre-tax profits to corporate philanthropy. Through its
Foundation, it aims to give financial support to help socially innovative
organizations which have difficulties to access conventional finding: “The
Body Shop Foundation's focus is to assist those working to achieve progress
in the areas of human and civil rights, environmental and animal protection”
(http://www.thebodyshop.com ).
Risk avoidance:
Despite the fact CSR can improve sales and customer recruitment, the most
important motivator for corporations is that CSR is an effective tool of risk
49
http://www.suite101.com/content/corporate-social-responsibility-at-the-body-shop-
a215660

management. Today companies are evolving in a complex environment,
commonly referred to as the Global Economy. A broader operating
environment means more stakeholders for the company and therefore more
risks surrounding its activities: (figure : Corporate Social Responsibility
as Risk Management, a model for Multinationals, Beth KYTLE & John
Gerard RUGGIE, Harvard University)
For executives, being able to manage uncertainties arising from

Governments, Civil Society (the most activist) and other corporations is not
an easy exercise but appears to be of strategic importance for their
corporations. Companies are familiar with 3 types of traditional risks:
economic, technological and political. These risks are routinely modelled and
managed by corporations. Meanwhile globalization by bringing more
interdependence between the company and its stakeholders has lead to
greater vulnerability. The more interactions entities have with one another,
the more factors influencing the overall relationship are introduced. These
new pressure points, especially those fermented by civil society constitute a
new type of risk known as “Social risk”. CSR as a way of bringing together
the company and its stakeholders plays an important role in risk avoidance.
Indeed, more corporate engagement towards the community can help
companies better understand and manage risks that come from new and
unfamiliar sources. By incorporating CSR as a core competitive advantage,
companies can expect favourable opinion from public opinion and its
stakeholders. CSR is therefore a powerful way of transforming companies
into proactive community actors. Adidas, Starbucks and Patagonia are

examples of companies which have learnt a lot from their partnerships with
NGO’s. This enabled them to acquire knowledge about different supply chain
working conditions, production sites’ norms abroad, environmental damages,
and other core components of their business. Being aware of sourcing
guidelines and ethical codes can help companies in numerous ways by
avoiding the future costs and negative media coverage from unethical
working conditions, unreliable business relationships, financial
mismanagement and disruptions of operations. Finally, according to Beth
KYTLE & John RUGGIE, “the linkage of CSR into core business processes can
improve a company’s overall approach to risk management by improving
strategic intelligence and knowledge of social issues/groups”. Nevertheless,
integrating CSR into core business activities can be tough, as we will
illustrate in the Nike case:
The NIKE case:
Nike is a famous example of a company which struggled to link a

comprehensive CSR program with its core business processes as part of its
overall approach to business performance. In this case risk management
poorly matched with stakeholder engagement which left the company
extremely vulnerable, with no means of control or countermeasures over the
negative events and media coverage.
Since its creation in 1964 by Philip KNIGHT and Bill BOWERMAN, Nike’s
business model is based on global outsourcing. In 1996, Nike found itself at
the middle of a media storm after Bob HERBERT, a New York Times
columnist, boldly criticized Nike labour conditions with a harsh op-ed piece.
The accusations alleged that Nike built its wealth and products with the
“slave” labor of young Asian women. The article said Nike used
“sweatshops” of “wretched origins,” (Herbert, 1996). This column created an
immediate nationwide stir among consumers, activists, and international
corporations. The news rooted itself quickly in consumers, and protests and
small boycotts sprang up around the country. Over 40 demonstrations
occurred at nationwide Niketowns, with one Niketown grand opening being
marred by the arrest of 19 demonstrators.
Nike quickly responded to these attacks by reporting that it was pro-actively

addressing the labour condition issue in Asian factories. The firm engaged all
its suppliers to sign a Memorandum of Understanding that committed to
comply with local laws mentioning, minimum wage, child labour and working
conditions. In order to check the suppliers’ compliance to these measures

Nike simultaneously conducted spot audits of labour and environmental
conditions.
Despite their attempts, these measures were seen as insufficient by

mainstream opinion and failed to build credibility with labour activists. Nike
was lacking both information about working conditions in its suppliers
factories and information about stakeholders’ opinion on its practices. All in
all, it needed better social risk management.
In May of 1998, Philip KNIGHT formally addressed the broad range of

criticisms of his company by issuing a statement of corporate responsibility,
which committed Nike to six new standards for its manufacturing facilities,
including factory monitoring, minimum age requirements, environmental
safety standards, employee education programs, expansion of its micro-loan
program, and greater transparency of corporate responsibility practices.
Here, Nike finally started to develop a CSR program linked with its core
business functions to address the labour issues. In 199-2000, under Tom
Clarke’s presidency, CSR was effectively integrated as one of the five
business performance objectives for the corporation.
The results for Nike flew in quickly. As it made a strong commitment to CSR,
its approach to labour issues also changed. Nike participated in a range of
programs going from the interview of some 9000 young workers in their
Indonesian suppliers factories about their needs, to multilateral initiatives
which focused on the development of compliance in labour standards (ex.
Fair Labour Association).
In the end, Nike’s experience lays the emphasis on the danger of responding
to social issues through isolated means, in this case spot audits, and also
that ignoring the opinion of a larger stakeholder activism can lead to major
reputation downfalls. Finally, Beth KYTLE & John RUGGIE lay the conclusion
that “Nike illustrates that CSR activities are not discretionary expenditures.
CSR must be linked strategically to core business functions to reap the full
benefits”.
Build connections within the community:

Business is about connections. Successful businessmen and companies
usually operate around a tightly knight network involving other companies,
policy makers and many other stakeholders. Duncan WYSE, president of the
Oregon Business council, explains “companies are not islands, they are not

isolated from the world; their business depends on their engagements in
networks. When a company strengthens its relationship with the community,
this is part of the mission”. Moreover, Arthur D.LITTLE in The Business
Case for Corporate Citizenship describes the effects of the company’s
stakeholders’ perception on its business: “The perceptions that stakeholders
have of a company’s corporate citizenship performance can significantly
affect the business’ license to operate. Companies with a poor reputation in
this area can find themselves continually responding to criticism of their
approach to a whole range of environmental and social issues”. Good CSR
practices and strong community involvement can lead to closer links with
regulators and policy makers which may help the business later on.
Bolster recruitment and retention of quality

employees:
The positive relation between a socially responsible company and its
capacity to bolster recruitment, attract and retain talented employees is one
of the main factors of motivation for companies to develop social and
environmental measures. Studies have clearly demonstrated the correlations
between job satisfaction and greater employee commitment to the firm,
usually meaning more proactive, innovative and productive employees, thus
leading to over performing businesses. A 2004 survey amongst MBA
graduates illustrates these arguments as it reveals that more than three-
fourths of this population would forgo financial benefits to work for an
organization with a better CSR reputation. The American In-N-Out fast food
as clearly understood this potential. The Human Resources Director is proud
to present the company’s high wages and presence in the community
policies: “Efficiency wages are self-serving. Our store managers may make
100 to 120 percent over industry norms, but the money spent on salaries is
seen as an investment. Our wages not only broaden the applicant pool from
which we can choose employees, but increase performance levels and
retention rates.... Although you can never know for sure why people stay
with a company, I certainly believe it may influence why people like their job
here”.

Better working conditions:
By devoting more resources to employees which is seen as a social step
forward, companies can gain a lot in terms of productivity and therefore
increase profitability. If more executives knew that labour accidents and
illnesses cost the global economy an estimated 1.25 trillion dollars which
accounts for an approximate 4% of the World’s GDP (International Labour
Organization), they would surely pay closer attention to their employees’
working conditions.
Anticipate future legislation:

Implementing a CSR programme can often mean being the first mover in an
area. This can create an important competitive advantage for the company
by helping it to anticipate future restrictive legislation. Most business
analysts agree to say that it is important for corporations to identify and
anticipate hot policy issues and take a clear stance before laws are enforced.
Hewlett Packard (HP) is a good example of a company implementing
environmental friendly measures in order to anticipate the legislation. In
2003, HP was already addressing the issues of product take-backs and
computer recycling through its own program before the legislators had
passed a restrictive law. HP went even further by lobbying for national
legislation has it could already accommodate from new norms. By correctly
anticipating the trend, the company had developed a competitive advantage
as it now had less efforts and investments to make to align itself with the
rules than its less forward-thinking competitors.
Increase access to capital:

Finally the last reason for incorporating more social thinking and actions in
the business world comes from attracting investors. As we mentioned earlier,
socially responsible investment strategies now attract over $2.7 trillion in
assets which represents over 10% of total US investments. This is the fastest
growing investment market and many companies would like to have a piece
of the cake. For companies, CSR represents a way to increase their access to
capital. In the 70’s emerged the notion of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)
funds. Today, their weight on the capital market is huge and their investing
strategies embody numerous social issues from “green funds” which focus

on environmental issues to the level of positive repercussion of the business
on the community. As we could expect, many companies decided to change
their stand towards CSR in order to target these investors. There are some
examples where companies, first rejected from an investment, decided to
reapply after adopting more social or environmentally friendly policies.
Although we can criticize the fact companies have a financial interest in
implementing CSR measures, and that more social consciousness should
come from an ethical, disinterested will, we prefer to believe in the market’s
auto regulation with incentives being pushed by SRI funds.
All in all, does it really matter how we reach a more socially responsible
business model, as long as the business world incorporates these issues? We
all agree that there are different levels of social implication from companies.
Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR reminds us that the true goal is to reach a
“philanthropic” level of corporate social responsibility. Nevertheless we tend
to forget that corporations evolve in a global environment where many
stakeholders have a part to play in lifting business to a more socially
responsible model. Therefore let’s have a look at which stakeholders can
really make a difference in our quest for more social awareness.

How can the company’s stakeholders make a
change and encourage the emergence of this
socially responsible corporate model
We believe that outside forces are necessary to restore a social equilibrium
when companies view societal goals as an obstacle to profit-seeking.
Therefore a company’s stakeholders have an important part to play in order
to integrate stronger social values in business.
Stakeholder vision
Today, in our Global economy, there are many factors which are at the origin
of social change. From a sociologist point of view we can examine 4 main
drivers of this change: demographic, technological, cultural and political.
Bearing in mind these elements, in our study we have chosen to focus on the
part played by a corporation’s stakeholders in the movement towards more
social consciousness in the business world. In Managing the Extended
Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View, California Management Review
(2002), J.E POST, L.E PRESTON and S. SACHS, define the stakeholders of a
company as the “individuals and constituencies that contribute, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and activities, and
who are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers.” Therefore a
company’s stakeholders are seen as those who supply critical resources,
place something of value “at risk,” and have sufficient power to affect its
performance. Their role, opinion and actions are determinant for the
company’s activities. The following figure illustrates the different social risk
entry points coming from a company’s stakeholders in order for it to
anticipate and manage them: (figure : Corporate Social Responsibility as
Risk Management, a model for Multinationals, Beth KYTLE & John
RUGGIE, Harvard University).

From a CSR point of view, stakeholders are considered to have three roles:
• they are the sources of expectations about what constitutes desirable

and undesirable company performance defining the norms for
corporate behaviour;
• they experience the effects of corporate behaviour;
• and they evaluate the outcomes of companies’ behaviours in terms of

how they have met expectations and have affected the groups and
organizations
We have chosen to take a closer look at what we consider to be a company’s

5 main stakeholders from a social point of view: Governments, investors,
employees, customers and Civil Society Organizations.
Governments:
Governments by their power to enforce new laws and norms are a key actor
in the Global Economy. Corporations have a strong interest to accommodate
themselves with this stakeholder. The interactions between the business and
political worlds have always been tight, and thus to the point that some

industries place a lot of funds and efforts in networking and lobbying.
Governments have a lot of influence and responsibility in our aim of making
corporation more socially responsible. Indeed, when business externalities
create social and environmental problems, traditional market-correction
policies may be necessary. In Corporate Responsibility in the Global
Village: The Role of Public Policy, Susan A. AARONSON and James
T.REEVES explain: “Although market forces are increasingly pressing
companies to act responsibly, markets have not succeeded in prodding
corporations to ‘do the right thing” everywhere they operate. To some
degree, public policies to promote CSR arise from market failures”. Without
opening the debate between public intervention vs. market regulation, we
consider that Governments should encourage socially responsible behaviours
as this will benefit to the Community as a whole. We could imagine a system
of tax breaks, rewards or recognition of good behaviour, and the
implementation of a social-eco label for companies that meet certain
requirements or standards. In a nutshell, Governments have the power to
create incentives or impose tougher regulations to encourage voluntary
business programs to come to grips with environmental and social problems.
Investors’ role:
Figures from the European Social Investment Forum show that socially
responsible funds make up for less than 1% of the European fund market.
Nevertheless, these funds’ impact on mainstream markets goes well beyond
their economic impact. Companies pay more and more attention to
sustainable policies and CSR reports have become a common feature in
annual reports in order to respond to clients and investors’ new questions.
“Investors are now thinking about environmental and social issues as risk
issues in their own right,” explains Mark ROBERTSON of sustainable
investment adviser EIRIS. “It is not necessarily from a traditional ethical
perspective, but increasingly because it makes financial sense to take that
kind of thing on board.” Moreover, by introducing new investment criteria,
Socially Responsible Investment funds place themselves as new financial
watchdogs. Indeed, these funds have the power to convert companies
ignorant of their impact on environment and society into more responsible
corporations. The role of shareholder activism is crucial in the quest of a new
more socially responsible business world. By owning a part of the company’s
equity, shareholders are legitimate to positively influence corporate
behaviours. Their efforts include initiating conversations with corporate

management on issues of concern and submitting and voting resolutions
related to these social issues. Some might think that this type of investing
will under perform traditional investing. First many examples show that this
belief is not relevant. Secondly, more socially conscious investing will have a
positive impact on the business by making it more sustainable. Storeband, a
Scandinavian financial services provider is a good example of this
shareholder activism. In 2005, the company decided to subject all of its
funds (about 25 billion euros in assets) to a common minimum standard of
social responsibility. Christine MEISINGSET, Head of SRI research at
Storebrand explains that "we saw that it is a good idea and it is not hurting
returns, so we decided to move forward and do more of it” The motivation,
MEISINGSET says, was an ethical one. “It is not right that we invest our
customers’ money in areas that will be detrimental to future generations.”
Finally, “the return on investments have hardly been affected by the move”,
she says.
Employees’ role:
Today, with the emergence of the Y Generation a lot is changing on the
labour market. Since the industrial Revolution, “careerism” has been the
business leitmotiv. Personal and social accomplishment came from a series
of promotions and increase in responsibilities. People pursued more power,
authority, money and position within an organization in order to gain socially
recognized external rewards. According to Douglas LABIER50 (Ph.D., business
psychologist Director of the Center for Progressive Development in
Washington) “a transformation is happening in the way people think about
their careers. A first change happened in people’s work orientation with
workers seeking a more personal meaning through their job. For many
people, working now doesn’t only represent a mean of financially supporting
oneself but also a way of achieving personal development. Professional and
personal development become interrelated and escape to the conflictive
vision prevailing in the careerist model”. For Douglas LABIER, “the 4.0 career
is more focused on having impact on something larger than oneself”. The 4.0
careerist wants to work for a company with which it shares common values
such as high ethical standards, positive leadership, community actions,
transparency, … but is also a fun place to work. Finally, the “4.0 careerist
thinks of work as a vehicle for change and influence upon the larger human
community”.
50
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-labier/the-40-career-is-coming-a_b_783566.html

Therefore, this new generation of workers by drawing the outskirts of a new
job career, is developing the power to mould corporations which are
beginning to rethink their way of doing business, by integrating a core social
meaning to their business mission. Employees are now interested in the
company’s triple bottom line (the company’s returns for shareholders, the
environment and stakeholders). As a key resource and stakeholder for
companies, workers are a strong catalyst of this movement towards a new
company model, respectful and socially implicated in the community. For
companies, implementing a CSR model is a way of responding to these
expectations and coming to grips with the neoclassical conflict model in
which tradeoffs between social and environmental goals and profits are
inevitable, Elizabeth REDMAN, Three Models of Corporate Social
Responsibility (2005).
Customers:
Consumers have an important role in encouraging companies to adopt a

more socially responsible way of doing business. Every corporation make
considerable efforts to learn about their customers consumption habits by
identifying their preferences and opinions in order to commercialize products
and services which fit to these expectations. When consumers care about
issues such as labor conditions in foreign factories or a company’s
environmental performance, companies will be eager to take into account
these considerations. By purchasing products from companies respectful of
social and environmental issues, consumers have the power to translate
their opinions into concrete business actions for sustainability. Nevertheless,
the border between consumer opinion and effective action remains
persistent. Despite the 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions
Survey’ result that “70% (of consumers) thought CSR was important despite
the recession, and would pay as much or more for socially responsible
goods”, the translation into concrete purchasing behaviors is not as clear.
Today we believe that socially active consumers remain a niche but these
stakeholders by their faculty of choosing between different products, have
an important part to play in leveraging CSR behaviors amongst companies.

The civil societ:
The notion of Civil Society covers a variety of organisations which are
commonly grouped under the terms “NGO, “nonprofits organisations”, civil
society organisations” or the “third sector”. As we have seen in the Nike case
where NGOs launched campaigns to criticize the company’s unethical
practices, these groups’ activism can have devastating effects on a
company’s reputation and therefore affect its bottom line. In fact a major
concern of Civil society organizations is to try and influence business and
corporate agenda. Therefore, they play a crucial part in the move towards a
more socially responsible company model. These groups use a broad range
of actions such as protests, press conferences, demonstrations, organising
petitions and publicity campaigns. The Greenpeace campaign over the
disposal of the Brent Spar oil rig is one of the most well known campaigns
which uses a large array of these techniques. Another aspect of Civil Society
organizations role is their capacity to also influence the legal system. By
campaigning for new regulations and norms, these groups can have a strong
indirect action on corporations. In a nutshell, the business world knows that it
needs to take a particular attention to this loud shareholder which positions
itself as the main watchdog for ethical issues.
Impulse social change: the Social Entrepreneur’s

role
After having identified who were a company’s major stakeholders and which
influence they had over the implementation of a more socially responsible
business model, we believe that Social Entrepreneurs remain the main and
most active social change agents. These people have the qualities and will to
make a difference. As Roger L. MARTIN & Sally OSBERG put it in Social
Entrepreneurship: The case for definition, and as we mentioned in our
first part, they can identify an opportunity in an unjust equilibrium and turn
things around in order to forge a new, stable and fairer one.
Joseph SCHUMPETER described entrepreneurs as the change agents in the

economy, driving the “creative-destructive” process of capitalism. Social
entrepreneurs by launching companies with an inherent core social aim are
pilots of the changes in the Economy. There importance is such that they
often influence other businesses by spreading their ideas at a large scale.
For instance, the light will easily be shed over a successful entrepreneur who

can cumulate both sound business foundations and pro active social
involvement. He will then inspire many others and encourage larger
corporations to believe in his business model.
Jamie Oliver belongs to this group of people. He has proved that you could
do well and good at the same time, that successful business and strong
social integrity could walk hand in glove and that both could benefit each
other. He is one of these inspirational figures which stands up for his beliefs
and by doing so inspires a large group of people ready to embrace the idea
that a more socially responsible business model is not only possible but
desirable for a better, fairer and more sustainable world.
Remaining obstacles:
In our last part we have tried to explain why companies should integrate
more social consciousness at the heart of their business strategy and which
role each stakeholder could play in this transformation. Therefore, we have
demonstrated an engaged view of which role we think companies should
play in modern society. Companies which evolve in a tight network must
take into account every stakeholder by reaching a balance between benefits
to the society and benefits to the environment and stakeholders.
Nevertheless, it would be foolish not to recognize that there are still some
remaining obstacles in order to achieve a new corporate model. Criticism
against CSR practices can be as virulent as CSR defenders and some points
can be defended.
The first limit to more social consciousness comes from the predominance of
the shareholder model. As Michael FRIEDMAN declared: “There is one and
only social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in
activities designed to increase its profits”. From a strict financial point of
view, no clear correlation has been made between CSR and a higher than
average performance of a socially responsible company’s stock. For
example, Exxon Mobil, sometimes coined with the world’s poorest
environmental reputation – largely due to its reputed indifference to the use
of fossil fuels and the global warming issue – is yet one the world’s most
profitable companies. Finally, as shareholders own the company, they will
have the last word over its management and therefore have the right to
chose whether to implement a CSR strategy or not. Now the question is to
know if these programs will be seen as another cost or as a business
opportunity for companies.

Another counter argument to the positive role of corporate social
responsibility on the business comes from the lack of consumer action.
Consumers globally agree on the fact they would shop ethically. Meanwhile,
figures show that there are only a handful of consumers who care about
firms’ environmental and social records when it comes to paying the bill.
"Ethical" products are considered to be a niche market with virtually all
goods and services continuing to be purchased on the basis of price,
convenience and quality. Charity begins at home. Most people agree to say
that companies should be more socially responsible, but how can you ask for
more corporate engagement if you are not ready to change first and impulse
the movement. Consumers have the power as a group but too often
individualism is the rule.
Opponents to CSR insist that these social measures are very discretionary
and that each company can elaborate its own definition of being
“responsible”. It is true that businesses already comply with a legal and
ethical framework which they accept and consider as a crucial element for
the existing of a well-running market system. It is true that comprehensive
laws regulate how businesses operate with respect to issues including
environment, employment, labor unions, consumer protection, competition
(antitrust) and bribery. Companies and people can be punished for violating
them. Nevertheless can we call companies who respect these basic rules
“responsible”? Legally without a doubt, morally this is more questionable.
This point sheds light on one of the major limits of CSR, its definition. People
need to agree on the same definition in order to install a tool able to
evaluate a business’s social responsibility. For example, some researchers
such as David VOGEL in The Market for Virtue: The Potential and
Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility would like to integrate more
government regulation in the definition: “Consequently, the definition of
corporate social responsibility needs to be redefined to include the
responsibilities of business to strengthen civil society and the capacity of
governments to require that all firms act more responsibly.”
Finally some limits to more social consciousness can be pointed out in its
application to the company’s everyday business. A common downfall is that
CSR is a great idea launched by top management but ends up being
confused once it reaches middle management. An important effort should be
made in order to integrate CSR in the company’s strategy in order to connect
it throughout the value chain and aim it at consumers. On the same story
line, CSR can have negative effects when it is decoupled from the
organization’s everyday work. Toyota for example, led the way in green

motoring with its Prius hybrid in a new environment friendly strategy. But in
2007, Toyota lobbied with other American car manufacturers against tougher
fuel economy standards in order to preserve the sales of its fuel engine
models. This fuelled off a movement of discontent amongst Prius owners and
other stakeholders who openly criticised the Japanese firm which took a
serious hit to its reputation and lost an important business opportunity on
the environment friendly car market.

Conclusion
Our thesis brought us to discuss social consciousness as a core business
value. Taking the figure of a cook who also happened to be an Entrepreneur,
Social Entrepreneur and Social Activist (among others), we tried to contribute
to the debate of how social consciousness contributes to business nowadays.
The choice of Jamie Oliver was far from being an accident. His
entrepreneurial skills made him more interesting than a traditional business
endorsement cook. Throughout this work we tried to highlight his innovative
spirit, social values and will to make a significant change to illustrate Social
entrepreneurship in a fun, illustrated way.
This study was also a way to conclude our four and a half years of study at
EMLYON. France is one of the only countries in the world where in depth
business is taught to undergraduates with no experience. We believe that
business needs to be practiced and experienced before being discussed and
maybe taught. This is the only way for an individual to prove innovative.
Business School studies in France do not help to raise criticism and
questioning, which we think are the bases of innovation. Corporate social
responsibility is an innovative (and probably more natural) way of doing
business. As a consequence, in teaching young undergraduates with no
corporate experience traditional business practices, Business Schools are not
helping CSR to become the standard of corporate affairs.
Moreover this paper is a tribute to a self-made-man with no academic

achievement that proved able to address a new corporate model partly
because he had not received a rigid academic training and way of thinking.
This corporate model consists of two parts: a financially sustainable, socially
responsible and for-profit company focusing on people development and
social impact, Jamie Oliver Ltd and a non-for
profit Foundation whose aim is to help people
eat better food and develop the
Community’s good habits.
As an early adopter of this new corporate model,

Jamie Oliver pushes us to question which 21st
century corporate model we want to see
emerge as a reference for business. We
personally think that sustainability and

social responsibility should be raised as the basements of a sounder Global
Economy.

Bibliography:
AARONSON Susan A. & REEVES James T., Corporate Responsibility in the
Global Village: The Role of Public Policy, 2002
BORNSTEIN David & DAVIS Susan, Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone

Needs to Know, 2010
CLAWSON Trevor, The Unauthorized Guide to Doing Business the Jamie

Oliver way, 2009
DEES Gregory, The meaning of social entrepreneurship, 1998
KYTLE Beth & RUGGIE John Gerard, Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk
Management, a model for Multinationals, Harvard University, 2005
LEADBEATER Charles, The rise of the social entrepreneur, 1997
LITTLE Arthur D., The Business Case for Corporate Citizenship, 2003
MAIR Johanna & MARTI Ignasi, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight, 2006
MARTIN Roger L. & OSBERG Sally, Social Entrepreneurship: The case for
definition, 2007
PORTER Michael & KRAMER Mark, Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, 2006
POST J.E, PRESTON L.E & SACHS S., Managing the Extended Enterprise: The
New Stakeholder View, California Management Review, 2002
REDMAN Elizabeth, Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2005
SMITH Gilly, The Jamie Oliver effect: The Man, the Food, the Revolution, 2009
VOGEL David, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate
Social Responsibility, 2005
Main Web pages quoted:

www.jamieoliver.com

www.unitednations.org
http://www.fifteen.net/mission/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.thebodyshop.com

How Corporate Social Consciousness Changes Business: The Jamie Oliver Case

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

How Corporate Social Consciousness Changes Business: The Jamie Oliver Case

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

How corporate social consciousness

changes business: the Jamie Oliver

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 1 ~ PFE 2010

What is social entrepreneurship?........................10

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 2 ~ PFE 2010

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 3 ~ PFE 2010

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

2. Achieve universal primary education.

3. Promote gender equality and empower women.

4. Reduce child mortality.

5. Improve maternal health.

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.

7. Ensure environmental sustainability.

8. Develop a global partnership for development.

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 4 ~ PFE 2010

The present study is organized as followed:

First, we define social entrepreneurship and examine what are the

In a next step, we draw a portrait of Jamie Oliver and determine the

We conclude with a description of a new company model which integrates a

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 5 ~ PFE 2010

Before detailing Jamie Oliver’s amazing career, let us introduce him in 10

• In 2000, Oliver became the face of UK supermarket chain Sainsbury's

• In 2001, J.O decided to open a training restaurant for young people

• In 2003, at the age of 28, he was awarded an MBE (Member of the

• He was named most inspiring British political figure of 2005 by Channel

• His programs have now been broadcasted in over 50 countries

• His books are translated in 26 languages and sold at more than 13

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 6 ~ PFE 2010

Jamie Oliver: a committed businessman...

...Or a Social Entrepreneur, damn good at doing

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 7 ~ PFE 2010

Jamie Oliver attributes his success to continuous innovation and courage to

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 8 ~ PFE 2010

As we go deeper in the analysis of Jamie Oliver Ltd’s strategy, we’ll discuss

In a nutshell, this paper has two main objectives:

• Focusing on Jamie Oliver’s figure and social achievements, we would

• Exploring J.O.’s approach to growing and maintaining a diverse

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 9 ~ PFE 2010

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 10 ~ PFE 2010

• One of them refers to social entrepreneurship as not-for-profit

• A second group understands it as the socially responsible practice of

• And a third group views social entrepreneurship as a means to

Moreover, confusion around social entrepreneurship is due to the use of

The concept needs to be defined to enter mainstream conscious without

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 11 ~ PFE 2010

Definition of the terms “social” and

Starting with “entrepreneurship”:

The concept of entrepreneurship originates in French economics as early as

A century later, the Austrian economist Joseph SCHUMPETER described

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 12 ~ PFE 2010

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 13 ~ PFE 2010

• A context in which an opportunity is situated,

• A set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue this

• The creation of a particular outcome.”

The definition obtained by the complementary ideas of SAY, SCHUMPETER,

How “social” changes business entrepreneurship:

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 14 ~ PFE 2010

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 15 ~ PFE 2010

Therefore, Johanna MAIR and Ignasi MARTI in Social entrepreneurship

Definition of Social Entrepreneurship:

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 16 ~ PFE 2010

A.LEONARD – M.BARRAUD ~ 17 ~ PFE 2010

• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that