Is social entrepreneurship mainly the domain of privileged individuals with access to capital and connections? Or might some of the most powerful solutions to social problems emerge precisely from the communities facing those problems every day? Profs.  Edgard Barki, Thomaz Novais Rocha, Andre Samartini from FGV-EAESP explore the case of Base-of-the-Pyramid social entrepreneurs in Brazil.

The Social Entrepreneurs We Overlook: Why purpose survives even when opportunity does not by CoBS Editor Mallika Rahane.

Related research: Barki E, Campos JGFD, Rocha TN, Salusse MAY, Samartini A (2026), “Internal and external drivers of social entrepreneurship: a comparison of base of the pyramid and more affluent social entrepreneurs”. RAE: Revista de Administracao de Empresas, Vol. 66 No. 1 pp. 85–105, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAE-03-2026-0023

Discussions about poverty and entrepreneurship seem to follow a different path. Entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities are often considered as necessity entrepreneurs – individuals who create businesses primarily to secure an income or meet immediate needs.

However, in the recently published research paper titled ‘Internal and external drivers of social entrepreneurship: a comparison of base of the pyramid and more affluent social entrepreneurs’, Professors Edgard Barki, Thomaz Novais Rocha, André Samartini from FGV-EAESP and their co-authors explore a question situated at the intersection of entrepreneurship and inequality. Comparing social entrepreneurs from Brazil’s Base of the Pyramid (BoP) communities with their counterparts from more affluent backgrounds, the authors delve into the internal and external factors that shape, encourage or constrain entrepreneurial journeys.

Looking beyond the necessity entrepreneur

Mainstream literature tends to portray BoP entrepreneurs as “necessity entrepreneurs” with limited growth or innovation and seen through the lens of scarcity. Living in contexts characterised by low incomes, limited resources and institutional challenges, they are often assumed to focus on survival rather than broader social objectives.

Moreover, social enterprise initiatives often fail to meaningfully involve base of the pyramid (BoP) individuals in the solution-finding process, and instead position them as consumers, producers or beneficiaries.

Previous research has demonstrated that BoP SEs are often marginalised, stigmatised, lacking different kinds of capital, and facing additional challenges such as ‘liability of poorness’. As a result, BoP entrepreneurs often operate at the margins of the formal entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Despite growing recognition of the role BoP individuals can play as SEs, literature remains largely focused on either non-BoP SEs or BoP individuals as beneficiaries rather than as agents of change. As a result, limited attention has been paid to understanding what enables or constrains BoP SEs compared with non-BoP SEs.

To address this gap in understanding, the researchers surveyed 101 social entrepreneurs across Brazil in 2020 and 2021, comprising 41 BoP SEs and 60 non-BoP SEs. The study considered 6 interrelated internal and external drivers: entrepreneurial orientation, prosocial motivation, networking ability, life satisfaction, perceptions of environmental hostility and access to financial capital.

A shared commitment to social impact

The clearest finding emerging from the research concerns prosocial motivation – the desire to benefit others through one’s work.

Contrary to the dominant view that BoP entrepreneurs are necessity-driven, both groups demonstrated similar levels of prosocial motivation, revealing that BoP SEs are equally driven by social purpose

This finding is important because it directly challenges the idea that people facing resource constraints are primarily focused on their own immediate needs. Instead, the results suggest that social entrepreneurs at the BoP are equally committed to creating positive change for others.

For Prof. Edgard Barki and his colleagues, this finding contributes to a body of research that views entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities not merely as individuals responding to necessity, but as actors capable of pursuing broader social missions.

The weight of structural constraints

Although the two groups shared similar social motivations, their entrepreneurial environments looked very different.

The study found that social entrepreneurs from Base of the Pyramid communities reported significantly lower levels of risk-taking and proactiveness. At first glance, these differences might appear to suggest lower entrepreneurial ambition. However, the researchers interpret them within the context of structural disadvantage.

BoP SEs perceive their environment as being slightly more hostile than non-BoP SEs. These perceptions may be shaped by their daily experience navigating institutional voids, such as a lack of infrastructure, weak public services and fragmented support systems. Operating in low-trust and under-resourced ecosystems, BoP SEs face uncertainty and risks that seem costlier, thereby affecting their ability to sustain SEs and scale impact. These findings align with the literature on institutional adversity.

Under such conditions, caution itself presents a rational response to uncertainty, rather than a lack of entrepreneurial spirit.

The findings therefore point towards a broader argument covered through the paper: entrepreneurial behaviour does not emerge in a vacuum. It is constantly cultivated. Nurtured. And shaped by the social and economic environments in which entrepreneurs operate.

Even though BoP SEs reported lower risk-taking and proactiveness, interestingly no significant difference was found in innovation compared with the other group.

Entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities were no less likely to view their ventures as innovative than entrepreneurs from more affluent backgrounds.

Networks matter, but not all networks are equal

Another important difference emerged around networking ability. Entrepreneurship often depends on access to relationships that provide information, opportunities, resources and support. The study found that social entrepreneurs from affluent, non-BoP environments reported stronger networking abilities than their counterparts at the Base of the Pyramid.

Yet the results also revealed an unexpected pattern. Entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities actually reported establishing a slightly larger number of partnerships than the more affluent group.

Rather than contradicting the networking findings, this result may point towards differences in the nature of those connections. The authors suggest that the fact that BoP SEs presented a higher number of partnerships established than non-BoP SEs suggests that these collaborations may be concentrated within geographically and socially proximate networks, often involving actors who face similar structural constraints and therefore provide limited access to new markets and strategic resources.

The issue, therefore, is not necessarily the absence of networks, but the limited horizon of those networks beyond local contexts.

The challenge of capital and context

Perhaps the most substantial difference between the two groups concerned access to financial resources. The research found that BoP social entrepreneur communities were significantly less satisfied with their access to financial capital. Moreover, the initial capital used to establish their ventures was dramatically lower (37 times lower) than that of non-BoP entrepreneurs.

Financial constraints are particularly important because they influence many other aspects of entrepreneurial activity. Access to capital affects the ability to experiment, scale operations, absorb setbacks and pursue new opportunities.

The broader picture with the internal and external drivers remains clear. While entrepreneurs operating in disadvantaged contexts are equal on prosocial motivation, they face a combination of financial constraints, weaker access to influential networks, and greater environmental challenges.

Entrepreneurship in context

The central contribution of this research lies in its refusal to reduce entrepreneurship to individual characteristics alone. The findings suggest that social entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities possess many of the same motivations as their more affluent counterparts. What differs are the structural conditions surrounding them.

As such, the study encourages a more contextual understanding of entrepreneurship. Rather than asking only whether individuals possess the right mindset or motivation, it becomes equally important to examine the opportunities, resources and support systems available to them.

By doing so, the research moves beyond deficit-based portrayals of entrepreneurs at the Base of the Pyramid. It highlights their potential as agents of social change while drawing attention to the constraints that may limit the reach and impact of their efforts.

Unlocking Social Entrepreneurship at the Margins

The results and final conclusions that the authors present may help guide policymakers, development agencies and civil society actors in fostering conducive entrepreneurship environments for BoP actors.

By reframing Bottom of the Pyramid Social Enterprises as legitimate agents of social change with equal prosocial motivation, this research paper provides evidence to inform inclusive public policies, place-based interventions and ecosystem-building efforts.  Since the study finds that social commitment is not lacking, interventions focused solely on entrepreneurial motivation may overlook more pressing barriers.

The research highlights the need for support strategies for not only on funding level but also deeper embedded systemic environmental issues related to legitimacy, social capital, risk appetite and territorial inequality.

For policymakers, development organisations and entrepreneurial support networks, the findings draw attention to the value of creating pathways that connect local entrepreneurs to broader ecosystems and access to finance.

More broadly, the research suggests that fostering social entrepreneurship requires attention not only to individuals but also to the environments in which they operate.

Useful links:

• Link up with Profs. Edgard Barki, Thomaz Novais Rocha, André Samartini on LinkedIn
• Read a related insight: Base-of-the-Pyramid DNA: Companies and the common good in Brazil
• Discover FGV EAESP, Brazil.
• Apply for an MBA at FGV EAESP.

Learn more about the Council on Business & Society

The Council on Business & Society (CoBS), visionary in its conception and purpose, was created in 2011, and is dedicated to promoting responsible leadership and tackling issues at the crossroads of business, society, and planet including the dimensions of sustainability, diversity, social impact, social enterprise, employee wellbeing, ethical finance, ethical leadership and the place responsible business has to play in contributing to the common good.  

• Follow the CoBS on LinkedIn
• Download magazines and learning content from the CoBS website downloads page.

Member schools of the Council on Business & Society.

• ESSEC Business School, France, Singapore, Morocco
• FGV-EAESP, Brazil
• School of Management Fudan University, China
• IE Business School, Spain
• Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India
• Keio Business School, Japan
• Monash Business School, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Olin Business School, USA
• Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Canada
• Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
• Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Warwick Business School, United Kingdom.