Hybrid organizations pursuing a social mission while relying on a commercial business model have paved the way for a new approach to achieving societal impact. Although they bear strong promise, social enterprises are also fragile organizations that must walk a fine line between achieving a social mission and living up to the requirements of the market. This article moves beyond generic recommendations about managing hybrids in order to highlight a typology of social business hybrids and discuss how each of the four proposed types of hybrid organizations can be managed in order to avoid the danger of mission drift and better achieve financial sustainability.

Case A describes the creation and growth of Nuru Energy. Starting from nothing, the founder 'bootstraps' a social venture with the goal of providing affordable and effective lighting solutions for 800 million people without access to the electricity grid in sub-Saharan Africa and India. The case narrates the challenges involved in developing a social enterprise with a dual aim of turning a profit and making a social impact. It focuses in particular on the finanical challenge and provides a context to discuss difference financing options and their implications. It looks at the different business model alternatives - market-based and donor-based. The central theme is to assess the merits and drawbacks of the different funding alternatives. Case B is an update that explains what financing option the founder chose and its implications. It sets the stage for a discussion about trade-offs in the geographical expansion of social ventures.

Case A describes the creation and growth of Nuru Energy. Starting from nothing, the founder 'bootstraps' a social venture with the goal of providing affordable and effective lighting solutions for 800 million people without access to the electricity grid in sub-Saharan Africa and India. The case narrates the challenges involved in developing a social enterprise with a dual aim of turning a profit and making a social impact. It focuses in particular on the finanical challenge and provides a context to discuss difference financing options and their implications. It looks at the different business model alternatives - market-based and donor-based. The central theme is to assess the merits and drawbacks of the different funding alternatives. Case B is an update that explains what financing option the founder chose and its implications. It sets the stage for a discussion about trade-offs in the geographical expansion of social ventures.

The case focuses on Gram Vikas, an organisation that develops comprehensive water and sanitation systems in rural villages in India. It describes the story and development of Gram Vikas, and focuses on the challenges of scaling up social innovations by transferring them to other organisations, a common challenge in any innovation process.

The Mexican microfinance bank Compartamos Banco took the industry by surprise in 2007 with a successful IPO that valued the bank at more than US$ 1 billion. Although it was not the first listing of a microfinance organisation, the 10,000% rate of return for the initial investors and managers created controversy as many believed that these returns were possible because of the high interest rates charged to poor borrowers. This controversy divided the microfinance industry and still rages today. The case tells the story of Compartamos and its IPO, and outlines the different arguments from both sides, setting the scene for a lively debate-style session..

The case describes the launch, growth and current challenges of two innovative ventures in the nascent social lending market. It shows how these organisations are using the concept of online micro lending to eradicate poverty. While operating in the same market space, the two companies have fundamentally different business models: Kiva is based on good-will while MYC4 is based on market incentives. Which model is more likely to succeed?

Case A describes how Rodrigo Baggio in 1995 developed the first computer and citizen schools in Brazil to address the problem of digital exclusion. By 2005 the CDI network included almost 1,000 schools throughout Latin America. However, with the rapid growth came quality control problems and organisational complexities. In addition there was increasing competition from the government and from the private sector. Rodrigo and his team needed to re-assess the positioning of CDI while grappling with the complexities of managing a large network-based organisation. Case (B) continues CDI's story and presents the challenges that Rodrigo and his team faced in 2008 and are still dealing with at present. There are now 80,000 privately run cybercafés and 6,000 government Telecentros in Brazil. The CDI team needs to develop new mechanisms for improving the sustainability of the CDI network and empowering the network members. They also need to rethink CDI's added value to society in the context of an increasingly crowded market with competing solutions.

This case series of a failed startup in the financial services market illustrates three of the key issues in launching a new business - the role of a strong and cohesive founding team, the problem of lack of credibility faced by new ventures, and the importance of developing elements of novelty or innovation in the proposed business model.

This case series of a failed startup in the financial services market illustrates three of the key issues in launching a new business - the role of a strong and cohesive founding team, the problem of lack of credibility faced by new ventures, and the importance of developing elements of novelty or innovation in the proposed business model.

This case series of a failed startup in the financial services market illustrates three of the key issues in launching a new business - the role of a strong and cohesive founding team, the problem of lack of credibility faced by new ventures, and the importance of developing elements of novelty or innovation in the proposed business model.