Healing a Divided Planet: Proposed Actions on Transboundary Learning and Innovation

SERAFIN TALISAYON, 1. Transboundary Learning, global education magazineSerafin D. Talisayon

Professor (retired), University of the Philippines. Director for R&D, Center for Conscious Living Foundation

[email protected]


Abstract: Violence and conflict still continue all over the globe. Much of this violence stem from ethnic, religious and other “mental fences” that people have been educated from childhood. These boundaries and loyalties divide people in the planet. The third of the four pillars of education in the 21st century recommended by the UNESCO Delors Commission is “learning to live together” or “learning to relate.” Clearly, there is a need to come to a global consensus on what concrete actions we need to consider in overcoming these harmful and tragic boundaries. This paper explores several options towards a global action agenda in transboundary learning and innovation. Transboundary learning covers learning processes that occurs across boundaries, whether political, ethnic, geographical, religious, corporate or administrative. Transboundary innovation is innovation that redefines or transcends such mental fences, boundaries and affiliations. Three avenues of transboundary learning and innovation are explored and concrete actions are proposed under each avenue: (1) developing and application of Third Delors Technologies, (2) developing dialogue practices between religions, and (3) establishing programs to disseminate enterprise innovations. “Third Delors Technologies” is the new term proposed for those tools for helping people to “learn to live together” such as generative dialogue, training in bridging leadership and educational programs on glocality. Glocality is “thinking globally and acting locally”; it is acting locally while being informed with a broad planetary perspective. Social hostilities and physical conflicts arising from religion is increasing over the last few years. Conflict between Abrahamic religions continue to claim lives in various places in the world and even places a grave threat of nuclear war in the Middle East. The second avenue is collecting, developing and learning effective dialogue practices between religions The enterprise is the major engine of growth in the world but its gaps and weakness lead to sub-optimal wealth creation and sometimes to massive wealth destruction as we had seen in the 2008 global financial crisis. The third avenue is transboundary innovation to bridge gaps in the manner that enterprises are defined and practiced. The proposed actions are offered as contributions to what can become a global action agenda to directly address the root causes of so much violence and warfare, as well as economic losses taking place around the world today.

Keywords: transboundary learning, innovation, peace, education for peace, UNESCO, Delors Commission, interfaith dialogue, glocality, bridging leadership, sustainable development.

Introduction: the World Problematique

Today, August 17, 2014, Hazidi families have left their homes in Iraq and escaped to the mountains where there are no food nor water. “Convert to Islam or die” was the choice given them by invading Sunni extremist militants. Hundreds of Hazidis were killed and buried in mass graves, some buried alive according to reports. We had seen ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Sudan, and now we are seeing “religious cleansing” in Iraq.

Today, more violence arising from ethnic, religious, racial and other divides are going on:

  • Ukraine forces moving against ethnic Russians in Donetsk;

  • US-wide protests after a white policeman killed unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri;

  • British Aine Davis, 30, who forsook life in west London to join the jihadists in Syria and Iraq;

  • Somali troops and African Union peacekeepers fighting al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab militia in Mogadishu;

  • Boko Haram raided and abducted dozens of boys and men in Northeastern Nigeria;

  • A child therapist in a Gaza hospital struggles to help two Palestinian brothers, 3 and 18 months old, scarred with burns and shrapnel wounds from Israel bombings, to make them talk and smile;

  • Taliban-linked militant killed when they attacked two Pakistani air force bases in Quetta; and

  • Amazon tribal people crossed the border from Peru to Brazil fleeing drug smugglers and illegal loggers who are killing them and burning their homes.

The UNESCO Constitution started by saying that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” Since the Constitution was signed in 1945, wars are still going on. It seems little or no progress have been made in constructing defenses of peace in the minds of men since World War II (see Figure 1). In 1996, the Delors Report of UNESCO recommended four fundamental pillars of education for the 21st century: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be1. Nearly two decades after the report, school systems around the globe are still focused on “learning to do” or education for employment and hardly any progress has been visible along “learning to live together”.

The continuing violence in 2014 shows mankind’s continuing inability to learn and manage relationships. Mental fences that divide people from each other continue to be taught and nurtured in children by parents and teachers around the globe.

Broadway playwrights Rogers and Hammerstein introduced a song “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” in their play “South Pacific.” It was an intended parody of this tragic and fatal miseducation of children that is still happening in millions of homes and schools all over the globe. The song goes:

You’ve got to be taught

To hate and fear,

You’ve got to be taught

From year to year,

It’s got to be drummed

In your dear little ear

You’ve got to be carefully taught.

A boy amidst the destructions by war, international day of peace, global education magazine

Figure 1: A boy amidst the destructions by war (Poland, 1939)

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid

Of people whose eyes are oddly made,

And people whose skin is a different shade,

You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,

Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

You’ve got to be carefully taught.

The Broadway play was written in 1949, fresh after the end of World War II and the carnage among Japanese and American soldiers in the southern Pacific. Today, 65 years later, it seems that this miseducation is still going on. Children all over the world continue to be taught to “be afraid of people…whose skin is a different shade” and to “hate all the people your relatives hate.”

The UNESCO Constitution is still valid. The Delors vision remains true. We have the right agenda. How do we more effectively implement the agenda? We lack an action plan to reverse this miseducation. We need the champions who will implement them. Reversing this terrible miseducation means developing new educational tools for removing or overcoming the fatal tribal thinking and other mental fences in the minds of children and in the minds of parents and teachers who teach the children. We need new and workable tools in transboundary learning and innovation.

In 1993, Greek American musician-composer Yanni held a concert at the Acropolis. He is well-known for hiring an international mix of musicians in his concerts. During the concert, he shared his views with his audience.

A little while back I was watching an interview with one of the astronauts from the Space Shuttle and in this interview he was describing his experiences while he was orbiting the planet and he was saying how beautiful Earth looks from above and he said that, much to his surprise, when he was going over Europe, he found that he was having a hard time telling the countries apart from each other [see Figure 2]. He said, the reason for that was, that the lines in the maps are not in the ground. He makes a great point: these lines really don´t exist. They´re made up completely and we perpetuate in the illusion that somehow we´re all different from each other and I think the world would be a much better place if someday we stop pretending that these lines exist and we concentrate in our similarities rather than in our differences.”

 Europe seen from above, global education magazine

Figure 2: Europe seen from above (NASA, 2006)

Source: Wikimedia Commons

National, ethnic, religious and other boundaries exist only in the minds of men but they produce results in physical and social realities that horrifies us as we read in newspapers or watch in CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera practically every day.

Other man-made mental boundaries exist to produce silent or less visible but very extensive and continuing harm across nations and societies:

  • Corporate frameworks exclude negative ecological and social impacts of their production operations,

  • Accounting boundaries ignore the greater enterprise value created by human capital over financial capital,

  • Disjointed administrative and legal jurisdictions are unable to manage the reality of cross-cutting ecological influence zones,

  • Narrow definition of private benefits ignore the reality of broader social costs, and

  • Academic disciplinal boundaries and government sectoral ministries do not match the inherently trans-disciplinal nature of real-world problems.

Indeed, Gregory Bateson is correct when he reminded us that “the major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.”2

Method: Towards an Action Plan for Transboundary Learning and Innovation

Transboundary learning “covers learning processes that occurs across boundaries, whether political, ethnic, geographical, religious, corporate or administrative.” Transboundary learning is the social process of discovering what works and what does not work in overcoming or transcending mental fences that divide peoples from one another. Transboundary innovation is “innovation that redefines or transcends such boundaries and affiliations.”3

This paper will examine three avenues of transboundary learning and innovation: (a) developing and application of Third Delors Technologies, (b) developing dialogue practices between religions, and (c) establishing programs to disseminate enterprise innovations. Under each avenue, some actions are proposed and discussed, which can contribute toward a global action plan for transboundary learning and innovation.

Developing and Applying Third Delors Technologies

We need new and workable tools and technologies to enable people to learn to live together or to learn to live with others, the third of the four pillars of education for the 21st century according to the Delors Commission. These tools are so critical and urgently needed that we should give them more attention. One way to do this is to adopt a label to stimulate a global discourse about them; let us call them “Third Delors Technologies.” To start with, Third Delors Technologies include generative dialogue, training in bridging leadership and educational programs in glocality.

Generative dialogue is skillful conversation that can create opportunities for participants to see their respective limiting assumptions and to explore other hitherto unseen assumptions that may be more beneficial to all concerned than what anyone had thought of. Dialogues of civilizations, not clashes of civilizations, can produce transboundary learning and transboundary solutions. There is a school of practice in organizational learning pioneered by Bohm, Senge, Isaacs and Kahane among others which had developed dialogue tools for addressing difficult socio-political conflicts. The approach was tried successfully in bringing together conflicted political groups in pre-Mandela South Africa.4 International organizations need to further develop and apply these tools for generative dialogue.

An interesting and pioneering effort is the Strategic Dialogue of Education Ministers5, set up in March 2013 by SEAMEO or the Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization. It is an annual high-level event, an “authentic dialogue, with less structure and formality, and serves as a meeting point for practice and policy, reflection and sharing among the Education Ministers” in the Southeast Asian region. This dialogue is an important activity by the SEAMEO College, a virtual platform set up to generate educational innovations for the region. Another College activity is the Educational Leaders Innovation Forum, a middle-level platform among university presidents and other education leaders in Southeast Asia. Similar institutions for generative dialogue could be considered elsewhere in the globe.

A bridging leader is one who is skillful in forging a collaborative development process among conflicted stakeholders in a local area beset by social, political and religious divides. The Asian Institute of Management had developed programs for training in bridging leadership, as well as tools for replicating bridging leadership projects.6

The Third Delors Technologies are technologies for “learning to relate” and for building social capital. Bridging leadership entails skills in managing bridging social capital, which is building productive links between social groups. In contrast, bonding social capital is building productive links within social groups. Bridging social capital contributes to planetary goodwill, inclusivity, stability and peace. The same is not always true for bonding social capital. Bonding social capital that increases distrust on people outside one’s social group results in more exclusivity and even hostility; it works against planetary stability and peace.

Conflict often arises between narrow interests and narrow perspectives. Broader or more systemic perspectives can build broader or more systemic interests. Another important global educational action is incorporating glocality in academic curricula. “Glocality” is thinking globally while acting locally. It is making decisions and taking actions in one’s small sphere of influence while being informed by knowledge of larger issues and planetary welfare.

Current UN and global discourse in education is dominated by the themes of universal access, gender equity, rights of the child and enhancing quality. These are well and good, but they are not enough because they miss the issue of “learning to live together” that lies at the root cause of military and political conflicts going on in many places in the globe today. We need educational programs in glocality for women who will become mothers and for men and women who will become teachers, to reverse the miseducation of young children and more precisely address the original 1945 UNESCO mandate, namely, “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” Without glocality, all education has been only skirting around this mandate.

Without glocality in UN programs starting with UNESCO and UNICEF, the evil of counter-glocality will continue to be unrecognized as such and allowed to grow and work its harmful effects around all of us. “Counter-glocality” is acting globally while driven by narrow or local interests. It is exercise of broad power that affects many but pursued for the benefit of the few. Some examples of counter-glocality are so common and widespread that most of its victims no longer even notice them:

  • Virus creator introducing his creation into the Internet,

  • Corrupt public official using his powers for his own or his family’s benefit,

  • Terrorist motivated by a particularistic belief,

  • Factory discharging wastes in nearby stream,

  • Psychotic with gun in large crowd,

  • Nationalistic action of a superpower,

  • Award of a government contract to a bidder who is a close personal friend,

  • Resource cartel such as OPEC that collects rentier profits from everyone,

  • Conspiratorial group of shadowy foreign exchange traders with controlling market share of the forex market in a country,

  • Government-sanctioned monopoly,

  • Protectionist domestic manufacturer bribing government official to keep tariff levels high against competing foreign products,

  • Pirates operating near Somalia,

  • Slash-and-burn farmer that starts a forest fire and creates haze across Southeast Asia.

Developing Dialogue Practices between Religions

According to the Pew Research Center, social hostilities involving religion is increasing worldwide over the last six years.7

 Developing Dialogue Practices between Religions, global education magazine

Figure 3: Social hostilities involving religion is increasing worldwide

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

For decades, the Philippines – a Christian majority country – have been struggling with separatism from some sectors of its Muslim minorities. Many – both Christians and Muslims – have died in this conflict. This conflict echoes many similar ones between Muslims and Christians elsewhere in the globe (Nigeria, Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Chechnya, Ivory Coast and Central African Republic). Together with the festering conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, the global fault lines between these Abrahamic8 religions are continuing threats to world peace and stability. Once Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons, a nuclear holocaust between Iran and Israel is a distinct possibility in the next few years. If Abraham were alive today, he would be a very sad and heavy hearted person seeing the hatred, warfare and killings among his descendants.

Many appeals for peace have been voiced by religious leaders in the past. Religious leaders issued the “Geneva Spiritual Appeal of 1999-October” to world leaders to “refuse to invoke a religious or spiritual power to justify violence of any kind.” In 2007, prominent Muslim scholars attending the annual convention of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan wrote Pope Benedict.

If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Our common future is at stake… The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.”

“…We as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.”

Along these sentiments, a number of interfaith dialogue movements and institutions have emerged around the globe such as the following:

  • The Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding in New York City;

  • Silsilah Dialogue Movement in Mindanao, Philippines;

  • The Dubai Muslim Christian Dialogue;

  • Muslim-Christian Dialogue Center of the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota;

  • Interfaith Mediation Centre in Nigeria; and

  • Foundation for Dialogue among Civilizations initiated and led by former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami.

In the Philippines, during his term in 1992-1998 as President, Fidel V. Ramos initiated a training program in spiritual governance called pamathalaan. Unfortunately, it was discontinued by the next president who did not appreciate its strategic significance. Pamathalaan was an interfaith program designed by an interfaith team. One of the dialogue practices was consensual discernment where an interfaith group seeks to directly discern or intuit the will of God for a specific situation. Direct discernment by laymen bypasses divisive theologies and religious concepts. It can be called “the method of Abraham”9 because Abraham had no scripture or priesthood to rely on and instead he relied on his own direct and personal discernment of God’s will. Among the earliest Christians, the intuited Word of God was called rhema in contrast with the written Word of God which was called logos. In Islam, it is called ma-arifah in contrast to shariah. Among indigenous Filipino religious groups, it is called kaloob in contrast to the written bilin. Over the centuries, the power of written scriptures and organized religions had unfortunately replaced the power of direct discernment by laymen. Pamathalaan seeks to re-empower laymen of any faith by re-establishing the dialogue practice direct and consensual discernment.

A Framework for Action to promote dialogue of civilizations was formulated in 2001 as a result of the Tokyo conference on Dialogue of Civilizations sponsored by the UN University and UNESCO. What we need to do next is to further operationalize and concretize dialog, especially interfaith dialog practices. Experiences of what works and what does not work in practice are accumulating from these and similar programs and institutions in interfaith dialogue. An international movement or a UN program to compile, disseminate and further test/adapt workable dialogue practices across religious boundaries is essential for greater world peace.

Establishing Programs to Disseminate Enterprise Innovations

Today, the enterprise is the primary engine for wealth creation. As currently defined and structured, the enterprise has fundamental weaknesses that can lead to suboptimal wealth creation and at times even to destruction of wealth.

Agenda 21 forged by 172 countries during the 1992 Rio Summit enshrined the sustainable development principle that economic growth should not be at the expense of social capital and environmental capital. Sustainable development elevated social and ecological wealth to the same level as economic wealth. Two decades after Rio, concepts and practices of wealth creation by enterprises have been evolving towards this principle:

  • Corporate social responsibility and socially-responsible investment have slowly augmented traditional profit maximization in businesses;

  • Social enterprises have emerged as an entirely new class of enterprise together with their use of the “triple bottom line” replacing maximization solely of economic profit;

  • Some negative social and environmental impacts are prevented through legislation requiring environmental impact assessments from proponents of big projects as well as through social and environmental safeguard requirements of multilateral development financing institutions.

However, a fundamental problem remains: corporate boundaries still treat social and environmental costs to communities and the general public as basically external to their accounting systems. Under these conditions, maximization of private profit can lead to suboptimal creation of social wealth. Creation and destruction of social and environmental capital arising from production operations are not factored into corporate decision making unless mandated by government laws and regulations – or when communities suffering social and environmental costs threaten legal or physical action. Transboundary innovations are needed to bridge the gap between community interests and corporate interests.

This gap does not exist in the case of community-owned and community-managed enterprises. The gap still exists but is narrower in the case of enterprises owned by local governments, public-private partnerships involving local governments or build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) enterprises where the eventual recipient of the BOT enterprise is the local government. Social enterprises and those enlightened corporations which voluntarily adopted the triple bottom line are not owned by the local communities but they operate in a manner that community interests are protected. These are new and emerging enterprise innovations where the gaps between private interests and social interests begin to narrow. In short, it is proposed here that international or UN programs to systematically collect, test, adapt, disseminate and promote various working models of socially-responsible enterprise innovations.

A second fundamental problem was created as a result of the emergence of the global knowledge economy.

The 2008 global financial crisis resulted in losses amounting to $50 trillion according to a study by the Asian Development Bank10. 2008 was the first time since World War II that annual Gross World Product (GWP) decreased. The losses were nearly the magnitude of GWP in 2008 of $62 trillion. This is the harm that resulted from massive loss of business confidence reverberating across national economies and markets.

Let us examine more closely what happened.

  • The 2009 crisis resulted in huge losses in market values of companies; their book values – which are estimated from past transactions – remained essentially the same.

  • Since the 1990s, market values of most companies have far exceeded their book values. This means that intangible assets are creating more market value than stockholders’ equity. Intangible assets are outside the accounting boundaries of the company. Most of these intangible assets are knowledge assets.

  • About three-fourths of GWP are now created by knowledge assets.

  • Intangible assets – which we now know consist of human, structural and relationship11 assets – are built by employees through the application of their knowledge. On the other hand, customer loyalty, brand and support of external stakeholders – which are components of relationship assets – are built by consumers who know the products they like. In short, actions by employees and customers are creating most of the market value of a company.

  • Despite employees’ knowledge having superseded stockholders’ equity in creating market value of companies, stockholders continue to control company management. To make matters worse, the mobility of stock ownership and the fickleness of buyers and sellers of stocks contribute to the instability of stock markets. Yet, compared to buyers and sellers of stocks, employees and customers have more permanent and organic interests in the growth and stability of the company.

Clearly, there is a gap between productivity and reward to employees, a gap that leads to suboptimal wealth creation. There is also a gap in corporate ownership and governance that contributes to financial instabilities. Transboundary innovations are needed to bridge these gaps.

These gaps can be narrowed by employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) and by customer stock ownership plans (CSOP)12. There are research evidences showing that employees who are co-owners of the enterprise they work in are more motivated and productive. Corporations with large proportions of their stocks owned by employees are less vulnerable to sudden sell-out by stock owners or even to hostile take-overs. The above gaps are absent in the case of corporations fully-owned by employees. The previous proposal can be expanded to include enterprise innovations where employee and customer interests are organically integrated with corporate interests. The evolution of the enterprise form then becomes a programmatic or deliberate process of re-creation and re-education.

A third fundamental problem arises from the way mainstream development thinking views wealth creation, particularly at the grassroots level.

An analysis of success stories among over 900 cases of anti-poverty projects in the Philippines13 discovered that the key development ingredient is not external funds or technology. It is leveraging on the intangible assets that a community already has, which is any combination of social capital, access to natural resources, cultural assets, human capital such as local leadership, stakeholder capital and indigenous knowledge. The reasons why the famous Grameen microfinance model was successful were precisely the way it utilized intangible assets of local communities.

Local communities that we call “poor” often possess intangible assets. The label “poor” arises from a development perspective that looks only at financial, infrastructure, technology and other tangible assets as the measures of wealth. Such perspective views development as merely a process of bringing in tangible assets from outside into the recipient community. It arises from a limited material view of what constitutes wealth. The Rio Summit broadened the concept of capital. The concept of wealth creation has to be broadened even further to include various other forms of intangible assets such as knowledge.

Wealth” should be more broadly defined. Firstly, two important development paradigms, namely sustainable development and knowledge-based development, have been proceeding along separate discourses and practices. The former is operationalized into the triple bottom line in development organizations while the latter into the measurement of intellectual capital in private organizations. The two must be brought together under a single framework applicable to both14. Secondly, different forms of capital must be recognized as contributing to the creation of value, whether market value or social value. The trans-disciplinal term “metacapital” has been proposed to encompass different forms of capital: economic or financial capital, social capital, cultural capital, environmental, ecological or natural capital, human capital, structural or process capital, stakeholder or relationship capital, infrastructure or physical capital, technological capital, etc.15

The first practical application of these changes can be in the area of community self-assessment of their assets, both tangible and intangible, as an input to identifying their development project or organizing a community enterprise. Figure 4 shows an example.

Community Self-Assessment of their Tangible and Intangible Assets, global education magazine

Figure 4: Community Self-Assessment of their Tangible and Intangible Assets16

Suco Leuro, Lautem District, Timor Leste, 2008


There is so much violence and warfare and there is so much economic loss happening around the world. The root causes lie in the “mental fences” in the minds of people. “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed” according to the UNESCO Constitution. We have the right agenda – education – but we need a more concrete and operation set of actions to directly address the root causes. The actions proposed in this paper are offered as contributions towards a global action agenda urgently needed to prevent further suffering to humankind everywhere.


1Learning: the Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. See: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001095/109590eo.pdf.

2 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/104738-the-major-problems-in-the-world-are-the-result-of

3See the online proceedings of the KM for Development Dgroup forum on Transboundary Learning and Innovation for Development. http://wiki.km4dev.org/Talk:Transboundary_learning_and_innovation_for_development

4Adam Kahane: Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening and Creating New Realities. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, 2004.

5See: http://www.seameocollege.org/w/index.php/our-programmes/module-1

6See: AIM Team Energy Center for Bridging Leadership. http://bridgingleadership.aim.edu/

7See: http://www.pewresearch.org/

8 Believers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam all trace their lineage to a common ancestor, Abraham or Ibrahim.

9Talisayon: The Way of Abraham, Muslim and Christian Perspectives on Pamathalaan. Read at Lakaran 1996, Movement for Muslim-Christian Dialogue, University of the Philippines, 4 December 1996.

10 “Global Financial Market Losses Reach $50 Trillion, Says Study” Asian Development Bank, 8 March 2009. See: http://www.adb.org/news/global-financial-market-losses-reach-50-trillion-says-study

11Sometimes narrowly called “stakeholder capital” or even more narrowly as “customer capital.”

12Talisayon: Exploration of Variants of Consumer and Employee Ownership Schemes. Presentation before the First Global Consumption Summit, Beijing, China, 19-20 December 2009.

13Talisayon and Suministrado: Knowledge for Poverty Alleviation, a Framework for Design and Evaluation of Development Projects for Low-Income Communities. Chapter 12 in: Menkhoff et al. (editors). Beyond the Knowledge Trap: Developing Asia’s Knowledge-Based Economies. Singapore: World Scientific, 2011.

14Talisayon and Leung: An Expanded Intellectual Capital Framework for Alleviating Social Enterprise Innovations. Paper read at the International Conference on Knowledge Management, Hong Kong, China, 4 December 2009.

15Talisayon and Suministrado, op. cit.

16 Philip Peñaflor: Understanding Poverty Concepts From Below: A Participatory Appreciative Inquiry On Community Intangible Assets In Los Palos, Lautem District, Timor Leste. Doctoral Dissertation. Manila: Asian Social Institute, 2011.

This article was published on 21stSeptember International Day of Peace, in Global Education Magazine.

  • balayogi

    Excellent we need to make everyone feel that we are all one among the many species and we all share the one planet and live one life meant to care and to share.

Supported by

Edited by:

Enjoy Our Newsletters!

navegacion-segura-google navegacion-segura-mcafee-siteadvisor navegacion-segura-norton