Articles
Abdulrahman Ali Alolayan, Entrepreneurship in Creative Capitalism: Revisiting an Opportunity Recognition Model (George Washington University (GWU) International Council for Small Business (ICSB) Proceedings of 6th Annual Global Entrepreneurship Research and Policy Conference, 2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2700778.
Abstract (adapted from author): The “profit-seeking potential venture” is a common theme in entrepreneurship literature. The mindset of “profit-seeking” is widely accepted by scholars, researchers, and entrepreneurs since we operate in a capitalistic system in which profit is the only driver to start a business. However, an emerging school of thought has been growing in the literature called “creative capitalism.” Creative capitalism is a system where self-interest and caring for others come together to serve the interest of entrepreneur and society. Entrepreneurs in creative capitalism seek a social need and problem and come up with innovative products and services to meet the need. There are two paths to recognize an opportunity, according to Bhave’s (1994) model of opportunity recognition -- internally stimulated opportunity recognition versus externally stimulated opportunity recognition. Using the Bhave model of opportunity recognition, the purpose of this paper is to explore how entrepreneurs in creative capitalism recognize an opportunity.
Ellen Baker et al., Emergence, Social Capital and Entrepreneurship: Understanding Networks from the Inside, 13 Emergence: Complexity & Org. 21 (2011).
Abstract (from authors): Communities are a major research context for both social capital and entrepreneurship, and 'networks' is a core concept within both frameworks. There is need for conceptualizing network formation processes, and for qualitative studies of the relational aspects of networks and networking, to complement the existing mainly quantitative studies. Within complexity theory, emergence has been linked with formation of entities including networks, and with social entrepreneurship. In this paper, community networks are interpreted as an emergent dynamic process of action and interaction through an empirical case study conducted in an urban community setting. Interviews were conducted with experiential experts at networking. The study was designed within a social capital framework, but frequent reporting of entrepreneurship prompted additional analysis. Practical and theoretical implications of the network study findings are examined in light of the three frameworks together, and further empirical studies are suggested.
Louis Bassano & James C. McConnon Jr., Strategic Partnerships That Strengthen Extension's Community-Based Entrepreneurship Programs: An Example from Maine, J. Extension (October 2011), http://www.joe.org/joe/2011october/a3.php.
Abstract (from authors): This article explains how Extension can enhance and expand its nationwide community-based entrepreneurship programs by developing strategic partnerships with other organizations to create highly effective educational programs for rural entrepreneurs. The activities and impacts of the Down East Micro-Enterprise Network (DEMN), an alliance of three organizations with economic development missions in Maine, is used to showcase effective strategies that identify, create, and sustain strategic partnerships; build on their strengths; and overcome potential challenges. This Extension project was part of a statewide effort in Maine to build and strengthen networks of business service providers and improve service delivery to Maine's entrepreneurs.
Abhishek Bhati & Mathew J. Manimala, Talent Acquisition and Retention in Social Enterprises: Innovations in HR Strategies (2011), available athttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1820643.
Abstract (from the authors): This paper discusses innovative HR strategies adopted by social enterprises to attract and retain talent, such as offering jobs to people with vision and value congruence, enhancing the credibility of the organization through brand building, providing opportunities for personal growth, creating a sense of ownership among employees through participation in decision making, creating sense of ownership among employees by giving equity shares, creating entrepreneurial opportunities within the organization, finding employees from among beneficiaries, attracting employees to serene lifestyle in peaceful and scenic location and providing attractive fringe benefits to employees. Collectively these strategies seem to suggest that social enterprises adopt a ‘partnership paradigm’ for managing their employees.
Adam Bluestein, Start a Company. Change the World. A Practical Guide to Social Entrepreneurship, Inc., April 2011, at 71.
Abstract (from the magazine): It used to be that if you wanted to make a difference, you joined a nonprofit. And if you wanted to make money, you launched a business. These days, it's not. so simple. More nonprofits are being run like fast-grow start-ups. And more traditional companies are being built around social missions.
In the pages that follow, we shine a light on this new universe of social entrepreneurship. First, we meet Fred Keller, the founder of Cascade Engineering, a $250 million Michigan plastics manufacturer, who recently turned his business into a B Corporation, the highest standard for socially responsible businesses.
Then we investigate five more business models--and meet the entrepreneurs who have adopted them. For even more, head towww.inc.com/social-entrepreneurs-2011 to check out our start-up guide for would-be social entrepreneurs and watch video interviews with some of the founders in the stories that follow.
Christiane S. Bode & Filipe M. Santos, The Organizational Foundations of Corporate Social Entrepreneurship (INSEAD Working Paper No. 2013/07/EFE/ST/ICE, 2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202105.
Abstract (by authors): Large firms are increasingly incubating social business initiatives that aim at the creation of value for groups who are not current stakeholders. The authors argue that these initiatives, which we call corporate social entrepreneurship (CSE) initiatives, are the work of social intrapreneurs who are responding to perceived shortcomings in society and utilize the resources of the firm to provide market based solutions to address them. This paper analyzes the origins of CSE and, takes the perspective of the social intrapreneur, outlines the process through which a CSE initiative gains justification and access to resources inside a corporation, develops its business model, and grows. In contrast to received wisdom in the corporate entrepreneurship literature, the authors argue that CSE initiatives should not be hidden from view but instead quickly move to secure approval and mobilize resources. It is proposed that such outcome is favored by a process of ambiguity creation rather than reduction and that, ironically, social intrapreneurs should focus on financial sustainability ahead of growth. Our work is the first attempt at conceptualizing the process of corporate social entrepreneurship, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon that can have important consequences for both organization theory and economic prosperity.
Jerr Boschee, Eight Basic Principles for Nonprofit Entrepreneurs, Nonprofit World15-18 (July-August 2001).
Jerr Boschee, Keep or Kill? Score Your Programs: Use This Tool to Decide Which Activities to Nurture - and Which to Abandon, Nonprofit World12-15(September-October 2003).
Emily L. Chamlee-Wright & Virgil Henry Storr, The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Post-Katrina Community Recovery, 2 Int’l J. Innovation & Regional Dev. 149 (2010).
Abstract (from the author): This article explores the role of social entrepreneurship in post-Katrina community recovery. Relying on interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders, including residents, business owners and managers, church pastors, non-profit directors and employees and rental property owners, the authors conclude that social entrepreneurs perform several key factors after a disaster. These include: (a) helping to solve the collective action problem associated with deciding to return and rebuild, (b) organizing and engaging in outreach, activism and advocacy on behalf of their communities, and (c) directly assisting in rebuilding efforts and providing essential services. We also pay special attention to how some of these efforts are being frustrated by policy makers and officials.
Yanto Chandra, Li Crystal Jiang & Cheng-Jun Wang, Mining Social Entrepreneurship Strategies Using Topic Modeling, 11 PLoS ONE 1 (2016).
Abstract (adapted from authors): Despite the burgeoning research on social entrepreneurship (SE), SE strategies remain poorly understood. Drawing on extant research on social activism and social change, empowerment and SE models, the authors explore, classify and validate the strategies used by 2,334 social entrepreneurs affiliated with the world’s largest SE support organization, Ashoka. The results of the topic modeling of the social entrepreneurs’ strategy profiles reveal that they employed a total of 39 change-making strategies that vary across resources (material versus symbolic strategies), specificity (general versus specific strategies), and mode of participation (mass versus elite participation strategies); they also vary across fields of practice and time. Finally, the authors identify six meta-SE strategies – a reduction from the 39 strategies – and identify four new meta-SE strategies (i.e., system reform, physical capital development, evidence-based practices, and prototyping) that have been overlooked in prior SE research. These findings extend and deepen the research into SE strategies and offer a comprehensive model of SE strategies that advances theory, practice and policy making.
M. Tina Dacin et al., Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions, 22 Org. Sci. 1203 (2011).
Abstract (from journal): Work on social entrepreneurship constitutes a field of study that intersects a number of domains, including entrepreneurial studies, social innovation, and nonprofit management. Scholars are beginning to contribute to the development of this new discipline through efforts that attempt to trace the emergence of social entrepreneurship as well as by comparing it to other organizational activities such as conventional entrepreneurship. However, as a nascent field, social entrepreneurship scholars are in the midst of a number of debates involving definitional and conceptual clarity, boundaries of the field, and a struggle to arrive at a set of relevant and meaningful research questions. This paper examines the promise of social entrepreneurship as a domain of inquiry and suggests a number of research areas and research questions for future study.
Geoffrey Desa & Sandip Basu, Optimization or Bricolage? Overcoming Resource Constraints in Global Social Entrepreneurship, 7 Strategic Entrepren. J. 26 (2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2177185.
Abstract (adapted from authors): Resources play a vital role in the development of an entrepreneurial venture. For ventures operating in the public interest, the process of effective resource mobilization can be especially critical to the social mission. However, there has been limited empirical examination of the approaches used by social ventures to mobilize critical resources. The authors study two processes of resource mobilization -- optimization and bricolage, and examine the antecedent conditions that influence a venture’s selection of these processes. The instant theory predicts that environmental munificence and organizational prominence have U-shaped associations with the use of bricolage and positive associations with the use of optimization. The authors test their hypotheses on a sample of 202 technology social ventures from 42 countries, and discuss implications for the social entrepreneurship and broader entrepreneurship literatures.
Autar S. Dhesi, Diaspora, Social Entrepreneurs and Community Development, 37(9) Int’l J. Soc. Econ. 703 (2010).
Abstract (from author): Purpose - In view of significance of social entrepreneurial activity for community development, the purpose of this paper is to attempt to identify attributes of social entrepreneurs and philanthropists among returning successful diaspora in North Indian villages. Philanthropists are defined by the fact that they only invest money, whereas the social entrepreneurs invest their activities as well. An attempt is also made to ascertain key determinants and processes influencing outcomes of social entrepreneurial activity with a view to facilitate it. Design/methodology/approach - Emphasis is on qualitative analysis based on interviews of scientifically sampled respondents. However, the paper suggests that the rational choice approach is inappropriate to address the issue of community development. An approach based on a broader view of man in works of some classical economists like Adam Smith is more useful. Findings - The results of empirical analysis suggest that there exist substantial factors, such as early socialization, experience in community work, education and health, that differentiate social entrepreneurs and philanthropists. Salience of relationship between formal and informal institutions, personal traits and social skills of social entrepreneurs in influencing outcomes of social entrepreneurial activity is indicated. By investing moral and material resources in communities, social entrepreneurs augment social capital and facilitate social action. In contrast, philanthropists may add to distortions in community functioning, especially if they opt to operate through largely dysfunctional formal local institutions due to structural impasse in rural areas. Research limitations/implications - The paper pertains to Indian Punjab, an area with a long history of emigration. However, researchers need to take into account distinct socio-economic conditions in Punjab when designing studies for other areas. Practical implications - Policy measures addressing hurdles in the way of social entrepreneurial activity can speed up the modernization of traditional communities. Originality/value - The paper adds to understanding of what motivates human behaviour in economic analysis of community development. Further, it makes an important distinction between the roles of the philanthropist and the social entrepreneur in community development. The paper would be useful to researchers desirous of doing similar exercises in other areas.
Sandrine Emin & Nathalie Schieb-Bienfait, How Does the Non-profit Economy Affect Entrepreneurship?, 14 Int'l J. Entrepren. & Small Bus. 456 (2011).
Abstract (adapted from journal): How and on what basis can one can analyse the entrepreneurial process in the non-profit sector? This article is based on a critical discussion of four paradigms of value creation, innovation, business opportunity and creation of organisation analysed by Verstraete and Fayolle (2005). The authors examine how these four paradigms can help analyse social entrepreneurship. The authors suggest that the non-profit sector challenges these four paradigms of entrepreneurship. They suffer from limitations due to assumptions that are not compatible with the non-profit sector. Lastly they conclude that a new set of assumptions should be introduced to provide new insight into social entrepreneurship.
Robert T. Esposito, The Social Enterprise Revolution in Corporate Law: A Primer on Emerging Corporate Entities in Europe and the United States and the Case for the Benefit Corporation, 4 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 639 (2013).
Abstract (by author): Remarkably, in the face of a global recession, the social enterprise sector continued to experience extraordinary growth in both financial support and the number of newly authorized corporate entities aimed at social entrepreneurs who seek to use the power of business to simultaneously achieve profit and social or environmental benefits. This Article highlights recent developments in the social enterprise movement in Europe and the United States and focuses on the emergence of a surprisingly broad range of newly authorized corporate entities on both continents in response to the needs of social entrepreneurs. These include social cooperatives and the community interest company in Europe, as well as the L3C, the flexible purpose corporation, the social purpose corporation, and the benefit corporation in the United States. In so doing, this Article emphasizes the truly international scope of the social enterprise movement and explains the growing divergence in approaches to social enterprise between continental Europe and the United States. This Article suggests that the benefit corporation, which imposes a new duty to consider stakeholder interests, is currently the most effective vehicle through which social entrepreneurs can ensure their blended value goals are being considered and achieved. This Article concludes by responding to critiques of profit-distribution in social enterprise, making the case for the benefit corporation, and suggesting some statutory and tax reforms to further foster the social enterprise revolution.
Pilar Ester Arroyo-Lopez et al., The Role of the Social Entrepreneur as Coordinator of a Social Network, 14 Int'l J. Entrepren. & Small Bus. 271 (2011).
Abstract (from journal): The term social entrepreneur (SE) has been applied to describe individuals or organisations strongly linked to a community and able to attract resources to create social value. The objective of this work is to further explore the social entrepreneur role as a bridge among multiple organisations and to understand how the SE evolves over time from an individual to a combined effort. To fulfill the research objective, the specific case of Bioplaneta was selected for in-depth analysis. This civil association supports socially disadvantaged Mexican communities through the creation of environmentally responsible businesses. The specification of activities performed by the integrants of Bioplaneta|s network shows the main role of the SE is to facilitate the exchange of knowledge, the accumulation of resources and the management of symbiotic relationships among private and public organisations. The case concludes this social entrepreneur is able to capitalise market opportunities, thanks to its relationships with multiple institutions.
Saul Estrin et al., For Benevolence and for Self-Interest: Social and Commercial Entrepreneurial Activity Across Nations (IZA Discussion Paper No. 5770, 2011),available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1867039.
Abstract (adapted from authors): The authors conceptualize social entrepreneurship as a source of social capital which, when present in the environment, enhances commercial entrepreneurship. The authors also argue that social entrepreneurship should be recognized as a second form of Baumol's (1990) productive entrepreneurship and that it will therefore compete at the individual level for resources with commercial entrepreneurship. Unlike institutional void theory, the authors see social entrepreneurship as conditional on institutional quality, but consistent with the institutional void perspective the authors see it as filling the gaps where government activism is lower. These arguments motivate the hypotheses that the authors test and largely confirm applying multilevel modelling. This analysis is based on population-representative samples in 47 countries (the 2009 GEM dataset).
Christopher D. Hilton, Low-Profit Limited Liability Companies (L3cs): Many Traps for the Unwary Social Entrepreneur, 87 Tul. L. Rev. 169 (2012).
(Abstract by author): Amid a sluggish economy and fiscal challenges at every level of government, the low-profit limited liability company (L3C) has spread rapidly over the past four years, promising a way to spur investment in small businesses and achieve socially beneficial goals with minimal governmental expense or oversight. The L3C's calculated and focused marketing campaign has convinced eight states, including Louisiana, to adopt this new business structure, but the substance of this corporate form leaves much to be desired. Although the L3C is designed to combine investment capital from nonprofit foundations and private investors, the current L3C laws fail to deliver on that promise. The L3C business form, with its distortion of tax policy, inherently conflicting goals, and intractable governance problems, offers nothing but pitfalls and obstacles to the socially beneficial, hybrid enterprises that it purports to help.
Brigitte Hoogendoorn et al., Social Entrepreneurship and Performance: The Role of Perceived Barriers and Risk (ERIM Report Series, Reference No. ERS-2011-016-ORG, 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1910483.
Abstract (from authors): This study investigates if and in what way social entrepreneurs are hampered in turning their efforts into sustainable organizations. Using binary logit regressions and unique data containing approximately 26,000 individual-level data points for 36 countries, this study assesses the influences of perceived environmental barriers, risk variables, and socio-demographic variables on the probability of being a social entrepreneur versus a commercial entrepreneur. The findings confirm that socially motivated entrepreneurs are less likely to survive the earliest levels of entrepreneurial engagement. Several factors have been identified to explain this underperformance. Compared to commercial entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs perceive more financial and informational start-up barriers, are more afraid of personal failure and bankruptcy, and can be found in the lower and higher age categories. In addition, this study found that social entrepreneurs are more likely to be female and highly educated than are their commercial counterparts.
Ankur Joshi, Towards Bharatiya Model of Social Entrepreneurship: Learning from Farmers (2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2721205.
Abstract (from author): The theories and frameworks on Social Entrepreneurship have been developed in a Western context, with other academicians following the suit. This exploratory paper explores the path towards the Bharatiya model of Social Entrepreneurship by drawing learning from the approach of the farmer. The farmer, who caters to the most critical social need - food - has been ignored or not been paid significant attention in the academics. Even if academics turn to farmers, they, through the western gaze, end up in portraying a poor helpless farmer. There are hardly any studies which focus on learning from the farmers. This study posits that a farmer is the most sophisticated social entrepreneur, from which learning can be drawn to enrich our understanding of Social Entrepreneurship.
James Katzenstein & Barbara R. Chrispin, Social Entrepreneurship and a New Model for International Development in the 21st Century, 16 J. Dev. Entrepren. 87 (2011).
Abstract: In the last decade or so, there has been a growing interest in an area researchers are calling social entrepreneurship, a movement spearheaded by individuals with a desire to make the world a better place. This paper describes the structure and process of international development in Africa from the perspective of a social entrepreneur. The authors address the opportunities and challenges faced by social entrepreneurs as they attempt to affect large-scale social change. The result of this study is a unique development model that provides tools for the social entrepreneur to address problems and build capacity and sustainability within the African context.
Tuğba Konaklι, Effects of Self-Efficacy on Social Entrepreneurship in Education: A Correlational Research, 94 Res. in Educ. 30 (2015).
Abstract (from author): The aim of this research is to determine the effects of pre-service teachers' self-efficacy on their social entrepreneurship characteristics. The population of this study consisted of 220 randomly selected pre-service teachers in Kocaeli University Faculty of Education in Turkey. General Self Efficacy Scale-Turkish Form and Pre-service Teachers' Entrepreneurship Characteristics Scale was applied to collect data. The study revealed that effort and persistence which are general self-efficacy dimensions predicted personal creativity and risk-taking features of social entrepreneurship. According to the findings of the study, initiative, effort and persistence dimensions predict the self-confidence which is a characteristic of social entrepreneurship. Finally, it can be suggested that practices oriented to developing self-efficacy beliefs and social entrepreneurship characteristics should take a part in teacher training programs as these practices may help teachers learn how to teach students various skills.
Steffen Korsgaard, Opportunity Formation in Social Entrepreneurship, 5 J. Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Econ. 265 (2011), also available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2008671.
Abstract (from author): The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of opportunity and its role in social entrepreneurship processes. The paper presents a single-case study of a sustainable community in Denmark. The data include interviews, documents and television programmes. Findings – The case study finds that the opportunity takes a number of different forms in the process. These different forms are the result of a continuous mobilization of actors. On the basis of these findings a model of social entrepreneurship processes is proposed, where the process is driven by mobilization and transformation. The findings of the case provide support for a creation view of opportunities and the view that opportunity discovery does not necessarily precede resource mobilization. The proposed model contributes to the development of the creation view of opportunities as an alternative to the discovery view and to understanding of the role of opportunities in the social entrepreneurship process. The findings suggest that the social entrepreneur is one who actively creates external circumstances rather than responds to opportunities already present therein. This implies a focus on different skills and ways of thinking. The paper presents a model of social entrepreneurship processes grounded in a deep understanding of an empirical setting. The findings and model question the value of the discovery view of opportunities in the field of social entrepreneurship, while contributing to the development of the creation view of opportunities.
Eun Lee, Social Enterprise, Policy Entrepreneurs, and the Third Sector: The Case of South Korea, 26 Voluntas: Int’l J. Voluntary & Nonprofit Org. 1084 (2015).
Abstract (from author): The U.S. and the U.K. are considered as successful models of social enterprise. The Korean government benchmarked these two models in the hope of achieving similar success, without much avail. The growth of social enterprises in South Korea is attributed to the country's characteristically strong central government and its creation of relevant institutions and provision of support services. However, this paper provides an alternate explanation by highlighting the role of the third sector as the 'policy entrepreneur' in agenda-setting and policy implementation with regards to social enterprises in South Korea. Additionally, the decentralized local governments as well as the market structure dominated by big businesses are also examined as the main contributors to 'policy windows' for the third sector's policy entrepreneurship. This paper showcases successful development of social enterprise despite the absence of a welfare state or a well-developed third sector, and argues that the phenomenon should hold numerous policy implications for other Asian countries.
Othmar Manfred Lehner, Crowdfunding Social Ventures: A Model and Research Agenda (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2102525.
Abstract (by author): Crowdfunding (CF) in a social entrepreneurship context is praised in narrations for its multifaceted potential - to access much needed financial resources, to gain legitimacy through crowd participation, and to further tap the crowd as a resource for numerous activities of the venture. From an academic point of view however, little has been written about CF as a whole, and inquiries from the social entrepreneurship sphere are so far mostly concerned with CF donations. In order to overcome the scarcity of the resource ‘crowd’ being asked for gifts, new approaches, including tailored reward systems, more structured bond-like investments and equity based CF are experimented with. Finance literature scarcely addresses these new forms, and no article so far shows concern for the idiosyncrasies of social ventures and the differing rationale of the social entrepreneurs and investors in CF activities. This paper thus sets out to first review existing literature on financing social ventures as well as on crowdfunding. Based upon the findings, the author subsequently draws up an early scheme of CF in order to structure future inquiries and to provide a common ground for discussion. Based upon the two streams, and in reflection to perspectives from traditional finance, a research agenda of eight themes for CF of social ventures is set up. The themes proposed are: investor types and utility-functions; corporate governance and structure in CF ventures; investor relations, risk and disclosure; applications and comparative approaches; network tie formation; legitimacy, institutions and democracy; challenging finance metrics; and legal and regulative hurdles for equity and debt CF.
Othmar M. Lehner, The Phenomenon of Social Enterprise in Austria: A Triangulated Descriptive Study (2011), available athttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1913326.
Abstract (from author): There is little to no existing research on the phenomenon of social enterprises (SEs) in Austria. To enable subsequent comparative studies, the author first traces social enterprises' conceptual underpinnings from most current research found in leading journals and subsequently creates a framework based upon social origins theory for use on Austria's social enterprises. In order to validate the findings, the author employs a triangulated research approach, including an online-based survey, semi-structured interviews and two panel discussions. Social enterprises in Austria are characterized through social activities, organizational types, legal forms, the society sector, the outcome emphasis, and the strategic development base. The social entrepreneur him/herself was included as a source for a qualitative triangulation as well as a distinctive item. Austria's SEs are found to work in a multitude of fields, are independent, use market-based approaches, employ improvisation and innovation for the creation of social good and incorporate a strong entrepreneurial spirit.
Othmar M. Lehner & Juha Kansikas, Opportunity Recognition in Social Entrepreneurship: A Thematic Meta Analysis, 21 J. Entrepren. 25 (2012).
Abstract (from authors): Opportunity recognition (OR) is at the very heart of entrepreneurship. However, research on OR in the context of social entrepreneurship is still in its early stages. First, this article identifies, codifies and analyses OR-relevant articles on social entrepreneurship (SE) through the lens of Sarasvathy’s three views of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. In the second step, statistical methods are applied on the results to indicate possible correlations among different schools of thought in SE and views on OR. OR in social ventures is found to be a prevalent topic in SE literature and differences in OR between social and commercial ventures are found.
Iva Light & Léo‐Paul Dana, Boundaries of Social Capital in Entrepreneurship, 37 Entrepren. Theory & Prac. 603 (2013), available athttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2253123.
Abstract (by authors): This research begins with a theoretical critique of the social capital literature, and then focuses on Old Harbor, Alaska. In this remote outpost, mainly populated by Alutiiq people, all entrepreneurs self‐identified as Euro‐Americans or multi‐ethnic, not Alutiiq. Although Alutiiq people have abundant social capital, which they employed for economic purposes, they did not employ their social capital for commercial entrepreneurship. Our findings suggest that social capital promotes entrepreneurship only when supportive cultural capital is in place.
Johanna Mair, Social Entrepreneurship: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead (2010),available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729642.
Abstract (from the author): This essay sets out to take stock of existing endeavors to conceptualize Social Entrepreneurship. We illustrate the context-specific nature of the phenomenon and derive implications for fostering social entrepreneurship as a positive force for social and economic development. The paper has two main objectives: first, to stimulate a productive agenda for future research that goes beyond questions of 'who' and 'what' by pursuing the important considerations of 'where', 'why' and 'how'; and second, in so doing, to generate real insights for advances in both theory and practice.
R. Marshall, Conceptualizing the International For-Profit Social Entrepreneur. 98 J. Bus. Ethics 183 (2011).
Abstract (from the author ): This article looks at social entrepreneurs that operate for- profit and internationally, offering that international for-profit social entrepreneurs (IFPSE) are of a unique type. Initially, this article utilizes the entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and international entrepreneurship literatures to develop a definition of the IFPSE. Next, a proposed model of the IFPSE is built utilizing the dimensions of mindset, opportunity recognition, social networks, and outcomes. Case studies of three IFPSE are then used to examine the proposed model. In the final section, findings from the case studies are used to examine the proposed model and more fully elucidate the dimensions of the IFPSE.
Ashish Mathur, Social Entrepreneurs and the Vision to Build the Society with Ethical Sustainability, 2 Info. Mgmt. & Bus. R. 154 (2011).
Abstract (adapted from the author): Social entrepreneurship is related to promoting the activities on low profit or no profit to benefit the weaker sections in such a way that they are can live a better life. The leadership and decision-making have to be in the interest of society and for the future too. The world of social entrepreneurship is created by the values of self efficiency with the faith to build an honest world of hope and respect... the basic qualities guiding the social entrepreneurial behavior to form the business empires depends on the quality of social and moral judgment supported by the social norms. The society in turn supports people who work for the benefit of human survival so that the future is built on the values of sustainability and trust and hope. The generations to come, need the resources for the growth of the society and civilization as a whole. They should use them in such a way that they are able to build the source for sustainable management of resources and for the larger benefit of the society. The basic aim of this paper is to analyze issues and trends associated with social fairness and to frame a strategic base for the better design of the social entrepreneurship variables. The basic objective of this paper is to identify entrepreneurship abilities that shape social entrepreneurial behavior.
Jeffrey S. McMullen, Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth, 35 Entrepreneurship: Theory & Prac. 185 (2011).
Abstract (from the author ): Development economists and management scholars have called for a more market-based approach to address the extreme poverty suffered by the billion people residing primarily in least developed countries. This article proposes a theory of development entrepreneurship that blends business entrepreneurship,social entrepreneurship, and institutional entrepreneurship to accelerate the institutional change necessary to make economic growth more inclusive. After examining various explanations of market failure in the base of the pyramid and social entrepreneurship literatures, the author explains why entrepreneurial transformation of formal institutions is needed and what differentiates development entrepreneurship from related concepts such as social entrepreneurship, social businessentrepreneurship, and socio-political activism.
Jeanette Miller & Jim O'Connor, Start-Up of a Social Enterprise: Case Study of Lion's Thread Uganda (5th International Conference on Engaged Management Scholarship, 2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2676359.
Abstract (from authors): Social enterprises are emerging globally as economic approaches to solving problems in society. Social enterprises are hybrid companies that combine both non-profit and for-profit missions into one organization. There is limited literature on these nascent organizations, and the hybrid nature of these companies makes their management much more complicated. This case study looked at the start-up phase of Lion’s Thread, a social enterprise with production operations in Uganda and sales in the United States, to determine factors for progress. Collective action is seen as instrumental in the development of this social enterprise, as many individuals worked together to achieve the company’s progress. Effectuation was strongly present in this case where the solution is shaped based on the resources available in the local environment. Leaders of this social enterprise as they became embedded in the local environment and determined resource availability, recognized opportunities, worked with and restructured systems, and through a collective action approach, created social value. Lastly, the authors found in this bi-cultural context, adapting the performance goals and expectations of the social enterprise was needed.
Michael H. Morris, Understanding the Manifestation of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Nonprofit Context, 35 Entrepren. Theory & Prac. 947 (2011).
Abstract (adapted from journal): The nonprofit sector serves an increasingly important entrepreneurial role in the economy. Scholars have taken an interest in entrepreneurship in nonprofits and have drawn upon entrepreneurial orientation (EO) as a methodological tool to advance knowledge in this domain. However, the nonprofit context differs from the for-profit context for which the EO scale was developed, particularly with regard to motivations, processes, and outcomes. The aauthors propose a new approach for capturing the manifestation of EO in the nonprofit context. A typology is presented to highlight the multiple facets of EO in the nonprofit context. The authors conclude with implications for scholars and practitioners.
Scott L. Newbert, Marketing Amid the Uncertainty of the Social Sector: Do Social Entrepreneurs Follow Best Marketing Practices?, 31 J. Pub. Pol. & Marketing, 75 (2012).
Abstract (from author): In a recent study in Journal of Marketing, Read et al. (2009) conduct an experiment to identify how experts approach marketing in uncertain, entrepreneurial contexts. In response, the current study adapts Read et al.'s model slightly to make it relevant to practicing entrepreneurs and tests it on a randomized database of experts and novices in the process of creating for-profit organizations in the United States. The results suggest that these best marketing practices are largely reflective of those employed by practitioners. The author then conducts tests to determine the degree to which social entrepreneurs employ these best marketing practices. The results suggest that social entrepreneurs are less likely than commercial entrepreneurs to implement several best marketing practices.
Abiola Kemi Ogunyemi, Touching Lives: Social Responsibility Model of a Nigerian Entrepreneur (2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1795371.
Abstract (from the author): Dees (1998) defines entrepreneurship as characteristic of people who adopt a mission to create and sustain social value; recognize and relentlessly pursue new opportunities to serve that mission; continuously innovate, adapt, and learn; act boldly and beyond their resources; and exhibit a high sense of accountability. He sees it as a solution to social issues left unresolved by government and philanthropists.
Given the success of the social work carried out by Nike Davies Okundaye, a female Nigerian artist and entrepreneur, this paper investigates how her brand of social entrepreneurship measures up beside the extant literature, and whether it is replicable, especially in developing countries. If it is a good model, then it should be emulated and funding.
The approach used is phenomenology, using secondary data about Nike’s work and parameters synthesized by Dees (1998) and Light (2005) seven years apart after deep analyses of the work of earlier scholars.
Amina Omrane, Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development: The Role of Business Models (2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2232438.
Abstract (by author): Faced with challenges raised by sustainable development, several nations, and … other social actors, are questioning their roles and wish to take proactive approaches of social responsibility. However, in general they have few means to achieve their objectives. The purpose of this communication is to show that social entrepreneurship, as an assistance tool for the government and applied to the resolution of social problems, can provide an analysis framework in order to provide a response to the challenges of sustainable development. In order to achieve this, we have to show the usefulness of the different business models developed in social entrepreneurship, particularly in the European context. We conclude that social business models constitute a basic relay that allows social entrepreneurs to contribute actively to sustainable development.
Michael Pirson, Social Entrepreneurs as the Paragons of Shared Value Creation? A Critical Perspective (Fordham University School of Business Research Paper No. 2011-001), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1753908.
Abstract (from the author - adapted): The financial crisis of 2007/08 has caused many to question the basic premises of the current business system. Porter and Kramer writing in 2011 have suggested that the purpose of the corporation needs to be redefined. They posit that the corporation, rather than merely pursuing financial value creation set out to pursue shared value creation. They further declare Social Entrepreneurs the paragons of said shared value creation. In this paper I critically analyze the pathway of shared value creation in three leading social enterprises. Employing a genealogical perspective I highlight that every innovative shared value creating venture ended up opting out of shared value creation strategies and embraced either financial or social value primacy strategies. As such I question the power of the shared value creation notion.
Steven Prokesch, The Reluctant Social Entrepreneur, 2011 Harv. Bus. Rev. 124.
Abstract: The article focuses on social entrepreneur Kathy Giusti, who started the nonprofit organizations Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) and Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. While she was working for pharmaceutical company Searle, she learned she had myeloma, which has no cure and would kill her in three to four years. The article describes her use of her personal network, including Searle copresident Alan Heller and her sister Karen Andrews, then a lawyer at subsidiary corporation Time Inc. It talks about several drugs that have proven effective in treating myeloma, including thalidomide and proteasome inhibitors.
Kristen Pue, Christian Vandergeest & Dan Breznitz, Toward a Theory of Social Innovation (Innovation Policy Lab White Paper No. 2016-01, 2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2701477.
Abstract (adapted from authors): The authors start by proposing a new definition of social innovation, characterizing it as a process encompassing the emergence and adoption of socially creative strategies, which reconfigure social relations in order to actualize a given social goal. The socially creative strategy is a key reactant in the process of social innovation; the invention of a socially creative strategy initiates social innovation, yet the transformation of a socially creative strategy occurs throughout the social innovation process. This outcome occurs due to the interaction of the two driving forces of social innovation, called the agentic engine and the structural engine.
Broadly, the process of social innovation proceeds as follows. The agentic engine of social innovation begins when a social entrepreneur devises a socially creative strategy to put into practice an idea that reconfigures society’s approach to a given social problem. The social entrepreneur is influenced by the social environment and existing social structures. The structural engine of social innovation pertains to whether the uptake of a socially creative strategy occurs across the social environment and social structures. This occurs through emergence and adoption, two halves of the social innovation diffusion cycle. If both engines of social innovation lead to the successful emergence and then adoption of a socially creative strategy, they result in two outcomes: social change and a reconfiguration of the social problem such that it meets its social goal.
Masud Ibn Rahman, Ruman Parveen, Muhammad Mohiuddin & Zhan Su,Motivational Factors Influencing Social Entrepreneurship in Bangladesh (2011),available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1737304.
Abstract (from the author): Growing interest has been observed regarding social entrepreneurs in existing literature. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the widely accepted motivational factors have influence on entrepreneurial process of social entrepreneurs in Bangladesh. It concludes that some of those factors have significant influence while others has less or non-significant influence on Bangladeshi social entrepreneurs. This paper also complements the lack of empirical investigation in the behavioral aspect of social entrepreneurship in Bangladesh.
Masad Rahman, Motivational Factors Influencing Social Entrepreneurship in Bangladesh (2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1737304.
Abstract (from author): Growing interest has been observed regarding social entrepreneurs in existing literature. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the widely accepted motivational factors have influence on entrepreneurial process of social entrepreneurs in Bangladesh. It concludes that some of those factors have significant influence while others have less or non-significant influence on Bangladeshi social entrepreneurs. This paper also complements the lack of empirical investigation in the behavioral aspect of social entrepreneurship in Bangladesh.
Nthati M. Rametse & Hetal Shah, Investigating Social Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2176557.
Abstract (by authors): Social entrepreneurship has drawn interest from global policy makers and social entrepreneurs to target developing countries. Generally, not-for-profit organizations, funded by government and donor grants have played a significant role in poverty alleviation. The authors argue that, by applying entrepreneurial concepts, organizations can create social value, hence mitigate poverty. This is a theoretical paper that builds upon a multi-dimensional model in analyzing how three social enterprises from India and Kenya create social value to address social problems. The findings suggest that whilst the social mission is central to all these organizations, they also create social value through innovation and pro-activeness. Additionally, the cultural and political environmental contexts hinder their attempt to create social value. Building networks and partnerships to achieve social value creation is vital for these organizations. Policy makers should devise policies that would assist social enterprises to achieve development goals.
Miguel A. Sastre-Castillo, Marta Peris-Ortiz & Ignacio Danvila-Del Valle, What Is Different about the Profile of the Social Entrepreneur? 25 Nonprofit Mgmt. & Leadership 349 (2015).
Abstract (from authors): In recent years, the term social entrepreneur has become increasingly common in academic and business circles. Social entrepreneurs engage in a variety of activities, but always with the intention of solving social problems. Social entrepreneurs are not merely people who perform acts of charity; they have an evident desire to improve social well-being and develop projects with long-term vision. The creation of sustainable social value is a key characteristic that differentiates them from well-meaning individuals who simply engage in charitable works. There are, however, significant gaps in our understanding of social entrepreneurs and few empirical studies on the subject. This present study attempts to identify the characteristics of more socially oriented entrepreneurs, using sociodemographic variables and the theory of universal values toward work. Analysis of a sample of approximately 400 people shows that more than half of entrepreneurial orientation can be explained through the possession of the values of self-enhancement (with an inverse relationship in this case), self-transcendence, and conservation. The theory of universal values has proved extraordinarily useful for studying the characteristics of social entrepreneurs.
Michelle J. Stecker, Awash in a Sea of Confusion: Benefit Corporations, Social Enterprise, and the Fear of "Greenwashing," 50 J. Econ. Issues 373 (2016).
Abstract (from author): In the last five years, the majority of U.S. states enacted benefit corporation legislation, creating a new legal form of business that embraces the "triple-bottom line" of people, planet, and profit. Benefit corporation status provides legal protections for directors and officers, who may now balance social and environmental impact with shareholder returns. It also creates rich opportunities for social entrepreneurs, gives investors more socially responsible options, and offers a helpful designation for consumers. The author describes the history and purpose of benefit corporations, evaluates their pros and cons, and argues that safeguards against "greenwashing" make benefit corporations a valuable business form of social enterprise.
Lee A. Swanson & David D. Zhang, Complexity Theory and the Social Entrepreneurship Zone, Emergence: Complexity & Org., July 2011, at 39.
Abstract (adapted from journal): Social entrepreneurship is a relatively new field of study. In this paper the authors examine Swanson and Zhang’s (2010) social entrepreneurship zone through a complexity theory lens. Complexity thinking can provide researchers with a new and fresh method of inquiry as they strive to enhance the research outcomes available through traditional research methods. In this article, the authors review literature on social entrepreneurship and complexity theory. The authors then apply a fresh and new point of view on social entrepreneurship by infusing a complexity perspective with the social entrepreneurship zone model while suggesting important research questions which can be addressed with this new framework.
Jeremy P. Thornton, John Gonas & Franz T. Lohrke, The Social Entrepreneur as Trailblazer: A Non-Normative Role for Social Enterprise in a Market Economy(2012), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172807.
Abstract (by authors): This paper offers an alternative to the normative rationale for social entrepreneurship. The authors draw from the nonprofit economics literature to develop a simple theoretical model of a social entrepreneur as a profit-deviating firm. They then demonstrate how profit deviation lowers the effective cost of the firm, allowing it to recognize opportunities and enter markets previously considered unsuitable by the neoclassical entrepreneur. In doing so, the social entrepreneur generates knowledge spillovers by providing valuable ex-post entry information regarding the expected costs of a venture. In this sense, the social entrepreneur provides a public good to latent neoclassical entrepreneurs, who then may enter markets previously considered unprofitable. The authors then illustrate the range of market conditions that are relevant for the social entrepreneur and offer a simple case study illustration of the model.
Chitvan Trivedi & Daniel Stokols, Social Enterprises and Corporate Enterprises: Fundamental Differences and Defining Features, 20 J. Entrepreneurship 1 (2011).
Abstract: To date, most efforts to define social entrepreneurship have focused on adapting existing management theories on entrepreneurship and non-profits rather than distinguishing the organizational purposes and structure of social entrepreneurship from traditional for-profit organizations. There is little consensus among academicians and practitioners alike as to what social entrepreneurship is and what it is not. To articulate a clear and non-ambiguous definition of social entrepreneurship, it is necessary first to understand the distinguishing features of social entrepreneurial ventures compared with corporate entrepreneurial ventures and non-profit organizations. This article differentiates these ventures in terms of their motives, goals, antecedent conditions, processes, role of the entrepreneur and outcomes. In doing so, it provides a brief summary of the state of knowledge in the emerging field of social entrepreneurship and raises new questions and hypotheses for future research on this topic.
Peter Vandor et al., What Does It Take to Support a Change Maker? The Effects of Organizational Maturity, Business Model and Mission Orientation on the Support Needs of Social Entrepreneurs (2015), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2673077.
Abstract (adapted from authors): Social entrepreneurs do not operate in a vacuum and depend on various forms of support to establish and grow their ventures and impact. The question of how to support social entrepreneurs becomes of increasing relevance. Very little is known about the actual activities and resources required for incubating and sustaining social ventures. Furthermore, just as it is a common understanding that “there is no one type of social entrepreneur,” the needs of social entrepreneurs are heterogeneous and vary over time. Against this background, this paper is guided by the following explorative research questions: (1) What are the support needs of social entrepreneurs? (2) How are these support needs influenced by (a) organizational maturity and (b) the way value is created and monetized by the organization.
The synthesis of qualitative results and literature research allows us to define 17 distinct areas in which social entrepreneurs actively seek support, such as fundraising or maintaining personal motivation. This study investigates these support needs and their prevalence in a sample of 1,900 social entrepreneurs on five continents. Results show that - in spite of the common theme of self-relying entrepreneurial heroism - social entrepreneurs across countries indeed have strong needs for external support and are able to articulate them. Furthermore, data reveals that these needs vary strongly depending on the mission-orientation, development stage and earnings model of the particular venture. Results have interesting implications for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners in the field of social entrepreneurship.
Colin C. Williams & Sara Nadin, Re-reading Entrepreneurship in the Hidden Economy: Commercial or Social Entrepreneurs?, 14 Int'l J. Entrepren. & Small Bus. 441 (2011).
Abstract (from journal): Since the turn of the millennium, a small but growing stream of the entrepreneurship literature has drawn attention to how a large proportion of entrepreneurs start-up their enterprises operating in the hidden economy on a wholly or partially off-the-books basis. This paper evaluates critically the assumption that these hidden entrepreneurs are engaged in commercial entrepreneurship. Reporting evidence from a 2002-2003 survey involving interviews with 28 early-stage entrepreneurs operating in the hidden economy in English rural localities, the finding is that hidden entrepreneurs range from rational economic actors pursuing a purely commercial goal through to purely social entrepreneurs pursuing solely social logics, with the majority somewhere in-between combining both commercial and social goals. The outcome is a call to begin mapping the heterogeneous logics of hidden entrepreneurs in different contexts.
Densil A. Williams & Kadamawe A.K. K'nife, The Dark Side of Social Entrepreneurship, 16 Int'l J. Entrepren. 69 (2012).
Abstract (from authors): This paper is conceptual in its outlook. It provides a new lens through which scholars in the emerging field of social entrepreneurship should view the concept in order to come to a better understanding of the field. It raises the question as to whether or not all enterprises that deliver a social service can be duly classified as social enterprise and be linked to the wider field of social entrepreneurship. This question becomes relevant when the context within which the social service is being delivered is taken into consideration. Garrison communities in Jamaica provided the context within which the current paper analyses the question. The paper argues that the line between violence as a business, which generate funds to support enterprises that deliver social services to ensure power and control by gang leaders and, social enterprise, which deliver social services to transform lives through the creation of social value has become blurred. This, the authors call the dark side of social entrepreneurship and argue that the discourse on social entrepreneurship cannot ignore this phenomenon, especially in developing countries with a high number of vulnerable communities.
Dennis R. Young & Mary Clark Grinsfelder, Social Entrepreneurship and the Financing of Third Sector Organizations, 17 J. Pub. Affairs Ed. 543 (2011).
Abstract (from authors): In this paper, we review the literature on entrepreneurship and the skill sets required by entrepreneurs operating in different sectors of the economy. Case studies from the social enterprise literature are examined in some detail. We search for distinctions between entrepreneurship in the business and public sectors and entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector and relate this to the variations in financial support found among nonprofit sector organizations. We conclude that third sector social entrepreneurs are likely to require a different mix of skills than business entrepreneurs. In particular, political skills broadly defined, and the ability to secure and maintain charitable support, appear to be common to successful social enterprise ventures. Hence, taking too narrow a view of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise by confining it to the traditional business model of entrepreneurship constrains the potential benefits of developing social entrepreneurship in the third sector. This implies that education of potential social entrepreneurs should be broadly construed, combining business, public and nonprofit based instruction.
Shaker A. Zahra, Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum & Joel M. Shulman, A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges, 24(5) J. Bus. Venturing 519 (2009).
Abstract (from authors): Social entrepreneurship has been the subject of considerable interest in the literature. This stems from its importance in addressing social problems and enriching communities and societies. In this Article, we define social entrepreneurship; discuss its contributions to creating social wealth; offer a typology of entrepreneurs'' search processes that lead to the discovery of opportunities for creating social ventures; and articulate the major ethical concerns social entrepreneurs might encounter. We conclude by outlining implications for entrepreneurs and advancing an agenda for future research, especially the ethics of social entrepreneurship.