AMP 2010 Social Entrepreneurship

A R T I C L E S

Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a NewTheory and How We Move Forward From Hereby Peter A. Dacin, M. Tina Dacin, and Margaret Matear

Executive OverviewWe examine the current state of the social entrepreneurship literature, asking what is unique about socialentrepreneurship and what avenues create opportunities for the future of the field. After an evaluation ofsocial entrepreneurship definitions and comparison of social entrepreneurship to other forms, we concludethat while it is not a distinct type of entrepreneurship, researchers stand to benefit most from furtherresearch on social entrepreneurship as a context in which established types of entrepreneurs operate. Wedemonstrate these opportunities by describing avenues for further inquiry that emerge when examiningvaluable assumptions and insights from existing theories inherent in conventional, cultural, and institu-tional entrepreneurship frameworks and integrating these insights in ways that address the uniquephenomena that exist in the context of social entrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurship continues to be a fieldof interest that crosses academic disciplinesand challenges traditional assumptions of eco-

nomic and business development (Dart, 2004;Leadbeater, 1997). Some even suggest that thephenomenon transcends the individual domainsof entrepreneurial studies, social movements, andnonprofit management (Mair & Martı́, 2006; Per-rini, 2006).

In this paper we examine the current state ofthe social entrepreneurship literature, askingwhat is unique about social entrepreneurshipand what avenues create opportunities for fu-ture research in the field. We suggest that re-cent efforts to delineate social entrepreneurshipas a theoretical domain in its own right may be

blurring the potential and opportunities thatthe more general context of social entrepre-neurship may hold. We evaluate a number ofdefinitions of social entrepreneurship and con-trast it with other forms of entrepreneurship. Indoing so, we conclude that the greatest oppor-tunity for scholars interested in social entrepre-neurship exists in examining valuable assump-tions and insights from theories inherent inexisting entrepreneurship frameworks and ap-plying these insights in ways that address phe-nomena in the social entrepreneurship context.We demonstrate these opportunities by describ-ing several avenues for further inquiry thatemerge from debates within the literature onconventional, cultural, and institutional entre-preneurship.

The first two authors wish to acknowledge the support of the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

* Peter A. Dacin ([email protected]) is the Kraft Professor of Marketing at Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University,Kingston, ON, Canada.M. Tina Dacin ([email protected]) is the E. Marie Shantz Professor of Strategy & Organizational Behavior at Queen’s School ofBusiness, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada.Margaret Matear ([email protected]) is a doctoral student at Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON,Canada.

2010 37Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express writtenpermission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.

DefiningSocial Entrepreneurship

Much of the literature on social entrepreneur-ship centers on defining the concept (e.g.,Mair & Martí, 2006, 2009; Peredo &

McLean, 2006), with a heavy focus on conceptualover empirical research (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin,2009). Table 1 summarizes the variety of defini-tions associated with social entrepreneurship inthe literature. Most definitions of social entrepre-neurship refer to an ability to leverage resourcesthat address social problems, although there islittle consensus beyond this generalization (seeZahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009,for a review). For example, some scholars definesocial entrepreneurship as a process demonstratedwhen government or nonprofit organizations op-erate using business principles (Austin, Steven-son, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Mort, Weerawardena,& Carnegie, 2002; Sharir & Lerner, 2006). Otherssee it as the activities of conventional entrepre-neurs who practice corporate social responsibility(Baron, 2005; Young, 2001) or as outcomes oforganized philanthropy (Reis & Clohesy, 1999;Van Slyke & Newman, 2006) and social innova-tion (Bornstein, 2004). Still others define it verynarrowly, as economically sustainable venturesthat generate social value (Emerson & Twersky,1996; Robinson, 2006). Table 1 contains a repre-sentative selection of the various definitionsfound in the social entrepreneurship literature.

This lack of agreement on the domain, bound-aries, forms, and meanings of social entrepreneur-ship (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Perrini, 2006)results in a field of study characterized by nounified definition (Short et al., 2009), impreci-sion, and largely idiosyncratic approaches. Thiscurrent state of conceptual confusion serves as abarrier to cross-disciplinary dialogue and theory-based advances in the field.

Critiques of the definitional landscape exist.However, these critiques often conflict. For exam-ple, Light (2006) suggested that the current defi-nitions are too exclusive, while Martin & Osberg(2007) characterized them as too inclusive. Dees(1998) recognized this dilemma early on and sug-gested that the challenge was to avoid definingsocial entrepreneurship too broadly, so as to make

it void of meaning, or too narrowly, so that itbecomes the province of only a special few. Aperusal of the definitions in Table 1 leads us toconclude that the literature has not yet achievedthis balance.

Table 1 suggests that definitions of social en-trepreneurship focus on four key factors: the char-acteristics of individual social entrepreneurs(Light, 2009), their operating sector, the processesand resources used by social entrepreneurs, andthe primary mission and outcomes associated withthe social entrepreneur. Authors including Dees(1998), Light (2006, 2009), Mair and Martí(2006), and Martin and Osberg (2007) also dis-cussed some of these factors in their observationson social entrepreneurship definitions. Next, webriefly review these factors.

Many definitions in Table 1 focus on the char-acteristics of individual entrepreneurs. These def-initions tend to highlight qualities and behaviorsof individuals centered around issues of motiva-tion, the ability to recognize opportunities andenact change through inspirational leadershipskills, and/or the ability to garner necessary re-sources (Light, 2009; Tan, Williams, & Tan,2005). For example, Tan et al. (2005) differenti-ated between social and other forms of entrepre-neurship and suggested a continuum of social en-trepreneurs based on descending degrees ofaltruism that profits society.

Motivation for much of the discussion of indi-vidual-level characteristics comes from the exist-ing literature on other forms of entrepreneurship.This led some authors to express skepticism aboutwhether these widely referenced characteristicsenable researchers to differentiate among the var-ious forms of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1988;Mair & Martí, 2006). Furthermore, individuallyfocused case studies form the basis of much of thisresearch in social entrepreneurship. As a result,discussions of individual characteristics of socialentrepreneurs take the form of idiosyncratic in-sights based on particular individuals identified assuccessful social entrepreneurs. This leads to thepotential for biased observations. Light (2006)discussed other biases introduced by a focus onindividual-level characteristics, including a lack ofattention to the basic ideas that underlie an orga-

38 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Table1Definitionsof Social Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneurs

Source Definition1. Alvord, Brown, & Letts (2004) [C]reates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the ideas, capacities, resources,

and social arrangements required for sustainable social transformations. (p. 262)2. Austin, Stevenson, &

Wei-Skillern (2006)[S]ocial entrepreneurship as innovative, social value creating activity that can occur within or across thenonprofit, business, or government sectors. (p. 2)

3. Bornstein (2004) Social entrepreneurs are people with new ideas to address major problems who are relentless in thepursuit of their visions . . . who will not give up until they have spread their ideas as far as they possiblycan. (pp. 1–2)

4. Boschee & McClurg (2003) A social entrepreneur is any person, in any sector, who uses earned income strategies to pursue a socialobjective, and a social entrepreneur differs from a traditional entrepreneur in two important ways:Traditional entrepreneurs frequently act in a socially responsible manner. . . . Secondly, traditionalentrepreneurs are ultimately measured by financial results. (p. 3)

5. Cho (2006) [A] set of institutional practices combining the pursuit of financial objectives with the pursuit andpromotion of substantive and terminal values. (p. 36)

6. Dart (2004) [Social enterprise] differs from the traditional understanding of the nonprofit organization in terms ofstrategy, structure, norms, [and] values, and represents a radical innovation in the nonprofit sector. (p.411)

7. Dees (2001) Social entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur. They are entrepreneurs with a socialmission. (p. 2)

8. Drayton (2002) [They] have the same core temperament as their industry-creating, business entrepreneur peers. . . .What defines a leading social entrepreneur? First, there is no entrepreneur without a powerful, new,system change idea. There are four other necessary ingredients: creativity, widespread impact,entrepreneurial quality, and strong ethical fiber. (p. 124)

9. Harding (2004) They are orthodox businesses with social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for thatpurpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit forshareholders and owners. (p. 41)

10. Hartigan (2006) [E]ntrepreneurs whose work is aimed at progressive social transformation. . . . A business to drive thetransformational change. While profits are generated, the main aim is not to maximize financial returnsfor shareholders but to grow the social venture and reach more people in need effectively. Wealthaccumulation is not a priority—revenues beyond costs are reinvested in the enterprise in order to fundexpansion. (p. 45)

11. Haugh (2006) Social enterprise is a collective term for a range of organizations that trade for a social purpose. Theyadopt one of a variety of different legal formats but have in common the principles of pursuing business-led solutions to achieve social aims, and the reinvestment of surplus for community benefit. Theirobjectives focus on socially desired, nonfinancial goals and their outcomes are the nonfinancial measuresof the implied demand for and supply of services. (Ch. 1, p. 5)

12. Hibbert, Hogg, & Quinn(2005)

Social entrepreneurship can be loosely defined as the use of entrepreneurial behaviour for social endsrather than for profit objectives, or alternatively, that the profits generated are used for the benefit of aspecific disadvantaged group. (p. 159)

13. Hockerts (2006) Social purpose business ventures are hybrid enterprises straddling the boundary between the for-profitbusiness world and social mission-driven public and nonprofit organizations. Thus they do not fitcompletely in either sphere. (p. 145)

14. Korosec & Berman (2006) Social entrepreneurs are defined as individuals or private organizations that take the initiative to identifyand address important social problems in their communities. (pp. 448–449)[O]rganizations and individuals that develop new programs, services, and solutions to specific problemsand those that address the needs of special populations. (p. 449)

15. Lasprogata & Cotten (2003) Social entrepreneurship means nonprofit organizations that apply entrepreneurial strategies to sustainthemselves financially while having a greater impact on their social mission (i.e., the “double bottomline”). (p. 69)

2010 39Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Table1Continued

Source Definition16. Light (2006) A social entrepreneur is an individual, group, network, organization, or alliance of organizations that

seeks sustainable, large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas in what or how governments,nonprofits, and businesses do to address significant social problems. (p. 50)

17. Mair & Martı́ (2006) [A] process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyzesocial change and/or address social needs. (p. 37)

18. Martin & Osberg (2007) We define social entrepreneurship as having the following three components: (1) identifying a stable butinherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment ofhumanity that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;(2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value proposition, andbringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude, thereby challenging thestable state’s hegemony; and (3) forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential oralleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stableecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society atlarge. (p. 35)

19. Masseti (2008) Introduce the Social Entrepreneur Matrix (SEM). Based on whether a business has a more market- orsocially driven mission and whether or not it requires profit, the SEM combines those factors that mostclearly differentiate social entrepreneurism from traditional entrepreneurism. (p. 7)

20. Mort, Weerawardena, &Carnegie (2003)

[A] multidimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behaviour toachieve the social mission, a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity, theability to recognise social value-creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics ofinnovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. (p. 76)

21. Peredo & McLean (2006) [S]ocial entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating social value,either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to recognize and takeadvantage of opportunities to create that value (“envision”); (3) employ(s) innovation, ranging fromoutright invention to adapting someone else’s novelty, in creating and/or distributing social value; (4)is/are willing to accept an above-average degree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and(5) is/are unusually resourceful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their socialventure. (p. 64)

22. Perrini & Vurro (2006) We define SE as a dynamic process created and managed by an individual or team (the innovative socialentrepreneur), which strives to exploit social innovation with an entrepreneurial mindset and a strong needfor achievement, in order to create new social value in the market and community at large. (Ch. 1, p. 4)

23. Prabhu (1999) [P]ersons who create or manage innovative entrepreneurial organizations or ventures whose primarymission is the social change and development of their client group. (p. 140)

24. Roberts & Woods (2005) Social entrepreneurship is the construction, evaluation, and pursuit of opportunities for transformativesocial change carried out by visionary, passionately dedicated individuals. (p. 49)

25. Robinson (2006) I define social entrepreneurship as a process that includes: the identification of a specific social problemand a specific solution . . . to address it; the evaluation of the social impact, the business model and thesustainability of the venture; and the creation of a social mission-oriented for-profit or a business-orientednonprofit entity that pursues the double (or triple) bottom line. (p. 95)

26. Schwab Foundation A social enterprise is an organization that achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social changethrough a new invention, a different approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies orstrategies, or a combination of these. (http://www.schwabfound.org/sf/SocialEntrepreneurs/index.htm.)

27. Seelos & Mair (2005) Social entrepreneurship combines the resourcefulness of traditional entrepreneurship with a mission tochange society. (p. 241)

28. Sharir & Lerner (2006) [T]he social entrepreneur is acting as a change agent to create and sustain social value without beinglimited to resources currently in hand. (p. 3)

40 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

nization and a tendency to ignore the resourcesprovided by the organization or any relevant pipe-line to which the social entrepreneur has access.

Definitions of social entrepreneurship focusedon the operating sector and/or the processes andresources used by social entrepreneurs lead to dis-cussions of a variety of bases for defining socialentrepreneurship. These include identifying themanner in which the social enterprise is estab-lished (Dorado, 2006) as well as the primary ac-tivities undertaken by the social entrepreneur(Zahra et al., 2009).

Others suggest defining social entrepreneursbased on the processes and resources they usewhen entering into a venture. These include not-for-profit versus for-profit (Dorado, 2006), socialwealth creation versus economic wealth creation(Mair & Martí, 2006), and social entrepreneurial

activities versus social services activities versussocial activism (Martin & Osberg, 2007).

Various typologies in the literature characterizethe activities of entrepreneurs in general and so-cial entrepreneurs in particular (Neck, Brush, &Allen, 2009; Zahra et al., 2009). Zahra et al.(2009), for example, suggested three typologies—social bricoleur, social constructionist, and socialengineer—that capture different patterns of activ-ities exhibited by social entrepreneurs. Buildingon the notion of a bricoleur1, Oliver and Mc-Kague (2009) suggested that one processunderlyingthe path to successful social outcomes is one ofbuilding network bricolage—the combination orrecombination of existing actors and resources

1 � 9 2 , 7 4 . < 9is a French word for someone who builds or cobbles some-thing together from whatever resources are at hand. � 9 2 , 7 4 * 0 .is the process.

Table1Continued

Source Definition29. Skoll Foundation [T]he social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of transformational change that will benefit

disadvantaged communities and ultimately society at large. Social entrepreneurs pioneer innovative andsystemic approaches for meeting the needs of the marginalized, the disadvantaged and thedisenfranchised—populations that lack the financial means or political clout to achieve lasting benefit ontheir own. (http://www.skollfoundation.org/aboutsocialentrepreneurship/whatis.asp.)

30. Tan, Williams, & Tan (2005) A legal person is a social entrepreneur from t1 to t2 just in case that person attempts from t1 to t2, tomake profits for society or a segment of it by innovation in the face of risk, in a way that involves thatsociety or segment of it. (p. 358)

31. Thompson (2002) [P]eople with the qualities and behaviours we associate with the business entrepreneur but who operate inthe community and are more concerned with caring and helping than “making money.” (p. 413)

32. Thompson, Alvy, & Lees(2000)

[P]eople who realize where there is an opportunity to satisfy some unmet need that the state welfaresystem will not or cannot meet, and who gather together the necessary resources (generally people, oftenvolunteers, money and premises) and use these to “make a difference.” (p. 328)

33. Thompson & Doherty (2006) Social enterprises—defined simply—are organisations seeking business solutions to social problems. (p.362)

34. Tracey & Jarvis (2007) [T]he notion of trading for a social purpose is at the core of social entrepreneurship, requiring that socialentrepreneurs identify and exploit market opportunities, and assemble the necessary resources, in orderto develop products and/or services that allow them to generate “entrepreneurial profit” for a givensocial project. (p. 671)

35. Waddock & Post (1991) [A]n individual who brings about changes in the perception of social issues. . . . [They] play critical roles inbringing about “catalytic changes” in the public sector agenda and the perception of certain social issues.(p. 393)

36. Yunus (2008) [A]ny innovative initiative to help people may be described as social entrepreneurship. The initiative maybe economic or non-economic, for-profit or not-for-profit. (p. 32)

37. Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum,& Shulman (2009)

Social entrepreneurship encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, andexploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existingorganizations in an innovative manner. (p. 5)

2010 41Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

into a formal or informal network to generateself-sustaining and individualized incentives toachieve a variety of goals, including social goals.While this focus appears to some authors to bemore promising for differentiation than individual-level characteristics of social entrepreneurs, muchof the research on the activities and processes ofsocial entrepreneurship builds on idiosyncraticcase studies of a handful of existing social venturesand shares similar biases as the individual-levelcharacteristics approach.

The final approach to defining social entrepre-neurship focuses on the primary mission and out-comes of the social entrepreneur, which includecreating social value by providing solutions tosocial problems. From Table 1, the notion of pro-viding social value or some derivative of socialvalue appears to be a common theme across themajority of social entrepreneurship definitions. Incontrast to the individual-level characteristics,processes, and activities, this approach focuses thedefinition of social entrepreneurship on the out-come of the efforts of the social entrepreneur.Some authors adopting this definition ignore eco-nomic outcomes, while other authors do associateeconomic outcomes with social entrepreneurship,although not as the primary mission (Mair &Martí, 2006; Zahra et al., 2009).

At one level, focusing on social rather thaneconomic outcomes aligns with an agenda of iden-tifying and promoting individuals who succeededin undertaking significant social change. How-ever, we also believe that the creation of socialvalue is often closely linked to economic out-comes that, in turn, produce financial resourcessocial entrepreneurs use to achieve their socialmission. Consequently, avoiding the discussion ofoutcomes other than social value creation mayresult in ignoring critical outcomes that play anessential role in social entrepreneurial success.

With respect to these four approaches to defin-ing social entrepreneurship, we believe the defi-nition that holds the most potential for building aunique understanding of social entrepreneurshipand developing actionable implications is onethat focuses on the social value creation missionand outcomes, both positive and negative, of un-dertakings aimed at creating social value. Defining

social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurssolely on the basis of characteristics will inevitablylead to yet more discussion and debate about whatthese characteristics should be; it is a debate thathas no resolution because it is unlikely that adefinitive set of characteristics applies to all kindsof social entrepreneurial activity across all con-texts. By contrast, a focus on the mission thatgives primacy to social value creation and processes/resources allows researchers to examine the activ-ities through which individuals and organizationsachieve specific outcomes. This allows researchersto develop novel insights into social entrepreneur-ship as well as to consider the extent to whichinsights associated with different kinds of entre-preneurs and organizations apply to the socialentrepreneurship context.

While insights from existing literatures providea foundation for investigating patterns, relation-ships, and trends in social entrepreneurship,scholars continue to debate whether or not socialentrepreneurship should be studied as a discretefield and the extent to which social entrepreneur-ship fits into the broader schema of organizationaland management studies (Austin et al., 2006).

Differentiating Social Entrepreneurship

While there appear to be compelling argu-ments that differentiate so-called conven-tional forms of entrepreneurship from insti-

tutional (Dorado, 2005; Hargadon & Douglas,2001) and cultural forms (DiMaggio, 1982;Ellmeier, 2003; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), thereremain questions as to whether social entrepre-neurship is distinct from other forms of entrepre-neurship. In an attempt to address these questions,some scholars are directing their attention to whatit means to be “social” and how this might distin-guish social entrepreneurship from other organi-zational forms (Dees, 1998; Nicholls & Cho,2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006).

Various definitions of social entrepreneurshipsubsume other forms of entrepreneurship, such aseconomic, institutional, or cultural entrepreneur-ship. Mair (2006), for example, suggested thatbecause all successful enterprises generate somesocial value—either directly, by solving a socialproblem, or indirectly, by generating tax revenues

42 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

and creating employment—there is an argumentfor defining all entrepreneurial forms as social.This is not an entirely new perspective. For atleast the past century, scholars and business prac-titioners from a wide range of disciplinary back-grounds have deliberated over whether businessshould influence or merely reflect social normsand expectations (c.f. Davis, 1973; Donham,1927; Friedman, 1970; Mulligan, 1986).

In contrast to those who question the distinc-tiveness of social entrepreneurship, others suggestthat the mission, motives, and challenges of socialentrepreneurship are different enough to warrantits own body of theory (see, e.g., Austin et al.,2006; Hockerts, 2006; Murphy & Coombes, 2009;Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). Whether therewill be agreement over how distinct social entre-preneurship is from other forms of entrepreneur-ship will likely take time to resolve. Rather thanfocusing on this debate, we contend that there ismore to gain by exploring social entrepreneurshipas a unique context that provides opportunities forsocial entrepreneurship researchers as well as re-searchers in existing disciplines—such as thoseassociated with other forms of entrepreneur-ship—to investigate how existing theories applyto social mission-related phenomena.

In advancing our contention of social entrepre-neurship as a unique context offering unique re-search opportunities, we provide overviews of so-cial, conventional, institutional, and culturalentrepreneurship, highlighting the unique contextprovided by social entrepreneurship and the po-tential research opportunities that emerge fromthis context.

Typesof Entrepreneurship

What should be evident from our discussion sofar is that many scholars have acknowledgedthe difficulty in establishing the character-

istics of social entrepreneurship and defining itsboundaries (Christie & Honig, 2006; Mair &Martí, 2006; Perrini, 2006). Thompson (2002),for example, situated social entrepreneurs squarelyin the realm of the nonprofit, suggesting that theychange people’s lives by promoting social causes.Indeed, some consider profit-seeking entirely in-appropriate as it distracts managers from their

social missions (Foster & Bradach, 2005). On theother hand, Simms and Robinson (2009) pro-posed that social entrepreneurs may be involvedin either for-profit or nonprofit activities, and thatindividual differences mediate that decision. Sim-ilarly, Dees and Elias (1998) located social ven-tures on a continuum between purely charitableand purely commercial, depending on whether theentrepreneurial mission prioritizes a social or eco-nomic goal.

At one extreme, Friedman (1970) suggestedthat making a profit should be the only social goalof a business; indeed, many societies measure theirwell-being by the value of the gross domesticproduct generated by their aggregate economictransactions. At the other extreme, Davis (1973)argued that since all businesses are socially em-bedded, long-term success is a function of theirability to embrace “specific human goals [that]fulfill the dignity, creativity, and potential of freemen” (p. 75), while others have argued that eco-nomic value generated by any entrepreneurialventure cannot easily be separated from the socialbenefits such wealth provides (Schramm, 2010;Venkataraman, 1997). Many notions of entrepre-neurship transcend purely economic transactions,and at the most fundamental level manifest them-selves in the ability to identify opportunities, ap-ply innovative thinking to marketize them, andcreate value in the process.

There are certainly many similarities across thevarious domains of entrepreneurial study. In thefollowing section, we compare social entrepre-neurship to three other prominent domains ofentrepreneurial study: the conventional, institu-tional, and cultural forms of entrepreneurship. Todo so in a systematic fashion, we elaborate on thefour dimensions in the social entrepreneurshipdefinitional framework we developed earlier: indi-vidual differences, operating sector, processes/re-sources, and primary mission. Two of the dimen-sions—individual differences and operatingsector—show very little variation across entrepre-neurial types. However, there are some intriguingdifferences in the other two dimensions—missionand processes/resources—that suggest new areasfor research. We summarize differences in thesetwo dimensions in Table 2.

2010 43Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Conventional Entrepreneurship

The study of entrepreneurship emerged aroundwhat we regard as “conventional entrepreneurs,”those individuals who develop businesses bybringing innovations to market (Schumpeter,1934). One of the most common assumptions ofresearch in this area is that entrepreneurial successis a function of the individual skills, abilities, anddecisions of the entrepreneur (Low & MacMillan,1988; Venkataraman, 1997). The literature de-scribes conventional entrepreneurs in terms ofcharacteristics such as creativity (Drucker, 1984,1993; Schumpeter, 1934), alertness to opportuni-ties (Baron, 2006; Kirzner, 1973), optimism(Krueger & Dickson, 1994), risk orientation(Stewart & Roth, 2001), and passion (Cardon,Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009; Chen, Yao,& Kotha, 2009). The very characteristics thatmake these individuals successful as entrepre-neurs, however, can generate tension when thebusiness reaches the stage where it requires ongo-

ing management skills. Research suggests thatmanagement and entrepreneurship are contrast-ing paradigms (Bygrave, 1989; Stevenson &Gumpert, 1985), and that the process of ongoingmanagement requires the curbing of entrepreneur-ial passion in the interest of organizational sur-vival and growth (Johannisson, 2002).

Until recently, both management and econom-ics scholars assumed that commercial profit wasthe underlying motive driving entrepreneurialsuccess—that the majority of conventional entre-preneurship research occurred in market-driven,profit-making contexts in which the ultimate mis-sion was to create economic value and wealth forshareholders. Over the past two decades, however,there has been growing acceptance of the ideathat conventional entrepreneurs need not beprofit-driven at the expense of their vision(Dees, 1998; Drucker, 1993), nor must theyeven be associated with business.

Indeed, many ventures lauded in the conven-

Table2DistinctionsAmongTypesof EntrepreneursAlongMissionandProcess/ResourcesDimensions

Conventional Insitutional Cultural SocialDefinition An agent who enables or

enacts a vision based onnew ideas in order tocreate successfulinnovations.(Schumpeter, 1950)

An agent who can mobilize resources toinfluence or change institutional rules,in order to support or destroy anexisting institution, or to establish anew one. (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983)

An individual who identifiesan opportunity and actsupon it in order to createsocial, cultural, or economicvalue. (DiMaggio, 1982;Wilson & Stokes, 2004)

An actor whoapplies businessprinciples tosolving socialproblems.

Wealth distribution Shareholder Shareholder and/or stakeholder Shareholder and/orstakeholder

Shareholderand/orstakeholder

Predominant organizationalform

Profit Profit Nonprofit or profit Nonprofit orprofit

Primary goal (or motives) Economic Institutional reform/development Culturaldiffusion/enlightenment

Social change/well-being

Product Create and/or distributeconsumer product orservice

Establish legitimacy Establish new norms andvalues

Promoteideology/socialchange

Tensions Growth versus survival Resistance to change (isomorphismversus competitive advantage?)

Commercialization versusculture (authenticity)

Economicsustainabilityversus socialmission

Examples Business serviceproviders

Edison Museums Aravind Eye Clinic

Software developers Kodak Folk art festivals Greyston BakeryTourism companies Apple Symphony orchestras Rugmark

44 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

tional entrepreneurship literature might just aseasily appear in the social entrepreneurship liter-ature. Patagonia, for example, is a privately ownedfor-profit outdoor clothing manufacturer thatposted $270 million in revenues in 2006 (Casey,2007). Its mission is to “Build the best product,cause no unnecessary harm, use business to in-spire, and implement solutions to the environ-mental crisis.” It pioneered several innovativebusiness practices, including an insistence onLEED-certified facilities, recycled raw materials,and social benefits for employees. It monitors anethical supply chain and donates a percentage ofits profit toward environmental conservation ini-tiatives. Its mission, activities, and processes implythat Patagonia is not just a business, but also asocial entrepreneurial venture. Investigating Pat-agonia only through a conventional entrepreneur-ship lens may not be capturing all of the activitiesand processes that make Patagonia successful inboth economic and social terms.

Research in the conventional entrepreneurshipliterature focuses on the relationship between afirm’s success and its ability to access a wide rangeof resources and factors of production, includingphysical, human, financial, and knowledge-basedresources (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon, & Woo,1991; Greene & Brown, 1997; Mosakowski,1998). Some of the processes associated with mo-bilizing these resources include storytelling (see,e.g., Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Martens, Jen-nings, & Jennings, 2007) and social networkbuilding (Greve & Salaff, 2003). Bricolage—cre-ating something from whatever resources are athand—is another key driver of value creationthrough entrepreneurial innovation (Baker &Nelson, 2005).

Interestingly, many of the ventures appearingin the social entrepreneurship literature are nearlyindistinguishable from their conventional coun-terparts, in that they too earn profits by pursuingtheir mission in an innovative fashion. Moreover,social entrepreneurs appear to utilize resources inmuch the same way as conventional entrepreneurs(Meyskins, Robb-Post, Stamp, Carsrud, & Reyn-olds, 2010). For example, LocalFeed in Africadisrupts the large-scale agri-business model andserves subsistence farmers with cost-effective,

high-quality animal feed, allowing them to earn aliving on small land holdings (Thompson & Mac-Millan, 2006). LocalFeed’s entrepreneurial drivecomes from a local farmer whom Zahra et al.(2009) would classify as a social bricoleur, in thathis actions are based on “unique local and tacitknowledge” combined in new applications (p.527). While the missions for many of the venturesin the social entrepreneurship literature are decid-edly social, the ventures are sustainable onlythrough the revenue they generate; thus, theirfinancial concerns must be balanced equally withsocial ones.

Many of the case studies that describe sustain-able social enterprises, such as Greyston Bakery, ahigh-end bakery that supports the local homelessand offers outpatient care to people with AIDS(Boschee, 1995), highlight the innovations usedto solve social problems while depending on asteady revenue stream (also see Perrini & Fazzo-lari, 2006; Robinson, 2006; Thompson & Mac-Millan, 2006). The social entrepreneurship con-text thus brings into relief an increasinglyimportant concern that all forms of business face:how to weave social and economic concerns intothe fabric of organization management, to themutual satisfaction of stakeholders. The dual mis-sion of social entrepreneurial ventures providesboth interesting opportunities and constraints.

Institutional Entrepreneurship

The notion of institutional entrepreneurship wasobserved in organizational studies documentingthe processes of establishing and changing socialinstitutions (Lawrence & Phillips, 2004). An in-stitutional entrepreneur is an agent who can mo-bilize resources to influence or change institu-tional rules in order to support an existinginstitution, establish a new one (DiMaggio, 1988),or displace or destroy prevailing ones (e.g., Borum& Westenholz, 1995; Hargadon & Douglas,2001). Institutional entrepreneurs are further dis-tinguished by introducing operating models thatdiverge from conventional or established meth-ods, a feature not associated with other entrepre-neurs (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009).

The mission of institutional entrepreneurs is toestablish new norms and patterns of behavior that

2010 45Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

will help them achieve a highly valued goal (De-jean, Gond, & Leca, 2004), and they operate inboth the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Maguire,Hardy, and Lawrence (2004), for example, re-counted the efforts of several nonprofit advocacyorganizations to change consultation practicesand information exchange around HIV/AIDStreatment. In the for-profit sector, Munir andPhillips (2005) described a classic market exampleof institutional entrepreneurship in their casestudy on how Kodak changed social perceptions ofphotography from a technical profession to a con-sumer leisure activity that ultimately evolved intoan everyday phenomenon. These cases demon-strate that successful institutional entrepreneursare able to exert significant influence on theirexternal environments and catalyze ground-break-ing social, economic, or political reform (Maguire,Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004). They must be partic-ularly adept at leveraging the type of resourcesthat Fligstein (1997) calls “social skills,” a field ofexpertise that includes discursive skills, framing,negotiating, networking, and alliance building(Baron & Markman, 2000; Battilana et al., 2009;Hardy & Phillips, 1998; Levy & Scully, 2007).

Interactions between the environment and in-dividual activities are the focus of investigationsinto the tensions between the resistance to changethat is typical of institutions and the innovativedrive inherent to entrepreneurship (i.e., the par-adox of embedded agency: Battilana et al., 2009).Research findings suggest that an actor’s individ-ual characteristics, such as imagination and judg-ment, might play a role in institutional entrepre-neurship (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009). Inparticular, entrepreneurs’ social status can affectthe likelihood that they will engage in the processof institutional change and their ability to accessresources (Dorado, 2005; Maguire et al., 2004).Like their conventional counterparts, institu-tional entrepreneurs often mobilize resourcesthrough activities such as storytelling (Zilber,2007) and bricolage (Maguire et al., 2004).

Recall from our previous discussion that so-cial entrepreneurship also requires the creativeleveraging of resources in order to change thediscourse, perceptions, and approach to solvingidentified social problems. This is analogous in

many ways to institutional entrepreneurship,and the social entrepreneurship literature sug-gests that institutional and social entrepreneur-ship may share many of the same mechanisms ofchange (e.g., Battilana et al., 2009; Kistruck &Beamish, 2010; Mair & Martí, 2006). For ex-ample, the Aravind Eye Clinic2 changed norms,routines, and social expectations around visioncare in India by applying an assembly-line ap-proach to cataract surgery and implementing asliding-fee scale for clients (Mair & Martí,2006); Grameen Bank changed the social andcommercial institutions in developing countriesby helping women—who previously had littleinvolvement in business—to access micro-loansmonitored through peer groups (Alvord, Brown,& Letts, 2004); and Fabio Rosa’s AgroelectricSystem of Appropriate Technology (STA)worked around the anticompetitive policies thatsupported government-run utilities to establishlow-cost rural electrification and irrigation inBrazil. Rosa changed expectations and processesassociated with accessing electricity in rural ar-eas by aggregating demand and building inex-pensive, low-technology infrastructure that usedsolar energy (Bornstein, 2004).

Each of these social problem-solving enter-prises leveraged the financial capital and socialskills upon which institutional entrepreneursrely. Their cases also highlight how the socialnature of their mission provides their operationswith an inherent measure of legitimacy, an im-portant resource for entrepreneurs in general(Suchman, 1995). In addition, the nature of theproblems that these ventures address inspiresinnovative approaches to management thatmight not be possible in more developed areasdue to the constraints of professional and legalinstitutions, such as government health-carepolicies, lobbying groups, and building and in-frastructure codes. Social ventures, by defini-tion, provide an ideal context and a readysource of case studies that deal with the insti-tutional voids common to emerging or failedeconomies (Mair & Martí, 2009).

2 For more information, see www.aravind.org.

46 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Cultural Entrepreneurship

The concept of cultural entrepreneurship used inthis paper originated with DiMaggio (1982)3. Hedefined it as a function of “cultural capitalists”who first identify an opportunity in the culturaldomain, then assume the risk of developing anddisseminating the vision in order to producesomething of cultural value. Cultural entrepre-neurship takes its name from both the context ofits operations and its impact on the interpretationand perception of that culture in society (Johnson,2007). Culture in this sense refers not only to the“cultural industries”—that is, the aesthetic andartistic expressions of a group of people—but alsoto the norms that drive social patterns of behaviorin a given society (DiMaggio, 1994). For example,DiMaggio’s (1982) case study describes how oneindividual elevated the Boston Symphony Or-chestra (BSO) from its more populist beginningsand established it as an exclusive symbol of highculture in Boston society.

As do other types of entrepreneurs, successfulcultural entrepreneurs appear to possess certainindividual aptitudes and skills. These include so-cial position and status-seeking motives (DiMag-gio, 1982), creativity and alertness to opportunity(Acheson, Maule, & Filleul, 1996), and the abil-ity to combine resources creatively (Peterson &Berger, 1971). In particular, cultural entrepre-neurs must be able to accumulate and manipulatecultural capital, the set of skills, knowledge, prac-tices, and tastes that are rare, distinctive, andsocially honored (Bourdieu, 1984). To achievetheir goals, these actors typically engage in manyof the same processes as other types of entrepre-neurs, including leveraging social networks(Banks, Lovatt, O’Connor, & Raffo, 2000; John-son, 2007) and building legitimacy (Wilson &Stokes, 2004). DiMaggio also refers to the entre-preneurial process of framing, an activity similarto that of storytelling, in which agents seek todevelop a “new etiquette of appropriation, a new

relationship between the audience and the workof art” (p. 35).

The cultural entrepreneurship literature high-lights the difficulty that its principals face in bal-ancing organizational mission with economic con-cerns (e.g., Swedburg, 2006; Wilson & Stokes,2004). Commercial tendencies are often consid-ered anathema to authentic culture, and culturalentrepreneurs must balance the need to supportthe organization against perceptions of culturalinauthenticity (Beverland, 2005; Peterson, 1997).Cultural entrepreneurs operate in both for-profitand nonprofit spaces. For example, DiMaggio(1982) described how the BSO was established asa philanthropic organization, controlled by localelites, in order to protect the artistic integrity ofthe music and protect it from crass commercialconcerns. That this decision excluded many of theless wealthy citizens in the area from enjoying itsmusic only confirmed the BSO’s role as an elitecultural experience. There are numerous examplesof cultural entrepreneurs operating in the profitsector as well: In particular, cases on independentmusicians and other creatives usually highlightthe challenges and importance of profitability tocultural enterprises (e.g., Ellmeier, 2003; Lead-beater & Oakley, 1999).

Many ventures identified in the social entre-preneurship literature bear a striking resemblanceto this conceptualization of cultural entrepreneur-ship. For example, the nonprofit organizationDROKPA was developed to preserve and reintro-duce traditional knowledge and ways of life inrural Tibet.4 Its Dolpo Artists’ Cooperative notonly trains apprentice artisans, but also sells theartwork to generate revenues that support andpreserve traditional culture and ways of life. Ni-cholls (2008) suggested that this phenomenon iscommon among arts- and culture-oriented socialentrepreneurs, in that these entrepreneurs are of-ten driven to commercialize their products to pro-tect a unique heritage. At the same time, theseactivities increase awareness and appreciation ofTibetan culture. Effectively, Dolpo leverages andapplies the cultural capital inherent in these3 See Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) for a different approach to concep-

tualizing cultural entrepreneurship. They view it as the cultural dimensionof entrepreneurial practices, suggesting that it manifests as storytelling thatconventional entrepreneurs use to mobilize resources such as capital andlegitimacy. 4 For more, see www.drokpa.org.

2010 47Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

unique artworks and creates a demand for a newlylegitimate art form.

Another example from the social entrepreneur-ship literature is the Indian Muslim Welfare Cen-tre in the United Kingdom. It supports the tradi-tions and needs of the Indian Muslim community,providing help and resources to facilitate worship,weddings, funerals, and specific health education(Thompson, Alvy, & Lees, 2000). The Centreuses innovative partnerships, communications,and service delivery methods to preserve and sup-port its constituents’ culture.

While these forms of entrepreneurship could beinvestigated using just theories linked to culturalentrepreneurship, we suggest that using only thistheoretical filter would fail to capture much ofwhat social entrepreneurs do in the pursuit of theirmissions. Exploring socially oriented business ven-tures within the social entrepreneurship contextilluminates such issues as stakeholder well-being,especially in terms of those who are typicallydisadvantaged.

ExtendingSocial Entrepreneurship

In the sections above we describe several keyways in which social entrepreneurship is relatedto or embedded in other forms of entrepreneur-

ship. However, social entrepreneurship also hassome unique dimensions that make it a worth-while context for exploring entrepreneurial activ-ity more generally. Focusing on the distinctiveopportunities afforded by social entrepreneurshipin light of our discussion regarding other domainsof entrepreneurship (conventional, institutional,and cultural), we are able to generate a set ofinteresting research questions and opportunitiesfor social entrepreneurship. We also highlightcontributions the social entrepreneurship contextmakes to the broader dialogue on entrepreneur-ship. In particular, we elaborate on key themesdrawn from our definitional analysis. Recall thatwe suggested the most promising areas for researchto be around the processes/resources and missionelements. To this end, we explore processes/re-sources in terms of relational, cultural, and insti-tutional resources and associated tensions, such asresistance to change, as well as mission, in terms ofentrepreneurial failure.

Resources

Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1986, 1991, 1995)suggested that valuable resources are largely firm-specific and strategic, either tangible or intangi-ble, that an organization may leverage to createvalue. Much of the conventional entrepreneur-ship literature explored the relationship betweensuccess and the entrepreneur’s and organization’sability to leverage a range of resources. For themost part, however, this literature primarily fo-cuses on factors that are internal to, and to someextent controllable by, the organization.

In contrast, few conventional entrepreneurshipresearchers discuss resources that are external tothe organization. However, in the social entrepre-neurship literature, Austin, Stevenson, andWei-Skillern (2006) referred to a bundle of four“elements” that social entrepreneurs must man-age: people, context, the deal, and the oppor-tunity. In their discussion, context incorporatescertain external resource constraints, such asthe macro-economy, regulatory structure, socialinfrastructures such as supporting organizationsand foundations, and taxation. We suggest thatincorporating greater attention to external re-sources will contribute to a greater understandingof conventional entrepreneurship. Furthermore,we believe that the extent to which social entre-preneurs are able to use unique competency-basedfactors to focus on and engage these externalresources is a distinguishing aspect of social entre-preneurship. We suggest that social entrepreneursare more likely to pay attention to external re-sources and develop creative mechanisms to cir-cumvent environmental barriers: Unlike conven-tional entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs rarelyallow the external environment to determinewhether or not they will launch an enterprise.

In line with this thinking, we suggest that thereare fruitful opportunities for research focused onhow social entrepreneurs leverage three key bun-dles of resources—relational, cultural, and institu-tional. Research on these resources appears in theliterature on conventional, cultural, and institu-tional entrepreneurship.

Relational resources, such as social capital(Aldrich & Martinez, 2001; Greene & Brown,

48 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

1997) and “social skills” (Baron & Markman,2000; Fligstein, 1997), are the elements of anactor’s social network or interpersonal context(Rossi, 1966). These elements include prowess insocial interactions, established networks of formaland informal social ties, and access to communi-cation channels and networks (Robinson, 2006).

Recent work in conventional entrepreneurshipsuggests a strong link between organizational suc-cess and social ties. For example, relational re-sources provide opportunities to exchange infor-mation, leverage interpersonal relationships, andrealize objectives. Effective utilization of socialskills in relational interactions can help explainvariance in outcomes of instrumental actions(Baron & Markman, 2000; Campbell, Marsden, &Hurlbert, 1986). Manev, Gyoshev, and Manolova(2005) demonstrated that social capital is criticalto the success of new ventures in developing ortransitional economies (the context for most so-cial entrepreneurial efforts). The existence of asocial network in and of itself might be consideredvaluable, but the real value is created by theunique relationships formed between the socialentrepreneur and the network members. It is theinteraction between internal organizational hu-man resources and culture and the elements of thesocial network that generates an advantageousresource. Jeff Skoll, for example, developed anenormous network of business and social contactsin his role as founding president of eBay, one thatwould ultimately extend his initial endowment ofthe Skoll Foundation for Social Entrepreneur-ship5. It was Skoll’s proven track record and rep-utation for creative thinking that gave potentialgrant-givers confidence in how their gifts were tobe used.

In addition, social entrepreneurs don’t appearto mobilize resources in such a way as to set upcompetitive barriers, as suggested by research onconventional entrepreneurship. Social entrepre-neurs tend to use resources in cooperative fashion,and often actually share these with other organi-zations (e.g., Aravind Eye Clinic has a globaloutreach program to teach people its techniques).This may be a distinguishing factor for “true”

social entrepreneurs, one that sets entities such asAravind and Greyston Bakery apart from organi-zations such as Ben & Jerry’s and the Body Shop.The former are social conscience entrepreneurs;the latter are conventional entrepreneurs with asocial conscience. By examining the generalizedreciprocity inherent in a social entrepreneur’s re-lational space, conventional, cultural, and institu-tional entrepreneurship researchers may gain abetter understanding of how to strategically lever-age relational resources to achieve entrepreneurialoutcomes.

Cultural resources, defined in terms of thenorms, values, roles, language, attitudes, beliefs,identities, and aesthetic expressions of a commu-nity, are typically investigated as a resource that is2 6 ; . 9 6 * 4to the organization (Barney, 1986; Fiol &Hall, 1992; Kraybill & Nolt, 2004). However,Staber (2005) and Robinson (2006) discussed theconcept of “cultural barriers” that are erectedwhen entrepreneurs lack knowledge of the normsand values associated with the social context . ? �; . 9 6 * 4to the organization. Consequently, whilethere is very little explicit mention of culturalresources external to the organization, we believethat the ability to collect, understand, and lever-age cultural knowledge constitutes a key resourcefrom which social entrepreneurs can and mustdraw.

Knowing what is and isn’t permitted—or ex-pected or considered legitimate—by social andcultural standards is key to developing successfulsocial entrepreneurial strategies and operationalplans. For example, it is doubtful that the businessmodel for the Aravind Eye Clinic could havesucceeded—at least initially—in North Americaor Western Europe. It is quite likely that clientelein more developed countries would have expectedcostly yet legitimized features associated withWestern health services: clinical facilities de-signed to Six Sigma standards, an unqualified pric-ing model, and the expectation that high-qualitymedical services come at a similarly high price.Aravind was successful because its founder wasable to develop safe, effective, and inexpensiveeye surgery protocols in an environment that al-lowed him to focus more on outcomes than onabsolute standards imposed by cultural norms.5 For more information, see www.skollfoundation.org.

2010 49Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Institutional resources refer to the political,legal, and institutional infrastructure from whichindividuals can draw. There is little if any discus-sion of these resources in the conventional entre-preneurship literature. However, as with culturalbarriers, Robinson (2006) briefly discussed “insti-tutional barriers” in terms of problems that resultfrom a lack of understanding of these resources. Itis certainly easy to imagine how the relative lackof institutions can be an obstacle to entrepreneurs.For example, in areas where literacy and educa-tion rates are low, they must contend with short-ages of skilled workers. In regions without anestablished transportation system, organizationsface steep challenges in procurement and distri-bution. In struggling economies, conventional en-trepreneurs may face currency shortages, inade-quate or nonexistent banking infrastructure,rampant inflation, and financial crimes such asbribery and extortion.

It is true that the existence of legal, political,and financial institutional frameworks can enableorganizational development. It is less easy, butperhaps more critical in the social entrepreneur-ship context, to recognize how the 4 * , 3of institu-tions can facilitate the development of social ven-tures. Social entrepreneurship is more likely tooccur where there are significant socioeconomic,cultural, or environmental problems. There maybe institutions with the potential of addressingsuch problems already in place, but they are eitherunable or unwilling to do so as the result of firmlyembedded norms and institutional constraints.Countless case studies of social ventures focus onthe ability of their principals to innovate andapply creative strategies to solve problems; insome cases, it may be that the presence of insti-tutional frameworks actually interferes in theirability to address social problems. For example,when Aravind founder Govindappa Ven-kataswamy was unable to find a source of inex-pensive intraocular lenses (IOLs), he established amanufacturing division to make his own. Since1992, Aurolab has been selling lenses to countriesall over the world for a fraction of the U.S. price,but although Aurolab’s IOLs are made using thesame equipment and standards as those manufac-tured in North America, the American Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approvethem for sale in the United States. Clearly, theFDA has an undeniable role in maintaining thehealth and well-being of its citizens, but it wouldalso act as a formidable institutional barrier toimplementing an Aravind-type business model.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this dis-cussion lies not in the social entrepreneur’s abilityto leverage existing institutional resources, but inthe ability to create a resource that addresses thelack of institutions in a given context. Entrepre-neurs who can recognize how weak institutionalframeworks might facilitate the development oftheir enterprises are likely to have an edge onachieving long-term sustainability.

In the case of social entrepreneurs, their socialmission is a source of legitimacy and is the mostcritical resource to be leveraged with internal aswell as external constituencies. In contrast withinstitutional entrepreneurs who seek to establishand overcome legitimacy deficits, it is likely thatsocial entrepreneurs do not face the same chal-lenges and, in fact can utilize their preexistinglegitimacy derived from their social mission as astrategic resource to garner access to other neededresources. Researchers should also explore issues ofresource acquisition, mobilization, and bundlingin a social entrepreneurial context to gain keyinsights into the entrepreneurial process.

TensionsUnderlyingChange

All forms of entrepreneurs (conventional, cul-tural, institutional, and social) initiate and addressissues of change. The literature on conventionalentrepreneurship addresses the means by whichnew offerings are created via innovation and/orintroduced to new consumers and markets. Cul-tural entrepreneurs seek to change attitudes, be-liefs, and values—the normative milieu of a givencontext. Institutional entrepreneurs seek to cre-ate, erode, or alter existing institutional arrange-ments. All of these entrepreneurs and the theoriesthat inform their activity address the issue of re-sistance to change. Perhaps the most systematicapproach to examining resistance has been offeredby institutional theorists who developed a signif-icant body of work on institutional change (Da-cin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2001).

50 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Scholars of social entrepreneurship would ar-rive at interesting insights by examining issues ofresistance to change. As social entrepreneurs con-sider the scalability and sustainability of their ven-tures across diverse contexts, it is imperative thatthey understand the strategies, skills, and tool kitsemployed by their conventional, cultural, and in-stitutional counterparts. For example, a more nu-anced understanding of the sources of culturaltension and resistance to change may help miti-gate the potential downside of initiatives acrosscontexts with varied traditions and class and castesystems. The interplay of cultural and institutionalconstraints has been documented in the executionof micro-credit initiatives by Grameen Bank inBangladesh. One unintended consequence ofloans to married women was increased violenceagainst this group rather than the intended socialobjective of empowering them (Rahman, 1998;Schuler, Hashemi, & Badal, 1998). This was dueto the lack of a deeper understanding of the cul-tural norms and traditions in a society wherewomen have little independence from their hus-bands. The funding received by women was oftenturned over to their husbands for unintended use.Women’s resistance to turning over the fundsoften resulted in violence (Rahman, 1998).

In addition, social entrepreneurship researcherscould investigate the way in which conventionalentrepreneurs mitigate risky product introduc-tions. Given that the social mission of social en-trepreneurial ventures is embedded or situated in awider cultural and institutional context, it is im-perative to consider the broader range of con-straints potentially enabling or constraining thesuccess of the venture. Social entrepreneurshipresearchers should develop a stronger understand-ing of the process of social change based onprogress made in the area of institutional change(Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002; Poole &Van de Ven, 2004) as well as the role of discourseand structuration in field-level change.

Entrepreneurial Failure

We contend that social entrepreneurship re-searchers and practitioners could benefit from astronger dialogue and understanding of entrepre-neurial failure. The literature on social entrepre-

neurship is rife with examples of successful socialenterprises. Yet entrepreneurial failure is just ascrucial to understanding the potential sustainabil-ity of social enterprises. The literature on entre-preneurial failure within the domain of conven-tional entrepreneurship examines issues oflearning from failure (McGrath, 1999) as well asthe emotions and relative stigma associated withfailure (Shepherd, 2003).

McGrath (1999) suggested that a focus onseeking success and avoidance of failure poten-tially results in costly errors and diminished op-portunities for learning. Shepherd’s (2003) workexamined the linkage between business failureand emotion with a focus on how the process ofgrief recovery attenuates the negative emotions offailure and enhances the process of learning fromfailure. Scholars and practitioners of social entre-preneurship could learn a great deal from workexamining the processes of loss and grief in con-ventional entrepreneurial failure research. This isdue to the importance placed by social entrepre-neurs on the social mission of their organizations.Indeed, a defining characteristic of social entre-preneurs is the passion for their social mission(Cardon et al., 2009). It is likely that the costs ofa failed social enterprise would weigh heavily onthe social entrepreneur. Studying the costs andbenefits of social entrepreneurial failure wouldprovide conventional entrepreneurship researchan avenue by which to explore extreme cases atthe intersection of emotions and entrepreneur-ship. Another avenue through which social entre-preneurship could yield interesting insights is inunderstanding the sources of failure when thereare multiple missions or contradictory logics atplay.

Institutional scholars have done considerablework in the area of decoupling (Meyer & Rowan,1977; Westphal & Zajac, 2001), and it would bebeneficial for social entrepreneurship research-ers to explore the skills with which these entre-preneurs decouple their dual missions and iden-tities. Recent work on managing multiple orcontradictory institutional logics would yieldvaluable insights into how social entrepreneurscan effectively negotiate among conflicting agen-das (Thornton, 2002). By examining the gover-

2010 51Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

nance and control issues of social entrepreneurialventures, scholars of conventional as well as in-stitutional entrepreneurship may benefit from abetter understanding of the simultaneous manage-ment of conflicting ideologies and practices.

In a recent study, Shepherd, Wicklund, andHaynie (2009) asked an interesting question:Would an entrepreneur derive benefits from de-laying a business failure? This is an interestingquestion for both institutional and social entre-preneurs. In introducing social change, social en-trepreneurs are concerned with issues of persis-tence, but their social mission may privilege themto persist beyond efficiency or rational explana-tions for doing so. Insights from institutional the-ory would provide valuable avenues to explore thesustainability and failure of social entrepreneurs.

Institutional theory has long been concernedwith issues of organizational persistence (Meyer &Zucker, 1989), and institutional entrepreneurshipis regarded as a means of creating as well as alter-ing and/or eroding existing institutions (Battilanaet al., 2009). An interesting opportunity for socialentrepreneurship scholars is to examine issues ofsuccess and failure across domains that intersectinstitutional, cultural, and social entrepreneur-ship. A recent study by Tracey, Philips, and Jarvis(2010) is a step in that direction by examining asuccessful instance of institutional entrepreneur-ship while simultaneously documenting the sameventure as a failed social enterprise.

In addition to issues of learning and the emo-tional costs of failure, it is generally accepted inthe domain of social entrepreneurship that successstories are of considerable value not only to thesocial entrepreneur but to the social entrepreneur-ship movement as well. There is no dearth ofevents, awards, and celebrations highlighting theheroic efforts of a handful of social entrepreneurs.Recognition by an organization such as Ashoka oracclaim in the media (e.g., � * : ; � 7 5 8 * 6 @maga-zine) often yields recognition and benefits fromother organizations such as the Skoll Foundation,which in turn leads to further funding from so-cially inclined venture capitalists. In other words,success breeds further success. This places enor-mous pressure on the social entrepreneur to suc-

ceed against all odds. This may be problematic ona number of dimensions.

First, what is the appropriate measure or metricof social entrepreneurial success? Ryan and Lyne(2008) suggested that it is increasingly importantto valuate and measure social impact. What is thesocial return on investment? Furthermore, whathappens if the social entrepreneur achieves thesocial mission but fails to make a profit; is theventure still regarded as successful? Recent in-stances of failed social enterprises such as FannieMae and Freddie Mac can provide interestinginsight into the validity and sustainability of so-cial missions in light of their economic collapse.

Second, to what extent might social entrepre-neurs subjugate their social mission to their profitmission in order to achieve sustainability? Fur-thermore, would social entrepreneurs compromisetheir objectives or social mission in order to suitthe agendas and priorities of large funding organi-zations, governments, and foundations?

Finally, a bias toward highlighting success bur-ies potential lessons to be learned from socialentrepreneurial failure. Inasmuch as social inno-vation is linked to social entrepreneurship andthat failure is a critical element of the innovativeprocess, a focus on successful case studies is prob-lematic and misleading. It is misleading because afocus on “survivors” yields little beyond inspira-tion, and biases our understanding. Success storiesare important to motivate and inspire future gen-erations of social entrepreneurs but underestimatethe difficult task of entrepreneurial work moregenerally. Critics of learning from success (Ved-der, 1992) have only to examine the fate of com-panies highlighted in such iconoclastic works as � 6$ . * 9 , 1 7 / � ? , . 4 4 . 6 , .or � 7 7 - ; 7 � 9 . * ;to fully un-derstand that success is both temporally and con-textually situated. In fact, the factors that contrib-ute to success in one context may be inapplicableto other ventures.

Conclusion

In this paper, we examine social entrepreneurshipas a unique context of inquiry. We situate ourunderstanding of social entrepreneurship by

evaluating the myriad of definitions in the extantliterature and compare and contrast social entre-

52 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

preneurship with other approaches to entrepre-neurial study. In doing so, we demonstrate thatwhile there is much overlap between the domainsof conventional, institutional, cultural, and socialentrepreneurship, there also exist a number ofdistinctive opportunities for scholars within thecontext of social entrepreneurship.

We suggest that the most significant opportu-nity resides in a better understanding of the dis-tinctive nature of the mission, processes, and re-sources leveraged in a social entrepreneurialcontext. Scholars and practitioners of social en-trepreneurship can glean valuable insights by ex-amining lessons from conventional entrepreneur-ship, such as those relating to entrepreneurialfailure, or understanding the processes of resourcemobilization currently better understood by thosestudying institutional and cultural entrepreneur-ship. On the other hand, there is also much forconventional, institutional, and cultural entrepre-neurship researchers to learn from the social en-trepreneurship context. While it is not a distincttype of entrepreneurship, researchers stand to ben-efit from further research on social entrepreneur-ship as a context in which established types ofentrepreneurs operate. Further advances in thisarea will extend our understanding of this valu-able phenomenon and facilitate the developmentof managerial strategies to assist those who under-take social enterprises.

To this end, we illustrate a number of promis-ing avenues for future research that emerge whenapplying well-established theories from the con-ventional, institutional, and cultural entrepre-neurship literatures to the social entrepreneurshipcontext. We do this to encourage other research-ers to also evaluate existing theories used in ex-plaining and understanding entrepreneurial strat-egies for their use in social entrepreneurshipcontexts. By doing so, we add legitimacy anddepth to an emerging field, and create opportuni-ties for building on established theory to extendsocial entrepreneurial inquiry.

ReferencesAcheson, K., Maule, C., & Filleul, E. (1996). Cultural

entrepreneurship and the Banff Television Festival. � 7 < 9 �6 * 4 7 / � < 4 ; < 9 * 4 � , 7 6 7 5 2 , : � (December), 321–339.

Aldrich, H., & Martinez, M. (2001). � * 6 @ * 9 . , * 4 4 . - � + < ; / . >* 9 . , 1 7 : . 6 � � 6 . = 7 4 < ; 2 7 6 * 9 @ 8 . 9 : 8 . , ; 2 = . / 7 9 ; 1 . : ; < - @ 7 /. 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(Discussion Paper). Chapel Hill, NC:University of North Carolina.

Alvord, S. H., Brown, D. L., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Socialentrepreneurship and societal transformation: An ex-ploratory study. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � 8 8 4 2 . - � . 1 * = 2 7 < 9 * 4 $ , 2 . 6 , . � � �260–282.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Socialand commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, orboth? � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ � ! 9 * , ; 2 , . � � �1–22.

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something fromnothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurialbricolage. � - 5 2 6 2 : ; 9 * ; 2 = . $ , 2 . 6 , . " < * 9 ; . 9 4 @ � � �(3), 329–366.

Banks, M., Lovatt, A., O’Connor, J., & Raffo, C. (2000).Risk and trust in the cultural industries. � . 7 / 7 9 < 5 � � �453–464.

Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a sourceof sustained competitive advantage? � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . �5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � � � �656–665.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � � (1), 99–120.

Barney, J. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage.� , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � ? . , < ; 2 = . � �(4), 49–61.

Baron, D. P. (2005). � 7 9 8 7 9 * ; . : 7 , 2 * 4 9 . : 8 7 6 : 2 + 2 4 2 ; @ * 6 - : 7 , 2 * 4. 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(Working Paper). Stanford University.Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id!861145

Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond socialcapital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’success. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � ? . , < ; 2 = . � � �106–127.

Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work andthe paradox of embedded agency. In T. Lawrence, R.Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), � 6 : ; 2 ; < ; 2 7 6 * 4 > 7 9 3 � � , ; 7 9 : * 6 -* 0 . 6 , @ 2 6 2 6 : ; 2 ; < ; 2 7 6 * 4 : ; < - 2 . : 7 / 7 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6(pp. 31–58).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actorschange institutions: Towards a theory of institutionalentrepreneurship. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 6 6 * 4 : � (1),65–107.

Beverland, M. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: Thecase of luxury wines. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; $ ; < - 2 . : � �(5), 1003–1029.

Bornstein, D. (2004). � 7 > ; 7 , 1 * 6 0 . ; 1 . > 7 9 4 - � $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . �8 9 . 6 . < 9 : * 6 - ; 1 . 8 7 > . 9 7 / 6 . > 2 - . * : �Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Borum, F., & Westenholz, A. (1995). The incorporation ofmultiple institutional models: Organizational field mul-tiplicity and the role of actors. In W. R. Scott & S.Christensen (Eds.), % 1 . 2 6 : ; 2 ; < ; 2 7 6 * 4 , 7 6 : ; 9 < , ; 2 7 6 7 /7 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 : � � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 * 6 - 4 7 6 0 2 ; < - 2 6 * 4 : ; < - 2 . :(pp.113–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. � , 9 7 : : ; 1 .� 7 * 9 - � �(3), 20–24.

Boschee, J., & McClurg, J. (2003). % 7 > * 9 - * + . ; ; . 9 < 6 - . 9 �: ; * 6 - 2 6 0 7 / : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � $ 7 5 . 2 5 8 7 9 ; * 6 ; - 2 : ; 2 6 , �; 2 7 6 :(White Paper). Retrieved June 14, 2010, fromhttp://www.se-alliance.org/better_understanding.pdf

2010 53Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Bourdieu, P. (1984). � 2 : ; 2 6 , ; 2 7 6(R. Nice, Trans.). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bygrave, W. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm: Aphilosophical look at its research methodologies. � 6 ; 9 . �8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ * 6 - ! 9 * , ; 2 , . � � �7–30.

Campbell, K., Marsden, P., & Hurlbert, J. (1986). Socialresources and socioeconomic status. $ 7 , 2 * 4 � . ; > 7 9 3 : � � �97–117.

Cardon, M. (2008). Is passion contagious? The transferenceof entrepreneurial passion to employees. � < 5 * 6 # . : 7 < 9 , .� * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � � �(2), 77–86.

Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (inpress). The nature and experience of entrepreneurialpassion. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > �

Casey, S. (2007, May 29). Patagonia: Blueprint for greenbusiness. � 7 9 ; < 6 . �Retrieved June 21, 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/02/8403423/index.htm

Chen, X., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. B. (2009). Passion and pre-paredness in entrepreneurs’ business plan presentations: Apersuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions.� , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � �(1), 199–214.

Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and socialentrepreneurship: A critical appraisal. In J. Mair, J. Rob-inson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(pp34–56). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Christie, M. J., & Honig, B. (2006). Socialentrepreneurship: New research findings. Editorial/Special Issue of � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / ( 7 9 4 - � < : 2 6 . : : � � �1–5.

Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994).Initial human and financial capital as predictors of newventure performance. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : ' . 6 ; < 9 2 6 0 � � �371–396.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Insti-tutional theory and institutional change: Introduction tothe special research forum. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 �6 * 4 � �(1), 45–56.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. � 7 6 �8 9 7 / 2 ; � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � � . * - . 9 : 1 2 8 � � (4), 411–424.

Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assump-tion of social responsibilities. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ;� 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � � �312–322.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. � * 9 = * 9 - � < : 2 6 . : :# . = 2 . > � �(1), 55–66.

Dees, J. G. (2001). % 1 . 5 . * 6 2 6 0 7 / : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(Original draft: 1998, revised 2001) Retrieved June 21,2010 from http://www.caseatduke.org/

Dees, J. G., & Elias, J. (1998). The challenges of combiningsocial and commercial enterprise. � < : 2 6 . : : � ; 1 2 , : " < * 9 �; . 9 4 @ � �(1), 165–178.

Dejean, F., Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring theunmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in anemerging industry. � < 5 * 6 # . 4 * ; 2 7 6 : � � (6), 741–764.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1982). Cultural entrepreneurship in nine-teenth-century Boston. � . - 2 * � � < 4 ; < 9 . * 6 - $ 7 , 2 . ; @ � �33–50.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutionaltheory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), � 6 : ; 2 ; < ; 2 7 6 * 4 8 * ; ; . 9 6 : * 6 -7 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 : � � < 4 ; < 9 . * 6 - . 6 = 2 9 7 6 5 . 6 ;(pp. 3–21). Cam-bridge, MA: Ballinger.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1994). Culture and economy. In N. J.Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), � * 6 - + 7 7 3 7 / . , 7 6 7 5 2 ,: 7 , 2 7 4 7 0 @(pp. 27–57). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Donham, W. B. (1927). The social significance of business.� * 9 = * 9 - � < : 2 6 . : : # . = 2 . > � (4), 406–419.

Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partak-ing, and convening. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 $ ; < - 2 . : � � �(3), 383–413.

Dorado, S. (2006). Social entrepreneurial ventures: Differ-ent values so different process of creations, no? � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 /� . = . 4 7 8 5 . 6 ; * 4 � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � � �(4), 319–343.

Drayton, B. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entre-preneurial and competitive as business. � * 4 2 / 7 9 6 2 * � * 6 �* 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � (3), 120–132.

Drucker, P. (1984). The new meaning of corporate socialresponsibility. � * 4 2 / 7 9 6 2 * � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � � � �53–63.

Drucker, P. (1993). � 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 * 6 - . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �NewYork: Harper Business Press.

Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: On thechanging relationship between the arts, culture and em-ployment. % 1 . � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < 4 ; < 9 * 4 ! 7 4 2 , @ ��(1), 3–16.

Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). � . > : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : �% 1 . : < , , . : : � , 1 * 4 4 . 6 0 . * 6 - 4 . : : 7 6 : 7 / 6 7 6 8 9 7 / 2 ; . 6 ; . 9 8 9 2 : ., 9 . * ; 2 7 6 �San Francisco: Roberts Foundation.

Fiol, M., & Hall, A. (1992). Maps for managers: Where arewe? Where do we go from here? � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ;$ ; < - 2 . : � � (3), 267–285.

Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory.� 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � . 1 * = 2 7 9 * 4 $ , 2 . 6 ; 2 : ; � �(4), 397–405.

Foster, W., & Bradach, J. (2005). Should nonprofits seekprofits? � * 9 = * 9 - � < : 2 6 . : : # . = 2 . > � � �92–100.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibil-ity of business is to increase its profits. � . > ) 7 9 3 % 2 5 . :� * 0 * A 2 6 . �Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is thewrong question. � 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / $ 5 * 4 4 � < : 2 6 . : : �� �(4), 11–32.

Greene, P. G., & Brown, T. E. (1997). Resource needs andthe dynamic capitalism typology. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : ' . 6 �; < 9 2 6 0 � � � �161–173.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002).Theorizing change: The role of professional associationsin the transformation of institutionalized fields. � , * - . 5 @7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � �(1), 58–80.

Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks andentrepreneurship. � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ � ! 9 * , ; 2 , . �� �(1), 1–22.

Harding, R. (2004). Social enterprise: The new economicengine? � < : 2 6 . : : * 6 - $ ; 9 * ; . 0 @ # . = 2 . > � � �(4), 39–43.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement:Lessons from the critical examination of collaborationand conflict in an interorganizational domain. 9 0 * 6 2 A * �; 2 7 6 $ , 2 . 6 , . � � �217–230.

Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovationmeets institutions: Edison and the design of the electriclight. � - 5 2 6 2 : ; 9 * ; 2 = . $ , 2 . 6 , . " < * 9 ; . 9 4 @ � �(3), 476–501.

54 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innova-tion factory. � * 9 = * 9 - � < : 2 6 . : : # . = 2 . > � �(3), 157–166.

Hartigan, P. (2006). It’s about people, not profits. � < : 2 6 . : :$ ; 9 * ; . 0 @ # . = 2 . > � � (4), 42–45.

Haugh, H. (2006). Social enterprise: Beyond economic out-comes and individual returns. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, &K. Hockerts (Eds.), $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hibbert, S., Hogg, G., & Quinn, T. (2005). Socialentrepreneurship: Understanding consumer motives forbuying The Big Issue. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � 7 6 : < 5 . 9 � . 1 * = 2 7 < 9 �(3), 159–172.

Hockerts, K. (2006). Entrepreneurial opportunity in socialpurpose business ventures. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K.Hockerts (Eds.), $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johannisson, B. (2002). Energising entrepreneurship. Ideo-logical tensions in the medium-sized family business. InD. Fletcher (Ed.), & 6 - . 9 : ; * 6 - 2 6 0 ; 1 . : 5 * 4 4 / * 5 2 4 @ + < : 2 6 . : :(pp. 46–57). London: Routledge.

Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting?Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the ParisOpera. � 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / $ 7 , 2 7 4 7 0 @ � � � (1), 97–127.

Kirzner, I. (1973). � 7 5 8 . ; 2 ; 2 7 6 * 6 - . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kistruck, G., & Beamish, P. (in press). The interplay ofform, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapre-neurship. � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ * 6 - ! 9 * , ; 2 , . �

Korosec, R. L., & Berman, E. M. (2006). Municipal supportfor social entrepreneurship. ! < + 4 2 , � - 5 2 6 2 : ; 9 * ; 2 7 6 # . = 2 . > �� �(3), 448–462.

Kraybill, D. B., & Nolt, S. M. (2004). � 5 2 : 1 . 6 ; . 9 8 9 2 : . : �� 9 7 5 8 4 7 > : ; 7 8 9 7 / 2 ; : �Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Krueger, N. J., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing inourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacyand opportunity recognition. � . , 2 : 2 7 6 $ , 2 . 6 , . � � � �385–400.

Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2003). Contemplatingenterprise: The business and legal challenges of socialentrepreneurship. � 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � < : 2 6 . : : � * > � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � �67–113.

Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2004). From Moby Dick toFree Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutionalentrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. 9 0 * �6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 � �(5), 689–711.

Leadbeater, C. (1997). % 1 . 9 2 : . 7 / : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �London: Demos.

Leadbeater, C., & Oakley, K. (1999). % 1 . 2 6 - . 8 . 6 - . 6 ; : �� 9 2 ; * 2 6 � : 6 . > , < 4 ; < 9 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : �London: Demos.

Levy, D. L., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entre-preneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power incontested fields. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 $ ; < - 2 . : � � �(7), 971–991.

Light, P. C. (2006). Reshaping social entrepreneurship.$ ; * 6 / 7 9 - $ 7 , 2 * 4 � 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 # . = 2 . > �Fall, 46–51.

Light, P. C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship revisited: Notjust anyone, anywhere, in any organization can makebreakthrough change. $ ; * 6 / 7 9 - $ 7 , 2 * 4 � 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 # . = 2 . > �Summer, 21–22.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural

entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy and the acquisitionof resources. $ ; 9 * ; . 0 2 , � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 �22(4), 545–564.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship:Past research and future challenges. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � * 6 * 0 . �5 . 6 ; � � �139–161.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institu-tional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDStreatment advocacy in Canada. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ;� 7 < 9 6 * 4 � �657–679.

Mair, J. (2006). Introduction to Part II: Exploring the in-tentions and opportunities behind social entrepreneur-ship. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.),$ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(pp. 89–95). New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Mair, J., & Martı́, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurshipresearch: A source of explanation, prediction, and de-light. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / ( 7 9 4 - � < : 2 6 . : : � �(1), 36–44.

Mair, J., & Martı́, I. (2009). Social entrepreneurship in andaround institutional voids. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : ' . 6 ; < 9 2 6 0 �� (5), 419–435.

Manev, I., Gyoshev, B., & Manolova, T. (2005). The role ofhuman and social capital and entrepreneurial orienta-tion for small business performance in a transitionaleconomy. � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 * 6 -� 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � �(3/4), 298–318.

Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Dothe stories they tell get them the money they need? Therole of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition.� , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � �(5), 1107–1132.

Martin, R. J., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship:The case for a definition. $ ; * 6 / 7 9 - $ 7 , 2 * 4 � 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 # . �= 2 . > �Spring, 29–39.

Masseti, B. L. (2008). The social entrepreneurship matrix asa “tipping point” for economic change. � � � � � �(3),1–8.

McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options rea-soning and entrepreneurial failure. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . �5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � � �13–30.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalizedorganizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.� 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / $ 7 , 2 7 4 7 0 @ � � (2), 340–363.

Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. (1989). ! . 9 5 * 6 . 6 ; 4 @ / * 2 4 2 6 07 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 : �Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyskins, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., &Reynolds, P. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing globalAshoka Fellows. � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ * 6 - ! 9 * , ; 2 , . �/ 7 9 ; 1 , 7 5 2 6 0 �

Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2002). Socialentrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization and mea-surement. � 5 . 9 2 , * 6 � * 9 3 . ; 2 6 0 � : : 7 , 2 * ; 2 7 6 � 7 6 / . 9 . 6 , .! 9 7 , . . - 2 6 0 : � � �5.

Mosakowski, E. (1998). Entrepreneurial resource, organiza-tional choice, and competitive outcomes. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6$ , 2 . 6 , . � �(6), 625–643.

Mulligan, T. (1986). A critique of Milton Friedman’s essay“The social responsibility of business is to increase itsprofits.” � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : � ; 1 2 , : � � �265–269.

Munir, K. A., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the Kodak

2010 55Dacin, Dacin, and Matear

Moment: Institutional entrepreneurship and adoption ofnew technologies. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 $ ; < - 2 . : � � �(11), 1665–1687.

Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of socialentrepreneurial discovery. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : � ; 1 2 , : � � �325–336.

Neck, H., Brush, C., & Allen, E. (2009). The landscape ofsocial entrepreneurship. � < : 2 6 . : : � 7 9 2 A 7 6 : � � � �13–19.

Nicholls, A. (2008). $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 * 6 - 5 * 9 3 . ;7 9 2 . 6 ; * ; 2 7 6 � % 1 . : ; 9 < 0 0 4 . / 7 9 7 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 * 4 4 . 0 2 ; 2 5 * , @(Ab-stract). Paper presented November 5, 2008, at theSchool of Management, Royal Holloway, University ofLondon. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Management/News-and-Events/Events/Archive/A_Nicholls_abstract_Nov08.pdf

Nicholls, A., & Cho, A. H. (2006). Socialentrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In A.Nicholls (Ed.), $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � � . > 5 7 - . 4 : 7 /: < : ; * 2 6 * + 4 . : 7 , 2 * 4 , 1 * 6 0 .(pp. 99–118). Oxford, UK: Ox-ford University Press.

Oliver, C., & McKague, K. (2009). Sustainable local enter-prise networks: Network bricolage as institutional entre-preneurship in low-income economies. Paper presentedat the Institutional Theory Conference, University ofAlberta, Edmonton, June.

Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Socialentrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. � 7 < 9 �6 * 4 7 / ( 7 9 4 - � < : 2 6 . : : � � �56–65.

Perrini, F. (2006). % 1 . 6 . > : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � ( 1 * ;* > * 2 ; : : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 = . 6 ; < 9 . :? Northampton,MA: Edward Elgar.

Perrini, F., & Fazzolari, S. (2006). San Patrignano: A sus-tainable model for social entrepreneurship. In F. Perrini(Ed.), % 1 . 6 . > : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � ( 1 * ; * > * 2 ; : : 7 , 2 * 4. 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 = . 6 ; < 9 . : �(pp. 171–191). Northampton,MA: Edward Elgar.

Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship:Innovation and social change across theory and practice.In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), $ 7 , 2 * 4. 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Peterson, R. (1997). � 9 . * ; 2 6 0 , 7 < 6 ; 9 @ 5 < : 2 , � � * + 9 2 , * ; 2 6 0 * < �; 1 . 6 ; 2 , 2 ; @ �Chicago: University of Chicago.

Peterson, R., & Berger, D. (1971). Entrepreneurship inorganizations: Evidence from the popular music industry.� - 5 2 6 2 : ; 9 * ; 2 = . $ , 2 . 6 , . " < * 9 ; . 9 4 @ � � �(1), 97–106.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). � * 6 - + 7 7 3 7 /7 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 * 4 , 1 * 6 0 . * 6 - 2 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 �New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Prabhu, G. N. (1999). Social entrepreneurship leadership.� * 9 . . 9 � . = . 4 7 8 5 . 6 ; � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � (3), 140–145.

Rahman, A. (1998). # 1 . ; 7 9 2 , * 6 - 9 . * 4 2 ; 2 . : 7 / 5 2 , 9 7 � , 9 . - 2 ; / 7 9> 7 5 . 6 2 6 9 < 9 * 4 � * 6 0 4 * - . : 1 � � = 2 4 4 * 0 . : ; < - @ 7 / � 9 * 5 . . 6� * 6 3 4 . 6 - 2 6 0 �Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Reis, T., & Clohesy, S. (1999). & 6 4 . * : 1 2 6 0 6 . > 9 . : 7 < 9 , . : * 6 -. 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 / 7 9 ; 1 . , 7 5 5 7 6 0 7 7 - � � : , * 6 � : @ 6 ; 1 . : 2 : �* 6 - : , . 6 * 9 2 7 / 7 9 * , ; 2 7 6(Working Paper). Battle Creek, MI:W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved June 14, 2010, fromhttp://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2001/12/Unleashing-New-Resources-And-Entrepreneurship-For-

The-Common-Good-A-Scan-Synthesis-And-Scenario-For.aspx

Roberts, D., & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on ashoestring: The concept of social entrepreneurship. & 6 2 �= . 9 : 2 ; @ 7 / � < , 3 4 * 6 - � < : 2 6 . : : # . = 2 . > �Autumn, 45–51.

Robinson, J. (2006). Navigating social and institutionalbarriers to markets: How social entrepreneurs identifyand evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K.Hockerts (Eds.), $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 �Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rossi, P. H. (1966). Research strategies in measuring peergroup influence. In T. M. Newcomb & E. K. Wilson(Eds.), � 7 4 4 . 0 . 8 . . 9 0 9 7 < 8 :(pp. 190–214). Chicago:Aldine.

Ryan, P. W., & Lyne, I. (2008). Social enterprise and themeasurement of social value: Methodological issues withthe calculation and application of the social return oninvestment. � - < , * ; 2 7 6 � � 6 7 > 4 . - 0 . � � , 7 6 7 5 @ � �(3),223–237.

Schramm, C. (2010). All entrepreneurship is social. $ ; * 6 / 7 9 -$ 7 , 2 * 4 � 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 # . = 2 . > �Spring. Retrieved June 14,2010, from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/all_entrepreneurship_is_social/

Schuler, S. R., Hashemi, S. M., & Badal, S. H. (1998).Men’s violence against women in rural Bangladesh: Un-dermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes?� . = . 4 7 8 5 . 6 ; 2 6 ! 9 * , ; 2 , . �8(2), 148–157.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). % 1 . ; 1 . 7 9 @ 7 / . , 7 6 7 5 2 , - . = . 4 7 8 �5 . 6 ; �London: Oxford University Press.

Schwab Foundation. (2005). http://www.schwabfound.org/sf/SocialEntrepreneurs/Whatisasocialentrepreneur

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Cre-ating new business models to serve the poor. � < : 2 6 . : :� 7 9 2 A 7 6 : � � �241–246.

Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success ofsocial ventures initiated by individual social entrepre-neurs. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / ( 7 9 4 - � < : 2 6 . : : � � �6–20.

Shepherd, D. (2003). Learning from business failure: Prop-ositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. � , * - . 5 @7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . = 2 . > � � � �318–328.

Shepherd, D., Wickland, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2007). Mov-ing forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costsof business failure. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < : 2 6 . : : ' . 6 ; < 9 2 6 0 � � �(2),318–328.

Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009).Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributionsand future opportunities. $ ; 9 * ; . 0 2 , � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � 7 < 9 �6 * 4 �3, 161–194.

Simms, S.V.K., & Robinson, J. (2009). Activist or entre-preneur? An identity-based model of social entrepre-neurship. In J. Robinson, J. Mair, & K. Hockerts (Eds.),� 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 8 . 9 : 8 . , ; 2 = . : 7 6 : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(pp.9–26). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Skoll Foundation. Available at: http://www.skollfoundation.org/aboutsocialentrepreneurship/whatis.asp

Staber, U. (2005). Path dependency or regional break-through? In G. Fuchs & P. Shapira (Eds.), # . ; 1 2 6 3 2 6 09 . 0 2 7 6 * 4 2 6 6 7 = * ; 2 7 6 * 6 - , 1 * 6 0 .(pp. 107–126). New York:Springer.

Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The heart of

56 AugustAcademy of Management Perspectives

entrepreneurship. � * 9 = * 9 - � < : 2 6 . : : # . = 2 . > � � �(2), 85–94.

Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensitydifferences between entrepreneurs and managers: Ameta-analytic review. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � 8 8 4 2 . - ! : @ , 1 7 4 7 0 @ � � � �145–153.

Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic andinstitutional approaches. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; # . �= 2 . > � � � �571–660.

Swedburg, R. (2006). The cultural entrepreneur and thecreative industries’ beginning in Vienna. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / � < 4 �; < 9 * 4 � , 7 6 7 5 2 , : � � �243–261.

Tan, W. L., Williams, J., & Tan, T. M. (2005). Defining the“social” in “social entrepreneurship”: Altruism and en-trepreneurship. � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 * 6 - � * 6 �* 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � �353–365.

Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2006). “LocalFeed”:Societal wealth generation in Southern Africa. In F.Perrini (Ed.), % 1 . 6 . > : 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8(pp. 122-144). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Thompson, J. L. (2002). The world of the social entrepre-neur. % 1 . � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / ! < + 4 2 , $ . , ; 7 9 � * 6 * 0 . �5 . 6 ; � � � �412–431.

Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entre-preneurship—a new look at the people and the poten-tial. � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � . , 2 : 2 7 6 � � �328–338.

Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world ofsocial enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories.� 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / $ 7 , 2 * 4 � , 7 6 7 5 2 , : � (5/6), 399–410.

Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in acraft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutionallogics. � , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � � �81–101.

Tracey, P., & Jarvis, O. (2007). Toward a theory of socialventure franchising. � 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 % 1 . 7 9 @ � ! 9 * , ; 2 , . � �(5), 667–685.

Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (in press). Bridginginstitutional entrepreneurship and the creation of neworganizational forms: A multilevel model. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6$ , 2 . 6 , . �

Van Slyke, D. M., & Newman, H. K. (2006). Venturephilanthropy and social entrepreneurship in communityredevelopment. � 7 6 8 9 7 / 2 ; � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; * 6 - � . * - . 9 : 1 2 8 �� �(3), 345–368.

Vedder, J. N. (1992). How much can we learn from success?� , * - . 5 @ 7 / � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � ? . , < ; 2 = . � � �56–66.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entre-preneurship research. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.),� - = * 6 , . : 2 6 . 6 ; 9 . 8 9 . 6 . < 9 : 1 2 8 � / 2 9 5 . 5 . 9 0 . 6 , . � * 6 - 0 9 7 > ; 1(Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1995). Catalytic alliances forsocial problem solving. � < 5 * 6 # . 4 * ; 2 7 6 : � �(8), 951–973.

Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigatingsocial entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model.� 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 / ( 7 9 4 - � < : 2 6 . : : � �(1), 21–35.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). The resource-based view of the firm.$ ; 9 * ; . 0 2 , � * 6 * 0 . 5 . 6 ; � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � �(2), 171–180.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Explaining institu-tional decoupling: The case of stock repurchase pro-grams. � - 5 2 6 2 : ; 9 * ; 2 = . $ , 2 . 6 , . " < * 9 ; . 9 4 @ � � �202–228.

Wilson, N. C., & Stokes, D. (2004). Laments and serenades:Relationship marketing and legitimation strategies forthe cultural entrepreneur. " < * 4 2 ; * ; 2 = . � * 9 3 . ; # . : . * 9 , 1 �� 6 � 6 ; . 9 6 * ; 2 7 6 * 4 � 7 < 9 6 * 4 � (3), 218–227.

Young, D. (2001). $ 7 , 2 * 4 . 6 ; . 9 8 9 2 : . 2 6 ; 1 . & 6 2 ; . - $ ; * ; . : � � 4 �; . 9 6 * ; . 2 - . 6 ; 2 ; 2 . : * 6 - / 7 9 5 : �Paper presented at the 1stInternational EMES Conference: The Social Enterprise:A Comparative Perspective. Trento, Italy.

Yunus, M. (2008). � 9 . * ; 2 6 0 * > 7 9 4 - > 2 ; 1 7 < ; 8 7 = . 9 ; @ � $ 7 , 2 * 4+ < : 2 6 . : : * 6 - ; 1 . / < ; < 9 . 7 / , * 8 2 ; * 4 2 : 5 �New York: PublicAffairs Books.

Zahra, S. E., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman,J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Mo-tives, search processes and ethical challenges. � 7 < 9 6 * 4 7 /� < : 2 6 . : : ' . 6 ; < 9 2 6 0 � � (5), 519–532.

Zilber,T. B. (2007). Stories and the discursive dynamics ofinstitutional entrepreneurship: The case of Israeli high-tech after the bubble. 9 0 * 6 2 A * ; 2 7 6 $ ; < - 2 . : � � � �1035–1054.

2010 57Dacin, Dacin, and Matear