-
1
SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENTERPRISES
INCUBATOR OR TRANQUILLIZER FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS1
SEBASTIAN PITSCHNER
Berlin Institute of Technology
Chair of Organization and Management
Sekretariat H 73
Strae des 17. Juni 135
10623 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)30 314-23873
e-mail: [email protected]
DEMET TUNCER
Berlin Institute of Technology
Chair of Marketing
Sekretariat WIL-B-3-1
Wilmersdorfer Str. 148
10585 Berlin, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)30 314-25281
e-mail: [email protected]
The authors would like to thank Ramona Posselt for her support
in the process of data collection and Nora Thiele for
administrative assistance.
-
2
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of social entrepreneurship (SE) is emerging in a
time in which the very
basic needs of diverse population groups are increasingly unmet
not only in developing
countries but also in the economically leading industrialized
countries where the (social
welfare) state traditionally steps into the breach when market
forces fail in their role as the
primary mechanism for the (re-)distribution of resources. The
governments which have
suffered a severe loss of power are confronted with increased
calls for a reduction of tax loads
and no longer consider themselves responsible for providing
economic and social relief
(Leadbeater, 1997; Catford, 1998). Their new role is rather that
of a mere coordinator and
facilitator of private efforts.
Meanwhile, the number of not-for-profit organizations (NFPs) is
growing considerably
(Wing, Pollak and Blackwood, 2008) and the social problems are
increasing in size and
complexity in the wake of a soaring globalization. Therefore,
the NFPs, which have long been
regarded as the last resort for safeguarding social security,
are now operating in a much more
challenging environment. In the face of the first decline in
charitable giving in the U.S. since
1987 (Giving USA Foundation, 2009) they currently have to cope
with an intense competition
for donors and are even threatened by substantial funding
shortages (Pariyar and Ward, 2006;
Roper and Cheney, 2005).
In view of this development, the discussion and solution of
social problems recently
entered the sphere of business. To be more precise, it can be
observed that private enterprises
assume the former social role of the state in two distinct ways.
While charitable activities of
profit-driven companies are far from being a novel phenomenon,
the concept of corporate
social responsibility (CSR), firstly addressed by Clark (1916),
did not receive broad attention
in the academic literature until the seventies (Carroll, 1999).
By now, however, it seemst that
virtually all companies have their own CSR programs, in
particular because such programs
constitute the opportunity to maximize a companys (shareholder)
value (see, for example,
-
3
Mackey, Mackey and Barney, 2007; Godfrey, Merrill and Hansen,
2009; Orlitzky, Schmidt
and Rynes, 2003). In addition to companies, also individuals who
are primarily driven by the
value of justice and the desire to achieve social improvements
can tackle specific deficiencies
by means of commercial activities if the problems constitute an
entrepreneurial opportunity.
In todays complex environment, such social entrepreneurs
frequently complement the
activities of socially responsible enterprises by employing
innovative approaches (Johnson,
2000). While there is little doubt that social entrepreneurs
constitute an enormous potential
with respect to the effective resolution of pressing social
problems (Harris, Sapienza, Bowie,
2009), the questions that have to be answered are where they
originally come from, how they
develop, and how they can be incentivized.
CSR exhibits a striking resemblance with SE because both
concepts imply economic
viability as well as social beneficence. Given the theoretical
proximity of the concepts, we
argue that companies engagement in CSR is likely to affect the
ability of their employees to
recognize opportunities for socially entrepreneurial activities,
the actual exploitation of such
opportunities, and the long-term survival of the resulting
social enterprises. To elaborate on
this hypothesis, we first develop a definition of social
entrepreneurship. In doing so, we
consider the widely accepted definitions of commercial
entrepreneurship and compare the
various understandings of SE that can be found in the
literature. After providing a short
illustration of the term corporate social responsibility we
point out the similarities and
differences between the two concepts. In the second part of the
paper, we present a theory
positing that potential social entrepreneurs who are working in
a socially responsible
enterprise may start an entrepreneurial career only under
certain circumstances. If these
conditions are present, however, the venture is likely to be a
success. In the third part of the
paper, we analyze the career paths of the social entrepreneurs
we identified in the social
entrepreneur application programming interface, which was
recently developed and released
-
4
by the nonprofit initiative Social Actions.2 We conclude by
bringing together data and
theory in a short summary and by outlining the further research
that is needed regarding the
link between CSR and SE.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
It is needless to point out that every piece of (quality)
research requires as a foundation
unambiguos and well justified definitions of the core concepts
used. However, in some fields
of study this prerequisite is more important than in others and
social entrepreneurship
certainly (still) ranks among the former. It makes no sense to
evaluate the theoretical and
practical significance of this concept if a sufficient
definition is not provided (Peredo and
McLean, 2005). On the other hand, it also makes no sense to
explicitly introduce and define a
new term which is basically congruent with already existing
concepts a mistake, we think,
that has repeatedly been made in the field of social
entrepreneurship.
Since all sorts of activities are now being called social
entrepreneurship (Martin and
Osberg, 2007: 29) we conducted a literature review to see if any
consistent pattern of
definition can be identified in the various academic
publications. In doing so, we made no
distinction between definitions of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs because the first term
just denotes what entrepreneurs do; hence, defining either term
defines the other (Peredo and
McLean, 2005). One key finding is that many authors see a
certain overlap of the concepts of
social entrepreneurship and (traditional) commercial
entrepreneurship (see, for instance,
Thake and Zadek, 1997; Fowler, 2000; Massetti, 2008). As Dees
(2001) illustrates it, Social
entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur. But
what is an entrepreneur?
Skipping the concepts early French history of the sixteenth and
seventeenth century (cf.
2 The social entrepreneur application programming interface
(social entrepreneur API) can be accessed through
http://search.socialentrepreneurapi.org and is hosted by Social
Actions. It is an open database containing
information about entrepreneurs who won fellowships or awards
from relevant and esteemed organizations. Data
acquisition was conducted on 21.09.2009. On this day, the
database contained information about 489 individuals
who were decorated by six different organizations, namely Civic
Ventures, Draper Richards Foundation,
ideablob, Poptech, Schwab Foundation for Social
Entrepreneurship, Skoll Foundation.
-
5
Sullivan Mort, Weerawardena and Carnegie, 2003), the first major
contributions have been
made by Richard Cantillion, Jean-Babtiste Say and Joseph
Schumpeter who highligthed that
entrepreneurs are able to bring together and coordinate the
different factors of production in
an innovative way while being faced with income uncertainty
(Sexton and Bowman, 1985;
Wee, Lim and Lee, 1994). According to Dees (2001), this
traditional definition has recently
been complemented by Peter Drucker who stressed that
entrepreneurs recognize and exploit
opportunities. Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) argued that
entrepreneurs also exhibit a unique
resourcefullness which enables them to pursue such opportunities
even in situations in which
their resource endowments are very limited. The exploitation of
opportunities is accompanied
by the generation of an entrepreneurial profit (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000) and induces a
systematic change of a society facing major social problems
(Drayton, 2002). Incremental
improvements to the efficiency of already existing goods and
services are not considered an
entrepreneurial act (Larson, 2000).
As Catford (1998) points out, this basic concept of
entrepreneurship can be broadened to
also capture the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship. That is,
in order for an activity to be
identified as social entrepreneurship, it has to have the
charecteristics specified above and an
additional quality which justifies the use of the supplemental
adjective social. In this regard,
Seelos and Mair (2004) note that some authors emphasize the
social outcome of an
entrepreneurial activity while others refer to social problems
triggering entrepreneurial
behavior. In our opinion, there is no need to explicitly
differentiate between these two
approaches, because they are mutually dependent. In order to
generate a relevant social
output, a social problem (i.e., an unmet social need) has to be
identified first. While all the
definitions we analyzed include the element of a social
contribution or social value, the more
difficult question seems to concern the relative weighting of
the social and economic
outcomes of social entrepreneurship.
-
6
Two extreme cases can be identified concerning this matter, and
we argue that both should
not be examinded under the heading of SE. One case is that of
NFPs who, in the face of
decreasing governmental support and private giving, are in
search of new sources of funding
(Seelos and Mair, 2004). Within the corresponding enterprise
school of social
entrepreneurship, researchers explore how the ideas and tools of
the business world can be
used in a sector that, by definition, ultimately does not make
any financial profits at all.
(Fulton and Dees, 2006). That a great number of authors treat SE
as a not-for-profit concept
(Peredo and McLean, 2005) was recently confirmed by Taylor,
Hobbs, Nilsson, OHalloran
and Preisser (2000) who found out that 83% of the articles
surveyed by them related social
entrepreneurship to the NFP sector. However, this understanding
of SE is hardly conducive
since it does not necessarily imply an innovative way of
tackling a social problem. It is
certainly true that NFPs are increasingly transformed into some
kind of hybrid organization
(Peredo and McLean, 2005). Yet, the phenomenon of complementary
social
entrepreneurship (Fowler, 2000) should not be included in an
extended version of the SE
concept, because it merely denotes NFPs adopting business
practices to earn money, which
can then be used to finance social causes. As long as the
instruments ultimately used to solve
the problems have not changed, that is, as long as relief supply
is still shipped to the South
with convoys, we do not see the need for a new field of
research.
The other extreme has been identified by Seelos and Mair (2004:
3) as socially
responsible practices of commercial businesses engaged in
cross-sector partnerships. This
definition, in our opinion, does not set SE apart from the
means-end theory dominating CSR
research (Amaeshi and Adi, 2007) which will be introduced in
more detail below. We
absolutely agree with the argument that CSR practices have been
refined in the past but in
most cases they are still means to just one single end, namely,
the generation of profits. This
is not to deney that businesses frequently do help to solve
social problems, but the social
output is often a mere by-product. Therefore, cross-sector
partnerships can easily be explained
-
7
by instrumental stakeholder theory (Jones, 1995) as an efficient
way to implement CSR
(Seitanidi and Crane, 2009) and to secure the stakeholder
contributions needed for
maximizing owner value.
Seelos and Mair (2004) observe that the concept of SE has to be
placed alongside the CSR
programs of businesses and the efforts of public and private
not-for-profit organizations. The
question that remains, however, is where exactly SE should be
classified on the scale between
the two extremes. Given that collections of diverse SE
definitions already exist in a sufficient
number (see, for instance, Brouard and Larivet, 2009; Pariyar
and Ward, 2006; Johnson,
2000), we confine ourselves to emphasizing those definitional
characteristics which help to
answer the question posed above. Peredo and McLean (2005: 63)
argue that social
entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group []
aim(s) at creating social value,
either exclusively or at least in some prominent way. Fowler
(2000: 645) argues along the
same lines when he introduces the notion of integrated social
entrepreneurship, which
indicates that the economic aspects of an organisation's
activities are expressly designed for,
and do generate, positive social outcomes, i.e., the social
outcomes are not merely the means
to achieve financial success but constitute an end on their own.
Hence, the alleviation of
social problems is superordinate to the generation of profits.
This, however, does not mean
that securing a sustainable profit can be neglected by social
entrepreneurs. Rather, profits are
a necessary condition for SE, since it is them that distinguish
social entrepreneurs from
traditional not-for-profit institutions (Massetti, 2008). Social
entrepreneurs employ innovative
approaches to make markets work for people (Catford, 1998), that
is, they do not alleviate the
symptoms but try to fight the sources of social problems
directly. Insofar, we do not agree
with Dees (2001), who admittedly explains that the social
mission is explicit and central to the
social entrepreneur but also argues that for him or her, profits
created on the market are just a
means to a social end. We disagree because even (full-time)
social entrepreneurs have to
make a living and they are not financed by private donors or
governments. Maybe it is just the
-
8
prospect of making a real change without having to give up a
reasonable standard of living
what makes SE an attractive option for business school
graduates, who rarely intend to pursue
a carrer in nonprofit management (Gentile, 2002).
The concept social entrepreneurship, we believe, should be
closely related to the notion of
justice. On the one hand, this implies that social entrepreneurs
direct their actions toward the
elimination of an unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion,
marginalization, or suffering
of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means or
political cloud to achieve any
transformative benefit on its own (Martin and Osberg, 2007: 35).
On the other hand, social
entrepreneurs also behave justly. They try to assure that their
own (economic) outcomes,
relative to their inputs, are in balance with the perceived
situation of relevant others (cf.
Homans, 1961).
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
One of the earliest formal definitions of CSR was given by Fitch
(1976: 38), Corporate
social responsibility is defined as the serious attempt to solve
social problems caused wholly
or in part by the corporation. Carroll (1979: 500), one of the
most prominent exponents of
CSR research, later elaborated on the degree to which businesses
are responsible for solving
social problems, Before anything else, the business institution
is the basic economic unit in
our society. As such, it has responsibility to produce goods and
services that society wants
and to sell them at a profit. All other business roles are
predicated on this fundamental
assumption. This proposition can be seen as the lynchpin of the
subsequent discussion about
whether corporations have any obligations that go beyond
maximizing shareholder wealth
production (Barnett, 2007). One side, heavily influenced by
Milton Friedmans (1970: 122)
famous statement, The Social Responsibility of Business is to
Increase its Profits, argues
that CSR can have practical relevance only if the costs accruing
from socially responsible
behavior are lower than the financial benefits associated with
it (Barnett, 2007). In addition to
-
9
this economic responsibility and the responsibility to obey the
law, Carroll (1979: 500)
identifies two further responsibilities of businesses. The
ethical responsibility represents the
kinds of behaviors and ethical norms that society expects
business to follow. This
responsibility is clearly instrumental in that it is not much
more than a strategic lever for
increasing corporate reputation, market opportunities and
ultimately owner wealth (Windsor,
2006). The fourth dimension of responsible behavior identified
by Carroll (1979) is the
discretionary, i.e., the philanthropic dimension. This refers to
individual managers and
corporations judgments that can not be justified by societal
expectations. Empirical studies
show that this dimension plays a relatively small role in
managers motivation to act socially
responsible (see, for instance, Pinkston and Carroll, 1996), and
it is questionable why
managers would decide to live out their personal agenda of
responsibility by the means of a
(conventional) business. If someone wants to be charitable
irrespective of market demand,
then a company is certainly not the right place to put this into
practice. Therefore, as opposed
to SE, corporate social responsibility implies a long term
shareholder value approach (Falck
and Heblich, 2007). Nevertheless, SE and CSR have some
characteristics in common which
we will establish in the next part of the paper.
BRINGING SE AND CSR TOGETHER
We have argued above that while profitability is an essentail
feature of social
entrepreneurship it is not its main objective and in principle
subordinate to the direct solution
of a specific social problem. Critics of this definition will
certainly confront us with the
objection that in practice it is almost impossible to determine
the actual goal structure of a
business and the motivation underlying socially responsible
behavior, respectively. Consider
the case of Ben & Jerrys as it is described in detail by
Choi and Gray (2008). Peredo and
McLean (2005) are unsure how to classify the famous ice cream
company. It could be just
ice cream with a fashionable dollop of corporate social
responsibility (Stephens, 2003: 17) or
-
10
it could be an innovative market solution to a social problem.
According to Peredo and
McLean (2005), the former case would be an example of cause
branding, that is,
considering social objectives to enhance the fiscal bottom line.
Although we agree with their
point of view that the identification of a companys goal
structure is a far from being an easy
task, we do not think that the task is impossible and that the
identification of those companies
which pursue first and foremost a social agenda would have
little practical conesquence.
While the consequences will be addressed in more detail in the
last part of this paper we can
illustrate our idea of the definition of SE using the example of
Ben & Jerrys. The companys
mission statement
(http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission-statement) does not
indicate a
concrete social problem which is solved by an innovative
approach. Indeed, the company may
be operated in a way to improve the quality of life, the
business practices may respect the
environment, and the company may be operated on a sustainable
financial basis. But, as
laudable as this is, Ben & Jerrys still just sells ice cream
and they do not provide an
innovative and fundamental solution to, for example, the poverty
of small-scale growers in
Africa. We do not intend to criticize companies with an
obviously high level of social
responsibility like Ben & Jerrys. Rather, we just emphasize
that there is a difference between
them and what we perceive to be social entrepreneurship. Apart
from these differences, SE
and CSR also have some characteristics in common. Firstly, CSR,
too, can be theorized as an
expression of justice (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi,
2007; Wettstein, 2009), if, as
Bosse, Phillips and Harrison (2009) show by means of stakeholder
theory and the assumption
of reciprocal behavior, just treatment of stakeholders creates
an additional rent. Secondly, in
order to do good, irrelevant of the underlying motive, a
socially unjust equilibrium (Martin
and Osberg, 2007: 35) has to be identified first. Both in the
case of CSR and in the case of SE,
this unjust equilibrium represents an economic opportunity. But
while the marketable
elimination of social unjustice is the very raison d'tre of
social entrepreneurship, it is a means
to an end for a socially responsible enterprise. By referring to
their differences and similarities
-
11
we will now propose a so far unstudied link between the two
concepts, namely the function of
socially responsible enterprises as an incubator for social
entrepreneurs.
A THEORY OF INCUBATORS FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
In order to become an entrepreneur (of any kind) one first of
all has to recognize an
opportunity which can be exploited (Shane and Venkataraman,
2000). Yet, opportunities for
social entrepreneurship are obviously of a different nature than
opportunities for commercial
entrepreneurship. Namely, they arise out of a condition of
social injustice which has so far not
been resolved by the market. Therefore, market imperfections not
only contribute to social
(and environmental) problems, they also provide the
opportunities for entrepreneurial action
(see Cohen and Winn, 2007, for environmental problems and the
respective entrepreneurial
opportunities). But these opportunities will not be recognized
and exploited by commercial
entrepreneurs because their objective function is dominated by
the financial bottom line. Only
if the implications that new venture creation has for social
wealth are considered by the
entrepreneur, does the creation of justice become a worthwhile
endeavor. Therefore, social
entrepreneurs have to be led by the deep desire to establish
social justice. This value will give
them a different focus of perception. They see opportunities
where others only see empty
buildings, unemployable people and unvalued resources (Catford,
1998: 96). We argue that
this flair may not be completely inborn but can in fact be
trained. The practice field could be
either a socially responsible enterprise or a company
characterized by clearly unfair business
practices. Rodrigo and Arenas (2008) have found empirical
support for the former case. Their
study revealed that CSR programs have a positive effect on the
sense of justice of employees.
This can be explained by the influence of personal experiences
which lead employees to
identify with persons who have been marginalized, exploited, or
even socially oppressed
(Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008: 274) We thus relate the development
of social entrepreneurs to
the concept of incubator organizations which is widely-used in
entrepreneurship research (see,
-
12
for example, Cooper and Park, 2008; Cooper and Dunkelberg,
1986). Indeed, the relevant
literature concentrates on commercial entrepreneurship in the
field of high technology but we
argue that the theory can well be adopted for social
entrepreneurship. Commercial
entrepreneurs recognise opportunities through social and
contextual learning, identifying
possibilities and unmet demands which can be re-framed as
opportunities (Rae, 2004: 198)
and we do not see why this should be different in the case of
business opportunities arising
out of a social need which is not satisfied by either the market
or NFPs and the state (Seelos
and Mair, 2004). If individuals are unobservant and fail to
question the things around them
they cannot identify actually existing opportunities (Thompson,
Alvy and Lees, 2000). But the
employees of a socially responsible enterprise are likely to
engage in a process of contextual
learning which includes learning through deep, situated
experiences within the industry or
community. The outcome of this process exclusive to socially
responsible enterprises is the
ability to recognize and act on emergent market opportunities
(Rae, 2004). The potential
entrepreneurs attention can further be attracted by interaction
with others. This interaction
can help them make sense of own experiences (Jones, Latham and
Betta, 2008). With respect
to the aforementioned example of Ben & Jerrys it is, for
example, conceivable that
employees in certain positions will learn about the social
problems related to the purchasing
of commodities like vanilla, cocoa, and macadamia nuts from
developing countries while
being involved with the production and selling of the respective
products. Particularly if the
responsible behavior of a company is extensively promoted
through marketing campaigns,
also the consumers may be aware of social issues related to a
product, but it is assumed that
they will not learn about the roots and the specific
circumstances of the social problems.
However, a deep and situated knowledge of the cultural context
and the needs of the target
group are probably necessary to identify and being able to act
on socially entrepreneurial
opportunities (Rae, 2004).
-
13
Once an opportunity is identified by latent entrepreneurs
(Thompson et al., 2000)
currently employed by a company, they have to decide whether to
take action and leave the
company or to stay in their current position. Cooper and
Dunkelberg (1986) indicate that
research attaches great importance to displacements and pushes
as triggers for quitting the job
and starting an entrepreneurial career. We believe that such
displacements can primarily be
found on the level of values. In this regard, Hemingway (2005)
has presented an interesting
approach. She argues that there may be a conflict between the
values of the individual
employees and the corporate environment in which these employees
work. The employees
values may either signalize a high concern for others
(collectivistic personal values) or a
personal focus (individualistic personal values). Considering
that values are seen as
important drivers of behavior (see, for instance, Agle and
Caldwell, 1999), it is reasonable to
assume that employees may leave a company if the corporate
culture is unsupportive of
collectivistic attitudes. However, Hemingway (2005) does not
explicitly account for this
reaction and instead assumes that the potential entrepreneurs
will behave morally mute,
engage in cognitive adjustments or operate entrepreneurially
under the radar inside the
company. She also addresses the case of socially responsible
enterprises and argues that
individuals with collectivist personal values will pursue a CSR
agenda within these
organizations. Rodrigo and Arenas (2008) are supportive of this
argument and explain that
employees of companies extensively engaging in CSR will feel
proud. More precisely, the
individual employees will feel, that his or her contribution to
society has a smaller impact
compared with the social contribution that the organization can
make, and so the employees
wish to make a social contribution is satisfied through the
organization (Rodrigo and Arenas,
2008: 271) and they will see no need to quit their job and
become an social entrepreneur.
Another branch of the existing literature seems to be insightful
with regard to our research
question, namely, the analysis of the link between CSR and
organizational commitment.
Evans and Davis (2008) hold that individual perceptions of CSR
will influence the
-
14
attractiveness of an organization to its employees. Collier and
Esteban (2007) as well as
Peterson (2004) substantiate this claim by referring to social
identity theory, which implies
that the ways in which employees think about their organization
shape their behaviour.
Therefore, means-end approaches of CSR are likely to elicit a
strong commitment of
employees with collectivistic personal values. Commitment, in
turn, is related to
organizational outcomes like work performance, absenteeism, and
turnover (Peterson, 2004).
This implies that the identity of an organization characterized
by a tendency towards inequity
may have negative connotations for the employees and may
ultimately trigger quitting the job.
Individuals who have quitted their jobs are then on their own
and may decide to start an
entrepreneurial career. Research in the field of commercial
entrepreneurship has shown that
the succes of such a career is to a large extent dependent on
the human capital of the
entrepreneur (see, for instance, Davidsson and Honig, 2003;
Diochon, Menzies, Gasse, 2008).
Therefore, for the ventures of social entrepreneurs to be
economically successful, the ability
to recognize opportunities must be accompanied by certain
abilities. More precisely, to
successfully create and manage a venture which is economically
sustainable (i.e., profitable),
the entrepreneur firstly needs to be equipped with general and
specific competencies (Baum,
Locke and Smith, 2001). While general competencies are
abilities, which are not exclusively
related to management and include, inter alia, oral presentation
skills, decision-making ability,
and conceptualization ability (Boyatzis, 1982; Herron and
Robinson, 1990), specific
competencies can only be applied in a business context and are
emphasized by the
management school of entrepreneurship (Cunningham and Lischeron,
1991). This stream of
research suggests that being proficient in at least the basic
techniques of business
administration is a must for the individual (social)
entrepreneur to be successful (Chandler
and Jansen, 1992; Brown, 2007; Lussier, 1995). Although the pure
enactor-entrepreneur
might sometimes be able to delegate tasks which require
extensive managerial skills to an
enabler (Thompson et al., 2000) the enactor will mostly be on
her or his own when it comes
-
15
to economically relevant decisions in the early stages of the
venture life cycle (Sambasivan,
Abdul and Yusop, 2009; see Webster, 1977; Kazanjian and Drazin,
1990 for examples of life
cycle models). In their meta-analysis of the relationship
between human capital and different
success indicators Unger, Rauch, Frese and Rosenbusch (2009)
found out that human capital
investments have a considerably weaker effect on entrepreneurial
success than human capital
conceptualized as outcomes of human capital investments.
Furthermore, correlations with
success were found to be higher for specific task-related
competencies than for general
competencies and abilities. In our opinion, this supports the
argument that a socially
responsible business is a good place for potential social
entrepreneurs to learn the special
abilities constituting the foundation for subsequent
entrepreneurial success.
Besides human capital, research has identified social capital as
another important variable
influencing the success of entrepreneurs (Davidsson and Honig,
2003). Social capital theory
holds that individuals can extract benefits from social
structures and group memberships. For
example, personal relationships and a network of relevant
contacts are crucial for the effective
procurement of needed physical and financial capital, the
development of trust, visibility, and
credibility (Thompson et al., 2000), and ultimately for the
sustainability of innovation and
growth (Larson, 2000). Alvord, Brown and Letts (2004) support
the argument brought
forward by Austin, Stevenson and Wie-Skillern (2006), that this
relationship is not only valid
in the case of commercial entrepreneurs but also in that of
social entrepreneurs. We think that
it is reasonable to assume that a socially responsible company
is the best place for potential
social entrepreneurs to socialize and to build effective
networks which are a prerequisite for
the succes of entrepreneurial actions targeted at social
problems of the respective companys
stakeholders. This argument is in principle consistent with the
literature on commercial
entrepreneurship which holds that apart from specific technical
and cognitive competencies,
industry knowledge is another important basis for the survival
of an entrepreneurial venture
(see, for example, Doutriaux and Simyar, 1987; Shane, 2000;
McKelvie and Wiklund, 2004).
-
16
It will most likely be much more difficult to identify the
providers of infrastructure and
resources as well as the potential customers for those
individuals who do not have the
opportunity to tap the social ressources of an established
business in the relevant area.
Through social networks, potential entrepreneurs can in
particular get access to tacit industry
knowledge. Mitchell (1997: 124) further explains this by
referring to expert information
processing theory. According to him, experts out-perform novices
within their speciality
because, on the basis of their unique but common history, they
can recognize immediately
that which novices may miss or require great effort to discover:
compliance of expertise-
specific circumstances with an expert 'script'.
From our point of view, the bottom line of the preceding
discussion turns out to be as
follows. In order to become a successful social entrepreneur,
individuals are in need of certain
capabilities. Some of them can possibly be acquired through
lectures, seminars, and so forth
while others may be inborn. But study and fate may not be
sufficient. Rather, practical
experience in already established enterprises prior to the first
entrepreneurial act is likely to be
another important variable. Furthermore, given the theoretical
proximity of the concept of
CSR to SE, companies engagement in CSR is likely to affect the
ability of employees to
recognize opportunities for socially entrepreneurial activities,
the actual exploitation of such
opportunities and the long-term survival of the resulting social
enterprises. We make the case
that comprehensive CSR practices could be the hands-on
experience with social injustice
potential social entrepreneurs need to develop and succeed.
However, it is questionable if
these individuals will ever leave their nest given that the
values underlying their employers
culture and operations are consistent with their own values. In
fact, the absence or mere
superficial acceptance of social responsibility could be the
trigger leaving the company and
becoming a social entrepreneur.
-
17
METHOD
Research Approach
In the previous section of this paper we discussed the phenomena
of corporate social
responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Indeed, the
literature on social entrepreneurship
has grown considerably in the last couple of years and theory
formation has begun. Yet,
literature on the link between SE and corporate social
responsibility is virtually nonexistent.
With this as a backdrop it seems reasonable to use the research
method of directed content
analysis to gain insights. According to Hsieh and Shannon
(2005), this approach is
appropriate if the goal of research is to validate and extend
already existing theoretical
foundations. As a first step of this rather exploratory
endevour, we tried to develop sufficient
instrumentations for social responsibility on the institutional
level, i.e. CSR, and the value of
social justice on the personal level. Therewith, we aimed at
understanding the real meanings
and the patterns of the original phenomena. Our analysis began
with a deductive approach
dealing with the theoretical foundations and definitions of CSR
and SE (Patton, 1887). In this
phase of research, we already had some expectations and worked
on certain specific research
questions. According to Eisenhardt (1989), this approach is
definitely promising since it helps
to limit the flood of information and to focus the research.
However, during the analysis our
data began to speak up for itself and it became inevitable to
also take an inductive approach
and to look for some originally unconsidered patterns.
We decided to select a qualitative case study approach from the
various inquiry methods
because it offers the possibility to capture and report
individualized outcomes as well as
organizational level impacts Patton (1987). Social entrepreneurs
are generally individuals who
strive for the solution of social problems by means of new
venture creation. However, the
individual manifestations of entrepreneurship vary
significantly. Our aim was to analyze these
individual paths and to identify common patterns as well as
salient discrepancies. The concept
-
18
of social responsibility, for example, is probably not
understood equally in different countries,
cultures, communities, and firms.
Sample and Research Instrument
As the unit of empirical analysis we have used cases of social
entrepreneurship. We
concentrated on evaluating individualized outcomes that are
justifiably reluctant to generate
standardized criteria and scales against which all values can be
compared (Patton, 2002). Each
case delivers a certain outcome story consisting of descriptive
information about the life and
especially the career of the respective individual subsequent to
the decision to become a social
entrepreneur. We chose our sample purposefully and reached a
case number of 42 through 3
sampling stages:
Stage I: Extreme Sampling. After a first acquaintance with the
Social Entrepreneur API,
we decided to start with the 489 social entrepreneurs who were
awarded for their
contributions to social change and became fellows of various
supporting organizations. We
used the awarding of prices and fellowships as a criterion for
success since research has not
yet identified a single best practice for measuring the
performance of neither commercial
entrepreneurs (Murphy, Trailer and Hill, 1996) nor NFPs (see
Sawhill and Williamson, 2001)
Stage II: Criterion Sampling. We then defined our own selection
criteria to narrow down
our focus on certain issues. Namely, we decided to concentrate
on the entrepreneurial
processes and decisions (see Table I). Thereby, we identified
113 social entrepreneurs.
..
Insert Table 1 about here
-
19
Stage III: Intense Sampling. In the end, we decided to use 42
information-rich cases that
manifest the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship thoroughly.
Therewith, we hoped to
reduce redundancy and to enhance case heterogeneity.
In order to be able to identify cross-case patterns (Eisenhardt,
1989) and we structured the
cases by means of a table consisting of five criteria:
- Career and personal background of the social entrepreneur
- Experience with corporate social responsibility
- Recognition of an opportunity based on social injustice
- Decision to become a social entrepreneur
- Resources used in the process of venture creation
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Career and personal background of the social entrepreneur
We feel that the data supports one of our main theoretical
arguments, namely that
individuals who are driven by the value of social justice and
start a social venture benefit from
practical experience as an employee and are likely to survive in
the market. Actually, the
business concepts of social entrepreneurs are mostly directly
related to the entrepreneurs
professional careers, particularly with regard to
the the business concept itself
the competencies the social entrepreneurs acquired during
preceding employments
the target group
the access to resources (social capital, human capital,
financial capital) gained through
a prior employer
the business partners (who were often former colleagues)
-
20
Experience with corporate social responsibility
We found out that references to social responsibility in the job
definitions/assignments of
the employees often indicate the direct exposure to specific
social problems like exclusion,
violence, disease or discrimination which are in turn
realizations on injustice. Having faced
with these problems, the employees notice that
the issue is different, i.e. more (invisible) factors are
relevant and the roots of the
problem deeper than assumed from a certain distance
the issue needs a more flexible solution which can only be
provided by individuals and
not by large and cumbersome (bureaucratic) organization
real social responsibility can only be assumed on the local
level where individuals
can actually experience the social problems for themselves
Recognition of an opportunity based on social injustice
Social Entrepreneurs develop hands-on-approaches to deal with
the real social
responsibility instead of the theoretically developed solutions
for a problem seen from a
distance. They develop contacts with the target population,
other organisations and market
participants involved in the social issue on the local level.
Target population needs to learn
how to help themselves they dont want an opinion leader telling
them all the time what has
to be done according to a theoretical model. They need someone
who is an expert and who
can see the world through the eyes of the target population in
need and who share the same
bread with them as a human being. All of the entrepreneurs are
responsible against their
target populations but social entrepreneurs having built their
business concepts directly on the
promise of bringing social justice, have to understand the roots
of the social issue clearly and
develop a certain common understanding with the target
population. It is very difficult to
make the target population believe in the solution and too easy
to lose their trust it is more
personal and delicate than normal entrepreneurship.
-
21
Decision to become a social entrepreneur
After defining the real responsibility, Social Entrepreneur must
suggest a way that
supplies a self-sufficient & interactive system in which the
target population would be
part of the processes like decision making, work force
development etc.
is convincing in the eye of the target population (seen mostly
as a pull factor)
would be a better solution to the problem than the ones till now
(through personal
initiative, flexibility, empathy etc.)
would change the destiny of the target population in the long
term.
During our analysis we were able to observe the institutional
influence on the design,
positioning and customer retention processes of the newly formed
entrepreneurial systems
through the experience of the entrepreneur. We have more
expectancy about this issue and in
the second stage of our research process; we are hoping to
receive more insights about this
influence interviewing the chosen social entrepreneurs so that
we can analyse it further: in
which aspects, how and to what extent.
Resources used in the process of venture creation
Our findings show that the resources reached through on the
institutional experience play
an important role. The availability of the resources for a
social entrepreneur are influenced by:
The reputation of the institution and Social Entrepreneur
Partnership with the former institution
Support coming directly from the institution (in a monetary or
non-monetary way)
Human Capital acquired in the institution business &
management skills from
practice
Social Capital (contacts with the other participants of the
markets)
-
22
Induction from the practice: Personal Experience with Social
Injustice
As we began our research, we knew that the level of personal
involvement would be
higher than the normal entrepreneur as a result of his
philanthropic approach but we did not
reckon a personal experience with social injustice. According to
our findings, this experience
can be made in one of the entrepreneurs life cycles at any time:
in his childhood or even
during his experience coping with the social responsibility and
it can be the result of
immigration, health disease, aging, gender issues, family
issues, community issues, inequity
issues, education, and unemployment among others. Having had
such an experience is firstly
a very strong motivation to find out the real responsibility.
Secondly it accelerates the act of
entrepreneurship. These findings show a striking resemblance
with women entrepreneurship
and immigrant entrepreneurship phenomena.
-
23
RESEARCH MODEL
Getting in touch with the target population
Observing the core/real problem issues
Recognizing the need for more social justice
Defining the gaps
Entrepreneurial Decision
Meeting with social responsibility
on the institutional level
-Government
-NGO
-Companies
-Dachverbnde
-Other
-Immigration
-Health disease
-Aging
-Gender issues
-Family issues
-Community issues
-Inequity issues
-Education
-Unemployment
-Other
Experience with Social Injustice
on personal level
personal experience &
level of involvement
New Resource Combinations for Social Justice
personal insights + institutional
processes + social capital+ reputation
-
24
DISCUSSION
Our research shows that institutions are playing a pioneer role
in social entrepreneurship that has
until now stayed in shadow. The move of social responsibility
from the institutional level to the
entrepreneurial level is essential for better solutions of
social justice for communities & societies
which can just be developed through a hands-on-approach and the
support both direct &
indirect- of the institution is essential for the establishment
and survival of a newly firmed
organisation in the market. According to our findings, we can
consider it as a preparation phase
for the social entrepreneur. This paper being the first step of
a trilogy, we are planning to go
further dealing with this link through the following steps in
Table 2 in accordance with the phase
model of Lazarsfeld (Diekmann, 2007).
..
Insert Table 2 about here
CONCLUSION
With our research we tried to shed light to an important link
which could at the same time
be defined as one of the success factors for the social
entrepreneurship phenomenon. During our
analysis we recognized the need for more in-depth research using
multi-method qualitative
approach to define and demarcate the phenomenon with its
antecedents and socio-economic
impact. Diversity and integration issues in various societies
would be appropriate to be
considered for further research in social entrepreneurship.
Analysing the social responsibility
taken by the women entrepreneurs who work mostly with socially
excluded groups and by
-
25
immigrant entrepreneurs who work for a better standard of living
on the community level could
also lead us to different links and facts.
FIGURES
Table I : Selection Criteria
a. Entrepreneurial Emphasis:
Entrepreneurship definitions
Entrepreneurial processes
(Opp. Recognition, Competitive Advantage etc.)
Formation of a new & independent (or
promising to be) organisation/body
Business idea/ Business plan
b. Social Responsibility Emphasis:
Target population in need/excluded
Social Inclusion
Direct Interference with the business plan
Table 2: Steps of the Research
Step I Qualitative Case Study
Analysis of 42 purposefully chosen cases
for the first insights
Step II
Qualitative Interviews with narrative and problem oriented
character
including 15 social entrepreneurs to model the
phenomenon and to bring it to a measurable level
Step III
Quantitative Research
with a scale developed both deductively and
inductively for measurement, defining the causal
relationships between constructed variables
-
26
REFERENCES
Agle, B. R. & Caldwell, C. B. 1999. Understanding research
on values in business. Business &
Society 38(3): 326-387.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi,
J. 2007. Putting the s back in
corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social
change in organizations. The
Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, D. L., & Letts, C. W. 2004. Social
entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 40(3): 160-
282.
Amaeshi, K. M. & Adi, B. 2007. Reconstructing the corporate
social responsibility in Utlish. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 16(1): 3-18.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wie-Skillern, J. 2006. Social
and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
30(1): 1-22.
Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the
variability of financial returns to
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
32(3): 794-816.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, Ken G. 2001. A
multidimensional model of venture growth.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 292-303.
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. 2009.
Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 447-456.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The competent manager. New York:
Wiley.
Brouard, F. & Larivet, S. 2009. Social entrepreneurship:
Definitions and boundaries. Paper
presented at the conference of the Association for Nonprofit and
Social Economy Research
(ANSER) at the Carlton University, Ottawa, May 27-29, 2009.
Brown, S. 2007. Seven skills for the aspiring entrepreneur.
Business and Economic Review,
53(2): 16-18.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of
corporate social performance. The
Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution
of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3): 268-295.
Catford, J. 1998. Social entrepreneurs are vital for health
promotion - But they need supportive
environments too. Health Promotion International, 13(2):
95-97.
-
27
Chandler, G. N. & Jansen, E. 1992. The founders
self-assessed competence and venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3): 223-236.
Choi, D. Y. & Gray, E. R. 2008. Socially responsible
entrepreneurs: What do they do to create
and build their companies? Business Horizons, 51(4):
341-352.
Clark, M. J. 1916. The basis of economic responsibility. Journal
of Political Economy, 24: 209-
229.
Cohen, B. & Winn, M. I. 2007. Market imperfections,
opportunity and sustainable
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1):
29-49.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R. 2007. Corporate social
responsibility and employee commitment.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1): 19-33.
Cooper, A. C. & Dunkelberg, W. C. 1986. Entrepreneurship and
paths to business ownership.
Strategic Management Journal, 7(1): 53-68.
Cooper, S. Y. & Park, J. S. 2008. The impact of 'incubator'
organizations on opportunity
recognition and technology innovation in new, entrepreneurial
high-technology ventures.
International Small Business Journal, 26(1): 27-56.
Cunningham, J. B. & Lischeron, J. 1991. Defining
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
Management, 29(1): 45-61.
Davidsson, P & Honig, B. 2003. The role of social and human
capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3):
301-331.
Dees, J. G. 2001. The meaning of 'social entrepreneurship'.
Draft report for the Kauffman
Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA.
Diekmann, A. 2007. Empirische Sozialforschung Grundlagen
Methoden
Anwendungen. Reinbeck: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Diochon, M., Menzies, T. V., & Gasse, Y. 2008. Exploring the
nature and impact of gestation-
specific human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of
Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 13(2): 151-165.
Doutriaux, J. & Simyar, F. 1987. Duration of comparative
advantage accruing from some start-up
factors in high-tech entrepreneurial firms. In N. C. Churchill
et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research: 436-451. Wellesley, MA.
Drayton, W. 2002. The citizen sector: Becoming as
entrepreneurial and competitive as business.
California Management Review, 44(3) 120-132.
-
28
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study
research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D. 2008. An examination of
perceived corporate citizenship, job
applicant attraction, and CSR work role definition. Business and
Society, forthcoming.
Falck, O. & Heblich, S. 2007. Corporate social
responsibility: Doing well by doing good.
Business Horizons, 50(3): 247-254.
Fitch, H. G. 1976. Achieving corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review,
1(1): 38-46.
Fowler, A. 2000. NGDOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to
social entrepreneurship or civic
innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to
increase its profits. The New York
Times Magazine, September 13: 122-126.
Fulton, K. & Dees, G. 2006. The past, present, and future of
social entrepreneurship. A
conversation with Greg Dees. Pre-reading for Gathering of
Leaders, Duke University's Fuqua
School of Business, Durham, NC.
Gentile, M. C. 2002. Social impact management and social
enterprise: Two sides of the
Giving USA Foundation. 2009. Giving USA 2009: The annual report
on philanthopy for the
year 2009, Glenview, IL.
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. 2009. The
relationship between corporate social
responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the
risk management hypothesis.
Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 425-445.
Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. 2009. Ethics
and entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5): 407-418.
Hemingway, C. A. 2005. Personal values as a catalyst for
corporate social entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3): 233-249.
Herron, L. & Robinson, R. B. 1990. Entrepreneurial skills:
An empirical study of the missing
link connecting the entrepreneur with venture performance. Paper
presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management: San
Francisco, CA.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New
York: Harcourt, Brace.
Hsieh, H.-F./Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to
qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9): 1277-1288.
Johnson, S. 2000. Literature review on social entrepreneurship.
Working paper of the Canadian
Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, University of Alberta,
Alberta, CAN.
-
29
Jones, R., Latham, J, & Betta, M. 2008. Narrative
construction of the social entrepreneurial
identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research, 14(5): 330-345.
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis
of ethics and economics. The
Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-437.
Kazanjian, R. K. & Drazin, R. 1990. A stage-contingent model
of design and growth for
technology based new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,
5(3): 137-150.
Larson, A. L. 2000. Sustainable innovation through an
entrepreneurship lense. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 9(5): 304-317.
Leadbeater, C. 1997. The rise of the social entrepreneur.
London, UK: Demos.
Lussier, R. N. 1995. Start-up business advice from business
owners to would-be entrepreneurs.
SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(1): 10-13.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Corporate
social responsibility and firm
performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies.
Academy of Management Review,
32(3): 817-835.
Martin, R. L. & Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship:
The case for definition. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, Spring 2007: 28-39.
Massetti, B. L. 2008. The social entrepreneurship matrix as a
tipping point for economic
change. E:CO, 10(3): 1-8.
Mayring, P. 2002. Einfhrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung.
Weinheim u.
Basel: Beltz Verlag.
McKelvie, A. & Wiklund, J. 2004. How knowledge affects
opportunity discovery and
exploitation among new ventures in dynamic markets. In J. E.
Butler (Ed.), Opportunity
Identification and Entrepreneurial Behavior: 219-240. Greenwich,
CT.
Mitchell, R. K. 1997. Oral history and expert scripts:
demystifying the entrepreneurial
experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 3(2): 122-139.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W. & Hill, R. C. 1996. Measuring
performance in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1): 15-23.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate
social and financial performance: A
meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403-441.
Pariyar, B. & Ward, A. E. 2006. Social entrepreneurship:
Producing Yunus out of Branson and
Teresa? White Rose CETLE Working Paper, University of York,
York, UK.
-
30
Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in
Evaluation. California:
SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.
California:
SAGE Publications.
Peredo, A. M. & McLean, M. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: A
critical review of the concept.
The Journal of World Business, 41(1): 56-65.
Peterson, D. K. 2004. The relationship between perceptions of
corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment, Business and Society, 43(3):
296-319.
Pinkston, T. S. & Carroll, A. B. 1996. A retrospective
examination of CSR orientations: Have
they changed? Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2): 199-206.
Rae, D. 2004. Practical theories from entrepreneurs' stories:
Discursive approaches to
entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 11(2): 195-
202.
Rodrigo, P. & Arenas, D. 2008. Do employees care about CSR
programs? A typology of
employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business
Ethics, 83(2): 265-283.
Roper, J. & Cheney, G. 2005. Leadership, learning and human
resource management. The
meanings of social entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance,
5(3): 95-104.
Sambasivan, M., Abdul, M., & Yusop, Y. 2009. Impact of
personal qualities and management
skills of entrepreneurs on venture performance in Malaysia:
Opportunity recognition skills as a
mediating factor. Technovation, 29(11): 798-805.
same coin or a totally different currency? Aspen ISIB Discussion
Paper IV. The Aspen Institute,
New York.
Sawhill, J. C. & Williamson, D. 2001. Mission impossible?
Measuring success in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3):
371-386.
Seelos, C. & Mair, J. 2004. Social entrepreneurship: The
contribution of individual
entrepreneurs to sustainable development. IESE Business School
Working Paper No. 553.
University of Navarra, Barcelona, ES.
Seitanidi, M. M. & Crane, A. 2009. Implementing CSR through
partnerships: Understanding the
selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business
partnerships. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85(2): 413-429.
Sexton, D. L. & Bowman, N. 1985. The entrepreneur: A capable
executive and more. Journal of
Business Venturing, 1(1): 129-140.
-
31
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
Organization Science, 11(4): 448469.
Stephens, A. 2003. Ice cream with a mission. New Statesman, 132:
17-18.
Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo J. C. 1990. A paradigm of
entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, Special Issue
Corporate Entrepreneurship: 17-
27.
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. 2003.
Social entrepreneurship: Towards
conceptualization. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1):
76-88.
Taylor, N., Hobbs, R., Nilsson, F., OHalloran, K., &
Preisser, C. 2000. The rise of the term
social entrepreneurship in print publications. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College. Babson Park, MA.
Thake, S. & Zadek, S. 1997. Practical people, noble causes.
How to support community-based
social entrepreneurs. London, UK: New Economics Foundation.
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. 2000. Social
entrepreneurship A new look at the people
and the potential. Management Decision, 58(5): 328-338.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. 2009.
Human capital and entrepreneurial
success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business
Venturing, forthcoming.
Webster, F. A. 1977. Entrepreneurs and ventures: An attempt at
classification and clarification.
Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 54-61.
Wee, C.-H., Lim, W.-S., & Lee, R. 1994. Entrepreneurship: A
review with implications for
further research. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 11(4): 25-49.
Wettstein, F. 2009. Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: Making a
case for human rights and
justice. Business & Society Review, 114(1): 125-152.
Windsor, D. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Three key
approaches. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(1): 93-114.
Wing, K. T., Pollak, T. H., & Blackwood, A. 2008. The
nonprofit almanac. Washington, D. C.:
The Urban Institute Press.