Pitschner Tuncer - Socially Responsible Enterprises

8/4/2019 Pitschner Tuncer - Socially Responsible Enterprises

1/31

1

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENTERPRISES

INCUBATOR OR TRANQUILLIZER FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS1

SEBASTIAN PITSCHNER

Berlin Institute of Technology

Chair of Organization and ManagementSekretariat H 73

Strae des 17. Juni 135

10623 Berlin, Germany

Tel: +49 (0)30 314-23873e-mail: [email protected]

DEMET TUNCERBerlin Institute of Technology

Chair of Marketing

Sekretariat WIL-B-3-1

Wilmersdorfer Str. 148

10585 Berlin, Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)30 314-25281e-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.


2/31

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,


3/31

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


4/31

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. Dataacquisition 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.


5/31

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 ofsocial 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.


6/31

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


7/31

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


8/31

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


9/31

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


10/31

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


11/31

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,


12/31

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).


13/31

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


14/31

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


15/31

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).


16/31

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.


17/31

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 isappropriate 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


18/31

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


19/31

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)


20/31

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.


21/31

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)


22/31

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.


23/31

RESEARCH MODEL

Getting in touch with the target population

Observing the core/real problem issues

Recognizing the need for more social justice

Defin

Meeting with social responsibility

on the institutional level

-Government

-NGO

-Companies

-Dachverbnde

-Other

-Im

-H

-A

-G

-F-C

-In

-E

-U

-O

Experience with Social Injustice

on personal level

personal experience &

level of involvement

New Re

personproce


24/31

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


25/31

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 IQualitative Case StudyAnalysis of 42 purposefully chosen cases

for the first insights

Step IIQualitative Interviewswith narrative and problem oriented characterincluding 15 social entrepreneurs to model thephenomenon and to bring it to a measurable level

Step IIIQuantitative Research

with a scale developed both deductively and

inductively for measurement, defining the causal

relationships between constructed variables


26/31

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 incorporate 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 firmperformance. 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


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 supportiveenvironments too.Health Promotion International, 13(2): 95-97.


27/31

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 createand 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 opportunityrecognition 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 nascententrepreneurs.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.


28/31

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, jobapplicant 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 socialresponsibility 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 missinglink 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.


29/31

29

Jones, R., Latham, J, & Betta, M. 2008. Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurialidentity.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(5): 330-345.

Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The


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 Strategyand 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 firmperformance: 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 economicchange.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.), OpportunityIdentification 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 andTeresa? White Rose CETLE Working Paper, University of York, York, UK.


30/31

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 ofemployees according to their attitudes.Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2): 265-283.

Roper, J. & Cheney, G. 2005. Leadership, learning and human resource management. Themeanings 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 individualentrepreneurs 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.


31/31

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, BabsonCollege. 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.


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 andjustice.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.

Pitschner Tuncer - Socially Responsible Enterprises

Documents