A conceptual model for socialentrepreneurship directed toward

social impact on societyHao Jiao

School of Economics and Business Administration, Beijing Normal University,Beijing, China

Abstract

Purpose – The emerging literature on social entrepreneurship and its role in economic developmentand social value creation is riddled with inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and contradictions.However, the theoretical and practical importance of developing and applying social entrepreneurshipto sustain social development and enhance human well-being in rapidly changing environments hascatapulted this issue to the forefront of the research agendas of many scholars. In light ofadvancement, the purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of social entrepreneurship. Further, aconceptual model is developed encompassing antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurshipin an integrated framework.Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on the work of others and to this adds personalconclusions from both direct experience and observation.Findings – The central argument is that desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in thedecision-making process, human capital, and social capital at the individual level will have the positiveeffects on social entrepreneurship. The author also discusses the moderation effects between thedesirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process on initiating socialentrepreneurship activities. Moreover, it is argued that social and institutional environment factorsalso promote social entrepreneurship activities which push the social improvement.Originality/value – The paper presents a theoretical research model incorporating antecedents andconsequence of social entrepreneurship to direct a future research agenda. The paper could be used asthe research model by researchers to empirically test antecedents and consequences of socialentrepreneurship. Moreover, practitioners can also gain benefits from the conceptual framework andpromote social entrepreneurship.

Keywords Social entrepreneurship, Human capital, Desirability, Feasibility, Social capital,Social impact on society

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe concept of social entrepreneurship has been rapidly emerging in the private,public and non-profit sectors over the last few years, and interest in socialentrepreneurship continues to grow ( Johnson, 2000; Nicholls, 2008). Socialentrepreneurship has become a global phenomenon that impacts the society byemploying innovative approaches to solve social problems (Robinson et al., 2009).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1750-8614.htm

Social Enterprise JournalVol. 7 No. 2, 2011pp. 130-149r Emerald Group Publishing Limited1750-8614DOI 10.1108/17508611111156600

This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, theNational Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 70873005), the Philosophy & Social SciencePlanning Project by Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 10CGGL01ZQ) and the Philosophy & SocialScience Planning Project by Shanghai Government (Grant No. 2010BJL001). Sincere thanks go toProfessor Jeffrey A. Robinson for his kind suggestions on revision of this paper. The authorgratefully acknowledges research support provided by The Center for Urban Entrepreneurship& Economic Development (CUEED), Rutgers Business School, Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey, USA. The author is grateful to the anonymous referees and editors for theirconstructive and helpful suggestions.

130

SEJ7,2

There is considerable interest in social entrepreneurship (Mair and Noboa, 2006a;Peredo and McLean, 2006). However, social entrepreneurship means different things todifferent people, creating great confusion in the literature and practice (Zahra et al., 2008).

It is imperative to synthesize the conceptual debates and the diverse empiricalfindings toward a more integrated understanding of social entrepreneurship. Thispaper seeks to bring clarity to the notion of social entrepreneurship and its potentialand actual relationships to social impact. The objectives of this paper are to evaluatethe theoretical and empirical development of social entrepreneurship in order to findwhat social entrepreneurship is and to propose a theoretical research modelincorporating antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship.

We make three contributions to the literature. First, we review the literature andpresent important inconsistencies and ambiguities in the extant literature and suggestremedies that could direct future studies. Second, we present the conceptual model,which provides a framework for future research. Third, we deepen the discussion byaddressing a set of propositions regarding the relationships between antecedentsand consequence of social entrepreneurship. We believe the research model proposed inthis study can be adopted and further developed by future empirical studies.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we review the literature to show howsocial entrepreneurship has been portrayed in the literature in order to clearly definesocial entrepreneurship. Next, focusing on antecedents and consequence of socialentrepreneurship, we develop and discuss propositions related to the decision-makingprocess, human capital, social capital, social environment factors, institutionalenvironment factors and social impact. In the last section, we present a discussion ofour propositions.

Defining and understanding social entrepreneurshipThe emergence of social entrepreneurshipSocial entrepreneurship is a new phenomenon (Zietlow, 2002). Zahra et al. (2008)discuss four key factors that fuel the globalization of social entrepreneurship. They areglobal wealth disparity; movement of corporate social responsibility; market,institutional and state failures; and technological advances and shared responsibility.

We argue that there are two additional reasons why social entrepreneurshipemerges in the society. First, social entrepreneurship can help non-profit organizationoperate with the innovative way. Reis and Clohesy (1999) believe that when traditionalresources continually reduce and competition for these common resources becomeseverely severe, it is necessary for non-profit organizations to employ businessprofessional operations and marketing techniques to improve efficiency in productsand services so as to serve community better.

Second, the actual conditions call for an alliance between corporate and non-profitorganizations and cooperation among different components in society to make stepstoward a better life. The increasing social problems call for corporations to respondpositively and take responsibilities in the social sector. Such response will encouragesocial entrepreneurship activities by corporate and non-profit organizations, whichwill enhance both business value and have a positive social impact. Therefore, thedisappearing boundary between different sectors leads to innovative approaches tosolve social problems (Seelos and Mair, 2005; Sen, 2007). Johnson writes,

the non-profit sector is facing intensifying demands for improved effectiveness andsustainability in light of diminishing funding from traditional sources and increased

131

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

competition for these scarce resources. At the same time, the increasing concentration ofwealth in the private sector calls for increased corporate social responsibility and moreproactive responses to complex social problems, while governments at all levels are grapplingwith multiple demands on public funds ( Johnson, 2000, p. 1).

Social entrepreneurship emerges as a response to the complex society needs.

What is social entrepreneurship?Roberts and Woods (2005, p. 45) argue that social entrepreneurship is at an “excitingstage of infancy, short on theory and definition but high on motivation and passion.The challenge for academia is to turn an inherently practitioner-led pursuit into a morerigorous and objective discipline.” Most importantly, we should take more effortsto clarify what is social entrepreneurship (Christie and Honig, 2006; Nicholls, 2006;Certo and Miller, 2008; Thompson, 2008). We define social entrepreneurship bycharacteristics and operational process. The Appendix presents the key studies foundin the literature pertinent to social entrepreneurship from 1985 to 2009.

Definitions based on the mission. Some scholars consider the mission when definingsocial entrepreneurship. For instance, Dees (2001) believes that social entrepreneurs“play the role of change agents in the social sector, by adopting a mission to createand sustain social value (not just private value), recognizing and relentlessly pursuingnew opportunities to serve that mission, engaging in a process of continuousinnovation, adaptation, and learning, acting boldly without being limited by resourcescurrently in hand, and exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituenciesserved and for the outcomes created.” He believes that social value is most important inthis process.

Although social entrepreneurship is often viewed as business with a socialpurpose that earns income for the non-profit sector, Dees (2003) said he leanedtoward another definition of social entrepreneurship, one that emphasized innovationand impact, not income, in dealing with social problems. At times, according toDees (2003), these two ways of thinking intersect, when people with business-likemethods come together with innovative solutions to social problems. Therefore,compared to business entrepreneurs, who are “for” the economy, social entrepreneursare “for” social change and “are the driven, creative individuals who questionthe status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up, and remake the world forthe better” (Bornstein, 2004, p. 15).

Definitions based on the multiple dimensions of social entrepreneurship. Somescholars consider social entrepreneurship as a multi-dimensional construct. Mort et al.(2003, p. 76) believe that social entrepreneurship leads to the establishment of newsocial enterprises and the continued innovation in existing ones and conceptualizesocial entrepreneurship as “a multi-dimensional construct involving the expressionof entrepreneurially virtuous behavior to achieve the social mission, a coherent unity ofpurpose and action in the face of moral complexity, the ability to recognize socialvalue-creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics ofinnovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking.”

After reviewing the literature on social entrepreneurship, Weerawardena and Mort(2006) develop a bounded multi-dimensional model of social entrepreneurship, usingthe grounded theory method and in-depth case studies. The findings of their researchare presented in two related steps. In the first step, a narrative incorporating sevenemergent themes from the in-depth case study interviews: environmental dynamics,innovativeness, proactiveness, risk management, sustainability, social mission and

132

SEJ7,2

opportunity seeking/recognition. In the second stage, they present the integrationof the themes into a coherent model of social entrepreneurship. In the model, socialentrepreneurship leads to social value creation. This requires innovativeness,proactiveness and risk management behavior as the core. But, “this behavior isconstrained by the desire to achieve the social mission and to maintain thesustainability of the existing organization. In doing so, they are responsive to andconstrained by environmental dynamics. They continuously recognize the opportunityand interact with a turbulent and dynamic environment that forces them to pursuesustainability, often within the context of the relative resource poverty of theorganization” (Weerawardena and Mort, 2006, p. 32).

Definitions based on the operational process or mechanism of socialentrepreneurship. Some literature considers social entrepreneurship as the process tochange the world (Chell, 2007). For example, Roberts and Woods (2005, p. 49) believesocial entrepreneurship is “the construction, evaluation and pursuit of opportunitiesfor transformative social change carried out by visionary, passionately dedicatedindividuals.” Mair and Martı́ (2006) view social entrepreneurship in a broader way,as a process involving “the innovative use and combination of resources to pursueopportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs.”

Furthermore, Peredo and McLean (2006, p. 64) find that social entrepreneurshipis “exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating social value, eitherexclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to recognizeand take advantage of opportunities to create that value (‘envision’); (3) employ(s)innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting someone else’s novelty, increating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are willing to accept an above-averagedegree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and (5) is/are unusuallyresourceful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their socialventure.”

Using six social enterprises, Robinson (2006) conducted case study research andsummarized a social entrepreneurial process model based on the opportunityrecognition and evaluation. Also, Dees et al. (2002) divide social entrepreneurship intothree dynamic processes. The first stage is the initiation of the entrepreneurial teamand the formation of the organization, including the profit and not-for-profitorganizations. The second stage is the process of forming organizational structurethrough negotiation and communication. The last stage is the process of internaldecision making, operation and interaction among different parts to address theexternal changing challenges.

In all, social entrepreneurship bridges an important gap between business andsocial action (Roberts and Woods, 2005). Therefore, Duke University’s Fuqua School ofBusiness, the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) writes,

Social entrepreneurship is the process of recognizing and resourcefully pursuingopportunities to create social value with the innovative method. Social entrepreneursare innovative, resourceful, and result-oriented, who draw upon the best thinking in both thebusiness and nonprofit worlds to develop strategies that maximize social impact. Theseentrepreneurial leaders operate in all kinds of organizations: large and small; new and old;religious and secular; non-profit, for-profit, and hybrid.

In summary, these scholars have conducted the research about the definition of socialentrepreneurship, which makes social entrepreneurship more clear. However, theantecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship are not very clear. Therefore,

133

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

we also need to find antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship in orderto create a successful model of social entrepreneurship to create social value.

A conceptual model for social entrepreneurshipA primary interest in management research is to identify relationships betweenorganizational variables (Eisenhardt, 1989). As an emerging concept, socialentrepreneurship needs to be examined in an integrated framework incorporatingthe antecedents and consequence (Zahra et al., 2008).

We argue that there are four key antecedents of social entrepreneurship, includingdesirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process,human capital of social entrepreneur, social capital of social entrepreneur, socialenvironment factors and institutional environment factors. Although there arenumerous other variables that could be examined in terms of antecedents, we arguethat the above variables are the most important. Moreover, according to the definitionof social entrepreneurship, we consider social impact as the consequence of socialentrepreneurship. Below, we propose and illustrate a research model (see Figure 1).

Key antecedents of social entrepreneurshipThe process of social entrepreneurship is related to many factors such as the individualsocial entrepreneur, social and institutional environments. At the individual level, theresearch has focussed on the key role of social entrepreneur, whose value will haveimpact on behavior (DeCharmes, 1968; Aldrich, 1989; Thompson et al., 2000; Dees et al.,2002; Handy and Ranade, 2002; Thompson, 2002; Mair and Noboa, 2003; Mair andNoboa, 2006b; Thompson and Doherty, 2006; Danna and Porche, 2008). In thefollowing, the paper analyzes the role of the social entrepreneur from the perspectivesof desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process,human capital and social capital.

P4

P2

P1

P3

P5

P7

Humancapital

Socialimpact

Desirabilityand

feasibility

Socialenvironment

factors

Socialentrepreneurship

Socialcapital

Institutionalenvironment

factors

P8

P6

Direct effects Moderation effects

Figure 1.A research model forsocial entrepreneurship

134

SEJ7,2

Moreover, social and institutional environmental factors have significant impacts onthe launching and continued implementation of social entrepreneurship (Bornstein,1998; Handy and Ranade, 2002; Zietlow, 2002; Mort et al., 2003; Bornstein, 2004;Thompson and Doherty, 2006; Weerawardena and Mort, 2006). Specifically, social andinstitutional factors include public awareness about social entrepreneurship,governmental agencies’ support, financial support from the foundation, as well asrelevant support from other non-profit organizations. We discuss these factors one byone below.

Desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process. Mairand Noboa (2006b) study entrepreneurial intention process of social entrepreneur,which anatomizes the black box of decision process for the entrepreneurialactivities. They find that entrepreneurial intention of social entrepreneur isinfluenced by self-cognitive desirability and feasibility. Cognitive desirability is thedegree of desire to start social entrepreneurship activities. Cognitive feasibility isthe subjective evaluation of the social entrepreneur’s capacity to initiate socialentrepreneurship activities.

The cognitive desirability of a social entrepreneur is influenced by personal valueand cognitive attitude, and cognitive feasibility is influenced by some enabling factorssuch as personal competence, self-efficacy and social support (Thompson et al., 2000;Guclu et al., 2002; Simms and Robinson, 2008). Dees (2001) considered that the mostdistinguishing characteristic of the social entrepreneur is the sense of mission to makesocial impact in order to change the world. A high degree of social mission, charismaticpersonality and an unshakable belief is the driving force for social entrepreneurship.Moreover, their cognitive feasibility is influenced by personal competence. It is a strongsense of social mission that makes social entrepreneurs have a deep understandingof the target population. That is to say, social entrepreneurs should have the capacity tostart social entrepreneurship activities, which will strengthen the degree of cognitivefeasibility.

Therefore, we argue that cognitive desirability and feasibility of the socialentrepreneur influences the initiation of social entrepreneurship, which in turn pushessocial impact and creates social value for the whole society.

P1. The desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-makingprocess will be positively related to social entrepreneurship activities.

Human capital of social entrepreneur. Human capital can be defined as the range ofvaluable knowledge and skills a person has accumulated over time (Coleman, 1990;Becker, 1993; Davidsson and Honig, 2003). The knowledge of the social entrepreneurincludes the plan to start social entrepreneurship activities. Dees et al. (2001) believethat the social entrepreneur should have the knowledge to understand their customersand analyze their needs in order to satisfy their needs with innovative methods. Gucluet al. (2002) found that the inspiring ideas of social ventures are the key to success, andknowledge plays an important role.

The skills to integrate and utilize resources are also the human capital ofsocial entrepreneur. The integrating capabilities contribute to the development ofsocial entrepreneurship activities, which is the underlying mechanism of socialtransformation. Therefore, social entrepreneurs are considered as the changing agentsin the social sector by engaging in a process of continuous innovation (Dees, 2001).Danna and Porche (2008) found that social entrepreneurs utilize and integrate others’

135

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

resources to realize the objective of social entrepreneurship activities. Furthermore,Dees (2003) compared social entrepreneur with administrative staff in the governmentdepartment and found that the former’s logic is valuable. Social entrepreneur mainlyfocuses on the idea and then integrate the resources to realize it.

Therefore, knowledge and the ability to integrate resources, which are elementsof human capital, play an important role in the process of social entrepreneurship.We propose that:

P2. Higher levels of human capital will be positively related to the success of newsocial entrepreneurship activities.

We have proposed that human capital is positively related to social entrepreneurship.We now propose that the strength of that relationship will be moderated by thedesirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process.When social entrepreneurs with a high degree of desirability and feasibilityconcern perceive that they have a high level of human capital, they will conclude thatthey have the capacity to start new social ventures. This should strengthen theircommitment to social entrepreneurship activities. In other words, the desirability andfeasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process has a moderatingeffect on the relationship between human capital and social entrepreneurship. Wepropose that:

P3. The interaction between human capital with the desirability and feasibility ofsocial entrepreneur in the decision-making process is positively related to socialentrepreneurship activities.

Social capital of social entrepreneur. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1997, p. 119) definesocial capital as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individualor group by virtue of processing a durable network of more or less institutionalizedrelationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” Therefore, social capital iscreated by a network in which people, as the agent, can broker connections betweenotherwise disconnected segments (Burt, 1992). As discussed above, factors atthe individual level are important for social entrepreneurship activities. Besides, theorganizational factors in social ventures such as capital, organizational structure,composition of top management team and stability and utilization of social networksalso have a great effect on operations of social entrepreneurship activities (Tsai andGhoshal, 1998). All these factors can be included into social capital of socialentrepreneur. Based on the empirical research in Israel, Weerawardena and Mort (2006)thought that capital, employee structure and top manager’s performance in thebeginning stage of social ventures could influence the operational process.

Social capital comes from a founder’s social network (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998;Bornstein, 2004). For instance, Bornstein (2004) described that networks make bigdifferences in the process of social entrepreneurship. Javid’s example in India bestillustrates this point. As a handicapped leader, Javid met many challenges as heworked for social change. However, he was born in the rich family in India thatbrought him a good social network. He had a good personal relationship with Gandhi’sdaughter, Sonia Gandhi, chairman of India’s Congress Party. This relationship washelpful in achieving his social change objectives. Social network is one of the mostimportant factors for successful social entrepreneurship.

136

SEJ7,2

Dees et al. (2002) also believed that social entrepreneur should focus on the networkrelationships because these relationships are needed for entrepreneurial performanceand to create innovative arrangements to deal with the social problems. Furthermore,Leadbeater (1997) argued that social capital that exists in a social entrepreneur’snetwork is fundamental to social entrepreneurship activities. Social entrepreneursmust build successful partnerships with major companies and establish collaborationswith relevant stakeholders such as the Skoll Foundation, the International BusinessLeaders Forum and IDEO, the international design company. In a word, a socialentrepreneur’s network has a major influence on their entrepreneurial performance.Therefore, we propose that:

P4a. Social capital is positively related to social entrepreneurship. The more socialcapital a social entrepreneur has, the stronger the drive to start the new socialentrepreneurship activities.

P4b. Social capital is positively related to survival rates. Social ventures founded bysocial entrepreneurs with higher levels of social capital will higher survivalrates than those with lower levels of social capital.

Thus far, we have proposed that social capital is positively related to socialentrepreneurship. We further propose, in a similar fashion to P3, that the strength ofthe relationship will be moderated by the desirability and feasibility of the socialentrepreneur in the decision-making process. Social entrepreneurship primarilypursues the improvement of social value. Therefore, social entrepreneurs face difficultywhen they attempt to raise funds through financial and capital markets. When socialentrepreneurs with a high degree of cognitive desirability and feasibility perceivethey have high level of social capital, they will conclude that they have the capacity tomobilize the necessary resources to start social ventures, which also strengthen theircommitment to social entrepreneurship activities. In other words, the desirability andfeasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process has the moderationeffect on the relationship between the social capital and social entrepreneurship. Wepropose that:

P5. The relationship between social capital of social entrepreneur and socialentrepreneurship will be moderated by the desirability and feasibility of socialentrepreneur in the decision-making process.

Social environment factors as the prerequisite. Social entrepreneurs emerge inNorth America and western Europe, mainly due to the environment for cultivatingsocial entrepreneurship in these regions, which serve as incubators for socialentrepreneurship activities (Freeman et al., 2007). There are some distinguishedfoundations giving grants to social entrepreneurs. These foundations, such asAshoka, Echoing Green and Draper-Richards, identify promising social entrepreneurs,accept applications for venture capital to social entrepreneurs with social ventureplans and provide initial technical support and training. Financial support canrange from 30,000 to 100,000 US dollars over two or three years for selectedsocial entrepreneurs. In addition, there are well known and large consulting firmsthat provide free advice for public venture enterprises, such as BridgestarConsulting.

137

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

In addition, research institutions in social entrepreneurship in North America andwestern Europe have increased exponentially, hence increasing publications anddatabases in this field (Korosec and Berman, 2006). Dahle’s (2004) statistical studynoted that there were at least 30 business schools teaching social entrepreneurshipcourse in the USA, Canada and the UK in 2004. Today there are more than 100(Robinson, 2010). These world-renowned business school established related researchcenters, such as Social Enterprise Research Center at Harvard Business School,Research Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University, Center for SocialEntrepreneurship at Duke University, Center for Nonprofit Management at KelloggBusiness School, Northwestern University, Center for Urban Entrepreneurship &Economic Development at Rutgers University, Center for social entrepreneurship atUniversity of Alberta, and Skoll center for social entrepreneurship at University ofOxford. These centers’ web sites also have access to relevant research database, whichpromote social entrepreneurship in the whole.

As a result, both foundations and research institutions contribute to thedissemination and implementation of creative ideas for social entrepreneurshipactivities. To summarize, social entrepreneurship prevails in North America andwestern Europe due to the following environmental factors:

. support from foundations and commercial enterprises;

. education of social entrepreneurial skills and spirit;

. sufficient social entrepreneurship funding; and

. monitoring and evaluation of social ventures.

Therefore, we propose that:

P6. Higher levels of environmental factors (support, education, funding andmonitoring) will be positively related to social entrepreneurship.

Institutional environment factors as the foundation. In addition to support fromsuch non-profit organizations as research institutions and foundations, public supportfrom government agencies are also greatly important to promote socialentrepreneurship. This argument is similar to that of North (1990) when addressingthe business institutional environment. For example, social entrepreneurship in the UKis very active; citizens actively participate in social entrepreneurship, which are theresult of government support. For instance, Tony Blair, former Prime Minister ofthe UK, called on the government to support the activities of social entrepreneurship.He argued that social entrepreneurs not only solve economic problems but also createsocial impact, just as commercial entrepreneurs create financial wealth. Both maketheir own contribution to the progress of humanity. The British government launched aspecial policy to encourage more people to establish social-related entrepreneurialventures in 2002, which encouraged British people participating in socialentrepreneurship activities. Thus, social entrepreneurs address many social issues,such as helping vulnerable groups, poverty alleviation, rehabilitation andenvironmental protection.

Since the 1980s, many developed countries adopted neo-liberal economic policies,which emphasized the market as the main regulating mechanism of resources. As aresult, government funding to non-profit organizations reduced year by year. Moreover,government funding to the welfare sector sharply decreased, while market failure led

138

SEJ7,2

to increasing pressure for non-profit organization to provide public services( Johnson, 2000). Reis and Clohesy (1999) also argued that with the decrease inpublic funding and more intense competition in getting access to these resources, non-profit organizations face strong demand and pressure to improve their operationalefficiency through business processes and specialized technology in order to providebetter public services. This is also a driving force of social entrepreneurship activities.Therefore, we propose that:

P7. Institutional environment factors (government support, competition within thesector and public policy) will be related to social entrepreneurship. Supportivepolicies in the institutional environment will lead to higher levels of socialentrepreneurship.

Consequence of social entrepreneurship: social impact on society. As discussed above,the current literature on social entrepreneurship agrees that social impact is the mainpurpose for establishing a social venture social value in an innovative manner(Zietlow, 2001; Alvord et al., 2004; Bornstein, 2004; Godfrey, 2005; Hibbert et al., 2005;Austin et al., 2006; Austin, 2006). Mair and Martı́ (2006) consider socialentrepreneurship as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relativelyhigher priority given to promoting social value and development versus capturingeconomic value. Roberts and Woods (2005) believe that social entrepreneurship is anew construct that bridges an important gap between business and philanthropy,which is the application of entrepreneurship theory in the social sphere to solve socialproblems in society such as environmental issues, the income gap and employmentdifficulties. Therefore, we propose that:

P8. Higher levels of social entrepreneurship is positively related to the social impactin society.

Conclusion and future researchIn recent years, social entrepreneurship has emerged as a popular term used bypoliticians, businesspeople and institutions alike to describe businesses that giveback to society, such as entrepreneurial activities aiming to improve social valueas well as business benefits. Social entrepreneurship, therefore, becomes amechanism for reconciling these disparities in wealth, opportunity, educationalaccess and environmental issues. The central contribution of this paper is theconstruction of a conceptual model for social entrepreneurship with an integrativeapproach.

This conceptual paper is one of the first steps in developing a model for socialentrepreneurship. In this regard, we developed a conceptual framework of socialentrepreneurship with both antecedents and consequence. Specifically, we clarify adefinition of social entrepreneurship that can move discussion on this topic beyondtaxonomic distinctions of what is and what is not social entrepreneurship. Second, wediscuss the factors that influence social entrepreneurship at the individual level such asdesirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process,human capital of social entrepreneur and social capital of social entrepreneur. We alsodiscussed the moderating effects of the desirability and feasibility of the socialentrepreneur in the decision-making process to initiate social entrepreneurshipactivities. Furthermore, at a macroscopic level, we discussed the role of social and

139

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

institutional environment factors than can increase social entrepreneurship. Finally, wediscussed the consequence of social entrepreneurship.

Practitioners can also gain several implications from our conceptual framework topromote the development of social entrepreneurship. First, government can establishpositive policies such as tax reduction and seed funds to encourage socialentrepreneurship activities to encourage social entrepreneurs to start social ventures.For any entrepreneur, the start-up period of an entrepreneurial activity is difficult.Social entrepreneurship activity is in the same situation. Therefore, how governmentstrategically support social entrepreneurship activities is very important. If thegovernment puts the tax reduction policy to social entrepreneurship activities, socialentrepreneur will have high degree of cognitive desirability and feasibility to initiatesocial entrepreneurship activities and social enterprise will make a living moreeasily. Moreover, government can organize some training program to strengthenoperating skills to increase human capital of social entrepreneur. In the trainingprogram, social entrepreneur can communicate with each other, learn different socialentrepreneurship experience, and expand social capital of social entrepreneur.

Second, institutions such as universities can host relevant international conferencesto disseminate social entrepreneurship concepts and promote a social entrepreneurialspirit. For example, the University of Cambridge in England and Zhejiang Universityin China in 2007 and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in the USA andShanghai University and University of International Business and Economics in Chinain 2009 held the international forums on social entrepreneurship separately. Bothconferences promoted the spread of social entrepreneurship in Asia. These kinds ofconference can gather social entrepreneurs, enlarge their social networks for research,and increase their level of social capital. Moreover, universities can invite socialentrepreneur to make a lecture in the class to promote consciousness of collegestudents, who are main forces to start social entrepreneurship activities. In the meantime, professors can walk out of campus and enter communities to disseminateconcept of social entrepreneurship to let the public understand these kinds of activities,which is useful for the development of social entrepreneurship.

Finally, the framework presented in this paper demonstrates how government,university and association can work together to cultivate a social and institutionalenvironment to encourage social entrepreneurship activities. Specially, government canset up the foundation to support university and association to broadcast socialentrepreneurship concept. Moreover, university and association can hold an informalsalon or make up a party to gather social entrepreneur. In this way they cancommunicate with each other, share different experience and increase social capital.Moreover, government, university and association can combine with each other toelect the best practice in the social entrepreneurship industry. Other social enterprisescan learn from best practice to improve their performance.

By providing a conceptual model for social entrepreneurship, the paper hascontributed to the field of entrepreneurship and related academic literature, which canhelp to an overall understanding and the further development of socialentrepreneurship. Here, we have focussed on developing several testablepropositions intended to advance the understanding of the relationships amongvariables central to social entrepreneurship, their antecedents and their consequences.We hope that other scholars will take up the challenge of further exploring and testingthese ideas. Further studies can take the following directions. First, researchers candevelop to design questionnaires and validate an instrument that quantifies social

140

SEJ7,2

entrepreneurship to test our theoretical model empirically to verify our propositions.Second, future research can also theoretically extend our model by introducing otherpossible antecedents. Doing so will identify the factors that promote social entrepreneurshipand achieve the important social impacts that lead to a more harmonious society.

References

Aldrich, H.E. (1989), “Networking among women entrepreneurs”, in Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. andSexton, D. (Eds), Women-Owned Business, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 103-32.

Alvord, S.H., Brown, D.L. and Letts, C.W. (2004), “Social entrepreneurship and socialtransformation: an exploratory study”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40 No. 3,pp. 260-83.

Austin, J.E. (2006), “Three avenues for social entrepreneurship research”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J.and Hockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 78-86.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and commercial entrepreneurship:same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Becker, G.S. (1993), Human Capital: ATheoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Referenceto Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Bornstein, D. (1998), “Changing the world on a shoestring: an ambitious foundation promotessocial change by finding social entrepreneurs”, Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 281 No. 1, pp. 34-9.

Bornstein, D. (2004), How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1997), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL and London.

Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Certo, S.T. and Miller, T. (2008), “Social entrepreneurship: key issues and concepts”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 267-71.

Chell, E. (2007), “Social enterprise and entrepreneurship:towards a convergent theory of theentrepreneurial process”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 5-26.

Christie, M.J. and Honig, B. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: new research findings”, Journal ofWorld Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dahle, C. (2004), “Social capitalists: the top 20 groups that are changing the world”, FastCompany, Vol. 78, pp. 45-50.

Danna, D. and Porche, D. (2008), “Establishing a nonprofit organization: a venture of socialentrepreneurship”, The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 751-2.

Davidsson, P. and Honig, B. (2003), “The role of human capital among nascent entrepreneurs”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 301-31.

DeCharmes, R. (1968), Personal Causation; the Internal Effective Determinants of Behavior,Academic Press, New York, NY.

Dees, G.J. (2001), “The meaning of social entrepreneurship”, available at: www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf (accessed May 30, 2001).

Dees, G.J. (2003), “New definitions of social entrepreneurship: free eye exams and wheelchairdrivers”, Knowledge@Wharton Newsletter, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 3-16.

Dees, J.G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001), Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for SocialEntrepreneurs, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY.

141

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

Dees, G.J., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2002), Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancingthe Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Freeman, I., Higginson, N., Jos, A.R. and Madhubalan, V. (2007), “Microcredit through thefeminist lens: toward a more equitable approach to social entrepreneurship”, Advances inInternational Management, Vol. 20 No. 20, pp. 171-91.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1985), Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: A Study of BusinessPhilanthropy and Non Profit Organizations, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Godfrey, P.C. (2005), “The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: arisk management perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 777-98.

Guclu, A., Dees, G.J. and Anderson, B.B. (2002), “The process of social entrepreneurship: creatingopportunities worthy of serious pursuit”, CASE, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Handy, F. and Ranade, S. (2002), “Factors influencing women entrepreneurs of NGOs in India”,Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-54.

Harding, R. (2004), “Social enterprise: the new economic engine?”, Business Strategy Review,Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 39-43.

Hemingway, C. (2005), “Personal values as a catalyst for social entrepreneurship”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 233-49.

Hibbert, S.A., Hogg, G. and Quinn, T. (2002), “Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: thecase of the Big Issue in Scotland”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 288-301.

Hibbert, S.A., Hogg, G. and Quinn, T. (2005), “Social entrepreneurship: understandingconsumer motives for buying the Big Issue”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 159-72.

Johnson, S. (2000), “Literature review on social entrepreneurship”, available at:www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/Publications/Lit._Review_SE_November_2000.rtf(accessed February 20, 2011).

Jones, D. and Keogh, W. (2006), “Social enterprise: a case of terminological ambiguity andcomplexity”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 11-26.

Korosec, R.L. and Berman, E.M. (2006), “Municipal support for social entrepreneurship”, PublicAdministration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 448-62.

Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos, London.

Mair, J. and Martı́, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation,prediction, and delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.

Mair, J. and Noboa, E. (2003), “Social entrepreneurship: how intentions to create a socialenterprise get formed”, working paper, University of Navarra Business School, Barcelona.

Mair, J. and Noboa, E. (2006a), “Social entrepreneurship”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K.(Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 5-14.

Mair, J. and Noboa, E. (2006b), “Social entrepreneurship: how intentions to create a socialenterprise get formed”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), SocialEntrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 203-14.

Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2003), “Social entrepreneurship: towardsconceptualization”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-89.

Neck, H., Brush, C. and Allen, E. (2009), “The landscape of social entrepreneurship”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 13-9.

142

SEJ7,2

Nicholls, A. (2006), “Playing the field: a new approach to the meaning of social entrepreneurship”,Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Nicholls, A. (Ed.) (2008), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.

Reis, T. and Clohesy, S. (1999), Unleashing New Resources and Entrepreneurship for theCommon Good: A Scan, Synthesis and Scenario for Action, WK Kellogg Foundation, BattleCreek, MI.

Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005), “Changing the world on a shoestring: the concept of socialentrepreneurship”, University of Auckland Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-51.

Robinson, J.A. (2006), “Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: how socialentrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J.A. andHockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, London, pp. 145-60.

Robinson, J.A. (2010), “Interview”, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

Robinson, J.A., Mair, J. and Hockerts, K., (Eds) (2009), International Perspectives of SocialEntrepreneurship, Palgrave, London.

Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005), “Leadership, learning and human resource management: themeanings of social entrepreneurship today”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No. 3,pp. 95-104.

Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2005), “Social entrepreneurship: creating new business models to serve thepoor”, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 241-6.

Selsky, J.W. and Smith, A.E. (1994), “Community entrepreneurship: a framework for socialchange leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 Nos 3-4, pp. 277-96.

Sen, P. (2007), “Ashoka’s big idea: transforming the world through social entrepreneurship”,Futures, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 534-53.

Sharir, M. and Lerner, M. (2006), “Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individualsocial entrepreneurs”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 6-20.

Simms, S.V.K. and Robinson, J.A. (2008), “Activists or entrepreneur: an identity based model ofsocial entrepreneurship”, in Robinson, J., Mair, J.M. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), InternationalPerspectives in Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, London, pp. 1-35.

Thompson, J. (2002), “The world of the social entrepreneur”, The International Journal of PublicSector Management, Vol. 15 Nos 4/5, pp. 412-32.

Thompson, J. (2008), “Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship: where have we reached?:a summary of issues and discussion points”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,pp. 149-61.

Thompson, J. and Doherty, B. (2006), “The diverse world of social enterprise: a collection ofsocial enterprise stories”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6,pp. 361-75.

Thompson, J., Alvy, G. and Lees, A. (2000), “Social entrepreneurship – a new look at the peopleand the potential”, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 328-38.

Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 90-118.

Waddock, S.A. and Post, J.E. (1991), “Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change”, PublicAdministration Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 393-401.

143

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

Wallace, S.L. (1999), “Social entrepreneurship: the role of social purpose enterprises in facilitationcommunity economic development”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4No. 2, pp. 153-74.

Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G.S. (2006), “Investigating social entrepreneurship: amultidimensional model”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 21-35.

Zahra, S.A., Rawhouser, H.N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D.O. and Hayton, J.C. (2008), “Globalizationof social entrepreneurship opportunities”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2,pp. 117-31.

Zietlow, J.T. (2001), “Social entrepreneurship: managerial, finance and marketing aspects”,Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 19-43.

Zietlow, J.T. (2002), “Releasing a new wave of social entrepreneurship”, Nonprofit Managementand Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 85-90.

Appendix

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Galaskiewicz(1985)

Qualitative To demonstrate how social organization can get otherwise selfishactors to contribute resources for the common good. And also,business has to do more to impress citizens of its usefulness. Themore responsible business is to the general needs of thecommunity, the more responsive the community will be to business

Waddock andPost (1991)

Case studies Social entrepreneurs are private citizens who play critical roles inbringing about catalytic changes in the public sector agenda andthe perception of social issues. Factors that make their projectsinclude problem complexity, credibility and a commitment to acollective purpose. First, the social problem is characterized byextreme complexity, which the social entrepreneur is somehow ableto bind into a vision that has the potential to reshape publicattitudes when implemented. Second, social entrepreneurs areindividuals with significant personal credibility, which they use totap critical resources and actually build the necessary network ofparticipating organizations. Third, the social entrepreneurgenerates followers’ commitment to the project by framing it interms of important social values, rather than purely economicterms, which results in a sense of collective purpose among thesocial entrepreneur and those who join the effort

Selsky andSmith (1994)

Qualitative Times are tough for non-profit organizations attempting to deliverservices to their constituents. Community entrepreneurship is agood choice on leadership and change in non-profit community-based organizations

Leadbeater(1997)

Case studies Social entrepreneurs will be one of the most important sources ofinnovation. Social entrepreneurs identify under-utilized resources –people, buildings, equipment and find ways of putting them to useto satisfy unmet social needs. They create new welfare services andnew ways of delivering existing services. Social entrepreneurs whodeploy entrepreneurial skills for social ends are at work in parts ofthe traditional public sector, some large private sector corporationsand at the most innovative edge of the voluntary sector

(continued)

Table AI.Key studies pertinent tosocial entrepreneurship:1985-2009

144

SEJ7,2

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Bornstein(1998)

Qualitative Ashoka, an ambitious foundation, promotes social change byfinding “social entrepreneurs” – people who have new ideas and theknack for implementing them. Social entrepreneurs share a deepbelief in their ability to alter their society fundamentally, who feelso strongly that they can make a difference

Wallace (1999) Case study An attempt is made to examine the role of social and politicalcohesion in a community economic development context focusingon the emergence and dynamics of social purpose enterprises infacilitating community development and revitalization efforts. Thediscourse centers on why community economic development isessential and who can best promote community economicdevelopment. In answer to these two inquiries, the case is arguedfor the recognition of and advocacy for the expansion of socialpurpose enterprises, often operating for-profit ventures, as aneffective socio-political and economic link between government andfree market enterprise

Thompsonet al. (2000)

Qualitative Social entrepreneurs are the people who realize where there is anopportunity to satisfy some unmet need that the state welfaresystem will not or cannot meet, and who gather the necessaryresources and use these to make a difference

Dees (2001) Qualitative

In addition to innovative not-for-profit ventures, socialentrepreneurship can include social purpose business ventures,such as for-profit community development banks, and hybridorganizations mixing not-for-profit and for-profit elements, such ashomeless shelters that start businesses to train and employ theirresidentsSocial entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in thesocial sector, by: first adopting a mission to create and sustainsocial value (not just private value), second recognizing andrelentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,third engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptationand learning, fourth acting boldly without being limited byresources currently in hand and fifth exhibiting heightenedaccountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomescreated

Dees et al.(2001)

Qualitative The rising spirit of social entrepreneurship has created all kinds ofnew opportunities for non-profit organizations. However,at the same time, there are so many challenges as well. Thisessential book will help anyone in the field gain the necessaryskills to meet these challenges. Written by the leading thinkersand practitioners in the field, Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkitfor Entrepreneurs offers concise and engaging explanationsof the most successful business tools being used bynon-profits today

Zietlow (2001) Qualitative Non-profit organizations are being urged to take a morebusinesslike approach to their operations, and to add earnedincome ventures to offset cash shortfalls due to lower donation orgrant and contract revenue. Entrepreneurial ventures are not onlyseen in commercially oriented health care, arts and educationorganizations, but churches, youth organizations, soup kitchensand other donative non-profits

(continued) Table AI.

145

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Dees et al.(2002)

Qualitative This book is a complete set of tools for applying entrepreneurialstrategies and techniques to non-profit organizations. It provides afull set of practical tools for putting the lessons of businessentrepreneurship to work in social entrepreneurship, which offershands-on guidance that helps social sector leaders hone theirentrepreneurial skills and carry out their social missions moreeffectively than ever before

Guclu et al.(2002)

Qualitative An act of social entrepreneurship start with the vision of anattractive opportunity, which is one that has sufficient potential forpositive social impact to justify the investment of time, energy andmoney required to pursue it seriously. Social entrepreneurs shouldgenerate promising ideas and develop them into attractiveopportunities

Handy andRanade (2002)

Quantitative The research confirms findings by other scholars that non-profitentrepreneurs receive a high payroll from promoting social causes.Furthermore, previous experience in the sector, beliefs, culture,social class, education and family background also play animportant role. This article examines women entrepreneurs in thenon-profit sector. Entrepreneurial activity attracts certain kinds ofindividuals. Such self-selection is not a random event but isinfluenced by personal characteristics as well as socio-economicand cultural factors

Hibbert et al.(2002)

Case study The paper explores how consumer response to the Big Issue isinfluenced by the fact that the magazine is sold by homeless peoplethemselves. The findings suggest that consumers buy it bothbecause they like the magazine and because they believe that theyare helping the homeless, often paying more than the magazinecover price for the latter reason. The results also reveal thatconsumers see the direct involvement of homeless people in theexchange positively, recognizing it as an empowering process

Thompson(2002)

Case studies This paper begins by defining social entrepreneurs and socialentrepreneurship. Then, using projects considered for a charteraward under the Duke of York’s Community Initiative, it looks atwhat social entrepreneurs do and achieve for the community, at thewide scope of their world, and at the help that is available andneeded

Zietlow (2002) Qualitative The author gives the book review about Enterprising Nonprofits: AToolkit for Entrepreneurs, and believes non-profit managers willfind valuable guidance on many facets of launching and managinga new venture

Mort et al.(2003)

Qualitative Social entrepreneurship, leading to the establishment of new socialenterprises and the continued innovation in existing ones, is muchdiscussed but little understood and, given the increasingimportance of such organizations, should be addressed. This paperconceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a multi-dimensionalconstruct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuousbehavior to achieve the social mission, a coherent unity of purposeand action in the face of moral complexity, the ability to recognizesocial value-creating opportunities and key decision-makingcharacteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk taking

(continued)Table AI.

146

SEJ7,2

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Alvord et al.(2004)

Qualitative The article suggests factors associated with successful socialentrepreneurship, particularly with social entrepreneurship thatleads to significant changes in the social, political and economiccontexts for poor and marginalized groups

Bornstein(2004)

Case studies Social entrepreneurs are to social change, who are the driven,creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit newopportunities, refuse to give up and remake the world for the better

Harding (2004) Qualitative As the world’s investors become more actively interested in abroader definition of business value creation, and as policy makersbecome ever-more interested in the role of entrepreneurshipgenerally in fuelling economic growth, the role of social enterprisein creating economic and social value needs to be examined moreclosely. Yet this is where the evidence is weakest. In particular, anddespite the unquestioned interest in the subject, a single definitionof social entrepreneurship remains elusive. The exercise ofmeasuring social entrepreneurship is fraught with difficulty

Hemingway(2005)

Case study This paper makes a case for the employee as a moral agent, eventhough the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence, whichsuggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and iscompromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to adiscussion about the notion of discretion and an examination of aseparate, contrary body of literature, which indicates that someindividuals in corporations may use their discretion to behave in asocially entrepreneurial manner. It is suggested that individualsmay be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate SocialEntrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics, distinguished by theirindividualistic or collectivist personal values

Roper andCheney (2005)

Qualitative This paper explores the historical development and current usagesof the concept of social entrepreneurship. In discussion the paperquestions some of the motives of social entrepreneurs and warnsagainst uncritical acceptance of a blurring of the boundariesbetween sectors of society

Seelos andMair (2005)

Case study Social entrepreneurship is used to refer to the rapidly growing numberof organizations that have created models for efficiently catering tobasic human needs that existing markets and institutions have failedto satisfy. Social entrepreneurship combines the resourcefulness oftraditional entrepreneurship with a mission to change society

Austin et al.(2006)

Qualitative This article offers a comparative analysis of commercial and socialentrepreneurship using a prevailing analytical model fromcommercial entrepreneurship. The analysis highlights keysimilarities and differences between these two forms ofentrepreneurship and presents a framework on how to approach thesocial entrepreneurial process more systematically and effectively

Jones andKeogh (2006)

Case studies The authors want to study some of the difficulties involved indefining the nature of social enterprises and the environments inwhich they operate in order to provide a framework to show howand where social enterprises fit in the overall social economy andfind four key issues need to be addressed such as voluntaryparticipation, independence from the state, the concept of profit,and ownership and corporate governance

(continued) Table AI.

147

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Korosec andBerman (2006)

Quantitative This paper examines how cities help social entrepreneurship – theactivity of private individuals and organizations taking initiativeto address social challenges in their communities, which findsthat municipalities help social entrepreneurs by increasingawareness of social problems, and by helping them to acquireresources, coordinate with other organizations and implementprograms

Mair and Martı́(2006)

Qualitative Social entrepreneurship, as a practice and a field for scholarlyinvestigation, provides a unique opportunity to challenge, questionand rethink concepts and assumptions from different fields ofmanagement and business research. This paper puts forward aview of social entrepreneurship as a process that catalyzes socialchange and addresses important social needs in a way that is notdominated by direct financial benefits for the entrepreneurs.Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms ofentrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given topromoting social value and development vs capturingeconomic value

Peredo andMcLean (2006)

Qualitative Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person orpersons first aim either exclusively or in some prominent way tocreate social value of some kind, and pursue that goal throughsome combination of, second recognizing and exploitingopportunities to create this value, third employing innovation,fourth tolerating risk and fifth declining to accept limitations inavailable resources

Sharir andLerner (2006)

Case studies The study demonstrates eight variables as contributing to thesuccess of the social ventures, arranged in the order of theirvalue: first the entrepreneur’s social network; second totaldedication to the venture’s success; third the capital base at theestablishment stage; fourth the acceptance of the ventureidea in the public discourse; fifth the composition of theventuring team, including the ratio of volunteers to salariedemployees; sixth forming cooperations in the public andnon-profit sectors in the long term; seventh the ability of the serviceto stand the market test; and eighth the entrepreneurs’ previousmanagerial experience

Weerawardenaand Mort (2006)

Case studies Social entrepreneurship is an emerging area of investigationwithin the entrepreneurship and not-for-profit marketingliteratures. Using grounded theory method and drawing onnine in-depth case studies of social entrepreneurialnot-for-profit organizations, this paper addresses this researchgap and develops a bounded multi-dimensional model of socialentrepreneurship

Thompson(2008)

Qualitative The paper finds that social enterprises, social entrepreneurship andsocial entrepreneurs are clearly linked but there are importantdistinctions. The paper aims to provide some greater insight andhelp both scholars and practitioners in their respective quests forunderstanding and improvement. The paper could further helppeople clarify what needs to be covered on courses and degrees inthis subject area

(continued)Table AI.

148

SEJ7,2

About the author

Dr Hao Jiao is an Assistant Professor in the School of Economics and Business Administration,Beijing Normal University, China. His research interests include entrepreneurship management,innovation management and dynamic capabilities theory within the context of emergingmarkets, among others. He has published well over 30 articles in major referred journals inentrepreneurship and innovation management. Hao Jiao can be contacted at: haojiao@ymail.com

Authors Approach Focus of the paper

Zahra et al.(2008)

Qualitative Social entrepreneurship has emerged as an important researchtopic in the literature. The authors explain the forces contributingto the formation and rapid internationalization of social ventures.Based on the behavioral theory of the firm, the authors distill keyattributes of social opportunities and show how these attributesinfluence the timing and geographic scope of social ventures’international operations

Neck et al.(2009)

Qualitative The authors seek to clarify the landscape of socialentrepreneurship by introducing a typology of entrepreneurialventures. Motivation to engage in mission driven, socialentrepreneurial activity is influenced by three main factors: sourcesof opportunities, stakeholder salience and performance metrics Table AI.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

149

A model forsocial

entrepreneurship

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.