Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Jorge Merladet
 + 1747 word(s) 1747 2021-11-26 08:51:43 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
Meta information modification 1747 2021-12-13 02:11:40 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Merladet, J. Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16953 (accessed on 04 July 2024).
Merladet J. Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16953. Accessed July 04, 2024.
Merladet, Jorge. "Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16953 (accessed July 04, 2024).
Merladet, J. (2021, December 09). Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16953
Merladet, Jorge. "Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 December, 2021.
Social Entrepreneurs for Innovative Professional Career Developments
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su132313044

Social impact and innovation are crucial aspects of any social entrepreneurship project. There are some fundamental common factors as critical determinants of the final social entrepreneurial decision and result: (i) motivations such as emotional connection, moral judgment, personal dissatisfaction, purpose achievement and change, and social needs; (ii) personal internal resources such as connection skills, conviction, creativity, efficiency skills, and learning orientation; (iii) facilitating external factors such as financial and social support, higher and social education, relevant past events, and previous professional experience. Putting together all these factors, there is a theoretical framework that can explain social entrepreneurship as an alternative career option and connect it with a dominant social entrepreneur’s narrative and profile.

social entrepreneurship career development purpose vocation social innovation

1. Social Entrepreneurs

Social entrepreneurship is a relevant field of study from sociological and research-based perspectives [1]. Social entrepreneurs are oriented towards a social mission [2]; they pursue a fair distribution of social income [3], focusing on alleviating the most unfavored segments of society [4] and establishing commercial profit as a secondary priority [5].
Social entrepreneurs deal with opposing forces in a continuous effort to balance brain and heart, logic and feelings, and results and values [6]. They build their projects by combining ideas, passion, and engagement from every relevant person in the organization. They elaborate a common discourse, incorporating all possible sensitivities and priorities [7].
These entrepreneurs need to be in the marketplace, offering competitive products and services [8]. They have beneficiaries, not only customers, who need those products and services, which they cannot afford [9]. Following the inner purpose of their organizations is the best way to make them sustainable [10]. The commercial perspective should be compatible with the mission statement [11][12][13] and very much connected with a specific local community’s needs and aspirations [14][15][16].
Social entrepreneurs live in what Swanson and Zhang [17] call “the social entrepreneurship zone”, including social change as part of their mission. However, they do not want to depend on external resources that they cannot control. They want to generate their own sources of income in order to be sustainable and be able to accomplish their social missions in the long run. A commercial activity offers social entrepreneurship more flexibility and autonomy in its operations. However, excessive dependence on their commercial activity might be a concern for this kind of organization, as they risk losing focus on fulfilling their social missions. Many questions, still to be fully answered, can be raised in that respect: Can social entrepreneurship behave like a commercial enterprise and still accomplish its social mission? Will commercial activity negatively affect a social entrepreneurship’s reputation, or could it be considered a new source of legitimacy in a changing environment in terms of resource management? There is still uncertainty today about the impact of commercial strategies on the fundamental cultural values of these institutions. As Froelich [18] states, existing studies initially manifest the compatibility between this commercial approach and the preservation of founding mission statements due to the flexibility that it allows. However, future research must establish a more precise conclusion to this issue.

2. The Decision-Making Process in Social Entrepreneurships

Social entrepreneurships are born within a context of high volatility and uncertainty. They depend on vital resources, the supply of which may be affected by unknown circumstances, damaging the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations [19]. Resource dependence theory helps in identifying these potential problems [20] and offers alternative solutions to satisfy stakeholders’ needs [21] without losing control over the mission to accomplish [22].
Resource dependence theory develops the idea of interdependence [23], meaning that anyone acting in a certain context depends on others in terms of vital resources for its operations in that context [24]. That is why the ability of social entrepreneurs to establish rich and long-term alliances with different stakeholders, in a kind of resource exchange process, makes their ventures more productive and sustainable [25][26]. These symmetric relationships are based on mutual trust, with frequent and close interactions not only on a professional basis but with a personal touch too [27][28][29]. Resource dependence theory is a good reference to understand the difficulty and complexity of managing scarce resources in the most collaborative and efficient way [30][31].
Social entrepreneurships bring social change [32] through creative initiatives [13][33], contributing to solving social problems [34]. They efficiently manage scarce resources with new transformative ideas, improving vulnerable people´s lives [35][36][37]. None of these would be possible without close interaction with their local communities [38][39] and the persistent commitment of prominent local members [40][41]. To achieve their objectives, social entrepreneurs build rich platforms for collaboration [42]; they welcome everyone who is able to contribute to the solution of the social problem they want to solve [27][28][29].
Social entrepreneurs have become role models for an alternative professional career path to develop sustainable socio-economic projects with their narratives and psychological circumstances [43]. Analyzing these narratives can lead us to the biographical aspects of their lives and backgrounds that are related to their intentions to build their social enterprises [44][45]. Identifying and describing the specific social entrepreneurial intentions and motives have been another critical issue in understanding the determinants behind social entrepreneurship [46][47][48]. Social entrepreneurs can then become role models to be followed by young graduates in order to build personally fulfilling and socially beneficial careers [49][50].
In their decision-making process [51], social entrepreneurs have a clear motivational component that includes aspects such as the desire to become so and how feasible they think this might be. The motivational component has a lot to do with the entrepreneurial intention process, connected with the entrepreneurs’ desire and conviction to start their ventures [9]. The feasibility that they see in that accomplishment is related to the personal resources that they have developed in terms of personal competence and self-efficacy, with external facilitating factors such as social support [52][53][54].
Personal resources are another critical component of this decision-making process. Some authors connect this component with the concept of human capital, which includes aspects such as knowledge, skills, and the ability to integrate other people´s resources [55][56][57][58]. An essential part of that knowledge is understanding customers´ needs and satisfying them in innovative ways [53][59]. Other researchers have identified some critical abilities in the decision-making process, aligned with what they consider virtuous entrepreneurial behaviors [60]. Four of them are dominantly mentioned: entrepreneurial opportunities recognition, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking [61][62]. Another vital skill is especially present in later stages of the decision-making process: learning [63]. The decision-making process of social entrepreneurs involves learning orientation and learning capability as key adaptative instruments to manage the impact of uncertain influence factors [64].
Finally, there is a third component related to all the external circumstances that might positively influence the final decision of these entrepreneurs to initiate their projects. There are authors relating this component to the concept of social capital, which includes environmental and institutional factors such as financial support, education programs, public policies, and network relationships [65][66]. Networking is both an external factor facilitating entrepreneurship in its initial phase and a personal resource in terms of the social entrepreneurs´ ability to build their network [67].
Social entrepreneurship has a unique strategy adaptation: building alliances with different stakeholders to manage uncertain factors in a diverse manner [68]. High levels of uncertainty and resource limitations make social entrepreneurs very efficient managers, keen on identifying market opportunities, building strategic alliances, and approaching every challenge in the most flexible way [69]. The decision-making process of these entrepreneurs is meant to answer this simple question: what can be done, in terms of mission accomplishment, with the resources at hand to fulfill their aspirations [70]. Decision-making is then equivalent to a learning process with no linear progression, adapting to every relevant circumstance changing in the environment [71].
As we can see in Table 1, different authors concur in studying the factors behind the decision to launch a social enterprise. We integrate these different factors into a classification with three main categories: motivations, personal internal resources, and external facilitating factors. A fourth category, “unintended consequences”, is much less present in the literature, with only some scarce references to “unexpected spillovers” [72].
Table 1. Total coding and literature.
Propositions, Classification, and Factors Literature
Motivations Emotional connection Emotional antecedents (empathy) [73]
Moral judgment Compassion [74]; Social justice and sense of obligation [46]; Spiritualism [44]; Compassion [72]; Morality [75]
Personal dissatisfaction or need Emotional antecedents and frustration [73]
Purpose, achievement, change recognition Prosocial cost–benefit analysis [74]; Altruism, achievement, influence [46]; Altruism [44]; Prosocial benefit [72]; Altruism [75]; Achievement orientation, changing structures and policies [48]
Social and community needs The entrepreneurial process [73]; Commitment to alleviating suffering [74]; Nurturance [46]; Positive externalities [72]; Closeness to social problem and commitment to helping society, creating social value [48]
Personal resources Connection skills Network embeddedness [73]; Integrative thinking [74]; Relatedness [46]; Collectivism [44]; Stakeholder involvement [72]; Relationship with the community, Cooperation [75]
Conviction Persistence [75]
Creativity Creativity and innovation [73]; Innovation [75]
Efficiency skills Managing and structuring social enterprise [73]; Autonomy [46]
Learning orientation Strategic openness [72]
Facilitating factors Financial and social support The nature of financial risks and profit [73]; Institutional conditions [74]; Resources [44]
Education Higher education [44]
Past events Emotional antecedents [46]
Professional experience Entrepreneurialism, professionalism [44]
Source: own elaboration.
Shaw and Carter [73] conducted inductive research that led them to identify the “emotional antecedents” and “themes” found in the interviews of a broad sample of social entrepreneurs. In a different line of study, some authors [74][75] have produced theoretical papers summarizing the “motivations” leading to setting a social enterprise. Others [46][48][72] have established social entrepreneurs’ “motives” based on case studies. A study by Chandra et al. [44] shows a quantitative analysis aimed at clustering social enterprises by the motive behind their creation.
Accordingly, we elaborate the following proposition:
Proposition 1. 
There are motivation factors (emotional connection, moral judgment, personal dissatisfaction or need, purpose achievement and change recognition, and social and community needs) affecting the intention and decision of social entrepreneurs to develop their social entrepreneurship projects.
From the studies mentioned above, we have extracted some key concepts related to what we consider “personal internal resources”. For example (see Table 1), we integrate into “connection skills” aspects such as network embeddedness [73], integrative thinking [74], stakeholder involvement [72], and collectivism [44].
Accordingly, we elaborate the following proposition:
Proposition 2. 
There are personal internal resources (connection skills, conviction, creativity, efficiency skills, and learning orientation) affecting the intention and decision of social entrepreneurs to develop their social entrepreneurship projects.
Previous literature is coincidental in underlying the dominant effects of some external conditions related to the context in which social entrepreneurs decide to start their projects. We have labeled all these conditions under the category of “external facilitating factors”. For example (see Table 1), we compile in “financial and social support” issues such as institutional conditions [74], resources [44], and nature of financial risk and profit [73].
Accordingly, we present this proposition:
Proposition 3. 
There are facilitating external factors (financial and social support, higher and social education, past events, and professional experience) affecting the intention and decision of social entrepreneurs to develop their social entrepreneurship projects.

References

  1. Rawhouser, H.; Cummings, M.; Newbert, S.L. Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 43, 82–115.
  2. Rey-Martí, A.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Palacios-Marqués, D. A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1651–1655.
  3. Zahra, S.A.; Gedajlovic, E.; Neubaum, D.O.; Shulman, J.M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009, 24, 519–532.
  4. Tan, W.-L.; Williams, J.; Tan, T.-M. Defining the ‘Social’ in ‘Social Entrepreneurship’: Altruism and Entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2005, 1, 353–365.
  5. Agafonow, A. Toward A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. On Maximizing Versus Satisficing Value Capture. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 709–713.
  6. Smith, W.K.; Besharov, M.L.; Wessels, A.K.; Chertok, M. A Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and Commercial Demands. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 463–478.
  7. Seanor, P.; Bull, M.; Baines, S.; Ridley-Duff, R. Narratives of transition from social to enterprise: You can’t get there from here! Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2013, 19, 324–343.
  8. Estrin, S.; Mickiewicz, T.; Stephan, U. Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2016, 4, 449–467.
  9. Mair, J.; Marti, I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. J. World Bus. 2006, 1, 36–44.
  10. Boschee, J. Social entrepreneurs. Across Board 1995, 32, 20–25.
  11. Alvord, S.H.; Brown, L.D.; Letts, C.W. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2016, 40, 260–282.
  12. Verreynne, M.-L.; Miles, M.P.; Harris, C. A short note on entrepreneurship as method: A social enterprise perspective. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2012, 9, 113–128.
  13. Choi, N.; Majumdar, S. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. J. Bus. Ventur. 2014, 29, 363–376.
  14. Liu, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Jiang, S.; Hu, S. Social entrepreneurs’ personal network, resource bricolage and relation strength. Manag. Decis. 2021, 59, 2774–2791.
  15. Guo, L.X.; Liu, C.F.; Yain, Y.S. Social Entrepreneur’s Psychological Capital, Political Skills, Social Networks and New Venture Performance. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1–10.
  16. Lundström, A.; Zhou, C. Rethinking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: A Three-Dimensional Perspective. Soc. Entrep. 2014, 29, 71–89.
  17. Swanson, L.A.; Zhang, D.D. The social entrepreneurship zone. J. Nonprofit Public Sector Mark. 2010, 22, 71–88.
  18. Froelich, K.A. Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 1999, 28, 246–268.
  19. Hillman, A.J.; Withers, M.C.; Collins, B.J. Resource Dependence Theory: A Review. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 1404–1427.
  20. Ilyas, S.; Butt, M.; Ashfaq, F.; Maran, D.A. Drivers for Non-Profits’ Success: Volunteer Engagement and Financial Sustainability Practices through the Resource Dependence Theory. Economies 2020, 8, 101.
  21. Sales, X. Performance Management System in a Non-profit Local Governmental Broadcaster. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2013, 5, 13–23.
  22. Helmig, B.; Ingerfurth, S.; Pinz, A. Success and Failure of Nonprofit Organizations: Theoretical Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Future Research. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2013, 25, 1509–1538.
  23. Nguyen, L.; Szkudlarek, B.; Seymour, R.G. Social impact measurement in social enterprises: An interdependence perspective. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2015, 32, 224–237.
  24. Pfeffer, J.; Salancik, G.R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 309.
  25. Austin, J.; Stevenson, H.; Wei-Skillern, J. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 1–22.
  26. Smith, B.R.; Stevens, C.E. Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010, 22, 575–598.
  27. Newbert, S.L.; Tornikoski, E.T. Resource acquisition in the emergence phase: Considering the effects of embeddedness and resource dependence. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2013, 37, 249–280.
  28. McNamara, P.; Pazzaglia, F.; Sonpar, K. Large-Scale Events as Catalysts for Creating Mutual Dependence Between Social Ventures and Resource Providers. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 470–500.
  29. Zaheer, A.; Venkatraman, N. Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 373–392.
  30. Chen, F.-W.; Fu, L.-W.; Wang, K.; Tsai, S.-B.; Su, C.-H. The Influence of Entrepreneurship and Social Networks on Economic Growth—From a Sustainable Innovation Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2510.
  31. Short, J.C.; Moss, T.W.; Lumpkin, G.T. Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2009, 3, 161–194.
  32. Sandberg, B. Against the Cult(ure) of the Entrepreneur for the Nonprofit Sector. Adm. Theory Prax. 2016, 38, 52–67.
  33. Hargadon, A.B.; Douglas, Y. When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Adm. Sci. Q. 2016, 46, 476–501.
  34. Bolton, M.K. Organizational Innovation and Substandard Performance: When is Necessity the Mother of Innovation? Organ. Sci. 1993, 4, 57–75.
  35. Baker, T.; Nelson, R.E. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Adm. Sci. Q. 2005, 50, 329–366.
  36. Gundry, L.K.; Kickul, J.R.; Griffiths, M.D.; Bacq, S.C. Creating Social Change Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs’ Catalytic Innovations. In Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship; Lumpkin, G.T., Katz, J.A., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; Volume 13, pp. 1–24.
  37. Bacq, S.; Ofstein, L.F.; Kickul, J.R.; Gundry, L.K. Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2015, 16, 283–289.
  38. Zilber, T.B. Stories and the Discursive Dynamics of Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Case of Israeli High-tech after the Bubble. Organ. Stud. 2007, 28, 1035–1054.
  39. Parkinson, C.; Howorth, C. The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2008, 3, 285–309.
  40. Pfeilstetter, R.; Gómez-Carrasco, I. Local meanings of social enterprise. A historical-particularist view on hybridity of organizations. REVESCO Rev. Estud. Coop. 2020, 134, e69162.
  41. Battilana, J.; Leca, B.; Boxenbaum, E. How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 65–107.
  42. Mair, J.; Marti, I. Entrepreneurship for social impact: Encouraging market access in rural Bangladesh. Corporate Governance: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2007, 7, 493–501.
  43. Cohen, H.; Katz, H. Social entrepreneurs narrating their careers: A psychodynamic-existential perspective. Aust. J. Career Dev. 2016, 25, 78–88.
  44. Chandra, Y.; Shang, L. Unpacking the biographical antecedents of the emergence of social enterprises: A narrative perspective. VOLUNTAS: Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2017, 28, 2498–2529.
  45. Asarkaya, C.; Taysir, N.K. Founder’s background as a catalyst for social entrepreneurship. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2019, 30, 155–166.
  46. Ruskin, J.; Seymour, R.G.; Webster, C.M. Why Create Value for Others? An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurial Motives. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2016, 54, 1015–1037.
  47. Hockerts, K. Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 105–130.
  48. Wanyoike, C.N.; Maseno, M. Exploring the motivation of social entrepreneurs in creating successful social enterprises in East Africa. N. Engl. J. Entrep. 2021. ahead-of-print.
  49. Mandyoli, B.; Iwu, C.G. Determining The Nexus Between Social Entrepreneurship and the Employability of Graduates. Socioecon. Naučni Časopis Teoriju Praksu Društveno-Ekon. Razvoja 2016, 5, 279–298.
  50. Huq, A.; Gilbert, D.H. Enhancing graduate employability through work-based learning in social entrepreneurship: A case study. Educ. + Train. 2013, 55, 550–572.
  51. Jiao, H. A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Soc. Enterp. J. 2011, 7, 130–149.
  52. Thompson, J.; Alvy, G.; Lees, A. Social entrepreneurship—A new look at the people and the potential. Manag. Decis. 2000, 38, 328–338.
  53. Guclu, A.; Dees, J.G.; Anderson, B.B. The Process of Social Entrepreneurship: Creating Opportunities Worthy of Serious Pursuit; Fuqua Shool of Business: Durham, NC, USA, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 1–15.
  54. Simms, S.V.K.; Robinson, J. Activist or Entrepreneur? An Identity-based Model of Social Entrepreneurship. Int. Perspect. Soc. Entrep. Res. 2009, 9–26. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253737397_Activist_or_entrepreneur_an_identity-based_model_of_social_entrepreneurship (accessed on 25 October 2021).
  55. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; Volume 27, p. 6637.
  56. Becker, G. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994.
  57. Davidsson, P.; Honig, B. The role of social and human capital among nascent enrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventiruing 2003, 18, 301–331.
  58. Danna, D.; Porche, D. Establishing a Nonprofit Organization: A Venture of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Nurse Pract. 2008, 4, 751–752.
  59. Dees, J.G. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship.” Duke Faqua 2001, 1–5. Available online: https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
  60. Mort, S.G.; Weerawardena, J.; Carnegie, K. Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2003, 8, 76–88.
  61. Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1991, 16, 7–26.
  62. Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field Definition of Entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 217–226.
  63. Slater, S.F.; Narver, J.C. Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 63.
  64. Wang, F.; He, H. Identification and decision making of social entrepreneurship opportunities based on family social capital and prior knowledge. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 2020, 57, 73–84.
  65. Burt, R.S. Structural Holes. In The Social Structure of Competition; Havard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.
  66. Bourdieu, P.; Wacquant, L. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997.
  67. Dees, J.G.; Emerson, J.; Economy, P. Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
  68. Rangan, V.K.; Gregg, T. How Social Entrepreneurs Zig-Zag Their Way to Impact at Scale. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 62, 53–76.
  69. Yusuf, J.-E. (Wie); Sloan, M.F. Effectual Processes in Nonprofit Start-Ups and Social Entrepreneurship: An Illustrated Discussion of a Novel Decision-Making Approach. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2015, 45, 417–435.
  70. Sarasvathy, S.D. What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial? Bus. Soc. Rev. 2001.
  71. Ladevéze, N.L.; Núñez, M. Noción de emprendimiento para una formación escolar en competencia emprendedora. Rev. Lat. Comun. Soc. 2016, 71, 1068–1089.
  72. Pittz, T.G.; Madden, L.T.; Mayo, D. Catalyzing Social Innovation: Leveraging Compassion and Open Strategy in Social Entrepreneurship. N. Engl. J. Entrep. 2017, 20, 37–52.
  73. Shaw, E.; Carter, S. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2007, 14, 418–434.
  74. Miller, T.L.; Grimes, M.G.; Mcmullen, J.S.; Vogus, T.J. Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 616–640.
  75. Miculaiciuc, A. Social Entrepreneurship: Evolucions, Characteristics, Values and Motivations. Ann. Univ. Oradea Econ. Sci. 2019, 28, 63–71.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Business; Ethics
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Jorge Merladet
View Times: 569
Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Dec 2021
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback