Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities via Distant Socialization

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Shah Muhammad Kamran	+ 1852 word(s)	1852	2022-03-09 10:09:50	\|
2	format correct	Nora Tang	Meta information modification	1852	2022-03-10 02:28:21	\| \|
3	format correct	Nora Tang	Meta information modification	1852	2022-03-10 02:28:51	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14063170

Social entrepreneurs are catalysts for social change on account of social value creation and opportunity identification, thereby improving the quality of life. Their contribution to society is particularly significant in times of crises and pandemics. Hence, the world health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for social entrepreneurship across the globe. ICT-based services and industry 4.0 hold a promising future during and post-COVID-19 scenario. They can facilitate a transformation of the threats of social distancing into distant socialization benefits and demand fulfillment.

social entrepreneurship opportunities distant socialization social value creation

1. Theoretical Underpinnings of Social Entrepreneurship

Multiple definitions of SE exist in literature, and they come to a consensus on having the social aim as their primary motive ^[1]. SE are also considered as constantly innovating to achieve their aims. They are termed as “entrepreneurs with a mission” ^[2], “catalyst for social transformation”, and “social problem solvers” ^[3]. There is a need for SE because of the limited budget at the hands of the government and leaving some of the social facilities to be catered through SE and social innovation ^[4].

In the entrepreneurship literature, Schumpeter’s (1934) conception is frequently characterized by experimenting with new combinations of products and services, improved production and/or delivery processes, exploring untapped markets, sourcing raw material from more efficient or sustainable channels, or establishing new organizational forms. Similarly, an entrepreneur is a person who is always in search of a change, responds to opportunities, and exploits them accordingly ^[5]. It complements Kirzner’s (1978) theory presented earlier in which he describes entrepreneurship as the activity of being open and alert to changing circumstances and of being able to exploit value-creating opportunities ^[6]. Although Drucker and Kirzner primarily focused on the commercial type of entrepreneurship, they acknowledged the non-economic and non-commercial aspects of entrepreneurship as well, such as in the field of academia and healthcare. This non-commercial side is termed SE, and theories of Schumpeter, Drucker, and Kirzner have helped in understanding the evolving nature of entrepreneurship. Practically, it can be explained by giving examples of individuals (social activists for women’s and others’ rights, community organizers, slavery abolitionists, etc.) or organizations (Red Cross, Grameen Bank, among others), which are motivated by social goals regarding the provision of basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter, and meeting other social needs. SE is primarily different from commercial entrepreneurship in terms of motives and agenda, which are social transformation and social change, respectively, instead of sole monetary profit and political or any other power.

2. Theories of Social Entrepreneurship

The key themes in entrepreneurship can be framed through a myriad of theories, including contingency theory, creation theory, discovery theory, theory of innovation diffusion, and resource dependency theory, among others. However, the traditional theories of entrepreneurship do not suffice in the context of social entrepreneurship. For instance, the resource-based theory typically explains how organizations create a competitive edge in the market. However, it is against the basic premise of SE in terms of giving priority to a social cause and creating societal value instead of garnering higher profitability ^[7]. Instead, Schumpeterian and Kirznerian theory is better equipped to explain the social entrepreneur’s ability to discern the opportunity in uncertain circumstances by embedding the dimensions of instrumental rationality and pro-activeness ^[8]. Moreover, mobilization and participation theory for social change can also be employed for social entrepreneurship, since this research, in particular, intends to inspire and mobilize the social capital of developed, as well as developing, economies to opt for products, services, and ideas that can mitigate the social, economic, and ecological impact of uncertain circumstances. This is achieved through SE’s collective-driven and collective-oriented approach, which relies on collaborations and alliances ^[9].

3. Disaster Management through Social Entrepreneurship

Disasters can be naturally occurring, such as tsunamis, famines, landslides, or man-made, such as wars, terrorism, and/or human activity-induced pandemics and toxic chemical fall-outs. They adversely affect people’s physical lives in terms of injury, death, destruction, loss of property and physical spaces. Additionally, they hamper the availability of market spaces, such as stores, marts, and places of social connections, such as religious congregation places and parks, restaurants, among others. In Newton’s (1997) view, disasters are not isolated phenomena; they rather occur within a social system and are a social phenomenon. This loss of physical and social spaces is mended primarily through the initiatives of SE adopted by commercial entrepreneurs.

Social entrepreneurs make valuable contribution pre-, post-, and during disasters, in acting as a buffer to reduce the shock of the disaster and engage in activism and advocacy on behalf of communities. For instance, pre-disaster activities include raising awareness and providing information to the communities regarding its scale, scope, and probability of occurrence. Additionally, they facilitate the evacuation from the vulnerable areas and settle them in temporary shelters.

During the disasters, they offer relief services, authentic information assessment of current losses, and realistic future projections of the damages people will be facing. After the disasters, they organize volunteers to search for the missing people, engage in delivering aid and assistance, and lobby for the allocation of government resources for public services in order to facilitate a return to normal life and rebuild their communities. To this end, they also advocate central government to provide them with basic necessities, such as food, shelter, water, and essential healthcare services ^[10]^[11].

4. Paradox of Social Entrepreneurship at the Time of Social Distancing during Pandemic

In December 2019, the world heard of a viral spread of a novel disease within China, its epicenter being Wuhan, which was termed by the scientists as the novel coronavirus (and COVID-19), likely from an animal source. It caused the severe acute respiratory syndrome (commonly abbreviated as SARS-CoV-2). Within two short months, the virus shook the world with its baffling contagious ability causing loss of lives and global panic ^[12]. By March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported over 0.4 million positive cases and approximately 20,000 deaths worldwide, the virus spreading its deadly imprint to 197 countries of the world ^[13]. It is predicted to be one of the deadliest pandemics of the current century, with symptoms such as breathing difficulty, high-grade fever, and dry and persistent cough. The complications include pneumonia, lung, kidney, and heart failure leading to death, and the most vulnerable persons include senior citizens, pregnant women, smokers, and people with chronic illnesses and medical conditions ^[14]. Additionally, it is observed that the Asian population is more susceptible to this virus as compared to other races of the world ^[15].

According to the World Health Organization, the only way to contain it is through limiting and/or eliminating physical proximity among people (person-to-person physical contact), and they have termed their varying degrees as quarantine, social distancing, and isolation, respectively, for a certain period. It has become a major health crisis in the world, and the sole precautionary measure against the virus is minimizing human contact to reduce the exponential spread of the disease ^[12].

Governments around the world initiated public awareness campaigns along with an extended lockdown to increase the likelihood of maximum social distancing. Social distancing, as defined by UNICEF, is avoiding gatherings and maintaining a distance of 6 feet from another person (s). This social distancing is a realistic solution and a boon in terms of preventing the spread of the virus and reducing the burden on the already fragile healthcare systems of the affected countries ^[16]. However, at the same time, studies report the post-traumatic stress symptoms due to the outbreak of the disease in general, and social distance in particular. Social distancing has not only led to mental issues, irritability, and isolation but also major physical inconveniences, such as inadequate ration and supplies ^[17]^[18].

This has opened a major gap and opportunity for stepping-in of SE to ensure meeting general public’s, and especially under-privileged people’s, physical, emotional, and financial needs.

Even though commercial entrepreneurship is much discussed in the post-disaster academic literature, there is a dearth of critical contributions made by SE during or post-disaster revival and recovery of the communities. Moreover, no discussion is conducted regarding the hurdles that SE must overcome for restoring economic and social health in the communities by both extending their community-based services and introducing new ones to meet the heightened needs (such as food, shelter, financial, emotional, and spiritual support) of those hit by disasters and calamities ^[11].

5. Social Entrepreneurs during Crisis

SE is not an easy task in the time of disasters and pandemics when it is needed the most. Besides other difficulties, the two serious issues are societal consensus and organizational problems. The societal consensus is a consensus aggregation problem and the challenge of getting members of the community to agree on the types of social goods that should be supplied from a list of demands ^[19]. The organizational problem is the lack of the required set of resources and skills to address a new and unanswered problem, especially in emergencies ^[20].

This organizational problem appears as the absence of a business continuity plan, which is crucial for every kind of firm, irrespective of the nature and scale of business. It is as vital for SE as it is for normal firms. Firms typically have predefined plans for business continuity in case of disaster, both pre- and post-disaster, depending on the nature of the business ^[21]. Entrepreneurship and, more precisely, the social entrepreneurial business continuity plan, emphasize two approaches: either conducting business throughout a disastrous circumstance or reopening afterward, to establish sales streams and profitability by fulfilling the post-disaster demand for social goods. This is achieved by the capabilities of the business to “continue delivery of products or services at acceptable levels following a disruptive incident” ^[22].

The coronavirus pandemic intensified the demand for SE with social innovations to assist the most vulnerable in society. Today, in the time of COVID-19, SE is needed more than ever because of the negative effect on health and economic downfall of the already marginalized, vulnerable, and those who depend on the day-to-day earnings ^[23].

One important characteristic at the time of crises is the resilience depicted by enterprises ^[24], which is their ability to continue operating at the time of crisis and disruption. Conceptually, this ability is fed by the presence of the already accumulated resources in pre-crisis times, which are strategically deployed to ease the impact of the crisis. Similarly, this entrepreneurial resilience is of critical importance during COVID-19. A few studies conducted on crisis management in the entrepreneurship context discuss the steps taken by entrepreneurs to reduce the magnitude of the repercussions, including the adaptation in sales, marketing, human resource management, including employment practices ^[24]. More specifically, small entrepreneurial enterprises are more flexible and adaptable, and the same is expected of them during COVID-19 and its associated dynamics, such as social distancing and lockdowns ^[25]^[26]. Entrepreneurial crisis management is closely associated with the notion of bricolage, which asserts the need for iterative and flexible approaches, including effectual logic instead of adopting rigid practices, especially during a global pandemic such as COVID-19 ^[27]. Moreover, the resilient entrepreneurs are those who bring positive social change (creating change and opportunities) with their scarce resources, which is an effectual principle ^[28]. This is precisely a trait that the aforementioned enterprises and initiatives across the globe have exhibited in this hour of need.

References

Elkington, J.; Hartigan, P. The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets That Change the World, 1st ed.; Harvard Business Review Press: Brighton, UK, 2008.
Dees, J.G. A Tale of Two Cultures: Charity, Problem Solving, and the Future of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 321–334.
Alvord, S.H.; Brown, L.D.; Letts, C.W. Social Entreprenuership and Social Transfor-Mation: And Exploratory Strudy; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 1–26.
Phillips, W.; Lee, H.; Ghobadian, A.; O’Regan, N.; James, P. Social Innovation and Social En-trepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Gr. Organ. Manag. 2015, 40, 428–461.
Schumpeter, J. The Theory of Economic Development—An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934.
Drucker, P.F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
Short, J.; Moss, T.; Lumpkin, G. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2009, 3, 161–191.
Shockley, G.; Frank, P. Schumpeter, Kirzner, and the Field of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Soc. Entrep. 2011, 2, 6–26.
Jørgensen, M.T.; Hansen, A.V.; Sørensen, F.; Fuglsang, L.; Sundbo, J.; Jensen, J.F. Collective tourism social entrepreneurship: A means for community mobilization and social transformation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 88, 103171.
Newton, J. Federal Legislation for Disaster Mitigation: A Comparative Assessment between Canada and the United States. Nat. Hazards 1997, 16, 219–241.
Chamlee-Wright, E.; Storr, V.H. The role of social entrepreneurship in post-katrina commu-nity recovery. In The Political Economy of Hurricane Katrina and Community Rebound; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 87–106.
Vellingiri, B.; Jayaramayya, K.; Iyer, M.; Narayanasamy, A.; Govindasamy, V.; Giridharan, B.; Ganesan, S.; Venugopal, A.; Venkatesan, D.; Ganesan, H.; et al. COVID-19: A promising cure for the global panic. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138277.
WHO. COVID-19. HO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19—11 March 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 9 April 2020).
Wu, Z.; McGoogan, J.M. Characteristics of and Important Lessons from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020, 323, 1239–1242.
Xu, Y. Unveiling the Origin and Transmission of 2019-nCoV. Trends Microbiol. 2020, 28, 239–240.
Zheng, Z.; Huyan, Y.; Li, H.; Sun, S.; Xu, Y. Social distancing during the COVID-19 PEN-DEMIC: Staying home save lives. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2019, 301, 127065.
Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920.
Rana, W.; Mukhtar, S.; Mukhtar, S. Mental health of medical workers in Pakistan during the pandemic COVID-19 outbreak. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 51, 102080.
Arrow, K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1970.
Coleman, J.S. Community disorganization and conflict. In Contemporary Social Problems, 3rd ed.; Merton, R.A., Nisbet, R., Eds.; Harcourt Brace: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1971; pp. 657–708.
Herbane, B.; Elliott, D.; Swartz, E.M. Business Continuity Management: Time for a strategic role? Long Range Plan. 2004, 37, 435–457.
ISO. ISO 22301:2012 Societal Security—Business Continuity Management Systems—Requirements. 2012. Available online: www.iso.org (accessed on 30 April 2020).
Bonnici, F.; Raja, P. 6 Ways Social Innovators Are Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cologny. 2020. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/how-social-innovators-are-responding-to-the-covid19-pandemic/ (accessed on 6 September 2020).
Doern, R.; Williams, N.; Vorley, T. Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: Business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2018, 31, 400–412.
Smallbone, D.; Deakins, D.; Battisti, M.; Kitching, J. Small business responses to a major economic downturn: Empirical perspectives from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2012, 30, 754–777.
Kuckertz, A.; Brändle, L.; Gaudig, A.; Hinderer, S.; Reyes, C.A.M.; Prochotta, A.; Steinbrink, K.M.; Berger, E.S.C. Startups in times of crisis––A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 13, e00169.
Mallak, L. Putting organizational resilience to work. Ind. Manag. 1998, 40, 8–13.
Martinelli, E.; Tagliazucchi, G.; Marchi, G. The resilient retail entrepreneur: Dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2018, 24, 1222–1243.

© 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

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Shah Kamran

View Times: 455

Entry Collection: COVID-19

Update Date: 10 Mar 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm