Social Entrepreneurship Conceptual Approaches: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Jessie Wu and Version 2 by Jessie Wu.

Social entrepreneurship defines organizations or initiatives that, by producing and/or transacting goods or services, seek new solutions to persistent social problems, thus generating high social value. In other words, that deliberately subject their economic strategy to social priorities and place the social mission at the center of their concerns. Such social priorities include poverty, unemployment, education, health, local development, or the environment. Outside this common base, the aggregation of other characteristics or delimitations has given rise to conceptual fuzziness, namely, as to the organizational forms to be adopted (restricted to non-profit organizations or open to for-profit businesses with clear social purposes) and the weight of the social dimension in SE. Another manifestation of conceptual malleability emerges from the coexistence of different schools of thought. On the opposite side, one notes the narrowing of the concept, which mainly derives from a Westernized vision and still pays little attention to the contributions from developing countries. In addition to analyzing these topics, the current entry points out some recommendations regarding the deepening of scientific research in this field. 

  • entrepreneurship
  • social entrepreneurship
  • schools of thought
  • social enterprise
  • social problems
  • social transformation
  • social economy
Although relatively new, the phenomenon (concept and practice) of social entrepreneurship (SE) has been attracting growing interest and support. The concept originated in the United States and quickly spread to other Anglo-Saxon countries. More recently, and alongside some expressions of interest detected in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa, in Europe initiatives to promote social entrepreneurship have multiplied: mobilization of civil society, specialized training, identification of good practices, congresses and thematic seminars, academic research, and even growing attention from the European Union itself.
Regarding research, the various literature reviews on SE [1][2][3][4] show a considerable increase in scientific production in this field, with research coming from various scientific areas and multiple geographies. It is an extremely current research field characterized by a very slow but constant trend, which began to have some expression in the 1980s and 1990s [5][6][7][8][9][10], but above all has registered a significant boom in scientific production during the last decade [11][12]. While giving visibility to and deepening the concept of SE, the heterogeneity of contributions [13] has also contributed to the fact that a relatively universal concept of what should be understood by SE has not yet been stabilized [14][15][16][17]. When talking about SE, it has become clear that we speak of organizations or initiatives that, by producing and/or transacting goods or services, generate high social value [18]—that is, that deliberately submit their economic strategy to social priorities and place the social mission at the center of their concerns. In this equation, the social mission is the “compass” that guides economic and management choices. Outside this common basis, the aggregation of other characteristics or delimitations has given rise to multiple definitions and different schools of thought, which vary according to the authors and the contexts in which they are pronounced.
This conceptual malleability can be observed in the way that, for example, some authors consider that the pursuit of the social objectives by a social venture necessarily involves the adoption of democratic organizational models (participatory dynamics, deliberative culture, broad diffusion of decision rights or shared ownership) [19], and that this culture is essentially rooted in non-profit organizations, which are therefore more apt to being social enterprises. Meanwhile, other views argue that for a social enterprise to be viable, it must adopt a business-like behavior and be innovative and competitive in its field, and even that social goals can be included but not assumed as priorities in the organizations’ activities. On the other hand, it can also be seen that the notion of SE is still very much influenced by a Westernized vision that pays little attention to the contributions from developing countries. Similarly, some definitions, placing the individual entrepreneur at the center of the action, give insufficient value to the role that context and collectives, whether organizations, groups, or communities, play in the emergence and consolidation of a social initiative.
These are just a few examples of the conceptual fuzziness that characterizes the understanding of what a social enterprise is (and can be). The observation and description of the different conceptual approaches that characterize the field of SE is one of the main objectives of this entry. Its achievement is associated with the pursuit of another objective, which even precedes the previous one: that of presenting, from the historical and scientific point of view, the genesis and evolution of the SE concept. Among other aspects, it is important to clarify the transition from the concept of entrepreneur to that of social entrepreneur, and then to pay special attention to how different schools of thought have been built around this concept, reflecting different paths and contexts. Finally, we believe it is pertinent to deepen the analysis on the importance of the social dimension in the context of SE and, furthermore, to perspective paths for the deepening of research and the consolidation of the SE concept.
As for its structure, the entry begins with the presentation of the concept of an entrepreneur, which historically precedes those of a social entrepreneur and social enterprise. Following the historical background, the paper outlines, in Section 3, a contrasted analysis of the diversity of perceptions as to what “is” and “is not” SE. In Section 4, the object of analysis is the constitution of distinct schools of thought, in its evolution from two (reflecting the separation between the European and North American views) to four approaches. In the fifth section, we focus on the place of the “social” in SE, specifying how the European tradition of the social economy interferes in determining the social principles by which a social enterprise should be governed. Section 6 presents some recommendations that have been made regarding the deepening of scientific research in this field. The entry concludes with some final considerations, as a synthesis of the path taken throughout it.

References

  1. 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.
  2. Phillips, W.; Lee, H.; Ghobadian, A.; O’Regan, N.; James, P. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship. Group Organ. Manag. 2014, 40, 428–461.
  3. Bansal, S.; Garg, I.; Sharma, G.D. Social Entrepreneurship as a Path for Social Change and Driver of Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1091.
  4. Cardella, G.M.; Hernández-Sánchez, B.; Monteiro, A.; Sánchez-García, J. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Intellectual Structures and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7532.
  5. Young, D. If Not for Profit, for What? A Behavioral Theory of the Nonprofit Sector Based on Entrepreneurship; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1983.
  6. Waddock, S.A.; Post, J.E. Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change. Public Adm. Rev. 1991, 51, 393–401.
  7. Leadbeater, C. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur; Demos (No. 25): London, UK, 1997.
  8. Dees, J.G. Enterprising nonprofits: What do you do when traditional sources of funding fall short. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 55–67.
  9. Mort, G.S.; Weerawardena, J.; Carnegie, K. Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2003, 8, 76–88.
  10. Granados, M.L.; Hlupic, -V.; Coakes, E.; Mohamed, S. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship research and theory. Soc. Enterp. J. 2011, 7, 198–218.
  11. Kraus, S.; Filser, M.; O’Dwyer, M.; Shaw, E. Social Entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation analysis. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2013, 8, 275–292.
  12. Kruse, P.; Wach, D.; Wegge, J. What motivates social entrepreneurs? A meta-analysis on predictors of the intention to found a social enterprise. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2020, 59, 477–508.
  13. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Manag. 2018, 45, 70–95.
  14. Christie, M.J.; Honig, B. Social Entrepreneurship: New Research Findings. J. World Bus. 2006, 4, 1–5.
  15. Abu-Saifan, S. Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2012, 2, 22–27.
  16. 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.
  17. Collavo, T. Unpacking Social Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Definition Chaos and Its Consequences in England. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2018, 14, 49–82.
  18. Santos, F.M. A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethic- 2012, 111, 335–351.
  19. Battilana, J.; Fuerstein, M.; Lee, M. New Prospects for Organizational Democracy?: How the Joint Pursuit of Social and Financial Goals Challenges Traditional Organizational Designs. In Capitalism Beyond Mutuality?: Perspectives Integrating Philosophy and Social Science; Rangan, S., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 256–288.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback