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

htm

SEJ 7,2

A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society
Hao 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 development and social value creation is riddled with inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and contradictions. However, the theoretical and practical importance of developing and applying social entrepreneurship to sustain social development and enhance human well-being in rapidly changing environments has catapulted this issue to the forefront of the research agendas of many scholars. In light of advancement, the purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of social entrepreneurship. Further, a conceptual model is developed encompassing antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship in an integrated framework. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on the work of others and to this adds personal conclusions from both direct experience and observation. Findings The central argument is that desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process, human capital, and social capital at the individual level will have the positive effects on social entrepreneurship. The author also discusses the moderation effects between the desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process on initiating social entrepreneurship activities. Moreover, it is argued that social and institutional environment factors also promote social entrepreneurship activities which push the social improvement. Originality/value The paper presents a theoretical research model incorporating antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship to direct a future research agenda. The paper could be used as the research model by researchers to empirically test antecedents and consequences of social entrepreneurship. Moreover, practitioners can also gain benefits from the conceptual framework and promote social entrepreneurship. Keywords Social entrepreneurship, Human capital, Desirability, Feasibility, Social capital, Social impact on society Paper type Research paper

130

Introduction The concept of social entrepreneurship has been rapidly emerging in the private, public and non-profit sectors over the last few years, and interest in social entrepreneurship continues to grow ( Johnson, 2000; Nicholls, 2008). Social entrepreneurship has become a global phenomenon that impacts the society by employing innovative approaches to solve social problems (Robinson et al., 2009).
This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 70873005), the Philosophy & Social Science Planning Project by Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 10CGGL01ZQ) and the Philosophy & Social Science Planning Project by Shanghai Government (Grant No. 2010BJL001). Sincere thanks go to Professor Jeffrey A. Robinson for his kind suggestions on revision of this paper. The author gratefully acknowledges research support provided by The Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development (CUEED), Rutgers Business School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA. The author is grateful to the anonymous referees and editors for their constructive and helpful suggestions.

Social Enterprise Journal Vol. 7 No. 2, 2011 pp. 130-149 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-8614 DOI 10.1108/17508611111156600

There is considerable interest in social entrepreneurship (Mair and Noboa, 2006a; Peredo and McLean, 2006). However, social entrepreneurship means different things to different people, creating great confusion in the literature and practice (Zahra et al., 2008). It is imperative to synthesize the conceptual debates and the diverse empirical findings toward a more integrated understanding of social entrepreneurship. This paper seeks to bring clarity to the notion of social entrepreneurship and its potential and actual relationships to social impact. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the theoretical and empirical development of social entrepreneurship in order to find what social entrepreneurship is and to propose a theoretical research model incorporating antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship. We make three contributions to the literature. First, we review the literature and present important inconsistencies and ambiguities in the extant literature and suggest remedies that could direct future studies. Second, we present the conceptual model, which provides a framework for future research. Third, we deepen the discussion by addressing a set of propositions regarding the relationships between antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship. We believe the research model proposed in this study can be adopted and further developed by future empirical studies. The paper is organized as follows. First, we review the literature to show how social entrepreneurship has been portrayed in the literature in order to clearly define social entrepreneurship. Next, focusing on antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship, we develop and discuss propositions related to the decision-making process, human capital, social capital, social environment factors, institutional environment factors and social impact. In the last section, we present a discussion of our propositions. Defining and understanding social entrepreneurship The emergence of social entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship is a new phenomenon (Zietlow, 2002). Zahra et al. (2008) discuss four key factors that fuel the globalization of social entrepreneurship. They are global 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 entrepreneurship emerges in the society. First, social entrepreneurship can help non-profit organization operate with the innovative way. Reis and Clohesy (1999) believe that when traditional resources continually reduce and competition for these common resources become severely severe, it is necessary for non-profit organizations to employ business professional operations and marketing techniques to improve efficiency in products and services so as to serve community better. Second, the actual conditions call for an alliance between corporate and non-profit organizations and cooperation among different components in society to make steps toward a better life. The increasing social problems call for corporations to respond positively and take responsibilities in the social sector. Such response will encourage social entrepreneurship activities by corporate and non-profit organizations, which will enhance both business value and have a positive social impact. Therefore, the disappearing boundary between different sectors leads to innovative approaches to solve social problems (Seelos and Mair, 2005; Sen, 2007). Johnson writes,
the non-profit sector is facing intensifying demands for improved effectiveness and sustainability in light of diminishing funding from traditional sources and increased

A model for social entrepreneurship 131

SEJ 7,2

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

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

132

What is social entrepreneurship? Roberts and Woods (2005, p. 45) argue that social entrepreneurship is at an exciting stage 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 more rigorous and objective discipline. Most importantly, we should take more efforts to clarify what is social entrepreneurship (Christie and Honig, 2006; Nicholls, 2006; Certo and Miller, 2008; Thompson, 2008). We define social entrepreneurship by characteristics and operational process. The Appendix presents the key studies found in the literature pertinent to social entrepreneurship from 1985 to 2009. Definitions based on the mission. Some scholars consider the mission when defining social entrepreneurship. For instance, Dees (2001) believes that social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created. He believes that social value is most important in this process. Although social entrepreneurship is often viewed as business with a social purpose that earns income for the non-profit sector, Dees (2003) said he leaned toward another definition of social entrepreneurship, one that emphasized innovation and impact, not income, in dealing with social problems. At times, according to Dees (2003), these two ways of thinking intersect, when people with business-like methods come together with innovative solutions to social problems. Therefore, compared to business entrepreneurs, who are for the economy, social entrepreneurs are for social change and are the driven, creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up, and remake the world for the better (Bornstein, 2004, p. 15). Definitions based on the multiple dimensions of social entrepreneurship. Some scholars consider social entrepreneurship as a multi-dimensional construct. Mort et al. (2003, p. 76) believe that social entrepreneurship leads to the establishment of new social enterprises and the continued innovation in existing ones and conceptualize social entrepreneurship as a multi-dimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behavior to achieve the social mission, a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity, the ability to recognize social value-creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. After reviewing the literature on social entrepreneurship, Weerawardena and Mort (2006) develop a bounded multi-dimensional model of social entrepreneurship, using the grounded theory method and in-depth case studies. The findings of their research are presented in two related steps. In the first step, a narrative incorporating seven emergent themes from the in-depth case study interviews: environmental dynamics, innovativeness, proactiveness, risk management, sustainability, social mission and

opportunity seeking/recognition. In the second stage, they present the integration of the themes into a coherent model of social entrepreneurship. In the model, social entrepreneurship leads to social value creation. This requires innovativeness, proactiveness and risk management behavior as the core. But, this behavior is constrained by the desire to achieve the social mission and to maintain the sustainability of the existing organization. In doing so, they are responsive to and constrained by environmental dynamics. They continuously recognize the opportunity and interact with a turbulent and dynamic environment that forces them to pursue sustainability, often within the context of the relative resource poverty of the organization (Weerawardena and Mort, 2006, p. 32). Definitions based on the operational process or mechanism of social entrepreneurship. Some literature considers social entrepreneurship as the process to change the world (Chell, 2007). For example, Roberts and Woods (2005, p. 49) believe social entrepreneurship is the construction, evaluation and pursuit of opportunities for transformative social change carried out by visionary, passionately dedicated (2006) view social entrepreneurship in a broader way, individuals. Mair and Mart as a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs. Furthermore, Peredo and McLean (2006, p. 64) find that social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create that value (envision); (3) employ(s) innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting someone elses novelty, in creating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are willing to accept an above-average degree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and (5) is/are unusually resourceful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their social venture. Using six social enterprises, Robinson (2006) conducted case study research and summarized a social entrepreneurial process model based on the opportunity recognition and evaluation. Also, Dees et al. (2002) divide social entrepreneurship into three dynamic processes. The first stage is the initiation of the entrepreneurial team and the formation of the organization, including the profit and not-for-profit organizations. The second stage is the process of forming organizational structure through negotiation and communication. The last stage is the process of internal decision making, operation and interaction among different parts to address the external changing challenges. In all, social entrepreneurship bridges an important gap between business and social action (Roberts and Woods, 2005). Therefore, Duke Universitys Fuqua School of Business, the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) writes,
Social entrepreneurship is the process of recognizing and resourcefully pursuing opportunities to create social value with the innovative method. Social entrepreneurs are innovative, resourceful, and result-oriented, who draw upon the best thinking in both the business and nonprofit worlds to develop strategies that maximize social impact. These entrepreneurial leaders operate in all kinds of organizations: large and small; new and old; religious and secular; non-profit, for-profit, and hybrid.

A model for social entrepreneurship 133

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

SEJ 7,2

we also need to find antecedents and consequence of social entrepreneurship in order to create a successful model of social entrepreneurship to create social value. A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship A primary interest in management research is to identify relationships between organizational variables (Eisenhardt, 1989). As an emerging concept, social entrepreneurship needs to be examined in an integrated framework incorporating the antecedents and consequence (Zahra et al., 2008). We argue that there are four key antecedents of social entrepreneurship, including desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process, human capital of social entrepreneur, social capital of social entrepreneur, social environment factors and institutional environment factors. Although there are numerous other variables that could be examined in terms of antecedents, we argue that the above variables are the most important. Moreover, according to the definition of social entrepreneurship, we consider social impact as the consequence of social entrepreneurship. Below, we propose and illustrate a research model (see Figure 1). Key antecedents of social entrepreneurship The process of social entrepreneurship is related to many factors such as the individual social entrepreneur, social and institutional environments. At the individual level, the research has focussed on the key role of social entrepreneur, whose value will have impact 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 and Noboa, 2006b; Thompson and Doherty, 2006; Danna and Porche, 2008). In the following, the paper analyzes the role of the social entrepreneur from the perspectives of desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process, human capital and social capital.

134

Human capital

Social environment factors

P3 Desirability and feasibility P5 P1

P2

P6

Social entrepreneurship

P8

Social impact

P4

P7

Social capital

Figure 1. A research model for social entrepreneurship

Institutional environment factors

Direct effects

Moderation effects

Moreover, social and institutional environmental factors have significant impacts on the 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 and institutional factors include public awareness about social entrepreneurship, governmental agencies support, financial support from the foundation, as well as relevant support from other non-profit organizations. We discuss these factors one by one below. Desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process. Mair and Noboa (2006b) study entrepreneurial intention process of social entrepreneur, which anatomizes the black box of decision process for the entrepreneurial activities. They find that entrepreneurial intention of social entrepreneur is influenced by self-cognitive desirability and feasibility. Cognitive desirability is the degree of desire to start social entrepreneurship activities. Cognitive feasibility is the subjective evaluation of the social entrepreneurs capacity to initiate social entrepreneurship activities. The cognitive desirability of a social entrepreneur is influenced by personal value and cognitive attitude, and cognitive feasibility is influenced by some enabling factors such 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 most distinguishing characteristic of the social entrepreneur is the sense of mission to make social impact in order to change the world. A high degree of social mission, charismatic personality and an unshakable belief is the driving force for social entrepreneurship. Moreover, their cognitive feasibility is influenced by personal competence. It is a strong sense of social mission that makes social entrepreneurs have a deep understanding of the target population. That is to say, social entrepreneurs should have the capacity to start social entrepreneurship activities, which will strengthen the degree of cognitive feasibility. Therefore, we argue that cognitive desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur influences the initiation of social entrepreneurship, which in turn pushes social impact and creates social value for the whole society. P1. The desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process will be positively related to social entrepreneurship activities. Human capital of social entrepreneur. Human capital can be defined as the range of valuable knowledge and skills a person has accumulated over time (Coleman, 1990; Becker, 1993; Davidsson and Honig, 2003). The knowledge of the social entrepreneur includes the plan to start social entrepreneurship activities. Dees et al. (2001) believe that the social entrepreneur should have the knowledge to understand their customers and analyze their needs in order to satisfy their needs with innovative methods. Guclu et al. (2002) found that the inspiring ideas of social ventures are the key to success, and knowledge plays an important role. The skills to integrate and utilize resources are also the human capital of social entrepreneur. The integrating capabilities contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship activities, which is the underlying mechanism of social transformation. Therefore, social entrepreneurs are considered as the changing agents in 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

A model for social entrepreneurship 135

SEJ 7,2

136

resources to realize the objective of social entrepreneurship activities. Furthermore, Dees (2003) compared social entrepreneur with administrative staff in the government department and found that the formers logic is valuable. Social entrepreneur mainly focuses on the idea and then integrate the resources to realize it. Therefore, knowledge and the ability to integrate resources, which are elements of 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 new social 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 the desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process. When social entrepreneurs with a high degree of desirability and feasibility concern perceive that they have a high level of human capital, they will conclude that they have the capacity to start new social ventures. This should strengthen their commitment to social entrepreneurship activities. In other words, the desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process has a moderating effect on the relationship between human capital and social entrepreneurship. We propose that: P3. The interaction between human capital with the desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process is positively related to social entrepreneurship activities. Social capital of social entrepreneur. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1997, p. 119) define social capital as the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of processing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Therefore, social capital is created by a network in which people, as the agent, can broker connections between otherwise disconnected segments (Burt, 1992). As discussed above, factors at the individual level are important for social entrepreneurship activities. Besides, the organizational factors in social ventures such as capital, organizational structure, composition of top management team and stability and utilization of social networks also have a great effect on operations of social entrepreneurship activities (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). All these factors can be included into social capital of social entrepreneur. Based on the empirical research in Israel, Weerawardena and Mort (2006) thought that capital, employee structure and top managers performance in the beginning stage of social ventures could influence the operational process. Social capital comes from a founders social network (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998; Bornstein, 2004). For instance, Bornstein (2004) described that networks make big differences in the process of social entrepreneurship. Javids example in India best illustrates this point. As a handicapped leader, Javid met many challenges as he worked for social change. However, he was born in the rich family in India that brought him a good social network. He had a good personal relationship with Gandhis daughter, Sonia Gandhi, chairman of Indias Congress Party. This relationship was helpful in achieving his social change objectives. Social network is one of the most important factors for successful social entrepreneurship.

Dees et al. (2002) also believed that social entrepreneur should focus on the network relationships because these relationships are needed for entrepreneurial performance and to create innovative arrangements to deal with the social problems. Furthermore, Leadbeater (1997) argued that social capital that exists in a social entrepreneurs network is fundamental to social entrepreneurship activities. Social entrepreneurs must build successful partnerships with major companies and establish collaborations with relevant stakeholders such as the Skoll Foundation, the International Business Leaders Forum and IDEO, the international design company. In a word, a social entrepreneurs network has a major influence on their entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, we propose that: P4a. Social capital is positively related to social entrepreneurship. The more social capital a social entrepreneur has, the stronger the drive to start the new social entrepreneurship activities. P4b. Social capital is positively related to survival rates. Social ventures founded by social entrepreneurs with higher levels of social capital will higher survival rates than those with lower levels of social capital. Thus far, we have proposed that social capital is positively related to social entrepreneurship. We further propose, in a similar fashion to P3, that the strength of the relationship will be moderated by the desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process. Social entrepreneurship primarily pursues the improvement of social value. Therefore, social entrepreneurs face difficulty when they attempt to raise funds through financial and capital markets. When social entrepreneurs with a high degree of cognitive desirability and feasibility perceive they have high level of social capital, they will conclude that they have the capacity to mobilize the necessary resources to start social ventures, which also strengthen their commitment to social entrepreneurship activities. In other words, the desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process has the moderation effect on the relationship between the social capital and social entrepreneurship. We propose that: P5. The relationship between social capital of social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship will be moderated by the desirability and feasibility of social entrepreneur in the decision-making process. Social environment factors as the prerequisite. Social entrepreneurs emerge in North America and western Europe, mainly due to the environment for cultivating social entrepreneurship in these regions, which serve as incubators for social entrepreneurship activities (Freeman et al., 2007). There are some distinguished foundations giving grants to social entrepreneurs. These foundations, such as Ashoka, Echoing Green and Draper-Richards, identify promising social entrepreneurs, accept applications for venture capital to social entrepreneurs with social venture plans and provide initial technical support and training. Financial support can range from 30,000 to 100,000 US dollars over two or three years for selected social entrepreneurs. In addition, there are well known and large consulting firms that provide free advice for public venture enterprises, such as Bridgestar Consulting.

A model for social entrepreneurship 137

SEJ 7,2

138

In addition, research institutions in social entrepreneurship in North America and western Europe have increased exponentially, hence increasing publications and databases in this field (Korosec and Berman, 2006). Dahles (2004) statistical study noted that there were at least 30 business schools teaching social entrepreneurship course in the USA, Canada and the UK in 2004. Today there are more than 100 (Robinson, 2010). These world-renowned business school established related research centers, such as Social Enterprise Research Center at Harvard Business School, Research Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University, Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University, Center for Nonprofit Management at Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development at Rutgers University, Center for social entrepreneurship at University of Alberta, and Skoll center for social entrepreneurship at University of Oxford. These centers web sites also have access to relevant research database, which promote social entrepreneurship in the whole. As a result, both foundations and research institutions contribute to the dissemination and implementation of creative ideas for social entrepreneurship activities. To summarize, social entrepreneurship prevails in North America and western 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 and monitoring) will be positively related to social entrepreneurship. Institutional environment factors as the foundation. In addition to support from such non-profit organizations as research institutions and foundations, public support from government agencies are also greatly important to promote social entrepreneurship. This argument is similar to that of North (1990) when addressing the business institutional environment. For example, social entrepreneurship in the UK is very active; citizens actively participate in social entrepreneurship, which are the result of government support. For instance, Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK, called on the government to support the activities of social entrepreneurship. He argued that social entrepreneurs not only solve economic problems but also create social impact, just as commercial entrepreneurs create financial wealth. Both make their own contribution to the progress of humanity. The British government launched a special policy to encourage more people to establish social-related entrepreneurial ventures in 2002, which encouraged British people participating in social entrepreneurship activities. Thus, social entrepreneurs address many social issues, such as helping vulnerable groups, poverty alleviation, rehabilitation and environmental protection. Since the 1980s, many developed countries adopted neo-liberal economic policies, which emphasized the market as the main regulating mechanism of resources. As a result, government funding to non-profit organizations reduced year by year. Moreover, government funding to the welfare sector sharply decreased, while market failure led

to increasing pressure for non-profit organization to provide public services ( Johnson, 2000). Reis and Clohesy (1999) also argued that with the decrease in public funding and more intense competition in getting access to these resources, nonprofit organizations face strong demand and pressure to improve their operational efficiency through business processes and specialized technology in order to provide better public services. This is also a driving force of social entrepreneurship activities. Therefore, we propose that: P7. Institutional environment factors (government support, competition within the sector and public policy) will be related to social entrepreneurship. Supportive policies in the institutional environment will lead to higher levels of social entrepreneurship. Consequence of social entrepreneurship: social impact on society. As discussed above, the current literature on social entrepreneurship agrees that social impact is the main purpose 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; (2006) consider social Austin et al., 2006; Austin, 2006). Mair and Mart entrepreneurship as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and development versus capturing economic value. Roberts and Woods (2005) believe that social entrepreneurship is a new construct that bridges an important gap between business and philanthropy, which is the application of entrepreneurship theory in the social sphere to solve social problems in society such as environmental issues, the income gap and employment difficulties. Therefore, we propose that: P8. Higher levels of social entrepreneurship is positively related to the social impact in society. Conclusion and future research In recent years, social entrepreneurship has emerged as a popular term used by politicians, businesspeople and institutions alike to describe businesses that give back to society, such as entrepreneurial activities aiming to improve social value as well as business benefits. Social entrepreneurship, therefore, becomes a mechanism for reconciling these disparities in wealth, opportunity, educational access and environmental issues. The central contribution of this paper is the construction of a conceptual model for social entrepreneurship with an integrative approach. This conceptual paper is one of the first steps in developing a model for social entrepreneurship. In this regard, we developed a conceptual framework of social entrepreneurship with both antecedents and consequence. Specifically, we clarify a definition of social entrepreneurship that can move discussion on this topic beyond taxonomic distinctions of what is and what is not social entrepreneurship. Second, we discuss the factors that influence social entrepreneurship at the individual level such as desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process, human capital of social entrepreneur and social capital of social entrepreneur. We also discussed the moderating effects of the desirability and feasibility of the social entrepreneur in the decision-making process to initiate social entrepreneurship activities. Furthermore, at a macroscopic level, we discussed the role of social and

A model for social entrepreneurship 139

SEJ 7,2

140

institutional environment factors than can increase social entrepreneurship. Finally, we discussed the consequence of social entrepreneurship. Practitioners can also gain several implications from our conceptual framework to promote the development of social entrepreneurship. First, government can establish positive policies such as tax reduction and seed funds to encourage social entrepreneurship 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 government strategically support social entrepreneurship activities is very important. If the government puts the tax reduction policy to social entrepreneurship activities, social entrepreneur will have high degree of cognitive desirability and feasibility to initiate social entrepreneurship activities and social enterprise will make a living more easily. Moreover, government can organize some training program to strengthen operating skills to increase human capital of social entrepreneur. In the training program, social entrepreneur can communicate with each other, learn different social entrepreneurship experience, and expand social capital of social entrepreneur. Second, institutions such as universities can host relevant international conferences to disseminate social entrepreneurship concepts and promote a social entrepreneurial spirit. For example, the University of Cambridge in England and Zhejiang University in China in 2007 and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in the USA and Shanghai University and University of International Business and Economics in China in 2009 held the international forums on social entrepreneurship separately. Both conferences promoted the spread of social entrepreneurship in Asia. These kinds of conference can gather social entrepreneurs, enlarge their social networks for research, and increase their level of social capital. Moreover, universities can invite social entrepreneur to make a lecture in the class to promote consciousness of college students, who are main forces to start social entrepreneurship activities. In the mean time, professors can walk out of campus and enter communities to disseminate concept 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 institutional environment to encourage social entrepreneurship activities. Specially, government can set up the foundation to support university and association to broadcast social entrepreneurship concept. Moreover, university and association can hold an informal salon or make up a party to gather social entrepreneur. In this way they can communicate with each other, share different experience and increase social capital. Moreover, government, university and association can combine with each other to elect the best practice in the social entrepreneurship industry. Other social enterprises can learn from best practice to improve their performance. By providing a conceptual model for social entrepreneurship, the paper has contributed to the field of entrepreneurship and related academic literature, which can help to an overall understanding and the further development of social entrepreneurship. Here, we have focussed on developing several testable propositions intended to advance the understanding of the relationships among variables central to social entrepreneurship, their antecedents and their consequences. We hope that other scholars will take up the challenge of further exploring and testing these ideas. Further studies can take the following directions. First, researchers can develop to design questionnaires and validate an instrument that quantifies social

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

A model for social entrepreneurship 141

References Aldrich, H.E. (1989), Networking among women entrepreneurs, in Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. and Sexton, 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 social transformation: 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: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Bornstein, D. (1998), Changing the world on a shoestring: an ambitious foundation promotes social 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 Chicago Press, Chicago, IL and London. Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Certo, S.T. and Miller, T. (2008), Social entrepreneurship: key issues and concepts, Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 267-71. Chell, E. (2007), Social enterprise and entrepreneurship:towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial 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 of World 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, Fast Company, Vol. 78, pp. 45-50. Danna, D. and Porche, D. (2008), Establishing a nonprofit organization: a venture of social entrepreneurship, 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 wheelchair drivers, Knowledge@Wharton Newsletter, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 3-16. Dees, J.G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001), Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY.

SEJ 7,2

142

Dees, G.J., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2002), Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY. Eisenhardt, K. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50. Freeman, I., Higginson, N., Jos, A.R. and Madhubalan, V. (2007), Microcredit through the feminist lens: toward a more equitable approach to social entrepreneurship, Advances in International Management, Vol. 20 No. 20, pp. 171-91. Galaskiewicz, J. (1985), Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: A Study of Business Philanthropy and Non Profit Organizations, Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Godfrey, P.C. (2005), The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk 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: creating opportunities 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 of Business Ethics, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 233-49. Hibbert, S.A., Hogg, G. and Quinn, T. (2002), Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: the case of the Big Issue in Scotland, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 288-301. Hibbert, S.A., Hogg, G. and Quinn, T. (2005), Social entrepreneurship: understanding consumer 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 and complexity, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 11-26. Korosec, R.L. and Berman, E.M. (2006), Municipal support for social entrepreneurship, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 448-62. Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos, London. , I. (2006), Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, Mair, J. and Mart 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 social enterprise 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 social enterprise get formed, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 203-14. Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2003), Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualization, 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, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 13-9.

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, Cambridge University 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 the Common Good: A Scan, Synthesis and Scenario for Action, WK Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI. Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005), Changing the world on a shoestring: the concept of social entrepreneurship, University of Auckland Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-51. Robinson, J.A. (2006), Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: how social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities, in Mair, J., Robinson, J.A. and Hockerts, 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 Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, London. Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005), Leadership, learning and human resource management: the meanings 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 the poor, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 241-6. Selsky, J.W. and Smith, A.E. (1994), Community entrepreneurship: a framework for social change leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 Nos 3-4, pp. 277-96. Sen, P. (2007), Ashokas 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 individual social 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 of social entrepreneurship, in Robinson, J., Mair, J.M. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), International Perspectives in Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, London, pp. 1-35. Thompson, J. (2002), The world of the social entrepreneur, The International Journal of Public Sector 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 of social 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 people and 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, Public Administration Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 393-401.

A model for social entrepreneurship 143

SEJ 7,2

144

Wallace, S.L. (1999), Social entrepreneurship: the role of social purpose enterprises in facilitation community economic development, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 153-74. Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G.S. (2006), Investigating social entrepreneurship: a multidimensional 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), Globalization of 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 Management and Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 85-90. Appendix

Authors Galaskiewicz (1985)

Approach Qualitative

Focus of the paper To demonstrate how social organization can get otherwise selfish actors to contribute resources for the common good. And also, business has to do more to impress citizens of its usefulness. The more responsible business is to the general needs of the community, the more responsive the community will be to business Social entrepreneurs are private citizens who play critical roles in bringing about catalytic changes in the public sector agenda and the perception of social issues. Factors that make their projects include problem complexity, credibility and a commitment to a collective purpose. First, the social problem is characterized by extreme complexity, which the social entrepreneur is somehow able to bind into a vision that has the potential to reshape public attitudes when implemented. Second, social entrepreneurs are individuals with significant personal credibility, which they use to tap critical resources and actually build the necessary network of participating organizations. Third, the social entrepreneur generates followers commitment to the project by framing it in terms of important social values, rather than purely economic terms, which results in a sense of collective purpose among the social entrepreneur and those who join the effort Times are tough for non-profit organizations attempting to deliver services to their constituents. Community entrepreneurship is a good choice on leadership and change in non-profit communitybased organizations Social entrepreneurs will be one of the most important sources of innovation. Social entrepreneurs identify under-utilized resources people, buildings, equipment and find ways of putting them to use to satisfy unmet social needs. They create new welfare services and new ways of delivering existing services. Social entrepreneurs who deploy entrepreneurial skills for social ends are at work in parts of the traditional public sector, some large private sector corporations and at the most innovative edge of the voluntary sector

Waddock and Post (1991)

Case studies

Selsky and Smith (1994) Leadbeater (1997)

Qualitative

Case studies

Table AI. Key studies pertinent to social entrepreneurship: 1985-2009

(continued)

Authors Bornstein (1998)

Approach Qualitative

Focus of the paper Ashoka, an ambitious foundation, promotes social change by finding social entrepreneurs people who have new ideas and the knack for implementing them. Social entrepreneurs share a deep belief in their ability to alter their society fundamentally, who feel so strongly that they can make a difference An attempt is made to examine the role of social and political cohesion in a community economic development context focusing on the emergence and dynamics of social purpose enterprises in facilitating community development and revitalization efforts. The discourse centers on why community economic development is essential and who can best promote community economic development. In answer to these two inquiries, the case is argued for the recognition of and advocacy for the expansion of social purpose enterprises, often operating for-profit ventures, as an effective socio-political and economic link between government and free market enterprise Social entrepreneurs are the people who realize where there is an opportunity to satisfy some unmet need that the state welfare system will not or cannot meet, and who gather the necessary resources and use these to make a difference In addition to innovative not-for-profit ventures, social entrepreneurship can include social purpose business ventures, such as for-profit community development banks, and hybrid organizations mixing not-for-profit and for-profit elements, such as homeless shelters that start businesses to train and employ their residents Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: first adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), second recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, third engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning, fourth acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand and fifth exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created The rising spirit of social entrepreneurship has created all kinds of new opportunities for non-profit organizations. However, at the same time, there are so many challenges as well. This essential book will help anyone in the field gain the necessary skills to meet these challenges. Written by the leading thinkers and practitioners in the field, Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Entrepreneurs offers concise and engaging explanations of the most successful business tools being used by non-profits today Non-profit organizations are being urged to take a more businesslike approach to their operations, and to add earned income ventures to offset cash shortfalls due to lower donation or grant and contract revenue. Entrepreneurial ventures are not only seen in commercially oriented health care, arts and education organizations, but churches, youth organizations, soup kitchens and other donative non-profits

A model for social entrepreneurship 145

Wallace (1999)

Case study

Thompson et al. (2000)

Qualitative

Dees (2001)

Qualitative

Dees et al. (2001)

Qualitative

Zietlow (2001)

Qualitative

(continued)

Table AI.

SEJ 7,2

Authors Dees et al. (2002)

Approach Qualitative

Focus of the paper This book is a complete set of tools for applying entrepreneurial strategies and techniques to non-profit organizations. It provides a full set of practical tools for putting the lessons of business entrepreneurship to work in social entrepreneurship, which offers hands-on guidance that helps social sector leaders hone their entrepreneurial skills and carry out their social missions more effectively than ever before An act of social entrepreneurship start with the vision of an attractive opportunity, which is one that has sufficient potential for positive social impact to justify the investment of time, energy and money required to pursue it seriously. Social entrepreneurs should generate promising ideas and develop them into attractive opportunities The research confirms findings by other scholars that non-profit entrepreneurs receive a high payroll from promoting social causes. Furthermore, previous experience in the sector, beliefs, culture, social class, education and family background also play an important role. This article examines women entrepreneurs in the non-profit sector. Entrepreneurial activity attracts certain kinds of individuals. Such self-selection is not a random event but is influenced by personal characteristics as well as socio-economic and cultural factors The paper explores how consumer response to the Big Issue is influenced by the fact that the magazine is sold by homeless people themselves. The findings suggest that consumers buy it both because they like the magazine and because they believe that they are helping the homeless, often paying more than the magazine cover price for the latter reason. The results also reveal that consumers see the direct involvement of homeless people in the exchange positively, recognizing it as an empowering process This paper begins by defining social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship. Then, using projects considered for a charter award under the Duke of Yorks Community Initiative, it looks at what social entrepreneurs do and achieve for the community, at the wide scope of their world, and at the help that is available and needed The author gives the book review about Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Entrepreneurs, and believes non-profit managers will find valuable guidance on many facets of launching and managing a new venture Social entrepreneurship, leading to the establishment of new social enterprises and the continued innovation in existing ones, is much discussed but little understood and, given the increasing importance of such organizations, should be addressed. This paper conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a multi-dimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behavior to achieve the social mission, a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity, the ability to recognize social value-creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk taking

146
Guclu et al. (2002) Qualitative

Handy and Ranade (2002)

Quantitative

Hibbert et al. (2002)

Case study

Thompson (2002)

Case studies

Zietlow (2002)

Qualitative

Mort et al. (2003)

Qualitative

Table AI.

(continued)

Authors Alvord et al. (2004) Bornstein (2004) Harding (2004)

Approach Qualitative

Focus of the paper The article suggests factors associated with successful social entrepreneurship, particularly with social entrepreneurship that leads to significant changes in the social, political and economic contexts for poor and marginalized groups Social entrepreneurs are to social change, who are the driven, creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up and remake the world for the better As the worlds investors become more actively interested in a broader definition of business value creation, and as policy makers become ever-more interested in the role of entrepreneurship generally in fuelling economic growth, the role of social enterprise in creating economic and social value needs to be examined more closely. Yet this is where the evidence is weakest. In particular, and despite the unquestioned interest in the subject, a single definition of social entrepreneurship remains elusive. The exercise of measuring social entrepreneurship is fraught with difficulty This paper makes a case for the employee as a moral agent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence, which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and is compromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to a discussion about the notion of discretion and an examination of a separate, contrary body of literature, which indicates that some individuals in corporations may use their discretion to behave in a socially entrepreneurial manner. It is suggested that individuals may be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate Social Entrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics, distinguished by their individualistic or collectivist personal values This paper explores the historical development and current usages of the concept of social entrepreneurship. In discussion the paper questions some of the motives of social entrepreneurs and warns against uncritical acceptance of a blurring of the boundaries between sectors of society Social entrepreneurship is used to refer to the rapidly growing number of organizations that have created models for efficiently catering to basic human needs that existing markets and institutions have failed to satisfy. Social entrepreneurship combines the resourcefulness of traditional entrepreneurship with a mission to change society This article offers a comparative analysis of commercial and social entrepreneurship using a prevailing analytical model from commercial entrepreneurship. The analysis highlights key similarities and differences between these two forms of entrepreneurship and presents a framework on how to approach the social entrepreneurial process more systematically and effectively The authors want to study some of the difficulties involved in defining the nature of social enterprises and the environments in which they operate in order to provide a framework to show how and where social enterprises fit in the overall social economy and find four key issues need to be addressed such as voluntary participation, independence from the state, the concept of profit, and ownership and corporate governance

A model for social entrepreneurship 147

Case studies Qualitative

Hemingway (2005)

Case study

Roper and Cheney (2005)

Qualitative

Seelos and Mair (2005)

Case study

Austin et al. (2006)

Qualitative

Jones and Keogh (2006)

Case studies

(continued)

Table AI.

SEJ 7,2

Authors Korosec and Berman (2006)

Approach Quantitative

Focus of the paper This paper examines how cities help social entrepreneurship the activity of private individuals and organizations taking initiative to address social challenges in their communities, which finds that municipalities help social entrepreneurs by increasing awareness of social problems, and by helping them to acquire resources, coordinate with other organizations and implement programs Social entrepreneurship, as a practice and a field for scholarly investigation, provides a unique opportunity to challenge, question and rethink concepts and assumptions from different fields of management and business research. This paper puts forward a view of social entrepreneurship as a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way that is not dominated by direct financial benefits for the entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and development vs capturing economic value Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or persons first aim either exclusively or in some prominent way to create social value of some kind, and pursue that goal through some combination of, second recognizing and exploiting opportunities to create this value, third employing innovation, fourth tolerating risk and fifth declining to accept limitations in available resources The study demonstrates eight variables as contributing to the success of the social ventures, arranged in the order of their value: first the entrepreneurs social network; second total dedication to the ventures success; third the capital base at the establishment stage; fourth the acceptance of the venture idea in the public discourse; fifth the composition of the venturing team, including the ratio of volunteers to salaried employees; sixth forming cooperations in the public and non-profit sectors in the long term; seventh the ability of the service to stand the market test; and eighth the entrepreneurs previous managerial experience Social entrepreneurship is an emerging area of investigation within the entrepreneurship and not-for-profit marketing literatures. Using grounded theory method and drawing on nine in-depth case studies of social entrepreneurial not-for-profit organizations, this paper addresses this research gap and develops a bounded multi-dimensional model of social entrepreneurship The paper finds that social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs are clearly linked but there are important distinctions. The paper aims to provide some greater insight and help both scholars and practitioners in their respective quests for understanding and improvement. The paper could further help people clarify what needs to be covered on courses and degrees in this subject area

148
Mair and Mart (2006) Qualitative

Peredo and McLean (2006)

Qualitative

Sharir and Lerner (2006)

Case studies

Weerawardena and Mort (2006)

Case studies

Thompson (2008)

Qualitative

Table AI.

(continued)

Authors Zahra et al. (2008)

Approach Qualitative

Focus of the paper Social entrepreneurship has emerged as an important research topic in the literature. The authors explain the forces contributing to the formation and rapid internationalization of social ventures. Based on the behavioral theory of the firm, the authors distill key attributes of social opportunities and show how these attributes influence the timing and geographic scope of social ventures international operations The authors seek to clarify the landscape of social entrepreneurship by introducing a typology of entrepreneurial ventures. Motivation to engage in mission driven, social entrepreneurial activity is influenced by three main factors: sources of opportunities, stakeholder salience and performance metrics

A model for social entrepreneurship 149

Neck et al. (2009)

Qualitative

Table AI.

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 emerging markets, among others. He has published well over 30 articles in major referred journals in entrepreneurship and innovation management. Hao Jiao can be contacted at: haojiao@ymail.com

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