Población

clear definition of its domain and so far the definition remains quite fuzzy (Scarlatta, 2010).

The literature is fragmented and lacks a unified definition (Short et al., 2009). “This task has been complicated by social entrepreneurship’s numerous manifestations across the three sectors of society as well as the breadth of academic disciplines studying the subject” (Zahra et al., 2009: 520). Table 1 provides an overview of the definitions of (i) social entrepreneurship, (ii) the individual, the social entrepreneur and (iii) the organisational unit, the social enterprise in the pertinent literature. Most definitions are kept very general, focussing on defining the boundaries of the concept. While some of them differ partially, alternative definitions, on the other hand, have common features such that definitional categories of social entrepreneurship may be deduced. The definitions which are gathered from different scholars and entrepreneurship centres at some leading business schools have

the “double bottom line” in common, i.e. social and economic impact targets are pursued equally (Emerson & Twersky, 1996: 3). Current research typically considers social entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial activity with an embedded social purpose (Austin et al., 2006). In general, definitions are derived from the integration of these two concepts – entrepreneurship and social (Mair & Marti, 2006; Martin & Osberg, 2007). The inflationary increase in the number of definitions over time is striking and can be interpreted as a reflection of the cumulative importance and increasing recognition of the research field (Weber et al. 2011): In 2004, Seelos and Mair identified 14 definitions, Weerawardena and Mort followed with 6 additional definitions in 2006. Similarly, Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum and Shulman (2009), presented 20 definitions in 2009. Dacin, Dacin and Matear (2010) even list 37 definitions for social entrepreneurship / social entrepreneur.

Table 1 Definitions and descriptions of social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurs and social enterprise.

Source Definition

Social Entrepreneurship

Leadbeater (1997) The use of entrepreneurial behaviour for social ends rather than for profit objectives, or alternatively, that the profits generated from market activities are used for the benefit of a specific disadvantaged group.

Fowler (2000) Social Entrepreneurship is the creation of viable socio-economic structures, relations, institutions, organizations and practices that yield and sustain social benefits.

Mort et al. (2002) A multidimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behaviour to achieve the social mission...the ability to recognise social value creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovation, pro-activeness and risk-taking.

MacMillan (2003) (Wharton Center)

Process through which the creation of new business enterprises leads to social wealth enhancement so that both society and the entrepreneur benefit.

Alvord et al. (2004) Creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilises the ideas, capacities, resources and social arrangements required for social transformations.

Shaw (2004) The work of community, voluntary and public organisations as well as private firms working for social rather than only profit objectives.

Tan et al. (2005) Making profits by innovation in the face of risk with the involvement of a segment of society and where all or part of the benefits accrue to that same segment of society.

Austin et al. (2006) Common across all definitions of social entrepreneurship is the fact that the underlying primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting social needs.

Nicholls (2006) Innovative and effective activities that focus strategically on resolving social market failures and creating new opportunities to add social value systematically by using a range of resources and organisational formats to maximise social impacts and bring about changes.

Peredo & McLean (2006)

Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group […] aim(s) at creating social value […] shows a capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities […]

employ innovation…accept an above average degree of risk […] and are unusually resourceful […] in pursuing their social venture.

Martin & Osberg (2007)

Social entrepreneurship is the: 1) identification of a stable yet unjust equilibrium which excludes, marginalises or causes suffering to a group which lacks the means to transform the equilibrium; 2) identification of an opportunity and developing a new social value proposition to challenge the equilibrium, and 3) forging a new, stable equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group through imitation and creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium to ensure a better future for the group and society.

Said Business School (2009)

A professional, innovative and sustainable approach to systematic change that resolves social market failures and grasps opportunities.

Schwab

Foundation (2013)

Applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an emphasis on those who are marginalised and poor.

Social Entrepreneur Thake &

Zadek (1997)

Social entrepreneurs are driven by a desire for social justice. They seek a direct link between their actions and an improvement in the quality of life for the people with whom they work and those that they seek to serve. They aim to produce solutions which are sustainable financially, organisationally, socially and environmentally.

Dees (1998a) Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: 1) Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), 2) Recognising and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, 3) Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, 4) Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and 5) Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.

Reis (1999) (Kellog Foundation)

Social entrepreneurs create social value through innovation and leveraging financial resources for social, economic and community development.

Brinckerhoff (2001)

Individuals constantly looking for new ways to serve their constituencies and add value to existing services.

Drayton (2002) A major change agent, one whose core values centre on identifying, addressing and solving societal problems.

Harding (2004) Entrepreneurs motivated by social objectives to instigate some form of new activity or venture.

Santos (2009) Social entrepreneurs are in pursuit of sustainable solutions to problems of neglected positive externalities.

Social Enterprise

Campbell (1997) Social purpose ventures provide communities with needed products or services and generate profit to support activities that cannot generate revenue.

Prabhu (1999) Entrepreneurial organisations whose primary mission is social change and the development of their client group.

Hibbert et al.

(2001)

The use of entrepreneurial behaviour for social ends rather than for profit objectives; or an enterprise that generates profits that benefit a specific disadvantaged group.

Smallbone et al.

(2001)

Social enterprises defined as competitive firms that are owned and trade for a social purpose (includes not-for-profits, worker-owned collectives, credit unions, etc.).

Dart (2004) Social enterprise differs from the traditional understanding of the nonprofit organisation in terms of strategy, structure, norms, and values and represents a radical innovation in the nonprofit sector.

Haugh (2006) Social enterprise is a collective term for a range of organisations that trade for a social purpose. They adopt one of a variety of different legal formats but have in common the principles of pursuing business-led solutions to achieve social aims, and the reinvestment of surplus for community benefit. Their objectives focus on socially desired, through which they earn at least part of their income, and they act ‘entrepreneurially’ as businesses, i.e. adopt innovative business models, products, services or processes.

Deviations in the definitions on social entrepreneurship are primarily due to differences of the approaches on how to typologise and structure multiple dimensions within the complex field of social entrepreneurship research. It is noteworthy that a large part of the definitions refer to the aspect of ‘innovativeness’ (e.g. Dees, 1998a; Reis, 1999; Mort et al., 2002; Austin et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2006; Peredo and McLean, 2006; Alter, 2007). As social entrepreneurs seek to provide solutions to unsolved social problems, it goes hand in hand with social innovation processes, aimed at promoting social changes (OECD, 2010a). In addition, a major issue

when defining the concept of social entrepreneurship lies in understanding the boundaries between social entrepreneurs and commercial ones. Social entrepreneurship has its core foundation in the field of entrepreneurship and it unites the traditional attitude towards opportunity exploitation with social objectives (Scarlatta, 2010). The shared term entrepreneurship implies common aspects, including an innovative, risk-taking approach to a challenge, the ability to seize opportunities and to mobilise scarce resources toward that objective (Linklaters, 2006). The economist Schumpeter referred to entrepreneurs as the

“change agents in the economy” who develop in a creative drive “new combinations” of goods, services and organisational forms (Schumpeter, 1947: 150). Despite many commonalities, a social entrepreneur differs from a commercial entrepreneur in two important ways: Firstly, even though traditional entrepreneurs generally tend to act in a socially responsible manner, their efforts are only indirectly dealing with social problems (Boschee, 2006). Social entrepreneurs are different because their income strategies are tied to their mission. The function of social enterprises is to serve social needs and to create positive social change. Insodoing, they are managed as traditional businesses to generate profits in order to cover their own costs. They can take action as “affirmative businesses” (Boschee, 2006: 361) (known as ‘social firms’ in the UK) which employ people with mental or physical disabilities or people who are otherwise disadvantaged. Also, they may do business by selling products and services with a direct impact on a specific social problem (e.g. delivering hospice care, manufacturing assistive devices for people who are physically challenged, etc.) (Boschee, 2006). Secondly, commercial entrepreneurs aim at creating economic value, as they are ultimately measured by financial results. Hence, the creation of economic value is seen as a synonym for social value as the exploitation of business opportunities leading to higher profits is considered a source of social change per se (Scarlatta, 2010). Consequently, social entrepreneurs understand profitability as a goal but not the only goal and profits, rather than being distributed to shareholders, are re-invested in the organisation, which is in keeping with the social mission (Stephan, 2010).

According to Borzaga, Galera and Nogales (2008), the concepts of ‘social entrepreneurship’,

‘social entrepreneur’, and ‘social enterprise’ used to be understood as a continuum, in which social entrepreneurship represents the process through which social entrepreneurs create social enterprises. However, it is striking that the literature in the US and in Europe has produced distinct approaches to these concepts. American foundations and organisations such as Ashoka have emphasised the term ‘social entrepreneur’ since the mid 1990s. They strongly

support individuals who pursue a specific social mission while acting as entrepreneurs whose behaviour is marked by dynamism (Borzaga et al., 2008). In the European literature on social entrepreneurship, on the other hand, the unit of observation is the enterprise. This view is influenced by the Emergence of Social Entrepreneurship in Europe Research Network (EMES), which underlines the institutional character of social enterprises (Thurik et al., 2011)¹⁶. Social enterprises are viewed as “long-standing legal entities which provide goods and services with a public orientation and which succeed in combining the pursuit of a social aim and the adoption of entrepreneurial behaviours. They rely on a mix of resources, including public subsidies [...], commercial income, private donations and / or volunteering.”

(Borzaga et al., 2008: 19). Consequently, the positioning of European social enterprises is described as being at the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society (Nyssens, 2006)¹⁷.

Careful analysis of current literature reveals the risk that the term social entrepreneurship has become a large tent into which all kinds of socially beneficial activities fit (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Hence, many authors have attempted to refine their definitions (e.g. Light, 2008), while others have instead focused on the organisational landscape of social entrepreneurship to categorise entrepreneurial ventures in order to identify those that could be included in the field of social enterprises (e.g. Neck et al., 2009). Others have identified sets of primary and secondary characteristics of social entrepreneurship (Brouard & Larivet, 2009).