Conceptualising Social Entrepreneurship: Setting the Path for Operationalisation

Conceptualising Social Entrepreneurship: Setting the Path for Operationalisation Despite the pervasiveness of social entrepreneurship in academic publications, the concept lacks consensus. Scholars point at the absence... [ view full abstract ]

Conceptualising Social Entrepreneurship: Setting the Path for Operationalisation

Despite the pervasiveness of social entrepreneurship in academic publications, the concept lacks consensus. Scholars point at the absence of a consensual understanding as a core reason holding back empirical studies. There are numerous definitions of social entrepreneurship following different schools of thought, suggesting at its core conceptualization the presence of earned income, innovation, or a central social mission. Although a single common definition might not be a realistic goal, we argue that it is crucial to clarify which dimensions of social entrepreneurship could be common to all perspectives and which might differ among them. This insight is also key to illuminate boundaries between social entrepreneurship and neighboring concepts.

This paper suggests building blocks of the social entrepreneurship concept for subsequent empirical test. First, we conducted a two-step content analysis to 60 definitions of social entrepreneurship following the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al, 2012) to highlight similarities and differences. Then, we analyzed interim debates on extant literature for each of the 13 emerged themes., Acknowledging more than a single perspective exists, we build on extant theories and concepts from entrepreneurship, economic, and psychology literatures to propose a parsimonious construct based on three key components: (1) pursuing a transformational social mission, through solving a societal problem at its roots and increasing the wellbeing of a disadvantaged group, (2) acting entrepreneurially, through the display of innovativeness, proactiveness, and tolerance to ambiguity, and (3) seeking economic sustainability, through leveraging resources beyond organizational boundaries and applying managerial practices.

These three theoretical dimensions allow for boundary clarification with neighboring concepts, such as social enterprise and nonprofit activity. First, although the social mission in social enterprises, nonprofits, and social providers, may target the root cause of the societal problem, it typically focuses on alleviating the symptoms in detriment of transforming the initial equilibrium. Second, social entrepreneurship initiatives act entrepreneurially, through developing innovative models, distinguishing it from traditional nonprofits, social providers, or even some social enterprises. Social entrepreneurship also implies direct action to address a societal problem, which sets a clear boundary from social activism. The display of tolerance towards an ambiguous context, which characterizes entrepreneurship in general and social entrepreneurship in particular, is not as prevalent in traditional nonprofit activity or social provision. Third, while social enterprises, CSR, and commercial entrepreneurship aim at a sustainable advantage and leverage “financial” resources, social entrepreneurship initiatives aim at “economic” sustainability through a diverse set of resources, which include empowerment of beneficiaries. To that end, social entrepreneurship initiatives also apply managerial practices to increase effectiveness and efficiency, which contrasts with traditional nonprofits or social providers’ practices.

By attempting to identify the fundamental building blocks of the construct, we hope our work contributes to unify studies of social entrepreneurship dispersed in several fields of knowledge, such as entrepreneurship, public and nonprofit organizations, social issues in management, and hybrid organizations. We believe each of these different lenses are important to illuminate social entrepreneurship, but a holistic grasp of the concept is crucial to advance our understanding of the phenomena. Additionally, by clarifying the boundaries of social entrepreneurship and neighboring concepts, we hope to provide a mental map to help untangle concepts in order to assist future social entrepreneurship research.

Moving forward, we suggest confirming the dimensions proposed in this theoretical exercise through, for example, qualitative in-depth interviews with social experts and practitioners. This knowledge is central to rigorously define sample frames in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Regarding the latter, we hope our work contributes to setting the path in developing an instrument to assist causal studies in social entrepreneurship phenomena.

References

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., and Hamilton, A. L. (2012), Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology, Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.