Description
In such a brief criteria relating to 10th annual nyu stern conference social entrepreneurship.
On behalf of NYU Stern School of Business, we welcome you to the Tenth Annual Conference on Social
Entrepreneurship! Over the past 10 years, we believe our conference on Social Entrepreneurship has had
something for everyone—academics, practitioners, and students who are interested in social enterprise,
innovation, sustainability, and impact. We have been fortunate to have the leading thought leaders,
scholars, and social entrepreneurs present their latest work and initiatives.
Within our practitioner conference, Nobel Laureates M. Yunus, and Michael Spence as well as Bill
Drayton, Jed Emerson, Jacqueline Novogratz, Andrew Kassoy, Susan Davis, Greg Dees, David Bornstein,
Cheryl Dorsey, Linda Rottenberg, Mark Kramer, Jason Saul, Billy Shore, Scott Harrison, Tom Szaky, Darell
Hammond, Scott Barrie, Laura Callanan, Brian Trelstad, Sara Olsen, Tris Lumley, Debra Natelshon, Richard
Steele, Michael Weinstein, Georgette Wong, Margot Brandenburg, among others have been with us over
the years!
Within our academic conference, some of our keynotes have included Alex Nicholls, Johanna Mair,
Christian Seelos, Helen Haugh, Paul Tracey, Paul Light, Paul Bloom, Tom Lumpkin, Durreen Shahnaz, Filipe
Santos, Julie Battilana, William Baumol, Paul Romer, Tina Dacin, Geoff Kistruck, Debbi Brock, Ana Maria
Peredo, Phillip Phan, Silvia Dorado, Norris Krueger, Jeff York, Gordon Bloom to name several.
We are the largest academic conference on social entrepreneurship in terms of submissions. We
received abstracts from all over the world: US, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South
Africa, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, etc.
Same as in the past, this year’s academic conference is dedicated to the ongoing development of theory
and research on social entrepreneurship and its impact on global communities. The aim is to bring
together scholars in social entrepreneurship to discuss emerging concepts and themes in social entre-
preneurship research. Themes include:
• Social entrepreneurship process involving opportunity recognition and evaluation
• Organizational forms of social enterprises
• Challenges of scaling and measuring social impact
• Emerging themes in social entrepreneurship education
• Cross-cultural comparative studies in social entrepreneurship
• Research challenges in social entrepreneurship
WELCOME!
Leading scholars in the field will be delivering keynotes including:
• Gordon Bloom, Harvard University
• Tina Dacin, Queen’s University
• Geoffrey Kistruck, York University
• Scott Newbert, Villanova University
• Alex Nicholls, University of Oxford
• Anne-Claire Pache, ESSEC Business School
• Dennis Young, Georgia State University
While our conference participants represent a wide range of viewpoints, we are all united by a commit-
ment to building and supporting social entrepreneurs and their organizations. We hope you gain useful
insights and inspiration during our time together.
Best, Jill and Sophie
NYU Stern
Public Affairs: Jessica Neville, Carolyn Ritter
Special Events: Jessica Farrell, Caroline Boneta, Caitlin McCarthy, Judy Zhong
Social Enterprise Association: Lauren Clark and Allie Hollowell, co-presidents
Net Impact Chapter Leaders: Aileen Jiang and Laura Chen, co-presidents
Business and Society Program
Bruce Buchanan, director
Autherine Allison, administrative aide
Skye Weis, administrative aide
Berkley Center Team
Luke Williams, executive director
Cynthia Franklin, senior associate director
Loretta Poole, associate director
Patricia Miller-Edwards, administrative assistant
Will Baumol, academic director
Alexander Ljungqvist, research director
Janeece Lewis, secretary
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:00-9:00
Registration
Registration in Kaufman Management
KMC Lobby
Center (KMC)
Cantor
Light Breakfast Boardroom,
KMC 11-75
Jill Kickul, Director, NYU Stern Program
in Social Entrepreneurship
9:00-10:15 Opening Plenary
Sophie Bacq, Northeastern University,
KMC 1-70
D'Amore-McKim School of Business
Cantor
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break Boardroom,
KMC 11-75
Session 1 Crowdfunding KMC 3-65
Session 2 Cultural Aspects of Social Entrepreneurship KMC 3-120
10:30-12:30 Session 3 Institutional Perspectives on
KMC 3-130
Social Entrepreneurship
Session 4 Social Entrepreneurship at the Base
of the Pyramid
KMC 4-110
Lunch
Scott Newbert (Villanova University)
12:30-2:00 Keynote Setting the Stage for Paradigm Development:
Presentation A “Small Tent” Approach to Social Entrepreneurship
Session 5 Organizational Forms & Legal Regimes KMC 2-80
2:00-4:00 Session 6 Legitimacy Issues KMC 3-60
Session 7 Employee Involvement and the
KMC 3-130
Cooperative Model
Keynote
Gordon Bloom (Harvard University)
4:00-5:15
Presentation
Social Innovation, Transformative Learning KMC 1-70
& the 21st Century University
5:30-7:30 Reception
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013
Global Center
238 Thompson St.
Grand Hall,
5th floor
NYU Torch Club,
18 Waverly Place
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:00-9:00
Registration
Registration in Kaufman Management
KMC Lobby
Center (KMC)
Outside
Light Breakfast
KMC 2-60
Dennis Young (Georgia State University)
9:00-10:15
Keynote
A Visit to the Zoo: Understanding the Diversity KMC 2-60
Presentation
of Social Enterprises
Outside
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break
KMC 2-60
Session 8 Identity and Collective Action KMC 3-60
Session 9 International Social Entrepreneurship
10:30-12:30
and University Approaches KMC 3-80
Session 10 Governance Issues in Social Entrepreneurship KMC 3-130
Session 11 Social Value Creation KMC 4-110
Lunch
Geoff Kistruck (York University)
12:30-2:00
Keynote
Cooperative vs. Competitive Approaches
KMC 2-60
Presentation
to Motivating Communities to Participate within
Social Enterprise Development Initiatives
Session 12 Embeddedness and Collective Action KMC 3-110
2:00-4:00 Session 13 Social Entrepreneurs’ Individual Motivations KMC 3-120
Session 14 Leveraging Opportunities by
KMC 3-80
Nonprofit Social Enterprises
Keynote Alex Nicholls (University of Oxford)
4:00-5:15
Presentation Risk, Return and Pricing in Social Finance
KMC 2-60
Northeastern D'Amore-McKim
5:30- Reception
School of Business Best Paper Award
8:00 and Award
Reception
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2013
Abbe Bogen
Faculty Lounge,
KMC 11-85
FRI DAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2013
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:30-9:00 Light Breakfast KMC 5-50
Anne-Claire Pache (ESSEC Business School)
9:00-10:15
Keynote
Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: KMC 5-50
Presentation
A Research Program
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break KMC 5-50
Session 15 Social Innovation KMC 4-90
10:30-12:30 Session 16 Hybrid Social Entrepreneurial Ventures KMC 5-80
Symposium Social Entrepreneurship Education KMC 3-70
Lunch
Tina Dacin (Queen’s University)
12:30-2:00
Keynote The Dark Side of Social Entrepreneurship
KMC 5-50
Presentation
KMC 3- 65 KMC 3- 120 KMC 3- 130 KMC 4- 110
SESSI ON 1 SESSI ON 2 SESSI ON 3 SESSI ON 4
10:30- Crowdfunding Cultural Aspects Institutional Social
12:30 of Social Perspectives Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship on Social at the Base
Entrepreneurship of the Pyramid
Session
Jennifer Walske John Clarkin Usman Ghani Duncan Duke
Chair
10:30- Albert, Dean, Davila, Lozano Bosma, Gupta & Ganesh
11:00 Josefy & Fitza & Lyons Hoogendoorn, Understanding
Behind the curtain: Leveraging low Schutjens innovation
An empirical analysis income farmers’ & Völker at the base of
of the mission- performance Institutions and the pyramid
based model of through empower- entrepreneurs’
antecedents in social ment: Analysis of pursuit of social
entrepreneurship a sustainable business goals
initiative in Mexico
11:00- Cholakova Hu & Frank Chalmers Gras
11:30 & Clarysse Developing social Uncovering the & Mendoza-Abarca
Does the possibility entrepreneurship social: Relational Born-diversified social
to make equity invest- opportunities in asymmetries in ventures: An analysis
ments in crowdfund- China—A critical processes of social of newly-founded
ing projects crowd realist perspective entrepreneurship Canadian charities
out our pro-social
motivation?
11:30- Josefy Tian & Smith Jain & Koch Meyskens, Moss
12:00 Crowdfunding the Individual moti- Constructing & Renko
lighthouse: Investor vations to create sustainable product- African microfinance:
motivations and social enterprises: markets for under- The role of regulatory
privately-funded Cultural impacts served publics: The factors in value
public goods in China case of clean-energy creation
provision to off-grid
communities
12:00- Lehner York, Conger, Krzeminska Minard
12:30 The formation and Hekman & Vedula Competition among From self-employment
interplay of social Towards a theory social enterprises— to social enterprise to
capital in the ORFE of sociocultural a case study analysis getting ahead collect-
processes of crowd munificence: How of the trade-off ively: Sustainable path-
funded social interdependence between institu- ways for innovations
ventures alters the influence tionalization and in development
of economic muni- competitive finance
ficence on social advantage
venture survival
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6
KMC 2- 80 KMC 3- 60 KMC 3- 130
SESSI ON 5 SESSI ON 6 SESSI ON 7
2:00- Organizational Forms Legitimacy Issues Employee Involvement
4:00 & Legal Regimes and the Cooperative
Model
Session
Cass Brewer Niels Bosma Giovany Cajaiba-Santana
Chair
2:00- Brewer, Minnigh & Wexler Lambrich & Weber Bissola & Imperatori
2:30 Social entrepreneurship by Interpartner legitimacy People management in the
nonprofits and hybrid between social enterprises social enterprise: Measuring
organizations and their most important job and social engagement
partners—A quantitative
analysis on its antecedents
2:30- Kennedy & Haigh Milanov, Justo & Bradley O’Neil, Ucbasaran & Birkett
3:00 Path to hybridization: Legitimacy, ties and the Entrepreneurial identities
Offensive and defensive performance of female and employee commitment
changes to legal structure entrepreneurs: Evidence in social enterprise ventures
from Kenyan microcredit
3:00- Cheng, Hertel & Alarkon Welter, Conger & Josefy O’Shea, Nelson
3:30 Social entrepreneurship Nothing but a bag of seeds: & Huybrechts
case studies: Navigating Understanding the role Entrepreneurs creating
legal regimes for social of support organizations community value through
impact in enabling social entre- cooperatives: An inter-
preneurship national research project
3:30- Rodgers Young-Hyman
4:00 Good form? The impact of organizational
Organizational perfor- authority on team-based
mance in microfinance work: Project teams in the
custom automation industry
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7
KMC 3- 60 KMC 3- 80 KMC 3- 130 KMC 4- 110
SESSI ON 8 SESSI ON 9 SESSI ON 10 SESSI ON 11
10:30- Identity and International Governance Social Value Creation
12:30 Collective Action Social Entrepre- Issues in Social
neurship and Entrepreneurship
University
Approaches
Session
Sophie Bacq Jamie Newth Othmar Lehner Christiana Weber
Chair
10:30- Battilana, Lee Clarkin Jett & Osorio Dubard Barbosa
11:00 & Dimitriadis & Cangioni Should employee- & Cajaiba-Santana
The community Social Impact owned companies Organizational forms
antecedents of hybrid Bonds and Impact be considered of social enterprises
social entrepre- Investments: social enterprises? and their implications
neurship Where the bottom A change in govern- for value creation,
line meets the ance of a family- circulation, and
bottom of the owned company distribution
economic pyramid and its implications
11:00- Birkett, O'Neil Duke, Gallardo Perrini, Vurro Sprangel & Salarda
11:30 & Ucbasaran & Fernández & Giordano A public perception of
Managing conflicting Álvarez de Lugo Business transition the benefit corporation
organisational The funding in social enterprise: model as a viable
identities in social challenge for social The case of San approach for business
enterprise: The entrepreneurship Patrignano adoption in Greater
employee experience in developing Augusta County
markets
11:30- Maiolini, Rullani Adomdza, Scarlata, Sullivan Mort
12:00 & Versari Shaughnessy Zacharakis Extending the
Exploring the & Craig & Walske quantification agenda:
boundaries of Designing and The effect of Towards measuring
the collective social delivering interna- founders’ exper- shared value created
entrepreneurship tional social enter- iences on the within social
model prise immersion performance of entrepreneurship
courses philanthropic ven-
ture capital firms
12:00- York, Sarasvathy Ghani, Hicks Wilson, Aliouche,
12:30 & O’Neil & Nair Maddocks
Selective incentives, Reinventing & Schlentrich
entrepreneurship, and universities: Social franchising:
identity: Toward a A social The mechanism for
behavioral theory of entrepreneurial giving freedom to
collective action approach power social entre-
preneurial ideas?
KMC 3- 110 KMC 3- 120 KMC 3- 80
SESSI ON 12 SESSI ON 13 SESSI ON 14
2:00- Embeddedness and Social Entrepreneurs’ Leveraging Opportunities
4:00 Collective Action Individual Motivations by Nonprofit Social
Enterprises
Session
Sara Minard Rachida Justo David Gras
Chair
2:00- Newth Branzei Félix-González & Husted
2:30 Social enterprise innovation Towards a theory of hope Opportunity discovery and
through resistance for social entrepreneurship creation in social entre-
preneurship: Two different
constructs of the opportun-
ity identification process
2:30- Pathak & Muralidharan Lehner & Germak Jauregui Becker,
3:00 Societal-level collectivism The need for achievement Franco-Garcia & Groen
and trust: Influence on as a driver of social The business model
social and commercial entrepreneurship proposition for product
entrepreneurship co-creation centers (PC3):
Scaling up the BoP mind-set
to social entrepreneurial
skills
3:00- Ramirez & Meros Powell & Baker Jeong, Kaplan & Hazarika
3:30 Making the case for a social How can we help? The Impact of social media
enterprise ecosystem distinctive impact of marketing for American
empathy and sympathy in non-profit organizations
the emergence of social compared to traditional
venture missions media exposure and its
impact on revenue growth
3:30- Dean & Brakman Reiser Sullivan Mort Robb
4:00 SE(c)(3): A tax regime to Is sharing the basis of social Attitudes of nonprofit CEOs
facilitate social enterprise entrepreneurship? and executive directors on
crowdfunding growth, efficiency, and
resources: A single-industry
qualitative study
KMC 4- 90 KMC 5- 80 KMC 3- 70
SESSI ON 15 SESSI ON 16 SYMPOSI UM
10:30- Social Innovation Hybrid Social SOCIAL
12:30 Entrepreneurial Ventures ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION
Session
Michael Conger Nardia Haigh
Chair Featuring
10:30- Castaner & Yu Battilana & Lee
11:00 How can an embedded Social enterprises as hybrid
organization within the organizations: A review and
existing ecosystem push for roadmap for organization
a radical innovation in the studies
social sector?
11:00- Dell’Amore, Rothstein, Bhutani, Nair & Groen
11:30 Cuesta, Stockhammer- Is hybridity a necessary
DeSimone & London condition to building
Relationships between entrepreneurship
founder background, issue sustainable businesses?
severity, and innovation in
social entrepreneurship
initiatives
11:30- Eagan & Hsu Lee
12:00 Art and social innovation: Mission and markets?:
A case study The performance of hybrid
social ventures
12:00- Weber & Overall Trenholm & Cukier
12:30 Innovation, financial Requisite variety: Complexity
independence or both— theory and health care
What drives social impact innovation in the UK
the most? Empirical
evidence of social
enterprises
FRI DAY, NOVEMBER 8
Michele Leaman,
Ashoka U
Dennis Shaughnessy,
Northeastern University
Emily Block,
University of Notre Dame
Jill R. Kickul joined New York University Stern School of Business as the
Director of their social entrepreneurship program in July 2008. She teaches
courses in entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship and is the Faculty
Chair and Academic Advisor for the 30-course MBA specialization in Social
Innovation and Impact. Prior to joining NYU Stern, Professor Kickul was the Richard A. Forsythe Chair in
Entrepreneurship in the Thomas C. Page Center for Entrepreneurship at Miami University, Ohio, and a
professor in the management department in the University's Farmer School of Business. Prior to joining
the Miami University faculty, she was the Elizabeth J. McCandless Professor in Entrepreneurship at the
Simmons School of Management in Boston.
Professor Kickul's primary research areas of interest include innovation and strategic processes within
new ventures, micro-financing practices and wealth creation in transitioning economies, and social
entrepreneurship. She is the co-author of numerous books including: Understanding Social
Entrepreneurship: The Relentless Pursuit of Mission in an Ever Changing World, Patterns in Social Entre-
preneurship Research, Social Entrepreneurship (Two volume meta-review of field), Entrepreneurship
Strategy: Changing Patterns in New Venture Creation, Growth, and Reinvention, and Handbook of
Microcredit in Europe: Social Inclusion Through Microenterprise Development.
She has published more than 100 publications in entrepreneurship and management journals, includ-
ing: Academy of Management Learning and Education, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Small
Business Economics, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Operations
Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, International
Small Business, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, California Management Review,
and Journal of Business Ethics. She currently is the Executive Vice-President of Entrepreneurship
Research Society, Editor of SSRN Social Entrepreneurship Journal (sponsored by Kauffman Foundation)
and board member of the European Microfinance Network, Foundation for Social Change, ChangeCorp,
Rising Tide Initiative, and Faculty Affiliate in the Center for Gender and Organizations.
Professor Kickul has taught entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship internationally for the
Helsinki School of Economics, International Bank of Asia, Hong Kong MBA Program, and delivered
research seminars at the Stockholm School of Economics, INSEAD, EM Lyon School of Business, Aarhus
Center for Organizational Renewal and Evolution (CORE), Central European University, University of
Stavanger, Massey University, and the Jonkoping International Business School. Her work on entrepre-
neurship education development and curriculum design has been nationally recognized and supported
through the National Science Foundation (NSF), Coleman Foundation Entrepreneurship Excellence in
Teaching Colleges Grant and was named by Fortune Small Business as one of the Top 10 Innovative
Programs in Entrepreneurship Education.
ABOUT THE CO- DI RECTORS
Sophie Bacqis an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in
the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston. Dr
Bacq received her PhD in Economic and Management Sciences from the
Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium. Her research interests include
social entrepreneurship, governance and management issues in hybrid organizations, and international
new ventures. Her research has been published in leading academic journals such as Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, or Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. She is the author of numerous book chapters and
several books including: Patterns in Social Entrepreneurship Research, and Social Entrepreneurship,
a two-volume meta review of the field. Dr Bacq’s teaching experience covers entrepreneurship, cor -
porate strategy, social entrepreneurship, as well as field trip experience in India, among others. Prior to
joining Northeastern University, Dr Bacq was a Visiting Scholar at New York University Stern School of
Business for two years. She holds a Master’s degree and a Bachelor’s degree in Business Engineering
from the Université catholique de Louvain and studied a semester at the National University of
Singapore in 2005.
Gordon Bloomis founder of the Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE
Lab) @ Stanford, Harvard and Princeton Universities. He teaches about the
design and development of innovative social change organizations addressing
challenges in US & global health, development, education, and the environment,
and is currently affiliated with the Cambridge Innovation Center. At Harvard, Gordon taught Social
Entrepreneurship & Global Innovation on Harvard’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences/Sociology, in a new model
delivered in collaboration with Harvard’s Innovation Lab (i-lab), and on the faculty of the Harvard
Kennedy School in Leadership & Management, and as a principal of the Hauser Center for Non-Profit
Organizations, and as one of the founding faculty of the $10 million Reynolds Fellows Program in Social
Entrepreneurship at the Center for Public Leadership. At Princeton, Gordon served as Dean’s Visiting
Professor in Entrepreneurship in 2009- 2010 and working together with the School of Engineering &
Applied Science, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs, and the Faculty of Arts &
Sciences, launched a new set of programs and prizes in social innovation and entrepreneurship in col-
laboration with students, faculty and alumni. At Stanford, Gordon created the SE Lab, a Silicon Valley and
technology–influenced incubator for social ventures, which takes an interdisciplinary approach to glob-
al problem solving. It launched in 2001-2002, while Gordon taught on Stanford’s Public Policy Program
faculty, and served as a faculty affiliate at the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford Graduate School
of Business, and a Program Officer at Stanford’s Institute for International Studies. Many of the talented
students & fellows in Gordon’s SE Labs have won the top awards of prestigious idea and business plan
competitions, including those at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and MIT. Gordon is an author of the edit-
ed volume Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change (A. Nicholls, ed., Oxford
University Press, 2006/2008) and served as a founding member of the Oxford/Ashoka led University
Network for Social Entrepreneurship. Gordon’s interest in entrepreneurship is informed by work in both
the private and nonprofit sectors in the U.S. (New York, Cambridge, Palo Alto), Europe (London, Paris)
and Asia (Hong Kong), as CEO of a medical technology company and in international strategy consult-
ing. He holds degrees from Harvard (AB) magna cum laude in History & Science, Stanford (MBA) with an
award in Public Management and Columbia (MFA) where he held a Shubert Fellowship. Gordon’s wife,
Sara Singer, teaches health policy & management on the faculty of Harvard School of Public Health and
Harvard Medical School/Mass General Hospital. They live with their children Audrey (13) and Jason (10)
in Newton, Massachusetts.
SPEAKERS
Tina Dacin is the E. Marie Shantz Professor of Strategy and Organizational
Behavior in the Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Canada. She is
the Director of the Queen's School of Business Centre for Responsible
Leadership and Area Coordinator of the Organizational Behavior group at the
school. She is also a member of the University Senate at Queen's University and Chair of the Principal's
Innovation Fund Committee. Professor Dacin's research interests include cultural heritage and traditions,
social innovation/entrepreneurship, and strategic alliances. Her work has been published in leading
management journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Review, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management,
Journal of World Business, Organization Science, and the Strategic Management Journal. She has also
served as Senior/Consulting Editor for Organization Science, Journal of International Business Studies,
Journal of Management Inquiry. She has previously served for multiple terms on the Editorial Review
Boards of the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Journal of
International Business Studies, Strategic Organization and Strategic Management Journal. Professor
Dacin teaches courses in leadership, change, and strategy. Professor Dacin advises and speaks to major
corporations in the airline, biotechnology, defense, energy, financial services, healthcare, and telecom-
munications sectors as well as a number of public sector and non-profit organizations. She currently sits
on the boards of the Kingston Community Foundation and GRLI, a global advocacy organization for
promoting responsible leadership in business schools and organizations. Professor Dacin has received
several awards and recognition for research and teaching. Most recently, she was inducted as a Visiting
Fellow into Sidney Sussex College at the University of Cambridge, UK and is a Visiting Fellow of the
Judge Business School. She has also been a Visiting Professor for several years at the Kellogg School of
Management, Northwestern University and the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, India.
Geoff Kistruck currently serves as Associate Professor and Ron Binns Chair
in Entrepreneurship at the Schulich School of Business, York University in
Canada. His primary research interests involve social entrepreneurship and
innovation on the part of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, principally
within the context of poverty alleviation efforts in base-of-the-pyramid markets. Geoff’s research projects
are often action-oriented in nature in that they involve the design and field testing of theoretically-
based solutions to current challenges faced by social enterprises. As part of his research journey thus
far, Geoff has published articles in top management journals such as Academy of Management Journal,
Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Management Studies, &
the Journal of Management. Geoff’s research has also won a number of awards including the Rowan
University Best Paper in Social Entrepreneurship Award at the Academy of Management, the Satter Best
Paper Award at the 7th Annual NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, and the Best
Dissertation Awards for both the International Management and Public and Nonprofit Divisions of the
Academy of Management. Geoff obtained his PhD from the Ivey School of Business at the University of
Western Ontario. Prior to entering academe, Geoff served in a number of managerial positions within
the venture capital and financial services industry.
Scott L. Newbert is an associate professor of management, the Harry
Halloran Emerging Scholar in Social Entrepreneurship, and the Anne Quinn
Welsh Faculty Fellow in Honors at Villanova University. He received his Ph.D. in
strategic management and entrepreneurship from Rutgers University. He has
taught courses in business ethics, entrepreneurship, and strategy at both the graduate and undergrad-
uate levels. In so doing, he has developed several practice-based courses that allow undergraduate and
graduate students to apply management theory to the real-world challenges faced by for-profit and
non-profit organizations operating in domestic and international markets. His current research interests
include the factors that enable individuals to succeed in creating new organizations, the processes by
which existing and nascent firms create value through the entrepreneurial use of available resources
and capabilities, and the interplay between the social and economic drivers and impacts of entrepre-
neurial activity. His research on these and related topics has appeared in many of the leading academic
journals including Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, and IEEE
Transactions in Engineering Management and has been highlighted in several popular media outlets
including the Boston Herald and Inc. He currently serves as a field editor for Journal of Business
Venturing, a special issue editor for Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Technovation, and an edito-
rial review board member for Journal of Management Studies and Journal of Small Business
Management. In addition to his academic endeavors, he also provides consulting services on strategic,
entrepreneurial, and marketing issues to for-profit and non-profit organizations of all sizes. Prior to
obtaining his Ph.D., he worked in sales for a Fortune 100 company, co-founded a privately-owned
consulting firm, and coached college football.
Alex Nicholls, MBA, is the first lecturer in social entrepreneurship appointed
at the University of Oxford and was the first staff member of the Skoll Centre for
Social Entrepreneurship in 2004. Nicholls research interests range across several
key areas within social entrepreneurship, including: the interface between the
public and social sectors; organizational legitimacy and governance; the development of social finance
markets; and impact measurement and innovation. Nicholls is widely published in peer-reviewed jour-
nals and has done consultancy work for not-for-profits, social enterprises, and the UK government. He
is the co-author of a major research book on Fair Trade (with Charlotte Opal, Sage, 2005). His ground-
breaking 2006 edition of a collection of key papers on the state of the art of social entrepreneurship
globally was published in paperback edition by Oxford University Press in 2008. It is the best selling aca-
demic book on the subject globally. He has held lectureships at a wide variety of academic institutions
including: University of Toronto, Canada; Leeds Metropolitan University; University of Surrey; Aston
Business School. He has been a Fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science and a Member of the
Institute of Learning and Teaching. Nicholls also sat on the regional social enterprise expert group for
the South East of England and is a member of the Advisory Group for the ESRC Social Enterprise
Capacity Building Cluster. He is a non Executive Director of a major Fair Trade company.
Anne-Claire Pache is associate professor of social entrepreneurship at
ESSEC Business School (Paris, France) and holder of the ESSEC Chair in
Philanthropy. She received her doctorate in organizational behavior from
INSEAD. Her research lies at the intersection of organizational theory and social
entrepreneurship, with a particular emphasis on pluralistic environments, hybrid organizations, and
scaling-up processes in organizations. Her work has been published in the Academy of Management
Review, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Research
in the Sociology of Organizations, Leadership Quarterly and Journal of Business Ethics.
Dennis R. Young is Professor of Public Management and Policy in the
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. From 2005
to 2013 he directed the school’s Nonprofit Studies Program. From 1988 to 1996
he was Director of the Mandel Center for Nonprofit Organizations and Mandel
Professor of Nonprofit Management at Case Western Reserve University. He is the founding editor of the
journal Nonprofit Management and Leadership and founding and current editor of Nonprofit Policy
Forum, and past president of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary
Action (ARNOVA). His books include A Casebook of Management for Nonprofit Organizations,
Economics for Nonprofit Managers (with Richard Steinberg), Corporate Philanthropy at the Crossroads
(with Dwight Burlingame), Effective Economic Decision Making for Nonprofit Organizations, Wise
Decision-Making in Uncertain Times, Financing Nonprofits and Handbook of Research on Nonprofit
Economics and Management (with Bruce A. Seaman). In 2013, his 1983 book If Not for Profit for What?
A Behavioral Theory of the Nonprofit Sector based on Entrepreneurship was digitally reissued with new
commentaries from contemporary scholars by the Georgia State University Library (http://scholar-
works.gsu.edu/facbooks2013/1/). Prof. Young received ARNOVA’s 2004 Award for Distinguished
Achievement and Leadership in Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Research, and the Award for Innovation
in Nonprofit Research from the Israeli Center for Third Sector Research at Ben Gurion University in 2005.
In 2010 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Liege in Belgium for his work on
social enterprise and entrepreneurship. In 2013 he was appointed as an Executive Research Fellow in
the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. He also serves on the
governing board of the National Council of Nonprofits.
SOCI AL
ENTREPRENEURSHI P
@ NYU Stern School of Business
The NYU Stern Program in Social Entrepreneurship educates, challenges, and inspires entrepreneurs
and investors to leverage intellectual, social and financial capital resources with a focus on social
change, innovation and impact. We bring together faculty, students, and the entrepreneurial community
to create a vibrant pipeline of entrepreneurs excited about launching and growing organizations
capable of catalyzing large-scale social change.
Our comprehensive program encapsulates the major issues confronting social entrepreneurs including
the dual focus on educational and experiential learning opportunities. By doing so, we provide support
and create an environment in which social entrepreneurs ideas and initiatives take shape and flourish.
Much of this involves:
• Providing the training and skills that enable social entrepreneurs to create, grow,
and accelerate their businesses and social value propositions.
• Allowing opportunities that secure strategic technical support and financial resources.
• Imparting new approaches and methodologies that align practice and research to improve
the overall effectiveness and impact of the social venture.
• Creating a community of students, scholars, and industry leaders devoted to improving
the social sector.
ABOUT THE NYU STERN PROGRAM
I N SOCI AL ENTREPRENEURSHI P
NYU Stern Social Entrepreneurship Program Initiatives
NYU Stern Social Venture Competition
Now in its tenth year, the NYU-Stern Social Venture Competition was started to recognize and support
the growing number of students and alumni interested in using their business and entrepreneurial
skills to create innovative approaches to tackling social problems.
Through the competition, budding social entrepreneurs receive intense instruction and training, and
work closely with mentors who assist in opportunity assessment, venture development, and calculating
social and financial returns-on-investment. Winners of the Social Venture Competition receive a $50,000
prize.
Over the past nine years, the Social Venture Competition has awarded more than $900,000 in seed
money and services to six innovative new social ventures and has been a springboard for successfully
launching many more.
Annual NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship
The NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship explores the latest issues on social impact
measurement. By bringing together leading experts and thought leaders from the public, non-profit,
for-profit and academic fields, our conference is designed to present strategies and techniques on how
to measure an organizations social impact.
Stern Virtual Incubator
The Stern Virtual Incubator provides a supportive environment in which Stern-affiliated start-ups can
test and refine their business ideas. Incubatees receive:
• On-going coaching & mentoring.
• Pro bono accounting, legal, and marketing services.
• “Brown Bag” Lunches with successful entrepreneurs and investors.
• Access to Stern resources such as meeting space, office equipment, etc.
• Access to a network of other incubatees, veteran entrepreneurs, seasoned investors,
and practitioners with which they can share ideas. Incubatees are selected from among
the finalists and semi-finalists in our social venture competition.
Workshop and Roundtable Series on Measuring Social Impact
NYU Stern’s Berkley Center is committed to furthering the field of social impact measurement through
creating opportunities for stakeholders to engage in ongoing dialogue around this important topic. In
Spring 2011, we offered workshops focused on the latest practices and academic research on measur-
ing social impact. These sessions will explore current strategies, approaches and challenges associated
with designing and implementing new measurement tools and frameworks for social organizations
and investors.
Social Entrepreneurship Courses Across the Curriculum
Our Social Innovation and Impact Specialization courses blend social and environmental perspectives
with the more traditional economic perspective. They provide innovative conceptual frameworks,
strategies, and implementation skills necessary to create substantial social as well as economic value in
for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors. Each course in the SII specialization falls into one or more of the
following areas:
• Ethics/Corporate Social Responsibility/Diversity/Wealth Distribution
• Environmental Sustainability
• Economic Development
• Social Venturing
• Non-Profit Management.
The specialization is appropriate for students anticipating careers (now or later) in the non-profit and
public sectors and for those who wish to enhance their engagement in the for-profit sector as a matter
of corporate citizenship.
A sampling of some of the 30 courses across the various disciplines:
• Doing Business in (DBi) Costa Rica, Social Innovation & Impact
• Energy and the Environment
• Economics of Healthcare
• Advanced Global Perspectives on Enterprise Systems
• The Future of the Global Economy
• Growth in the Developing World and the World Economy
• Global Poverty Alleviation
• Forensic Accounting & Financial Statement Fraud
• Social Venture Capital
• Investing in Microfinance
• Business & The Federal Government
• Social Venture Fund Practicum
• Examining the Nonprofit Capital Market
• Social Enterprise Development
• Women in Business Leadership
• Managing the Growing Company
• International Social Impact Strategies: India, Columbia, Brazil
• Foundations of Social Entrepreneurship
• Leading Sustainable Enterprises
• Corporate Branding and CSR
COURSES OVERVI EW
Foundations The purpose of this course is to explore the many dimensions of new venture
of Social creation and growth, and to foster innovation and new business formations in
Entrepreneurship independent and corporate settings. The curriculum is designed to teach
students about all aspects of the traditional business planning process, with
particular attention to the challenges of social venture creation.
Leading This course is about creating, leading, and managing business enterprises
Sustainable that seek to contribute to facilitating sustainable development. In particular,
Enterprises we will look at issues regarding potential roles for business in contributing
to sustainability, measuring the effectiveness of an organization in terms of
sustainability indices, examples of firms that are creating and executing
strategies for competing in a sustainable manner, managing stakeholders,
innovating forms of business enterprises (e.g., micro-finance), methods for
fostering innovation and change inside the organization that could contribute
to sustainability goals as well as the role of leadership.
Social Enterprise Students learn how nonprofit organizations, in an effort to become more
Development self-sustaining, are diversifying their revenue streams beyond traditional
foundation and government support by creating business ventures and
corporate partnerships. This course is designed not only to educate students
about the models and practices currently being pursued by these organiza-
tions, but also to provide practical tools that foster new innovations in
this area.
Social Venture The practicum—the first of its kind in the country—gives students the
Fund Practicum hands-on educational experience of making investments in social ventures
and providing management assistance to grantees. Students function as the
staff of a real venture fund, supervising operations, performing due diligence
on applicants, making grant recommendations, and providing management
assistance to grantees. The fund focuses on supporting New York City-based
new and emerging institutions and new revenue-generating subsidiaries of
existing nonprofits.
COURSES OVERVI EW
Social Venture This course explores a spectrum of financial tools used to create social value.
Capital: Finance It examines the social capital markets and financial instruments designed to
with a Double produce not only financial returns, but also social returns; these instruments
Bottom Line are commonly known as “double bottom line” investments. The course will
explore the structures, social missions, and effectiveness of these types of
investment organizations and also will consider the challenges of quantifying
the social returns. Guest lecturers include executives from the Nonprofit
Finance Fund, the Ford Foundation, Underdog Ventures, and the Rockefeller
Foundation.
International This course is intended to provide a socially relevant academic experience that
Social Impact combines classroom curriculum with hands-on learning in an international
Strategies setting. The course is designed to help students gain in-depth insights into
economic and social value creation in the developing world. Through case
studies, lectures, fieldwork and classroom dialogue, students will learn to think
strategically and act opportunistically with a socially-conscious business
mindset. Through a partnership with firms located in India, Stern students will
have the opportunity to apply their classroom learnings to real-world issues
by conducting fieldwork abroad. Team-based projects will focus on areas
including poverty alleviation, energy, health and sustainability. Students will
gain exposure to various organizational models for addressing these issues, as
well as to thoroughly-vetted international social enterprises that are making
tangible and potentially scalable progress in serving the worlds poorest
populations. Student teams will work with partner organizations to deliver
on discrete projects designed to meet existing needs. In addition, project
deliverables will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices with
the growing social impact sector.
Global Poverty The objective of this intense course is to offer in-depth understanding of
Alleviation issues related to poverty in developing countries. In discussions on the roles
of governments, international agencies, donors, NGOs and private institutions,
emphasis will be on developmental strategies and approaches to poverty
alleviation. Study of social entrepreneurship and private sector participation
(including for-profit businesses as well as non-profit institutions) will receive
special attention.
Advanced Global This course examines the economic, political and cultural dynamics of
Perspectives on emerging markets. Special attention is given to the impacts of government,
Enterprise Systems entrepreneurship, management, and financial institutions. The histories of
such diverse countries as India, Russia, China, the Asian “Dragons,” Saudi
Arabia, Argentina, Chile and the European Union will be examined as well as
their implications for global sustainable businesses and investment prospects.
COURSES OVERVI EW
Ecoleadership: The This course will explore economic globalization and focus on the impact of
Public Role of The the private sector on decisions that shape global society and influence the
Private Sector in design, development and delivery of public goods. It will examine the:
Building Sustainable 1) impact of the global quest for markets and the growth of economic capital
Societies on the development of social, cultural and natural capital, and 2) role of the
private sector in shaping sustainable economic growth policies which can also
promote the development of a sustainable global society.
Investing in Introduces the deal structuring, negotiating, and drafting skills necessary to
Microfinance advise both investors (debt and equity) in microfinance institutions. Identifies
key challenges that microfinance institutions face when seeking sources of
financing that can support double bottom line (financial and social) objec-
tives. Examines motivations of the parties that engage in microfinance and
the risks that they are likely to encounter.
Energy and the Students gain an overview of the economics and politics of the interlinked
Environment — fields of energy and the environment. The course will investigate why change
Business As Usual tends to come slowly in these industries, ask whether the world is at an energy
or Ripe For crossroads and examine the rapidly evolving landscape of oil and cars that
Revolution? powered the prosperity seen in the 20th century, but which also contribute
mightily to the health, environmental and foreign policy problems associated
with energy.
Examining the The course is designed to help students: understand how the nonprofit
Non-profit: market operates currently; confront the conceptual and practical challenges
Integrated which make the development of a more rational market less straightforward
Challenges of than might be assumed at first blush; and, consider and critique emerging
Performance, practices that seek to improve the nonprofit marketplace. Practitioners are
Measurement, integrated into the teaching of the course to a significant degree, giving
Scale, and students the opportunity to engage with leaders whose perspective stems
Sustainability from their day-to-day experience with the concrete and theoretical
challenges of the nonprofit market.
COURSES OVERVI EW
10 Top Trends in Over the past 15 years, the social sector has sought new approaches to old
Social Innovation: problems. This course reviews ten of the most important current trends
Selected issues in social innovation—understanding their origins, the problems they are
on Capital, Scale intended to address, some of the key actors involved, and their benefits. In
and Impact doing so, it asks: What are the unintended consequences of these popular
social innovations? The course is will intentionally introduce a range of social
sector vocabulary and core concepts, introduce students to leading tools
and data resources, highlight thought leaders in the field, and cover a range
of key issues including: impact, performance measurement, scaling, and
impact investing.
Investing for Impact investors seek to generate environmental and social impacts in
Environmental addition to financial returns. While this approach has long been used
and Social Impact within the public sector and NGOs, commercial investors are increasingly
embracing this strategy. Innovative design of financial instruments such as
social impact bonds and microfinance guarantee funds are opening up new
sources of funding and new ways to incentivize performance in both public
sector entities and NGOs while attracting commercial capital. The class will
draw upon principles of finance, microeconomics, theories of change, public
policy and investment management to evaluate specific cases and investment
tools in areas such as environmental markets and climate change, public
finance, education, microfinance, health and poverty alleviation.
Social Problem-based This course is designed to put the idea of teaching social entrepreneurship to
Entrepreneurship— its ultimate test—with the objective of incubating a series of social ventures
Conceive, Develop, through the course of a semester. Early in the class, teams of three to four
& Launch! students each will be formed and will choose from one of two domains or
“mega-problems” as a starting point: agriculture or healthcare (or a problem
of their choosing). While teams can pick their ultimate market of focus, the
class will focus on India and will entail a trip to India. By using the mega-
problem as a starting point, teams will drill down through the problem to
develop a social venture that addresses the problem. By the end of the class,
the teams should have fine-tuned their solutions, designed a pilot product/
service, proposed a business model and completed strategy statements for
their venture.
Stern Specialization Website:
www.stern.nyu.edu/AcademicAffairs/Specializations/SocialInnovationandImpact/index.htm
Introduction
While research on social entrepreneurship continues to lag practice, the field is expanding at an unprece-
dented rate. Several indicators attest to this growth including the publication of journal special issues on
social entrepreneurship, the establishment of journals dedicated solely to social entrepreneurship
research, the creation of university centers focused on social entrepreneurship, and the formation of
research conferences devoted to social entrepreneurship.
In terms of special issues, many academic journals have announced or published special issues on social
entrepreneurship, including Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneur-
ship and Regional Development, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of World Business, Entrepreneurship
and Public Policy, and the International Small Business Journal. While this is a testament to these journals’
explicit interest in the topic, there are other journals devoted solely to this topic (or a closely-related one).
These include the Social Enterprise Journal, the International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Social
Innovation, the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Social Entrepreneurship Journal (SSRN), and the newly-
formed Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. University research centers focusing on social entrepreneurship
and its study include, among others, the NYU Stern School of Business Social Entrepreneurship Program,
the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business, the Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pace University, the Mason Center for Social
Entrepreneurship at George Mason University, and the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at the
University of Oxford. Lastly, conferences devoted to social entrepreneurship research include the annual
NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship and the Research Colloquium on Social Entrepreneur-
ship jointly held annually by Duke University and the University of Oxford.
Beyond indicators, Moss, Lumpkin, and Short (first volume) offer a recent literature review on the field of
social entrepreneurship. They search multiple academic databases, without date restrictions, for the terms
‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’, ‘social venture’, and ‘social enterprise’. The earliest social en-
trepreneurship paper they find was published in 1991. They find only 6 social entrepreneurship articles
published between 1991 and 1996, 56 published between 1997 and 2002, and 267 published between
2003 and 2008. Hence, this research collection comes at a most fortuitous time in that:
1) it comes shortly after the 20th anniversary of the first published research article on
social entrepreneurship,
2) the literature is approaching the critical mass necessary for reflection and singling
out exemplar pieces and,
3) the exponential growth in research interest for the field merits identification of
foundational and model papers to aid and guide future advancements.
In creating these volumes, we set out to collect the most important and influential social entrepreneur-
ship articles to date. This task is, of course, fraught with subjectivity. Further, there are many excellent
social entrepreneurship articles that were seriously considered which, due to space restrictions, overlap
with other selected articles, or other editorial reasons, were excluded. Nevertheless, it is our hope that
this collection turns out to be a useful and interesting representation of the current body of social entre-
preneurship work for scholars from any discipline who wish to research or teach social entrepreneurship.
The remaining portion of this introductory chapter is devoted to laying out the major themes of the ar-
ticles chosen for the two volumes and to identifying the pressing needs for future research in the field.
Major Social Entrepreneurship Themes
Several scholars have categorized major themes in the field of social entrepreneurship. Some have pro-
vided reviews of extant research while others have provided recommendations for future research
(Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Haugh, 2005; Moss, Lumpkin, & Short, first volume; Short, Moss, &
Lumpkin, 2009). To illustrate, Austin and his colleagues discuss six fundamental research themes for social
entrepreneurship—markets, mission, capital, people, performance, and context. The themes we lay out
in these volumes are not meant to supplant these contributions, but rather to complement them. Moreover,
our categorization is meant to be neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. Instead, we present a parsimo-
nious set of several of the more popular themes in the literature that also naturally encapsulate the papers
selected for these volumes. The papers were not necessarily chosen based on their representation of a
particular theme; they were selected based on their quality and contribution to the field. The final set of
chosen papers was then grouped into twelve themes based on similarities between the papers’ foci. In
the first volume, the five themes are titled: The Field of Social Entrepreneurship: Laying the Framework; Social
Entrepreneurship Opportunities and Creation; Social Entrepreneurship Governance and Resource Issues; Social
Entrepreneurship within Non-Profit Organizations; and The Future of Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing
Theory. In the second volume, we present seven additional themes: Developing Business Models and
Organizational Forms; Social Impact; Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship; Community-Based
Entrepreneurship; Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development; Financing and Funding; and
Educating to Social Entrepreneurship.
We now introduce each of these themes.
Themes in Volume I
The Field of Social Entrepreneurship: Laying the Framework
As an indicator of the field’s nascence, arguably the most ubiquitous topic in the field to date concerns
defining social entrepreneurship and differentiating it from commercial entrepreneurship. The chosen
papers aim to lay the foundation for the field, define its boundaries, identify its unique qualities, and ar-
ticulate its importance. Such papers are crucial to establishing the legitimacy of social entrepreneurship
research and coalescing scholars’ efforts around a unified phenomenon. Of notable concern is that the
frequency with which these framework-forming papers are published seems stable over time. Said
differently, two decades after the first publication on social entrepreneurship, scholars are still debating
fundamental issues such as the definition of social entrepreneurship and the need for a separate disci-
pline (Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, first volume; Mair & Martí, first volume; Nicholls & Cho, first volume; Short et
al., 2009).
This concern aside, tremendous advances in building a field-wide framework have been made by several
authors. For example, the most-cited paper in the field of social entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2006)
performs a tremendous service in identifying key dimensions upon which social entrepreneurs differ
from commercial entrepreneurs, as well as in building a framework for the study of social entrepreneur-
ship. The authors put forth four propositions to create the demarcation between social and commercial
entrepreneurs. They are:
• “Market failure will create differing entrepreneurial opportunities for social and
commercial entrepreneurship” (p. 3).
• “Differences in mission will be a fundamental distinguishing feature between social
and commercial entrepreneurship that will manifest itself in multiple areas of enterprise
management and personnel motivation. Commercial and social dimensions within the
enterprise may be a source of tension” (p. 3).
• “Human and financial resource mobilization will be a prevailing difference and will lead
to fundamentally different approaches in managing financial and human resources” (p. 3).
• “Performance measurement of social impact will remain a fundamental differentiator,
complicating accountability and stakeholder relations” (p. 3).
The authors then adapt the traditional people-context-deal-opportunity framework to the social entre-
preneurship domain. Although not yet heavily utilized in practice, this framework is a significant and
useful advancement in theoretical rigor for the field.
Whereas the Austin and colleagues’ paper is theoretically derived, another paper in the first volume
collected and analyzed primary data in order to form a framework for social entrepreneurship (Weer-
awardena & Mort, first volume). The authors find that social entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as
a constrained optimization model wherein social value creation is a function of innovation, proactiveness
and risk management, subject to the environment, the social mission and sustainability. Their model is
well grounded in the commercial entrepreneurship literature, yet identifies key distinctions for social
entrepreneurs. As such, it too is a significant advancement in social entrepreneurship thinking.
Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities and Creation
Owing much to the influence of its parent discipline of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship scholars
maintain an important focus on opportunity exploration and exploitation, as well as firm creation. Absent
these factors, the study of social entrepreneurship becomes the study of social enterprise. To create social
value, individuals must take entrepreneurial action on the opportunities they identify. A crucial question
in the social entrepreneurship literature, then, is: “Does creating social value entail differences in oppor-
tunity exploration, exploitation, and firm creation, when compared with economic value creation?”
In short, the prevailing sentiment is that there are important differences between social and commercial
opportunities that merit study (Austin et al., 2006; Dorado, 2006; Murphy & Coombes, first volume).
Murphy and Coombes identify several such delineations. The authors use a corporate social responsibility
lens to develop a model that emphasizes mobilization and timing as the foundations of social entrepre-
neurial discovery. From this model, the authors advance the following six distinct conceptual aspects of
social entrepreneurial discovery (p. 330 of the original paper):
• “Promise of the opportunity is not always reducible to a few stakeholders,
but to a larger constituency”
• “Social purpose or cause is at least as important as satisfaction of future customers or clients”
• “Intended long-term social change takes precedence over quick-hits and short timeframes”
• “Opportunities usually add value in niches targeted by large social sector institutions”
• “Social entrepreneurs have deep understanding of constituencies they serve”
• “Passion and commitment transcend traditional venture boundaries”
Importantly, such differences in opportunities and processes of creation enable social entrepreneurship
scholars to not only add to general entrepreneurship knowledge, but also to explicate and expand es-
tablished theories—a ‘critical success factor’ for the field upon which we expand below. Di Domenico,
Tracey, and Haugh (second volume) demonstrate this in exploring the applicability of bricolage to social
entrepreneurship. Prior to their paper, bricolage was generally considered to comprise three dimensions:
making do, a refusal to be constrained by limitations, and improvisation. However, based on the unique
facets in the process of social entrepreneurial start-up, the authors identify three additional factors;
namely:
• Social value creation—advancement of the common welfare, as opposed to revenue generation.
• Stakeholder participation—active involvement of stakeholders in the creation, management,
and governance of their social enterprise.
• Persuasion—tactics by entrepreneurs to acquire resources and implement the strategies of
the social enterprise.
Through this type of research, social entrepreneurship scholars are not only producing knowledge in
their own discipline, but in the wider discipline of entrepreneurship in general.
Social Entrepreneurship Governance and Resource Issues
Governance and resource issues have long been at the heart of organizational studies. The structure and
oversight of organizations, along with their resources (e.g., human, financial, social) drive organizational
strategies, behaviors and performance. This notion is no different for social new ventures and social
entrepreneurship scholars have focused a great deal of their attention on governance and resource issues.
In governance circles, one of the more interesting conversations surrounds the applicability of four gov-
ernance models within social new ventures: stakeholder, stewardship, agency, and democratic. Low (2006)
argues that the applicability of such models is largely determined by the organizational form that the
social ventures adopts. For example, for-profit organizational forms adhere more to the stewardship
model (as compared to the democratic model) due to the shareholders’ claim on the assets. Conversely,
nonprofit organizational forms tend to adhere more to the democratic model owing to the notion that
their assets are held in trust for community benefit (Dunn & Riley, 2004). Yet, as Mason and colleagues
note, social enterprises must develop appropriate governance structures that suit their local, unique
missions (Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde, 2007). Clearly, the recent concept of ‘social business’ (Yunus, 2010)
challenges the accepted norm of managers acting as agents for the providers of capital by explicitly
requiring that the latter have no voice in the operation of the enterprise.
Beyond governance issues, several social entrepreneurship scholars are currently examining the appli-
cability of the resource-based view of the firm to social new ventures (e.g., Meyskens, Robb-Post, Stamp,
Carsrud, & Reynolds, 2010; Stryjan, first volume). The general consensus thus far seems to support the
idea that the resource-based view is highly applicable to the social context. Some authors take this
concept a step further and depict both the content and the actions of social ventures entirely in terms
of resources. Stryjan (first volume), for instance, states that “social entrepreneurship involves the tapping
of socially embedded resources and their conversion into (market-) convertible resources, and vice-versa.
In doing so, it spans the boundaries between different property-rights regimes that define resources and
their utilization. To ensure the undertaking’s (or enterprise’s) survival over time, it would also be expected
to contribute to the replenishment of such resources, reconverting market resources into social capital,
and reproducing the context that makes such transactions possible” (p. 195 of the original paper).
Depicting social ventures as combinations of resources and their actions in terms of resource transfers,
conversions, and sales, allows social entrepreneurship scholars to engage the long line of resource-based
view literature in the classical organizational and entrepreneurship domains.
Taken together, due to their importance in explaining firm performance, and their theoretical applicability
to social ventures, governance and resource perspectives are sure to remain an enduring facet of social
entrepreneurship research in the future.
Social Entrepreneurship within Non-Profit Organizations
Entrepreneurship was mentioned earlier as a parent discipline of social entrepreneurship. A more com-
plete depiction would identify both the entrepreneurship and the nonprofit disciplines as the “parents”
of the social entrepreneurship field since social entrepreneurial ventures may take one of three forms:
nonprofit organizations endeavoring to act entrepreneurially (Weerawardena & Mort, first volume),
for-profit organizations with social missions (Dees & Anderson, 2003), or hybrid organizations that
combine elements of for-profit and nonprofit activity (Dees, first volume). Some scholars define social
entrepreneurship as nonprofits employing earned-income business strategies (Kerlin, second volume).
Although there is a potential danger of “comparing apples and oranges” among the findings of the three
organizational forms, useful information can be gleaned from nonprofit-based social entrepreneurship
research. It should also be noted that studying entrepreneurial nonprofits is an attractive concept for
scholars since nonprofits are highly ubiquitous and easily identifiable—making them easier targets for
primary data collection.
While research on the antecedents of social performance in nonprofits far outpaces that in for-profits or
hybrids, two significant advancements on the topic concern leadership and organizational missions.
Ruvio, Rosenblatt, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (first volume), for example, compare the effects of entrepreneurial
leadership vision in nonprofits and for-profits. They find that the leadership vision is significantly different
between the two. Specifically, nonprofit leadership vision is more communicative and inspirational when
compared to the for-profit leadership vision. More importantly, there appears to be a positive link
between leadership vision and performance in nonprofit organizations while no such link exists in
for-profit organizations.
Missions are an important distinguishing feature between social and commercial organizations (Austin
et al., 2006). A comprehensive discussion of this notion is beyond the scope of this paper, yet a cornerstone
of this argument is that within social organizations, missions serve to bind and guide members much
more than in commercial organizations (Drucker, 1989). As Drucker (1989) points out, commercial
businesses are often “splintering their always limited resources on things that are ‘interesting’ or look
‘profitable’ rather than concentrating them on a very small number of productive efforts” (p. 89), due to
a lack of a motivating mission. The centrality of missions in social ventures makes them an important
aspect of social entrepreneurship research. One recent and interesting paper concerning missions in
nonprofit social enterprises is provided by McDonald (first volume). The author finds that certain missions
serve to drive innovations and entrepreneurial activity in nonprofits. Specifically, he finds that “a clear,
motivating organizational mission helps an organization to focus its attention on those innovations that
will most likely support the accomplishment of that mission. Such a mission also creates a climate in
which innovations are given a fair chance to succeed. As a result, firms with clear, motivating missions
tend to be more innovative” (p. 256).
Through this type of research on leadership, missions, and other factors within enterprising nonprofits,
researchers are furthering our understanding of the principal antecedents to social value creation.
The Future of Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing Theory
Our final research theme in Volume I references papers seeking to advance theory in the field of social
entrepreneurship. Importantly, there are two ways in which theory may be advanced. The first occurs
when, through the study of social entrepreneurship, scholars extend and contribute to established the-
ories (e.g., agency theory, resource dependence theory, prospect theory). We label this ‘theoretical con-
tribution’. The second occurs when scholars devise and produce a new theory for explaining and
predicting entrepreneurial phenomena; i.e., ‘theory creation’. Theoretical contribution has arguably been
accomplished in a limited number of extant papers and theory creation has yet to be fully achieved.
Several scholars argue that theory creation in social entrepreneurship is both unlikely and unnecessary
(e.g., Dacin et al., first volume; Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011). Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey (2011), for instance,
argue that social entrepreneurship is not a distinct type of entrepreneurship, but instead an interesting
and unique context in which established types of entrepreneurship operate. Thus, the authors contend
that the greatest theoretical benefits in social entrepreneurship will be derived from examining assump-
tions and facets of existing theories. In essence, they argue for advancements in theoretical contribution
over theory creation.
Perhaps the closest scholars have come to theory creation in social entrepreneurship research (although
the authors did not use this specific term; they focus on a closely related concept of a ‘community-based
enterprise’) is a paper by Peredo and Chrisman (first volume). The authors study ‘community-based
enterprise’ (CBE), which they defined as “a community acting corporately as both entrepreneur and
enterprise in pursuit of the common good. CBE is therefore the result of a process in which the community
acts entrepreneurially to create and operate a new enterprise embedded in its existing social structure.
Furthermore, CBEs are managed and governed to pursue the economic and social goals of a community
in a manner that is meant to yield sustainable individual and group benefits over the short and long
term” (p. 310 of the original paper). Drawing from multiple disciplines, Peredo and Chrisman propose a
thorough theoretical model of the determinants, characteristics, and outcomes of CBEs. The determinants
of CBE include social/economic stress, incremental learning, social capital, and the size of the community.
The characteristics are based on community skill sets, have a multiplicity of goals, and are dependent
upon community participation. The outcomes include social and economic development, individual
entrepreneurship, and the transmission of CBE to other communities. Each element in their model is
eminently applicable to many other forms of social entrepreneurship.
Themes in Volume II
With Volume II we present seven other common and fruitful themes in social entrepreneurship research,
each of which continues to be ripe for contributions. The themes in volume II are: Developing Business
Models and Organizational Forms; Social Impact; Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship;
Community-Based Entrepreneurship; Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development;
Financing and Funding; and Educating to Social Entrepreneurship. In introducing Volume II, we focus specif-
ically on the papers included and the central theses of each.
Developing Business Models and Organizational Forms
Di Domenico and colleagues augment social exchange theory with dialectical theory to build a frame-
work designed to examine corporate-social enterprise collaborations. These cross-sector collaborations
represent novel forms of political-economic arrangements that seek to reconcile the efficient functioning
of markets with the welfare of communities. The authors propose that corporate-social enterprise
collaborations are shaped by (1) the value that each member of the collaboration attributes to their part-
ner’s inputs, (2) competing practices and priorities intrinsic to the corporation and the social enterprise,
and (3) expected benefits of the collaboration to each partner.
On the other hand, Selsky and Parker contend that project-based cross-sector partnerships addressing
social issues (CSSPs) occur in four “arenas”: business-nonprofit, business-government, government-
nonprofit, and tri-sector. Because research on CSSPs is multidisciplinary, and different conceptual “plat-
forms” are used, it is important to consolidate recent literature on CSSPs to improve the potential for
cross-disciplinary fertilization and especially to highlight developments in various disciplines for organi-
zational researchers. The article provides a number of possible directions for future research on the theory,
process, practice, method, and critique of CSSPs.
Elkington and Hartigan examine three categories of business models that leading social enterprises seem
to fall into, discussing the challenges and opportunities of each for mainstream organizations. Seelos and
Mair discuss three different business models to serve the poor in the context of three specific organiza-
tions around the world: 1) The Institute for OneWorld Health—a U.S.-based nonprofit pharmaceutical
company; 2) Sekem—an Egyptian conglomerate of social enterprise activities, including biodynamic
farming, vocational training, and health care; and 3) Grameen Bank—a Bangladesh organization providing
financial services to the rural poor. Building on these examples, they then discuss both the research and
practice of social entrepreneurship on an abstract level, and discuss partnerships with corporations and
institutions on a more focused level.
Further, Evers begins by noting that to understand social enterprises, one must see them as organizations
that interweave a diverse set of goals and resources. Moreover, Evers argues that studying the resource
and goal structures of social enterprises is particularly interesting when studied through a social capital
lens. Whereas previous social enterprise research on the goals and resource allocations tend to focus on
narrow tensions between the social and the economic, Evers broadens the set to include social-capital
building as another important goal of third-sector organizations. The author argues that doing so “helps
to give more visibility to a number of their civic concerns and effects which correspond to a broad notion
of the public good, including the democratic dimensions” (p. 306 of the original paper).
Finally, Vaillancourt Rosenau and Linder provide a systematic review of data-based, peer-reviewed
scientific assessments of performance differences between private for-profit and private nonprofit US
health care providers published since 1980. A total of 179 assessments compared the providers on the
basis of four criteria: access, quality, cost/efficiency, and/or the amount of charity care. The authors report
that nonprofits were judged superior 59 percent of the time, the for-profits superior only 12 percent of
the time and in the remaining 29 percent either no difference was found or the results were mixed. This
leads the author to the important conclusion that caution is warranted on policies that encourage private
for-profit entities to replace private nonprofit providers of health care services in the United States.
Social Impact
Dees and colleagues develop the five R’s to suggest how social entrepreneurs find a scaling path that is
best suited for them. Specifically, the authors argue that social entrepreneurs should look at: 1) Readiness
—Is the innovation ready to be spread?; 2) Receptivity—Will the innovation be well-received in target
communities?; 3) Resources—What resources, financial or otherwise, are required to get the job done
right?; 4) Risk—What is the chance the innovation will be implemented incorrectly, or will fail to have
impact?; and 5) Returns—What is the bottom line? Importantly, the authors highlight that impact should
not just be about serving more people—it should be about serving them well.
Bloom and Chatterji take a more structured approach to scaling by arguing that the successful scaling
of social impact is driven by the organization’s capabilities in seven areas, identified in this article by the
acronym SCALERS: Staffing, Communicating, Alliance-building, Lobbying, Earnings-generation, Replicat-
ing, and Stimulating market forces. The relative importance of each of these capabilities will depend on
several situational contingencies, such as the labor needs of the organization or the public support
attracted by its causes or programs. The article presents the logic, theory, and prior research that support
the SCALERS model and cites examples of case experiences that are consistent with the model.
The Nicholls’ paper presents an exploratory analysis of the emergent reporting practices used by social
entrepreneurs in terms of their institutional settings and strategic objectives which not only account for
financial performance but also disclose more nuanced and contingent social and environmental impacts
and outcomes. Nicholls argues that they act as symbolic objects expressing the market orientation of many
socially entrepreneurial organizations in that they aim to provide more complete and transparent dis-
closure of a variety of performance impacts. Conceptually, this paper draws upon approaches developed
within the sociology of accounting as an institutional practice and uses three theoretical interpretations
to conceptualize the function and effects of reporting, disclosure, and audit in social entrepreneurship:
positivist; critical theorist; and interpretative. A discussion of five case studies leads to the development
of a theoretical construct—’Blended Value Accounting’—that constitutes a spectrum of disclosure logics
used by social entrepreneurs to access resources and realize organizational mission objectives with key
stakeholders.
Kanter and Summers begin by noting that although assessing performance in any organization is fraught
with complications, it is more so with social organizations than commercial ones. The authors then
proceed to nicely outline many of the issues with performance measurement in any organization. For
instance, how does one disentangle and examine organizational, effectiveness, managerial effectiveness,
and manager and subordinate behaviors?; should absolute measures be employed, or those of goal
attainment?; should we focus on long-term or short-term goals and measures? The authors then go on
to identify several added performance measurement issues in nonprofits; for instance, the intangibility
of outcomes and the presence of conflicting goals. While the authors do not provide detailed solutions
to the issues, they lay a solid foundation for differing performance issues between commercial and social
enterprises.
Behn contends that performance measurement is not an end in itself and asks the question “why should
public managers measure performance?” The answer is because they may find such measures helpful in
achieving eight specific managerial purposes. As part of their overall management strategy, public man-
agers can use performance measures to evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, learn,
and improve. Unfortunately, no single performance measure is appropriate for all eight purposes. Behn
argues that managers need to think seriously about the managerial purposes to which performance
measurement might contribute and how they might deploy these measures. Only then can measures
be selected with the characteristics necessary to help achieve each purpose.
Based upon recent trends calling for a “non-corporate” vision for the future, a rise in mainstream CEOs
attempting to use social and environmental performance as a strategy for increasing the total value of
their companies; the spread of social purpose enterprises, as nonprofit organizations launch market-
based businesses pursuing social value; and the increase of discussions about to how to track and assess
the relative value of non-financial performance of capital investment portfolios, Emerson contends that
the world faces three challenges: 1) 21st Century Managers must be capable of operating simultaneously
within the present tension of the double bottom line while at the same time advancing the new, blended
operating systems of the future; 2) there is a need for better social management information and tracking
systems, while evolving a new set of metrics upon which to assess progress; 3) we must consistently
advance a ‘Blended Value Proposition’ that integrates and affirms the greatest maximization of social,
environmental, and economic value within a single firm (whether for-profit or nonprofit). The ‘Blended
Value Proposition’ dictates continual change and innovation, always measuring one’s progress against
shifting measures of transformative, economic, environmental, and social valuation. However, recognizing
this in theory and putting it into operational practice is no small task. Emerson identifies the challenges
and points out that effective execution will depend upon an organization’s ability to balance sound man-
agement with innovation and change.
Within the context of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Jacobs advances the discussion on the
systematic factors that constrict organizations from improving their performance. Specifically, the author
argues that bureaucracy, the pressures of raising funds, and a loss of conceptual clarity impede the
fundamentals of good practice. Jacob’s conclusion is that these factors are holding back NGOs from
maximizing social impact; that while the field has grown substantially over recent decades, field level
performance remains variable.
Nicholls, in a later contribution, explores the use of metrics in a sample of 41 social entrepreneurial
organizations active in five continents and no less than nice sectors. Nicholls distinguishes between these
organization based on three defining characteristics—that is, ‘sociality’, innovation and market orientation.
Each of these elements is further associated with different uses of metrics, including control, planning
and accountability. Nicholls finally points out several challenges to the field of impact measurement: the
adoption of new metrics comes after the process of venture creation and is driven by resource constraints
(i.e., funders’ needs) rather than by the organizational mission; a minority of the sample assessed out-
comes instead of short-term outputs, suggesting “a transactional view of organizational action” (p. 268
of the original chapter); and finally a low involvement in market/system innovation compared to product
and process innovation.
Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship
Bacq and Janssen set out to clarify the concepts of ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’ and
‘social entrepreneurship organization’ and to examine whether there is a transatlantic divide in the way
these are conceived and defined. After having justified the need for a definition, they present the different
geographical perspectives. North American and European literatures on social entrepreneurship are
critically analyzed by means of Gartner’s four differentiating aspects: the individual, the process, the
organization and the environment. They show that there is no clear-cut transatlantic difference and that
even within the U.S., different conceptions coexist.
Mair and Martí examine situations where the weakness or complete absence of supportive institutions
leave the poor unable to participate in market activity and illustrate the activities of an entrepreneurial
actor in rural Bangladesh aimed at addressing them. The findings enable us to better understand why
institutional voids originate and to unpack institutional processes in a setting characterized by extreme
resource constraints and an institutional fabric that is rich but often at odds with market development.
The authors depict the crafting of new institutional arrangements as an ongoing process of bricolage
and unveil its political nature as well as its potentially negative consequences.
Kerlin argues that because little has been written comparing and contrasting American and European
conceptions of social enterprise there is difficulty communicating on the topic and missed opportunities
to learn and build on foreign experience. To address this need, Kerlin compares and contrasts American
and European social enterprise through an extensive review of literature from the two regions and
discussions with social enterprise researchers on both sides of the Atlantic. She outlines the definitions
of social enterprise used by American and European academics and practitioners, identifies historical
factors promoting and shaping different conceptions of social enterprise, and highlights the differing
institutional and legal environments in which it operates.
Catford argues that perhaps the greatest challenge is for citizen participation in community activities to
be formally recognized, valued and supported. This is important not only to motivate and encourage
individuals, but also to lever support for their initiatives. Such a shift requires a profound change in the
attitude and culture of many societies where social status is gained only through advanced education
and/or highly paid employment. Catford argues for more research and development in this area, including
the collection of case studies of social entrepreneurial projects amongst different social groups and
cultures. Centering on the issue of health, Catford points to the role and contribution of social entrepre-
neurs in thinking about how health can be created and maintained. Traditional ‘welfare-state’ approaches
are increasingly in decline globally and in response, new ways of creating healthy and sustainable com-
munities are required.
Community-Based Entrepreneurship
Maurer, Bansal and Crossan introduce a culturally informed resource-based view that explains how
cultural elements in the firm’s institutional context shape the economic value associated with a firm’s
strategy. They posit that a firm’s institutional context may create or destroy economic value and if the
strategy inadvertently becomes associated with a social issue, it poses a risk for the firm. The authors
argue that firms that recognize the dynamic interplay between their resources and their institutional
context in the face of social issues can engage in important cultural work, and thereby preserve their
strategy’s economic value.
Wallace examines the role of social and political cohesion in a community economic development con-
text focusing on the emergence and dynamics of social purpose enterprises in facilitating community
development and revitalization efforts. The author focuses on why community economic development
is essential and who can best promote community economic development. In answer to these two
inquiries, Wallace argues for the recognition of and advocacy for the expansion of social purpose enter-
prises, often operating for-profit ventures, as an effective socio-political and economic link between
government and free market enterprise.
Dana investigates the evolution of the community of Sámi reindeer herders in Norway. Until the middle
of the twentieth century, a self-employed Sámi reindeer herder could subsist on 250 reindeer which were
owned individually but cared for collectively by means of flexible entrepreneurial networks. Human
existence reflected the needs of herds, and rather than manage their reindeer, herders read their cues
and followed the herds. Flexibility was the key to success. Today, snowmobiles, GPS technology, helicopters
and increased regulation are transforming the sector. Reindeer herders, interviewed for this article, have
been adapting successfully to technological, regulatory and other changes. Yet they are concerned that,
if herding is reduced to an element of the food industry, the essence and efficiency of their community-
based, symbiotic entrepreneurship will be undermined. However, while reindeer herders are attracted or
pulled towards traditional community entrepreneurship, many are forced or pushed into secondary
money-driven enterprises, less close to their tradition.
Johnstone and Lionais investigate depleted communities—a persistent feature of late capitalism—which
are areas that have lost much of their economic rationale, while retaining high attachments and social
relations of place. While conditions in depleted communities can limit possibilities for traditional devel-
opment, entrepreneurial responses are not similarly constrained. The authors argue that depleted
communities can act as hosts to a unique form of enterprise that combines good business practices with
community goals and refer to this as ‘community business entrepreneurship’. Johnstone and Lionais argue
that it is similar to, but distinct from, the traditional entrepreneurial process and provide case studies to
demonstrate their point that the entrepreneurial process can be modified to pursue community goals,
thereby creating new opportunities and making new forms of development possible.
Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development
Cohen and Winn develop the argument that four types of market imperfections (i.e., inefficient firms,
externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and information asymmetries) contribute to environmental
degradation and yet, also provide significant opportunities for the creation of radical technologies and
innovative business models. They show that these opportunities establish the foundations for an emerging
model of sustainable entrepreneurship which enables founders to obtain entrepreneurial rents while
simultaneously improving local and global social and environmental conditions.
Hall, Daneke and Lenox discuss the emerging research concerned with sustainable development and
entrepreneurship which has been recognized as a major conduit for sustainable products and processes,
and new ventures are often held up as a panacea for many social and environmental concerns. However,
there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the nature of entrepreneurship’s role and how it may
unfold. The authors begin with an overview of sustainable development and the role of entrepreneurship
and outline recent contributions exploring this role.
Hockerts and Wüstenhagen propose a model of how incumbents and new entrants engage in sustainable
entrepreneurship. They suggest that in the early stages of an industry’s sustainability transformation,
new entrants (‘Emerging Davids’) are more likely than incumbents to pursue sustainability-related
opportunities. Incumbents react to the activities of new entrants by engaging in corporate sustainable
entrepreneurship activities. While these ‘Greening Goliaths’ are often less ambitious in their environmental
and social goals, they may have a broader reach due to their established market presence. This paper
analyzes the interplay between ‘Greening Goliaths’ and ‘Emerging Davids’ and theorizes about how it is
their compounded impact that promotes the sustainable transformation of industries.
Dean and McMullen explain how entrepreneurship can help resolve the environmental problems of
global socio-economic systems. Environmental economics concludes that environmental degradation
results from the failure of markets, whereas the entrepreneurship literature argues that opportunities
are inherent in market failure. The authors examine the ability of their proposed theoretical framework
to transcend the environmental context and provide insight into expanding the domain of the study of
entrepreneurship.
Tilley and Young present a model that suggests sustainability entrepreneurs could potentially be the
true wealth generators of the future. In recent times, with the increased awareness of environmental and
social problems, the theory of ecological modernization has been presented as an explanation for how
entrepreneurship can reconcile the twin goals of sustainable development and wealth accumulation.
However, the limitations of ecological modernization theory suggest this may not be the panacea some
first thought, thus opening up the debate for an alternative model of entrepreneurship based on the
principles of sustainability.
Financing and Funding
Harjula examines the case of an entrepreneurial venture with a disruptive innovation in medical tech-
nology and where the entrepreneur is striving to achieve both financial and social returns. At the heart
of the case is the relationship between the entrepreneur who is both socially responsible and business
oriented and a mainstream venture capitalist interested solely in the financial success of the venture.
Although it is often asserted that venture capitalists may not be initially interested in investing in firms
with a social objective, Harjula shows that, at least in this case, the social goals are derived automatically
from the core business and any increase operations leads automatically both to financial profits and
social returns. This case serves as an example of two general problems: (1) the different time frames of
venture capitalists and entrepreneurs; and (2) conflicts of interest between industry incumbents and
innovators of new technologies and new business models.
Rubin extends the investigation into the role of venture capital in a social context by highlighting the
nature of social returns. Social returns can include such benefits as the economic development of
distressed urban and rural geographies; creation of high-quality jobs for low-income populations; build-
ing wealth for women and people of color; and creation of products that benefit society by lowering
poverty or contributing to a cleaner environment. This article introduces a conceptual framework for the
developmental venture capital industry based on the social objectives of individual funds. Importantly,
the framework distinguishes between funds that have corrective versus additive objectives. Funds with
corrective objectives are designed to address inadequate access to traditional venture capital by specific
geographies and populations. Funds with additive objectives are meant to further specific social goals,
such as fighting poverty or environmental degradation.
Hermes and Lensink examine the world of microfinance which has received considerable attention re-
cently both from policy makers as well as academics. Two of the main topics that have been hotly debated
are explaining joint liability group lending and its implications for reducing information asymmetries,
and the trade-off between the financial sustainability and outreach of microfinance programs. This article
contains three novel empirical contributions that provide new insights as to why and how joint liability
group lending works. It also contains one of the first large-scale systematic analyses of the trade-off
between financial performance and outreach of microfinance institutions.
The article by Hulme addresses the important issue of the impact of micro-finance programs and
institutions in development strategies. This paper reviews methodological options for the impact assess-
ment (IA) of microfinance and examines the choice of conceptual frameworks. The author then presents
three paradigms of impact assessment: the scientific method, the humanities tradition and participatory
learning and action. An important contribution of the paper centers on how to combine different
methodological approaches so that a ‘fit’ is achieved between IA objectives, program context and the
constraints of IA costs, human resources and timing.
Brau and Woller lament the fact that microfinance has yet to break into the mainstream or entrepreneurial
finance literature and set out to introduce the finance academic community to the discipline of microfi-
nance and microfinance institutions (MFIs). The authors provide a comprehensive review of over 350
articles and address the issues of MFI sustainability, products and services, management practices,
clientele targeting, regulation and policy, and impact assessment.
Educating to Social Entrepreneurship
Can you teach entrepreneurship, or is it innate? This is an often-asked question that recurs periodically
in such journals as CNN Money, Businessweek, Time and the Wall Street Journal. Tracey and Phillips point
out that in September 2004, the Academy of Management Learning and Education published a special
issue on the role of management education in the training and development of entrepreneurs. As they
point out, the special issue contains an important omission—there is no discussion of social entrepre-
neurs, individuals who develop economically sustainable solutions to social problems. Their paper
attempts to outline the distinctive challenges and issues involved in teaching and developing entrepre-
neurs who aim to combine social and commercial objectives. Mars and Garrison carry this attempt further
by outlining the challenges in teaching a venture capital course that includes students actively pursuing
a socially-oriented venture as part of an experiential project. Schlee, Curren and Harich examine the
implications of the increased popularity of social enterprise programs and social venture competitions
for the marketing curriculum. They point out that while social enterprises use business skills to solve
social problems, the specific marketing skills required differ from those covered in most marketing cur-
ricula. The authors recommend some changes in emphasis and/or scope to specific areas in the marketing
curriculum and include an outline of the proposed marketing curriculum for social enterprise programs.
Advancing theory in social entrepreneurship is imperative to the future and persistence of the field. While
the papers discussed here provide a solid starting block, advancing theory is perhaps the single most
important step for future social entrepreneurship researchers to take. We next discuss this need in more
detail, along with other vital field-wide necessities and follow that discussion with more specific research
ideas for social entrepreneurship scholars to tackle.
Future Directions
Holistic Research Needs
On an abstract level which applies to most, if not all, streams of research within social entrepreneurship,
there is a significant paucity of three types of studies. Namely, the field is in desperate need of studies
which 1) make a theoretical contribution, 2) employ quantitative methods of analysis, and/or 3) produce
prescriptive findings. We examine each of these needs in turn with an emphasis on why they are impor-
tant while referring to exemplar papers in and outside of these volumes, which help address these needs.
First, the field is in need of studies which either elucidate our understanding of established theories or
generate new ones. Several requisites have been argued as being necessary for a line of scholarly inquiry
to be considered a field. For instance, the research conducted therein must “explain and predict a set of
empirical phenomena not explained or predicted by conceptual frameworks already in existence in other
fields” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 217). Thus if, for example, entrepreneurial orientation’s (EO) impact
on the performance of commercial firms manifests itself identically in the context of social ventures,
many may consider the study of social entrepreneurship redundant and unnecessary. Alternatively, if the
dimensions of EO are different for social ventures or differentially influence social performance—as is
likely the case (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, 2013)—social entrepreneurship as a whole is more
deserving of the ‘field’ moniker. As such, field legitimacy is derived from making unique contributions to
what we already know about how the world works; in essence, theory. Short and his colleagues recently
compiled a list of 18 theories which are particularly conducive to the study of social entrepreneurship
(Short et al., 2009). They are: I/O economics, upper echelon theory, creation theory, discovery theory,
prospect theory, agency theory, disruptive innovation theory, ambidexterity, resource dependence, con-
tingency theory, resource-based view, diffusion theory, goal setting theory, entrepreneurial orientation,
cultural values, institutional theory, stewardship theory, and attribution theory. We encourage researchers
to apply and advance such theories in an effort to make social entrepreneurship research “a source of
explanation, prediction and delight” (Mair & Martí, first volume).
One exemplar paper which illustrates such a contribution is provided by Zahra, Rawnhouser, Bhawe,
Neubaum, and Hayton (2008). The authors apply the behavioral theory of the firm, cosmopolitanism
prosocial theory, regime theory, and internationalization theory to explain the formation of international
social ventures. The authors further derive a framework which explains how social entrepreneurs decide
on the timing and geographic scope of international operations. Importantly, although their framework
is similar to some proposed earlier in the extant internationalization literature, the authors show how the
framework changes with its application to social new ventures.
Second, the field is in need of much more empirical research. Collecting social entrepreneurship data in
sufficient quantities for conducting traditional methods of quantitative analysis is a challenging under-
taking for several reasons. Like its parent discipline of commercial entrepreneurship, there are few publicly
available government-mandated records for many types of social enterprises. Also, and to a much greater
degree than is the case with commercial entrepreneurship, contact information for social entrepreneurs
is difficult to identify and gather. Social entrepreneurs represent an elusive cohort due to their relatively
small numbers (as compared with commercial entrepreneurs), and the relative absence of the institutions
that bind and identify the members (e.g., trade associations and trade publications). Third, unlike its parent
discipline, we know of no large-scale public databases of survey responses on the topic (e.g., the Panel
Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics or the Kauffman Firm Survey).
The difficulty inherent in collecting social entrepreneurship data is corroborated by a recent study which
found that of 152 published social entrepreneurship papers, only 16 conducted quantitative analyses
(Short et al., 2009). The majority of published empirical articles rely instead on qualitative methods such
as case studies or discourse analysis. While useful insights have certainly been gleaned from such studies,
there are considerable field-wide limitations that accompany the lack of quantitative studies. For instance,
scholars are constrained in their ability to offer generalizable implications with small samples. Further,
although qualitative studies are often published in top journals, many of these outlets tend to favor
rigorous quantitative methods. Without the ability to employ such methods, social entrepreneurship
research may have a narrower range of publication options, which in turn may limit its overall impact
factor, as well as dissuade scholars from joining the field. As such, more resources and better efforts to
collect and analyze quantitative social entrepreneurship data are needed.
An exemplar quantitative social entrepreneurship study is provided by Meyskens and colleagues (2010).
Their paper investigates the resource management and mobilization strategies of social ventures. To do
so, the authors perform content analysis on 70 public profiles of Ashoka Fellows. Through clever methods,
they are able to quantitatively operationalize variables including: financial capital, partnerships, organi-
zational structure, knowledge transferability, and innovativeness. From this, they are able to form and test
a correlation model consisting of these variables. The authors could have tested their research questions
with a handful of case studies, yet due to the quantitative nature of the study, their methods may more
safely be generalized to other social entrepreneurs.
Third, the field is in need of more prescriptive work. Thus far, the social entrepreneurship scholars seem
largely focused on descriptive research. Such papers offer important insights into the content of social
entrepreneurship: e.g., what comprises social entrepreneurship, who the social entrepreneurs are, how
social entrepreneurship differs from commercial entrepreneurship, what the antecedents of social
entrepreneurship are, and so on. Research of this nature is crucial in laying the foundation for scholarship
and understanding the phenomenon. However, it offers little to those practicing social entrepreneurship.
To service and influence social entrepreneur practitioners, researchers must be able to explain cause-
and-effect relationships in order to prescribe best practices. Examples of such prescriptive research
questions include: ‘In choosing a successor to a social venture, should entrepreneurs select from within
or from outside the organization?’, ‘How does an increase in earned-income strategies influence volun-
teerism?’ and ‘When social and economic goals conflict, how can leaders mitigate potential problems?’
Answers to these types of questions will aid social entrepreneurs in their decision-making, and provide
scholars with a larger role in shaping and improving the future of practice.
An exemplar study that provides such prescriptions for practitioners is provided by McDonald (first
volume). The author investigates the role of nonprofit organizations’ missions in the innovation process.
Following the presentation of his results, McDonald includes a section entitled ‘Managerial Implications’
(notably, several journals require the presence of these or similar sections). In this section, McDonald
makes several direct recommendations for practitioners including: “Often, mission statements seem to
strive to be as broad and far-reaching as possible. However, the nonprofit organization’s mission should
be made as clear and fundamental as possible and stated in such a way as to motivate employees who
read it” (...) “New employees must be socialized into the organization’s value system and encouraged to
buy into the mission” (...) “Top management and middle managers must reinforce the mission through
words and deeds” (p. 275 of the original paper). Studies of this nature provide practitioners with clear
and concise prescriptions for improving their organizations.
Specific Research Needs
These recommendations are abstract and broadly applicable to most if not all streams of research in
social entrepreneurship. We now apply a more finely focused lens to discuss specific streams of research
for which there is a paucity of research and provide specific research questions for future scholarship. It
should be noted that there are several extant papers which provide more detailed and systematic
accounts of future research needs (see, for example, Austin, et al., 2006; Gras, Mosakowski, & Lumpkin,
2011; Haugh, 2005; Moss et al., first volume). Our suggestions are not meant to be comprehensive, but a
parsimonious discussion of three of the seemingly most fruitful areas of future research. Further, each
was inspired by calls for future research by scholars in these volumes. The needs are: strategy, growth,
and exit.
Strategic entrepreneurship is a booming topic within the commercial domain. So much so that there is
a growing sentiment supported by several scholars that in an increasingly dynamic and uncertain world,
the concepts of strategy and entrepreneurship are inseparable (e.g., McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer
& Heppard, 2000). Simply stated, strategic entrepreneurship involves simultaneous opportunity-seeking
and advantage-seeking behaviors and results in superior firm performance (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003).
Social entrepreneurship scholars have largely embraced the concept of opportunity-seeking (e.g., Chell,
first volume; Hockerts, first volume; Robinson, 2006) yet, have largely neglected advantage-seeking
behaviors. Instead, there is a prevailing assumption in the extant literature that social entrepreneurs do
not compete; rather, they collaborate (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, 2013). While this may be
true in some cases, there is ample reasoning and anecdotal evidence to suggest that many social entre-
preneurs must compete with commercial firms, nonprofits, hybrid organizations, or even governments
in order to survive and prosper (Gras & Lumpkin, 2011). For instance, following the unparalleled success
of micro-lending pioneered by Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, numerous for-profit banks entered
the micro-lending market. As Grameen Bank’s world-wide expansion progressed, they often found them-
selves competing for the same customers as commercial banks. Scholars have yet to adequately address
competition in social entrepreneurship, along with the strategic behaviors social entrepreneurs can and
do employ to improve both financial and social performance. Supporting our contention, a number of
scholars have put forth interesting research questions concerning competition and strategy within social
entrepreneurship. These include:
• In mixed markets where nonprofit and for-profit organizations are both operating, what are the
relative competitive advantages, disadvantages, and interactive dynamics? (Austin et al., 2006)
• What affects the extent and form of competition and collaboration among social enterprises?
(Austin et al., 2006)
• Can social entrepreneurs position themselves to absorb knowledge spillovers and transform
them into competitive advantage in similar ways as posited for commercial entrepreneurs?
(Meyskens et al., 2010)
• Can partnerships and strategic alliances and other structures be used to make the social firm
more competitive and thus more successful? (Meyskens et al., 2010)
• What strategic and managerial consequences flow from social entrepreneurs’ need to satisfy
both economic and social objectives? (Short et al., 2009)
• Which entrepreneurial and strategic processes are most effective for creating social value across
different social entrepreneurship activities? (Short et al., 2009)
The second topic which we believe is ripe for future research concerns growth and scalability in social
ventures, since new social ventures come in a variety of sizes. Zahra and his colleagues (first volume) gen-
erate a classification scheme of social entrepreneurs partly based upon their scale, scope and timing;
three types were identified. The first is the ‘social bricoleur’ which is small in scale, local in scope, and often
episodic in nature. The second type is the ‘social constructionist’ which ranges from small to large in scale,
local to international in scope, and is designed to be institutionalized to address an ongoing social need.
The third is the ‘social engineer’ which is very large in scale, national to international in scope, and seeks
to build lasting structures that will challenge existing order. Perhaps even more important than size dis-
tinctions, however, is the fact that social firms also differ in their ability to grow, or their scalability. Such
an ability is based on a variety of factors including the motivations of the entrepreneur, the resources
available to the firm, and the prevalence of the social ill being addressed. In practice, scalable social ven-
tures are in extremely high demand by foundations such as Ashoka and Skoll, as well as social venture
capitalists like the Acumen Fund, Grassroots Business Fund, Citizen Capital, and Social Venture Partners.
In research, many scholars have called for an improved understanding of how to scale a social venture
to maximize impact, but few have responded. Acknowledging the need for more research on growth
and scalability, scholars have provided several interesting future research questions on the topic. These
include:
• If context and embeddedness is so important, to what extent is it possible to transfer practices
and scale out initiatives across geographic and community borders? (Mair & Martí, first volume)
• What factors contribute to growth in social ventures and are they similar to growth factors in
commercial ventures? (Short et al., 2009)
• What measures of small firm growth do we need to develop as they apply to the social
enterprise with a view to establishing recognized and acceptable measures which can be
applied to the social enterprise from a research and policy perspective? (Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand how the characteristics of the social entrepreneur (age, education and
prior work experience) may be associated with the type and level of firm growth achieved?
(Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand the nature of the internal challenges encountered by social entrepreneurs
in pursuit of firm growth? (Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand the most influential antecedents of scaling social organizations under
different situational contingencies and scaling success? (Bloom & Chatterji, second volume)
Our third suggestion for a future research focus concerns entrepreneurial exit. Traditionally, entre -
preneurship scholars have dedicated their studies to organizational formation, leaving the study of
later stages in the hands of strategists, management scholars, or economists. However, commercial
entrepreneurship scholars have recently turned a keen eye on the phenomenon of entrepreneurial
exit—the point at which the entrepreneur leaves the firm, be it through failure, sale of the firm, retirement,
or otherwise (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009; Wennberg, Wiklund, DeTienne, &
Cardon, 2010). Several topics within entrepreneurial exit research seem highly applicable and even
exacerbated within social new ventures. For instance, prior research has established an emotional con-
nection between the entrepreneur and their venture which often triggers enormous grief when the bond
is broken through failure (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd et al., 2009). It can be argued that social entrepre-
neurs have an even stronger emotional connection; not only to their organization, but to the social ill
their organization serves. Failure for social entrepreneurs may trigger a tremendous emotional reaction
and require extensive grief recovery mechanisms. For those who exit through circumstances other than
failure, there are also several pressing and interesting issues. For example, those entrepreneurs who wish
to retire yet have their social venture continue face succession challenges unique to social entrepre -
neurship domain (Bacq & Janssen, 2012). Examples include the lack of available and qualified social
entrepreneurial successors, the potential indivisibility of a social venture’s mission and the social entre-
preneur, or the mechanisms the outgoing owner can employ to ensure that the social mission endures
with future owners; each aspect of which merits study. Beyond these ideas, extant papers have provided
a few suggestions for social entrepreneurial exit work:
• Develop a stronger understanding of social entrepreneurial failure; particularly with respect
to costs, benefits, loss, and grief (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Understand the sources of failure when there are multiple missions or contradictory logics
at play (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Explore the implications of delaying failure in social ventures (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Investigate causes and consequences of social enterprise failure and identify strategies to
avoid failure (Haugh, 2005).
• Do community-oriented efforts have an impact on exit behavior of successful entrepreneurs?
(Cornwall, 1998)
Taken together, the future is bright for social entrepreneurship research. Knowledge and interest in social
entrepreneurship is growing exponentially in students, professors, and practitioners around the globe.
The challenge for scholars in the foreseeable future will lie in keeping up with the growth and positively
contributing to it. We hope that the collection of articles in these volumes will serve to inform and inspire
those who wish to do so.
REFERENCES
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1): 1–22.
• Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. 2012. Succession Strategies in Social Entrepreneurial Ventures: An Empirical
Investigation. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Fort Worth, TX (USA), June 6-9.
• Bloom, P., & Chatterji, A. 2009. Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact. California Management Review,
51(3): 114–133.
• Cornwall, J. R. 1998. The Entrepreneur as a Building Block for Community. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 3(2): 141–148.
• Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions.
Organization Science, 22(5): 1203–1213.
• Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. 2003. Sector-Bending: Blurring Lines between Nonprofit and For-profit.
Society, 40(4): 16–27.
• Dorado, S. 2006. Social Entrepreneurial Ventures: Different Values So Different Process of Creation,
No? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4): 319–343.
• Drucker, P. F. 1989. What Business Can Learn from Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 67: 88–93.
• Dunn, A., & Riley, C. A. 2004. Supporting the Not-for-Profit Sector: The Government’s Review of
Charitable and Social Enterprise. The Modern Law Review, 67(4): 632–657.
• Gras, D., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2011. Strategic Foci in Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(1): 6–23.
• Gras, D., Mosakowski, E., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2011. Gaining Insights from Future Research Topics
in Social Entrepreneurship: A Content-Analytic Approach, in G. T. Lumpkin & J. A. Katz (Eds.)
Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth,
Volume 13): 25–50. Cambridge, MA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Haugh, H. 2005. The Role of Social Enterprise in Regional Development. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(4): 346–357.
• Hynes, B. 2009. Growing the Social Enterprise—Issues and Challenges. Social Enterprise Journal,
5(2): 114–125.
• Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. 2003. A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship:
The Construct and Its Dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6): 963–989.
• Low, C. 2006. A Framework for the Governance of Social Enterprise. International Journal
of Social Economics, 33: 376–85.
• Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. 2013. Entrepreneurial Processes in
Social Contexts: How are they Different, it at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3): 761–783.
• Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. 2007. From Stakeholders to Institutions: The Changing Face of
Social Enterprise Governance Theory. Management Decision, 45(2): 284–301.
• Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., & Reynolds, P. 2010. Social Ventures from
a Resource-Based Perspective: An Exploratory Study Assessing Global Ashoka Fellows.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4): 661–680.
• McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. 2000. The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies For Continuously
Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
• Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. 2000. Entrepreneurial Strategies: The Dominant Logic
of Entrepreneurship. In G. D. Meyer & K. A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as Strategy:
Competing on the Entrepreneurial Edge: 1–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Robinson, J. 2006. Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets:
How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson,
and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 95-120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–26.
• Shepherd, D. A. 2003. Learning From Business Failure: Propositions of Grief Recovery
for the Self-Employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 318–328.
• Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., and Haynie, J. M. 2009. Moving Forward: Balancing the Financial
and Emotional Costs of Business Failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2): 134–148.
• Short, J., Moss, T., & Lumpkin, G. 2009. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions
and Future Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2): 161–194.
• Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. 2010. Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial
Exit: Divergent Exit Routes and Their Drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4): 361–375.
• Yunus, M. 2010. Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s
most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.
• Zahra, S., Hayton, J., Neubaum, D., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. 2008. Culture of Family Commitment
and Strategic Flexibility: The Moderating Effect of Stewardship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
32(6): 1035–1054.
doc_528312101.pdf
In such a brief criteria relating to 10th annual nyu stern conference social entrepreneurship.
On behalf of NYU Stern School of Business, we welcome you to the Tenth Annual Conference on Social
Entrepreneurship! Over the past 10 years, we believe our conference on Social Entrepreneurship has had
something for everyone—academics, practitioners, and students who are interested in social enterprise,
innovation, sustainability, and impact. We have been fortunate to have the leading thought leaders,
scholars, and social entrepreneurs present their latest work and initiatives.
Within our practitioner conference, Nobel Laureates M. Yunus, and Michael Spence as well as Bill
Drayton, Jed Emerson, Jacqueline Novogratz, Andrew Kassoy, Susan Davis, Greg Dees, David Bornstein,
Cheryl Dorsey, Linda Rottenberg, Mark Kramer, Jason Saul, Billy Shore, Scott Harrison, Tom Szaky, Darell
Hammond, Scott Barrie, Laura Callanan, Brian Trelstad, Sara Olsen, Tris Lumley, Debra Natelshon, Richard
Steele, Michael Weinstein, Georgette Wong, Margot Brandenburg, among others have been with us over
the years!
Within our academic conference, some of our keynotes have included Alex Nicholls, Johanna Mair,
Christian Seelos, Helen Haugh, Paul Tracey, Paul Light, Paul Bloom, Tom Lumpkin, Durreen Shahnaz, Filipe
Santos, Julie Battilana, William Baumol, Paul Romer, Tina Dacin, Geoff Kistruck, Debbi Brock, Ana Maria
Peredo, Phillip Phan, Silvia Dorado, Norris Krueger, Jeff York, Gordon Bloom to name several.
We are the largest academic conference on social entrepreneurship in terms of submissions. We
received abstracts from all over the world: US, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South
Africa, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, etc.
Same as in the past, this year’s academic conference is dedicated to the ongoing development of theory
and research on social entrepreneurship and its impact on global communities. The aim is to bring
together scholars in social entrepreneurship to discuss emerging concepts and themes in social entre-
preneurship research. Themes include:
• Social entrepreneurship process involving opportunity recognition and evaluation
• Organizational forms of social enterprises
• Challenges of scaling and measuring social impact
• Emerging themes in social entrepreneurship education
• Cross-cultural comparative studies in social entrepreneurship
• Research challenges in social entrepreneurship
WELCOME!
Leading scholars in the field will be delivering keynotes including:
• Gordon Bloom, Harvard University
• Tina Dacin, Queen’s University
• Geoffrey Kistruck, York University
• Scott Newbert, Villanova University
• Alex Nicholls, University of Oxford
• Anne-Claire Pache, ESSEC Business School
• Dennis Young, Georgia State University
While our conference participants represent a wide range of viewpoints, we are all united by a commit-
ment to building and supporting social entrepreneurs and their organizations. We hope you gain useful
insights and inspiration during our time together.
Best, Jill and Sophie
NYU Stern
Public Affairs: Jessica Neville, Carolyn Ritter
Special Events: Jessica Farrell, Caroline Boneta, Caitlin McCarthy, Judy Zhong
Social Enterprise Association: Lauren Clark and Allie Hollowell, co-presidents
Net Impact Chapter Leaders: Aileen Jiang and Laura Chen, co-presidents
Business and Society Program
Bruce Buchanan, director
Autherine Allison, administrative aide
Skye Weis, administrative aide
Berkley Center Team
Luke Williams, executive director
Cynthia Franklin, senior associate director
Loretta Poole, associate director
Patricia Miller-Edwards, administrative assistant
Will Baumol, academic director
Alexander Ljungqvist, research director
Janeece Lewis, secretary
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:00-9:00
Registration
Registration in Kaufman Management
KMC Lobby
Center (KMC)
Cantor
Light Breakfast Boardroom,
KMC 11-75
Jill Kickul, Director, NYU Stern Program
in Social Entrepreneurship
9:00-10:15 Opening Plenary
Sophie Bacq, Northeastern University,
KMC 1-70
D'Amore-McKim School of Business
Cantor
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break Boardroom,
KMC 11-75
Session 1 Crowdfunding KMC 3-65
Session 2 Cultural Aspects of Social Entrepreneurship KMC 3-120
10:30-12:30 Session 3 Institutional Perspectives on
KMC 3-130
Social Entrepreneurship
Session 4 Social Entrepreneurship at the Base
of the Pyramid
KMC 4-110
Lunch
Scott Newbert (Villanova University)
12:30-2:00 Keynote Setting the Stage for Paradigm Development:
Presentation A “Small Tent” Approach to Social Entrepreneurship
Session 5 Organizational Forms & Legal Regimes KMC 2-80
2:00-4:00 Session 6 Legitimacy Issues KMC 3-60
Session 7 Employee Involvement and the
KMC 3-130
Cooperative Model
Keynote
Gordon Bloom (Harvard University)
4:00-5:15
Presentation
Social Innovation, Transformative Learning KMC 1-70
& the 21st Century University
5:30-7:30 Reception
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013
Global Center
238 Thompson St.
Grand Hall,
5th floor
NYU Torch Club,
18 Waverly Place
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:00-9:00
Registration
Registration in Kaufman Management
KMC Lobby
Center (KMC)
Outside
Light Breakfast
KMC 2-60
Dennis Young (Georgia State University)
9:00-10:15
Keynote
A Visit to the Zoo: Understanding the Diversity KMC 2-60
Presentation
of Social Enterprises
Outside
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break
KMC 2-60
Session 8 Identity and Collective Action KMC 3-60
Session 9 International Social Entrepreneurship
10:30-12:30
and University Approaches KMC 3-80
Session 10 Governance Issues in Social Entrepreneurship KMC 3-130
Session 11 Social Value Creation KMC 4-110
Lunch
Geoff Kistruck (York University)
12:30-2:00
Keynote
Cooperative vs. Competitive Approaches
KMC 2-60
Presentation
to Motivating Communities to Participate within
Social Enterprise Development Initiatives
Session 12 Embeddedness and Collective Action KMC 3-110
2:00-4:00 Session 13 Social Entrepreneurs’ Individual Motivations KMC 3-120
Session 14 Leveraging Opportunities by
KMC 3-80
Nonprofit Social Enterprises
Keynote Alex Nicholls (University of Oxford)
4:00-5:15
Presentation Risk, Return and Pricing in Social Finance
KMC 2-60
Northeastern D'Amore-McKim
5:30- Reception
School of Business Best Paper Award
8:00 and Award
Reception
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2013
Abbe Bogen
Faculty Lounge,
KMC 11-85
FRI DAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2013
TI ME DESCRI PTI ON PERSON/ TOPI C ROOM
8:30-9:00 Light Breakfast KMC 5-50
Anne-Claire Pache (ESSEC Business School)
9:00-10:15
Keynote
Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: KMC 5-50
Presentation
A Research Program
10:15-10:30 Coffee Break KMC 5-50
Session 15 Social Innovation KMC 4-90
10:30-12:30 Session 16 Hybrid Social Entrepreneurial Ventures KMC 5-80
Symposium Social Entrepreneurship Education KMC 3-70
Lunch
Tina Dacin (Queen’s University)
12:30-2:00
Keynote The Dark Side of Social Entrepreneurship
KMC 5-50
Presentation
KMC 3- 65 KMC 3- 120 KMC 3- 130 KMC 4- 110
SESSI ON 1 SESSI ON 2 SESSI ON 3 SESSI ON 4
10:30- Crowdfunding Cultural Aspects Institutional Social
12:30 of Social Perspectives Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship on Social at the Base
Entrepreneurship of the Pyramid
Session
Jennifer Walske John Clarkin Usman Ghani Duncan Duke
Chair
10:30- Albert, Dean, Davila, Lozano Bosma, Gupta & Ganesh
11:00 Josefy & Fitza & Lyons Hoogendoorn, Understanding
Behind the curtain: Leveraging low Schutjens innovation
An empirical analysis income farmers’ & Völker at the base of
of the mission- performance Institutions and the pyramid
based model of through empower- entrepreneurs’
antecedents in social ment: Analysis of pursuit of social
entrepreneurship a sustainable business goals
initiative in Mexico
11:00- Cholakova Hu & Frank Chalmers Gras
11:30 & Clarysse Developing social Uncovering the & Mendoza-Abarca
Does the possibility entrepreneurship social: Relational Born-diversified social
to make equity invest- opportunities in asymmetries in ventures: An analysis
ments in crowdfund- China—A critical processes of social of newly-founded
ing projects crowd realist perspective entrepreneurship Canadian charities
out our pro-social
motivation?
11:30- Josefy Tian & Smith Jain & Koch Meyskens, Moss
12:00 Crowdfunding the Individual moti- Constructing & Renko
lighthouse: Investor vations to create sustainable product- African microfinance:
motivations and social enterprises: markets for under- The role of regulatory
privately-funded Cultural impacts served publics: The factors in value
public goods in China case of clean-energy creation
provision to off-grid
communities
12:00- Lehner York, Conger, Krzeminska Minard
12:30 The formation and Hekman & Vedula Competition among From self-employment
interplay of social Towards a theory social enterprises— to social enterprise to
capital in the ORFE of sociocultural a case study analysis getting ahead collect-
processes of crowd munificence: How of the trade-off ively: Sustainable path-
funded social interdependence between institu- ways for innovations
ventures alters the influence tionalization and in development
of economic muni- competitive finance
ficence on social advantage
venture survival
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6
KMC 2- 80 KMC 3- 60 KMC 3- 130
SESSI ON 5 SESSI ON 6 SESSI ON 7
2:00- Organizational Forms Legitimacy Issues Employee Involvement
4:00 & Legal Regimes and the Cooperative
Model
Session
Cass Brewer Niels Bosma Giovany Cajaiba-Santana
Chair
2:00- Brewer, Minnigh & Wexler Lambrich & Weber Bissola & Imperatori
2:30 Social entrepreneurship by Interpartner legitimacy People management in the
nonprofits and hybrid between social enterprises social enterprise: Measuring
organizations and their most important job and social engagement
partners—A quantitative
analysis on its antecedents
2:30- Kennedy & Haigh Milanov, Justo & Bradley O’Neil, Ucbasaran & Birkett
3:00 Path to hybridization: Legitimacy, ties and the Entrepreneurial identities
Offensive and defensive performance of female and employee commitment
changes to legal structure entrepreneurs: Evidence in social enterprise ventures
from Kenyan microcredit
3:00- Cheng, Hertel & Alarkon Welter, Conger & Josefy O’Shea, Nelson
3:30 Social entrepreneurship Nothing but a bag of seeds: & Huybrechts
case studies: Navigating Understanding the role Entrepreneurs creating
legal regimes for social of support organizations community value through
impact in enabling social entre- cooperatives: An inter-
preneurship national research project
3:30- Rodgers Young-Hyman
4:00 Good form? The impact of organizational
Organizational perfor- authority on team-based
mance in microfinance work: Project teams in the
custom automation industry
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7
KMC 3- 60 KMC 3- 80 KMC 3- 130 KMC 4- 110
SESSI ON 8 SESSI ON 9 SESSI ON 10 SESSI ON 11
10:30- Identity and International Governance Social Value Creation
12:30 Collective Action Social Entrepre- Issues in Social
neurship and Entrepreneurship
University
Approaches
Session
Sophie Bacq Jamie Newth Othmar Lehner Christiana Weber
Chair
10:30- Battilana, Lee Clarkin Jett & Osorio Dubard Barbosa
11:00 & Dimitriadis & Cangioni Should employee- & Cajaiba-Santana
The community Social Impact owned companies Organizational forms
antecedents of hybrid Bonds and Impact be considered of social enterprises
social entrepre- Investments: social enterprises? and their implications
neurship Where the bottom A change in govern- for value creation,
line meets the ance of a family- circulation, and
bottom of the owned company distribution
economic pyramid and its implications
11:00- Birkett, O'Neil Duke, Gallardo Perrini, Vurro Sprangel & Salarda
11:30 & Ucbasaran & Fernández & Giordano A public perception of
Managing conflicting Álvarez de Lugo Business transition the benefit corporation
organisational The funding in social enterprise: model as a viable
identities in social challenge for social The case of San approach for business
enterprise: The entrepreneurship Patrignano adoption in Greater
employee experience in developing Augusta County
markets
11:30- Maiolini, Rullani Adomdza, Scarlata, Sullivan Mort
12:00 & Versari Shaughnessy Zacharakis Extending the
Exploring the & Craig & Walske quantification agenda:
boundaries of Designing and The effect of Towards measuring
the collective social delivering interna- founders’ exper- shared value created
entrepreneurship tional social enter- iences on the within social
model prise immersion performance of entrepreneurship
courses philanthropic ven-
ture capital firms
12:00- York, Sarasvathy Ghani, Hicks Wilson, Aliouche,
12:30 & O’Neil & Nair Maddocks
Selective incentives, Reinventing & Schlentrich
entrepreneurship, and universities: Social franchising:
identity: Toward a A social The mechanism for
behavioral theory of entrepreneurial giving freedom to
collective action approach power social entre-
preneurial ideas?
KMC 3- 110 KMC 3- 120 KMC 3- 80
SESSI ON 12 SESSI ON 13 SESSI ON 14
2:00- Embeddedness and Social Entrepreneurs’ Leveraging Opportunities
4:00 Collective Action Individual Motivations by Nonprofit Social
Enterprises
Session
Sara Minard Rachida Justo David Gras
Chair
2:00- Newth Branzei Félix-González & Husted
2:30 Social enterprise innovation Towards a theory of hope Opportunity discovery and
through resistance for social entrepreneurship creation in social entre-
preneurship: Two different
constructs of the opportun-
ity identification process
2:30- Pathak & Muralidharan Lehner & Germak Jauregui Becker,
3:00 Societal-level collectivism The need for achievement Franco-Garcia & Groen
and trust: Influence on as a driver of social The business model
social and commercial entrepreneurship proposition for product
entrepreneurship co-creation centers (PC3):
Scaling up the BoP mind-set
to social entrepreneurial
skills
3:00- Ramirez & Meros Powell & Baker Jeong, Kaplan & Hazarika
3:30 Making the case for a social How can we help? The Impact of social media
enterprise ecosystem distinctive impact of marketing for American
empathy and sympathy in non-profit organizations
the emergence of social compared to traditional
venture missions media exposure and its
impact on revenue growth
3:30- Dean & Brakman Reiser Sullivan Mort Robb
4:00 SE(c)(3): A tax regime to Is sharing the basis of social Attitudes of nonprofit CEOs
facilitate social enterprise entrepreneurship? and executive directors on
crowdfunding growth, efficiency, and
resources: A single-industry
qualitative study
KMC 4- 90 KMC 5- 80 KMC 3- 70
SESSI ON 15 SESSI ON 16 SYMPOSI UM
10:30- Social Innovation Hybrid Social SOCIAL
12:30 Entrepreneurial Ventures ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION
Session
Michael Conger Nardia Haigh
Chair Featuring
10:30- Castaner & Yu Battilana & Lee
11:00 How can an embedded Social enterprises as hybrid
organization within the organizations: A review and
existing ecosystem push for roadmap for organization
a radical innovation in the studies
social sector?
11:00- Dell’Amore, Rothstein, Bhutani, Nair & Groen
11:30 Cuesta, Stockhammer- Is hybridity a necessary
DeSimone & London condition to building
Relationships between entrepreneurship
founder background, issue sustainable businesses?
severity, and innovation in
social entrepreneurship
initiatives
11:30- Eagan & Hsu Lee
12:00 Art and social innovation: Mission and markets?:
A case study The performance of hybrid
social ventures
12:00- Weber & Overall Trenholm & Cukier
12:30 Innovation, financial Requisite variety: Complexity
independence or both— theory and health care
What drives social impact innovation in the UK
the most? Empirical
evidence of social
enterprises
FRI DAY, NOVEMBER 8
Michele Leaman,
Ashoka U
Dennis Shaughnessy,
Northeastern University
Emily Block,
University of Notre Dame
Jill R. Kickul joined New York University Stern School of Business as the
Director of their social entrepreneurship program in July 2008. She teaches
courses in entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship and is the Faculty
Chair and Academic Advisor for the 30-course MBA specialization in Social
Innovation and Impact. Prior to joining NYU Stern, Professor Kickul was the Richard A. Forsythe Chair in
Entrepreneurship in the Thomas C. Page Center for Entrepreneurship at Miami University, Ohio, and a
professor in the management department in the University's Farmer School of Business. Prior to joining
the Miami University faculty, she was the Elizabeth J. McCandless Professor in Entrepreneurship at the
Simmons School of Management in Boston.
Professor Kickul's primary research areas of interest include innovation and strategic processes within
new ventures, micro-financing practices and wealth creation in transitioning economies, and social
entrepreneurship. She is the co-author of numerous books including: Understanding Social
Entrepreneurship: The Relentless Pursuit of Mission in an Ever Changing World, Patterns in Social Entre-
preneurship Research, Social Entrepreneurship (Two volume meta-review of field), Entrepreneurship
Strategy: Changing Patterns in New Venture Creation, Growth, and Reinvention, and Handbook of
Microcredit in Europe: Social Inclusion Through Microenterprise Development.
She has published more than 100 publications in entrepreneurship and management journals, includ-
ing: Academy of Management Learning and Education, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Small
Business Economics, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Operations
Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, International
Small Business, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, California Management Review,
and Journal of Business Ethics. She currently is the Executive Vice-President of Entrepreneurship
Research Society, Editor of SSRN Social Entrepreneurship Journal (sponsored by Kauffman Foundation)
and board member of the European Microfinance Network, Foundation for Social Change, ChangeCorp,
Rising Tide Initiative, and Faculty Affiliate in the Center for Gender and Organizations.
Professor Kickul has taught entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship internationally for the
Helsinki School of Economics, International Bank of Asia, Hong Kong MBA Program, and delivered
research seminars at the Stockholm School of Economics, INSEAD, EM Lyon School of Business, Aarhus
Center for Organizational Renewal and Evolution (CORE), Central European University, University of
Stavanger, Massey University, and the Jonkoping International Business School. Her work on entrepre-
neurship education development and curriculum design has been nationally recognized and supported
through the National Science Foundation (NSF), Coleman Foundation Entrepreneurship Excellence in
Teaching Colleges Grant and was named by Fortune Small Business as one of the Top 10 Innovative
Programs in Entrepreneurship Education.
ABOUT THE CO- DI RECTORS
Sophie Bacqis an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in
the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston. Dr
Bacq received her PhD in Economic and Management Sciences from the
Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium. Her research interests include
social entrepreneurship, governance and management issues in hybrid organizations, and international
new ventures. Her research has been published in leading academic journals such as Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, or Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. She is the author of numerous book chapters and
several books including: Patterns in Social Entrepreneurship Research, and Social Entrepreneurship,
a two-volume meta review of the field. Dr Bacq’s teaching experience covers entrepreneurship, cor -
porate strategy, social entrepreneurship, as well as field trip experience in India, among others. Prior to
joining Northeastern University, Dr Bacq was a Visiting Scholar at New York University Stern School of
Business for two years. She holds a Master’s degree and a Bachelor’s degree in Business Engineering
from the Université catholique de Louvain and studied a semester at the National University of
Singapore in 2005.
Gordon Bloomis founder of the Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE
Lab) @ Stanford, Harvard and Princeton Universities. He teaches about the
design and development of innovative social change organizations addressing
challenges in US & global health, development, education, and the environment,
and is currently affiliated with the Cambridge Innovation Center. At Harvard, Gordon taught Social
Entrepreneurship & Global Innovation on Harvard’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences/Sociology, in a new model
delivered in collaboration with Harvard’s Innovation Lab (i-lab), and on the faculty of the Harvard
Kennedy School in Leadership & Management, and as a principal of the Hauser Center for Non-Profit
Organizations, and as one of the founding faculty of the $10 million Reynolds Fellows Program in Social
Entrepreneurship at the Center for Public Leadership. At Princeton, Gordon served as Dean’s Visiting
Professor in Entrepreneurship in 2009- 2010 and working together with the School of Engineering &
Applied Science, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs, and the Faculty of Arts &
Sciences, launched a new set of programs and prizes in social innovation and entrepreneurship in col-
laboration with students, faculty and alumni. At Stanford, Gordon created the SE Lab, a Silicon Valley and
technology–influenced incubator for social ventures, which takes an interdisciplinary approach to glob-
al problem solving. It launched in 2001-2002, while Gordon taught on Stanford’s Public Policy Program
faculty, and served as a faculty affiliate at the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford Graduate School
of Business, and a Program Officer at Stanford’s Institute for International Studies. Many of the talented
students & fellows in Gordon’s SE Labs have won the top awards of prestigious idea and business plan
competitions, including those at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and MIT. Gordon is an author of the edit-
ed volume Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change (A. Nicholls, ed., Oxford
University Press, 2006/2008) and served as a founding member of the Oxford/Ashoka led University
Network for Social Entrepreneurship. Gordon’s interest in entrepreneurship is informed by work in both
the private and nonprofit sectors in the U.S. (New York, Cambridge, Palo Alto), Europe (London, Paris)
and Asia (Hong Kong), as CEO of a medical technology company and in international strategy consult-
ing. He holds degrees from Harvard (AB) magna cum laude in History & Science, Stanford (MBA) with an
award in Public Management and Columbia (MFA) where he held a Shubert Fellowship. Gordon’s wife,
Sara Singer, teaches health policy & management on the faculty of Harvard School of Public Health and
Harvard Medical School/Mass General Hospital. They live with their children Audrey (13) and Jason (10)
in Newton, Massachusetts.
SPEAKERS
Tina Dacin is the E. Marie Shantz Professor of Strategy and Organizational
Behavior in the Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Canada. She is
the Director of the Queen's School of Business Centre for Responsible
Leadership and Area Coordinator of the Organizational Behavior group at the
school. She is also a member of the University Senate at Queen's University and Chair of the Principal's
Innovation Fund Committee. Professor Dacin's research interests include cultural heritage and traditions,
social innovation/entrepreneurship, and strategic alliances. Her work has been published in leading
management journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Review, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management,
Journal of World Business, Organization Science, and the Strategic Management Journal. She has also
served as Senior/Consulting Editor for Organization Science, Journal of International Business Studies,
Journal of Management Inquiry. She has previously served for multiple terms on the Editorial Review
Boards of the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, the Journal of
International Business Studies, Strategic Organization and Strategic Management Journal. Professor
Dacin teaches courses in leadership, change, and strategy. Professor Dacin advises and speaks to major
corporations in the airline, biotechnology, defense, energy, financial services, healthcare, and telecom-
munications sectors as well as a number of public sector and non-profit organizations. She currently sits
on the boards of the Kingston Community Foundation and GRLI, a global advocacy organization for
promoting responsible leadership in business schools and organizations. Professor Dacin has received
several awards and recognition for research and teaching. Most recently, she was inducted as a Visiting
Fellow into Sidney Sussex College at the University of Cambridge, UK and is a Visiting Fellow of the
Judge Business School. She has also been a Visiting Professor for several years at the Kellogg School of
Management, Northwestern University and the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, India.
Geoff Kistruck currently serves as Associate Professor and Ron Binns Chair
in Entrepreneurship at the Schulich School of Business, York University in
Canada. His primary research interests involve social entrepreneurship and
innovation on the part of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, principally
within the context of poverty alleviation efforts in base-of-the-pyramid markets. Geoff’s research projects
are often action-oriented in nature in that they involve the design and field testing of theoretically-
based solutions to current challenges faced by social enterprises. As part of his research journey thus
far, Geoff has published articles in top management journals such as Academy of Management Journal,
Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Management Studies, &
the Journal of Management. Geoff’s research has also won a number of awards including the Rowan
University Best Paper in Social Entrepreneurship Award at the Academy of Management, the Satter Best
Paper Award at the 7th Annual NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, and the Best
Dissertation Awards for both the International Management and Public and Nonprofit Divisions of the
Academy of Management. Geoff obtained his PhD from the Ivey School of Business at the University of
Western Ontario. Prior to entering academe, Geoff served in a number of managerial positions within
the venture capital and financial services industry.
Scott L. Newbert is an associate professor of management, the Harry
Halloran Emerging Scholar in Social Entrepreneurship, and the Anne Quinn
Welsh Faculty Fellow in Honors at Villanova University. He received his Ph.D. in
strategic management and entrepreneurship from Rutgers University. He has
taught courses in business ethics, entrepreneurship, and strategy at both the graduate and undergrad-
uate levels. In so doing, he has developed several practice-based courses that allow undergraduate and
graduate students to apply management theory to the real-world challenges faced by for-profit and
non-profit organizations operating in domestic and international markets. His current research interests
include the factors that enable individuals to succeed in creating new organizations, the processes by
which existing and nascent firms create value through the entrepreneurial use of available resources
and capabilities, and the interplay between the social and economic drivers and impacts of entrepre-
neurial activity. His research on these and related topics has appeared in many of the leading academic
journals including Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, and IEEE
Transactions in Engineering Management and has been highlighted in several popular media outlets
including the Boston Herald and Inc. He currently serves as a field editor for Journal of Business
Venturing, a special issue editor for Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Technovation, and an edito-
rial review board member for Journal of Management Studies and Journal of Small Business
Management. In addition to his academic endeavors, he also provides consulting services on strategic,
entrepreneurial, and marketing issues to for-profit and non-profit organizations of all sizes. Prior to
obtaining his Ph.D., he worked in sales for a Fortune 100 company, co-founded a privately-owned
consulting firm, and coached college football.
Alex Nicholls, MBA, is the first lecturer in social entrepreneurship appointed
at the University of Oxford and was the first staff member of the Skoll Centre for
Social Entrepreneurship in 2004. Nicholls research interests range across several
key areas within social entrepreneurship, including: the interface between the
public and social sectors; organizational legitimacy and governance; the development of social finance
markets; and impact measurement and innovation. Nicholls is widely published in peer-reviewed jour-
nals and has done consultancy work for not-for-profits, social enterprises, and the UK government. He
is the co-author of a major research book on Fair Trade (with Charlotte Opal, Sage, 2005). His ground-
breaking 2006 edition of a collection of key papers on the state of the art of social entrepreneurship
globally was published in paperback edition by Oxford University Press in 2008. It is the best selling aca-
demic book on the subject globally. He has held lectureships at a wide variety of academic institutions
including: University of Toronto, Canada; Leeds Metropolitan University; University of Surrey; Aston
Business School. He has been a Fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science and a Member of the
Institute of Learning and Teaching. Nicholls also sat on the regional social enterprise expert group for
the South East of England and is a member of the Advisory Group for the ESRC Social Enterprise
Capacity Building Cluster. He is a non Executive Director of a major Fair Trade company.
Anne-Claire Pache is associate professor of social entrepreneurship at
ESSEC Business School (Paris, France) and holder of the ESSEC Chair in
Philanthropy. She received her doctorate in organizational behavior from
INSEAD. Her research lies at the intersection of organizational theory and social
entrepreneurship, with a particular emphasis on pluralistic environments, hybrid organizations, and
scaling-up processes in organizations. Her work has been published in the Academy of Management
Review, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Research
in the Sociology of Organizations, Leadership Quarterly and Journal of Business Ethics.
Dennis R. Young is Professor of Public Management and Policy in the
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. From 2005
to 2013 he directed the school’s Nonprofit Studies Program. From 1988 to 1996
he was Director of the Mandel Center for Nonprofit Organizations and Mandel
Professor of Nonprofit Management at Case Western Reserve University. He is the founding editor of the
journal Nonprofit Management and Leadership and founding and current editor of Nonprofit Policy
Forum, and past president of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary
Action (ARNOVA). His books include A Casebook of Management for Nonprofit Organizations,
Economics for Nonprofit Managers (with Richard Steinberg), Corporate Philanthropy at the Crossroads
(with Dwight Burlingame), Effective Economic Decision Making for Nonprofit Organizations, Wise
Decision-Making in Uncertain Times, Financing Nonprofits and Handbook of Research on Nonprofit
Economics and Management (with Bruce A. Seaman). In 2013, his 1983 book If Not for Profit for What?
A Behavioral Theory of the Nonprofit Sector based on Entrepreneurship was digitally reissued with new
commentaries from contemporary scholars by the Georgia State University Library (http://scholar-
works.gsu.edu/facbooks2013/1/). Prof. Young received ARNOVA’s 2004 Award for Distinguished
Achievement and Leadership in Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Research, and the Award for Innovation
in Nonprofit Research from the Israeli Center for Third Sector Research at Ben Gurion University in 2005.
In 2010 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Liege in Belgium for his work on
social enterprise and entrepreneurship. In 2013 he was appointed as an Executive Research Fellow in
the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. He also serves on the
governing board of the National Council of Nonprofits.
SOCI AL
ENTREPRENEURSHI P
@ NYU Stern School of Business
The NYU Stern Program in Social Entrepreneurship educates, challenges, and inspires entrepreneurs
and investors to leverage intellectual, social and financial capital resources with a focus on social
change, innovation and impact. We bring together faculty, students, and the entrepreneurial community
to create a vibrant pipeline of entrepreneurs excited about launching and growing organizations
capable of catalyzing large-scale social change.
Our comprehensive program encapsulates the major issues confronting social entrepreneurs including
the dual focus on educational and experiential learning opportunities. By doing so, we provide support
and create an environment in which social entrepreneurs ideas and initiatives take shape and flourish.
Much of this involves:
• Providing the training and skills that enable social entrepreneurs to create, grow,
and accelerate their businesses and social value propositions.
• Allowing opportunities that secure strategic technical support and financial resources.
• Imparting new approaches and methodologies that align practice and research to improve
the overall effectiveness and impact of the social venture.
• Creating a community of students, scholars, and industry leaders devoted to improving
the social sector.
ABOUT THE NYU STERN PROGRAM
I N SOCI AL ENTREPRENEURSHI P
NYU Stern Social Entrepreneurship Program Initiatives
NYU Stern Social Venture Competition
Now in its tenth year, the NYU-Stern Social Venture Competition was started to recognize and support
the growing number of students and alumni interested in using their business and entrepreneurial
skills to create innovative approaches to tackling social problems.
Through the competition, budding social entrepreneurs receive intense instruction and training, and
work closely with mentors who assist in opportunity assessment, venture development, and calculating
social and financial returns-on-investment. Winners of the Social Venture Competition receive a $50,000
prize.
Over the past nine years, the Social Venture Competition has awarded more than $900,000 in seed
money and services to six innovative new social ventures and has been a springboard for successfully
launching many more.
Annual NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship
The NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship explores the latest issues on social impact
measurement. By bringing together leading experts and thought leaders from the public, non-profit,
for-profit and academic fields, our conference is designed to present strategies and techniques on how
to measure an organizations social impact.
Stern Virtual Incubator
The Stern Virtual Incubator provides a supportive environment in which Stern-affiliated start-ups can
test and refine their business ideas. Incubatees receive:
• On-going coaching & mentoring.
• Pro bono accounting, legal, and marketing services.
• “Brown Bag” Lunches with successful entrepreneurs and investors.
• Access to Stern resources such as meeting space, office equipment, etc.
• Access to a network of other incubatees, veteran entrepreneurs, seasoned investors,
and practitioners with which they can share ideas. Incubatees are selected from among
the finalists and semi-finalists in our social venture competition.
Workshop and Roundtable Series on Measuring Social Impact
NYU Stern’s Berkley Center is committed to furthering the field of social impact measurement through
creating opportunities for stakeholders to engage in ongoing dialogue around this important topic. In
Spring 2011, we offered workshops focused on the latest practices and academic research on measur-
ing social impact. These sessions will explore current strategies, approaches and challenges associated
with designing and implementing new measurement tools and frameworks for social organizations
and investors.
Social Entrepreneurship Courses Across the Curriculum
Our Social Innovation and Impact Specialization courses blend social and environmental perspectives
with the more traditional economic perspective. They provide innovative conceptual frameworks,
strategies, and implementation skills necessary to create substantial social as well as economic value in
for-profit, nonprofit and public sectors. Each course in the SII specialization falls into one or more of the
following areas:
• Ethics/Corporate Social Responsibility/Diversity/Wealth Distribution
• Environmental Sustainability
• Economic Development
• Social Venturing
• Non-Profit Management.
The specialization is appropriate for students anticipating careers (now or later) in the non-profit and
public sectors and for those who wish to enhance their engagement in the for-profit sector as a matter
of corporate citizenship.
A sampling of some of the 30 courses across the various disciplines:
• Doing Business in (DBi) Costa Rica, Social Innovation & Impact
• Energy and the Environment
• Economics of Healthcare
• Advanced Global Perspectives on Enterprise Systems
• The Future of the Global Economy
• Growth in the Developing World and the World Economy
• Global Poverty Alleviation
• Forensic Accounting & Financial Statement Fraud
• Social Venture Capital
• Investing in Microfinance
• Business & The Federal Government
• Social Venture Fund Practicum
• Examining the Nonprofit Capital Market
• Social Enterprise Development
• Women in Business Leadership
• Managing the Growing Company
• International Social Impact Strategies: India, Columbia, Brazil
• Foundations of Social Entrepreneurship
• Leading Sustainable Enterprises
• Corporate Branding and CSR
COURSES OVERVI EW
Foundations The purpose of this course is to explore the many dimensions of new venture
of Social creation and growth, and to foster innovation and new business formations in
Entrepreneurship independent and corporate settings. The curriculum is designed to teach
students about all aspects of the traditional business planning process, with
particular attention to the challenges of social venture creation.
Leading This course is about creating, leading, and managing business enterprises
Sustainable that seek to contribute to facilitating sustainable development. In particular,
Enterprises we will look at issues regarding potential roles for business in contributing
to sustainability, measuring the effectiveness of an organization in terms of
sustainability indices, examples of firms that are creating and executing
strategies for competing in a sustainable manner, managing stakeholders,
innovating forms of business enterprises (e.g., micro-finance), methods for
fostering innovation and change inside the organization that could contribute
to sustainability goals as well as the role of leadership.
Social Enterprise Students learn how nonprofit organizations, in an effort to become more
Development self-sustaining, are diversifying their revenue streams beyond traditional
foundation and government support by creating business ventures and
corporate partnerships. This course is designed not only to educate students
about the models and practices currently being pursued by these organiza-
tions, but also to provide practical tools that foster new innovations in
this area.
Social Venture The practicum—the first of its kind in the country—gives students the
Fund Practicum hands-on educational experience of making investments in social ventures
and providing management assistance to grantees. Students function as the
staff of a real venture fund, supervising operations, performing due diligence
on applicants, making grant recommendations, and providing management
assistance to grantees. The fund focuses on supporting New York City-based
new and emerging institutions and new revenue-generating subsidiaries of
existing nonprofits.
COURSES OVERVI EW
Social Venture This course explores a spectrum of financial tools used to create social value.
Capital: Finance It examines the social capital markets and financial instruments designed to
with a Double produce not only financial returns, but also social returns; these instruments
Bottom Line are commonly known as “double bottom line” investments. The course will
explore the structures, social missions, and effectiveness of these types of
investment organizations and also will consider the challenges of quantifying
the social returns. Guest lecturers include executives from the Nonprofit
Finance Fund, the Ford Foundation, Underdog Ventures, and the Rockefeller
Foundation.
International This course is intended to provide a socially relevant academic experience that
Social Impact combines classroom curriculum with hands-on learning in an international
Strategies setting. The course is designed to help students gain in-depth insights into
economic and social value creation in the developing world. Through case
studies, lectures, fieldwork and classroom dialogue, students will learn to think
strategically and act opportunistically with a socially-conscious business
mindset. Through a partnership with firms located in India, Stern students will
have the opportunity to apply their classroom learnings to real-world issues
by conducting fieldwork abroad. Team-based projects will focus on areas
including poverty alleviation, energy, health and sustainability. Students will
gain exposure to various organizational models for addressing these issues, as
well as to thoroughly-vetted international social enterprises that are making
tangible and potentially scalable progress in serving the worlds poorest
populations. Student teams will work with partner organizations to deliver
on discrete projects designed to meet existing needs. In addition, project
deliverables will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices with
the growing social impact sector.
Global Poverty The objective of this intense course is to offer in-depth understanding of
Alleviation issues related to poverty in developing countries. In discussions on the roles
of governments, international agencies, donors, NGOs and private institutions,
emphasis will be on developmental strategies and approaches to poverty
alleviation. Study of social entrepreneurship and private sector participation
(including for-profit businesses as well as non-profit institutions) will receive
special attention.
Advanced Global This course examines the economic, political and cultural dynamics of
Perspectives on emerging markets. Special attention is given to the impacts of government,
Enterprise Systems entrepreneurship, management, and financial institutions. The histories of
such diverse countries as India, Russia, China, the Asian “Dragons,” Saudi
Arabia, Argentina, Chile and the European Union will be examined as well as
their implications for global sustainable businesses and investment prospects.
COURSES OVERVI EW
Ecoleadership: The This course will explore economic globalization and focus on the impact of
Public Role of The the private sector on decisions that shape global society and influence the
Private Sector in design, development and delivery of public goods. It will examine the:
Building Sustainable 1) impact of the global quest for markets and the growth of economic capital
Societies on the development of social, cultural and natural capital, and 2) role of the
private sector in shaping sustainable economic growth policies which can also
promote the development of a sustainable global society.
Investing in Introduces the deal structuring, negotiating, and drafting skills necessary to
Microfinance advise both investors (debt and equity) in microfinance institutions. Identifies
key challenges that microfinance institutions face when seeking sources of
financing that can support double bottom line (financial and social) objec-
tives. Examines motivations of the parties that engage in microfinance and
the risks that they are likely to encounter.
Energy and the Students gain an overview of the economics and politics of the interlinked
Environment — fields of energy and the environment. The course will investigate why change
Business As Usual tends to come slowly in these industries, ask whether the world is at an energy
or Ripe For crossroads and examine the rapidly evolving landscape of oil and cars that
Revolution? powered the prosperity seen in the 20th century, but which also contribute
mightily to the health, environmental and foreign policy problems associated
with energy.
Examining the The course is designed to help students: understand how the nonprofit
Non-profit: market operates currently; confront the conceptual and practical challenges
Integrated which make the development of a more rational market less straightforward
Challenges of than might be assumed at first blush; and, consider and critique emerging
Performance, practices that seek to improve the nonprofit marketplace. Practitioners are
Measurement, integrated into the teaching of the course to a significant degree, giving
Scale, and students the opportunity to engage with leaders whose perspective stems
Sustainability from their day-to-day experience with the concrete and theoretical
challenges of the nonprofit market.
COURSES OVERVI EW
10 Top Trends in Over the past 15 years, the social sector has sought new approaches to old
Social Innovation: problems. This course reviews ten of the most important current trends
Selected issues in social innovation—understanding their origins, the problems they are
on Capital, Scale intended to address, some of the key actors involved, and their benefits. In
and Impact doing so, it asks: What are the unintended consequences of these popular
social innovations? The course is will intentionally introduce a range of social
sector vocabulary and core concepts, introduce students to leading tools
and data resources, highlight thought leaders in the field, and cover a range
of key issues including: impact, performance measurement, scaling, and
impact investing.
Investing for Impact investors seek to generate environmental and social impacts in
Environmental addition to financial returns. While this approach has long been used
and Social Impact within the public sector and NGOs, commercial investors are increasingly
embracing this strategy. Innovative design of financial instruments such as
social impact bonds and microfinance guarantee funds are opening up new
sources of funding and new ways to incentivize performance in both public
sector entities and NGOs while attracting commercial capital. The class will
draw upon principles of finance, microeconomics, theories of change, public
policy and investment management to evaluate specific cases and investment
tools in areas such as environmental markets and climate change, public
finance, education, microfinance, health and poverty alleviation.
Social Problem-based This course is designed to put the idea of teaching social entrepreneurship to
Entrepreneurship— its ultimate test—with the objective of incubating a series of social ventures
Conceive, Develop, through the course of a semester. Early in the class, teams of three to four
& Launch! students each will be formed and will choose from one of two domains or
“mega-problems” as a starting point: agriculture or healthcare (or a problem
of their choosing). While teams can pick their ultimate market of focus, the
class will focus on India and will entail a trip to India. By using the mega-
problem as a starting point, teams will drill down through the problem to
develop a social venture that addresses the problem. By the end of the class,
the teams should have fine-tuned their solutions, designed a pilot product/
service, proposed a business model and completed strategy statements for
their venture.
Stern Specialization Website:
www.stern.nyu.edu/AcademicAffairs/Specializations/SocialInnovationandImpact/index.htm
Introduction
While research on social entrepreneurship continues to lag practice, the field is expanding at an unprece-
dented rate. Several indicators attest to this growth including the publication of journal special issues on
social entrepreneurship, the establishment of journals dedicated solely to social entrepreneurship
research, the creation of university centers focused on social entrepreneurship, and the formation of
research conferences devoted to social entrepreneurship.
In terms of special issues, many academic journals have announced or published special issues on social
entrepreneurship, including Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneur-
ship and Regional Development, the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of World Business, Entrepreneurship
and Public Policy, and the International Small Business Journal. While this is a testament to these journals’
explicit interest in the topic, there are other journals devoted solely to this topic (or a closely-related one).
These include the Social Enterprise Journal, the International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Social
Innovation, the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Social Entrepreneurship Journal (SSRN), and the newly-
formed Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. University research centers focusing on social entrepreneurship
and its study include, among others, the NYU Stern School of Business Social Entrepreneurship Program,
the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business, the Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pace University, the Mason Center for Social
Entrepreneurship at George Mason University, and the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at the
University of Oxford. Lastly, conferences devoted to social entrepreneurship research include the annual
NYU Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship and the Research Colloquium on Social Entrepreneur-
ship jointly held annually by Duke University and the University of Oxford.
Beyond indicators, Moss, Lumpkin, and Short (first volume) offer a recent literature review on the field of
social entrepreneurship. They search multiple academic databases, without date restrictions, for the terms
‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’, ‘social venture’, and ‘social enterprise’. The earliest social en-
trepreneurship paper they find was published in 1991. They find only 6 social entrepreneurship articles
published between 1991 and 1996, 56 published between 1997 and 2002, and 267 published between
2003 and 2008. Hence, this research collection comes at a most fortuitous time in that:
1) it comes shortly after the 20th anniversary of the first published research article on
social entrepreneurship,
2) the literature is approaching the critical mass necessary for reflection and singling
out exemplar pieces and,
3) the exponential growth in research interest for the field merits identification of
foundational and model papers to aid and guide future advancements.
In creating these volumes, we set out to collect the most important and influential social entrepreneur-
ship articles to date. This task is, of course, fraught with subjectivity. Further, there are many excellent
social entrepreneurship articles that were seriously considered which, due to space restrictions, overlap
with other selected articles, or other editorial reasons, were excluded. Nevertheless, it is our hope that
this collection turns out to be a useful and interesting representation of the current body of social entre-
preneurship work for scholars from any discipline who wish to research or teach social entrepreneurship.
The remaining portion of this introductory chapter is devoted to laying out the major themes of the ar-
ticles chosen for the two volumes and to identifying the pressing needs for future research in the field.
Major Social Entrepreneurship Themes
Several scholars have categorized major themes in the field of social entrepreneurship. Some have pro-
vided reviews of extant research while others have provided recommendations for future research
(Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Haugh, 2005; Moss, Lumpkin, & Short, first volume; Short, Moss, &
Lumpkin, 2009). To illustrate, Austin and his colleagues discuss six fundamental research themes for social
entrepreneurship—markets, mission, capital, people, performance, and context. The themes we lay out
in these volumes are not meant to supplant these contributions, but rather to complement them. Moreover,
our categorization is meant to be neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. Instead, we present a parsimo-
nious set of several of the more popular themes in the literature that also naturally encapsulate the papers
selected for these volumes. The papers were not necessarily chosen based on their representation of a
particular theme; they were selected based on their quality and contribution to the field. The final set of
chosen papers was then grouped into twelve themes based on similarities between the papers’ foci. In
the first volume, the five themes are titled: The Field of Social Entrepreneurship: Laying the Framework; Social
Entrepreneurship Opportunities and Creation; Social Entrepreneurship Governance and Resource Issues; Social
Entrepreneurship within Non-Profit Organizations; and The Future of Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing
Theory. In the second volume, we present seven additional themes: Developing Business Models and
Organizational Forms; Social Impact; Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship; Community-Based
Entrepreneurship; Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development; Financing and Funding; and
Educating to Social Entrepreneurship.
We now introduce each of these themes.
Themes in Volume I
The Field of Social Entrepreneurship: Laying the Framework
As an indicator of the field’s nascence, arguably the most ubiquitous topic in the field to date concerns
defining social entrepreneurship and differentiating it from commercial entrepreneurship. The chosen
papers aim to lay the foundation for the field, define its boundaries, identify its unique qualities, and ar-
ticulate its importance. Such papers are crucial to establishing the legitimacy of social entrepreneurship
research and coalescing scholars’ efforts around a unified phenomenon. Of notable concern is that the
frequency with which these framework-forming papers are published seems stable over time. Said
differently, two decades after the first publication on social entrepreneurship, scholars are still debating
fundamental issues such as the definition of social entrepreneurship and the need for a separate disci-
pline (Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, first volume; Mair & Martí, first volume; Nicholls & Cho, first volume; Short et
al., 2009).
This concern aside, tremendous advances in building a field-wide framework have been made by several
authors. For example, the most-cited paper in the field of social entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2006)
performs a tremendous service in identifying key dimensions upon which social entrepreneurs differ
from commercial entrepreneurs, as well as in building a framework for the study of social entrepreneur-
ship. The authors put forth four propositions to create the demarcation between social and commercial
entrepreneurs. They are:
• “Market failure will create differing entrepreneurial opportunities for social and
commercial entrepreneurship” (p. 3).
• “Differences in mission will be a fundamental distinguishing feature between social
and commercial entrepreneurship that will manifest itself in multiple areas of enterprise
management and personnel motivation. Commercial and social dimensions within the
enterprise may be a source of tension” (p. 3).
• “Human and financial resource mobilization will be a prevailing difference and will lead
to fundamentally different approaches in managing financial and human resources” (p. 3).
• “Performance measurement of social impact will remain a fundamental differentiator,
complicating accountability and stakeholder relations” (p. 3).
The authors then adapt the traditional people-context-deal-opportunity framework to the social entre-
preneurship domain. Although not yet heavily utilized in practice, this framework is a significant and
useful advancement in theoretical rigor for the field.
Whereas the Austin and colleagues’ paper is theoretically derived, another paper in the first volume
collected and analyzed primary data in order to form a framework for social entrepreneurship (Weer-
awardena & Mort, first volume). The authors find that social entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as
a constrained optimization model wherein social value creation is a function of innovation, proactiveness
and risk management, subject to the environment, the social mission and sustainability. Their model is
well grounded in the commercial entrepreneurship literature, yet identifies key distinctions for social
entrepreneurs. As such, it too is a significant advancement in social entrepreneurship thinking.
Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities and Creation
Owing much to the influence of its parent discipline of entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship scholars
maintain an important focus on opportunity exploration and exploitation, as well as firm creation. Absent
these factors, the study of social entrepreneurship becomes the study of social enterprise. To create social
value, individuals must take entrepreneurial action on the opportunities they identify. A crucial question
in the social entrepreneurship literature, then, is: “Does creating social value entail differences in oppor-
tunity exploration, exploitation, and firm creation, when compared with economic value creation?”
In short, the prevailing sentiment is that there are important differences between social and commercial
opportunities that merit study (Austin et al., 2006; Dorado, 2006; Murphy & Coombes, first volume).
Murphy and Coombes identify several such delineations. The authors use a corporate social responsibility
lens to develop a model that emphasizes mobilization and timing as the foundations of social entrepre-
neurial discovery. From this model, the authors advance the following six distinct conceptual aspects of
social entrepreneurial discovery (p. 330 of the original paper):
• “Promise of the opportunity is not always reducible to a few stakeholders,
but to a larger constituency”
• “Social purpose or cause is at least as important as satisfaction of future customers or clients”
• “Intended long-term social change takes precedence over quick-hits and short timeframes”
• “Opportunities usually add value in niches targeted by large social sector institutions”
• “Social entrepreneurs have deep understanding of constituencies they serve”
• “Passion and commitment transcend traditional venture boundaries”
Importantly, such differences in opportunities and processes of creation enable social entrepreneurship
scholars to not only add to general entrepreneurship knowledge, but also to explicate and expand es-
tablished theories—a ‘critical success factor’ for the field upon which we expand below. Di Domenico,
Tracey, and Haugh (second volume) demonstrate this in exploring the applicability of bricolage to social
entrepreneurship. Prior to their paper, bricolage was generally considered to comprise three dimensions:
making do, a refusal to be constrained by limitations, and improvisation. However, based on the unique
facets in the process of social entrepreneurial start-up, the authors identify three additional factors;
namely:
• Social value creation—advancement of the common welfare, as opposed to revenue generation.
• Stakeholder participation—active involvement of stakeholders in the creation, management,
and governance of their social enterprise.
• Persuasion—tactics by entrepreneurs to acquire resources and implement the strategies of
the social enterprise.
Through this type of research, social entrepreneurship scholars are not only producing knowledge in
their own discipline, but in the wider discipline of entrepreneurship in general.
Social Entrepreneurship Governance and Resource Issues
Governance and resource issues have long been at the heart of organizational studies. The structure and
oversight of organizations, along with their resources (e.g., human, financial, social) drive organizational
strategies, behaviors and performance. This notion is no different for social new ventures and social
entrepreneurship scholars have focused a great deal of their attention on governance and resource issues.
In governance circles, one of the more interesting conversations surrounds the applicability of four gov-
ernance models within social new ventures: stakeholder, stewardship, agency, and democratic. Low (2006)
argues that the applicability of such models is largely determined by the organizational form that the
social ventures adopts. For example, for-profit organizational forms adhere more to the stewardship
model (as compared to the democratic model) due to the shareholders’ claim on the assets. Conversely,
nonprofit organizational forms tend to adhere more to the democratic model owing to the notion that
their assets are held in trust for community benefit (Dunn & Riley, 2004). Yet, as Mason and colleagues
note, social enterprises must develop appropriate governance structures that suit their local, unique
missions (Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde, 2007). Clearly, the recent concept of ‘social business’ (Yunus, 2010)
challenges the accepted norm of managers acting as agents for the providers of capital by explicitly
requiring that the latter have no voice in the operation of the enterprise.
Beyond governance issues, several social entrepreneurship scholars are currently examining the appli-
cability of the resource-based view of the firm to social new ventures (e.g., Meyskens, Robb-Post, Stamp,
Carsrud, & Reynolds, 2010; Stryjan, first volume). The general consensus thus far seems to support the
idea that the resource-based view is highly applicable to the social context. Some authors take this
concept a step further and depict both the content and the actions of social ventures entirely in terms
of resources. Stryjan (first volume), for instance, states that “social entrepreneurship involves the tapping
of socially embedded resources and their conversion into (market-) convertible resources, and vice-versa.
In doing so, it spans the boundaries between different property-rights regimes that define resources and
their utilization. To ensure the undertaking’s (or enterprise’s) survival over time, it would also be expected
to contribute to the replenishment of such resources, reconverting market resources into social capital,
and reproducing the context that makes such transactions possible” (p. 195 of the original paper).
Depicting social ventures as combinations of resources and their actions in terms of resource transfers,
conversions, and sales, allows social entrepreneurship scholars to engage the long line of resource-based
view literature in the classical organizational and entrepreneurship domains.
Taken together, due to their importance in explaining firm performance, and their theoretical applicability
to social ventures, governance and resource perspectives are sure to remain an enduring facet of social
entrepreneurship research in the future.
Social Entrepreneurship within Non-Profit Organizations
Entrepreneurship was mentioned earlier as a parent discipline of social entrepreneurship. A more com-
plete depiction would identify both the entrepreneurship and the nonprofit disciplines as the “parents”
of the social entrepreneurship field since social entrepreneurial ventures may take one of three forms:
nonprofit organizations endeavoring to act entrepreneurially (Weerawardena & Mort, first volume),
for-profit organizations with social missions (Dees & Anderson, 2003), or hybrid organizations that
combine elements of for-profit and nonprofit activity (Dees, first volume). Some scholars define social
entrepreneurship as nonprofits employing earned-income business strategies (Kerlin, second volume).
Although there is a potential danger of “comparing apples and oranges” among the findings of the three
organizational forms, useful information can be gleaned from nonprofit-based social entrepreneurship
research. It should also be noted that studying entrepreneurial nonprofits is an attractive concept for
scholars since nonprofits are highly ubiquitous and easily identifiable—making them easier targets for
primary data collection.
While research on the antecedents of social performance in nonprofits far outpaces that in for-profits or
hybrids, two significant advancements on the topic concern leadership and organizational missions.
Ruvio, Rosenblatt, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (first volume), for example, compare the effects of entrepreneurial
leadership vision in nonprofits and for-profits. They find that the leadership vision is significantly different
between the two. Specifically, nonprofit leadership vision is more communicative and inspirational when
compared to the for-profit leadership vision. More importantly, there appears to be a positive link
between leadership vision and performance in nonprofit organizations while no such link exists in
for-profit organizations.
Missions are an important distinguishing feature between social and commercial organizations (Austin
et al., 2006). A comprehensive discussion of this notion is beyond the scope of this paper, yet a cornerstone
of this argument is that within social organizations, missions serve to bind and guide members much
more than in commercial organizations (Drucker, 1989). As Drucker (1989) points out, commercial
businesses are often “splintering their always limited resources on things that are ‘interesting’ or look
‘profitable’ rather than concentrating them on a very small number of productive efforts” (p. 89), due to
a lack of a motivating mission. The centrality of missions in social ventures makes them an important
aspect of social entrepreneurship research. One recent and interesting paper concerning missions in
nonprofit social enterprises is provided by McDonald (first volume). The author finds that certain missions
serve to drive innovations and entrepreneurial activity in nonprofits. Specifically, he finds that “a clear,
motivating organizational mission helps an organization to focus its attention on those innovations that
will most likely support the accomplishment of that mission. Such a mission also creates a climate in
which innovations are given a fair chance to succeed. As a result, firms with clear, motivating missions
tend to be more innovative” (p. 256).
Through this type of research on leadership, missions, and other factors within enterprising nonprofits,
researchers are furthering our understanding of the principal antecedents to social value creation.
The Future of Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing Theory
Our final research theme in Volume I references papers seeking to advance theory in the field of social
entrepreneurship. Importantly, there are two ways in which theory may be advanced. The first occurs
when, through the study of social entrepreneurship, scholars extend and contribute to established the-
ories (e.g., agency theory, resource dependence theory, prospect theory). We label this ‘theoretical con-
tribution’. The second occurs when scholars devise and produce a new theory for explaining and
predicting entrepreneurial phenomena; i.e., ‘theory creation’. Theoretical contribution has arguably been
accomplished in a limited number of extant papers and theory creation has yet to be fully achieved.
Several scholars argue that theory creation in social entrepreneurship is both unlikely and unnecessary
(e.g., Dacin et al., first volume; Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011). Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey (2011), for instance,
argue that social entrepreneurship is not a distinct type of entrepreneurship, but instead an interesting
and unique context in which established types of entrepreneurship operate. Thus, the authors contend
that the greatest theoretical benefits in social entrepreneurship will be derived from examining assump-
tions and facets of existing theories. In essence, they argue for advancements in theoretical contribution
over theory creation.
Perhaps the closest scholars have come to theory creation in social entrepreneurship research (although
the authors did not use this specific term; they focus on a closely related concept of a ‘community-based
enterprise’) is a paper by Peredo and Chrisman (first volume). The authors study ‘community-based
enterprise’ (CBE), which they defined as “a community acting corporately as both entrepreneur and
enterprise in pursuit of the common good. CBE is therefore the result of a process in which the community
acts entrepreneurially to create and operate a new enterprise embedded in its existing social structure.
Furthermore, CBEs are managed and governed to pursue the economic and social goals of a community
in a manner that is meant to yield sustainable individual and group benefits over the short and long
term” (p. 310 of the original paper). Drawing from multiple disciplines, Peredo and Chrisman propose a
thorough theoretical model of the determinants, characteristics, and outcomes of CBEs. The determinants
of CBE include social/economic stress, incremental learning, social capital, and the size of the community.
The characteristics are based on community skill sets, have a multiplicity of goals, and are dependent
upon community participation. The outcomes include social and economic development, individual
entrepreneurship, and the transmission of CBE to other communities. Each element in their model is
eminently applicable to many other forms of social entrepreneurship.
Themes in Volume II
With Volume II we present seven other common and fruitful themes in social entrepreneurship research,
each of which continues to be ripe for contributions. The themes in volume II are: Developing Business
Models and Organizational Forms; Social Impact; Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship;
Community-Based Entrepreneurship; Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development;
Financing and Funding; and Educating to Social Entrepreneurship. In introducing Volume II, we focus specif-
ically on the papers included and the central theses of each.
Developing Business Models and Organizational Forms
Di Domenico and colleagues augment social exchange theory with dialectical theory to build a frame-
work designed to examine corporate-social enterprise collaborations. These cross-sector collaborations
represent novel forms of political-economic arrangements that seek to reconcile the efficient functioning
of markets with the welfare of communities. The authors propose that corporate-social enterprise
collaborations are shaped by (1) the value that each member of the collaboration attributes to their part-
ner’s inputs, (2) competing practices and priorities intrinsic to the corporation and the social enterprise,
and (3) expected benefits of the collaboration to each partner.
On the other hand, Selsky and Parker contend that project-based cross-sector partnerships addressing
social issues (CSSPs) occur in four “arenas”: business-nonprofit, business-government, government-
nonprofit, and tri-sector. Because research on CSSPs is multidisciplinary, and different conceptual “plat-
forms” are used, it is important to consolidate recent literature on CSSPs to improve the potential for
cross-disciplinary fertilization and especially to highlight developments in various disciplines for organi-
zational researchers. The article provides a number of possible directions for future research on the theory,
process, practice, method, and critique of CSSPs.
Elkington and Hartigan examine three categories of business models that leading social enterprises seem
to fall into, discussing the challenges and opportunities of each for mainstream organizations. Seelos and
Mair discuss three different business models to serve the poor in the context of three specific organiza-
tions around the world: 1) The Institute for OneWorld Health—a U.S.-based nonprofit pharmaceutical
company; 2) Sekem—an Egyptian conglomerate of social enterprise activities, including biodynamic
farming, vocational training, and health care; and 3) Grameen Bank—a Bangladesh organization providing
financial services to the rural poor. Building on these examples, they then discuss both the research and
practice of social entrepreneurship on an abstract level, and discuss partnerships with corporations and
institutions on a more focused level.
Further, Evers begins by noting that to understand social enterprises, one must see them as organizations
that interweave a diverse set of goals and resources. Moreover, Evers argues that studying the resource
and goal structures of social enterprises is particularly interesting when studied through a social capital
lens. Whereas previous social enterprise research on the goals and resource allocations tend to focus on
narrow tensions between the social and the economic, Evers broadens the set to include social-capital
building as another important goal of third-sector organizations. The author argues that doing so “helps
to give more visibility to a number of their civic concerns and effects which correspond to a broad notion
of the public good, including the democratic dimensions” (p. 306 of the original paper).
Finally, Vaillancourt Rosenau and Linder provide a systematic review of data-based, peer-reviewed
scientific assessments of performance differences between private for-profit and private nonprofit US
health care providers published since 1980. A total of 179 assessments compared the providers on the
basis of four criteria: access, quality, cost/efficiency, and/or the amount of charity care. The authors report
that nonprofits were judged superior 59 percent of the time, the for-profits superior only 12 percent of
the time and in the remaining 29 percent either no difference was found or the results were mixed. This
leads the author to the important conclusion that caution is warranted on policies that encourage private
for-profit entities to replace private nonprofit providers of health care services in the United States.
Social Impact
Dees and colleagues develop the five R’s to suggest how social entrepreneurs find a scaling path that is
best suited for them. Specifically, the authors argue that social entrepreneurs should look at: 1) Readiness
—Is the innovation ready to be spread?; 2) Receptivity—Will the innovation be well-received in target
communities?; 3) Resources—What resources, financial or otherwise, are required to get the job done
right?; 4) Risk—What is the chance the innovation will be implemented incorrectly, or will fail to have
impact?; and 5) Returns—What is the bottom line? Importantly, the authors highlight that impact should
not just be about serving more people—it should be about serving them well.
Bloom and Chatterji take a more structured approach to scaling by arguing that the successful scaling
of social impact is driven by the organization’s capabilities in seven areas, identified in this article by the
acronym SCALERS: Staffing, Communicating, Alliance-building, Lobbying, Earnings-generation, Replicat-
ing, and Stimulating market forces. The relative importance of each of these capabilities will depend on
several situational contingencies, such as the labor needs of the organization or the public support
attracted by its causes or programs. The article presents the logic, theory, and prior research that support
the SCALERS model and cites examples of case experiences that are consistent with the model.
The Nicholls’ paper presents an exploratory analysis of the emergent reporting practices used by social
entrepreneurs in terms of their institutional settings and strategic objectives which not only account for
financial performance but also disclose more nuanced and contingent social and environmental impacts
and outcomes. Nicholls argues that they act as symbolic objects expressing the market orientation of many
socially entrepreneurial organizations in that they aim to provide more complete and transparent dis-
closure of a variety of performance impacts. Conceptually, this paper draws upon approaches developed
within the sociology of accounting as an institutional practice and uses three theoretical interpretations
to conceptualize the function and effects of reporting, disclosure, and audit in social entrepreneurship:
positivist; critical theorist; and interpretative. A discussion of five case studies leads to the development
of a theoretical construct—’Blended Value Accounting’—that constitutes a spectrum of disclosure logics
used by social entrepreneurs to access resources and realize organizational mission objectives with key
stakeholders.
Kanter and Summers begin by noting that although assessing performance in any organization is fraught
with complications, it is more so with social organizations than commercial ones. The authors then
proceed to nicely outline many of the issues with performance measurement in any organization. For
instance, how does one disentangle and examine organizational, effectiveness, managerial effectiveness,
and manager and subordinate behaviors?; should absolute measures be employed, or those of goal
attainment?; should we focus on long-term or short-term goals and measures? The authors then go on
to identify several added performance measurement issues in nonprofits; for instance, the intangibility
of outcomes and the presence of conflicting goals. While the authors do not provide detailed solutions
to the issues, they lay a solid foundation for differing performance issues between commercial and social
enterprises.
Behn contends that performance measurement is not an end in itself and asks the question “why should
public managers measure performance?” The answer is because they may find such measures helpful in
achieving eight specific managerial purposes. As part of their overall management strategy, public man-
agers can use performance measures to evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, learn,
and improve. Unfortunately, no single performance measure is appropriate for all eight purposes. Behn
argues that managers need to think seriously about the managerial purposes to which performance
measurement might contribute and how they might deploy these measures. Only then can measures
be selected with the characteristics necessary to help achieve each purpose.
Based upon recent trends calling for a “non-corporate” vision for the future, a rise in mainstream CEOs
attempting to use social and environmental performance as a strategy for increasing the total value of
their companies; the spread of social purpose enterprises, as nonprofit organizations launch market-
based businesses pursuing social value; and the increase of discussions about to how to track and assess
the relative value of non-financial performance of capital investment portfolios, Emerson contends that
the world faces three challenges: 1) 21st Century Managers must be capable of operating simultaneously
within the present tension of the double bottom line while at the same time advancing the new, blended
operating systems of the future; 2) there is a need for better social management information and tracking
systems, while evolving a new set of metrics upon which to assess progress; 3) we must consistently
advance a ‘Blended Value Proposition’ that integrates and affirms the greatest maximization of social,
environmental, and economic value within a single firm (whether for-profit or nonprofit). The ‘Blended
Value Proposition’ dictates continual change and innovation, always measuring one’s progress against
shifting measures of transformative, economic, environmental, and social valuation. However, recognizing
this in theory and putting it into operational practice is no small task. Emerson identifies the challenges
and points out that effective execution will depend upon an organization’s ability to balance sound man-
agement with innovation and change.
Within the context of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Jacobs advances the discussion on the
systematic factors that constrict organizations from improving their performance. Specifically, the author
argues that bureaucracy, the pressures of raising funds, and a loss of conceptual clarity impede the
fundamentals of good practice. Jacob’s conclusion is that these factors are holding back NGOs from
maximizing social impact; that while the field has grown substantially over recent decades, field level
performance remains variable.
Nicholls, in a later contribution, explores the use of metrics in a sample of 41 social entrepreneurial
organizations active in five continents and no less than nice sectors. Nicholls distinguishes between these
organization based on three defining characteristics—that is, ‘sociality’, innovation and market orientation.
Each of these elements is further associated with different uses of metrics, including control, planning
and accountability. Nicholls finally points out several challenges to the field of impact measurement: the
adoption of new metrics comes after the process of venture creation and is driven by resource constraints
(i.e., funders’ needs) rather than by the organizational mission; a minority of the sample assessed out-
comes instead of short-term outputs, suggesting “a transactional view of organizational action” (p. 268
of the original chapter); and finally a low involvement in market/system innovation compared to product
and process innovation.
Contextual Influences on Social Entrepreneurship
Bacq and Janssen set out to clarify the concepts of ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social entrepreneur’ and
‘social entrepreneurship organization’ and to examine whether there is a transatlantic divide in the way
these are conceived and defined. After having justified the need for a definition, they present the different
geographical perspectives. North American and European literatures on social entrepreneurship are
critically analyzed by means of Gartner’s four differentiating aspects: the individual, the process, the
organization and the environment. They show that there is no clear-cut transatlantic difference and that
even within the U.S., different conceptions coexist.
Mair and Martí examine situations where the weakness or complete absence of supportive institutions
leave the poor unable to participate in market activity and illustrate the activities of an entrepreneurial
actor in rural Bangladesh aimed at addressing them. The findings enable us to better understand why
institutional voids originate and to unpack institutional processes in a setting characterized by extreme
resource constraints and an institutional fabric that is rich but often at odds with market development.
The authors depict the crafting of new institutional arrangements as an ongoing process of bricolage
and unveil its political nature as well as its potentially negative consequences.
Kerlin argues that because little has been written comparing and contrasting American and European
conceptions of social enterprise there is difficulty communicating on the topic and missed opportunities
to learn and build on foreign experience. To address this need, Kerlin compares and contrasts American
and European social enterprise through an extensive review of literature from the two regions and
discussions with social enterprise researchers on both sides of the Atlantic. She outlines the definitions
of social enterprise used by American and European academics and practitioners, identifies historical
factors promoting and shaping different conceptions of social enterprise, and highlights the differing
institutional and legal environments in which it operates.
Catford argues that perhaps the greatest challenge is for citizen participation in community activities to
be formally recognized, valued and supported. This is important not only to motivate and encourage
individuals, but also to lever support for their initiatives. Such a shift requires a profound change in the
attitude and culture of many societies where social status is gained only through advanced education
and/or highly paid employment. Catford argues for more research and development in this area, including
the collection of case studies of social entrepreneurial projects amongst different social groups and
cultures. Centering on the issue of health, Catford points to the role and contribution of social entrepre-
neurs in thinking about how health can be created and maintained. Traditional ‘welfare-state’ approaches
are increasingly in decline globally and in response, new ways of creating healthy and sustainable com-
munities are required.
Community-Based Entrepreneurship
Maurer, Bansal and Crossan introduce a culturally informed resource-based view that explains how
cultural elements in the firm’s institutional context shape the economic value associated with a firm’s
strategy. They posit that a firm’s institutional context may create or destroy economic value and if the
strategy inadvertently becomes associated with a social issue, it poses a risk for the firm. The authors
argue that firms that recognize the dynamic interplay between their resources and their institutional
context in the face of social issues can engage in important cultural work, and thereby preserve their
strategy’s economic value.
Wallace examines the role of social and political cohesion in a community economic development con-
text focusing on the emergence and dynamics of social purpose enterprises in facilitating community
development and revitalization efforts. The author focuses on why community economic development
is essential and who can best promote community economic development. In answer to these two
inquiries, Wallace argues for the recognition of and advocacy for the expansion of social purpose enter-
prises, often operating for-profit ventures, as an effective socio-political and economic link between
government and free market enterprise.
Dana investigates the evolution of the community of Sámi reindeer herders in Norway. Until the middle
of the twentieth century, a self-employed Sámi reindeer herder could subsist on 250 reindeer which were
owned individually but cared for collectively by means of flexible entrepreneurial networks. Human
existence reflected the needs of herds, and rather than manage their reindeer, herders read their cues
and followed the herds. Flexibility was the key to success. Today, snowmobiles, GPS technology, helicopters
and increased regulation are transforming the sector. Reindeer herders, interviewed for this article, have
been adapting successfully to technological, regulatory and other changes. Yet they are concerned that,
if herding is reduced to an element of the food industry, the essence and efficiency of their community-
based, symbiotic entrepreneurship will be undermined. However, while reindeer herders are attracted or
pulled towards traditional community entrepreneurship, many are forced or pushed into secondary
money-driven enterprises, less close to their tradition.
Johnstone and Lionais investigate depleted communities—a persistent feature of late capitalism—which
are areas that have lost much of their economic rationale, while retaining high attachments and social
relations of place. While conditions in depleted communities can limit possibilities for traditional devel-
opment, entrepreneurial responses are not similarly constrained. The authors argue that depleted
communities can act as hosts to a unique form of enterprise that combines good business practices with
community goals and refer to this as ‘community business entrepreneurship’. Johnstone and Lionais argue
that it is similar to, but distinct from, the traditional entrepreneurial process and provide case studies to
demonstrate their point that the entrepreneurial process can be modified to pursue community goals,
thereby creating new opportunities and making new forms of development possible.
Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development
Cohen and Winn develop the argument that four types of market imperfections (i.e., inefficient firms,
externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms and information asymmetries) contribute to environmental
degradation and yet, also provide significant opportunities for the creation of radical technologies and
innovative business models. They show that these opportunities establish the foundations for an emerging
model of sustainable entrepreneurship which enables founders to obtain entrepreneurial rents while
simultaneously improving local and global social and environmental conditions.
Hall, Daneke and Lenox discuss the emerging research concerned with sustainable development and
entrepreneurship which has been recognized as a major conduit for sustainable products and processes,
and new ventures are often held up as a panacea for many social and environmental concerns. However,
there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the nature of entrepreneurship’s role and how it may
unfold. The authors begin with an overview of sustainable development and the role of entrepreneurship
and outline recent contributions exploring this role.
Hockerts and Wüstenhagen propose a model of how incumbents and new entrants engage in sustainable
entrepreneurship. They suggest that in the early stages of an industry’s sustainability transformation,
new entrants (‘Emerging Davids’) are more likely than incumbents to pursue sustainability-related
opportunities. Incumbents react to the activities of new entrants by engaging in corporate sustainable
entrepreneurship activities. While these ‘Greening Goliaths’ are often less ambitious in their environmental
and social goals, they may have a broader reach due to their established market presence. This paper
analyzes the interplay between ‘Greening Goliaths’ and ‘Emerging Davids’ and theorizes about how it is
their compounded impact that promotes the sustainable transformation of industries.
Dean and McMullen explain how entrepreneurship can help resolve the environmental problems of
global socio-economic systems. Environmental economics concludes that environmental degradation
results from the failure of markets, whereas the entrepreneurship literature argues that opportunities
are inherent in market failure. The authors examine the ability of their proposed theoretical framework
to transcend the environmental context and provide insight into expanding the domain of the study of
entrepreneurship.
Tilley and Young present a model that suggests sustainability entrepreneurs could potentially be the
true wealth generators of the future. In recent times, with the increased awareness of environmental and
social problems, the theory of ecological modernization has been presented as an explanation for how
entrepreneurship can reconcile the twin goals of sustainable development and wealth accumulation.
However, the limitations of ecological modernization theory suggest this may not be the panacea some
first thought, thus opening up the debate for an alternative model of entrepreneurship based on the
principles of sustainability.
Financing and Funding
Harjula examines the case of an entrepreneurial venture with a disruptive innovation in medical tech-
nology and where the entrepreneur is striving to achieve both financial and social returns. At the heart
of the case is the relationship between the entrepreneur who is both socially responsible and business
oriented and a mainstream venture capitalist interested solely in the financial success of the venture.
Although it is often asserted that venture capitalists may not be initially interested in investing in firms
with a social objective, Harjula shows that, at least in this case, the social goals are derived automatically
from the core business and any increase operations leads automatically both to financial profits and
social returns. This case serves as an example of two general problems: (1) the different time frames of
venture capitalists and entrepreneurs; and (2) conflicts of interest between industry incumbents and
innovators of new technologies and new business models.
Rubin extends the investigation into the role of venture capital in a social context by highlighting the
nature of social returns. Social returns can include such benefits as the economic development of
distressed urban and rural geographies; creation of high-quality jobs for low-income populations; build-
ing wealth for women and people of color; and creation of products that benefit society by lowering
poverty or contributing to a cleaner environment. This article introduces a conceptual framework for the
developmental venture capital industry based on the social objectives of individual funds. Importantly,
the framework distinguishes between funds that have corrective versus additive objectives. Funds with
corrective objectives are designed to address inadequate access to traditional venture capital by specific
geographies and populations. Funds with additive objectives are meant to further specific social goals,
such as fighting poverty or environmental degradation.
Hermes and Lensink examine the world of microfinance which has received considerable attention re-
cently both from policy makers as well as academics. Two of the main topics that have been hotly debated
are explaining joint liability group lending and its implications for reducing information asymmetries,
and the trade-off between the financial sustainability and outreach of microfinance programs. This article
contains three novel empirical contributions that provide new insights as to why and how joint liability
group lending works. It also contains one of the first large-scale systematic analyses of the trade-off
between financial performance and outreach of microfinance institutions.
The article by Hulme addresses the important issue of the impact of micro-finance programs and
institutions in development strategies. This paper reviews methodological options for the impact assess-
ment (IA) of microfinance and examines the choice of conceptual frameworks. The author then presents
three paradigms of impact assessment: the scientific method, the humanities tradition and participatory
learning and action. An important contribution of the paper centers on how to combine different
methodological approaches so that a ‘fit’ is achieved between IA objectives, program context and the
constraints of IA costs, human resources and timing.
Brau and Woller lament the fact that microfinance has yet to break into the mainstream or entrepreneurial
finance literature and set out to introduce the finance academic community to the discipline of microfi-
nance and microfinance institutions (MFIs). The authors provide a comprehensive review of over 350
articles and address the issues of MFI sustainability, products and services, management practices,
clientele targeting, regulation and policy, and impact assessment.
Educating to Social Entrepreneurship
Can you teach entrepreneurship, or is it innate? This is an often-asked question that recurs periodically
in such journals as CNN Money, Businessweek, Time and the Wall Street Journal. Tracey and Phillips point
out that in September 2004, the Academy of Management Learning and Education published a special
issue on the role of management education in the training and development of entrepreneurs. As they
point out, the special issue contains an important omission—there is no discussion of social entrepre-
neurs, individuals who develop economically sustainable solutions to social problems. Their paper
attempts to outline the distinctive challenges and issues involved in teaching and developing entrepre-
neurs who aim to combine social and commercial objectives. Mars and Garrison carry this attempt further
by outlining the challenges in teaching a venture capital course that includes students actively pursuing
a socially-oriented venture as part of an experiential project. Schlee, Curren and Harich examine the
implications of the increased popularity of social enterprise programs and social venture competitions
for the marketing curriculum. They point out that while social enterprises use business skills to solve
social problems, the specific marketing skills required differ from those covered in most marketing cur-
ricula. The authors recommend some changes in emphasis and/or scope to specific areas in the marketing
curriculum and include an outline of the proposed marketing curriculum for social enterprise programs.
Advancing theory in social entrepreneurship is imperative to the future and persistence of the field. While
the papers discussed here provide a solid starting block, advancing theory is perhaps the single most
important step for future social entrepreneurship researchers to take. We next discuss this need in more
detail, along with other vital field-wide necessities and follow that discussion with more specific research
ideas for social entrepreneurship scholars to tackle.
Future Directions
Holistic Research Needs
On an abstract level which applies to most, if not all, streams of research within social entrepreneurship,
there is a significant paucity of three types of studies. Namely, the field is in desperate need of studies
which 1) make a theoretical contribution, 2) employ quantitative methods of analysis, and/or 3) produce
prescriptive findings. We examine each of these needs in turn with an emphasis on why they are impor-
tant while referring to exemplar papers in and outside of these volumes, which help address these needs.
First, the field is in need of studies which either elucidate our understanding of established theories or
generate new ones. Several requisites have been argued as being necessary for a line of scholarly inquiry
to be considered a field. For instance, the research conducted therein must “explain and predict a set of
empirical phenomena not explained or predicted by conceptual frameworks already in existence in other
fields” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 217). Thus if, for example, entrepreneurial orientation’s (EO) impact
on the performance of commercial firms manifests itself identically in the context of social ventures,
many may consider the study of social entrepreneurship redundant and unnecessary. Alternatively, if the
dimensions of EO are different for social ventures or differentially influence social performance—as is
likely the case (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, 2013)—social entrepreneurship as a whole is more
deserving of the ‘field’ moniker. As such, field legitimacy is derived from making unique contributions to
what we already know about how the world works; in essence, theory. Short and his colleagues recently
compiled a list of 18 theories which are particularly conducive to the study of social entrepreneurship
(Short et al., 2009). They are: I/O economics, upper echelon theory, creation theory, discovery theory,
prospect theory, agency theory, disruptive innovation theory, ambidexterity, resource dependence, con-
tingency theory, resource-based view, diffusion theory, goal setting theory, entrepreneurial orientation,
cultural values, institutional theory, stewardship theory, and attribution theory. We encourage researchers
to apply and advance such theories in an effort to make social entrepreneurship research “a source of
explanation, prediction and delight” (Mair & Martí, first volume).
One exemplar paper which illustrates such a contribution is provided by Zahra, Rawnhouser, Bhawe,
Neubaum, and Hayton (2008). The authors apply the behavioral theory of the firm, cosmopolitanism
prosocial theory, regime theory, and internationalization theory to explain the formation of international
social ventures. The authors further derive a framework which explains how social entrepreneurs decide
on the timing and geographic scope of international operations. Importantly, although their framework
is similar to some proposed earlier in the extant internationalization literature, the authors show how the
framework changes with its application to social new ventures.
Second, the field is in need of much more empirical research. Collecting social entrepreneurship data in
sufficient quantities for conducting traditional methods of quantitative analysis is a challenging under-
taking for several reasons. Like its parent discipline of commercial entrepreneurship, there are few publicly
available government-mandated records for many types of social enterprises. Also, and to a much greater
degree than is the case with commercial entrepreneurship, contact information for social entrepreneurs
is difficult to identify and gather. Social entrepreneurs represent an elusive cohort due to their relatively
small numbers (as compared with commercial entrepreneurs), and the relative absence of the institutions
that bind and identify the members (e.g., trade associations and trade publications). Third, unlike its parent
discipline, we know of no large-scale public databases of survey responses on the topic (e.g., the Panel
Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics or the Kauffman Firm Survey).
The difficulty inherent in collecting social entrepreneurship data is corroborated by a recent study which
found that of 152 published social entrepreneurship papers, only 16 conducted quantitative analyses
(Short et al., 2009). The majority of published empirical articles rely instead on qualitative methods such
as case studies or discourse analysis. While useful insights have certainly been gleaned from such studies,
there are considerable field-wide limitations that accompany the lack of quantitative studies. For instance,
scholars are constrained in their ability to offer generalizable implications with small samples. Further,
although qualitative studies are often published in top journals, many of these outlets tend to favor
rigorous quantitative methods. Without the ability to employ such methods, social entrepreneurship
research may have a narrower range of publication options, which in turn may limit its overall impact
factor, as well as dissuade scholars from joining the field. As such, more resources and better efforts to
collect and analyze quantitative social entrepreneurship data are needed.
An exemplar quantitative social entrepreneurship study is provided by Meyskens and colleagues (2010).
Their paper investigates the resource management and mobilization strategies of social ventures. To do
so, the authors perform content analysis on 70 public profiles of Ashoka Fellows. Through clever methods,
they are able to quantitatively operationalize variables including: financial capital, partnerships, organi-
zational structure, knowledge transferability, and innovativeness. From this, they are able to form and test
a correlation model consisting of these variables. The authors could have tested their research questions
with a handful of case studies, yet due to the quantitative nature of the study, their methods may more
safely be generalized to other social entrepreneurs.
Third, the field is in need of more prescriptive work. Thus far, the social entrepreneurship scholars seem
largely focused on descriptive research. Such papers offer important insights into the content of social
entrepreneurship: e.g., what comprises social entrepreneurship, who the social entrepreneurs are, how
social entrepreneurship differs from commercial entrepreneurship, what the antecedents of social
entrepreneurship are, and so on. Research of this nature is crucial in laying the foundation for scholarship
and understanding the phenomenon. However, it offers little to those practicing social entrepreneurship.
To service and influence social entrepreneur practitioners, researchers must be able to explain cause-
and-effect relationships in order to prescribe best practices. Examples of such prescriptive research
questions include: ‘In choosing a successor to a social venture, should entrepreneurs select from within
or from outside the organization?’, ‘How does an increase in earned-income strategies influence volun-
teerism?’ and ‘When social and economic goals conflict, how can leaders mitigate potential problems?’
Answers to these types of questions will aid social entrepreneurs in their decision-making, and provide
scholars with a larger role in shaping and improving the future of practice.
An exemplar study that provides such prescriptions for practitioners is provided by McDonald (first
volume). The author investigates the role of nonprofit organizations’ missions in the innovation process.
Following the presentation of his results, McDonald includes a section entitled ‘Managerial Implications’
(notably, several journals require the presence of these or similar sections). In this section, McDonald
makes several direct recommendations for practitioners including: “Often, mission statements seem to
strive to be as broad and far-reaching as possible. However, the nonprofit organization’s mission should
be made as clear and fundamental as possible and stated in such a way as to motivate employees who
read it” (...) “New employees must be socialized into the organization’s value system and encouraged to
buy into the mission” (...) “Top management and middle managers must reinforce the mission through
words and deeds” (p. 275 of the original paper). Studies of this nature provide practitioners with clear
and concise prescriptions for improving their organizations.
Specific Research Needs
These recommendations are abstract and broadly applicable to most if not all streams of research in
social entrepreneurship. We now apply a more finely focused lens to discuss specific streams of research
for which there is a paucity of research and provide specific research questions for future scholarship. It
should be noted that there are several extant papers which provide more detailed and systematic
accounts of future research needs (see, for example, Austin, et al., 2006; Gras, Mosakowski, & Lumpkin,
2011; Haugh, 2005; Moss et al., first volume). Our suggestions are not meant to be comprehensive, but a
parsimonious discussion of three of the seemingly most fruitful areas of future research. Further, each
was inspired by calls for future research by scholars in these volumes. The needs are: strategy, growth,
and exit.
Strategic entrepreneurship is a booming topic within the commercial domain. So much so that there is
a growing sentiment supported by several scholars that in an increasingly dynamic and uncertain world,
the concepts of strategy and entrepreneurship are inseparable (e.g., McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Meyer
& Heppard, 2000). Simply stated, strategic entrepreneurship involves simultaneous opportunity-seeking
and advantage-seeking behaviors and results in superior firm performance (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003).
Social entrepreneurship scholars have largely embraced the concept of opportunity-seeking (e.g., Chell,
first volume; Hockerts, first volume; Robinson, 2006) yet, have largely neglected advantage-seeking
behaviors. Instead, there is a prevailing assumption in the extant literature that social entrepreneurs do
not compete; rather, they collaborate (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, 2013). While this may be
true in some cases, there is ample reasoning and anecdotal evidence to suggest that many social entre-
preneurs must compete with commercial firms, nonprofits, hybrid organizations, or even governments
in order to survive and prosper (Gras & Lumpkin, 2011). For instance, following the unparalleled success
of micro-lending pioneered by Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, numerous for-profit banks entered
the micro-lending market. As Grameen Bank’s world-wide expansion progressed, they often found them-
selves competing for the same customers as commercial banks. Scholars have yet to adequately address
competition in social entrepreneurship, along with the strategic behaviors social entrepreneurs can and
do employ to improve both financial and social performance. Supporting our contention, a number of
scholars have put forth interesting research questions concerning competition and strategy within social
entrepreneurship. These include:
• In mixed markets where nonprofit and for-profit organizations are both operating, what are the
relative competitive advantages, disadvantages, and interactive dynamics? (Austin et al., 2006)
• What affects the extent and form of competition and collaboration among social enterprises?
(Austin et al., 2006)
• Can social entrepreneurs position themselves to absorb knowledge spillovers and transform
them into competitive advantage in similar ways as posited for commercial entrepreneurs?
(Meyskens et al., 2010)
• Can partnerships and strategic alliances and other structures be used to make the social firm
more competitive and thus more successful? (Meyskens et al., 2010)
• What strategic and managerial consequences flow from social entrepreneurs’ need to satisfy
both economic and social objectives? (Short et al., 2009)
• Which entrepreneurial and strategic processes are most effective for creating social value across
different social entrepreneurship activities? (Short et al., 2009)
The second topic which we believe is ripe for future research concerns growth and scalability in social
ventures, since new social ventures come in a variety of sizes. Zahra and his colleagues (first volume) gen-
erate a classification scheme of social entrepreneurs partly based upon their scale, scope and timing;
three types were identified. The first is the ‘social bricoleur’ which is small in scale, local in scope, and often
episodic in nature. The second type is the ‘social constructionist’ which ranges from small to large in scale,
local to international in scope, and is designed to be institutionalized to address an ongoing social need.
The third is the ‘social engineer’ which is very large in scale, national to international in scope, and seeks
to build lasting structures that will challenge existing order. Perhaps even more important than size dis-
tinctions, however, is the fact that social firms also differ in their ability to grow, or their scalability. Such
an ability is based on a variety of factors including the motivations of the entrepreneur, the resources
available to the firm, and the prevalence of the social ill being addressed. In practice, scalable social ven-
tures are in extremely high demand by foundations such as Ashoka and Skoll, as well as social venture
capitalists like the Acumen Fund, Grassroots Business Fund, Citizen Capital, and Social Venture Partners.
In research, many scholars have called for an improved understanding of how to scale a social venture
to maximize impact, but few have responded. Acknowledging the need for more research on growth
and scalability, scholars have provided several interesting future research questions on the topic. These
include:
• If context and embeddedness is so important, to what extent is it possible to transfer practices
and scale out initiatives across geographic and community borders? (Mair & Martí, first volume)
• What factors contribute to growth in social ventures and are they similar to growth factors in
commercial ventures? (Short et al., 2009)
• What measures of small firm growth do we need to develop as they apply to the social
enterprise with a view to establishing recognized and acceptable measures which can be
applied to the social enterprise from a research and policy perspective? (Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand how the characteristics of the social entrepreneur (age, education and
prior work experience) may be associated with the type and level of firm growth achieved?
(Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand the nature of the internal challenges encountered by social entrepreneurs
in pursuit of firm growth? (Hynes, 2009)
• Can we understand the most influential antecedents of scaling social organizations under
different situational contingencies and scaling success? (Bloom & Chatterji, second volume)
Our third suggestion for a future research focus concerns entrepreneurial exit. Traditionally, entre -
preneurship scholars have dedicated their studies to organizational formation, leaving the study of
later stages in the hands of strategists, management scholars, or economists. However, commercial
entrepreneurship scholars have recently turned a keen eye on the phenomenon of entrepreneurial
exit—the point at which the entrepreneur leaves the firm, be it through failure, sale of the firm, retirement,
or otherwise (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009; Wennberg, Wiklund, DeTienne, &
Cardon, 2010). Several topics within entrepreneurial exit research seem highly applicable and even
exacerbated within social new ventures. For instance, prior research has established an emotional con-
nection between the entrepreneur and their venture which often triggers enormous grief when the bond
is broken through failure (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd et al., 2009). It can be argued that social entrepre-
neurs have an even stronger emotional connection; not only to their organization, but to the social ill
their organization serves. Failure for social entrepreneurs may trigger a tremendous emotional reaction
and require extensive grief recovery mechanisms. For those who exit through circumstances other than
failure, there are also several pressing and interesting issues. For example, those entrepreneurs who wish
to retire yet have their social venture continue face succession challenges unique to social entrepre -
neurship domain (Bacq & Janssen, 2012). Examples include the lack of available and qualified social
entrepreneurial successors, the potential indivisibility of a social venture’s mission and the social entre-
preneur, or the mechanisms the outgoing owner can employ to ensure that the social mission endures
with future owners; each aspect of which merits study. Beyond these ideas, extant papers have provided
a few suggestions for social entrepreneurial exit work:
• Develop a stronger understanding of social entrepreneurial failure; particularly with respect
to costs, benefits, loss, and grief (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Understand the sources of failure when there are multiple missions or contradictory logics
at play (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Explore the implications of delaying failure in social ventures (Dacin et al., first volume)
• Investigate causes and consequences of social enterprise failure and identify strategies to
avoid failure (Haugh, 2005).
• Do community-oriented efforts have an impact on exit behavior of successful entrepreneurs?
(Cornwall, 1998)
Taken together, the future is bright for social entrepreneurship research. Knowledge and interest in social
entrepreneurship is growing exponentially in students, professors, and practitioners around the globe.
The challenge for scholars in the foreseeable future will lie in keeping up with the growth and positively
contributing to it. We hope that the collection of articles in these volumes will serve to inform and inspire
those who wish to do so.
REFERENCES
• Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1): 1–22.
• Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. 2012. Succession Strategies in Social Entrepreneurial Ventures: An Empirical
Investigation. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Fort Worth, TX (USA), June 6-9.
• Bloom, P., & Chatterji, A. 2009. Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact. California Management Review,
51(3): 114–133.
• Cornwall, J. R. 1998. The Entrepreneur as a Building Block for Community. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 3(2): 141–148.
• Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions.
Organization Science, 22(5): 1203–1213.
• Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. 2003. Sector-Bending: Blurring Lines between Nonprofit and For-profit.
Society, 40(4): 16–27.
• Dorado, S. 2006. Social Entrepreneurial Ventures: Different Values So Different Process of Creation,
No? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4): 319–343.
• Drucker, P. F. 1989. What Business Can Learn from Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 67: 88–93.
• Dunn, A., & Riley, C. A. 2004. Supporting the Not-for-Profit Sector: The Government’s Review of
Charitable and Social Enterprise. The Modern Law Review, 67(4): 632–657.
• Gras, D., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2011. Strategic Foci in Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(1): 6–23.
• Gras, D., Mosakowski, E., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2011. Gaining Insights from Future Research Topics
in Social Entrepreneurship: A Content-Analytic Approach, in G. T. Lumpkin & J. A. Katz (Eds.)
Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth,
Volume 13): 25–50. Cambridge, MA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Haugh, H. 2005. The Role of Social Enterprise in Regional Development. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(4): 346–357.
• Hynes, B. 2009. Growing the Social Enterprise—Issues and Challenges. Social Enterprise Journal,
5(2): 114–125.
• Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. 2003. A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship:
The Construct and Its Dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6): 963–989.
• Low, C. 2006. A Framework for the Governance of Social Enterprise. International Journal
of Social Economics, 33: 376–85.
• Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. 2013. Entrepreneurial Processes in
Social Contexts: How are they Different, it at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3): 761–783.
• Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. 2007. From Stakeholders to Institutions: The Changing Face of
Social Enterprise Governance Theory. Management Decision, 45(2): 284–301.
• Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J., Carsrud, A., & Reynolds, P. 2010. Social Ventures from
a Resource-Based Perspective: An Exploratory Study Assessing Global Ashoka Fellows.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4): 661–680.
• McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. 2000. The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies For Continuously
Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
• Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. 2000. Entrepreneurial Strategies: The Dominant Logic
of Entrepreneurship. In G. D. Meyer & K. A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as Strategy:
Competing on the Entrepreneurial Edge: 1–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Robinson, J. 2006. Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets:
How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson,
and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 95-120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–26.
• Shepherd, D. A. 2003. Learning From Business Failure: Propositions of Grief Recovery
for the Self-Employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 318–328.
• Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., and Haynie, J. M. 2009. Moving Forward: Balancing the Financial
and Emotional Costs of Business Failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2): 134–148.
• Short, J., Moss, T., & Lumpkin, G. 2009. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions
and Future Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2): 161–194.
• Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. 2010. Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial
Exit: Divergent Exit Routes and Their Drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4): 361–375.
• Yunus, M. 2010. Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s
most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.
• Zahra, S., Hayton, J., Neubaum, D., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. 2008. Culture of Family Commitment
and Strategic Flexibility: The Moderating Effect of Stewardship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
32(6): 1035–1054.
doc_528312101.pdf