Description
Entrepreneurship In The Name Of Society
This book presents entrepreneurship far beyond market-oriented business.
Societal entrepreneurship engages people, at times in a small community, at
times globally. The ambition is many times to create a better world, which of
course is welcome. But societal entrepreneurship also challenges and provokes.
The contributing authors both acknowledge and question contemporary ways
of organizing society. In this digested presentation of a research anthology,
originally published in early 2009, 16 researchers from 16 Swedish universities
and/or institutes elaborate on these issues.
The texts cover a variety of cases of societal entrepreneurship carried out by
individuals, organizations, communities, nations – all with strong driving spirit.
We hope that the message of the book will stimulate societal entrepreneurs and
researchers as well as politicians and citizens to engage, to initiate and to act –
in the name of society.
The anthology is an initiative within the Knowledge Foundation’s Societal
Entrepreneurship Programme.
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
Entrepreneurship
in the Name
of Society
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
t
h
e
N
a
m
e
o
f
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
Entrepreneurship in the
Name of Society
Entrepreneurship in the
Name of Society
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
In order to strengthen Sweden’s ability to create value, the Knowledge Foundation
wants the business sector, seats of learning and research institutes to jointly develop
advanced knowledge and competence. We are an active fnancer – our goal is to create
new potential, boost results and promote risk-taking.
Since the foundation was established in 1994, it has invested more than SEK 6 billion in
over 2,000 projects related to the development of new seats of learning and institutes,
competence development in the business sector, and ICT and learning.
Published by the Knowledge Foundation
P.O. Box 3222
SE-103 64 Stockholm
Sweden
www.kks.se
Graphic design and production: Super
Print: Östertälje Tryckeri AB, 2009
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
We Need More Societal Entrepreneurs! ....................................................................................................................................................................................7
Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Part 1 Perspectives and Illustrations of Societal Entrepreneurship ...................................................................... 19
1:1 The Firm as Societal Entrepreneur................................................................................................................................................................ 21
1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners ................. 25
1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena .................................. 30
1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship.............................................................................................. 35
1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland
Case 1985–1995 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Part 2 Societal Entrepreneurship as Creative Irritation ................................................................................................................ 45
2:1 The Societal Entrepreneur as Provocateur ................................................................................................................................... 47
2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice ............................................................................................................................. 51
2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur....................................................................... 56
Part 3 Paths to Insights about Societal Entrepreneurship ...................................................................................................... 61
3:1 Societal Entrepreneurs for Local and Regional Development ................................................................ 63
3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship ................................................................................... 67
3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital ........................................................................................................................ 72
3:4 Societal Entrepreneurship as an Interactive Process ............................................................................................... 77
Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging
Variation in Society...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
The Authors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Contents
07
We Need More Societal
Entrepreneurs!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
Societal entrepreneurship refers to initiatives which aim at improving what is lacking or
non-functioning in society; new solutions intended at creating a sustainable society –
economically, socially and ecologically – by applying entrepreneurial logic.
One of the Knowledge Foundation’s major ventures is to raise the level of societal
entrepreneurship in Sweden.
Social innovations are one way of facing the present fnancial and climate crises. We need
new ways of producing and consuming in a climate-friendly manner, as well as new forms
of services and care and new sustainable business ideas. By thinking along new lines
societal entrepreneurs can solve problems in society while simultaneously opening up new
markets. In our opinion societal entrepreneurship holds the key to the future.
Many of today’s social solutions were built for the structures of the industrial society when
boundaries were more important – boundaries between nations, between the market and
the public sphere, between work and leisure. The tough questions we are now facing: the
climate threat, migration and segregation, globalization and unequal distribution, are
boundless and far too complex to be solved by single actors. Societal entrepreneurs make
use of entrepreneurial logic when grappling with the problems of society, demonstrating
that it works perfectly to be both commercial and driven by ideals – developing society while
creating one’s own sustenance.
The Knowledge Foundation’s Programme for Societal Entrepreneurship wishes to make
space for individuals and organizations to take innovative initiatives for the common good.
Over a period of nine years the foundation will invest some 11 million Euro to boost societal
entrepreneurship in Sweden. We will invest in research on societal entrepreneurship;
support the creation of competence development for societal entrepreneurs and work to
make more people realize the value of societal entrepreneurship. This anthology is one of
the programme’s initial outcomes.
What then do we mean by societal entrepreneurship? Most people would agree that entre-
preneurship is about doing; entrepreneurs create something new – sometimes by tearing
down something old. Hence, for us, entrepreneurship is not restricted to starting compa-
nies, but has a wider scope: starting an activity or organization.
The obvious purpose of initiatives taken by the societal entrepreneur is to be of advantage to
society. It may involve anything from rural services to producing ecological food or fair-trade
clothes. It may also take different organizational forms: non-proft associations, sharehold-
ing companies, cooperatives or foundations. The Knowledge Foundation’s primary interest
lies in societal entrepreneurship that is innovative – i.e. developing functions and work
methods that have not been available before.
This leads to the defnition of societal entrepreneurship as standing for innovative initia-
tives for the common good. Since the concept is relatively new to Sweden, the defnition
will have to be a preliminary one so far.
In a number of countries societal entrepreneurship is a well known and established
concept. The reason why the Knowledge Foundation prefers the term societal to social
entrepreneurship is to emphasize that the former comprises more than just social issues.
The different terms also illustrate the difference between ways of organizing society. The
Swedish term is adapted to a developed welfare state where societal entrepreneurship is a
question for the whole society, not only the traditional area of social issues.
Societal entrepreneurs tend to act in the borderland between traditional sectors – between
non-proft and commercial, between the public sector and the private market, between
academia and the world outside. The most innovative among them challenge our segmented
society by questioning concepts like market and proft and by indicating new roads that are
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 08
09 We Need More Societal Entrepreneurs!
about neither being dependent on subsidies nor on maximizing profts. “I create a salary for
myself and a proft to society” is a typical line from a societal entrepreneur.
Societal entrepreneurs are the leaders of the future. They make up horizontal and non-hier-
archical networks which are in essence glocal. This is why societal entrepreneurship has its
given place in any discussion about growth. When we make room for initiatives emanat-
ing from societal entrepreneurship we will give them a substantial push forward, not least
where local and regional development are involved.
In Sweden, there still remain plenty of obstacles to societal entrepreneurship. In practice, it
is fairly complicated for initiatives for the common good to establish themselves and grow,
since there are no functioning support structures as yet. The initiatives often get stuck
somewhere “in between” – because they do not ft into the market structure of bank
fnancing, risk capital and strict fnancial accounting, nor into the subsidy system of the
public sector.
The Knowledge Foundation’s programme aims to improve the climate for societal entre-
preneurship. To realize this, many more actors need to change their attitudes to innovative
initiatives for the common good – such as companies, decision-makers at various levels or
public authorities. It is also essential that more people are prepared to contribute actively.
The Knowledge Foundation’s Societal Entrepreneurship Programme rests on three legs:
• Research – providing more knowledge about societal entrepreneurship and building
a new academic feld in Sweden.
• Competence development – offering more people the opportunity to develop as societal
entrepreneurs through education, networks and counselling.
• Establishing the concept – creating an insight into the value of societal
entrepreneurship and gradually improving its conditions by fnancing, infrastructure
and positive treatment.
More information about the programme can be found at www.samhallsentreprenor.se and
on the Knowledge Foundation’s website www.kks.se.
The long-term goals of the Knowledge Foundation’s ventures are simple: more societal
entrepreneurs and more societal entrepreneurial initiatives. By launching this programme
we wish to create more space for innovative initiatives for the common good. Societal entre-
preneurs will do the rest.
Eva Moe
Head of the Societal Entrepreneurship Programme
11
Starting Points,
Thought Styles and
Text Frames
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
Swedish interest in societal entrepreneurship is not new. The famous 18th century botanist
Carl Linnaeus has been used as an example of an entrepreneur whose main mission was
the responsible utilization of natural resources. In our contemporary globalized economy
we have learned that walls are diffcult to build. A society striving for social, ecological
and economic sustainability requires both a local and a global perspective. The challenges
we face today ask for a diverse type of entrepreneurship. This book is guided by a vision
of embracing such a variety. Starting with an historical account from the seventies and
onward of Swedish research related to societal entrepreneurship, this introduction then
paints a contemporary landscape of such an entrepreneurship with home-grown as well as
imported fowers. Finally, societal entrepreneurship as a central mobilizing, innovative as
well as value-creating driving force is discussed.
The purpose of the book is to identify and illustrate societal entrepreneurship as a phe-
nomenon as well as describing how entrepreneurship can contribute to shaping opportuni-
ties of societal utility. Several theoretical examples as well as multiple diverse cases are
presented. All authors in this anthology share the vision of expanding the concept of entre-
preneurship. The book builds upon a prestudy commissioned by the Swedish Knowledge
Foundation to Chalmers University of Technology in November 2006, with many Swedish
researchers and practitioners partaking in workshops exploring opportunities for contem-
porary societal entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 12
The Swedish Roots of Societal
Entrepreneurship
In the late seventies researchers started questioning the “Swedish recipe” of large corpo-
rations and a strong central government. Structural transformations in society implied
increased interests in conditions within local communities suffering from industrial decline.
In the aftermath of changes in the seventies, the eighties to a large extent refected a view
of societal entrepreneurship as something reactive, defensive and place-based, occurring
on the outskirts of society rather than in its core. Nevertheless, studies by Johannisson and
others contrasted this view by showing the dynamics and potential of enterprising smaller
communities, such as the famous Gnosjö region. The image of societal entrepreneurship
being a development force beyond the survival of a place grew stronger during the nineties,
supported in part by Putnam’s study of regional conditions in Italy, including the concept of
social capital.
During the seventies and eighties discussions around the survival of local communities, on
one hand, and of the social responsibilities of large corporations, on the other, were typically
carried out in different arenas. However, when they occasionally coincided they typically
linked together different strategies for locally anchored developments, thereby also intro-
ducing societal entrepreneurship as a phenomenon both for researchers and practitioners.
These early streams of societal entrepreneurship research were also published internation-
ally, although then referring to community entrepreneurship (not the more directly trans-
lated term societal entrepreneurship). Indicative of these early developments, the Swedish
1991 Encyclopedia when defning entrepreneurship also added a subdefnition of societal
entrepreneurship as linked to creating local economic demobilization.
Social aspects of societal entrepreneurship increasingly complemented local economic job-
creating aspects, as Sweden headed towards full EU membership in 1994. At that point in
time, Sweden was also introduced to social economy, an offcial term within EU since 1989,
but a tradition possibly related to old cooperative movements in the country. In 1998 the
Swedish government proposed its own defnition of social economy as consisting of organ-
ized activity, independent of the government-driven public sector, having societal objectives
as its prime mission.
Since the nineties Swedish research on civil society made contributions towards societal en-
trepreneurship. Voluntary organizations, social movements, political engagements and social
work were central aspects studied. Much of the research has been infuenced by a strong
Swedish tradition of popular movements (within politics (e.g. social democracy, etc.), sports,
churches, etc.) stemming from the 19th century and characterized by broad democratic
membership. In the 21st century foreign infuences on societal entrepreneurship increased
signifcantly.
Swedish Societal Entrepreneurship Today
The prestudy mentioned above performed, for instance, literature reviews and conducted
59 interviews and 9 workshops with Swedish researchers and practitioners interested in soci-
etal entrepreneurship. Through these extensive interactive processes a contemporary map
emerged in which several distinguishable concepts such as community entrepreneurship
and social economy (both discussed above) appeared in parallel with more recent infuences
using labels such as social entrepreneurship, civic entrepreneurship and corporate social
responsibility (notions of Anglo-American origin) as well as activist and public entrepreneur-
ship (notions with Swedish backgrounds). These contemporary Swedish societal entrepre-
neurship movements together with traditional economic entrepreneurship are all interrelat-
ed in Figure 1, indicating differences as regards purpose and type of actor, but all with some
type of societal focus.
Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames 13
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 14
CSR
Civic
Entrepreneurship
Social Economy
Activist Eship
Public Eship
Social
Entrepreneurship
Traditional
Entrepreneurship
Community
Entrepreneurship
Collective
Individual
Actor
Purpose
Social/Ecologic Economic
Figure 1. Societal entrepreneurship as a phenomenon with many faces.
Social entrepreneurship in Sweden can be seen as being of Anglo-American infuence,
focusing on individual social entrepreneurs that experiment with new venture forms – pack-
aging social good into private offerings. Actors attribute a combination of social/ecological
and economic motives to social entrepreneurship as well as a stronger focus on the driving
individuals behind a social venture.
Partly as a reaction against Anglo-American social entrepreneurship we see Swedish advo-
cates of public entrepreneurship emphasizing a Swedish and mainland-European tradition
of personal engagement in acts of solidarity without being transactional, as well as a balance
between the role of individuals and engaged communities behind an initiative. We further-
more see a model of activist entrepreneurship challenging norms and at the same time creat-
ing views related to issues at stake and organizational practices.
Civic entrepreneurship – an imported American concept stemming from the rejuvenation of
Silicon Valley, for instance – is close to an older Swedish community entrepreneurship in its
focus on collective economic development. However, it also differs with regard to how much
15 Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames
civic society is engaged. Community entrepreneurship is paradoxically more oriented
towards the civic sector, whereas civic entrepreneurship is more oriented towards the
business, public and academic elites engaging in collective problem-solving. In Sweden
the infuence from civic entrepreneurship is promoted through organizations like the
Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) and the Knowledge Foundation.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a concern for many established frms
around the world. It can be seen as a collective – and of course corporate – form of entrepre-
neurship engaging in social and ecological issues. As already discussed in the introduction,
traditional mainstream entrepreneurship is, by most governments, seen as at least indirectly
contributing to society. It nevertheless ends up at the opposite end of CSR, the latter being a
collective activity aiming at social and/or ecological value, whereas traditional entrepreneur-
ship is typically depicted as individualistic and focusing on economic returns.
A Force in Society
Societal entrepreneurship affects society in several ways: as a mobilizing force, as an innova-
tive force, as a value-creating force, etc. Although these forces are often within the frames of
society, they may also occasionally affect these frames, i.e. constitute forces of more radical
societal change.
Societal Entrepreneurship as a Mobilizing Force
As already discussed, Swedish societal entrepreneurship has been strongly related to local
mobilization, to employment, to the will and opportunity to remain in and reclaim a local
context, and to mobilize around new business opportunities. In social economy and in the
cooperative movement the mobilization is often beyond just the local context, and it has
embraced all types of groups having diffculties establishing themselves on a regular labour
market. Empowerment has become a key word in these movements and a variety of exam-
ples are growing around how people with any type of disability or with a criminal or drug
abuse background, etc., are integrated into ventures with social or other missions.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 16
In the Anglo-American literature focusing on social entrepreneurship the linkages to
employment and empowerment are rarely emphasized. Here a discussion around mobili-
zation and engagement, as well as attracting resources for societal good missions, is more
prevalent. In a Swedish context, however, references are often made to people engaging in
projects and ventures while at the same time having at least part-time employment in an
established structure. Building upon one’s professional role when more or less voluntarily
engaging in societal entrepreneurship is a form of collaboration that is almost unrecognized
in the social entrepreneurship literature with its focus on the individual, on business skills,
and the “public good”.
Societal Entrepreneurship as an Innovative Force
Societal entrepreneurship is also driven by the desire to introduce innovations into society.
This can most easily be seen within the academy. Many of the services and products we today
take for granted within healthcare, information and communication technologies stem from
research processes in which researchers have engaged in creating utility beyond what their
role of being a researcher demands.
However, increasingly, what we call innovation is not just new knowledge from natural sci-
ence, medicine or technology, transformed into products. Increasingly innovation is seen
as social change and social creativity. The interaction between social change and concrete
products and services is thus seen as increasingly essential, whether motives are more eco-
nomic or more social/ecological. Succeeding commercially on the Internet or within mobile
telephony services requires the ability to understand the social movements and practices of
young people. Societal entrepreneurship thus helps to broaden the perspective on innova-
tion beyond too narrow-minded technical solutions into considering more societal and social
factors.
Much societal entrepreneurship builds innovation in ways that are diffcult to anticipate in
traditional economic terms. Although most people sense the importance of championing
the notion that cultural, ecological, or technical functional values are necessary for a more
commercial entrepreneurship to occur, we lack systematic understanding to link the aspects
together.
17 Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames
Societal Entrepreneurship as Value-Creation
Societal entrepreneurship can be seen as stimulating new ways to create and measure value.
Double and triple bottom lines – recognizing social and/or environmental outcomes – in ac-
counting are examples of this. More radical changes might, however, be diffcult to measure
in such terms. What might be affected in entrepreneurship aiming for radical change is our
perspectives on individuals and their driving forces, on society and/or on the environment –
globally as well as locally. Today, in 2009, a “development and progress discourse” focusing
on economic development is still prevalent in European and Swedish policies. Social and
ecological values are still treated more modestly. Societal entrepreneurship might aim at
creating value within such a discourse or at affecting the discourse as such. An important
question is how society can learn to appreciate the more radical inclusion of values into the
societal agenda.
The Structure of the Anthology
The anthology is composed of independent contributions embedded by the editors through
this introduction and through a fnal chapter. Work on the book started in January 2008.
The Swedish full-length book was published in February 2009 (free copy available on
www.kks.se). During the year of production we twice organized authors’ workshops. Beyond
that, the editors have commented on the contributions a couple of rounds. We have divided
the book into three parts, well aware of there being contributions spanning over and beyond
these parts:
1 Illustrations of and perspectives on societal entrepreneurship (fve contributions)
2 Societal entrepreneurship as creative irritation (three contributions)
3 Paths to insights around societal entrepreneurship (four contributions)
Part 1
Perspectives and
Illustrations of Societal
Entrepreneurship
As we have already seen in the introduction, societal
entrepreneurship presents itself in different ways. In this
frst part of the book we elaborate in fve chapters on
societal entrepreneurship with a focus on individuals, different
sorts of organizations, and even entrepreneurial interplay on a
national level. Each chapter deepens our understanding of different
initiatives and alternative perspectives. They do not express a uni-
form view of societal entrepreneurship but rather elaborate on the
diverse discussions that this exciting phenomenon touches upon.
The contributions integrate different theoretical approaches and
elaborate on their strengths and shortcomings. And they all relate
to societal entrepreneurship!
The contributions all touch upon engagement and more or less commercial/non-proft
entrepreneurial behavior. They all propose acting in different, sometimes new, ways. It is all
about innovative societal initiatives.
These texts have all emerged during the year we have worked together. All authors, we as
editors dare to say, have been driven by curiosity, been stimulated by the energy in the dif-
ferent cases, have wrestled with theoretical as well as empirical analyses. Contrasting views
among the researchers have directed the specifying and strengthening of arguments. As-
sumptions have had to be reconsidered, part of the invisible has had to be made visible and
the expected, as well as the unexpected, has been discussed.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 20
1
21
1:1
The Firm as Societal
Entrepreneur
Anna Blombäck, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University
Caroline Wigren, CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö University
Societal entrepreneurship is often described as the creation of a new organization focusing
on social issues, i.e. for the improvement of society. Corporate social responsibility (CSR),
on the other hand, refers to society-related activities carried out by existing proft-driven
organizations. The two concepts are related. By bringing them together new insights are
developed contributing to our understanding of both concepts.
Lately, social entrepreneurship has become a topic in vogue. It is included in higher educa-
tion curricula, it is developing as an academic feld and is emphasized by politicians and
governmental actors. Generally speaking, social ventures aim to improve society rather than
maximize proft. At the core we fnd the individual – identifying problematic situations in
society and creating organizations aimed at improving these situations and/or solving the
underlying problems.
1
1
See for example: Mair, J and Martí, I (2006), Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight, Journal of World Business, Vol 41, pp 36–44.
Martin, R L and Osberg, S (2007), Social entrepreneurship: the case for defnition, Stanford Social Innovation
Review (spring), pp 29–39.
Yujuico, E (2008), Connecting the dots in social entrepreneurship through the capabilities approach, Socio-Economic
Review, pp 1–21.
Corporate social responsibility embraces a wide variety of activities carried out by corpora-
tions, e.g. paying bills, following the law, taking responsibility for the environment, taking
responsibility for suppliers’ actions, sustainable development issues, developing the local
community, and more philanthropic activities such as charity. CSR is often associated with
activities carried out to improve a frm’s relationship to stakeholders and its legitimacy on
the market in order to also improve market value and increase profts in the long run.
In light of this, social entrepreneurship comes out as a phenomenon that represents genu-
ine goodness, while CSR is depicted as something that occurs in the search for corporate
profts rather than out of sincere concern for society. We argue that there are also CSR ac-
tivities which originate in the intention to solve societal problems and contribute to a better
society, for example activities that are distant from the core business, like a social-develop-
ment project in a country where the frm has no business. Our purpose is to illustrate that
the topics of social entrepreneurship and CSR are blurred and overlapping. We propose an
extension of both concepts, arguing that existing frms can also act as social entrepreneurs.
We illustrate this by introducing two empirical cases.
2
Two Empirical Examples
HelaPharma Sweden Ltd has 28 employees and a turnover of 9.7 million Euro. The CSR
project we want to introduce here as an example of the fne line between social entrepre-
neurship and CSR is called “Zimlat for life” and was initiated in 1997. Poverty, starvation,
malaria and HIV mark Zimlat, a village in Eastern Kenya. Of the 5 000 inhabitants, 60
per cent are children. The project Zimlat for life was introduced and is managed by the
HelaPharma company and aims to contribute to a platform which in the long run can sup-
port the village towards an independent social and fnancial development. The frst project
was to dig a freshwater well, the second to build a school house. Today the school project
has grown to include six buildings, accommodating approximately 800 pupils and employ-
ing 28 teachers. Zimlat for life also includes a food program for all pupils, a health clinic
and fnancial support to higher education graduates. HelaPharma continuously fnances
the project through a share of the company’s earnings. Nowadays Zimlat for life involves a
number of other frms and private persons as sponsors.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 22
2
The two cases are based on interviews.
23 Chapter 1:1 The Firm as Societal Entrepreneur
Our second example is “Star for Life”, a project initiated by Danir Ltd, which has 5 employ-
ees and a turnover of 450 000 Euro. Danir is a holding company privately owned by Dan
Olofsson, an IT entrepreneur. His philosophy of life comprises three phases: one where you
educate yourself, one where you either run a business or have an employment, and a third
where you engage in a life project. His life project is Star for Life, which he started together
with his wife Christina. Star for Life is a high-school program developed for and introduced
in Africa. Its objective is to contribute to teenagers’ chances of gaining a good education,
AIDS-free lives and beliefs in their future. Dan and Christina faced the escalating problem
when they had bought a game reserve in the epicenter of HIV and AIDS in South Africa.
Since several of their employees had the disease they had a will to contribute to the develop-
ment of certain parts of South Africa where AIDS is a major obstacle for the life opportu-
nities of young people. They founded the project through one of Dan’s private frms, the
small Danir company, which paid for the initial costs. Part of the cost has been fnanced by
the South African government. The program is currently operating in 62 schools, involv-
ing approximately 62 000 pupils in South Africa and Namibia. The project is now run by
the foundation started by Dan and Christina but fnanced through a number of frms and
private persons. Several of the frms involved were founded and/or are owned by Dan.
What We Can Learn from Our Examples
When defning CSR as activities that go beyond the core business we fnd, in line with the
examples presented above, that it is hard to draw a clear-cut line between the two concepts
of social entrepreneurship and CSR. They have, however, specifc distinguishing character-
istics. The essence of entrepreneurship is, for example, often described as creative destruc-
tion through new organizations, which is the focus of social entrepreneurship. In com-
parison, CSR builds on the assumption that a venture already exists and is proft-driven.
However, the concepts have a great deal in common, e.g. the projects in focus aim at the
improvement of society, proft is not the goal, creative organizing is needed no matter if the
project takes its starting point from an existing or new organization, and there is a genuine
will to contribute to something good.
Both examples above evolved within existing organizations. Later on, Star for Life became
an organization of its own, managed from a foundation. The activities are boundless since
it is neither possible to link them to the core businesses of HelaPharma or Danir, nor to
view them as separated from the business organizations. In essence, they fulfll the basic
assumptions behind both social entrepreneurship and CSR.
Several unclear boundaries can be identifed related to the two examples above. Why, for
example, did the owners of Hela Pharma and Danir decide to engage in Zimlat for life and
Star for Life? What are the driving forces, and do they get involved as members of society,
corporate founders, or social entrepreneurs? As individuals we adapt to multiple roles, de-
pending on the context we are part of – which roles are prominent when it comes to more
philanthropic CSR activities and which identity becomes prominent.
When employees have decided to engage in the projects, which has happened in both cases,
the frms have allowed for activities that go beyond the core business. According to Dan, Star
for Life creates an engagement among the employees, and the project becomes part of eve-
ryday life in the organization, which implies that it can be seen as a mirror of organizational
culture. The question about what impacts this type of projects has when it comes to employee
loyalty and engagement could preferably be further investigated in future research. In both
cases, the projects are now being used for marketing communication, within and beyond the
frm, even if that was not the reason for engaging from the very beginning. In consequence,
the projects can be seen as providing value both to society and the corporations involved, an
interpretation which further complicates the possibility to distinguish the ventures as acts of
either CSR or social entrepreneurship. We ask whether a special kind of values emerges from
this type of hybrid ventures, for example in relation to employees.
Conclusion
The two cases can be seen as chameleons, possible to describe as CSR activities as well as
social entrepreneurship activities, depending on which context we decide to depict them in.
Putting a label on the activities is, however, of less importance – the most important thing
is probably to emphasize the complexity of the two concepts and to make visible valuable
activities carried out by social entrepreneurs within existing or new organizations.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 24
25
1:2
Societal Entrepreneurs
in the Health Sector:
Frontier Crossing Combiners
Malin Tillmar, Linköping University
Here I take particular interest in exploring everyday social entrepreneurship occurring
across sectoral borders.
1
This will be explored through two individuals whose ambition is
to work to promote better health and well-being by complementing local authority care and
schoolbook medicine: Ulrika, yoga teacher and physiotherapist, and Åsa, midwife, water
aerobics instructor and masseuse. The cases are built on interviews.
The questions explored are: What goals and strategies guide their entrepreneurial activities?
What organisational solutions are used? How do the entrepreneurs manage to combine
“health-driven” and “proft-driven” enterprises?
1
For a discussion on everyday entrepreneurship I refer to: Steyaert, C and Katz, J (2004), Reclaiming the space
of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol 16, no 3, pp 179–196.
The Institute of Yoga
The Institute of Yoga is run by yoga instructor Ulrika, who is also a physiotherapist and
works as a lecturer at the Faculty of Health Sciences. After completing her training Ulrika
spent a few years in India and found Kundalini yoga. The driving force to start the yoga
institute came from the desire to share this with others: “To do this, I was forced to start my
own business”. However, she is convinced this will be possible within the county council in
the future, and says “I want to be part of it too. To build bridges. And to convey knowledge to
both worlds.”
The yoga classes are popular and Ulrika does not need to have two jobs. Thus, I ask her
about the reasons for the part-time enterprise. She explains, “I don’t want to get into a posi-
tion where I am dependent on getting customers. I want to be able to do this as a service, too.”
Relaxation music, yogi tea and yoga mats are sold at favourable prices at the yoga institute.
Recently Ulrika recorded a session on CD to make it easier for people to do yoga at home.
This was also done on the initiative and request of the participants and Ulrika sees it as a
service. On the back of the CD you can read: “The proft from the sales of this CD will go to
a children’s home in India.”
Even if Ulrika makes a clear distinction between her role as a university lecturer and her
role as a yoga instructor her double competence is useful. One example is that within the
framework of her employment at the medical school she has been in charge of a course in
Complementary Alternative Integrative Medicine. As a yoga instructor, participants often
ask her questions about general worries. Naturally, Ulrika often answers these using both
her competence as a physiotherapist and her knowledge of Ayurveda and yoga.
The Midwifery Clinic
Since Åsa started to work at the Women’s Clinic, she has kept noticing room for improve-
ment. The importance of exercise and movement during pregnancy was given too little
room as was the need to talk about the approaching birth. Water aerobics for pregnant
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 26
27 Chapter 1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners
women was diffcult to realize within the local authority framework. Thus, Åsa started a
business offering this to paying clients. Since then she has been employed by the Women’s
Clinic part time and run the company part time, and in both roles her point of departure is
her midwife profession.
The 30 minutes per visit to the midwife that the county council offers is not enough, Åsa
thinks. Åsa and her colleagues want to offer 40 minutes, of which about 15 should be used
for tactile massage. Åsa explains: ”In the stressed, high tempo society in which we are living
today, it is really important for women to have a chance to land, to be in their bodies and just be
pregnant.” They currently hope to do this through an agreement with the county council.
A risk facing Åsa is that of being classed as a competitor to the county council and thus
not being allowed to work both on the labour ward and in her clinic. This is important not
only from the perspective of competence development, but also for Åsa and the others as
individuals. “To be with a woman and a man when they have a baby is so fantastic […] You just
can’t stop.”
That Åsa’s entrepreneurship has enriched the Women’s Clinic and vice versa is clear. Åsa
recommends women to have large Pilates balls as support for moving their bodies during
the early stages of childbirth. As far back as 2003 I found out that Åsa had bought two such
balls and donated them to the labour ward. That the county council would pay for these
was something Åsa considered too unlikely to even bother asking. Her midwife colleagues
laughed and joked with Åsa about her ideas. When more and more women who had been to
the water aerobics used the balls and even bought their own and took them up to the labour
ward when it was time to give birth, more and more of Åsa’s colleagues caught on to the idea.
Goals, Strategies and Organizational
Solutions
Put simply, entrepreneurship is viewed here as seeing or creating the opportunity to realize
an idea, and then doing just that. The idea does not have to be a product which has never
before existed, but can build on new ways to combine existing goods or services in another
context. The entrepreneurs described here are frontier-crossing combiners in (at least) four
ways. The combinations link together their goals, strategies and organizational solutions.
The yoga instructor and the midwife combine:
1. “Improving the world” AND running an economically viable business
The business has not been an aim in itself but a means to reach the societal goal that can
be given the collective name of “constructive promotion of the health and well-being of
members of society.” Both the yoga teacher and the midwife have their commitment to
providing access for local and regional citizens
2
to the kinds of health promoting services
that are offered.
2. Their professions AND complementary medicine
The midwife is the person who most clearly takes her profession into the business. She
really practises her profession in her capacity as a midwife and incorporates methods such
as massage, meditation and motion into that role. In the role of yoga instructor, the physi-
otherapist derives great advantage from her professional competence, and in her teach-
ing role in the physiotherapy programme she benefts from her knowledge of yoga and
Ayurvedic medicine.
3. Bridge building AND challenging
To incorporate new, constructive models into the healthcare provided by the county council
are explicit goals for both of them. The strategies, as I see them, are to build bridges but
also to challenge a little by little. An example is the way in which the use of Pilates balls dur-
ing the labour phase was introduced into the university hospital.
4. Running a private business AND being publicly employed
Both entrepreneurs have organized their work through two different organizations. They
practise their professions by being employees of the state and the county council, while at
the same time offering health-promoting services through their business activities. The
midwife in this way keeps in touch with what is central to her work. To the yoga teacher not
giving up her job is a conscious strategy to enable her to maintain the social motive.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 28
2
For further discussion of the role of the community: Johannisson, B and Nilsson, A (1989), Community
entrepreneurs: Networking for local development, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 1, no 1, pp 3–19.
29 Chapter 1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners
Opportunity Exploitation or Self-Exploitation
In mainstream research the entrepreneur is seen as a person who discovers an opportunity
and (then) acts to exploit it – often in a market. In working life research, the term exploita-
tion can have negative connotations, for example, the exploitation of workers. As running
a business is labour-market behaviour, the term self-exploitation is also relevant for our
understanding of what self-employed means. In this fnal section, these terms are used in a
refection of the possibilities of combining “health-driven” and “proft-driven” enterprises.
In our cases there are obviously opportunities, but the descriptions show that there are also
traits of self-exploitation. A great deal of the midwife’s energy has been spent on discus-
sions with people from the authorities and with senior management. It is not impossible
that their relatively subordinate professions have played a role in this. There is a very large
grey area between what the entrepreneurs consider to be work and what they consider to be
meaningful spare time; something that is so often the case with entrepreneurs. Both Ulrika
and Åsa have found “their thing” and invested their time in what also gives them some-
thing in return – even if it has not always been in the form of money. It should, however,
be noted that both entrepreneurs are situated in professions and branches with a female
hallmark where, according to previous research, the potential to make a proft is often lower
than in businesses with a male hallmark. The future will show if this constructive societal
entrepreneurship will obtain enough resources to stay sustainable.
30
1:3
The University of
Technology in the Societal
Entrepreneurship Arena
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
In this chapter the potential contribution of the technical university to a contemporary
societal entrepreneurship is analyzed. Societal entrepreneurship is in this context defned as
innovative initiatives with societal utility, which individuals within the university carry out
beyond their ordinary roles as students, professors, researchers, etc. It can be about efforts in
developing countries, about inspiring teenagers about mathematics, about environmental in-
novations, etc. The technical university is not necessarily a self-evident contributor to societal
entrepreneurship where technical competence is not the starting point and where there are
no established markets and industrial actors. At the same time, societal entrepreneurship
may be the most tempting developmental opportunity for a progressive technical university
wanting to exercise leadership and contribute to sustainable development in tangible ways.
Here the focus is on fve concrete examples of societal entrepreneurship as well as on under-
lying supportive structures and how these structures are enabled or disabled by the historical
characteristics of technical universities. The method is partly self-biographical, where cases
of societal entrepreneurship and developments around Chalmers School of Entrepreneur-
ship as a supportive structure within Chalmers University of Technology, in Gothenburg
Sweden, are described and related to the traditions of technical universities of having been
the pillars of an industrial society as well as of an increasingly globalized market economy.
1
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
31 Chapter 1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena
Comparing Five Examples
The fve examples of societal entrepreneurship – Minesto, NetClean, Insert Africa, BITE
and Intize
2
– all have societal utilities as attributes linking to the technical university. When
comparing the examples, apart from two private ventures and three associations, one also
fnds differences in the way they emphasize societal utility. Minesto with its promising
and seemingly lucrative tidal water energy innovation has the least “need” to emphasize
societal utility. The company could in principle have marketed itself on strictly business
and fnancial terms, having customer utility in focus. Nevertheless, Minesto – like the other
examples – chooses to emphasize the societal good stemming from their innovation. This
attracts appreciation from wider circles as well as public R&D money and collaboration with
Chalmers and other universities.
The second private venture, NetClean, started in 2003, providing solutions for identify-
ing and blocking the illegal downloading, handling and circulation of child pornographic
materials. In comparing NetClean with Minesto, which started in 2006, it is clear that they
both have had communicated values as regards society, customers and the business itself
(i.e. being a viable investment opportunity). Nevertheless, initially many people at Chalmers
saw NetClean more as a charitable venture rather than as a venture that combines all three
utilities. Today NetClean’s combination of social and economic objectives is much more
appreciated. For Minesto and multiple other high-tech ventures stemming from Chalm-
ers School of Entrepreneurship and elsewhere this shift in perspective has implied new
opportunities in how one chooses to communicate value and scale up a venture. Without
having to abandon the focus on customer and company value, societal values are now often
clearly communicated and sometimes they even become the main message, as in all the fve
examples.
The BITE, Insert Africa and Initize associations all have similarities with the company
examples Minesto and NetClean. All systematically strive to build a brand, developing new
1
For more around Chalmers and entrepreneurial transformations of the Swedish university system see Jacob, M,
Lundqvist, M A and Hellsmark, H (2003), Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University System:
the case of Chalmers University of Technology, Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.
2
For further information about the examples please visit www.minesto.com, www.netclean.se, www.insertafrica.
org, www.intize.org. BITE – an association linked to Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship www.entrepreneur.
chalmers.se – has no website currently. BITE inspires teenagers about entrepreneurship, technology and science.
methods of work and offerings, as well as involving and interplaying with other stakehold-
ers. What constitutes a difference is the focus on organizational and customer value. The
groups that are targeted in the offerings of these three non-proft associations are not
paying customers. Instead, society and sponsoring companies give grants under CSR or
societal types of motives.
Enabling Societal Entrepreneurship While
Building upon Past Strengths
Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship can be seen as having enabled societal entrepreneur-
ship in many ways. The original idea behind the school was to utilize promising research
into ventures otherwise “stuck in the lab”. This is a societal mission beyond research for the
sake of research. The pedagogy at the school has been action-based in that a large part of
the drive and responsibility involved in a venture is taken over by the selected student team,
whose members thereby develop their own entrepreneurial identity while also produc-
ing utility. Underlying this pedagogy rests the insight that practical action and venturing
develop totally different competencies than what would be produced in traditional education
with a more static view of knowledge.
The continuous development of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship into other non-
technical subject areas has also contributed to students today feeling more comfortable
in analyzing and communicating societal challenges. Included in this expansion is also a
humanistic knowledge ideal, in which students, through development talks, coaching, etc.,
receive rich opportunities to refect upon their potential, their lives and life balance, and
upon their “missions”. Altogether, the environment nurtures individuals thinking beyond
a logic from an industrial and market-oriented history where the questions primarily asked
have been “what’s good for the company?” and “what’s good for the customer?”. Added
are now also the questions: “what’s good for me?” and “what’s good for society?”. In short,
this helps to shape an entrepreneurial identity more capable of Schumpeterian
3
“creative
destruction” than a more within-the-structure engineering and managerial identity traceable
back to Penrose through Drucker
4
.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 32
33 Chapter 1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena
The technical university as an arena for societal entrepreneurship needs to be analyzed as
an opportunity in light of its historical path of serving industrialization for over a century
and then some decades of serving a more market-oriented globalized economy. Chalmers
School of Entrepreneurship has often made reference to early industrial entrepreneurs –
such as Gustav Dahlén (AGA) and Sven Winquist (SKF). At the same time the school has
since its inception championed team-based entrepreneurship, as well as actively trying to
counter-balance the gender bias that such reference to traditional male entrepreneurship
causes. In conclusion, the opportunity for a technical university to become an arena for
contemporary societal entrepreneurship seems to lie in the ability to reuse and reformulate
experiences gained when the university helped build the Swedish welfare state during the
days of industrialization, and at the same time build upon experience stemming from a
more market-oriented era in being closer to the user, customer or partner, wherever s/he is
in the globalized world.
Challenges and Opportunities for the
Technical University
There are several challenges and opportunities for societal entrepreneurship in a technical
university beyond the realm of an entrepreneurship school, like the following:
• A technical faculty needs to work trans-disciplinarily both in courses and projects to
analyze and capture societal needs and utilities.
• It also needs to avoid being too one-sidedly engaged in collaboration with established
frms.
• Project- and action-based learning needs to be applied more within basic but especially
within graduate education.
• It should build upon a well-established constructive and experimental type of engineer-
ing methodology while including more societal analysis and concern.
3
Schumpeter, J A (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4
Penrose, E (1959/1995), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, and
Drucker, P (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, London: Heinemann.
Altogether, the technical university partaking in an arena for societal entrepreneurship
may prove to be a critical opportunity to seize and potentially turn around a negative trend
of marginalization. The engineer can be a key person, too, not only in offering problem-
solving to industrial frms, but also in building together with other competences innovative
ventures with societal utility where established structures are lacking.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 34
35
1:4
Care in SMEs – The Hidden
Social Entrepreneurship
Elisabeth Sundin, Linköping University
In Scandinavian public and political debate the word entrepreneur is often used for some-
one establishing a frm and/or working as self-employed. As a representative of a domi-
nating standpoint follows Venkataraman’s defnition
1
, stating that “Entrepreneurship is
about the discovery and exploitation of proftable business opportunities for the creation of
personal wealth and, as a consequence, for the creation of social value”. Using the Venkata-
raman defnition as a background I will discuss conventional commercial entrepreneurship
versus social and societal entrepreneurship.
A fundamental question concerns the social dimension in social entrepreneurship. Some-
times, the social parts come as an unintended, but valuable, consequence. Since I fnd that
too wide I will add, as many others, a social intention to social entrepreneurship.
Societal entrepreneurship is a concept elaborated in Scandinavia stating collectivity and
permanence. It is often used in space and/or place contexts. The community is often used
as the adequate object of societal entrepreneurship.
1
Venkataraman, S (1997), The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research, in Katz, J, Brockhaus, E (eds),
Advances in entrepreneurship, frm emergence, and growth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
The main arguments in this chapter are:
• that there is social entrepreneurship in traditional commercial entrepreneurship
• that there is a distinction between social and societal entrepreneurship
Comparisons between social, societal and commercial entrepreneurship can proceed along
many lines. Here a few distinctions will be highlighted. One is that social entrepreneurs do
not want to “protect” their idea, but rather the other way around – to invite many to share.
Another is the context dependency. The “impact of the context on a social entrepreneur
differs from that of a commercial entrepreneur because of the way the interaction of a social
venture’s mission and performance measurement systems infuences entrepreneurial
behaviour”.
2
The social dimensions often give associations to care. For parts of the labour market the
“rationality of care” concept has been used to describe behaviour in working life that has
seemed to be irrational from a conventional economic perspective but rational when other
logics are used.
3
The care concept also seems appropriate for entrepreneurship, as will be
illustrated below.
Social Entrepreneurship and Societal
Entrepreneurship in Conventional
Enterprises
Conventional commercial enterprises which have started because the initiator cared – cared
for vulnerable individuals, cared for the locality, cared for work mates and cared for their
family – are presented in the cases. The cases were found in research projects with other
purposes than those of fnding care.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 36
2
Garud, R, Hardy, C, Maguire, S (2007), Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency, Organization Studies,
Vol 28, No 7, pp 957–969.
3
Waerness, K (1984), The Rationality of Care, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol 5, No 2, pp 185–211.
37 Chapter 1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship
Care for a Vulnerable Group
The Midwife had in her professional work been convinced of the need for sexual education
for young retarded men and women. The topic was taboo, although it was obvious that the
retarded were, and should have the right to be, sexually active – but not sexually used and
abused. Her frst thought was to convince her employer, the county council, to take the
responsibility. The tough economic times made them refrain. Therefore the Midwife started
a frm of her own and offered the services she found absolutely needed. Her market was
the young ones and the payers were parents, group homes, compounds etc. It was a social
entrepreneurship concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
The Librarian was employed by a municipality as manager for a small library in a village in
the periphery. After a reorganisation the municipality wanted the library to move to premis-
es far away from the local school and the local village centre. They also wanted her to reduce
the opening hours. The aim of the decisions was to reduce costs. The Librarian found the
requirements impossible! Her mission was to give reading experiences to all “her” inhabit-
ants. The changes would prevent her from doing that. To start a frm of her own and give a
bid was her only chance to fulfl her mission. She did that and was given the tender. It was a
social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Locality
Many frm owners feel deeply for the place where they live and work. Examples can be
found in many studies. Here I will give examples from the education sector. In Sweden it is
not unusual that municipalities use economic arguments to close small schools in remote
areas and make the children travel to bigger schools in the neighbourhood. To prevent that
parents start enterprises in the school sector with the only mission to operate the school
further. It is a social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Workmates
Employees starting frms of their own is a well-documented phenomenon all over the
world. The established enterprise I found was triggered by an employer deciding to fre all
cleaners and buy the cleaning-service on the market. To avoid unemployment for them-
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 38
selves and their workmates the cleaners decided to establish an enterprise together. It is a
social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Family
To have a frm for family reasons is not unusual either. In a study of all women working in
frms of their own twenty years ago “the possibility to combine work with family obliga-
tions” was the most often mentioned reason for establishing an enterprise.
4
New studies
indicate that this is still the case. Care for the family is a strong social argument concealed
behind a conventional enterprise.
To summarize: the examples given show care and social entrepreneurship in a number
of enterprises registered as conventional commercial enterprises. The “fgures and facts”
from Nutek – the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth on new starters in
Sweden indicate, at a closer look, strong elements of social entrepreneurship behind many
new starters. The dominating discussion on SMEs and entrepreneurship exemplifed by the
opening quote from Venkataraman can therefore be seen as far from reality.
Theoretical and Practical Conclusions
The enterprises presented as cases are all registered as conventional commercial organisa-
tions – but started for reasons of care and with social intentions. But they differ in some
ways. Here I will restrict myself to the societal dimension. The idea, the intention as well as
the resources required and the time perspective are of relevance from that perspective.
The Midwife is both a social and a societal entrepreneur, as she wants to change the lives of
individuals and change the perception of retarded human beings in the whole of society. The
other case enterprises may also be described and interpreted in collective terms – but they
are all narrower in space or time, so to say. It seems as if the differences between social and
societal entrepreneurship can be found on a sliding scale rather than in opposite positions.
4
Sundin, E and Holmquist, C (1989), Kvinnor som företagare. Osynlighet, Mångfald, anpassning, Malmö: Liber.
Other differences found are that the social dimensions for some of the case enterprises are
a necessity and strength and for others a weakness. Care has a positive image in society
– but maybe not so on the market. It may be necessary to hide the social motives from
the market behind cleaning, for example. For others, like the Midwife and the Librarian,
the social idea must be explicit and stable. Otherwise the entrepreneurs cannot keep their
legitimacy.
Finally, I want to include a reminder of the context dependency of social and societal entre-
preneurship. One important part of the context, found also in some of the cases presented,
is the construction of the welfare state. Even if what is care and what is social is eternal –
what is societal is not – it has welfare-regime characteristics. This has implications both for
theory and practice. The concepts elaborated in other contexts cannot be imported without
adequate “translations”.
39 Chapter 1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship
40
1:5
Societal Entrepreneurship
for the Wealth of Nations
– the Ireland Case
1985–1995
Per Frankelius, Örebro University
Jan Ogeborg, Actido
A number of approaches are available to political leaders in their attempt to develop domestic
welfare. One of these (based on what we call mindset A) concerns the development of wel-
fare systems within existing economic resources, involving policies of economic distribution
and tax-funded development of hospitals, etc.
This presupposes that there are suffcient resources to distribute, but that should not be
taken for granted. The following quotation by the popular Irish singer Bono is worth con-
sidering: “I do remember the unemployment in Ireland in the 1970s. Throwing away the
prosperity that we are enjoying is more dangerous than we think.”
1
The ability to develop
social welfare must be based upon economic fundaments. In contrast, mindset B is about
encouraging the development of the foundations that lead to the generation of new resources. A
common strategy for doing that is economic macro policy. Another way is innovation system
policy focusing on research valorisation. But there are other ways. One such way is addressed
in this study.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
1
BBC, News report from the World Economic Forum, 24 January, 2008, by Tim Weber.
41 Chapter 1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland Case 1985–1995
Our aim is to describe a special form of societal entrepreneurship at the national level. We
made an analysis based on the initiatives aimed at attracting new businesses to the Republic
of Ireland between 1985 and 1995. That was part of the rescue action to save a nation in crisis.
In 1988 The Economist published a special report on Ireland under the headline “The Poorest
of the Rich”, its front cover showing a destitute down-and-out. Nine years later, in 1997, a
new special report was published, now headlined “The Celtic Tiger: Europe’s shining light”.
The most important factor in this transformation was the Industrial Development Authority
(IDA), under the leadership of Padraic White. IDA launched a range of initiatives in order
to attract foreign companies to establish, and thus create job opportunities, in Ireland. The
result was impressive: More than 994 new company establishments took place in Ireland as
a result of IDA initiatives carried out between 1987 and 2007.
Key Factors for Success
Four key factors have been identifed as instrumental to the success. These are:
1. The conviction that development and change are necessary. The motivating factors
behind societal entrepreneurial initiatives differ from each other in several ways. In the case
of Ireland, society was on the edge of a total collapse. The frst key factor is that a transition
must take place, from the real necessity into an insight about this necessity (it must be per-
ceived), and furthermore, to an insight into any possible actions to fulfl the perceived necessity.
A thorough understanding of the time is required in order to gain an understanding of the
motivating factors behind the decisions and actions taken. The “spirit” as refected in any
particular period of time is usually referred to as the “Zeitgeist”; however, this does not tell
us anything about the level of current needs or necessities. Therefore, we take the liberty to
suggest the concept of “Bedarfgeist” to interpret the situation level of need, and the actual
emergency at any certain time and place.
2. Possibilifcation through boundary-crossing leadership. A great deal of societal entre-
preneurship is basically concerned with being able to convince other people that there are
problems in society which must be dealt with. In fact, understanding and awareness of the
problems is essential to fuel the motivation for change. However, understanding and aware-
ness is not always suffcient. People must also believe that there are, indeed, applicable solu-
tions, and that the proposed initiatives are meaningful. Therefore, societal entrepreneurship
also involves actively searching for possible solutions and viable possibilities. Furthermore,
a consensus is, in most cases, required concerning any viable possibilities: i.e. a collec-
tive vision – to which all actors are committed – is central to the kind of complex societal
entrepreneurship we are discussing here. Therefore we can establish a second success factor:
boundary-crossing leadership. This includes the ability to override traditional and established
areas of responsibility. However, the majority of the current management literature assumes
that leadership is about a formal manager of a certain organization (not a collective of or-
ganizations) attempting to get the support of his or her organization in order to reach some
specifc and defned goal.
3. The right tools. Advanced development processes require in-depth analyses of the
problems and possibilities involved. This requires the use of advanced and special tools
and techniques (or methods). As the processes we focus on involve complex and boundary-
crossing contexts, they require tools suitable for processing and handling the many dialogues
involved in order to correlate and coordinate this complicated work. One example of such
a tool is computer software for the management of contacts, activities and time (CRM sys-
tems). Other examples are the tools and methods used for specifc business intelligence and
environmental scanning analyses.
4. Action power. There is a long way between the will to act and the action, as shown by
Peter Drucker.
2
Therefore, an acceptable strategy is often required for the immediate imple-
mentation of the social changes wanted. An underlying theme in the case of Ireland is thus
about the power and competence of action. Neither practical knowledge nor scientifc theory is
suffcient in the most complicated cases, which also require the kind of knowledge described
by Aristotle as Phronesis.
3
This refers to knowledge in the form of an understanding of what
is needed to be done, or having an overall insight into what must be done in the actual present
situation.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 42
2
Drucker, P (1966), The Effective Executive, London: HarperCollins.
3
Aristotle (350 B.Ch), Nicomachean Ethics (Book VI). See translation by Rowe, C (2002) with philosophical
introduction and commentary by Broadie, S, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43 Chapter 1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland Case 1985–1995
Defnition of Societal Entrepreneurship
Besides the key factors of success, we have derived a defnition of entrepreneurship in the
name of society: Societal entrepreneurship is about initiating and realizing collective, entre-
preneurial and often (but not always) innovative processes aiming to strengthen a defnable
part of society in such a way that the large majority of its citizens may freely (or at a marginal
cost) enjoy the results of the processes – with the assumption that such processes are not
concerned with traditional social policies or any existing public administration.
The word ”realization” is important, alluding to the marketing operations carried out by
the IDA to attract new investment and companies to Ireland, in contrast to, for example,
decision-making at a high political (and abstract) level. Central to our defnition is that the
motive behind the action is the development of society (rather than individual companies),
and that the result of the action must beneft the large majority in society. By collective we
mean “crossing the boundaries between different juridical instances”.
Two Different Public Leader Spirits
Actions from the public leaders of a society may be either of an entrepreneurial or of a non-
entrepreneurial kind. In the case of Ireland, the distinguishing and pervasive theme was the
entrepreneurial attitude of the public actors, who are characterised by their ability to identify
and relate to the overall problem, distinguishing between causes and symptoms.
Entrepreneurial leaders in society usually have great visions, know how to manage and
implement boundary-crossing leadership, and are driven by the desire and possibility of the
power of concrete action. They probably have a strong dedication to creating a better world
for the citizens within their society. One kind of societal entrepreneurship, illustrated by the
Ireland case, is the creation of growth and prosperity for the people in a country by means
of brilliant business intelligence, sharp strategy and proactive marketing related to inward
investments. The entrepreneurial spirit found in the Irish case can also be applied to many
other areas than inward investment.
Part 2
Societal Entrepreneurship
as Creative Irritation
In Sweden, where centuries of peace and decades of social
engineering have built an advanced welfare state, the
challenge for initiatives associated with societal entrepre-
neurship is not just to further elaborate on a caring institutional
texture. Its values and practices, although appropriate in an indus-
trial era where stability ruled, not change, have rather to be chal-
lenged in order to be able to deal with an already present infor-
mation age and knowledge economy. In order to manage a future
Swedish society, as well as that of many other countries, help is
needed in order to break out of the mental iron cage that traditions
have forged. Then a different kind of societal entrepreneurship is
called for, whose main concern is not about enforcing existing in-
stitutions but about challenging them. Not only are present institu-
tions less capable of dealing with a future society, they may also
disempower minorities while supporting the majority.
The kind of societal entrepreneurship that keeps society on its toes by questioning what it
takes for granted has to mobilize entrepreneurial energy among those who voluntarily mar-
ginalize themselves. That is individuals and groups who are not afraid of standing out using
that self-confdence for defending values that contrast against the dominating ones. We will
fnd them among performing artists and “extreme” entrepreneurs who make society itself
a target when trying to instigate change. Another even larger group that wants to make a
difference are young people trying to enact a future world for themselves and others that is
more concerned about human values than the present global society ruled by the market.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 46
2
47
2:1
The Societal Entrepreneur
as Provocateur
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Caroline Wigren, CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö University
Usually the societal entrepreneur is juxtaposed with the traditional entrepreneur, the latter
then being ascribed the identity of a rude guy who forcefully superimposes his ideas and
practices on the market. However, when the focus of the entrepreneurs is not on the market
but on the social norms and values which embed economic activity, their task to challenge
what is taken for granted, their provoking identity, becomes as much social as economic.
Thus, the societal entrepreneur as provocateur makes every established institution a target
for her actions. The only principle that guides the provoking societal entrepreneur is that she
questions whatever principle society nurtures, whatever is taken for granted. In contrast to
entrepreneurs in the market, who appreciate institutions since they provide basic “rules of
the game” to an unknowable environment, provocative societal entrepreneurs are “extreme”,
questioning even formal institutions.
1
Their motivation is a generic obstinacy and they want
to be recognized for making citizens aware that institutions do not just provide comfort but
also seduce citizens to becoming passive, in other words, they produce indifference.
1
“Extreme” entrepreneurs are thus different to “institutional entrepreneurs” who build or renew institutions, cf.
Garud, R, Hardy, C and Maguire, S (2007), Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to
the Special Issue, Organization Studies 28 (7):957–969.
In an ongoing research project eight Swedish extreme entrepreneurs are studied.
2
Three
of them will be presented and refected upon here. Ulla Murman is a pioneer in Sweden’s
manpowering industry. Bored as an employed secretary and inspired by her sister living in
the USA, she launched her business in Stockholm as early as the l950s. She was guided by
a strong work ethics founded in her youth and driven by a passion for social justice, to give
women an entry into the Swedish pension system that was based on salaried income. Ulla
Murman’s radical initiative created convulsions in the extremely well-regulated Swedish la-
bour market and she was accused of exploiting others out of greed. She herself presents her
venture as an illegal activity that went on for 37 years. Twice she was brought to the Supreme
Court, “charming events” as she herself puts it. With the media as an ally she managed to
defend her mission and pursue her entrepreneurial activities until she handed over the busi-
ness to her son.
As the founder of High Chaparral, a Wild Western amusement park, Bengt Erlandsson in
rural Gnosjö in southern Sweden is a pioneer in the experience industry. The region where
High Chaparral is located is well known as a small business region where strong social
ties and the associated entrepreneurial spirit have created economic sustainability that has
lasted for centuries. “Big Bengt”, a nickname produced by a journalist, which has given him
a national identity, started his business career in manufacturing. Soon enough he became
a dealer in used machinery, supplying several generations of new local entrepreneurs. His
versatile business practices bricolage where making do is a generic principle. Such a practice
easily challenges written laws as well as existing norms and values, in the local community
as well as in Swedish culture in general. Accordingly, Big Bengt has spent some time in jail
and in the region his business practices are used as examples of what one should not do.
Being himself an outsider, Big Bengt invites marginalized people both as employees and as
visitors.
Lars Vilks started his professional career, including a doctorate, as a conventional artist that
attracted a large audience. A life crisis, a metamorphosis, however, made him turn into
conceptual artistry, made to challenge and provoke. His most visible contribution is a set of
sculptures in driftwood and concrete on the waterside on Sweden’s west coast. They were
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 48
2
See Johannisson, B and Wigren, C (2006), Extreme Entrepreneurs – Challenging the Institutional Framework, in
Christensen, P R and Poulfeldt, F (eds) Managing Complexity and Change in SMEs: Frontiers in European
Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,, and Johannisson, B and Wigren, C (2006), The Dynamics of Community
Identity Making – The Spirit of Gnosjö Revisited, in Steyaert, C and Hjorth, D (eds), Entrepreneurship as Societal
Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
49 Chapter 2:1 The Societal Entrepreneur as Provocateur
constructed without a building permit on other people’s premises, too close to the water-
front according to state regulation and also on ground that is part of a natural reserve. He
has been fned for his law-breaking only to establish a company selling shares to the general
public and using the money to pay the fnes. Lars Vilks deliberately enacts different dramas,
making the boundaries between these and realities be perceived as fuzzy, and he generally
approaches life as a soap opera. Dissolving the boundaries between different understandings
of reality, he has founded the nation of Landonia, only existing in the virtual world. A recent
contribution to his many installations is his proposal to put Muhammed’s head on one of
the dogs decorating roundabouts in Sweden.
Characterizing Societal Entrepreneurs
as Provocateurs
The three extreme entrepreneurs share some features which contribute to the crafting of a
provoking societal entrepreneurial identity. First, extreme entrepreneurs are insiders as well
as outsiders in society. On one hand, they are well informed about and persistently refect on
ongoing processes in society, e.g. relating very concretely to the national context and its many
institutions. On the other hand, they appear as marginal in the same society that they are so
devoted to. This marginalization puts the strong public searchlight on them, enforcing their
unique identity, while other citizens can organize their own front stage appearance by stating
that they are certainly different from these extreme societal entrepreneurs. This relentless
search for making, even epitomizing, a difference implies that the societal entrepreneur is
constantly on the move.
Second, extreme entrepreneurs operate on the national and not on the international arena
and are in addition particularly attached to their own local community. Although ready to
cross any boundary in mental space they stick to their physical origin. That is, they do not
separate their provocative from their local identity. Ulla Murman was dedicated to making
it possible for other women to make a living in their home district. Big Bengt never left the
farm but rather made it a basis for radically new ventures, and Lars Vilks created his sensa-
tional constructs very close to his place of living. However virtual his Landonia may appear,
it still represented a nation, or a territory. All the extreme entrepreneurs balance their local
identity with a fascination for a contrasting culture, that of the USA, possibly because there
their initiatives would be considered less spectacular.
Third, in their provoking mission in present time, societal entrepreneurs span the past and
an emergent future. Ulla Murman contributed to the liberation of women which in Sweden,
as in many other countries, only started in the early twentieth century. Big Bengt foreboded
the experience industry when recalling the challenges that emigrating Swedes met when
contributing to the making of the present USA. In their ambition to actively contribute to
the enactment of the future societal entrepreneurs do not hide their light under a bushel
but promote their cause not the least by collaborating with the mass media, using them as a
megaphone for their controversial initiatives.
The Societal Entrepreneur as Jester
What then makes authorities and further members of the controlling establishment accept
the provoking societal entrepreneurs? They certainly are not constantly complaining dog-
matists or terrorists hating the existing order. They rather appear as jesters within the frm
foundations of society. In the same way as the court jester in medieval times could commu-
nicate revealing truths by dressing them in an ironic and witty language combined with a
creative performance, the provocative societal entrepreneurs offer amusing manoeuvres and
pleasurable experiences to make their case and enact their visions even when they challenge
basic societal institutions. In this ambition they ally themselves with the media as the fourth
estate. On the one hand, this means that they use one power centre in society to control other
ones, on the other, that they become exposed as proxies for all of us who want to question
Swedish Big Brotherism but who do not have the guts.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 50
51
2:2
Societal Entrepreneurship
for Global Justice
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Earlier we have seen societal entrepreneurship expressed through different sectors in society.
In this chapter, furthermore, societal entrepreneurship is related to activism in a civil society
tradition of engagement and action for “a better world”. Discussions are primarily based on a
study of entrepreneurship for social change that was conducted in years 2000–2006.
1
In the
study the creation of the new organization Attac Sweden
2
was in focus, conceptualized as an
entrepreneurial process. Here it is frst and foremost discussed from a societal entrepreneur-
ship point of view, elaborating on engagement, organizing innovative action and fnally a few
words on societal good – all cornerstones for societal entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship for Global Change – the
Case of Attac Sweden
The frst Attac organization was launched in France. In December 1997, Ignacio Ramonet,
chief editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, wrote in an editorial: “Why not set up a new world-
1
The study is further presented in the dissertation Gawell, M (2006), Activist Entrepreneurship. Attac’ing Norms
and Articulating Disclosive Stories, Stockholm University (www.su.se).
2
Attac Sweden: www.attac.se. Attac’s international website: www.attac.org.
wide non-governmental organization, Action for a Tobin Tax to Assist the Citizen (ATTAC)?
With the trade unions and the many social, cultural and ecological organizations, it could ex-
ert formidable pressure on governments to introduce this tax at last, in the name of universal
solidarity”. The response was large, and in June 1998 the Attac association was founded in
France by citizens, associations, trade unions and newspapers. During the frst two years the
association had 25 000 paying members. The idea of Attac spread to several other countries.
But it was not set up as a copy of the French organization. In each country a slightly different
organization was created, yet with the same overarching goals.
Attac Sweden was instigated in January 2001. Before that a number of people had taken
a number of different initiatives like starting discussions, meetings and mail lists, partly
grounded in different experiences in Sweden as well as internationally, and partly out of
different interests. A core group emerged. Some of the participants knew each other from
before, while others came from different networks. At a time people met in a kitchen in the
district of Kungsholmen in Stockholm. Through mail lists, interviews and articles, post-
ers, leafets, debates etc., they reached out to a wider public. The idea was open networking,
direct infuence and democracy, and action. And the interest was great! People got in touch.
They turned up at meetings. First 8, then 16, 32, 64, 128... and at the constituting meetings
in Stockholm and Gothenburg there were hundreds. Media was also very interested in Attac
before and after its launching. This was a great help but also a problem – especially right
after the protests at the EU top meeting in Gothenburg in June 2001.
Many of those engaged were young, between 15 and 25. But there were also older people with
years of experience from engagement in solidarity work, other associations and/or political
work. During the frst year Attac Sweden received over 5 000 members. Since then the mem-
bership number has shifted between 1 500 and 3 000. They share an interest in working
for a world with global justice and democracy. They also share an interest in organizing in a
partly alternative way compared to practices in many established organizations.
Engagement and Different Initiatives
We can identify people’s initiatives when they talk and act in other ways. But it is not obvious
where it all starts. In the case of Attac Sweden some traced part of their own engagement back
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 52
53 Chapter 2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice
to childhood but even more often to specifc experiences making them aware of what they
saw as unjust conditions. The experiences referred to varied and at the same time there were
many similarities. It was obvious that there was also an overarching framing “force” that
people, in spite of all differences, related to. They were infuenced by, and part of, the global
justice movement that engaged in protests in Seattle in 1999, Prague in 2000 and then
Gothenburg in 2001.
3
Furthermore, many of them shared stories about organizing a civil
society organization grounded in a Swedish tradition of popular mass movements.
The social movement contributed to an overarching understanding of what was important,
good/bad and right/wrong. This is a basic condition for organizing and therefore for creating
an organization. But without action and concrete initiatives there is no entrepreneurship. To
articulate the idea, to call for meetings, to set up a mail list and a web site, to write statutes, to
organize and chair constituting meetings, to carry the organization’s cell phone (the organi-
zation had no offce for many years) and last, but not least, to do research on issues at stake,
to conclude, articulate arguments, discuss and engage in debate. To start with, all arguments
were not totally thought through. But as time went by the stories became more and more
coherent.
All interviewed have referred to creativity, intensity and energy during the entrepreneurial
phase. As one young woman said: It was hysterical! I probably worked 30 hours a week voluntari-
ly with Attac beside my full time job with similar issues. My whole life was about globalization. The
feeling of meeting others with similar ideas about the world, a similar drive to do something
about it as well as having similar ideas about how to do it, combined with the sense of acting
according to one’s beliefs towards a better world, has been expressed as meaningful and
important.
Organizing Innovative Action
The degree of innovation varies between different entrepreneurial initiatives. In the Activist
Entrepreneurship study two types of innovation appear. One is related to issues at stake, and
3
See further discussions on social movements in general and specifcally the global justice movements in:
Melucci, A (1989), Nomads of the Present, Philadelphia: Temple University Press; Della Porta, D (2007),
The Global Justice Movement, Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
the other to organizational practices. These innovations are not to be understood as new prod-
ucts or services. Neither are they easily translated into economic values (see further discus-
sions below). But both cases challenge assumptions, approaches and practices. Some people
have been provoked. Others embrace the new ideas and try to apply them in everyday life.
People could have engaged in established organizations instead of engaging in creating a
new one. Time and energy would have been saved. But one of the reasons for creating a new
organization may be the gap between experiences or images of established organizations
and the expectations of how an organization should work. It can also be a question of what
one wants to do or what kind of activities one wants to engage in. Several people within Attac
promoted activism, a concept that provoked many established organizations and/or persons,
even though many carried their own traditions of demonstrations and/or advocacy work.
People within Attac supported many established organizations’ statements on solidarity
and visions for global justice, but they were many times critical of what they expressed as
compromising issues at stake and instead favored established norms and structures. They
criticized hierarchical organizational structures and expressed experiences of not being able
to infuence these organizations. The sensed difference between how it was and how it could
be can be seen as anomalies related both to issues at stake and to organizational practices and
important reasons for engaging in the creation of a new organization. People expressed a
perception of necessity to do something as well as opportunities to get something done.
A Few Words about the Societal Good
Societal entrepreneurship refers to initiatives that in different ways relate to societal, or
common, aims or goals. In this chapter the focus is on changing society both through creat-
ing a new venture and through contributing to creating a (slightly) different society. This is
not easy to value or measure in traditional economic ways, nor through socio-economical
reports or social auditing, even though these methods have developed in rather sophisticat-
ed ways. The case of Attac also addresses values and visions about what kind of society we
want, rather than how values within established norms are created and evaluated.
The case of Attac uncovers normative discussions that are so often silent, or even silenced,
in public debate and research about entrepreneurship. Development and value creation
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 54
55 Chapter 2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice
have positive connotations. Who wants to be a reactionary drag? But what kind of entre-
preneurial initiatives have contributed to creating a development that many of us see as
positive today, engaging in issues such as children’s right to be respected, women’s right to
ownership, to vote or not to be beaten by their husbands? It is a challenge for the emerging
feld of societal entrepreneurship to problematize and to develop both theory and practice
to be able to cope with societal entrepreneurial initiatives, both those acting according to
established norms and those provoking these norms.
56
2:3
The Thought-Provoking
Art of Being a Social
Entrepreneur
Lasse Ekstrand, University of Gävle
Monika Wallmon, Uppsala University
In Swedish industrialisation and social development, bruk or manufacturing estates have
played a central role in their generally rural setting. We would even go so far as to claim that
as physical and social constructs they are unique to Sweden. The nearest possible equivalent
would be the industrial towns or working class communities common in Britain, and espe-
cially in the country’s once-booming mining areas. Popular flms such as Brassed Off (1996),
directed by Mark Herman, reproduce this coal-grimed world in its proletarian hey-day.
The role of the manufacturing estates has been an ambiguous one. They were crucial for
industrial growth and production – thus far a positive contribution. Yet, at the same time life
on the estates had its downside in the works mentality it engendered – a term subsequently
generalised and applied metaphorically to a particular kind of defensive, “careful” mentality.
Terms such as works mentality and learned helplessness
1
are frmly entrenched in many peo-
ple’s ideas of what characterises manufacturing estate communities and their inhabitants.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
1
Seligman, Martin and Maier, S (1967), Failure to escape traumatic shock, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74,
1–9; Overmier, B and Seligman, M (1967), Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance
responding, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 28–33.
57
Many who visualize a manufacturing estate immediately see something enclosed. Works
mentality and learned helplessness might be the interpretative keys to understanding how
the inhabitants thought and felt, to explaining why things did not happen when we think
they ought to or must have. They might be able to explain why phenomena such as entrepre-
neurship and enterprise are not widespread. What line to take on this lingering mentality,
problematic as it is? The patterns of thought it reproduces act as a brake on more forceful
courses of action.
It is in order to break with the above thinking, blocking action and counteracting a more
creative attitude, that we have turned to the German artist and project maker Joseph Beuys,
drawing inspiration from his defnition of art as it was expressed in thought-provoking ac-
tions.
2
Our thesis is that the provocations of radical artists are needed to shake deeply rooted
thought patterns; intellectual argument, however powerful, well founded or rhetorically
convincing it may be, is not suffcient. To this end there are a variety of possible thought-
provoking and inventive actions, of which we will provide some examples.
Joseph Beuys: ”Jeder Mensch ein Künstler”
The German artist and social visionary Joseph Beuys (1921–1986), who grew up in the Third
Reich with its far-reaching totalitarianism and absolute claim to “own” the individual, stub-
bornly, not to say polemically, defended his motto “Jeder Mensch ein Künstler” – Every Human
Being an Artist. This did not mean an artist in the conventional sense of one who paints pic-
tures or carves sculptures. Every human being, according to Beuys, is intrinsically creative and
possesses creative potential. Beuys saw the entrepreneurial in the human. Yet, many deny their
own creative ability and have no belief in themselves. We risk being our own worst enemy.
Circumstance encourages this self-denial, reinforcing the impression that we are not free to
act. Industrial society and the factory ethos – wage slavery – with its emphasis on obedi-
ence and dependency is a clear example of one such circumstance. Once subordinate to
the factory system and waged work, you are “let off” being an active subject. In this sense
Chapter 2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur
2
Cf. Ekstrand, L (1998), Varje människa en konstnär – Livskonstnären och samhällsvisionären Joseph Beuys, [Every
Human Being an Artist – The Artist of Life and the Society Visionary Joseph Beuys], Bokförlaget Korpen, Gothenburg.
the phenomenon of learned helplessness introduced above is a social construct, the result of
waged work and industrial society’s socialisation process with all its strongly hierarchical
practices. In the course of adaptation to waged work and industrial society, power relation-
ships are established where some people are accorded a subordinate position in which they
are expected to be “helpless”. This is not the result of an individual choice; it is something
allocated to them, a social role they are expected to play, with the threat of sanctions if they
dare to exceed it. Therefore, in our view learned helplessness is a condition that is more
sociological than psychological.
Beuys spoke of social art, meaning something that happens outside established institutions;
something that opposes those institutions, openly or obliquely; something that challenges
and goads them. “My objects are to be seen as stimulants for the transformation of the idea
of sculpture […] or of art in general. They should provoke thoughts about what sculpture
can be and how the concept of sculpting can be extended to the invisible materials used by
everyone. THINKING FORMS – how we mold our thoughts, or SPOKEN FORMS – how
we shape our thoughts into words, or SOCIAL SCULPTURE – how we mold and shape the
world in which we live: SCULPTURE AS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS; ‘EVERY HU-
MAN BEING AN ARTIST’.”
3
The Art of Provocation Meets
Thought-Provoking Art
Historically, the role of the artist has varied. At one time art was unsigned and used for
offcial embellishment, as we can see in churches, for example. Gradually a market for art
emerged, initially for commissioned portraits, and the artists began to appear by name.
Then there were artists who were directly fnanced by patrons of the arts, as in the case
of the best-known member of the Skagen school, Søren Krøyer. And fnally we have the
postmodern artist in the image of Andy Warhol: talented brand manager, assiduous sensa-
tionalist, attention-seeker; the artist as “celebrity” in the public limelight, all too aware of the
requirements of the experience economy.
4
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 58
3
Beuys, J (1979), Introduction, as quoted in Energy Plan for the Western Man – Joseph Beuys in America, compiled
by Carin Kuoni, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1993, p. 19.
59 Chapter 2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur
Beuys, for his part, wanted to transcend all of these roles, and instead launched and defend-
ed the idea of the social artist. Here is an artistic role particularly well suited to the social
circumstances of our day. Here is an artist who is outgoing and socially aware; who wants to
intervene in social developments, to exert infuence, to hasten the pace.
He did not hesitate to suggest: “Only on condition of a radical widening of defnition will
it be possible for art and activities related to art to provide evidence that art is now the only
evolutionary-revolutionary power. Only art is capable of dismantling the repressive effects
of a senile social system to build a SOCIAL ORGANISM AS A WORK OF ART. This most
modern art discipline – Social Sculpture/ Social Architecture – will only reach fruition
when every living person becomes a creator, a sculptor, or architect of the social organism.”
5
Academics and social artists could stage actions jointly outside social insurance offces and
job centres, on the streets, in shopping centres, in cafés. Why not perform the symbolic bur-
ial of industrial society – complete with priest, coffn, funeral music and all – to draw a frm
line under that particular past? Why not call on choreographers to mount a street perform-
ance of Paul Lafargue’s classic wage-slave pamphlet, The Right To Be Lazy?
6
Or why not be
inspired by Christo and Jeanne-Claude and wrap the remaining factories in pretty paper to
sell or give away as presents to the deserving? It comes down to using different means to
address, inspire, invite, provoke and tempt. Only our imaginations set the boundaries of
what is possible.
Every human being is after all an artist. Each and every one of us is responsible for forming
our own insights. While there is every reason to say the situation is hard to judge, we cannot
afford not to join in, to refuse to exert our infuence, throw out ideas, show enthusiasm, stir
things up. The world needs social artists, enthusiasts with an eye to the next project. Post-
industrial society demands an end to adaptation and subordination, replacing them with the
continued search for new, liberating social forms – social entrepreneurship.
7
Beuys’ social
artist is our social entrepreneur.
4
Pine II, Joseph, B and Gilmore, J (1999), The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage,
Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School.
5
Beuys, J (1973), I am Searching for Field Character, as quoted in Energy Plan for the Western Man – Joseph
Beuys in America – compiled by Kuoni, Carin, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1993, p. 21.
6
Lafargue, P (1883), The Right To Be Lazy and Other Studies, Saint Pélagie Prison, transl. Kerr, C and Co.,
Cooperative, Online Version Lafargue Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2009.
7
Ekstrand, L and Wallmon, M (2008), Basic Income beyond Wage Slavery – In Search of Transcending Political
Aesthetics, in Grindon, G (ed.) Aesthetics and Radical Politics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Part 3
Paths to Insights about
Societal Entrepreneurship
In this third part we focus on methods and processes that
give us new knowledge about societal entrepreneurship.
The methods we apply when we are societally entrepre-
neurial have a large impact on the results, on the ability to scale
up initiatives, and not the least on the engagement and empower-
ment of partaking individuals. Societies consist of their citizens,
so entrepreneurship with society in focus, more than perhaps any
other entrepreneurship, needs to be aware of how it includes and
involves human energy and experience.
The editors and several of the contributing authors are convinced that societal entrepreneur-
ship is especially suited for interactive research approaches implying that the researcher
partakes from the inside rather than observes from the outside. Such methods also allow
researchers to partake in building solutions for the future rather than reporting histori-
cal events. Interactive methods can also amplify promising initiatives by giving legitimacy
and recognition as well as affecting the learning processes as such, thereby emancipat-
ing creativity, ensuring that different perspectives – e.g. gender perspectives – are offered
participants, etc. However, methods do not need to be interactive or empirical; they can also
be theoretical, such as when proposing a more institutional perspective on societal entrepre-
neurship than is normally the case.
The frst two chapters deal with researchers engaging in local economic development, and
public-private partnerships, respectively, while the third chapter explores the importance of
social capital, especially that between societal sectors, for societal entrepreneurs. The fnal
chapter elaborates on interactive methodology as applied to the care of elderly.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 62
3
63
3:1
Societal Entrepreneurs
for Local and Regional
Development
Carina Asplund, Mid University and Trångsviksbolaget
Here I will describe and discuss how societal entrepreneurs can contribute to local and
regional development. The text begins with an introduction of Trångsviken as an empirical
context for community development. Then there is a section that theorizes on societal entre-
preneurship but also illustrates the concept by linking it to the Trångsviken case. After a brief
presentation of how the team of societal entrepreneurs planned and carried out their work
follows how this spontaneous organizing has evolved into a new company whose purpose is
to act as an incorporated societal entrepreneur. Finally, I discuss what further development
of concepts of societal entrepreneurship and social entrepreneur the fndings in Trångsviken
may generate.
Trångsviken – a Challenging Case
Trångsviken is a small community in the interior parts of northern Sweden. It is a commu-
nity with about 400 residents and 80 businesses. The geographical location is relatively fa-
vourable, close to both the mountains and the regional centre, to European route 14 and only
half hour by car from the airport. The community is a unique place with respect to its entre-
preneurial culture and positive business climate. About twenty new businesses have started
in the last 10-year period. During the same time the number of households has increased by
20 percent. The people in the village have since the early 1980s worked hard to preserve the
important functions of society such as a post offce, a library, a school and a bank. To give an
idea of how societal entrepreneurship and societal entrepreneurs function in practice the re-
searcher has to be able to do close-up studies and get backroom information. Here I believe
interactive action research to be appropriate. Interactive research is concerned with develop-
ment where the researcher works closely with the practitioners but still maintains a critical
perspective with the ambition to contribute to long-term theory development.
1
Conceptualizing Societal Entrepreneurship –
Lessons from Trångsviken
This section provides a description of how the concept of societal entrepreneurship can be
elaborated by the Trångsviken example. I relate different theories that have been developed
concerning the concept by a report on how the societal entrepreneurs in Trångsviken have
organized their work and how it has developed.
The people involved make a difference to societal entrepreneurship.
2
They are responsive,
have strong bonds to the community, are able to build networks and to interact with other so-
cietal actors. Through a dialogue with the people concerned local needs were identifed and
work started from a local perspective (bottom-up). As Westin writes, societal entrepreneurs
often work on a local basis.
3
In Trångsviken the societal entrepreneurs built a new commu-
nity centre which became a platform for the involvement of rural people and a supportive
structure for the subsequent initiatives for business development. The premises meant that
the non-proft association could support new ventures for rural and business development.
Trångsviken’s societal entrepreneurs, as Johannisson describes it, also have a strong
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 64
1
Svensson, L, Brulin, G, Ellström, P-E and Widegren, Ö (2002), Interaktiv forskning – för utveckling av teori
och praktik, Arbetsliv i omvandling 2002:7, Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.
2
SOU 2006:101, Landsbygdsutredningen.
3
Westin, S (1987), Samhällsentreprenörer i lokal näringslivsutveckling, Umeå Universitet.
65 Chapter 3:1 Societal Entrepreneurs for Local and Regional Development
commitment to place and an elaborate personal network. Using these assets they have
managed to stimulate the creation of new businesses and an attractive community. They
have seen a challenge to reverse the negative development spiral that so many other places
in the Swedish countryside and perhaps the interior of northern Sweden in particular have
experienced.
4
With Trångsviken as a starting point they have also acted for the development
of other parts of the county of Jämtland. Realizing that basic social services are important,
also for businesses, has meant that initiatives such as saving the food store, keeping the
school and making the bank branch offce stay have been pressing issues to engage in. The
companies and the community have evolved side by side. The Trångsviksbolaget company
was inaugurated on March 19, 2000, as “a country club for the soul but with a good fnancial
strength.” 65 individuals, 24 companies and 2 compounds together invested around 3.6
million SEK. The conversion of the non-proft business association into a limited company
mainly aimed at broadening the ownership. In the beginning the objective of the company
was to pursue development projects to improve the living conditions and invest in infra-
structure such as broadband and facilities for new industries. Today the company’s main
operation is about renting out premises and functioning as support to businesses in the
area. “Entrepreneurship for all ages” is a motto they live by, and therefore the company from
the very beginning committed itself to the development of an entrepreneurial school, an
entrepreneurial youth camp and a special company to care for adults with business ideas.
Trångsviksbolaget’s efforts in connection with ownership and generational shifts in business
have meant that entrepreneurs who want to exit can contact the local development company
before they approach a broker.
What Can Be Learnt?
The experience of the societal entrepreneurs in Trångsviken obviously cannot be directly
applied to other localities. Each place has its own specifc conditions. By way of an external
evaluation of the village’s problems and opportunities and by maintaining a dialogue with
people in other rural areas the local needs in Trångsviken could be identifed and the work
could start from a local perspective. The new community centre became the supporting
structure and the arena needed for channelling the local inhabitants’ commitment. They saw
4
Johannisson, B (2005), Entreprenörskapets väsen, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
a challenge in the negative development spiral that went on in the rural areas in the interior
of northern Sweden. They decided not to allow themselves to be “victims” of any “higher
power” but to take charge of their own development. An important characteristic of a suc-
cessful work as a societal entrepreneur is the ability to collaborate and maintain a dialogue
with other stakeholders, both private and public. This is a strength if there are several people
to team up and manage the operations, all of them bringing their particular knowledge and
their personal network. Still, they should be able to delegate responsibility. Like all entrepre-
neurship societal entrepreneurship is genuine collectively.
EU projects have created the conditions for business development, have had a catalytic effect
on the development and attracted many other activities and investments, which have thus
been fnanced in various ways. Knowledge of different forms of fnancing, such as EU struc-
tural funds provides great opportunities for local and regional development. Using an EU
project to build one’s own broadband network has eliminated many of the disadvantages of a
peripheral location. The importance of individual initiatives to create a positive development
has become evident. New forms of cooperation have emerged as a result of joint projects
between public agencies, businesses, schools, NGOs and the local population. On the basis
of the example of Trångsviken we can see that societal entrepreneurs may play an important
strategic role in local and regional development.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 66
67
3:2
Development Partnership
as Societal
Entrepreneurship
Erik Lindhult, Mälardalen University
Societal entrepreneurship often involves networking and partnerships across several sec-
tors of society. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the signifcant role of partnership in
societal entrepreneurial activity. The development partnership Dropin is used as an example
and a basis for refection to clarify the partnering role in societal and community-oriented
entrepreneurship. In the growing international literature on social entrepreneurship a start-
ing point is commonly taken in the civil society or the private economic sectors of society
as a complement or alternative to the public domain. An important point that the example
of Dropin shows is that the public and the public sector also have important roles to play in
societal entrepreneurial activity.
The Dropin Partnership
The Dropin partnership operated 2005–2007 in the county of Västmanland in the middle
of Sweden, where the author participated as interactive researcher. Dropin was part of the
EQUAL program within the EU Social Fund, aimed at fnding new ways and solutions to
problems of different groups that are vulnerable to exclusion and discrimination in the work-
place. Dropin focused on discrimination-related ill-health at the individual and institutional
levels and has been an experimental workshop in fnding new methods and trying to facili-
tate the transition between school and working life for young people with incomplete sec-
ondary education. Dropin promoted the prevention and combat of high school drop-outs and
ill health in young people. It is an example of the organizing of change efforts of a societal
nature as a partnership. Dropin was a broad mobilization of many organizations to deal with
this problem, examine methods that can assist this group of young people, as well as identify
and infuence discriminatory structures in their path towards employment. The problem
area is the ill-health and risk behaviours often exhibited by young people leaving secondary
school without high school grades, partly as a result of exclusion from the labor market.
A point of departure in the work as interactive researcher in Dropin was to clarify the en-
trepreneurial character of this kind of socially-oriented development work in a partnership
form. Since the work was mainly conducted in non-commercial forms, there were reasons
for using the literature on “social entrepreneurship” as a starting point.
1
By utilizing Dropin
as an experiential basis for refection, the special character of the relation of societal entrepre-
neurship to social entrepreneurship could be clarifed.
Network and partnership have an additional signifcance for socially oriented entrepreneur-
ship. One major reason is that the sources of fnancing entrepreneurship with the purpose
of creating social value, not providing return on investment, are more limited. This leads
to resource mobilization by other means than buying them in a market becoming more
important. Many stakeholders that in different ways contribute resources are also support-
ers of the social vision and purpose that the entrepreneurial activity is focused on. They do
not primarily expect a return on their resource input, but rather a “moral” return to certain
values and practices promoted. In this way, many actors contributing to a socially oriented
entrepreneurial initiative are more or less active partners in the entrepreneurial activity.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 68
1
E.g. Nicholls, A (eds) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of sustainable social change, Oxford: Oxford
University Press; Mair, J, Robinson, J and Hockerts, K (eds) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan; Steyaert, C and Hjorth, D (eds) (2006), Entrepreneurship as Social Change, Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
69 Chapter 3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship
The Public Dimensions of Entrepreneurship
The analysis of Dropin shows the character of the public dimensions of societal entrepre-
neurship, also indicating how the social dimension can be distinguished from the societal.
The dominant understanding of social entrepreneurship compared with traditional com-
mercial entrepreneurship is that the focus and purpose are social – not proft-oriented.
Societal entrepreneurship may instead be linked to the private-societal/public dimension,
where the societal element is determined by the extent to which entrepreneurship is based
on and focuses on the creation, recreation and transformation of “society”. The context of
entrepreneurship is seen here as organized in communities, social institutions and more or
less formal organizations, where entrepreneurship is aimed at the creation, modifcation and
improvement of this society. What is “public” in the entrepreneurship is not in the frst place
that it is included in the public sector, but that it is aimed at activities involving everyone in a
particular social context (for example, a district or region) or is considered of common/public
interest in the social context considered.
Furthermore, socially-oriented entrepreneurship cannot substitute for sustained public
involvement in important social issues and therefore it should see government agencies
as essential partners and also have a connection with, or in its organization build on, the
public democratic conversation among those concerned. Otherwise, morally very worthy and
deserving work, based on many people’s confdence and willingness to help, can often lose
its legitimacy quickly when it is exposed to the public light. The strength of societal entrepre-
neurship is the ability to build a development momentum to combat social problems such
as poverty, exclusion, marginalization or environmental degradation. But without a clear
basis for a wider discussion among the interested parties more inclusive and integrative
solutions often fail to be achieved.
2
Dropin relates instead to participatory democratic points
of departure focused on the broad participation of various partners, coordinating through
public democratic discussion processes pursuing both innovation and a structural impact.
Democratic dialogue and rational communication therefore constitute an important basis for
socially oriented entrepreneurial activity.
2
Cho, A (2006), Politics, Values and Social Entrepreneurship Research, in Mair, J, Robinson, J and Hockerts, K (eds),
Social Entrepreneurship, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Studies of Dropin and similar partnerships can help to show more societal options of entre-
preneurial practice, namely how broad social-entrepreneurial partnerships can be formed
between different sectors of society, where the public systems can operate as an organiza-
tional guarantee for the sustainability of change over time when no civil society or business
entrepreneurial organization can achieve this on its own. But public agencies often cannot
handle this type of issue themselves, e.g. creating job opportunities for groups who have dif-
fculty in entering the labour market. Although partnerships are often designed to promote
business or increase the labour supply, the experience is that industry participation tends to
be limited. But in many companies there is, in addition to a desire to develop their own com-
pany, an interest in contributing to local and regional development. To fnd a synergy in the
partnership based on both of these interests provides a good basis for a sustainable relation-
ship with industry. More generally, an issue that arises in Dropin and EQUAL is who are the
“right” partners that are especially important to have in the partnership to achieve change.
A Perspective on Societal Entrepreneurship
Figure 1 synthesizes a development of the perspective on societal entrepreneurship.
Figure 1. Societal entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and different relations.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 70
Commercial
Industry
relations
Business
relations
Public
Societal
entrepreneurship
Partnership
creation
Private
Citizen
relations
Moral
relations
Social
71 Chapter 3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship
It implies a movement towards public dimensions, contextually anchored in a communal
setting.
3
Societal entrepreneurs need to convince others of the public interest, or to federate
to “communalize” the venture. It is important to involve others as partners, supporters or do-
nors of resources. Here federating and partnership creation form a key strategy to “commu-
nalize” and legitimize societal entrepreneurial “ventures”. Partnering implies establishing
relations between actors. Societal entrepreneurship involves a movement towards the public
by the driving agencies, where private relations of a moral character are complemented by re-
lations among actors as concerned citizens, partnering to improve the social context they are
part of and identify with. The efforts of movement towards the public also imply that busi-
ness relations are complemented by industry relations where companies and other economic
actors consider the public role of economic activity in contributing to community values or
societal institutions in order to build a better society. Societal entrepreneurship with its need
for building relations and partnering is a quite complex and demanding task. But it is often
the only way to successfully deal with complex, societal problems to build better societies. So
let loose the societal entrepreneurs!
3
An early conceptualization of community entrepreneurship as “contextual entrepreneurship” with a federative
focus is Johannisson, B and Nilsson, A (1989), Community entrepreneurs: networking for local development,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 1, no 1, pp 3–19.
72
3:3
Societal Entrepreneurship
and Social Capital
Hans Westlund, Royal Institute of Technology and Jönköping
International Business School
This chapter deals with the signifcance of social capital to societal entrepreneurship. One
fundamental thought is that social capital can have positive as well as negative effects on
entrepreneurship with regard to what norms and values social capitals include and what
networks support them. While “common” entrepreneurship is usually limited to one sector
in society, societal entrepreneurship is here seen as something often embracing and affecting
several societal sectors. Society is generally classifed into three sectors: the private and the
public sectors and “the third sector” (which I here prefer to call civil society). However, in
modern growth theories academia, too, is usually seen as a specifc sector, and in this chapter
I concur with this view. The different societal sectors have different purposes and have over
time developed different norms and principles for their activities. This can be expressed in
terms of having developed different social capitals. Political measures to strengthen societal
entrepreneurship must take this into consideration. To promote the growth of social capital
with common values and networks across sector boundaries is in this perspective a major
challenge to politics wanting to strengthen societal entrepreneurship.
What, then, is social capital? A defnition which most people will probably agree with is that
social capital consists of social networks/relations and norms and values, e.g., confdence created,
accumulated and diffused in these networks.
1
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
73
New Growth Theories
In accordance with the new endogenous growth paradigm defned in the 1980s, ever greater
importance has been attached to concepts like knowledge production, knowledge diffusion,
innovation and entrepreneurship. This has also found its expression in theories like those
on national and regional innovation systems, clusters, industrial districts and triple helix. A
common denominator for these theories is their emphasis on knowledge diffusion between
various actors as well as the modifcation and application of this knowledge in various com-
mercialisation processes. For these processes to start and move forward various forms of
entrepreneurship are required, i.e., the ability to identify opportunities and utilise them.
Knowledge diffusion and commercialisation are processes that imply interaction between a
number of various stakeholders. The management, processing and application of knowl-
edge in innovative processes require good social relations, i.e., a social capital among the
stakeholders involved. Constellations characterised by intense rivalry, lack of confdence and
distrustfulness render the exchange and processing of knowledge necessary for the creation
of innovations more diffcult. Social capital had no tangible signifcance on the assembly
lines in industrial society. However, in the innovation processes of a knowledge society
contingent on entrepreneurship it is of crucial importance.
What stakeholders, then, act entrepreneurially in innovation processes? In line with several
of the above-mentioned theories, contribution is usually required from universities, which
create new knowledge through research, from the public sector, which creates arenas and
often provides fnance, and, of course, from the business world. In the new growth theories
universities are seen as a sector in its own right by the side of industry and the public sector,
whereas civil society is seldom noted in these theories.
Chapter 3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital
1
For a discussion about the concept of social capital and its connections to issues connected to economic
development, see Westlund, H (2006), Social Capital in the Knowledge Economy: Theory and Empirics, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
What is Societal Entrepreneurship?
New opinions, lifestyles and trends continually appear in civil society. These phenomena
also affect innovation processes, both as obstacles and as inspiration. This implies that the
scope of innovations and entrepreneurship is linked not only to the traditional industrial
productive inputs of labour and capital but also to circumstances in which stakeholders
from the university, the public sector and civil society are active – and to the social capitals
that these stakeholders have generated within and between themselves. What, then, determines
whether an organisation or a stakeholder in any of the four sectors acts entrepreneurially?
In the terms used in this chapter, the answer may be that this is determined by the degree
of independence from three factors:
• Established, non-entrepreneurial functions, i.e., independence from established
economic, administrative, technological and social networks
• Established norms and values
• Established formal regulations and institutions
Consequently, in line with this reasoning, entrepreneurship is a function of the degree of
independence from what is established and non-entrepreneurial. What, then, in addition
to these matters, characterises whether an initiative is also societal entrepreneurial? One
answer might be that it is a new activity aiming at – or an existing activity expanded to – a
production of utilities that beneft not only stakeholders in one’s own societal sector but also
stakeholders in other sectors of society, and that this production is linked to stakeholders in
other societal sectors.
An Important Problem for Growth Policies
Growth policy in Sweden as well as the rest of the Western World is characterised by a
focus on innovations and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship policy is almost exclusively
aimed at business. Innovation policy, on the other hand, centres on collaboration between
three sectors: universities as producers of knowledge, the public sector as a provider of
benefcial institutions and development resources, and business as a provider of resources
and knowledge for commercialisation. However, a seldom noticed problem is that the three
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 74
75 Chapter 3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital
sectors – or, including civil society, the four sectors – base their activities on fundamentally
different exchange principles, refected in essentially different networks, norms and values.
This is a problem that must not be neglected by a future policy for the promotion of societal
entrepreneurship.
With Karl Polanyi’s famous book The Great Transformation
2
as a basis it can be argued that
private companies found their business on a market principle according to which proft is
a necessary goal. The public sector, which is founded on political power to exact resources
and redistribute them, builds its existence on a principle of redistribution. Universities,
in Sweden and many other countries principally fnanced via the public sector, are histori-
cally dominated by a third principle, reciprocity, which in this case comprises a reciprocal
exchange of knowledge and ideas. Civil society is also founded on a reciprocity principle,
but in this case not predominantly regarding knowledge and ideas but rather actions – ac-
tions benefting the group or society and from which the actor consequently can expect an
indirect beneft in the future.
Organisations in sectors with such fundamental differences naturally generate very differ-
ent social capitals – different types of networks with different types of stakeholders and with
different norms and values. A policy for societal entrepreneurship that requires organisa-
tions and stakeholders to cross sector boundaries and create something new must manage
these differences in social capital in order to be successful. Organisations may of course
have various reasons to collaborate across sector boundaries, but without some type of
“common denominator” it is very doubtful whether “innovative initiatives of advantage to
society”
3
can develop and bear fruit. From a stakeholder perspective, on the other hand, we
can establish that there are societal-entrepreneurial individuals who are capable of acting
as “brokers” by residing and being active in various spheres and who are engaged in the
translation and compilation of different institutional contexts.
Just as the social capital of organisations can be both an obstacle and a basis for societal
entrepreneurship, so can the formal institutions and regulations of organisations. These
are constructed in order for a certain type of activity to be performed in a certain way, thus
promoting stability, which facilitates planning and reduces risks for the stakeholders con-
cerned. At the same time, established regulations and stability are in many ways contrary to
2
Polanyi, K (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston: The Beacon Press.
3
See Holmberg, L, Kovacs, H and Lundqvist, M A (2007), Samhällsentreprenör – en förstudie på uppdrag av
KK-stiftelsen, Stockholm: KK-stiftelsen. www.kks.se.
entrepreneurship, the nature of which is to challenge and expose established organisations
to competition and eventually generate the “creative destruction” of old methods, attitudes
and principles. While the debate on the promotion of entrepreneurship in the business
sector is almost exclusively concentrated on problems created by the regulations of authori-
ties, a focus on societal entrepreneurship means that the institutions, regulations and social
capital of other types of organisations must also be taken into consideration.
A policy that wants to promote societal entrepreneurship must be aware of this.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 76
77
3:4
Societal Entrepreneurship
as an Interactive Process
Ewa Gunnarsson, Luleå University of Technology
Tony Ghaye, Refective Learning-UK
Entrepreneurship is not restricted to creating new companies but can also be oriented
towards public welfare, create innovation and stimulate action. Here we draw upon a newly
emerging research methodology called “Participatory and Appreciative Action and Refec-
tion” (PAAR).
1
PAAR is used to describe a development from more conventional forms
of action research (AR) and from participatory action research (PAR) to a more explicitly
“appreciative” form. PAAR adds a new dimension to action-based methodologies, called
appreciative intelligence. PAAR can be distinguished by the main research questions it asks.
For example:
• Action research (AR): What is the practical problem I need to address in my work?
• Participatory action research (PAR): What can we do together to change the
situation here?
• Participatory and appreciative action and refection (PAAR): What is currently working
well and how can we amplify this in order to build and sustain a better future from
aspects of the positive present?
1
Ghaye, T (2008), Building the Refective Healthcare Organisation, Oxford: Blackwell; Nielsen Aagaard, K and
Svensson, L (eds) (2006), Action and Interactive Research- Beyond Practice and Theory, Amsterdam: Shaker
Publishing.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 78
Our central argument is that when trying to improve work and working lives, thinking and
conversations often get stuck with vocabularies of human defcit. In doing so we fail to
unlock the creative potential of those involved. Defcit-phrased questions lead to defcit-based
conversations. These in turn lead to defcit-based actions. Participatory and appreciative
action and refection (PAAR) is a style of research which requires us to use our appreciative
intelligence to focus on the best of what is currently experienced, seek out the root causes of
this, and then design and implement actions that amplify and sustain this success. PAAR
thus does not celebrate problem-solving as the only way to improving social situations.
PAAR does not perpetuate the belief that problem-solving should be our priority and that
successes can simply look after themselves. First and foremost PAAR is about identifying
and playing to our strengths.
PAAR in Practice
PAAR is illustrated by two case studies. The frst one focuses on how PAAR can be used
to develop and sustain ways that enable elderly people to feel more empowered to exer-
cise their right of self-determination. The work was undertaken
2
in the context of home
healthcare in northern Sweden. The data for this work was drawn from two days of work-
shop activities with 35 homecare staff working in the municipality of Luleå, Sweden. The
workshop was one outcome of the e-Home Health Care @ North Calotte (eHHC) Project
of 2003–2005. The PAAR approach enabled all who participated in the workshops to: (a)
deepen their understanding of the practice of participation (dialogue) and one important
intention of it (empowerment) in the context of healthcare service improvement; (b) how
to positively reframe traditional views of the relationships between research and practice,
and of stakeholder roles, and as a consequence, open up new possibilities for understand-
ing how elderly people’s lived experiences can be a positive force for service improvement;
(c) the use of storyboards as an appreciative approach to enable frontline staff to refect on
their work, to share and to learn together.
The second case study illustrates connections between ageing well and maintaining a good
quality of life as a general societal goal. Within the context of experienced-based service
2
Melander-Wikman, A, Jansson, M and Ghaye, T (2006), Refections on an appreciative approach to empowering
elderly people in home healthcare, Refective Practice,Vol 7, no 4, pp 423–444.
design, the study aimed to understand what ageing well meant for a group of elderly people.
At the heart of this study was the analysis of ten in-depth interviews with elderly people
living at home, with homecare and safety alarms. By drawing upon the PAAR principles of
participation, appreciation, ethics and empowerment, the study wanted to fnd out whether
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) could be supportive of their well-being.
The core category of “ageing well or learning unpretentiousness – a living contradiction” was
deduced. This comprised four sub-categories that illustrated the signifcant parts of elderly
people’s conceptions of well-being. They were social networking, psycho-social wellbeing,
physical capacity and empowerment. Data suggested that ageing well was linked with elderly
people learning to get more unpretentious as they got older. In developing new information
and communication technologies for ageing well, this case suggests that it is important to
take this learned unpretentiousness among elderly people into account, so that their needs
can be fully appreciated. One consequence of this is that elderly people need to have the
opportunity, and be suffciently empowered, to actively participate in the development of
services that are designed to meet their needs. This is particularly important in the develop-
ment of new services based on mobile ICT. Using the principles and processes of PAAR
enabled this learning to become more visible.
Elaborating PAAR – Gender Knowledge as a
Potential for More Democratic Processes
The dominating entrepreneurship research is often “gender blind” in the sense that it does
not integrate – and problematize – the gender dimension. If the emerging concept of
societal entrepreneurship claims to be an “inclusive democratic concept” that incorporates
women’s as well as men’s experiences and resources, it is necessary to include a gender
perspective. Therefore we introduce two gender-sensitive tools that we see as a point of
departure for such an integrative process.
79 Chapter 3:4 Societal Entrepreneurship as an Interactive Process
The frst tool is the concept of “refective gender reminders”.
3
This concept can be used
along the whole entrepreneurial process. It highlights possibilities and restrictions between
women’s and men’s different conditions for participating in an entrepreneurial process.
The other tool is a model grounded in “the doing gender perspective in organisations.”
This model makes visible how gender is done on different arenas in an organisation. To
incorporate these gender-sensitive tools in the participatory and appreciative action method-
ology creates a new framing for the methodology and brings about a more democratic and
innovative dimension. It is promoting new thinking as well as a broader and more holistic
societal view.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 80
3
Gunnarsson, E (2006), The Snake and the Apple in the Common Paradise, in Nielsen Aagaard, K and Svensson,
L (eds) (2006), Action and Interactive Research – Beyond Practice and Theory, Amsterdam: Shaker Publishing;
Gunnarsson, E (2007) Other Sides of the Coin. A Feminist Perspective on Robustness in Science and Knowledge
Production, International Journal of Action Research, Vol 3, no 3, pp 349–363.
81
Need for a Multi-Faceted
Image of Societal
Entrepreneurship
Acknowledging Variation
in Society
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
Sweden does not rank very high as regards the portion of the adult population that is in-
volved in business venturing. This does not necessarily imply that Sweden is entrepreneuri-
ally underdeveloped. As this report tells us, the Swedes may invest a considerable portion
of their entrepreneurial energy in different activities in the private and public sectors or in
the popular movements which dominate the Swedish voluntary sector. Accordingly, our
collective social capital is considerable, refecting generic cultural features. Societal entre-
preneurship in Sweden has, however, not been as loud and visible as entrepreneurship in
the marketplace, presumably because societal entrepreneurship cannot allow itself to be as
simplistic as regards means, ends and organizing.
Swedish research concerning societal entrepreneurship as reported here includes under-
standings of entrepreneurship which seldom appear at the international research frontier.
One distinctive feature of societal entrepreneurship in Sweden is its orientation towards the
collective. The international discourse on societal entrepreneurship, like that on conventional
entrepreneurship, focuses on the individual. This particular Swedish feature of societal
entrepreneurship comes through especially strongly in the chapter by Elisabeth Sundin and
Malin Tillmar as entrepreneurship closely related to the public sector. This does not mean
that individuals are completely absent on the typical Swedish palette of different images of
societal entrepreneurship. Those who Bengt Johannisson and Caroline Wigren introduce
as “extreme” entrepreneurs have to stand up for their own values and behaviours in order
to play a much needed role as provocateurs in society. Overall, the book communicates the
message that Swedish societal entrepreneurs are pragmatic in trying to balance social and
economic concerns. All of them are also carried by a strong commitment to societal values.
Obviously, there are many roads to societal entrepreneurship. Sometimes the directions
come from above, which also often means from outside, sometimes from below/inside.
Often these pressures combine. Only in some cases, for example that of national mobiliza-
tion presented by Per Frankelius and Jan Ogeborg on the Irish turnaround, does the force
come straight from one direction (above). However, whatever the origin of societal entrepre-
neuring, soon enough forces from above and below combine, as Erik Lindhult’s report on
the empowerment of young people distinctly illustrates. When social concern carried by fa-
voured Swedish corporations is used to support marginalized groups in developing countries
an initiative from above-outside is much needed and in the interest of the recipients. Lasse
Ekstrand and Monika Wallmon propose in addition that societal entrepreneurship may also
be “laterally” triggered, that is neither initiated from above or from below, but through a cre-
ated move from an unexpected direction. When artists turn into social agents they may help
people locally to break out of their mental iron cages and take over the initiative.
Until recently the scientifc discourse on entrepreneurship was dominated by the male initi-
ating individual as a norm. Furthermore, the feld has been controlled by male researchers.
Obviously, this book provides a more balanced view in both respects – the female contribu-
tors are as many as the male ones. In the entrepreneurial processes presented and refected
upon activity felds dominated by women, e.g. the social and healthcare sectors, come to the
fore. Here the authors point out that societal entrepreneurs practise their own rationality,
that of care. Presenting themselves as representatives of “homo curans” these entrepreneurs
are more concerned about others’ well-being than about their own. Some authors, e.g. Ewa
Gunnarsson and Tony Ghaye, explicitly bring up gender issues, but in most chapters such
refections are tightly associated with impressions gained during feldwork.
On one hand, the broad variation of societal entrepreneurship sends invitations to many
potential initiators of entrepreneurial processes. On the other hand, this complexity signals
that local initiatives may need support from established structures in order to be able to enact
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 82
83 Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging Variation in Society
their (social) ambitions. As easy as it is to amplify voluntary initiatives, as quickly may inertia
in formal institutions erode the emerging commitment. Mats Lundqvist demonstrates that
a university (of technology) may not only support but also itself take the initiative to create
societal entrepreneurship. As demonstrated by Carina Asplund, community development
can be enforced by building alliances with the regional university and draw attention in the
EU context.
The roots of societal entrepreneurship in Sweden go back to local community development
in the early l980s. Since increasing urbanization implied reduced societal services in sparse-
ly populated parts of the large country collective action was called for. While Swedish societal
entrepreneurship today often spans boundaries in space – whether physical, social or mental
– this global commitment often combines with retaining one’s attachment to (local) place.
One possible explanation is, as Hans Westlund indicates, the rich access to social capital.
This proposes a generic “glocal” development strategy in the same way as localized clusters
in the economy build global competitiveness, often by building an alliance with a university.
The social dimension of the glocal strategy can be represented as embedded in economic
activity – as in the practice of corporate social responsibility reported by Anna Blombäck and
Caroline Wigren, or provide a core activity – as proposed by Malin Gawell in her refections
concerning Attac . That the difference in these two cases underlines the need to pay attention
to the contextual features in the conceptualization and practice of societal entrepreneurship
is evident.
Need for a Versatile Research into Societal
Entrepreneurship
This book illustrates by way of special conceptual models and methodologies as well as rich
and varying empirical reporting that societal entrepreneurship, like entrepreneurship in the
market, appears in very different shapes. This suggests that researchers and practitioners,
not least politicians, may gain a great insight into traditional entrepreneurship as business
venturing by studying societal entrepreneurship. These lessons include a greater awareness
of the general social embeddedness of economic activity, not least attachment to place, and
the importance of recognizing the collective features of (any) entrepreneurship. Business
venturing, as well as “born globals” (international new ventures), take off in the community
to which the entrepreneur belongs, and the commitment to place remains while the frm
grows.
The broadest of concepts associated with societal entrepreneurship that we have tried to or-
ganize in the introductory chapter can, on the one hand, be considered to reveal that we and
our fellow researchers have still not managed to catch the phenomenon. On the other hand,
this variety of representations raises the question whether an ultimate, overarching defni-
tion of societal entrepreneurship is desirable or even possible. It is quite pretentious to
argue that society as a human construct provides endless social variety while arguing at the
same time that this variety, when dressed as entrepreneurship, can be structured into a few
conceptual categories. As regards entrepreneurship in the general sense a parallel discus-
sion is at present going on within the research community. Our conclusion is that (societal)
entrepreneurship should stay a multi-dimensional phenomenon also in the academic and
political vocabulary. Only then can it remain sensitive to different cultural and institutional
settings, that is different societal contexts.
Proposing a sensitive use of the notion of societal entrepreneurship does not mean that we
expect it to only refect existing phenomena. Like any understanding of entrepreneurship,
societal entrepreneurship as a concept and as a practice should challenge existing structures
and propose new ones. This power to initiate change is especially important to consider in
the kind of homogenous country that Sweden still is. We obviously do think that a genuine
dialogue within and between the communities concerned must form the basis of network-
ing, which in due course will sediment into new structures that will hopefully provide the
means to make the world better. This challenge is sometimes about turning coincidences
into opportunities, which are subsequently enacted in social ventures, sometimes about
solving practical problems which concern the survival of the family or the community.
The proposed distinction between “opportunity” and “necessity” entrepreneurship is,
however, diffcult to maintain, whether we have societal or general entrepreneurship in
mind. What once appeared as necessity entrepreneurship may in the end turn out to be
the very road to success. In the old world this was, for example, experienced in rural areas
where the many had to start their own business in order to survive, but where over time,
as the interrelations between the small frms matured, the small communities turned into
localized clusters, which were competitive on the global markets. In our “new” world the
struggle for economic survival still remains in some parts of the world. However, today we
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 84
85 Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging Variation in Society
are all affected by the enormous ecological and social challenges facing the earth. This again
suggests a need for “glocal” strategies where local initiatives are taken that are also in the
global interest.
As researchers we have to actively relate to the challenges that societal entrepreneurship
in its different forms is expected to cope with. The third part of the book also provides a
number of illustrations of how more active roles may be taken on by social scientists than
the ones so far being performed. These roles include providing knowledge that communi-
cates the hope of a better future but also interactively creates such knowledge in dialogue
with those concerned. However, all the chapters are embedded in the general view that
researchers investigating societal entrepreneurship cannot remain passive spectators
considering that they themselves as citizens are co-producing the very context where those
entrepreneurial processes are taking place. We also argue that being present in societal
entrepreneurship as a research feld and there practising an interactive methodology makes
the university into a much needed arena for intellectual as well as practical contributions.
Here the researchers will realize their own need for learning, which in due course may
make them not only inquire into societal entrepreneurship but practise it themselves.
Carina Asplund is a doctoral student in sociology at Mid Sweden University. She also
works at the local entrepreneurial initiative Trångsviksbolaget, which is in focus of her interac-
tive research. E-mail: [email protected].
Anna Blombäck is Assistant Professor at Jönköping International Business School. Her
research interest lies within corporate-level marketing and corporate social responsibility.
E-mail: [email protected].
Lasse Ekstrand is Assistant Professor at the University of Gävle, and a guest professor at
the Free University in Berlin and at The Academy of Arts in Trondheim. E-mail: [email protected].
Per Frankelius is Associate Professor at Örebro University and works for Örebro Regional
Development Council. He is a board member of The Swedish Foundation for Small Business
Research and a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London. E-mail: [email protected].
Malin Gawell is Assistant Professor at the Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research
Institute (ESBRI). Her main interest is entrepreneurship and civil society research. She also
works with policy development within this feld. E-mail: [email protected].
Tony Ghaye is Director of Refective Learning-UK. He is an organisational strategist with
experience of work in public, private and third sector organisations in Europe, Africa and the
Far East. E-mail: [email protected].
Ewa Gunnarsson is Professor at the division of Gender and Innovation, the Department of
Human Work Sciences, Luleå University of Technology. Her main research interest is gender,
technology, organisation and interactive research methods. E-mail: [email protected].
Bengt Johannisson is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Växjö University and at Jönköping
University. He has published widely on entrepreneurship and personal networking, especially
in the context of local and regional development. E-mail: [email protected].
The Authors
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 86
Erik Lindhult is Assistant Professor at Mälardalen University. His research focuses on col-
laborative and democratic innovation and entrepreneurship. E-mail: [email protected].
Mats Lundqvist is Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology and
co-founding director of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship. His research and practical
engagement is around university entrepreneurship. E-mail: [email protected].
Jan Ogeborg is an entrepreneur and company founder. One of his environment projects
won a prize from The National Environment Protection Board. He also has a career as offcer
and management educator in The Swedish Armed Forces. E-mail: [email protected].
Elisabeth Sundin is Professor in Business Administration and one of the research leaders
at Helix Vinn Excellence Centre, Linköping University. Her main research interest is organiza-
tions (mainly public), entrepreneurship, and gender. E-mail: [email protected].
Malin Tillmar is Associate Professor in Business Administration at Linköping University.
The focus of her research is the diversity of entrepreneurship related, for example, to the re-
organization of public service provision. E-mail: [email protected].
Monika Wallmon is a doctoral student at the Department of Business Studies at Uppsala
University. Her interests include activism and social change, the arts, creativity and organiza-
tion research. E-mail: [email protected].
Hans Westlund is Professor of Regional Planning at KTH Royal Institute of Techno-
logy in Stockholm, and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Jönköping International Business
School, Jönköping University. E-mail: [email protected].
Caroline Wigren is Assistant Professor at CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö Univer-
sity. She has an interest in entrepreneurship research, regional development and corporate
social responsibility. E-mail: [email protected].
87 The Authors
This book presents entrepreneurship far beyond market-oriented business.
Societal entrepreneurship engages people, at times in a small community, at
times globally. The ambition is many times to create a better world, which of
course is welcome. But societal entrepreneurship also challenges and provokes.
The contributing authors both acknowledge and question contemporary ways
of organizing society. In this digested presentation of a research anthology,
originally published in early 2009, 16 researchers from 16 Swedish universities
and/or institutes elaborate on these issues.
The texts cover a variety of cases of societal entrepreneurship carried out by
individuals, organizations, communities, nations – all with strong driving spirit.
We hope that the message of the book will stimulate societal entrepreneurs and
researchers as well as politicians and citizens to engage, to initiate and to act –
in the name of society.
The anthology is an initiative within the Knowledge Foundation’s Societal
Entrepreneurship Programme.
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
Entrepreneurship
in the Name
of Society
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
t
h
e
N
a
m
e
o
f
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
doc_650188064.pdf
Entrepreneurship In The Name Of Society
This book presents entrepreneurship far beyond market-oriented business.
Societal entrepreneurship engages people, at times in a small community, at
times globally. The ambition is many times to create a better world, which of
course is welcome. But societal entrepreneurship also challenges and provokes.
The contributing authors both acknowledge and question contemporary ways
of organizing society. In this digested presentation of a research anthology,
originally published in early 2009, 16 researchers from 16 Swedish universities
and/or institutes elaborate on these issues.
The texts cover a variety of cases of societal entrepreneurship carried out by
individuals, organizations, communities, nations – all with strong driving spirit.
We hope that the message of the book will stimulate societal entrepreneurs and
researchers as well as politicians and citizens to engage, to initiate and to act –
in the name of society.
The anthology is an initiative within the Knowledge Foundation’s Societal
Entrepreneurship Programme.
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
Entrepreneurship
in the Name
of Society
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
t
h
e
N
a
m
e
o
f
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
Entrepreneurship in the
Name of Society
Entrepreneurship in the
Name of Society
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
In order to strengthen Sweden’s ability to create value, the Knowledge Foundation
wants the business sector, seats of learning and research institutes to jointly develop
advanced knowledge and competence. We are an active fnancer – our goal is to create
new potential, boost results and promote risk-taking.
Since the foundation was established in 1994, it has invested more than SEK 6 billion in
over 2,000 projects related to the development of new seats of learning and institutes,
competence development in the business sector, and ICT and learning.
Published by the Knowledge Foundation
P.O. Box 3222
SE-103 64 Stockholm
Sweden
www.kks.se
Graphic design and production: Super
Print: Östertälje Tryckeri AB, 2009
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
We Need More Societal Entrepreneurs! ....................................................................................................................................................................................7
Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Part 1 Perspectives and Illustrations of Societal Entrepreneurship ...................................................................... 19
1:1 The Firm as Societal Entrepreneur................................................................................................................................................................ 21
1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners ................. 25
1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena .................................. 30
1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship.............................................................................................. 35
1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland
Case 1985–1995 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Part 2 Societal Entrepreneurship as Creative Irritation ................................................................................................................ 45
2:1 The Societal Entrepreneur as Provocateur ................................................................................................................................... 47
2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice ............................................................................................................................. 51
2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur....................................................................... 56
Part 3 Paths to Insights about Societal Entrepreneurship ...................................................................................................... 61
3:1 Societal Entrepreneurs for Local and Regional Development ................................................................ 63
3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship ................................................................................... 67
3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital ........................................................................................................................ 72
3:4 Societal Entrepreneurship as an Interactive Process ............................................................................................... 77
Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging
Variation in Society...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
The Authors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Contents
07
We Need More Societal
Entrepreneurs!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
Societal entrepreneurship refers to initiatives which aim at improving what is lacking or
non-functioning in society; new solutions intended at creating a sustainable society –
economically, socially and ecologically – by applying entrepreneurial logic.
One of the Knowledge Foundation’s major ventures is to raise the level of societal
entrepreneurship in Sweden.
Social innovations are one way of facing the present fnancial and climate crises. We need
new ways of producing and consuming in a climate-friendly manner, as well as new forms
of services and care and new sustainable business ideas. By thinking along new lines
societal entrepreneurs can solve problems in society while simultaneously opening up new
markets. In our opinion societal entrepreneurship holds the key to the future.
Many of today’s social solutions were built for the structures of the industrial society when
boundaries were more important – boundaries between nations, between the market and
the public sphere, between work and leisure. The tough questions we are now facing: the
climate threat, migration and segregation, globalization and unequal distribution, are
boundless and far too complex to be solved by single actors. Societal entrepreneurs make
use of entrepreneurial logic when grappling with the problems of society, demonstrating
that it works perfectly to be both commercial and driven by ideals – developing society while
creating one’s own sustenance.
The Knowledge Foundation’s Programme for Societal Entrepreneurship wishes to make
space for individuals and organizations to take innovative initiatives for the common good.
Over a period of nine years the foundation will invest some 11 million Euro to boost societal
entrepreneurship in Sweden. We will invest in research on societal entrepreneurship;
support the creation of competence development for societal entrepreneurs and work to
make more people realize the value of societal entrepreneurship. This anthology is one of
the programme’s initial outcomes.
What then do we mean by societal entrepreneurship? Most people would agree that entre-
preneurship is about doing; entrepreneurs create something new – sometimes by tearing
down something old. Hence, for us, entrepreneurship is not restricted to starting compa-
nies, but has a wider scope: starting an activity or organization.
The obvious purpose of initiatives taken by the societal entrepreneur is to be of advantage to
society. It may involve anything from rural services to producing ecological food or fair-trade
clothes. It may also take different organizational forms: non-proft associations, sharehold-
ing companies, cooperatives or foundations. The Knowledge Foundation’s primary interest
lies in societal entrepreneurship that is innovative – i.e. developing functions and work
methods that have not been available before.
This leads to the defnition of societal entrepreneurship as standing for innovative initia-
tives for the common good. Since the concept is relatively new to Sweden, the defnition
will have to be a preliminary one so far.
In a number of countries societal entrepreneurship is a well known and established
concept. The reason why the Knowledge Foundation prefers the term societal to social
entrepreneurship is to emphasize that the former comprises more than just social issues.
The different terms also illustrate the difference between ways of organizing society. The
Swedish term is adapted to a developed welfare state where societal entrepreneurship is a
question for the whole society, not only the traditional area of social issues.
Societal entrepreneurs tend to act in the borderland between traditional sectors – between
non-proft and commercial, between the public sector and the private market, between
academia and the world outside. The most innovative among them challenge our segmented
society by questioning concepts like market and proft and by indicating new roads that are
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 08
09 We Need More Societal Entrepreneurs!
about neither being dependent on subsidies nor on maximizing profts. “I create a salary for
myself and a proft to society” is a typical line from a societal entrepreneur.
Societal entrepreneurs are the leaders of the future. They make up horizontal and non-hier-
archical networks which are in essence glocal. This is why societal entrepreneurship has its
given place in any discussion about growth. When we make room for initiatives emanat-
ing from societal entrepreneurship we will give them a substantial push forward, not least
where local and regional development are involved.
In Sweden, there still remain plenty of obstacles to societal entrepreneurship. In practice, it
is fairly complicated for initiatives for the common good to establish themselves and grow,
since there are no functioning support structures as yet. The initiatives often get stuck
somewhere “in between” – because they do not ft into the market structure of bank
fnancing, risk capital and strict fnancial accounting, nor into the subsidy system of the
public sector.
The Knowledge Foundation’s programme aims to improve the climate for societal entre-
preneurship. To realize this, many more actors need to change their attitudes to innovative
initiatives for the common good – such as companies, decision-makers at various levels or
public authorities. It is also essential that more people are prepared to contribute actively.
The Knowledge Foundation’s Societal Entrepreneurship Programme rests on three legs:
• Research – providing more knowledge about societal entrepreneurship and building
a new academic feld in Sweden.
• Competence development – offering more people the opportunity to develop as societal
entrepreneurs through education, networks and counselling.
• Establishing the concept – creating an insight into the value of societal
entrepreneurship and gradually improving its conditions by fnancing, infrastructure
and positive treatment.
More information about the programme can be found at www.samhallsentreprenor.se and
on the Knowledge Foundation’s website www.kks.se.
The long-term goals of the Knowledge Foundation’s ventures are simple: more societal
entrepreneurs and more societal entrepreneurial initiatives. By launching this programme
we wish to create more space for innovative initiatives for the common good. Societal entre-
preneurs will do the rest.
Eva Moe
Head of the Societal Entrepreneurship Programme
11
Starting Points,
Thought Styles and
Text Frames
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
Swedish interest in societal entrepreneurship is not new. The famous 18th century botanist
Carl Linnaeus has been used as an example of an entrepreneur whose main mission was
the responsible utilization of natural resources. In our contemporary globalized economy
we have learned that walls are diffcult to build. A society striving for social, ecological
and economic sustainability requires both a local and a global perspective. The challenges
we face today ask for a diverse type of entrepreneurship. This book is guided by a vision
of embracing such a variety. Starting with an historical account from the seventies and
onward of Swedish research related to societal entrepreneurship, this introduction then
paints a contemporary landscape of such an entrepreneurship with home-grown as well as
imported fowers. Finally, societal entrepreneurship as a central mobilizing, innovative as
well as value-creating driving force is discussed.
The purpose of the book is to identify and illustrate societal entrepreneurship as a phe-
nomenon as well as describing how entrepreneurship can contribute to shaping opportuni-
ties of societal utility. Several theoretical examples as well as multiple diverse cases are
presented. All authors in this anthology share the vision of expanding the concept of entre-
preneurship. The book builds upon a prestudy commissioned by the Swedish Knowledge
Foundation to Chalmers University of Technology in November 2006, with many Swedish
researchers and practitioners partaking in workshops exploring opportunities for contem-
porary societal entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 12
The Swedish Roots of Societal
Entrepreneurship
In the late seventies researchers started questioning the “Swedish recipe” of large corpo-
rations and a strong central government. Structural transformations in society implied
increased interests in conditions within local communities suffering from industrial decline.
In the aftermath of changes in the seventies, the eighties to a large extent refected a view
of societal entrepreneurship as something reactive, defensive and place-based, occurring
on the outskirts of society rather than in its core. Nevertheless, studies by Johannisson and
others contrasted this view by showing the dynamics and potential of enterprising smaller
communities, such as the famous Gnosjö region. The image of societal entrepreneurship
being a development force beyond the survival of a place grew stronger during the nineties,
supported in part by Putnam’s study of regional conditions in Italy, including the concept of
social capital.
During the seventies and eighties discussions around the survival of local communities, on
one hand, and of the social responsibilities of large corporations, on the other, were typically
carried out in different arenas. However, when they occasionally coincided they typically
linked together different strategies for locally anchored developments, thereby also intro-
ducing societal entrepreneurship as a phenomenon both for researchers and practitioners.
These early streams of societal entrepreneurship research were also published internation-
ally, although then referring to community entrepreneurship (not the more directly trans-
lated term societal entrepreneurship). Indicative of these early developments, the Swedish
1991 Encyclopedia when defning entrepreneurship also added a subdefnition of societal
entrepreneurship as linked to creating local economic demobilization.
Social aspects of societal entrepreneurship increasingly complemented local economic job-
creating aspects, as Sweden headed towards full EU membership in 1994. At that point in
time, Sweden was also introduced to social economy, an offcial term within EU since 1989,
but a tradition possibly related to old cooperative movements in the country. In 1998 the
Swedish government proposed its own defnition of social economy as consisting of organ-
ized activity, independent of the government-driven public sector, having societal objectives
as its prime mission.
Since the nineties Swedish research on civil society made contributions towards societal en-
trepreneurship. Voluntary organizations, social movements, political engagements and social
work were central aspects studied. Much of the research has been infuenced by a strong
Swedish tradition of popular movements (within politics (e.g. social democracy, etc.), sports,
churches, etc.) stemming from the 19th century and characterized by broad democratic
membership. In the 21st century foreign infuences on societal entrepreneurship increased
signifcantly.
Swedish Societal Entrepreneurship Today
The prestudy mentioned above performed, for instance, literature reviews and conducted
59 interviews and 9 workshops with Swedish researchers and practitioners interested in soci-
etal entrepreneurship. Through these extensive interactive processes a contemporary map
emerged in which several distinguishable concepts such as community entrepreneurship
and social economy (both discussed above) appeared in parallel with more recent infuences
using labels such as social entrepreneurship, civic entrepreneurship and corporate social
responsibility (notions of Anglo-American origin) as well as activist and public entrepreneur-
ship (notions with Swedish backgrounds). These contemporary Swedish societal entrepre-
neurship movements together with traditional economic entrepreneurship are all interrelat-
ed in Figure 1, indicating differences as regards purpose and type of actor, but all with some
type of societal focus.
Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames 13
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 14
CSR
Civic
Entrepreneurship
Social Economy
Activist Eship
Public Eship
Social
Entrepreneurship
Traditional
Entrepreneurship
Community
Entrepreneurship
Collective
Individual
Actor
Purpose
Social/Ecologic Economic
Figure 1. Societal entrepreneurship as a phenomenon with many faces.
Social entrepreneurship in Sweden can be seen as being of Anglo-American infuence,
focusing on individual social entrepreneurs that experiment with new venture forms – pack-
aging social good into private offerings. Actors attribute a combination of social/ecological
and economic motives to social entrepreneurship as well as a stronger focus on the driving
individuals behind a social venture.
Partly as a reaction against Anglo-American social entrepreneurship we see Swedish advo-
cates of public entrepreneurship emphasizing a Swedish and mainland-European tradition
of personal engagement in acts of solidarity without being transactional, as well as a balance
between the role of individuals and engaged communities behind an initiative. We further-
more see a model of activist entrepreneurship challenging norms and at the same time creat-
ing views related to issues at stake and organizational practices.
Civic entrepreneurship – an imported American concept stemming from the rejuvenation of
Silicon Valley, for instance – is close to an older Swedish community entrepreneurship in its
focus on collective economic development. However, it also differs with regard to how much
15 Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames
civic society is engaged. Community entrepreneurship is paradoxically more oriented
towards the civic sector, whereas civic entrepreneurship is more oriented towards the
business, public and academic elites engaging in collective problem-solving. In Sweden
the infuence from civic entrepreneurship is promoted through organizations like the
Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) and the Knowledge Foundation.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a concern for many established frms
around the world. It can be seen as a collective – and of course corporate – form of entrepre-
neurship engaging in social and ecological issues. As already discussed in the introduction,
traditional mainstream entrepreneurship is, by most governments, seen as at least indirectly
contributing to society. It nevertheless ends up at the opposite end of CSR, the latter being a
collective activity aiming at social and/or ecological value, whereas traditional entrepreneur-
ship is typically depicted as individualistic and focusing on economic returns.
A Force in Society
Societal entrepreneurship affects society in several ways: as a mobilizing force, as an innova-
tive force, as a value-creating force, etc. Although these forces are often within the frames of
society, they may also occasionally affect these frames, i.e. constitute forces of more radical
societal change.
Societal Entrepreneurship as a Mobilizing Force
As already discussed, Swedish societal entrepreneurship has been strongly related to local
mobilization, to employment, to the will and opportunity to remain in and reclaim a local
context, and to mobilize around new business opportunities. In social economy and in the
cooperative movement the mobilization is often beyond just the local context, and it has
embraced all types of groups having diffculties establishing themselves on a regular labour
market. Empowerment has become a key word in these movements and a variety of exam-
ples are growing around how people with any type of disability or with a criminal or drug
abuse background, etc., are integrated into ventures with social or other missions.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 16
In the Anglo-American literature focusing on social entrepreneurship the linkages to
employment and empowerment are rarely emphasized. Here a discussion around mobili-
zation and engagement, as well as attracting resources for societal good missions, is more
prevalent. In a Swedish context, however, references are often made to people engaging in
projects and ventures while at the same time having at least part-time employment in an
established structure. Building upon one’s professional role when more or less voluntarily
engaging in societal entrepreneurship is a form of collaboration that is almost unrecognized
in the social entrepreneurship literature with its focus on the individual, on business skills,
and the “public good”.
Societal Entrepreneurship as an Innovative Force
Societal entrepreneurship is also driven by the desire to introduce innovations into society.
This can most easily be seen within the academy. Many of the services and products we today
take for granted within healthcare, information and communication technologies stem from
research processes in which researchers have engaged in creating utility beyond what their
role of being a researcher demands.
However, increasingly, what we call innovation is not just new knowledge from natural sci-
ence, medicine or technology, transformed into products. Increasingly innovation is seen
as social change and social creativity. The interaction between social change and concrete
products and services is thus seen as increasingly essential, whether motives are more eco-
nomic or more social/ecological. Succeeding commercially on the Internet or within mobile
telephony services requires the ability to understand the social movements and practices of
young people. Societal entrepreneurship thus helps to broaden the perspective on innova-
tion beyond too narrow-minded technical solutions into considering more societal and social
factors.
Much societal entrepreneurship builds innovation in ways that are diffcult to anticipate in
traditional economic terms. Although most people sense the importance of championing
the notion that cultural, ecological, or technical functional values are necessary for a more
commercial entrepreneurship to occur, we lack systematic understanding to link the aspects
together.
17 Starting Points, Thought Styles and Text Frames
Societal Entrepreneurship as Value-Creation
Societal entrepreneurship can be seen as stimulating new ways to create and measure value.
Double and triple bottom lines – recognizing social and/or environmental outcomes – in ac-
counting are examples of this. More radical changes might, however, be diffcult to measure
in such terms. What might be affected in entrepreneurship aiming for radical change is our
perspectives on individuals and their driving forces, on society and/or on the environment –
globally as well as locally. Today, in 2009, a “development and progress discourse” focusing
on economic development is still prevalent in European and Swedish policies. Social and
ecological values are still treated more modestly. Societal entrepreneurship might aim at
creating value within such a discourse or at affecting the discourse as such. An important
question is how society can learn to appreciate the more radical inclusion of values into the
societal agenda.
The Structure of the Anthology
The anthology is composed of independent contributions embedded by the editors through
this introduction and through a fnal chapter. Work on the book started in January 2008.
The Swedish full-length book was published in February 2009 (free copy available on
www.kks.se). During the year of production we twice organized authors’ workshops. Beyond
that, the editors have commented on the contributions a couple of rounds. We have divided
the book into three parts, well aware of there being contributions spanning over and beyond
these parts:
1 Illustrations of and perspectives on societal entrepreneurship (fve contributions)
2 Societal entrepreneurship as creative irritation (three contributions)
3 Paths to insights around societal entrepreneurship (four contributions)
Part 1
Perspectives and
Illustrations of Societal
Entrepreneurship
As we have already seen in the introduction, societal
entrepreneurship presents itself in different ways. In this
frst part of the book we elaborate in fve chapters on
societal entrepreneurship with a focus on individuals, different
sorts of organizations, and even entrepreneurial interplay on a
national level. Each chapter deepens our understanding of different
initiatives and alternative perspectives. They do not express a uni-
form view of societal entrepreneurship but rather elaborate on the
diverse discussions that this exciting phenomenon touches upon.
The contributions integrate different theoretical approaches and
elaborate on their strengths and shortcomings. And they all relate
to societal entrepreneurship!
The contributions all touch upon engagement and more or less commercial/non-proft
entrepreneurial behavior. They all propose acting in different, sometimes new, ways. It is all
about innovative societal initiatives.
These texts have all emerged during the year we have worked together. All authors, we as
editors dare to say, have been driven by curiosity, been stimulated by the energy in the dif-
ferent cases, have wrestled with theoretical as well as empirical analyses. Contrasting views
among the researchers have directed the specifying and strengthening of arguments. As-
sumptions have had to be reconsidered, part of the invisible has had to be made visible and
the expected, as well as the unexpected, has been discussed.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 20
1
21
1:1
The Firm as Societal
Entrepreneur
Anna Blombäck, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University
Caroline Wigren, CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö University
Societal entrepreneurship is often described as the creation of a new organization focusing
on social issues, i.e. for the improvement of society. Corporate social responsibility (CSR),
on the other hand, refers to society-related activities carried out by existing proft-driven
organizations. The two concepts are related. By bringing them together new insights are
developed contributing to our understanding of both concepts.
Lately, social entrepreneurship has become a topic in vogue. It is included in higher educa-
tion curricula, it is developing as an academic feld and is emphasized by politicians and
governmental actors. Generally speaking, social ventures aim to improve society rather than
maximize proft. At the core we fnd the individual – identifying problematic situations in
society and creating organizations aimed at improving these situations and/or solving the
underlying problems.
1
1
See for example: Mair, J and Martí, I (2006), Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight, Journal of World Business, Vol 41, pp 36–44.
Martin, R L and Osberg, S (2007), Social entrepreneurship: the case for defnition, Stanford Social Innovation
Review (spring), pp 29–39.
Yujuico, E (2008), Connecting the dots in social entrepreneurship through the capabilities approach, Socio-Economic
Review, pp 1–21.
Corporate social responsibility embraces a wide variety of activities carried out by corpora-
tions, e.g. paying bills, following the law, taking responsibility for the environment, taking
responsibility for suppliers’ actions, sustainable development issues, developing the local
community, and more philanthropic activities such as charity. CSR is often associated with
activities carried out to improve a frm’s relationship to stakeholders and its legitimacy on
the market in order to also improve market value and increase profts in the long run.
In light of this, social entrepreneurship comes out as a phenomenon that represents genu-
ine goodness, while CSR is depicted as something that occurs in the search for corporate
profts rather than out of sincere concern for society. We argue that there are also CSR ac-
tivities which originate in the intention to solve societal problems and contribute to a better
society, for example activities that are distant from the core business, like a social-develop-
ment project in a country where the frm has no business. Our purpose is to illustrate that
the topics of social entrepreneurship and CSR are blurred and overlapping. We propose an
extension of both concepts, arguing that existing frms can also act as social entrepreneurs.
We illustrate this by introducing two empirical cases.
2
Two Empirical Examples
HelaPharma Sweden Ltd has 28 employees and a turnover of 9.7 million Euro. The CSR
project we want to introduce here as an example of the fne line between social entrepre-
neurship and CSR is called “Zimlat for life” and was initiated in 1997. Poverty, starvation,
malaria and HIV mark Zimlat, a village in Eastern Kenya. Of the 5 000 inhabitants, 60
per cent are children. The project Zimlat for life was introduced and is managed by the
HelaPharma company and aims to contribute to a platform which in the long run can sup-
port the village towards an independent social and fnancial development. The frst project
was to dig a freshwater well, the second to build a school house. Today the school project
has grown to include six buildings, accommodating approximately 800 pupils and employ-
ing 28 teachers. Zimlat for life also includes a food program for all pupils, a health clinic
and fnancial support to higher education graduates. HelaPharma continuously fnances
the project through a share of the company’s earnings. Nowadays Zimlat for life involves a
number of other frms and private persons as sponsors.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 22
2
The two cases are based on interviews.
23 Chapter 1:1 The Firm as Societal Entrepreneur
Our second example is “Star for Life”, a project initiated by Danir Ltd, which has 5 employ-
ees and a turnover of 450 000 Euro. Danir is a holding company privately owned by Dan
Olofsson, an IT entrepreneur. His philosophy of life comprises three phases: one where you
educate yourself, one where you either run a business or have an employment, and a third
where you engage in a life project. His life project is Star for Life, which he started together
with his wife Christina. Star for Life is a high-school program developed for and introduced
in Africa. Its objective is to contribute to teenagers’ chances of gaining a good education,
AIDS-free lives and beliefs in their future. Dan and Christina faced the escalating problem
when they had bought a game reserve in the epicenter of HIV and AIDS in South Africa.
Since several of their employees had the disease they had a will to contribute to the develop-
ment of certain parts of South Africa where AIDS is a major obstacle for the life opportu-
nities of young people. They founded the project through one of Dan’s private frms, the
small Danir company, which paid for the initial costs. Part of the cost has been fnanced by
the South African government. The program is currently operating in 62 schools, involv-
ing approximately 62 000 pupils in South Africa and Namibia. The project is now run by
the foundation started by Dan and Christina but fnanced through a number of frms and
private persons. Several of the frms involved were founded and/or are owned by Dan.
What We Can Learn from Our Examples
When defning CSR as activities that go beyond the core business we fnd, in line with the
examples presented above, that it is hard to draw a clear-cut line between the two concepts
of social entrepreneurship and CSR. They have, however, specifc distinguishing character-
istics. The essence of entrepreneurship is, for example, often described as creative destruc-
tion through new organizations, which is the focus of social entrepreneurship. In com-
parison, CSR builds on the assumption that a venture already exists and is proft-driven.
However, the concepts have a great deal in common, e.g. the projects in focus aim at the
improvement of society, proft is not the goal, creative organizing is needed no matter if the
project takes its starting point from an existing or new organization, and there is a genuine
will to contribute to something good.
Both examples above evolved within existing organizations. Later on, Star for Life became
an organization of its own, managed from a foundation. The activities are boundless since
it is neither possible to link them to the core businesses of HelaPharma or Danir, nor to
view them as separated from the business organizations. In essence, they fulfll the basic
assumptions behind both social entrepreneurship and CSR.
Several unclear boundaries can be identifed related to the two examples above. Why, for
example, did the owners of Hela Pharma and Danir decide to engage in Zimlat for life and
Star for Life? What are the driving forces, and do they get involved as members of society,
corporate founders, or social entrepreneurs? As individuals we adapt to multiple roles, de-
pending on the context we are part of – which roles are prominent when it comes to more
philanthropic CSR activities and which identity becomes prominent.
When employees have decided to engage in the projects, which has happened in both cases,
the frms have allowed for activities that go beyond the core business. According to Dan, Star
for Life creates an engagement among the employees, and the project becomes part of eve-
ryday life in the organization, which implies that it can be seen as a mirror of organizational
culture. The question about what impacts this type of projects has when it comes to employee
loyalty and engagement could preferably be further investigated in future research. In both
cases, the projects are now being used for marketing communication, within and beyond the
frm, even if that was not the reason for engaging from the very beginning. In consequence,
the projects can be seen as providing value both to society and the corporations involved, an
interpretation which further complicates the possibility to distinguish the ventures as acts of
either CSR or social entrepreneurship. We ask whether a special kind of values emerges from
this type of hybrid ventures, for example in relation to employees.
Conclusion
The two cases can be seen as chameleons, possible to describe as CSR activities as well as
social entrepreneurship activities, depending on which context we decide to depict them in.
Putting a label on the activities is, however, of less importance – the most important thing
is probably to emphasize the complexity of the two concepts and to make visible valuable
activities carried out by social entrepreneurs within existing or new organizations.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 24
25
1:2
Societal Entrepreneurs
in the Health Sector:
Frontier Crossing Combiners
Malin Tillmar, Linköping University
Here I take particular interest in exploring everyday social entrepreneurship occurring
across sectoral borders.
1
This will be explored through two individuals whose ambition is
to work to promote better health and well-being by complementing local authority care and
schoolbook medicine: Ulrika, yoga teacher and physiotherapist, and Åsa, midwife, water
aerobics instructor and masseuse. The cases are built on interviews.
The questions explored are: What goals and strategies guide their entrepreneurial activities?
What organisational solutions are used? How do the entrepreneurs manage to combine
“health-driven” and “proft-driven” enterprises?
1
For a discussion on everyday entrepreneurship I refer to: Steyaert, C and Katz, J (2004), Reclaiming the space
of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol 16, no 3, pp 179–196.
The Institute of Yoga
The Institute of Yoga is run by yoga instructor Ulrika, who is also a physiotherapist and
works as a lecturer at the Faculty of Health Sciences. After completing her training Ulrika
spent a few years in India and found Kundalini yoga. The driving force to start the yoga
institute came from the desire to share this with others: “To do this, I was forced to start my
own business”. However, she is convinced this will be possible within the county council in
the future, and says “I want to be part of it too. To build bridges. And to convey knowledge to
both worlds.”
The yoga classes are popular and Ulrika does not need to have two jobs. Thus, I ask her
about the reasons for the part-time enterprise. She explains, “I don’t want to get into a posi-
tion where I am dependent on getting customers. I want to be able to do this as a service, too.”
Relaxation music, yogi tea and yoga mats are sold at favourable prices at the yoga institute.
Recently Ulrika recorded a session on CD to make it easier for people to do yoga at home.
This was also done on the initiative and request of the participants and Ulrika sees it as a
service. On the back of the CD you can read: “The proft from the sales of this CD will go to
a children’s home in India.”
Even if Ulrika makes a clear distinction between her role as a university lecturer and her
role as a yoga instructor her double competence is useful. One example is that within the
framework of her employment at the medical school she has been in charge of a course in
Complementary Alternative Integrative Medicine. As a yoga instructor, participants often
ask her questions about general worries. Naturally, Ulrika often answers these using both
her competence as a physiotherapist and her knowledge of Ayurveda and yoga.
The Midwifery Clinic
Since Åsa started to work at the Women’s Clinic, she has kept noticing room for improve-
ment. The importance of exercise and movement during pregnancy was given too little
room as was the need to talk about the approaching birth. Water aerobics for pregnant
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 26
27 Chapter 1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners
women was diffcult to realize within the local authority framework. Thus, Åsa started a
business offering this to paying clients. Since then she has been employed by the Women’s
Clinic part time and run the company part time, and in both roles her point of departure is
her midwife profession.
The 30 minutes per visit to the midwife that the county council offers is not enough, Åsa
thinks. Åsa and her colleagues want to offer 40 minutes, of which about 15 should be used
for tactile massage. Åsa explains: ”In the stressed, high tempo society in which we are living
today, it is really important for women to have a chance to land, to be in their bodies and just be
pregnant.” They currently hope to do this through an agreement with the county council.
A risk facing Åsa is that of being classed as a competitor to the county council and thus
not being allowed to work both on the labour ward and in her clinic. This is important not
only from the perspective of competence development, but also for Åsa and the others as
individuals. “To be with a woman and a man when they have a baby is so fantastic […] You just
can’t stop.”
That Åsa’s entrepreneurship has enriched the Women’s Clinic and vice versa is clear. Åsa
recommends women to have large Pilates balls as support for moving their bodies during
the early stages of childbirth. As far back as 2003 I found out that Åsa had bought two such
balls and donated them to the labour ward. That the county council would pay for these
was something Åsa considered too unlikely to even bother asking. Her midwife colleagues
laughed and joked with Åsa about her ideas. When more and more women who had been to
the water aerobics used the balls and even bought their own and took them up to the labour
ward when it was time to give birth, more and more of Åsa’s colleagues caught on to the idea.
Goals, Strategies and Organizational
Solutions
Put simply, entrepreneurship is viewed here as seeing or creating the opportunity to realize
an idea, and then doing just that. The idea does not have to be a product which has never
before existed, but can build on new ways to combine existing goods or services in another
context. The entrepreneurs described here are frontier-crossing combiners in (at least) four
ways. The combinations link together their goals, strategies and organizational solutions.
The yoga instructor and the midwife combine:
1. “Improving the world” AND running an economically viable business
The business has not been an aim in itself but a means to reach the societal goal that can
be given the collective name of “constructive promotion of the health and well-being of
members of society.” Both the yoga teacher and the midwife have their commitment to
providing access for local and regional citizens
2
to the kinds of health promoting services
that are offered.
2. Their professions AND complementary medicine
The midwife is the person who most clearly takes her profession into the business. She
really practises her profession in her capacity as a midwife and incorporates methods such
as massage, meditation and motion into that role. In the role of yoga instructor, the physi-
otherapist derives great advantage from her professional competence, and in her teach-
ing role in the physiotherapy programme she benefts from her knowledge of yoga and
Ayurvedic medicine.
3. Bridge building AND challenging
To incorporate new, constructive models into the healthcare provided by the county council
are explicit goals for both of them. The strategies, as I see them, are to build bridges but
also to challenge a little by little. An example is the way in which the use of Pilates balls dur-
ing the labour phase was introduced into the university hospital.
4. Running a private business AND being publicly employed
Both entrepreneurs have organized their work through two different organizations. They
practise their professions by being employees of the state and the county council, while at
the same time offering health-promoting services through their business activities. The
midwife in this way keeps in touch with what is central to her work. To the yoga teacher not
giving up her job is a conscious strategy to enable her to maintain the social motive.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 28
2
For further discussion of the role of the community: Johannisson, B and Nilsson, A (1989), Community
entrepreneurs: Networking for local development, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 1, no 1, pp 3–19.
29 Chapter 1:2 Societal Entrepreneurs in the Health Sector: Frontier Crossing Combiners
Opportunity Exploitation or Self-Exploitation
In mainstream research the entrepreneur is seen as a person who discovers an opportunity
and (then) acts to exploit it – often in a market. In working life research, the term exploita-
tion can have negative connotations, for example, the exploitation of workers. As running
a business is labour-market behaviour, the term self-exploitation is also relevant for our
understanding of what self-employed means. In this fnal section, these terms are used in a
refection of the possibilities of combining “health-driven” and “proft-driven” enterprises.
In our cases there are obviously opportunities, but the descriptions show that there are also
traits of self-exploitation. A great deal of the midwife’s energy has been spent on discus-
sions with people from the authorities and with senior management. It is not impossible
that their relatively subordinate professions have played a role in this. There is a very large
grey area between what the entrepreneurs consider to be work and what they consider to be
meaningful spare time; something that is so often the case with entrepreneurs. Both Ulrika
and Åsa have found “their thing” and invested their time in what also gives them some-
thing in return – even if it has not always been in the form of money. It should, however,
be noted that both entrepreneurs are situated in professions and branches with a female
hallmark where, according to previous research, the potential to make a proft is often lower
than in businesses with a male hallmark. The future will show if this constructive societal
entrepreneurship will obtain enough resources to stay sustainable.
30
1:3
The University of
Technology in the Societal
Entrepreneurship Arena
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
In this chapter the potential contribution of the technical university to a contemporary
societal entrepreneurship is analyzed. Societal entrepreneurship is in this context defned as
innovative initiatives with societal utility, which individuals within the university carry out
beyond their ordinary roles as students, professors, researchers, etc. It can be about efforts in
developing countries, about inspiring teenagers about mathematics, about environmental in-
novations, etc. The technical university is not necessarily a self-evident contributor to societal
entrepreneurship where technical competence is not the starting point and where there are
no established markets and industrial actors. At the same time, societal entrepreneurship
may be the most tempting developmental opportunity for a progressive technical university
wanting to exercise leadership and contribute to sustainable development in tangible ways.
Here the focus is on fve concrete examples of societal entrepreneurship as well as on under-
lying supportive structures and how these structures are enabled or disabled by the historical
characteristics of technical universities. The method is partly self-biographical, where cases
of societal entrepreneurship and developments around Chalmers School of Entrepreneur-
ship as a supportive structure within Chalmers University of Technology, in Gothenburg
Sweden, are described and related to the traditions of technical universities of having been
the pillars of an industrial society as well as of an increasingly globalized market economy.
1
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
31 Chapter 1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena
Comparing Five Examples
The fve examples of societal entrepreneurship – Minesto, NetClean, Insert Africa, BITE
and Intize
2
– all have societal utilities as attributes linking to the technical university. When
comparing the examples, apart from two private ventures and three associations, one also
fnds differences in the way they emphasize societal utility. Minesto with its promising
and seemingly lucrative tidal water energy innovation has the least “need” to emphasize
societal utility. The company could in principle have marketed itself on strictly business
and fnancial terms, having customer utility in focus. Nevertheless, Minesto – like the other
examples – chooses to emphasize the societal good stemming from their innovation. This
attracts appreciation from wider circles as well as public R&D money and collaboration with
Chalmers and other universities.
The second private venture, NetClean, started in 2003, providing solutions for identify-
ing and blocking the illegal downloading, handling and circulation of child pornographic
materials. In comparing NetClean with Minesto, which started in 2006, it is clear that they
both have had communicated values as regards society, customers and the business itself
(i.e. being a viable investment opportunity). Nevertheless, initially many people at Chalmers
saw NetClean more as a charitable venture rather than as a venture that combines all three
utilities. Today NetClean’s combination of social and economic objectives is much more
appreciated. For Minesto and multiple other high-tech ventures stemming from Chalm-
ers School of Entrepreneurship and elsewhere this shift in perspective has implied new
opportunities in how one chooses to communicate value and scale up a venture. Without
having to abandon the focus on customer and company value, societal values are now often
clearly communicated and sometimes they even become the main message, as in all the fve
examples.
The BITE, Insert Africa and Initize associations all have similarities with the company
examples Minesto and NetClean. All systematically strive to build a brand, developing new
1
For more around Chalmers and entrepreneurial transformations of the Swedish university system see Jacob, M,
Lundqvist, M A and Hellsmark, H (2003), Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University System:
the case of Chalmers University of Technology, Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.
2
For further information about the examples please visit www.minesto.com, www.netclean.se, www.insertafrica.
org, www.intize.org. BITE – an association linked to Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship www.entrepreneur.
chalmers.se – has no website currently. BITE inspires teenagers about entrepreneurship, technology and science.
methods of work and offerings, as well as involving and interplaying with other stakehold-
ers. What constitutes a difference is the focus on organizational and customer value. The
groups that are targeted in the offerings of these three non-proft associations are not
paying customers. Instead, society and sponsoring companies give grants under CSR or
societal types of motives.
Enabling Societal Entrepreneurship While
Building upon Past Strengths
Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship can be seen as having enabled societal entrepreneur-
ship in many ways. The original idea behind the school was to utilize promising research
into ventures otherwise “stuck in the lab”. This is a societal mission beyond research for the
sake of research. The pedagogy at the school has been action-based in that a large part of
the drive and responsibility involved in a venture is taken over by the selected student team,
whose members thereby develop their own entrepreneurial identity while also produc-
ing utility. Underlying this pedagogy rests the insight that practical action and venturing
develop totally different competencies than what would be produced in traditional education
with a more static view of knowledge.
The continuous development of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship into other non-
technical subject areas has also contributed to students today feeling more comfortable
in analyzing and communicating societal challenges. Included in this expansion is also a
humanistic knowledge ideal, in which students, through development talks, coaching, etc.,
receive rich opportunities to refect upon their potential, their lives and life balance, and
upon their “missions”. Altogether, the environment nurtures individuals thinking beyond
a logic from an industrial and market-oriented history where the questions primarily asked
have been “what’s good for the company?” and “what’s good for the customer?”. Added
are now also the questions: “what’s good for me?” and “what’s good for society?”. In short,
this helps to shape an entrepreneurial identity more capable of Schumpeterian
3
“creative
destruction” than a more within-the-structure engineering and managerial identity traceable
back to Penrose through Drucker
4
.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 32
33 Chapter 1:3 The University of Technology in the Societal Entrepreneurship Arena
The technical university as an arena for societal entrepreneurship needs to be analyzed as
an opportunity in light of its historical path of serving industrialization for over a century
and then some decades of serving a more market-oriented globalized economy. Chalmers
School of Entrepreneurship has often made reference to early industrial entrepreneurs –
such as Gustav Dahlén (AGA) and Sven Winquist (SKF). At the same time the school has
since its inception championed team-based entrepreneurship, as well as actively trying to
counter-balance the gender bias that such reference to traditional male entrepreneurship
causes. In conclusion, the opportunity for a technical university to become an arena for
contemporary societal entrepreneurship seems to lie in the ability to reuse and reformulate
experiences gained when the university helped build the Swedish welfare state during the
days of industrialization, and at the same time build upon experience stemming from a
more market-oriented era in being closer to the user, customer or partner, wherever s/he is
in the globalized world.
Challenges and Opportunities for the
Technical University
There are several challenges and opportunities for societal entrepreneurship in a technical
university beyond the realm of an entrepreneurship school, like the following:
• A technical faculty needs to work trans-disciplinarily both in courses and projects to
analyze and capture societal needs and utilities.
• It also needs to avoid being too one-sidedly engaged in collaboration with established
frms.
• Project- and action-based learning needs to be applied more within basic but especially
within graduate education.
• It should build upon a well-established constructive and experimental type of engineer-
ing methodology while including more societal analysis and concern.
3
Schumpeter, J A (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4
Penrose, E (1959/1995), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, and
Drucker, P (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, London: Heinemann.
Altogether, the technical university partaking in an arena for societal entrepreneurship
may prove to be a critical opportunity to seize and potentially turn around a negative trend
of marginalization. The engineer can be a key person, too, not only in offering problem-
solving to industrial frms, but also in building together with other competences innovative
ventures with societal utility where established structures are lacking.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 34
35
1:4
Care in SMEs – The Hidden
Social Entrepreneurship
Elisabeth Sundin, Linköping University
In Scandinavian public and political debate the word entrepreneur is often used for some-
one establishing a frm and/or working as self-employed. As a representative of a domi-
nating standpoint follows Venkataraman’s defnition
1
, stating that “Entrepreneurship is
about the discovery and exploitation of proftable business opportunities for the creation of
personal wealth and, as a consequence, for the creation of social value”. Using the Venkata-
raman defnition as a background I will discuss conventional commercial entrepreneurship
versus social and societal entrepreneurship.
A fundamental question concerns the social dimension in social entrepreneurship. Some-
times, the social parts come as an unintended, but valuable, consequence. Since I fnd that
too wide I will add, as many others, a social intention to social entrepreneurship.
Societal entrepreneurship is a concept elaborated in Scandinavia stating collectivity and
permanence. It is often used in space and/or place contexts. The community is often used
as the adequate object of societal entrepreneurship.
1
Venkataraman, S (1997), The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research, in Katz, J, Brockhaus, E (eds),
Advances in entrepreneurship, frm emergence, and growth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
The main arguments in this chapter are:
• that there is social entrepreneurship in traditional commercial entrepreneurship
• that there is a distinction between social and societal entrepreneurship
Comparisons between social, societal and commercial entrepreneurship can proceed along
many lines. Here a few distinctions will be highlighted. One is that social entrepreneurs do
not want to “protect” their idea, but rather the other way around – to invite many to share.
Another is the context dependency. The “impact of the context on a social entrepreneur
differs from that of a commercial entrepreneur because of the way the interaction of a social
venture’s mission and performance measurement systems infuences entrepreneurial
behaviour”.
2
The social dimensions often give associations to care. For parts of the labour market the
“rationality of care” concept has been used to describe behaviour in working life that has
seemed to be irrational from a conventional economic perspective but rational when other
logics are used.
3
The care concept also seems appropriate for entrepreneurship, as will be
illustrated below.
Social Entrepreneurship and Societal
Entrepreneurship in Conventional
Enterprises
Conventional commercial enterprises which have started because the initiator cared – cared
for vulnerable individuals, cared for the locality, cared for work mates and cared for their
family – are presented in the cases. The cases were found in research projects with other
purposes than those of fnding care.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 36
2
Garud, R, Hardy, C, Maguire, S (2007), Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency, Organization Studies,
Vol 28, No 7, pp 957–969.
3
Waerness, K (1984), The Rationality of Care, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol 5, No 2, pp 185–211.
37 Chapter 1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship
Care for a Vulnerable Group
The Midwife had in her professional work been convinced of the need for sexual education
for young retarded men and women. The topic was taboo, although it was obvious that the
retarded were, and should have the right to be, sexually active – but not sexually used and
abused. Her frst thought was to convince her employer, the county council, to take the
responsibility. The tough economic times made them refrain. Therefore the Midwife started
a frm of her own and offered the services she found absolutely needed. Her market was
the young ones and the payers were parents, group homes, compounds etc. It was a social
entrepreneurship concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
The Librarian was employed by a municipality as manager for a small library in a village in
the periphery. After a reorganisation the municipality wanted the library to move to premis-
es far away from the local school and the local village centre. They also wanted her to reduce
the opening hours. The aim of the decisions was to reduce costs. The Librarian found the
requirements impossible! Her mission was to give reading experiences to all “her” inhabit-
ants. The changes would prevent her from doing that. To start a frm of her own and give a
bid was her only chance to fulfl her mission. She did that and was given the tender. It was a
social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Locality
Many frm owners feel deeply for the place where they live and work. Examples can be
found in many studies. Here I will give examples from the education sector. In Sweden it is
not unusual that municipalities use economic arguments to close small schools in remote
areas and make the children travel to bigger schools in the neighbourhood. To prevent that
parents start enterprises in the school sector with the only mission to operate the school
further. It is a social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Workmates
Employees starting frms of their own is a well-documented phenomenon all over the
world. The established enterprise I found was triggered by an employer deciding to fre all
cleaners and buy the cleaning-service on the market. To avoid unemployment for them-
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 38
selves and their workmates the cleaners decided to establish an enterprise together. It is a
social enterprise concealed behind a conventional enterprise.
Care for the Family
To have a frm for family reasons is not unusual either. In a study of all women working in
frms of their own twenty years ago “the possibility to combine work with family obliga-
tions” was the most often mentioned reason for establishing an enterprise.
4
New studies
indicate that this is still the case. Care for the family is a strong social argument concealed
behind a conventional enterprise.
To summarize: the examples given show care and social entrepreneurship in a number
of enterprises registered as conventional commercial enterprises. The “fgures and facts”
from Nutek – the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth on new starters in
Sweden indicate, at a closer look, strong elements of social entrepreneurship behind many
new starters. The dominating discussion on SMEs and entrepreneurship exemplifed by the
opening quote from Venkataraman can therefore be seen as far from reality.
Theoretical and Practical Conclusions
The enterprises presented as cases are all registered as conventional commercial organisa-
tions – but started for reasons of care and with social intentions. But they differ in some
ways. Here I will restrict myself to the societal dimension. The idea, the intention as well as
the resources required and the time perspective are of relevance from that perspective.
The Midwife is both a social and a societal entrepreneur, as she wants to change the lives of
individuals and change the perception of retarded human beings in the whole of society. The
other case enterprises may also be described and interpreted in collective terms – but they
are all narrower in space or time, so to say. It seems as if the differences between social and
societal entrepreneurship can be found on a sliding scale rather than in opposite positions.
4
Sundin, E and Holmquist, C (1989), Kvinnor som företagare. Osynlighet, Mångfald, anpassning, Malmö: Liber.
Other differences found are that the social dimensions for some of the case enterprises are
a necessity and strength and for others a weakness. Care has a positive image in society
– but maybe not so on the market. It may be necessary to hide the social motives from
the market behind cleaning, for example. For others, like the Midwife and the Librarian,
the social idea must be explicit and stable. Otherwise the entrepreneurs cannot keep their
legitimacy.
Finally, I want to include a reminder of the context dependency of social and societal entre-
preneurship. One important part of the context, found also in some of the cases presented,
is the construction of the welfare state. Even if what is care and what is social is eternal –
what is societal is not – it has welfare-regime characteristics. This has implications both for
theory and practice. The concepts elaborated in other contexts cannot be imported without
adequate “translations”.
39 Chapter 1:4 Care in SMEs – The Hidden Social Entrepreneurship
40
1:5
Societal Entrepreneurship
for the Wealth of Nations
– the Ireland Case
1985–1995
Per Frankelius, Örebro University
Jan Ogeborg, Actido
A number of approaches are available to political leaders in their attempt to develop domestic
welfare. One of these (based on what we call mindset A) concerns the development of wel-
fare systems within existing economic resources, involving policies of economic distribution
and tax-funded development of hospitals, etc.
This presupposes that there are suffcient resources to distribute, but that should not be
taken for granted. The following quotation by the popular Irish singer Bono is worth con-
sidering: “I do remember the unemployment in Ireland in the 1970s. Throwing away the
prosperity that we are enjoying is more dangerous than we think.”
1
The ability to develop
social welfare must be based upon economic fundaments. In contrast, mindset B is about
encouraging the development of the foundations that lead to the generation of new resources. A
common strategy for doing that is economic macro policy. Another way is innovation system
policy focusing on research valorisation. But there are other ways. One such way is addressed
in this study.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
1
BBC, News report from the World Economic Forum, 24 January, 2008, by Tim Weber.
41 Chapter 1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland Case 1985–1995
Our aim is to describe a special form of societal entrepreneurship at the national level. We
made an analysis based on the initiatives aimed at attracting new businesses to the Republic
of Ireland between 1985 and 1995. That was part of the rescue action to save a nation in crisis.
In 1988 The Economist published a special report on Ireland under the headline “The Poorest
of the Rich”, its front cover showing a destitute down-and-out. Nine years later, in 1997, a
new special report was published, now headlined “The Celtic Tiger: Europe’s shining light”.
The most important factor in this transformation was the Industrial Development Authority
(IDA), under the leadership of Padraic White. IDA launched a range of initiatives in order
to attract foreign companies to establish, and thus create job opportunities, in Ireland. The
result was impressive: More than 994 new company establishments took place in Ireland as
a result of IDA initiatives carried out between 1987 and 2007.
Key Factors for Success
Four key factors have been identifed as instrumental to the success. These are:
1. The conviction that development and change are necessary. The motivating factors
behind societal entrepreneurial initiatives differ from each other in several ways. In the case
of Ireland, society was on the edge of a total collapse. The frst key factor is that a transition
must take place, from the real necessity into an insight about this necessity (it must be per-
ceived), and furthermore, to an insight into any possible actions to fulfl the perceived necessity.
A thorough understanding of the time is required in order to gain an understanding of the
motivating factors behind the decisions and actions taken. The “spirit” as refected in any
particular period of time is usually referred to as the “Zeitgeist”; however, this does not tell
us anything about the level of current needs or necessities. Therefore, we take the liberty to
suggest the concept of “Bedarfgeist” to interpret the situation level of need, and the actual
emergency at any certain time and place.
2. Possibilifcation through boundary-crossing leadership. A great deal of societal entre-
preneurship is basically concerned with being able to convince other people that there are
problems in society which must be dealt with. In fact, understanding and awareness of the
problems is essential to fuel the motivation for change. However, understanding and aware-
ness is not always suffcient. People must also believe that there are, indeed, applicable solu-
tions, and that the proposed initiatives are meaningful. Therefore, societal entrepreneurship
also involves actively searching for possible solutions and viable possibilities. Furthermore,
a consensus is, in most cases, required concerning any viable possibilities: i.e. a collec-
tive vision – to which all actors are committed – is central to the kind of complex societal
entrepreneurship we are discussing here. Therefore we can establish a second success factor:
boundary-crossing leadership. This includes the ability to override traditional and established
areas of responsibility. However, the majority of the current management literature assumes
that leadership is about a formal manager of a certain organization (not a collective of or-
ganizations) attempting to get the support of his or her organization in order to reach some
specifc and defned goal.
3. The right tools. Advanced development processes require in-depth analyses of the
problems and possibilities involved. This requires the use of advanced and special tools
and techniques (or methods). As the processes we focus on involve complex and boundary-
crossing contexts, they require tools suitable for processing and handling the many dialogues
involved in order to correlate and coordinate this complicated work. One example of such
a tool is computer software for the management of contacts, activities and time (CRM sys-
tems). Other examples are the tools and methods used for specifc business intelligence and
environmental scanning analyses.
4. Action power. There is a long way between the will to act and the action, as shown by
Peter Drucker.
2
Therefore, an acceptable strategy is often required for the immediate imple-
mentation of the social changes wanted. An underlying theme in the case of Ireland is thus
about the power and competence of action. Neither practical knowledge nor scientifc theory is
suffcient in the most complicated cases, which also require the kind of knowledge described
by Aristotle as Phronesis.
3
This refers to knowledge in the form of an understanding of what
is needed to be done, or having an overall insight into what must be done in the actual present
situation.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 42
2
Drucker, P (1966), The Effective Executive, London: HarperCollins.
3
Aristotle (350 B.Ch), Nicomachean Ethics (Book VI). See translation by Rowe, C (2002) with philosophical
introduction and commentary by Broadie, S, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43 Chapter 1:5 Societal Entrepreneurship for the Wealth of Nations – the Ireland Case 1985–1995
Defnition of Societal Entrepreneurship
Besides the key factors of success, we have derived a defnition of entrepreneurship in the
name of society: Societal entrepreneurship is about initiating and realizing collective, entre-
preneurial and often (but not always) innovative processes aiming to strengthen a defnable
part of society in such a way that the large majority of its citizens may freely (or at a marginal
cost) enjoy the results of the processes – with the assumption that such processes are not
concerned with traditional social policies or any existing public administration.
The word ”realization” is important, alluding to the marketing operations carried out by
the IDA to attract new investment and companies to Ireland, in contrast to, for example,
decision-making at a high political (and abstract) level. Central to our defnition is that the
motive behind the action is the development of society (rather than individual companies),
and that the result of the action must beneft the large majority in society. By collective we
mean “crossing the boundaries between different juridical instances”.
Two Different Public Leader Spirits
Actions from the public leaders of a society may be either of an entrepreneurial or of a non-
entrepreneurial kind. In the case of Ireland, the distinguishing and pervasive theme was the
entrepreneurial attitude of the public actors, who are characterised by their ability to identify
and relate to the overall problem, distinguishing between causes and symptoms.
Entrepreneurial leaders in society usually have great visions, know how to manage and
implement boundary-crossing leadership, and are driven by the desire and possibility of the
power of concrete action. They probably have a strong dedication to creating a better world
for the citizens within their society. One kind of societal entrepreneurship, illustrated by the
Ireland case, is the creation of growth and prosperity for the people in a country by means
of brilliant business intelligence, sharp strategy and proactive marketing related to inward
investments. The entrepreneurial spirit found in the Irish case can also be applied to many
other areas than inward investment.
Part 2
Societal Entrepreneurship
as Creative Irritation
In Sweden, where centuries of peace and decades of social
engineering have built an advanced welfare state, the
challenge for initiatives associated with societal entrepre-
neurship is not just to further elaborate on a caring institutional
texture. Its values and practices, although appropriate in an indus-
trial era where stability ruled, not change, have rather to be chal-
lenged in order to be able to deal with an already present infor-
mation age and knowledge economy. In order to manage a future
Swedish society, as well as that of many other countries, help is
needed in order to break out of the mental iron cage that traditions
have forged. Then a different kind of societal entrepreneurship is
called for, whose main concern is not about enforcing existing in-
stitutions but about challenging them. Not only are present institu-
tions less capable of dealing with a future society, they may also
disempower minorities while supporting the majority.
The kind of societal entrepreneurship that keeps society on its toes by questioning what it
takes for granted has to mobilize entrepreneurial energy among those who voluntarily mar-
ginalize themselves. That is individuals and groups who are not afraid of standing out using
that self-confdence for defending values that contrast against the dominating ones. We will
fnd them among performing artists and “extreme” entrepreneurs who make society itself
a target when trying to instigate change. Another even larger group that wants to make a
difference are young people trying to enact a future world for themselves and others that is
more concerned about human values than the present global society ruled by the market.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 46
2
47
2:1
The Societal Entrepreneur
as Provocateur
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Caroline Wigren, CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö University
Usually the societal entrepreneur is juxtaposed with the traditional entrepreneur, the latter
then being ascribed the identity of a rude guy who forcefully superimposes his ideas and
practices on the market. However, when the focus of the entrepreneurs is not on the market
but on the social norms and values which embed economic activity, their task to challenge
what is taken for granted, their provoking identity, becomes as much social as economic.
Thus, the societal entrepreneur as provocateur makes every established institution a target
for her actions. The only principle that guides the provoking societal entrepreneur is that she
questions whatever principle society nurtures, whatever is taken for granted. In contrast to
entrepreneurs in the market, who appreciate institutions since they provide basic “rules of
the game” to an unknowable environment, provocative societal entrepreneurs are “extreme”,
questioning even formal institutions.
1
Their motivation is a generic obstinacy and they want
to be recognized for making citizens aware that institutions do not just provide comfort but
also seduce citizens to becoming passive, in other words, they produce indifference.
1
“Extreme” entrepreneurs are thus different to “institutional entrepreneurs” who build or renew institutions, cf.
Garud, R, Hardy, C and Maguire, S (2007), Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to
the Special Issue, Organization Studies 28 (7):957–969.
In an ongoing research project eight Swedish extreme entrepreneurs are studied.
2
Three
of them will be presented and refected upon here. Ulla Murman is a pioneer in Sweden’s
manpowering industry. Bored as an employed secretary and inspired by her sister living in
the USA, she launched her business in Stockholm as early as the l950s. She was guided by
a strong work ethics founded in her youth and driven by a passion for social justice, to give
women an entry into the Swedish pension system that was based on salaried income. Ulla
Murman’s radical initiative created convulsions in the extremely well-regulated Swedish la-
bour market and she was accused of exploiting others out of greed. She herself presents her
venture as an illegal activity that went on for 37 years. Twice she was brought to the Supreme
Court, “charming events” as she herself puts it. With the media as an ally she managed to
defend her mission and pursue her entrepreneurial activities until she handed over the busi-
ness to her son.
As the founder of High Chaparral, a Wild Western amusement park, Bengt Erlandsson in
rural Gnosjö in southern Sweden is a pioneer in the experience industry. The region where
High Chaparral is located is well known as a small business region where strong social
ties and the associated entrepreneurial spirit have created economic sustainability that has
lasted for centuries. “Big Bengt”, a nickname produced by a journalist, which has given him
a national identity, started his business career in manufacturing. Soon enough he became
a dealer in used machinery, supplying several generations of new local entrepreneurs. His
versatile business practices bricolage where making do is a generic principle. Such a practice
easily challenges written laws as well as existing norms and values, in the local community
as well as in Swedish culture in general. Accordingly, Big Bengt has spent some time in jail
and in the region his business practices are used as examples of what one should not do.
Being himself an outsider, Big Bengt invites marginalized people both as employees and as
visitors.
Lars Vilks started his professional career, including a doctorate, as a conventional artist that
attracted a large audience. A life crisis, a metamorphosis, however, made him turn into
conceptual artistry, made to challenge and provoke. His most visible contribution is a set of
sculptures in driftwood and concrete on the waterside on Sweden’s west coast. They were
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 48
2
See Johannisson, B and Wigren, C (2006), Extreme Entrepreneurs – Challenging the Institutional Framework, in
Christensen, P R and Poulfeldt, F (eds) Managing Complexity and Change in SMEs: Frontiers in European
Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,, and Johannisson, B and Wigren, C (2006), The Dynamics of Community
Identity Making – The Spirit of Gnosjö Revisited, in Steyaert, C and Hjorth, D (eds), Entrepreneurship as Societal
Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
49 Chapter 2:1 The Societal Entrepreneur as Provocateur
constructed without a building permit on other people’s premises, too close to the water-
front according to state regulation and also on ground that is part of a natural reserve. He
has been fned for his law-breaking only to establish a company selling shares to the general
public and using the money to pay the fnes. Lars Vilks deliberately enacts different dramas,
making the boundaries between these and realities be perceived as fuzzy, and he generally
approaches life as a soap opera. Dissolving the boundaries between different understandings
of reality, he has founded the nation of Landonia, only existing in the virtual world. A recent
contribution to his many installations is his proposal to put Muhammed’s head on one of
the dogs decorating roundabouts in Sweden.
Characterizing Societal Entrepreneurs
as Provocateurs
The three extreme entrepreneurs share some features which contribute to the crafting of a
provoking societal entrepreneurial identity. First, extreme entrepreneurs are insiders as well
as outsiders in society. On one hand, they are well informed about and persistently refect on
ongoing processes in society, e.g. relating very concretely to the national context and its many
institutions. On the other hand, they appear as marginal in the same society that they are so
devoted to. This marginalization puts the strong public searchlight on them, enforcing their
unique identity, while other citizens can organize their own front stage appearance by stating
that they are certainly different from these extreme societal entrepreneurs. This relentless
search for making, even epitomizing, a difference implies that the societal entrepreneur is
constantly on the move.
Second, extreme entrepreneurs operate on the national and not on the international arena
and are in addition particularly attached to their own local community. Although ready to
cross any boundary in mental space they stick to their physical origin. That is, they do not
separate their provocative from their local identity. Ulla Murman was dedicated to making
it possible for other women to make a living in their home district. Big Bengt never left the
farm but rather made it a basis for radically new ventures, and Lars Vilks created his sensa-
tional constructs very close to his place of living. However virtual his Landonia may appear,
it still represented a nation, or a territory. All the extreme entrepreneurs balance their local
identity with a fascination for a contrasting culture, that of the USA, possibly because there
their initiatives would be considered less spectacular.
Third, in their provoking mission in present time, societal entrepreneurs span the past and
an emergent future. Ulla Murman contributed to the liberation of women which in Sweden,
as in many other countries, only started in the early twentieth century. Big Bengt foreboded
the experience industry when recalling the challenges that emigrating Swedes met when
contributing to the making of the present USA. In their ambition to actively contribute to
the enactment of the future societal entrepreneurs do not hide their light under a bushel
but promote their cause not the least by collaborating with the mass media, using them as a
megaphone for their controversial initiatives.
The Societal Entrepreneur as Jester
What then makes authorities and further members of the controlling establishment accept
the provoking societal entrepreneurs? They certainly are not constantly complaining dog-
matists or terrorists hating the existing order. They rather appear as jesters within the frm
foundations of society. In the same way as the court jester in medieval times could commu-
nicate revealing truths by dressing them in an ironic and witty language combined with a
creative performance, the provocative societal entrepreneurs offer amusing manoeuvres and
pleasurable experiences to make their case and enact their visions even when they challenge
basic societal institutions. In this ambition they ally themselves with the media as the fourth
estate. On the one hand, this means that they use one power centre in society to control other
ones, on the other, that they become exposed as proxies for all of us who want to question
Swedish Big Brotherism but who do not have the guts.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 50
51
2:2
Societal Entrepreneurship
for Global Justice
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Earlier we have seen societal entrepreneurship expressed through different sectors in society.
In this chapter, furthermore, societal entrepreneurship is related to activism in a civil society
tradition of engagement and action for “a better world”. Discussions are primarily based on a
study of entrepreneurship for social change that was conducted in years 2000–2006.
1
In the
study the creation of the new organization Attac Sweden
2
was in focus, conceptualized as an
entrepreneurial process. Here it is frst and foremost discussed from a societal entrepreneur-
ship point of view, elaborating on engagement, organizing innovative action and fnally a few
words on societal good – all cornerstones for societal entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship for Global Change – the
Case of Attac Sweden
The frst Attac organization was launched in France. In December 1997, Ignacio Ramonet,
chief editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, wrote in an editorial: “Why not set up a new world-
1
The study is further presented in the dissertation Gawell, M (2006), Activist Entrepreneurship. Attac’ing Norms
and Articulating Disclosive Stories, Stockholm University (www.su.se).
2
Attac Sweden: www.attac.se. Attac’s international website: www.attac.org.
wide non-governmental organization, Action for a Tobin Tax to Assist the Citizen (ATTAC)?
With the trade unions and the many social, cultural and ecological organizations, it could ex-
ert formidable pressure on governments to introduce this tax at last, in the name of universal
solidarity”. The response was large, and in June 1998 the Attac association was founded in
France by citizens, associations, trade unions and newspapers. During the frst two years the
association had 25 000 paying members. The idea of Attac spread to several other countries.
But it was not set up as a copy of the French organization. In each country a slightly different
organization was created, yet with the same overarching goals.
Attac Sweden was instigated in January 2001. Before that a number of people had taken
a number of different initiatives like starting discussions, meetings and mail lists, partly
grounded in different experiences in Sweden as well as internationally, and partly out of
different interests. A core group emerged. Some of the participants knew each other from
before, while others came from different networks. At a time people met in a kitchen in the
district of Kungsholmen in Stockholm. Through mail lists, interviews and articles, post-
ers, leafets, debates etc., they reached out to a wider public. The idea was open networking,
direct infuence and democracy, and action. And the interest was great! People got in touch.
They turned up at meetings. First 8, then 16, 32, 64, 128... and at the constituting meetings
in Stockholm and Gothenburg there were hundreds. Media was also very interested in Attac
before and after its launching. This was a great help but also a problem – especially right
after the protests at the EU top meeting in Gothenburg in June 2001.
Many of those engaged were young, between 15 and 25. But there were also older people with
years of experience from engagement in solidarity work, other associations and/or political
work. During the frst year Attac Sweden received over 5 000 members. Since then the mem-
bership number has shifted between 1 500 and 3 000. They share an interest in working
for a world with global justice and democracy. They also share an interest in organizing in a
partly alternative way compared to practices in many established organizations.
Engagement and Different Initiatives
We can identify people’s initiatives when they talk and act in other ways. But it is not obvious
where it all starts. In the case of Attac Sweden some traced part of their own engagement back
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 52
53 Chapter 2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice
to childhood but even more often to specifc experiences making them aware of what they
saw as unjust conditions. The experiences referred to varied and at the same time there were
many similarities. It was obvious that there was also an overarching framing “force” that
people, in spite of all differences, related to. They were infuenced by, and part of, the global
justice movement that engaged in protests in Seattle in 1999, Prague in 2000 and then
Gothenburg in 2001.
3
Furthermore, many of them shared stories about organizing a civil
society organization grounded in a Swedish tradition of popular mass movements.
The social movement contributed to an overarching understanding of what was important,
good/bad and right/wrong. This is a basic condition for organizing and therefore for creating
an organization. But without action and concrete initiatives there is no entrepreneurship. To
articulate the idea, to call for meetings, to set up a mail list and a web site, to write statutes, to
organize and chair constituting meetings, to carry the organization’s cell phone (the organi-
zation had no offce for many years) and last, but not least, to do research on issues at stake,
to conclude, articulate arguments, discuss and engage in debate. To start with, all arguments
were not totally thought through. But as time went by the stories became more and more
coherent.
All interviewed have referred to creativity, intensity and energy during the entrepreneurial
phase. As one young woman said: It was hysterical! I probably worked 30 hours a week voluntari-
ly with Attac beside my full time job with similar issues. My whole life was about globalization. The
feeling of meeting others with similar ideas about the world, a similar drive to do something
about it as well as having similar ideas about how to do it, combined with the sense of acting
according to one’s beliefs towards a better world, has been expressed as meaningful and
important.
Organizing Innovative Action
The degree of innovation varies between different entrepreneurial initiatives. In the Activist
Entrepreneurship study two types of innovation appear. One is related to issues at stake, and
3
See further discussions on social movements in general and specifcally the global justice movements in:
Melucci, A (1989), Nomads of the Present, Philadelphia: Temple University Press; Della Porta, D (2007),
The Global Justice Movement, Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
the other to organizational practices. These innovations are not to be understood as new prod-
ucts or services. Neither are they easily translated into economic values (see further discus-
sions below). But both cases challenge assumptions, approaches and practices. Some people
have been provoked. Others embrace the new ideas and try to apply them in everyday life.
People could have engaged in established organizations instead of engaging in creating a
new one. Time and energy would have been saved. But one of the reasons for creating a new
organization may be the gap between experiences or images of established organizations
and the expectations of how an organization should work. It can also be a question of what
one wants to do or what kind of activities one wants to engage in. Several people within Attac
promoted activism, a concept that provoked many established organizations and/or persons,
even though many carried their own traditions of demonstrations and/or advocacy work.
People within Attac supported many established organizations’ statements on solidarity
and visions for global justice, but they were many times critical of what they expressed as
compromising issues at stake and instead favored established norms and structures. They
criticized hierarchical organizational structures and expressed experiences of not being able
to infuence these organizations. The sensed difference between how it was and how it could
be can be seen as anomalies related both to issues at stake and to organizational practices and
important reasons for engaging in the creation of a new organization. People expressed a
perception of necessity to do something as well as opportunities to get something done.
A Few Words about the Societal Good
Societal entrepreneurship refers to initiatives that in different ways relate to societal, or
common, aims or goals. In this chapter the focus is on changing society both through creat-
ing a new venture and through contributing to creating a (slightly) different society. This is
not easy to value or measure in traditional economic ways, nor through socio-economical
reports or social auditing, even though these methods have developed in rather sophisticat-
ed ways. The case of Attac also addresses values and visions about what kind of society we
want, rather than how values within established norms are created and evaluated.
The case of Attac uncovers normative discussions that are so often silent, or even silenced,
in public debate and research about entrepreneurship. Development and value creation
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 54
55 Chapter 2:2 Societal Entrepreneurship for Global Justice
have positive connotations. Who wants to be a reactionary drag? But what kind of entre-
preneurial initiatives have contributed to creating a development that many of us see as
positive today, engaging in issues such as children’s right to be respected, women’s right to
ownership, to vote or not to be beaten by their husbands? It is a challenge for the emerging
feld of societal entrepreneurship to problematize and to develop both theory and practice
to be able to cope with societal entrepreneurial initiatives, both those acting according to
established norms and those provoking these norms.
56
2:3
The Thought-Provoking
Art of Being a Social
Entrepreneur
Lasse Ekstrand, University of Gävle
Monika Wallmon, Uppsala University
In Swedish industrialisation and social development, bruk or manufacturing estates have
played a central role in their generally rural setting. We would even go so far as to claim that
as physical and social constructs they are unique to Sweden. The nearest possible equivalent
would be the industrial towns or working class communities common in Britain, and espe-
cially in the country’s once-booming mining areas. Popular flms such as Brassed Off (1996),
directed by Mark Herman, reproduce this coal-grimed world in its proletarian hey-day.
The role of the manufacturing estates has been an ambiguous one. They were crucial for
industrial growth and production – thus far a positive contribution. Yet, at the same time life
on the estates had its downside in the works mentality it engendered – a term subsequently
generalised and applied metaphorically to a particular kind of defensive, “careful” mentality.
Terms such as works mentality and learned helplessness
1
are frmly entrenched in many peo-
ple’s ideas of what characterises manufacturing estate communities and their inhabitants.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
1
Seligman, Martin and Maier, S (1967), Failure to escape traumatic shock, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74,
1–9; Overmier, B and Seligman, M (1967), Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance
responding, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 28–33.
57
Many who visualize a manufacturing estate immediately see something enclosed. Works
mentality and learned helplessness might be the interpretative keys to understanding how
the inhabitants thought and felt, to explaining why things did not happen when we think
they ought to or must have. They might be able to explain why phenomena such as entrepre-
neurship and enterprise are not widespread. What line to take on this lingering mentality,
problematic as it is? The patterns of thought it reproduces act as a brake on more forceful
courses of action.
It is in order to break with the above thinking, blocking action and counteracting a more
creative attitude, that we have turned to the German artist and project maker Joseph Beuys,
drawing inspiration from his defnition of art as it was expressed in thought-provoking ac-
tions.
2
Our thesis is that the provocations of radical artists are needed to shake deeply rooted
thought patterns; intellectual argument, however powerful, well founded or rhetorically
convincing it may be, is not suffcient. To this end there are a variety of possible thought-
provoking and inventive actions, of which we will provide some examples.
Joseph Beuys: ”Jeder Mensch ein Künstler”
The German artist and social visionary Joseph Beuys (1921–1986), who grew up in the Third
Reich with its far-reaching totalitarianism and absolute claim to “own” the individual, stub-
bornly, not to say polemically, defended his motto “Jeder Mensch ein Künstler” – Every Human
Being an Artist. This did not mean an artist in the conventional sense of one who paints pic-
tures or carves sculptures. Every human being, according to Beuys, is intrinsically creative and
possesses creative potential. Beuys saw the entrepreneurial in the human. Yet, many deny their
own creative ability and have no belief in themselves. We risk being our own worst enemy.
Circumstance encourages this self-denial, reinforcing the impression that we are not free to
act. Industrial society and the factory ethos – wage slavery – with its emphasis on obedi-
ence and dependency is a clear example of one such circumstance. Once subordinate to
the factory system and waged work, you are “let off” being an active subject. In this sense
Chapter 2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur
2
Cf. Ekstrand, L (1998), Varje människa en konstnär – Livskonstnären och samhällsvisionären Joseph Beuys, [Every
Human Being an Artist – The Artist of Life and the Society Visionary Joseph Beuys], Bokförlaget Korpen, Gothenburg.
the phenomenon of learned helplessness introduced above is a social construct, the result of
waged work and industrial society’s socialisation process with all its strongly hierarchical
practices. In the course of adaptation to waged work and industrial society, power relation-
ships are established where some people are accorded a subordinate position in which they
are expected to be “helpless”. This is not the result of an individual choice; it is something
allocated to them, a social role they are expected to play, with the threat of sanctions if they
dare to exceed it. Therefore, in our view learned helplessness is a condition that is more
sociological than psychological.
Beuys spoke of social art, meaning something that happens outside established institutions;
something that opposes those institutions, openly or obliquely; something that challenges
and goads them. “My objects are to be seen as stimulants for the transformation of the idea
of sculpture […] or of art in general. They should provoke thoughts about what sculpture
can be and how the concept of sculpting can be extended to the invisible materials used by
everyone. THINKING FORMS – how we mold our thoughts, or SPOKEN FORMS – how
we shape our thoughts into words, or SOCIAL SCULPTURE – how we mold and shape the
world in which we live: SCULPTURE AS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS; ‘EVERY HU-
MAN BEING AN ARTIST’.”
3
The Art of Provocation Meets
Thought-Provoking Art
Historically, the role of the artist has varied. At one time art was unsigned and used for
offcial embellishment, as we can see in churches, for example. Gradually a market for art
emerged, initially for commissioned portraits, and the artists began to appear by name.
Then there were artists who were directly fnanced by patrons of the arts, as in the case
of the best-known member of the Skagen school, Søren Krøyer. And fnally we have the
postmodern artist in the image of Andy Warhol: talented brand manager, assiduous sensa-
tionalist, attention-seeker; the artist as “celebrity” in the public limelight, all too aware of the
requirements of the experience economy.
4
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 58
3
Beuys, J (1979), Introduction, as quoted in Energy Plan for the Western Man – Joseph Beuys in America, compiled
by Carin Kuoni, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1993, p. 19.
59 Chapter 2:3 The Thought-Provoking Art of Being a Social Entrepreneur
Beuys, for his part, wanted to transcend all of these roles, and instead launched and defend-
ed the idea of the social artist. Here is an artistic role particularly well suited to the social
circumstances of our day. Here is an artist who is outgoing and socially aware; who wants to
intervene in social developments, to exert infuence, to hasten the pace.
He did not hesitate to suggest: “Only on condition of a radical widening of defnition will
it be possible for art and activities related to art to provide evidence that art is now the only
evolutionary-revolutionary power. Only art is capable of dismantling the repressive effects
of a senile social system to build a SOCIAL ORGANISM AS A WORK OF ART. This most
modern art discipline – Social Sculpture/ Social Architecture – will only reach fruition
when every living person becomes a creator, a sculptor, or architect of the social organism.”
5
Academics and social artists could stage actions jointly outside social insurance offces and
job centres, on the streets, in shopping centres, in cafés. Why not perform the symbolic bur-
ial of industrial society – complete with priest, coffn, funeral music and all – to draw a frm
line under that particular past? Why not call on choreographers to mount a street perform-
ance of Paul Lafargue’s classic wage-slave pamphlet, The Right To Be Lazy?
6
Or why not be
inspired by Christo and Jeanne-Claude and wrap the remaining factories in pretty paper to
sell or give away as presents to the deserving? It comes down to using different means to
address, inspire, invite, provoke and tempt. Only our imaginations set the boundaries of
what is possible.
Every human being is after all an artist. Each and every one of us is responsible for forming
our own insights. While there is every reason to say the situation is hard to judge, we cannot
afford not to join in, to refuse to exert our infuence, throw out ideas, show enthusiasm, stir
things up. The world needs social artists, enthusiasts with an eye to the next project. Post-
industrial society demands an end to adaptation and subordination, replacing them with the
continued search for new, liberating social forms – social entrepreneurship.
7
Beuys’ social
artist is our social entrepreneur.
4
Pine II, Joseph, B and Gilmore, J (1999), The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage,
Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School.
5
Beuys, J (1973), I am Searching for Field Character, as quoted in Energy Plan for the Western Man – Joseph
Beuys in America – compiled by Kuoni, Carin, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1993, p. 21.
6
Lafargue, P (1883), The Right To Be Lazy and Other Studies, Saint Pélagie Prison, transl. Kerr, C and Co.,
Cooperative, Online Version Lafargue Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2009.
7
Ekstrand, L and Wallmon, M (2008), Basic Income beyond Wage Slavery – In Search of Transcending Political
Aesthetics, in Grindon, G (ed.) Aesthetics and Radical Politics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Part 3
Paths to Insights about
Societal Entrepreneurship
In this third part we focus on methods and processes that
give us new knowledge about societal entrepreneurship.
The methods we apply when we are societally entrepre-
neurial have a large impact on the results, on the ability to scale
up initiatives, and not the least on the engagement and empower-
ment of partaking individuals. Societies consist of their citizens,
so entrepreneurship with society in focus, more than perhaps any
other entrepreneurship, needs to be aware of how it includes and
involves human energy and experience.
The editors and several of the contributing authors are convinced that societal entrepreneur-
ship is especially suited for interactive research approaches implying that the researcher
partakes from the inside rather than observes from the outside. Such methods also allow
researchers to partake in building solutions for the future rather than reporting histori-
cal events. Interactive methods can also amplify promising initiatives by giving legitimacy
and recognition as well as affecting the learning processes as such, thereby emancipat-
ing creativity, ensuring that different perspectives – e.g. gender perspectives – are offered
participants, etc. However, methods do not need to be interactive or empirical; they can also
be theoretical, such as when proposing a more institutional perspective on societal entrepre-
neurship than is normally the case.
The frst two chapters deal with researchers engaging in local economic development, and
public-private partnerships, respectively, while the third chapter explores the importance of
social capital, especially that between societal sectors, for societal entrepreneurs. The fnal
chapter elaborates on interactive methodology as applied to the care of elderly.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 62
3
63
3:1
Societal Entrepreneurs
for Local and Regional
Development
Carina Asplund, Mid University and Trångsviksbolaget
Here I will describe and discuss how societal entrepreneurs can contribute to local and
regional development. The text begins with an introduction of Trångsviken as an empirical
context for community development. Then there is a section that theorizes on societal entre-
preneurship but also illustrates the concept by linking it to the Trångsviken case. After a brief
presentation of how the team of societal entrepreneurs planned and carried out their work
follows how this spontaneous organizing has evolved into a new company whose purpose is
to act as an incorporated societal entrepreneur. Finally, I discuss what further development
of concepts of societal entrepreneurship and social entrepreneur the fndings in Trångsviken
may generate.
Trångsviken – a Challenging Case
Trångsviken is a small community in the interior parts of northern Sweden. It is a commu-
nity with about 400 residents and 80 businesses. The geographical location is relatively fa-
vourable, close to both the mountains and the regional centre, to European route 14 and only
half hour by car from the airport. The community is a unique place with respect to its entre-
preneurial culture and positive business climate. About twenty new businesses have started
in the last 10-year period. During the same time the number of households has increased by
20 percent. The people in the village have since the early 1980s worked hard to preserve the
important functions of society such as a post offce, a library, a school and a bank. To give an
idea of how societal entrepreneurship and societal entrepreneurs function in practice the re-
searcher has to be able to do close-up studies and get backroom information. Here I believe
interactive action research to be appropriate. Interactive research is concerned with develop-
ment where the researcher works closely with the practitioners but still maintains a critical
perspective with the ambition to contribute to long-term theory development.
1
Conceptualizing Societal Entrepreneurship –
Lessons from Trångsviken
This section provides a description of how the concept of societal entrepreneurship can be
elaborated by the Trångsviken example. I relate different theories that have been developed
concerning the concept by a report on how the societal entrepreneurs in Trångsviken have
organized their work and how it has developed.
The people involved make a difference to societal entrepreneurship.
2
They are responsive,
have strong bonds to the community, are able to build networks and to interact with other so-
cietal actors. Through a dialogue with the people concerned local needs were identifed and
work started from a local perspective (bottom-up). As Westin writes, societal entrepreneurs
often work on a local basis.
3
In Trångsviken the societal entrepreneurs built a new commu-
nity centre which became a platform for the involvement of rural people and a supportive
structure for the subsequent initiatives for business development. The premises meant that
the non-proft association could support new ventures for rural and business development.
Trångsviken’s societal entrepreneurs, as Johannisson describes it, also have a strong
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 64
1
Svensson, L, Brulin, G, Ellström, P-E and Widegren, Ö (2002), Interaktiv forskning – för utveckling av teori
och praktik, Arbetsliv i omvandling 2002:7, Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.
2
SOU 2006:101, Landsbygdsutredningen.
3
Westin, S (1987), Samhällsentreprenörer i lokal näringslivsutveckling, Umeå Universitet.
65 Chapter 3:1 Societal Entrepreneurs for Local and Regional Development
commitment to place and an elaborate personal network. Using these assets they have
managed to stimulate the creation of new businesses and an attractive community. They
have seen a challenge to reverse the negative development spiral that so many other places
in the Swedish countryside and perhaps the interior of northern Sweden in particular have
experienced.
4
With Trångsviken as a starting point they have also acted for the development
of other parts of the county of Jämtland. Realizing that basic social services are important,
also for businesses, has meant that initiatives such as saving the food store, keeping the
school and making the bank branch offce stay have been pressing issues to engage in. The
companies and the community have evolved side by side. The Trångsviksbolaget company
was inaugurated on March 19, 2000, as “a country club for the soul but with a good fnancial
strength.” 65 individuals, 24 companies and 2 compounds together invested around 3.6
million SEK. The conversion of the non-proft business association into a limited company
mainly aimed at broadening the ownership. In the beginning the objective of the company
was to pursue development projects to improve the living conditions and invest in infra-
structure such as broadband and facilities for new industries. Today the company’s main
operation is about renting out premises and functioning as support to businesses in the
area. “Entrepreneurship for all ages” is a motto they live by, and therefore the company from
the very beginning committed itself to the development of an entrepreneurial school, an
entrepreneurial youth camp and a special company to care for adults with business ideas.
Trångsviksbolaget’s efforts in connection with ownership and generational shifts in business
have meant that entrepreneurs who want to exit can contact the local development company
before they approach a broker.
What Can Be Learnt?
The experience of the societal entrepreneurs in Trångsviken obviously cannot be directly
applied to other localities. Each place has its own specifc conditions. By way of an external
evaluation of the village’s problems and opportunities and by maintaining a dialogue with
people in other rural areas the local needs in Trångsviken could be identifed and the work
could start from a local perspective. The new community centre became the supporting
structure and the arena needed for channelling the local inhabitants’ commitment. They saw
4
Johannisson, B (2005), Entreprenörskapets väsen, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
a challenge in the negative development spiral that went on in the rural areas in the interior
of northern Sweden. They decided not to allow themselves to be “victims” of any “higher
power” but to take charge of their own development. An important characteristic of a suc-
cessful work as a societal entrepreneur is the ability to collaborate and maintain a dialogue
with other stakeholders, both private and public. This is a strength if there are several people
to team up and manage the operations, all of them bringing their particular knowledge and
their personal network. Still, they should be able to delegate responsibility. Like all entrepre-
neurship societal entrepreneurship is genuine collectively.
EU projects have created the conditions for business development, have had a catalytic effect
on the development and attracted many other activities and investments, which have thus
been fnanced in various ways. Knowledge of different forms of fnancing, such as EU struc-
tural funds provides great opportunities for local and regional development. Using an EU
project to build one’s own broadband network has eliminated many of the disadvantages of a
peripheral location. The importance of individual initiatives to create a positive development
has become evident. New forms of cooperation have emerged as a result of joint projects
between public agencies, businesses, schools, NGOs and the local population. On the basis
of the example of Trångsviken we can see that societal entrepreneurs may play an important
strategic role in local and regional development.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 66
67
3:2
Development Partnership
as Societal
Entrepreneurship
Erik Lindhult, Mälardalen University
Societal entrepreneurship often involves networking and partnerships across several sec-
tors of society. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the signifcant role of partnership in
societal entrepreneurial activity. The development partnership Dropin is used as an example
and a basis for refection to clarify the partnering role in societal and community-oriented
entrepreneurship. In the growing international literature on social entrepreneurship a start-
ing point is commonly taken in the civil society or the private economic sectors of society
as a complement or alternative to the public domain. An important point that the example
of Dropin shows is that the public and the public sector also have important roles to play in
societal entrepreneurial activity.
The Dropin Partnership
The Dropin partnership operated 2005–2007 in the county of Västmanland in the middle
of Sweden, where the author participated as interactive researcher. Dropin was part of the
EQUAL program within the EU Social Fund, aimed at fnding new ways and solutions to
problems of different groups that are vulnerable to exclusion and discrimination in the work-
place. Dropin focused on discrimination-related ill-health at the individual and institutional
levels and has been an experimental workshop in fnding new methods and trying to facili-
tate the transition between school and working life for young people with incomplete sec-
ondary education. Dropin promoted the prevention and combat of high school drop-outs and
ill health in young people. It is an example of the organizing of change efforts of a societal
nature as a partnership. Dropin was a broad mobilization of many organizations to deal with
this problem, examine methods that can assist this group of young people, as well as identify
and infuence discriminatory structures in their path towards employment. The problem
area is the ill-health and risk behaviours often exhibited by young people leaving secondary
school without high school grades, partly as a result of exclusion from the labor market.
A point of departure in the work as interactive researcher in Dropin was to clarify the en-
trepreneurial character of this kind of socially-oriented development work in a partnership
form. Since the work was mainly conducted in non-commercial forms, there were reasons
for using the literature on “social entrepreneurship” as a starting point.
1
By utilizing Dropin
as an experiential basis for refection, the special character of the relation of societal entrepre-
neurship to social entrepreneurship could be clarifed.
Network and partnership have an additional signifcance for socially oriented entrepreneur-
ship. One major reason is that the sources of fnancing entrepreneurship with the purpose
of creating social value, not providing return on investment, are more limited. This leads
to resource mobilization by other means than buying them in a market becoming more
important. Many stakeholders that in different ways contribute resources are also support-
ers of the social vision and purpose that the entrepreneurial activity is focused on. They do
not primarily expect a return on their resource input, but rather a “moral” return to certain
values and practices promoted. In this way, many actors contributing to a socially oriented
entrepreneurial initiative are more or less active partners in the entrepreneurial activity.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 68
1
E.g. Nicholls, A (eds) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of sustainable social change, Oxford: Oxford
University Press; Mair, J, Robinson, J and Hockerts, K (eds) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan; Steyaert, C and Hjorth, D (eds) (2006), Entrepreneurship as Social Change, Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
69 Chapter 3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship
The Public Dimensions of Entrepreneurship
The analysis of Dropin shows the character of the public dimensions of societal entrepre-
neurship, also indicating how the social dimension can be distinguished from the societal.
The dominant understanding of social entrepreneurship compared with traditional com-
mercial entrepreneurship is that the focus and purpose are social – not proft-oriented.
Societal entrepreneurship may instead be linked to the private-societal/public dimension,
where the societal element is determined by the extent to which entrepreneurship is based
on and focuses on the creation, recreation and transformation of “society”. The context of
entrepreneurship is seen here as organized in communities, social institutions and more or
less formal organizations, where entrepreneurship is aimed at the creation, modifcation and
improvement of this society. What is “public” in the entrepreneurship is not in the frst place
that it is included in the public sector, but that it is aimed at activities involving everyone in a
particular social context (for example, a district or region) or is considered of common/public
interest in the social context considered.
Furthermore, socially-oriented entrepreneurship cannot substitute for sustained public
involvement in important social issues and therefore it should see government agencies
as essential partners and also have a connection with, or in its organization build on, the
public democratic conversation among those concerned. Otherwise, morally very worthy and
deserving work, based on many people’s confdence and willingness to help, can often lose
its legitimacy quickly when it is exposed to the public light. The strength of societal entrepre-
neurship is the ability to build a development momentum to combat social problems such
as poverty, exclusion, marginalization or environmental degradation. But without a clear
basis for a wider discussion among the interested parties more inclusive and integrative
solutions often fail to be achieved.
2
Dropin relates instead to participatory democratic points
of departure focused on the broad participation of various partners, coordinating through
public democratic discussion processes pursuing both innovation and a structural impact.
Democratic dialogue and rational communication therefore constitute an important basis for
socially oriented entrepreneurial activity.
2
Cho, A (2006), Politics, Values and Social Entrepreneurship Research, in Mair, J, Robinson, J and Hockerts, K (eds),
Social Entrepreneurship, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Studies of Dropin and similar partnerships can help to show more societal options of entre-
preneurial practice, namely how broad social-entrepreneurial partnerships can be formed
between different sectors of society, where the public systems can operate as an organiza-
tional guarantee for the sustainability of change over time when no civil society or business
entrepreneurial organization can achieve this on its own. But public agencies often cannot
handle this type of issue themselves, e.g. creating job opportunities for groups who have dif-
fculty in entering the labour market. Although partnerships are often designed to promote
business or increase the labour supply, the experience is that industry participation tends to
be limited. But in many companies there is, in addition to a desire to develop their own com-
pany, an interest in contributing to local and regional development. To fnd a synergy in the
partnership based on both of these interests provides a good basis for a sustainable relation-
ship with industry. More generally, an issue that arises in Dropin and EQUAL is who are the
“right” partners that are especially important to have in the partnership to achieve change.
A Perspective on Societal Entrepreneurship
Figure 1 synthesizes a development of the perspective on societal entrepreneurship.
Figure 1. Societal entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and different relations.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 70
Commercial
Industry
relations
Business
relations
Public
Societal
entrepreneurship
Partnership
creation
Private
Citizen
relations
Moral
relations
Social
71 Chapter 3:2 Development Partnership as Societal Entrepreneurship
It implies a movement towards public dimensions, contextually anchored in a communal
setting.
3
Societal entrepreneurs need to convince others of the public interest, or to federate
to “communalize” the venture. It is important to involve others as partners, supporters or do-
nors of resources. Here federating and partnership creation form a key strategy to “commu-
nalize” and legitimize societal entrepreneurial “ventures”. Partnering implies establishing
relations between actors. Societal entrepreneurship involves a movement towards the public
by the driving agencies, where private relations of a moral character are complemented by re-
lations among actors as concerned citizens, partnering to improve the social context they are
part of and identify with. The efforts of movement towards the public also imply that busi-
ness relations are complemented by industry relations where companies and other economic
actors consider the public role of economic activity in contributing to community values or
societal institutions in order to build a better society. Societal entrepreneurship with its need
for building relations and partnering is a quite complex and demanding task. But it is often
the only way to successfully deal with complex, societal problems to build better societies. So
let loose the societal entrepreneurs!
3
An early conceptualization of community entrepreneurship as “contextual entrepreneurship” with a federative
focus is Johannisson, B and Nilsson, A (1989), Community entrepreneurs: networking for local development,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 1, no 1, pp 3–19.
72
3:3
Societal Entrepreneurship
and Social Capital
Hans Westlund, Royal Institute of Technology and Jönköping
International Business School
This chapter deals with the signifcance of social capital to societal entrepreneurship. One
fundamental thought is that social capital can have positive as well as negative effects on
entrepreneurship with regard to what norms and values social capitals include and what
networks support them. While “common” entrepreneurship is usually limited to one sector
in society, societal entrepreneurship is here seen as something often embracing and affecting
several societal sectors. Society is generally classifed into three sectors: the private and the
public sectors and “the third sector” (which I here prefer to call civil society). However, in
modern growth theories academia, too, is usually seen as a specifc sector, and in this chapter
I concur with this view. The different societal sectors have different purposes and have over
time developed different norms and principles for their activities. This can be expressed in
terms of having developed different social capitals. Political measures to strengthen societal
entrepreneurship must take this into consideration. To promote the growth of social capital
with common values and networks across sector boundaries is in this perspective a major
challenge to politics wanting to strengthen societal entrepreneurship.
What, then, is social capital? A defnition which most people will probably agree with is that
social capital consists of social networks/relations and norms and values, e.g., confdence created,
accumulated and diffused in these networks.
1
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society
73
New Growth Theories
In accordance with the new endogenous growth paradigm defned in the 1980s, ever greater
importance has been attached to concepts like knowledge production, knowledge diffusion,
innovation and entrepreneurship. This has also found its expression in theories like those
on national and regional innovation systems, clusters, industrial districts and triple helix. A
common denominator for these theories is their emphasis on knowledge diffusion between
various actors as well as the modifcation and application of this knowledge in various com-
mercialisation processes. For these processes to start and move forward various forms of
entrepreneurship are required, i.e., the ability to identify opportunities and utilise them.
Knowledge diffusion and commercialisation are processes that imply interaction between a
number of various stakeholders. The management, processing and application of knowl-
edge in innovative processes require good social relations, i.e., a social capital among the
stakeholders involved. Constellations characterised by intense rivalry, lack of confdence and
distrustfulness render the exchange and processing of knowledge necessary for the creation
of innovations more diffcult. Social capital had no tangible signifcance on the assembly
lines in industrial society. However, in the innovation processes of a knowledge society
contingent on entrepreneurship it is of crucial importance.
What stakeholders, then, act entrepreneurially in innovation processes? In line with several
of the above-mentioned theories, contribution is usually required from universities, which
create new knowledge through research, from the public sector, which creates arenas and
often provides fnance, and, of course, from the business world. In the new growth theories
universities are seen as a sector in its own right by the side of industry and the public sector,
whereas civil society is seldom noted in these theories.
Chapter 3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital
1
For a discussion about the concept of social capital and its connections to issues connected to economic
development, see Westlund, H (2006), Social Capital in the Knowledge Economy: Theory and Empirics, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
What is Societal Entrepreneurship?
New opinions, lifestyles and trends continually appear in civil society. These phenomena
also affect innovation processes, both as obstacles and as inspiration. This implies that the
scope of innovations and entrepreneurship is linked not only to the traditional industrial
productive inputs of labour and capital but also to circumstances in which stakeholders
from the university, the public sector and civil society are active – and to the social capitals
that these stakeholders have generated within and between themselves. What, then, determines
whether an organisation or a stakeholder in any of the four sectors acts entrepreneurially?
In the terms used in this chapter, the answer may be that this is determined by the degree
of independence from three factors:
• Established, non-entrepreneurial functions, i.e., independence from established
economic, administrative, technological and social networks
• Established norms and values
• Established formal regulations and institutions
Consequently, in line with this reasoning, entrepreneurship is a function of the degree of
independence from what is established and non-entrepreneurial. What, then, in addition
to these matters, characterises whether an initiative is also societal entrepreneurial? One
answer might be that it is a new activity aiming at – or an existing activity expanded to – a
production of utilities that beneft not only stakeholders in one’s own societal sector but also
stakeholders in other sectors of society, and that this production is linked to stakeholders in
other societal sectors.
An Important Problem for Growth Policies
Growth policy in Sweden as well as the rest of the Western World is characterised by a
focus on innovations and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship policy is almost exclusively
aimed at business. Innovation policy, on the other hand, centres on collaboration between
three sectors: universities as producers of knowledge, the public sector as a provider of
benefcial institutions and development resources, and business as a provider of resources
and knowledge for commercialisation. However, a seldom noticed problem is that the three
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 74
75 Chapter 3:3 Societal Entrepreneurship and Social Capital
sectors – or, including civil society, the four sectors – base their activities on fundamentally
different exchange principles, refected in essentially different networks, norms and values.
This is a problem that must not be neglected by a future policy for the promotion of societal
entrepreneurship.
With Karl Polanyi’s famous book The Great Transformation
2
as a basis it can be argued that
private companies found their business on a market principle according to which proft is
a necessary goal. The public sector, which is founded on political power to exact resources
and redistribute them, builds its existence on a principle of redistribution. Universities,
in Sweden and many other countries principally fnanced via the public sector, are histori-
cally dominated by a third principle, reciprocity, which in this case comprises a reciprocal
exchange of knowledge and ideas. Civil society is also founded on a reciprocity principle,
but in this case not predominantly regarding knowledge and ideas but rather actions – ac-
tions benefting the group or society and from which the actor consequently can expect an
indirect beneft in the future.
Organisations in sectors with such fundamental differences naturally generate very differ-
ent social capitals – different types of networks with different types of stakeholders and with
different norms and values. A policy for societal entrepreneurship that requires organisa-
tions and stakeholders to cross sector boundaries and create something new must manage
these differences in social capital in order to be successful. Organisations may of course
have various reasons to collaborate across sector boundaries, but without some type of
“common denominator” it is very doubtful whether “innovative initiatives of advantage to
society”
3
can develop and bear fruit. From a stakeholder perspective, on the other hand, we
can establish that there are societal-entrepreneurial individuals who are capable of acting
as “brokers” by residing and being active in various spheres and who are engaged in the
translation and compilation of different institutional contexts.
Just as the social capital of organisations can be both an obstacle and a basis for societal
entrepreneurship, so can the formal institutions and regulations of organisations. These
are constructed in order for a certain type of activity to be performed in a certain way, thus
promoting stability, which facilitates planning and reduces risks for the stakeholders con-
cerned. At the same time, established regulations and stability are in many ways contrary to
2
Polanyi, K (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston: The Beacon Press.
3
See Holmberg, L, Kovacs, H and Lundqvist, M A (2007), Samhällsentreprenör – en förstudie på uppdrag av
KK-stiftelsen, Stockholm: KK-stiftelsen. www.kks.se.
entrepreneurship, the nature of which is to challenge and expose established organisations
to competition and eventually generate the “creative destruction” of old methods, attitudes
and principles. While the debate on the promotion of entrepreneurship in the business
sector is almost exclusively concentrated on problems created by the regulations of authori-
ties, a focus on societal entrepreneurship means that the institutions, regulations and social
capital of other types of organisations must also be taken into consideration.
A policy that wants to promote societal entrepreneurship must be aware of this.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 76
77
3:4
Societal Entrepreneurship
as an Interactive Process
Ewa Gunnarsson, Luleå University of Technology
Tony Ghaye, Refective Learning-UK
Entrepreneurship is not restricted to creating new companies but can also be oriented
towards public welfare, create innovation and stimulate action. Here we draw upon a newly
emerging research methodology called “Participatory and Appreciative Action and Refec-
tion” (PAAR).
1
PAAR is used to describe a development from more conventional forms
of action research (AR) and from participatory action research (PAR) to a more explicitly
“appreciative” form. PAAR adds a new dimension to action-based methodologies, called
appreciative intelligence. PAAR can be distinguished by the main research questions it asks.
For example:
• Action research (AR): What is the practical problem I need to address in my work?
• Participatory action research (PAR): What can we do together to change the
situation here?
• Participatory and appreciative action and refection (PAAR): What is currently working
well and how can we amplify this in order to build and sustain a better future from
aspects of the positive present?
1
Ghaye, T (2008), Building the Refective Healthcare Organisation, Oxford: Blackwell; Nielsen Aagaard, K and
Svensson, L (eds) (2006), Action and Interactive Research- Beyond Practice and Theory, Amsterdam: Shaker
Publishing.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 78
Our central argument is that when trying to improve work and working lives, thinking and
conversations often get stuck with vocabularies of human defcit. In doing so we fail to
unlock the creative potential of those involved. Defcit-phrased questions lead to defcit-based
conversations. These in turn lead to defcit-based actions. Participatory and appreciative
action and refection (PAAR) is a style of research which requires us to use our appreciative
intelligence to focus on the best of what is currently experienced, seek out the root causes of
this, and then design and implement actions that amplify and sustain this success. PAAR
thus does not celebrate problem-solving as the only way to improving social situations.
PAAR does not perpetuate the belief that problem-solving should be our priority and that
successes can simply look after themselves. First and foremost PAAR is about identifying
and playing to our strengths.
PAAR in Practice
PAAR is illustrated by two case studies. The frst one focuses on how PAAR can be used
to develop and sustain ways that enable elderly people to feel more empowered to exer-
cise their right of self-determination. The work was undertaken
2
in the context of home
healthcare in northern Sweden. The data for this work was drawn from two days of work-
shop activities with 35 homecare staff working in the municipality of Luleå, Sweden. The
workshop was one outcome of the e-Home Health Care @ North Calotte (eHHC) Project
of 2003–2005. The PAAR approach enabled all who participated in the workshops to: (a)
deepen their understanding of the practice of participation (dialogue) and one important
intention of it (empowerment) in the context of healthcare service improvement; (b) how
to positively reframe traditional views of the relationships between research and practice,
and of stakeholder roles, and as a consequence, open up new possibilities for understand-
ing how elderly people’s lived experiences can be a positive force for service improvement;
(c) the use of storyboards as an appreciative approach to enable frontline staff to refect on
their work, to share and to learn together.
The second case study illustrates connections between ageing well and maintaining a good
quality of life as a general societal goal. Within the context of experienced-based service
2
Melander-Wikman, A, Jansson, M and Ghaye, T (2006), Refections on an appreciative approach to empowering
elderly people in home healthcare, Refective Practice,Vol 7, no 4, pp 423–444.
design, the study aimed to understand what ageing well meant for a group of elderly people.
At the heart of this study was the analysis of ten in-depth interviews with elderly people
living at home, with homecare and safety alarms. By drawing upon the PAAR principles of
participation, appreciation, ethics and empowerment, the study wanted to fnd out whether
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) could be supportive of their well-being.
The core category of “ageing well or learning unpretentiousness – a living contradiction” was
deduced. This comprised four sub-categories that illustrated the signifcant parts of elderly
people’s conceptions of well-being. They were social networking, psycho-social wellbeing,
physical capacity and empowerment. Data suggested that ageing well was linked with elderly
people learning to get more unpretentious as they got older. In developing new information
and communication technologies for ageing well, this case suggests that it is important to
take this learned unpretentiousness among elderly people into account, so that their needs
can be fully appreciated. One consequence of this is that elderly people need to have the
opportunity, and be suffciently empowered, to actively participate in the development of
services that are designed to meet their needs. This is particularly important in the develop-
ment of new services based on mobile ICT. Using the principles and processes of PAAR
enabled this learning to become more visible.
Elaborating PAAR – Gender Knowledge as a
Potential for More Democratic Processes
The dominating entrepreneurship research is often “gender blind” in the sense that it does
not integrate – and problematize – the gender dimension. If the emerging concept of
societal entrepreneurship claims to be an “inclusive democratic concept” that incorporates
women’s as well as men’s experiences and resources, it is necessary to include a gender
perspective. Therefore we introduce two gender-sensitive tools that we see as a point of
departure for such an integrative process.
79 Chapter 3:4 Societal Entrepreneurship as an Interactive Process
The frst tool is the concept of “refective gender reminders”.
3
This concept can be used
along the whole entrepreneurial process. It highlights possibilities and restrictions between
women’s and men’s different conditions for participating in an entrepreneurial process.
The other tool is a model grounded in “the doing gender perspective in organisations.”
This model makes visible how gender is done on different arenas in an organisation. To
incorporate these gender-sensitive tools in the participatory and appreciative action method-
ology creates a new framing for the methodology and brings about a more democratic and
innovative dimension. It is promoting new thinking as well as a broader and more holistic
societal view.
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 80
3
Gunnarsson, E (2006), The Snake and the Apple in the Common Paradise, in Nielsen Aagaard, K and Svensson,
L (eds) (2006), Action and Interactive Research – Beyond Practice and Theory, Amsterdam: Shaker Publishing;
Gunnarsson, E (2007) Other Sides of the Coin. A Feminist Perspective on Robustness in Science and Knowledge
Production, International Journal of Action Research, Vol 3, no 3, pp 349–363.
81
Need for a Multi-Faceted
Image of Societal
Entrepreneurship
Acknowledging Variation
in Society
Malin Gawell, Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI)
Bengt Johannisson, Växjö University and Jönköping International
Business School, Jönköping University
Mats Lundqvist, Chalmers University of Technology
Sweden does not rank very high as regards the portion of the adult population that is in-
volved in business venturing. This does not necessarily imply that Sweden is entrepreneuri-
ally underdeveloped. As this report tells us, the Swedes may invest a considerable portion
of their entrepreneurial energy in different activities in the private and public sectors or in
the popular movements which dominate the Swedish voluntary sector. Accordingly, our
collective social capital is considerable, refecting generic cultural features. Societal entre-
preneurship in Sweden has, however, not been as loud and visible as entrepreneurship in
the marketplace, presumably because societal entrepreneurship cannot allow itself to be as
simplistic as regards means, ends and organizing.
Swedish research concerning societal entrepreneurship as reported here includes under-
standings of entrepreneurship which seldom appear at the international research frontier.
One distinctive feature of societal entrepreneurship in Sweden is its orientation towards the
collective. The international discourse on societal entrepreneurship, like that on conventional
entrepreneurship, focuses on the individual. This particular Swedish feature of societal
entrepreneurship comes through especially strongly in the chapter by Elisabeth Sundin and
Malin Tillmar as entrepreneurship closely related to the public sector. This does not mean
that individuals are completely absent on the typical Swedish palette of different images of
societal entrepreneurship. Those who Bengt Johannisson and Caroline Wigren introduce
as “extreme” entrepreneurs have to stand up for their own values and behaviours in order
to play a much needed role as provocateurs in society. Overall, the book communicates the
message that Swedish societal entrepreneurs are pragmatic in trying to balance social and
economic concerns. All of them are also carried by a strong commitment to societal values.
Obviously, there are many roads to societal entrepreneurship. Sometimes the directions
come from above, which also often means from outside, sometimes from below/inside.
Often these pressures combine. Only in some cases, for example that of national mobiliza-
tion presented by Per Frankelius and Jan Ogeborg on the Irish turnaround, does the force
come straight from one direction (above). However, whatever the origin of societal entrepre-
neuring, soon enough forces from above and below combine, as Erik Lindhult’s report on
the empowerment of young people distinctly illustrates. When social concern carried by fa-
voured Swedish corporations is used to support marginalized groups in developing countries
an initiative from above-outside is much needed and in the interest of the recipients. Lasse
Ekstrand and Monika Wallmon propose in addition that societal entrepreneurship may also
be “laterally” triggered, that is neither initiated from above or from below, but through a cre-
ated move from an unexpected direction. When artists turn into social agents they may help
people locally to break out of their mental iron cages and take over the initiative.
Until recently the scientifc discourse on entrepreneurship was dominated by the male initi-
ating individual as a norm. Furthermore, the feld has been controlled by male researchers.
Obviously, this book provides a more balanced view in both respects – the female contribu-
tors are as many as the male ones. In the entrepreneurial processes presented and refected
upon activity felds dominated by women, e.g. the social and healthcare sectors, come to the
fore. Here the authors point out that societal entrepreneurs practise their own rationality,
that of care. Presenting themselves as representatives of “homo curans” these entrepreneurs
are more concerned about others’ well-being than about their own. Some authors, e.g. Ewa
Gunnarsson and Tony Ghaye, explicitly bring up gender issues, but in most chapters such
refections are tightly associated with impressions gained during feldwork.
On one hand, the broad variation of societal entrepreneurship sends invitations to many
potential initiators of entrepreneurial processes. On the other hand, this complexity signals
that local initiatives may need support from established structures in order to be able to enact
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 82
83 Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging Variation in Society
their (social) ambitions. As easy as it is to amplify voluntary initiatives, as quickly may inertia
in formal institutions erode the emerging commitment. Mats Lundqvist demonstrates that
a university (of technology) may not only support but also itself take the initiative to create
societal entrepreneurship. As demonstrated by Carina Asplund, community development
can be enforced by building alliances with the regional university and draw attention in the
EU context.
The roots of societal entrepreneurship in Sweden go back to local community development
in the early l980s. Since increasing urbanization implied reduced societal services in sparse-
ly populated parts of the large country collective action was called for. While Swedish societal
entrepreneurship today often spans boundaries in space – whether physical, social or mental
– this global commitment often combines with retaining one’s attachment to (local) place.
One possible explanation is, as Hans Westlund indicates, the rich access to social capital.
This proposes a generic “glocal” development strategy in the same way as localized clusters
in the economy build global competitiveness, often by building an alliance with a university.
The social dimension of the glocal strategy can be represented as embedded in economic
activity – as in the practice of corporate social responsibility reported by Anna Blombäck and
Caroline Wigren, or provide a core activity – as proposed by Malin Gawell in her refections
concerning Attac . That the difference in these two cases underlines the need to pay attention
to the contextual features in the conceptualization and practice of societal entrepreneurship
is evident.
Need for a Versatile Research into Societal
Entrepreneurship
This book illustrates by way of special conceptual models and methodologies as well as rich
and varying empirical reporting that societal entrepreneurship, like entrepreneurship in the
market, appears in very different shapes. This suggests that researchers and practitioners,
not least politicians, may gain a great insight into traditional entrepreneurship as business
venturing by studying societal entrepreneurship. These lessons include a greater awareness
of the general social embeddedness of economic activity, not least attachment to place, and
the importance of recognizing the collective features of (any) entrepreneurship. Business
venturing, as well as “born globals” (international new ventures), take off in the community
to which the entrepreneur belongs, and the commitment to place remains while the frm
grows.
The broadest of concepts associated with societal entrepreneurship that we have tried to or-
ganize in the introductory chapter can, on the one hand, be considered to reveal that we and
our fellow researchers have still not managed to catch the phenomenon. On the other hand,
this variety of representations raises the question whether an ultimate, overarching defni-
tion of societal entrepreneurship is desirable or even possible. It is quite pretentious to
argue that society as a human construct provides endless social variety while arguing at the
same time that this variety, when dressed as entrepreneurship, can be structured into a few
conceptual categories. As regards entrepreneurship in the general sense a parallel discus-
sion is at present going on within the research community. Our conclusion is that (societal)
entrepreneurship should stay a multi-dimensional phenomenon also in the academic and
political vocabulary. Only then can it remain sensitive to different cultural and institutional
settings, that is different societal contexts.
Proposing a sensitive use of the notion of societal entrepreneurship does not mean that we
expect it to only refect existing phenomena. Like any understanding of entrepreneurship,
societal entrepreneurship as a concept and as a practice should challenge existing structures
and propose new ones. This power to initiate change is especially important to consider in
the kind of homogenous country that Sweden still is. We obviously do think that a genuine
dialogue within and between the communities concerned must form the basis of network-
ing, which in due course will sediment into new structures that will hopefully provide the
means to make the world better. This challenge is sometimes about turning coincidences
into opportunities, which are subsequently enacted in social ventures, sometimes about
solving practical problems which concern the survival of the family or the community.
The proposed distinction between “opportunity” and “necessity” entrepreneurship is,
however, diffcult to maintain, whether we have societal or general entrepreneurship in
mind. What once appeared as necessity entrepreneurship may in the end turn out to be
the very road to success. In the old world this was, for example, experienced in rural areas
where the many had to start their own business in order to survive, but where over time,
as the interrelations between the small frms matured, the small communities turned into
localized clusters, which were competitive on the global markets. In our “new” world the
struggle for economic survival still remains in some parts of the world. However, today we
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 84
85 Need for a Multi-Faceted Image of Societal Entrepreneurship Acknowledging Variation in Society
are all affected by the enormous ecological and social challenges facing the earth. This again
suggests a need for “glocal” strategies where local initiatives are taken that are also in the
global interest.
As researchers we have to actively relate to the challenges that societal entrepreneurship
in its different forms is expected to cope with. The third part of the book also provides a
number of illustrations of how more active roles may be taken on by social scientists than
the ones so far being performed. These roles include providing knowledge that communi-
cates the hope of a better future but also interactively creates such knowledge in dialogue
with those concerned. However, all the chapters are embedded in the general view that
researchers investigating societal entrepreneurship cannot remain passive spectators
considering that they themselves as citizens are co-producing the very context where those
entrepreneurial processes are taking place. We also argue that being present in societal
entrepreneurship as a research feld and there practising an interactive methodology makes
the university into a much needed arena for intellectual as well as practical contributions.
Here the researchers will realize their own need for learning, which in due course may
make them not only inquire into societal entrepreneurship but practise it themselves.
Carina Asplund is a doctoral student in sociology at Mid Sweden University. She also
works at the local entrepreneurial initiative Trångsviksbolaget, which is in focus of her interac-
tive research. E-mail: [email protected].
Anna Blombäck is Assistant Professor at Jönköping International Business School. Her
research interest lies within corporate-level marketing and corporate social responsibility.
E-mail: [email protected].
Lasse Ekstrand is Assistant Professor at the University of Gävle, and a guest professor at
the Free University in Berlin and at The Academy of Arts in Trondheim. E-mail: [email protected].
Per Frankelius is Associate Professor at Örebro University and works for Örebro Regional
Development Council. He is a board member of The Swedish Foundation for Small Business
Research and a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London. E-mail: [email protected].
Malin Gawell is Assistant Professor at the Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research
Institute (ESBRI). Her main interest is entrepreneurship and civil society research. She also
works with policy development within this feld. E-mail: [email protected].
Tony Ghaye is Director of Refective Learning-UK. He is an organisational strategist with
experience of work in public, private and third sector organisations in Europe, Africa and the
Far East. E-mail: [email protected].
Ewa Gunnarsson is Professor at the division of Gender and Innovation, the Department of
Human Work Sciences, Luleå University of Technology. Her main research interest is gender,
technology, organisation and interactive research methods. E-mail: [email protected].
Bengt Johannisson is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Växjö University and at Jönköping
University. He has published widely on entrepreneurship and personal networking, especially
in the context of local and regional development. E-mail: [email protected].
The Authors
Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society 86
Erik Lindhult is Assistant Professor at Mälardalen University. His research focuses on col-
laborative and democratic innovation and entrepreneurship. E-mail: [email protected].
Mats Lundqvist is Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology and
co-founding director of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship. His research and practical
engagement is around university entrepreneurship. E-mail: [email protected].
Jan Ogeborg is an entrepreneur and company founder. One of his environment projects
won a prize from The National Environment Protection Board. He also has a career as offcer
and management educator in The Swedish Armed Forces. E-mail: [email protected].
Elisabeth Sundin is Professor in Business Administration and one of the research leaders
at Helix Vinn Excellence Centre, Linköping University. Her main research interest is organiza-
tions (mainly public), entrepreneurship, and gender. E-mail: [email protected].
Malin Tillmar is Associate Professor in Business Administration at Linköping University.
The focus of her research is the diversity of entrepreneurship related, for example, to the re-
organization of public service provision. E-mail: [email protected].
Monika Wallmon is a doctoral student at the Department of Business Studies at Uppsala
University. Her interests include activism and social change, the arts, creativity and organiza-
tion research. E-mail: [email protected].
Hans Westlund is Professor of Regional Planning at KTH Royal Institute of Techno-
logy in Stockholm, and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Jönköping International Business
School, Jönköping University. E-mail: [email protected].
Caroline Wigren is Assistant Professor at CIRCLE, Lund University and Malmö Univer-
sity. She has an interest in entrepreneurship research, regional development and corporate
social responsibility. E-mail: [email protected].
87 The Authors
This book presents entrepreneurship far beyond market-oriented business.
Societal entrepreneurship engages people, at times in a small community, at
times globally. The ambition is many times to create a better world, which of
course is welcome. But societal entrepreneurship also challenges and provokes.
The contributing authors both acknowledge and question contemporary ways
of organizing society. In this digested presentation of a research anthology,
originally published in early 2009, 16 researchers from 16 Swedish universities
and/or institutes elaborate on these issues.
The texts cover a variety of cases of societal entrepreneurship carried out by
individuals, organizations, communities, nations – all with strong driving spirit.
We hope that the message of the book will stimulate societal entrepreneurs and
researchers as well as politicians and citizens to engage, to initiate and to act –
in the name of society.
The anthology is an initiative within the Knowledge Foundation’s Societal
Entrepreneurship Programme.
ISBN 978-91-976914-5-1
Reader’s Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology
Edited by:
Malin Gawell
Bengt Johannisson
Mats Lundqvist
Entrepreneurship
in the Name
of Society
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
i
n
t
h
e
N
a
m
e
o
f
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
doc_650188064.pdf