Description
On this brief illustration related to research propositions concerning social entrepreneurs in switzerland constraints.
School of Business Administration
Fribourg
Research Propositions Concerning Social
Entrepreneurs in Switzerland: Constraints and
Motivations Related to the Social Enterprise
Typology
Master-Thesis
Written in “Social Entrepreneurship”
Thomas Stalder
Rte des Arsenaux 24
1700 Freiburg
Tel. +4179 789 94 02
E-Mail: [email protected]
Supervising Expert:
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Rico J. Baldegger
External Assessor:
Prof. Mariana Christen Jakob
16th August 2010
I
Declaration
I hereby declare that this master thesis is the product of my own independent work. All content and ideas
drawn directly or indirectly from external sources are indicated as such. Parts that have been taken literally or
correspondingly from published or unpublished texts or other sources have been labeled as such. This paper
has not been presented to any examination board in the same or similar form before.
Fribourg, 16th of August 2010
Thomas Stalder
II
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything than can be counted counts.”
Albert Einstein
Acknowledgments:
Interviewees for taking their time:
André Willi, Impulsis
Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory Freiburg
Gregory Gerhardt, Amazee
Markus Gander, Infoklick
Martin Guerra, Impulsis
Paolo Richter, Gump & Drahtesel
Jonas Schafer for proofreading
Em?ke Lakatos for your love and patience
III
Table of Content
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Problems................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Research Problem ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Entrepreneurship .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship ............................................................................ 4
2.2.3 Social Enterprise and Typology ......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Constraints and Motivations .............................................................................................................. 28
2.3 Delimitations and Terms .................................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship....................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.2 Social Enterprise Typology ................................................................................................................. 31
2.4 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
3 Research Design ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Research Type ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.3 Research Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.4 Data and Data Collection Method .................................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Data Processing and Content Analysis ............................................................................................................. 37
3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
IV
4 Research Report ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2 Within-Case Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Case A: André Willi and Martin Guerra, Impulsis .......................................................................... 41
4.2.2 Case B: Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory ..................................................................................................... 43
4.2.3 Case C: Markus Gander, Infoklick..................................................................................................... 45
4.2.4 Case D: Gregory Gerhardt, amazee.com .......................................................................................... 47
4.2.5 Case E: Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel ................................................................................. 49
4.2.6 Case Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 51
4.3 Findings and Development of Propositions (Cross-Case Analysis) .......................................................... 51
4.3.1 Social Mission ........................................................................................................................................ 52
4.3.2 Social Entrepreneurship Advancement (TM1) .............................................................................. 52
4.3.3 Employee Mistakes (TM2) ................................................................................................................. 53
4.3.4 Employee Work-Life Balance (TM3) ............................................................................................... 53
4.3.5 Government Regulations (TM4) ...................................................................................................... 53
4.3.6 Financial Constraints (TM5) ............................................................................................................. 53
4.4 Implications ........................................................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.1 Implications for Social Entrepreneurship Theory .......................................................................... 54
4.4.2 Implications for Management ............................................................................................................ 54
4.4.3 Implications for Policy and Public Authorities ................................................................................ 54
4.5 Problems and Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 54
4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 55
V
5 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Table of figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.3 Bibliography........................................................................................................................................................... 58
5.4 Interview Guide .................................................................................................................................................... 60
5.5 Interview Database ............................................................................................................................................... 68
5.5.1 Approval: Case A, Interview 1 (A1): André Willi, Impulsis, Zürich ........................................... 68
5.5.2 Case A, Interview 1 (A1): André Willi, Impulsis, Zürich .............................................................. 69
5.5.3 Approval: Case A, Interview 2 (A2): Martin Guerra, Impulsis, Zürich ...................................... 80
5.5.4 Case A, Interview 2 (A2): Martin Guerra, Impulsis, Zürich ......................................................... 81
5.5.5 Approval: Case B, Interview 1 (B1): Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory, Giffers .................................... 90
5.5.6 Case B, Interview 1 (B1): Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory, Giffers ....................................................... 91
5.5.7 Aproval: Case C, Interview 1 (C1): Markus Gander, Infoklick, Moosseedorf ...................... 101
5.5.8 Case C, Interview 1 (C1): Markus Gander, Infoklick, Moosseedorf ....................................... 102
5.5.9 Approval: Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich .............................. 113
5.5.10 Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich ................................................. 113
5.5.11 Approval: Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld ........ 122
5.5.12 Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld ........................... 123
5.5.13 Case A: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 134
5.5.14 Case B: Within Case Analysis Categories ...................................................................................... 136
5.5.15 Case C: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 137
5.5.16 Case D: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 138
5.5.17 Case E: Within Case Analysis Categories ...................................................................................... 139
5.5.18 Cross-Case Analysis Pattern Matching .......................................................................................... 141
5.6 Files (DVD-ROM) ............................................................................................................................................ 142
VI
Abbreviations
CHF Swiss franc
GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
NGO Non-governmental organization(s)
NPO Nonprofit organization(s)
Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary
Research Problem: Little is known about social entrepreneurs in Switzerland. No research papers have been
published about social entrepreneur in Switzerland so far. The presented theoretical framework is based on
existing social entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship literature in order to delimit the terms used in
the research question and to provide empirically valid propositions. The theoretical framework determines the
social entrepreneurial activity as well as the social enterprise type. A social entrepreneurial person innovates,
recognizes opportunities, takes moderately risky decisions leading into action by using resources to create
added value (Filion, et al., 2010), but adopts, in contrast to a business entrepreneur, a mission to create
sustainable social value (Dees, 2001). The social enterprise, which is run by a social entrepreneur, can be
classified as a not-for-profit or a for-profit social enterprise (Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,
n.d.).
Research Design: This exploratory multiple-case study research is based on Eisenhardt’s (1989) theory
building process, Yin’s (2008) methods and Mayring’s (2008) content analysis technique. The evidence was
collected by conducting semi-structured interviews.
Research Report: The study identified seven theoretical propositions for further social entrepreneurship
research in Switzerland, which were derived from the empirical evidence. Only matching patterns for the
constraints and solutions were identified. In addition, all matches for the not-for-profit social enterprises were
found in two out of the three cases. The propositions are: (1) the social mission is unresponsive to constraints,
(2 and 3) for-profit social entrepreneurs are attracted and not-for-profit social entrepreneurs are unaffected by
the classical start-up funding system. Classical start-up funding system should be extended to social
entrepreneurship, (4) the existence of a not-for-profit social enterprise is endangered if an employee does not
follow ethical policies. Regular ethical policy updates and monitoring should avoid compromising the
employees’ job and the social enterprise, (5) the work-life balances of not-for-profit social enterprise
employees are constrained by the professional and personal requirements. Employees need economic and
social education, need to know management expectancies, and a preventive concept to maintain a stable work-
life balance and working climate, (6) not-for-profit social enterprises do not need government regulations as
long as win-win situations between the social enterprise and the market exist, and (7) adapting service
agreements by paying the offered prices would increase the not-for-profit social enterprise’s financial viability
and their market orientation. These propositions have to be corroborated by using multiple sources of
evidence and verifying the propositions’ uniqueness for social entrepreneurship and for each social enterprise
type (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008). This step was skipped due to the time restriction set to conduct the
research.
Introduction 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Problems
Little is known about the constraints and motivations of social entrepreneurs in Switzerland. No research
papers have been published about social entrepreneur in Switzerland at the time this paper has been written.
The social entrepreneur’s primary objective is to create social rather than economic value. Maximizing the
social impact and therefore creating sustainable social change is a long term job and may take decades before
this change can be measured. The literature about social entrepreneurship is mostly American, and therefore it
is needed to understand what kind of constraints social entrepreneurs encounter in Switzerland and why they
started their venture.
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this study is to explore the constraints and motivations social entrepreneurs encountered in
Switzerland. The first step is to develop a theoretical framework based on the existing literature. The
theoretical framework’s has to determine a social entrepreneurial activity and the social enterprise’s type. The
social enterprise types are the base for the literal (predicting similar results) and theoretical (predicting
contrasting results) replication essential to develop the theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008).
The second step is to describe how this research is conducted by defining the research type, the research
sample, methods and the used techniques. The research report is the third and last part. It contains the within-
case narratives, the findings of the cross-case analysis, and the finding’s implications for social
entrepreneurship theory, management, and policy.
Research Problem 3
2 Research Problem
2.1 Introduction
This chapter is a literature review based on the terms used in the research question. Each reviewed article,
book, or web site in the literature review gives the reader a detailed insight into current theories of social
entrepreneurs, respectively social entrepreneurship, social enterprise typologies, and the social entrepreneur’s
constraints and motivations. The literature review contains also acknowledged business entrepreneurship
definitions in order to differentiate business from social entrepreneurship. The literature review is the base for
delimiting the terms used in this research, which again defines the theoretical framework. The theoretical
framework’s objective is to determine, if an activity lead by a person is entrepreneurial and social. If the activity
is social and entrepreneurial, the person in question is a social entrepreneur running a social enterprise. The
theoretical framework also determines the social enterprise’s type. The social enterprise types are the base for
the literal (predicting similar results) and theoretical (predicting contrasting results) replication essential to
develop the theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008).
2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Entrepreneurship
Filion, et al., De l'intuition au projet d'entreprise (2010): Figure 1incorporates the main dimensions
within an entrepreneur is acting. This business entrepreneurship definition describes a continuous iterative
process, which renews and enhances what is done and what already exists. He is asking himself as a user of the
product or service what could be done better that does not exist? Which amelioration would the user of the
product or service like to benefit? What can be done to simplify or to reduce costs in his specific domain?
Research Problem 4
Figure 1: Les principales composantes d’un système d’activités entrepreneuriales (Filion, et al., 2010, p. 50)
Baron & Shane, Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective (2008): “Entrepreneurship, as a branch of
business, has important roots in economics, behavioral science, and sociology” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 12).
Furthermore they describe entrepreneurship as a process rather than only what an entrepreneur does
(common practice). “Entrepreneurship is a process that unfolds over time and moves through distinct but
closely interrelated phases” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
The entrepreneurial process cannot be divided into neat easily distinguished stages, but in general, it
involves generation of an idea for a new product or service and/or recognition of an opportunity,
assembling the resources needed to launch a new venture, launching the new venture, running and growing
the business, and harvesting the rewards (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
The authors point out, that “Individual, group, and societal factors influence all phases of the entrepreneurial
process. Thus, there is no reason to choose between a “micro” and a “macro” approach to entrepreneurship;
both perspectives are necessary” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
2.2.2 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship
Dees Gregory, Enterprising Nonprofits (1998): This article is about NPO, but is fundamental to the
deduction of social entrepreneurship. There are several reasons for that. Two of them are the increasing
competition for the available funds to finance NPO and the competition on the markets they are in. On one
hand, the competition for the funds increased, the backers are demanding the organizations to operate on a
more commercial basis, and on the other hand, the NPO leaders are seeking to reduce the dependencies to
Risk
Use of Resources
Added Value
Action
Innovation
Opportunity
Recognition
Research Problem 5
them. This is leading NPO managers to seek for other sources of income to fund their organizations. To gain
financial sustainability and to get more reliable financial sources than just donations and grants, they need to
self-fund their organizations. This demands nonprofit leaders to develop a pro-business mindset.
Market-based funding approaches do have an important role to play in the social sector. If those social
programs that are able to generate their own income in fact do so, philanthropic dollars can be allocated to
activities that truly need to be subsidized (Dees, 1998, p. 57).
NPO have advantages like tax-exemption, volunteers, supplier discounts, and in-kind donations. This can lead
to conflicts when nonprofits are competing on commercial markets, because commercial companies do not
expect that NPO are behaving like them. The shift towards more commercial approaches is demanding
nonprofit leaders to act more or partially entrepreneurial. Dees claims that only a “few social enterprises can or
should be purely philanthropic or commercial” (Dees, 1998, p. 60). They should combine both, commercial
and philanthropic elements, in a productive balance. He identified the following earned income options for
social businesses:
Earned Income from Intended Beneficiaries: Ideally all social enterprises should get funds only if they
have achieved their intended social impact. Therefore the social enterprise should charge the full price for their
goods and services to their beneficiaries. They could finally judge if the good or service was good and worth
the price. In reality, many beneficiaries cannot afford the goods and services or even have no knowledge about
it (ex. nature, animals, etc.). It is very important that managers have to evaluate potential revenues for all
beneficiary groups, services and products.
Earned Income from Third Party Payers with a Vested Interest: When the beneficiaries are unable to pay,
someone else has to be charged. “The most likely direct payers are government agencies and corporations that
have a vested interest in an intended beneficiary group or the enterprise’s mission” (Dees, 1998, p. 62).
Governments have vested interest in collective goods and the welfare of the poor. The leaders should evaluate
how reliable their revenue streams are. It can be risky if they have a few major payers and if one of them cancels
the contract, it can be the organization’s end.
Earned Income from Others: Indirect sources such as advertising or co-branding may be another form of
third party payments. For instance a company may promote their own products by sponsoring a program of a
nonprofit (advertising) or a nonprofit may endorse a certain product related to their mission (co-branding).
The nonprofit leaders are required to be creative to find indirect revenue sources. They need to figure out how
they could create value for someone willing to pay.
Research Problem 6
The more direct the incomes are, the more they are related to the mission and vice versa. Because of this,
nonprofit leaders have to pay attention not to drift away from their mission by putting too many management
resources into indirect income generating activities. The leaders have to identify the potential sources of
earned income respectively to find the way how to finance the organization. The goal is not to make a
profitable business but to improve their effectiveness and efficiency by getting a more reliable and broader
funding base, or by increasing their market orientation. For this Dees proposes following financial approaches:
Full Philanthropic Support: If the leaders of a NPO do not find any potential sources of income regarding
their mission and values, “they must then decide on the right mixture of philanthropic sources: cash donations,
in-kind donations, and volunteer labor” (Dees, 1998, p. 64).
Partial Self-Sufficiency: If only a part of their operating expenses can be covered by earned income
sources, they will still need cash donations in order to pay all expenses, start-up costs, and investments. The
level of subsidy should be based on the organization’s mission. If the organization’s purpose is to serve the
poor, the level of subsidies will rather be high.
Cash Flow Self-Sufficiency: This means that a nonprofit organization is able to cover all their operating
expenses, but below market prices (volunteer work, below market wages, special discounts, etc.). The
investments needed to start and to run the organization are still funded by donations and grants.
Operating Expense Self-Sufficiency: The earned income is sufficient to cover all operating costs even at
market costs. Therefore they need only to fund the start of the organization by donations, grants, or below-
market loans. After the start-up period they will be able to fund their own investments.
Full-Scale Commercialization: All revenues are covering all cost at market prices without any subsidy even
for the start-up. “Because nonprofits cannot accept equity investments and it is difficult to be financed totally
with debt, such organizations often are structured as, or convert to, for-profit enterprises” (Dees, 1998, p. 66).
Mixed Enterprises: The last approach is that social businesses are running different programs with
different financial objectives and funding structures. Some programs may be full-scale commercial and others
need philanthropic subsidies. A social company may even be a for-profit organization with nonprofit
subsidiaries.
When becoming more commercial, leaders have to understand the risks of this shift and of moving too fast.
The organization needs staff that can understand and implement the new ideas. The leaders can also opt to
separate commercial from philanthropic activities in order to reduce conflicts within the organization itself
because of different cultures and operating styles. People from the business world may require higher salaries
than internal staff members, even when they have comparable education and experience. “Pay equity has to be
Research Problem 7
dealt explicitly, or it will fester” (Dees, 1998, p. 66). Getting more commercial means also to have staff with the
needed commercial skills, but salaries in nonprofits cannot compete with mainstream companies. Nonprofit
leaders could raise everyone’s salary, but that could be extremely costly and not doing it could discourage
them. They also should get legal and tax advice before changing the financial structure of the organization.
This article explains the reasons why the boundaries between nonprofit and for-profit organizations are fading.
At the end of the article, Dees named for the first time the leaders of more commercial nonprofits “social
entrepreneurs”.
Dees Gregory, The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship (2001): Nowadays Social entrepreneurship is a
commonly used expression. It is the combination of a social mission with business-like methods and
innovation. “Many governmental and philanthropic efforts have fallen far short of our expectations” (Dees,
2001, p. 1). Many social businesses are often inefficient, ineffective, and inert. Social entrepreneurs are needed
to face these problems. Social entrepreneurs per se are not a new phenomenon. There have always been social
entrepreneurs, but they were not named as such. Many important institutions were founded by social
entrepreneurs, as we would call them today. Social entrepreneurship is not limited to not-for-profit ventures. It
can also include for-profit businesses with a social purpose, such as developments banks.
But social entrepreneurship means different things to different people, which may be confusing.
Many associate social entrepreneurship exclusively with not-for-profit organizations starting for-profit or
earned-income ventures. Others use it to describe anyone who starts a not-for-profit organization. Still
others use it to refer to business owner who integrate social responsibility into their operations (Dees,
2001, p. 1).
Dees explains first the origins of the word “entrepreneur”. The French economist Jean-Baptiste Say said
around 1800 that “the entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of
higher productivity and greater yield” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 1). Therefore, according to Say, an
entrepreneur creates value. Joseph Schumpeter (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 1), another important economist,
describes entrepreneurs as follows:
[…] innovators who drive the “creative destruction” process of capitalism. In his words “the function of
entrepreneur is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production.” They can do this in many ways: “by
exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new
commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a
new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.” Schumpeter’s entrepreneurs are the
Research Problem 8
change agents in the economy. By serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things, they move
the economy forward.
Say and Schumpeter identified entrepreneurs as innovators and change agents behind economic progress.
Those terms have served as foundation for contemporary entrepreneurship definitions. Peter Drucker is one
of them. For Drucker (as cited in Dees, 2001) an entrepreneur is always searching to exploit opportunities
created by change rather than to cause change itself. Opportunity recognition is nowadays central to many
definitions of entrepreneurship respectively entrepreneurs. Drucker also explains, that “starting a business is
neither necessary nor sufficient for entrepreneurship” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 2). There is nothing especially
innovative or change oriented in opening another Mexican restaurant in the American suburb. “The same
would be true of new not-for-profit organizations” (Dees, 2001, p. 2). “Drucker also makes it clear that
entrepreneurship does not require a profit motive” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 2). Howard Stevenson (as cited
in Dees, 2001) added the element of resourcefulness to the opportunity-oriented definition. “Entrepreneurs
mobilize the resources of others to achieve their entrepreneurial objectives” (Dees, 2001, p. 2). Compared to
Say’s and Schumpeter’s definitions, Drucker’s and Stevenson’s, definitions of entrepreneurship are not limited
to business start-ups and for-profit ventures.
Social entrepreneurs are one type of entrepreneurs. The difference between a business and social entrepreneur
is the social mission, which is a reason why they encounter distinctive challenges. Dees claims that any
definition should reflect this. The social mission “becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation” (Dees,
2001, p. 2). Wealth creation is for business entrepreneurs a way of measuring value creation. Market discipline
determines mainly if they are creating value. Their goal is to shift resources to more economically productive
uses. If they do not create value, they will likely run out of business. Markets are not perfect, but they work
quite well to measure private value creation, especially for customers who are able and willing to pay.
“Entrepreneurs who can pay the most of the resources are typically the ones who can put the resources to
higher valued uses, as determined in the marketplace” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Thus businesses can only create
value when customers pay more than the costs of the good or service sold. The value or profit created by
business entrepreneurs is revenue minus costs. If customers are not willing to pay the price, which allows the
entrepreneur to generate profit, it is likely “that insufficient value is being created to justify this use of a
resource” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). For social entrepreneurs, in fact, markets do not work as well. For social
entrepreneurship elements such as social improvements and public goods are often essential, but cannot be
well valued by the markets. “That is what makes it social entrepreneurship” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Therefore it is
much harder to measure if a social entrepreneur is creating enough social value to justify the resources used in
creating that value. Even if a social business lasts for long, it does not proof that it is efficiently and effectively
improving social conditions. “It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value
Research Problem 9
is created by reducing pollution in a given stream […]?” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Even if the social value creation
can be measured, social entrepreneurs often are unable to monetize it, enabling them to pay for the resources
used. Social entrepreneurs can overcome this problem, by looking for “subsidies, donations, and volunteers,
but this further muddies the waters of market discipline” (Dees, 2001, p. 3).
Dees’ definition of social entrepreneurship is based on Say’s value creation, Schumpeter’s innovation and
change agents, Drucker’s opportunities recognition and Stevenson’s resourcefulness. Dees (2001, pp. 4-5)
defines social entrepreneurship as follows:
Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in social sector, by:
Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value): This is the core of what
distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs even from socially responsible businesses.
[…] Profit is not the gauge of value creation, nor satisfaction, social impact is the gauge. Social
entrepreneurs look for a long-term social return on investment. […]
Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission: Where others see
problems, social entrepreneurs see opportunity. […] The key element is persistence combined with a
willingness to make adjustments as one goes. Rather than giving up when an obstacle is encountered,
entrepreneurs ask, “How can we surmount this obstacle? How can we make it work?”
Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning: Entrepreneurs are innovative.
[…] It does not require inventing something wholly new; it can simply involve applying an existing idea in
a new way or to a new situation. Entrepreneurs need not to be inventors. They simply need to be creative in
applying what others have invented. […] This willingness to innovate is part of the modus operandi of
entrepreneurs. […] It is a continuous process of exploring, learning, and improving. […] Entrepreneurs
tend to have a high tolerance for ambiguity and learn how to manage risks for themselves and others. They
treat failure of a project as a learning experience, not a personal tragedy.
Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand: […] They are skilled at doing more
with less and attracting resources from others. They use scarce resources efficiently, and they leverage their
limited resource by drawing in partners and collaboration with others. They explore all resource options,
from pure philanthropy to commercial methods of the business sector. They are not bound by sector
norms or traditions. They develop resource strategies that are likely to support and reinforce their social
missions.
Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created: Because
market discipline does not automatically weed out inefficient and ineffective social ventures, social
Research Problem 10
entrepreneurs take steps to assure they are creating value. This means that they seek a sound
understanding of the constituencies they are serving. […] Creating a fit between investor, values and
community needs is an important part of the challenge.
Last but not least, Dees claims that not every leader is an entrepreneur in the sense of Say, Schumpeter,
Drucker and Stevenson, neither in the business nor in the social sector.
Ashoka, What is a Social Entrepreneur? (n.d.): Ashoka defines social entrepreneur as follows:
Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society,
seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions
to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social
entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.
Bornstein David, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
(Updated Edition), (2007): The book is mostly about case studies of social entrepreneurs around the world.
In order to enhance the base for the social entrepreneurship definition used in this paper, the focus is set on
the chapters: The Role of the Social Entrepreneur, In Search of Social Excellence, and Six Qualities of
Successful Social Entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneur cases are not considered, since there are no Swiss
cases among them.
Salomon & Winslow “[…] studied business entrepreneurs extensively. They have analyzed their orientation
to action, to risk and to growth “personal-value orientation” and “internal locus of control” and searched for
clues to explain the entrepreneur’s propensity to seek out and exploit change” (as cited in Bornstein, 2007, p.
92). In contrast, little attention is paid to social entrepreneurs. Their stories may be very inspiring, but it is
hard to make social entrepreneurs’ method comprehensible. The social entrepreneurs’ “[…] methods have
not received the rigorous, cross-industry scrutiny that is common to the study of business entrepreneurs”
(Bornstein, 2007, p. 92).
Later in the book, Bornstein refers to Ashoka, who encountered following problem in the late 1980’s: “[…]
Distribution channels of foreign aid and government spending is a problem. As long as money continued to be
channeled through large bureaucracies, subject to dictates of far-flung experts, aid would remain mired in poor
performance” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 151). To be effective, “[…] resources had to be placed in the hands of
people who really use them well” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 151). In other words, as Ashoka experienced, social
Research Problem 11
entrepreneurs are more effective than foreign aid and government spending. “To produce real change and
accelerate social innovation, far more resources would have to be channeled systematically to social
entrepreneurs” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 152). “The key is to put the problem-solving knowledge directly into the
hands of families and community members” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 155).
McClelland (as cited in Bornstein, 2007) figured out that the success of an entrepreneur has more to do with
the quality of their motivation rather than with their confidence, persistance, and knowledge. In contrast to
“average” entrepreneurs, succesfull entrepreneurs have a higher determination to achieve a long-term
objective meaningful to them, a more systematic way for opportunity recognition, obstacle anticipation, result
montitoring, a forward-looking planning, an increased concernment on quality and efficiency, and show more
engagement toward employees and partners. According to Bornstein, there are six qualities of successful social
entrepreneurs, which grow out of motivation:
Willingness to self-correct: “[…] The entrepreneur’s inclination to self-correct stems from the attachment
to a goal rather than to a particular approach or plan” (Bornstein, 2007, pp. 238-239) “Like young businesses,
social change organizations usually go through many iterations as their strategies or “business models” evolve
in response to problems, new opportunities and changing market conditions” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 239).
Without self-correcting, it is likely that the desired impact cannot be achieved.
Willingness to share credit: “[…] The more credit they share, the more people typically will want to help
them” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 240).
Willingness to break free of established structures: “Social entrepreneurs can cause change by redirecting
existing organizations […]” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241) or by building their own organizations.
[…] In doing so, they often assume considerable financial and professional risk. What they gain is the
freedom to act and the distance to see beyond the orthodoxy in their fields. This is critical because all
innovation entails the ability to separate from the past (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241).
Willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries: The primary functions of the social entrepreneur are: “to
create new social compounds; to gather together people’s ideas, experiences, skills, and resources in
configurations that society is not naturally aligned to produce” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241).
Faced with whole problems, social entrepreneurs readily cross disciplinary boundaries, pulling together
people from different spheres, with different kinds of experience and expertise, who can, together, build
workable solutions that are qualitatively new. […] This fact may be why so many social entrepreneurs can
be found today integrating functions that otherwise would remain disconnected (Bornstein, 2007, p. 242).
Research Problem 12
Willingness to work quietly: Social entrepreneurs often “become recognized only after years working in
relative obscurity” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 242). “A person must have very pure motivation to push an idea so
steadily for so long with so little fanfare” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 243).
Strong ethical impetus: Ethics are the “why” respectively the motivation of a social entrepreneur. “In the
end, business and social entrepreneurship are very much the same animals. They think about the same
problem the same way. They ask the same types of questions. The difference is not in temperament or ability,
but in the nature of their vision” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 244).
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship - What is a social entrepreneur? (n.d.):
Social entrepreneurs drive social innovation and transformation in various fields including education,
health, environment and enterprise development. They pursue poverty alleviation goals with
entrepreneurial zeal, business methods and the courage to innovate and overcome traditional practices. A
social entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which
are either set up as not-for-profit or for-profit companies.
A social entrepreneur is a leader or pragmatic visionary who:
• Achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through a new invention, a different
approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies or strategies, or a combination of these.
• Focuses first and foremost on the social and/or ecological value creation and tries to optimize the
financial value creation.
• Innovates by finding a new product, a new service, or a new approach to a social problem.
• Continuously refines and adapts approach in response to feedback.
• Combines the characteristics represented by Richard Branson and Mother Teresa.
The Schwab Foundation employs the following criteria when looking for leading social entrepreneurs:
Innovation, Sustainability, Reach and social impact. […]
Social entrepreneurship is:
• About applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an
emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor.
• A term that captures a unique approach to economic and social problems, an approach that cuts across
sectors and disciplines grounded in certain values and processes that are common to each social
Research Problem 13
entrepreneur, independent of whether his/her area of focus has been education, health, welfare reform,
human rights, workers' rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, etc., or whether the
organizations they set up are non-profit or for-profit entities.
• It is this approach that sets the social entrepreneur apart from the rest of the crowd of well-meaning
people and organizations who dedicate their lives to social improvement.
Mair & Martí, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight
(2006): The basic premise of this paper is to bring structure in the field of social entrepreneurship, because it
is still poorly defined and that remains fuzzy. According to the authors, “Definitions of social entrepreneurship
typically refer to a process or behavior; definitions of social entrepreneurs focus instead on the founder of the
initiative; and definitions of social enterprises refer to the tangible outcome of social entrepreneurship” (Mair
& Martí, 2006, p. 37). They see social entrepreneurship as “a process involving the innovative use and
combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs” (Mair
& Martí, 2006, p. 37). This definition is based on three assumptions. The first one is the process of value
creation by combining resources in new ways. The second is that “these resource combinations are intended
primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting
social needs” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 37). And the third assumption is that social entrepreneurship does not
only include the offering of goods and services, but also the creation of new organizations. Social
entrepreneurship can occur in new or existing organizations, where it may be named social intrapreneurship.
“Like intrapreneurship in the business sector, social intrapreneurship can refer to either new venture creation
or entrepreneurial process innovation” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 37).
Mair and Martí, are also arguing about the “social“ and “entrepreneurial” element of their definition in order to
capture potential differences between social and business entrepreneurship:
Social: Social entrepreneurship is often related to ethical motives and moral responsibility, which can also
include less altruistic reasons like personal fulfillment. It is also important to mention, that business
entrepreneurship has also a social aspect. Business entrepreneurs, when pursuing selfish ends, are also
enhancing social wealth “by creating new markets, new industries, new technology, new institutional forms,
new jobs, and net increases in real productivity” (Venkataraman, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 38). The
difference between social and business entrepreneur is the focus on creating social value. Economic value
creation is a purpose to ensure financial viability.
Research Problem 14
Entrepreneurial: Nowadays, it is agreed that entrepreneurship research should set the focus on the
entrepreneurial behavior or process. The same also applies to the notion of opportunities as a defining element
of entrepreneurship.
Social Entrepreneurship resarch has followed, to some extent, the same evolution as business
entrepreneurship. In the early stage of social entrepreneurship research, researcher have focused on the
personality of the social entrepreneur. Social entrepreneurs are characterized by very special traits and a strong
ethical fiber (Dryton, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006), “special leadership skills” (Thomson, Alvy, & Lees, as
cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 38), and “a passion to realize their vision” (Bornstein, as cited in Mair & Martí,
2006, p. 38). Gartner (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006) repeadetly pointed out that asking “who the
entrepreneur is” is not the right question to ask. Therefore, Mair & Martí are skeptical if this approach can
explain differences between social and business entrepreneurship. A more fruitful approach may be to focus on
traditional, entrepreneurial behavior and process. Finally, a recent approach is to focus on the entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition and exploitation in order to create social value (Guclu, Dees, & Anderson, as cited in
Mair & Martí, 2006).
Distinctive features of social entrepreneurship: Social entrepreneurial activities can take place in not-for-
profit and for-profit basis and depends on the business model chosen to accomplish the social mission. It is not
limited to not-for-profit ventures. The Grameen Bank founded by Muhammad Yunus, for example, used
profits generated by their main activities to create new social ventures like Grameen Telecom and Grameen
Energy. “For the Grameen Bank, creating economic value is critical to ensure that it is able to continue with its
mission, namely to change the life of the poorest of the poor by providing loans” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
Rather than profit versus not-for-profit, we argue that the main difference between entrepreneurship in the
business sector and social entrepreneurship lies in the relative priority given to social wealth creation versus
economic value creation. In business entrepreneurship, social wealth is a by-product of the economic value
created (Venkataraman, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
The main focus of social entrepreneurs is on social value creation. „In social entrepreneurship, social wealth
creation is the primary objective, while economic value creation, in form of earned income, is necessary to
ensure the sustainability of the initiative and financial self-sufficiency“ (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
An additional distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship lies in the limited potential to capture the value
created. Social entrepreneurs who address basic social needs, such as food, shelter or education, very often
find it difficult to capture economic value because, although the „customers“ are willing , often are unable
to pay even a small part of the price of the product and services provided (Seelos & Mair, as cited in Mair &
Martí, 2006, p. 39).
Research Problem 15
Finally, measurement of the social value is one of the greatest challenges for practitioners and researchers in
social entrepreneurship. “The real problem may not be the measurement per se, but how the measures may be
used to ‘‘quantify’’ the performance and impact of social entrepreneurship. Many consider it very difficult, if
not impossible, to quantify socio-economic, environmental and social effects“ (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 42).
Yet it is necessary to make major efforts in this direction and to develop useful and meaningful measures
that capture the impact of social entrepreneurship and reflect the objectives pursued. Clearly, more
research and managerial practice is needed in order to establish social impact as an essential dimension of
performance assessment (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 42).
Bornstein & Davis, Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know (2010): Bornstein and
Davis defined social entrepreneurship in their book as follows:
Social Entrepreneurship is a process by which citizens build or transform institutions to advance solutions
to social problems, such as poverty, illness, illiteracy, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and
corruption, in order to make life better for many. In others words to create social value (Bornstein & Davis,
2010, p. 1).
Dees (as cited in Bornstein & Davis, 2010) offered the most widely cited definition and he is often referred as
the father of social entrepreneurship. Bornstein and Davis are also referring to Dees who based his thinking
about social entrepreneurship on Say and Schumpeter
1
.
“Social entrepreneurs have always existed, but they were called visionaries, humanitarians, philantropists,
reformers, saints, or simply great leaders” (Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 2). Attention was mainly paid on the
social entrepreneur’s personality, but rarely on the practical aspects of their venture. The Ashoka organization
popularized the term “social entrepreneur” during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Ashoka was founded 1980 by Bill
Dryton who recognized the need to build bridges between the social sector and the business world.
In addition to the definition, Bornstein and Davis argued about what a social entrepreneur is doing. “Social
entrepreneurs must attract attention and funding, overcome apathy and oppositions, shift behaviour and
mobilize political will, continually improve the idea, and take care of all the details in painstaking fashion, no
matter how long it takes” (Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 23). The role of a social entrepreneur is “to initiate and
lead change processes that are self-correcting, growth-oriented, and impact-focused. They create new
1
Dees theory is based on Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson (p. 8)
Research Problem 16
configurations of people and coordinate their efforts to attack problems more successfully than before”
(Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 24).
But what are social entrepreneurs like? The following describes some properties of entrepreneurs the authors
mentioned in their book. Entreprenrus are confortable with uncertainty, they have a high need for autonomy,
are proactive, are minimizing risks, are good listeners, and are attracted by challenges where skills and not luck
are the key for success. They also have a higher inner locus of control, but are not necessarly highly
charismatic. Many social entrepreneurs recalled to their childhood when they were actively encourage by an
adult to take initiative or were influeced by a close and highly ethical person. Forthermore they may have
spoke up against injustice, are steadfast against doubsters and critics, and have the capacity to derive joy and
celebrate small successes, even with further difficulties ahead. Many social entrepreneurs believes that what
they are doing, is their life purpose
2
. Bornstein’s and Davis’ definition of social entrepreneurship also describes
a process, and are taking therefore the same approach by comparing “what they are doing”.
The main difference between business and social entrepreneurs is that social entrepreneur’s primary objectives
are to maximize social value rather than economic value. They are trying to maximize some form of social
impact, by addressing needs that have been ignored by other institutions. “In terms of skill and temperament,
social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different” (Bornstein
& Davis, 2010, p. 31). Business entrepreneurs also create social value by generating employment and meeting
needs, but they are maximizing economic value.
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, Analyzing Social Entrepreneurship from an Institutional Perspective:
Evidence from Spain (2010): Social entrepreneurship is not only tied to “the work of community, voluntary
and public organizations, but also private forms working for social rather than for-profit objectives” (Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55). According to Austin et al. “[…] social entrepreneurship is still emerging as
an area for academic inquiry. Its theoretical underpinnings have not been adequately explored, and the need
for contributions to theory and practice are pressing” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55).
They found out that there is no consensus among academics on all elements defining social entrepreneurship.
Zadek and Thake identified creating social instead of personal wealth as a key distinction of social
entrepreneurship (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010). For Kramer, Austin et al., and Leadbeater
it is social innovations instead of economic innovations and according to Harding, Westall & Chalkley it is
addressing social problems rather than individual needs (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010).
2
As explained in the Chapter”Mair & Martí, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight”, it is
unlikely to distinguish social from business entrepreneurs by comparing their personality.
Research Problem 17
Thompson defined social entrepreneurs as “people with the qualities and behaviors we associate with business
entrepreneurs but who operate in the community and are more concerned with caring and helping than with
making money” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56), Shaw & Carter as “those individuals
who establish enterprises primarily to meet social objectives rather than generate personal financial profit” (as
cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56). Drucker, and Leadbeater “emphasize their creativity in
developing social innovations and change for improving the social context in which the entrepreneurs operate”
(Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55). The authors are also referring to Mair and Martí, who see social
entrepreneurship as “a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue
opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, &
Soriano, 2010, p. 56), and to Austin et al. “whose central driver is the social problem being addressed” (as cited
in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56). The authors did not deflect their own definition of social
entrepreneurship, but used existing definitions to identify the influence of the institutional environment on
social entrepreneurship. This article is furthermore arguing on the institutional approach, which is out of this
research’s scope. It gives a broad overview how researchers differentiate between social and business
entrepreneurship.
Alter Sutia Kim, Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships (2006): The
author uses a simple definition for social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurship is the ability to combine
social interests with business practices to effect social change” (Alter, 2006, p. 205), but the main focus of her
work is set on social enterprise models (Chapter 2.2.3).
Weerawardena & Mort, Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model (2006):
According to the authors, social entrepreneurship has been conceptualized from different areas like “public
sector, community organizations, social action organizations, and charities. The majority of literature on social
entrepreneurship has evolved within the domain of nongovernment not-for-profit organizations”
(Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 22). In the literature review, they argue about different definitions of social
entrepreneurship. The conclusion of their review is “[…] that while there is a substantial body of literature on
social entrepreneurship emerging from a number of domains, the literature is fragmented and has not led to
the development of an empirically derived coherent theoretical framework” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p.
25). Their contribution to social entrepreneurship lies in the proposition of a multidimensional model.
Weerawardena and Mort identified risk management, proactiveness and innovativeness as the core behavioral
dimensions of social entrepreneurship, which are required to create social value. They suggest “[…] that social
Research Problem 18
entrepreneurial behavior is deeply influenced by the concurrent requirements of the environment, the need to
build a sustainable organization and the need to achieve the social mission” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, pp.
31-32). Opportunity recognition is meant to operate within these three constraints and is not identified “[…]
as a distinct dimension of the social entrepreneurship construct because it is embedded in the sustainability
dimension” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 32).
Figure 2: Bounded multidimensional model of social entrepreneurship (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 32)
Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes
and ethical challenges (2009): The article highlights social wealth for measuring the contribution of social
entrepreneurship within the context of total wealth creation, which implies both economic and social wealth.
The authors used 20 definitions (Table 1) of social entrepreneurship “that integrates common points of view
and facilitates the development of a heuristic to measure the creation of total wealth” (Zahra, Gedajlovic,
Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 520).
Source Definition
Leadbetter (1997) The use of entrepreneurial behavior for social ends rather than for profit objectives, or
alternatively, that the profits generated from market activities are used for the benefit
of a specific disadvantaged group.
Thake and Zadek
(1997)
Social entrepreneurs are driven by a desire for social justice. They seek a direct link
between their actions and an improvement in the quality of life for the people with
whom they work and those that they seek to serve. They aim to produce solutions
which are sustainable financially, organizationally, socially and environmentally.
Dees (1998) Play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: 1) Adopting a mission to create
and sustain social value (not just private value), 2) Recognizing and relentlessly
pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, 3) Engaging in a process of
continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, 4) Acting boldly without being
limited by resources currently in hand, and 5) Exhibiting heightened accountability to
the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.
Environment Sustainability
Social mission
Risk Managment
Proactiveness Innovativeness
Research Problem 19
Source Definition
Reis (1999)
(Kellogg
Foundation)
Social entrepreneurs create social value through innovation and leveraging financial
resources…for social, economic and community development.
Fowler (2000) Social Entrepreneurship is the creation of viable socio-economic structures, relations,
institutions, organizations and practices that yield and sustain social benefits.
Brinkerhoff (2001) Individuals constantly looking for new ways to serve their constituencies and add value
to existing services
Mort et al. (2002) A multidimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous
behavior to achieve the social mission…the ability to recognize social value creating
opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovation, proactiveness
and risk-taking
Drayton (2002) A major change agent, one whose core values center on identifying, addressing and
solving societal problems.
Alford et al. (2004) Creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the ideas,
capacities, resources and social arrangements required for social transformations
Harding (2004) Entrepreneurs motivated by social objectives to instigate some form of new activity or
venture.
Shaw (2004) The work of community, voluntary and public organizations as well as private firms
working for social rather than only profit objectives.
Said School (2005) A professional, innovative and sustainable approach to systematic change that resolves
social market failures and grasps opportunities
Fuqua School
(2005)
The art of simultaneously pursuing both a financial and a social return on investment
(the “double” bottom line)
Schwab Foundation
(2005)
Applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general,
with an emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor.
NYU Stern (2005) The process of using entrepreneurial and business skills to create innovative
approaches to social problems. “These non-profit and for profit ventures pursue the
double bottom line of social impact and financial self-sustainability or profitability.”
MacMillan (2005)
(Wharton Center)
Process whereby the creation of new business enterprise leads to social wealth
enhancement so that both society and the entrepreneur benefit.
Tan et al. (2005) Making profits by innovation in the face of risk with the involvement of a segment of
society and where all or part of the benefits accrue to that same segment of society.
Mair and Marti
(2006a)
…a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways…intended
primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating
social change or meeting social needs.
Peredo and McLean
(2006)
Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group….aim(s) at creating
social value…shows a capacity to recognize and take advantage of
opportunities…employ innovation…accept an above average degree of risk…and are
unusually resourceful …in pursuing their social venture.
Martin and Osberg
(2007)
Social entrepreneurship is the: 1) identification a stable yet unjust equilibrium which
the excludes, marginalizes or causes suffering to a group which lacks the means to
transform the equilibrium; 2) identification of an opportunity and developing a new
Research Problem 20
Source Definition
social value proposition to challenge the equilibrium, and 3) forging a new, stable
equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group through imitation and
creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium to ensure a better future for
the group and society.
Table 1: Definitions and descriptions of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman,
2009, p. 521).
Based on their findings, the authors suggest following definition: “Social entrepreneurship encompasses the
activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social
wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner” (Zahra,
Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 520). “As we have noted, accepted, reliable and valid measures of
social wealth do not currently exist” (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 529).
Research Problem 21
2.2.3 Social Enterprise and Typology
The type of social enterprise a social entrepreneur creates may depend on the social mission, the business
model, or laws. This chapter gives an insight into typologies that emerged in the literature.
Dees, Emerson, & Economy, Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs (2001): “Social
entrepreneurs realize that they have a wide range of options for structuring their organizations” (Dees,
Emerson, & Economy, 2001, p. 14). The authors identified the following social enterprise spectrum:
Continuum of Options
Purely Philanthropic Hybrids Purely Commercial
General Motives,
Methods, and Goals
Appeal to goodwill Mixed motives Appeal to self-interest
Mission-driven Balance of mission and
market
Market-driven
Social value creation Social and economic
value
Economic value
creation
Key Stakeholders
Beneficiaries Pay nothing Subsidized rates and/
or mix of full payers and
those who pay nothing
Pay full market rates
Capital Donations and grants Below-market capital
and/or mix of full
payers and those who
pay nothing
Market rate capital
Workforce Volunteers Below-market wages
and/or mix of full
payers and fully paid
staff
Market rate
compensation
Suppliers Make in-kind
donations
Special discounts
and/or mix of in-kind
and full price
Charge market prices
Table 2: The social enterprise spectrum (Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001, p. 15)
Elkington & Hartigan, The power of unreasonable people: how social entrepreneurs create markets
that change the world (2008): The autors found out that “social enterprises seem to be built from a relatively
small number of key ingredients” (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008, p. 31). As a result they identified three
categories, or business models.
Research Problem 22
Leveraged nonprofit ventures (Model 1): Most social enterprises of this model have typically the following
characteristics (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008, p. 33):
• A public goods is being delivered to the most economically vulnerable, who do not have access to, or
are unable to afford, the service rendered.
• Both the entrepreneur and the organization are change catalysts, with a central goal of enabling direct
beneficiaries to assume ownership of the initiative, enhancing its long-term sustainability.
• Multiple external partners are actively involved in supporting (or are being recruited to support) the
venture, financially, politically, and in kind.
• The founding entrepreneur morphs into a figurehead, in some cases for the wider movement, as others
assume responsibilities and leadership.
Hybrid nonprofit ventures (Model 2): Their main characteristics include the following (Elkington &
Hartigan, 2008, p. 38):
• As with model 1 ventures, goods and/or services are delivered to populations that have been excluded
or underserved by mainstream markets, but the notion of making (and reinvesting) profit is not totally
out of the question.
• Sooner or later, the founding entrepreneur – or his or her team – typically develops a marketing plan to
ensure that the poor or otherwise disadvantaged can access the product or service being provided.
• The enterprise is able to recover a portion of its costs through the sale of goods and services, in the
process often identifying new markets.
• To sustain activities and address the unmet needs of poor or otherwise marginalized clients, the
entrepreneur mobilizes funds from public, private and/or philanthropic organizations in the form of
grants, loans, or, in rare cases, quasi-equity investments.
• As mainstream investors and businesses enter the picture, even when they are not seeking mainstream
financial returns, they tend to push hybrid nonprofit ventures to become model 3 social businesses, to
ensure access to new sources of funding, particularly capital markets. This may be warranted in some
cases, but it risks refocusing activities to the point where the poorest will no longer be served.
Social business ventures (Model 3): The main characteristics of this model are (Elkington & Hartigan,
2008, p. 43):
• The entrepreneur sets up the venture as a business with the specific mission to drive transformational
social and/or environmental change.
Research Problem 23
• Profits are generated, but the main aim is not to maximize financial returns for shareholders but instead
to financially benefit low-income groups and to grow the social venture by reinvestments, enabling it to
reach and serve more people.
• The entrepreneur seeks out investors interested in combining social and financial returns.
• The enterprise’s financing – and scaling – opportunities can be significantly greater because social
businesses can more easily take on debt and equity.
Alter Sutia Kim, Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships (2006): Social
entrepreneurship creates social and economic value with a new type of institution by combining market
mechanism and social interests. This social and business world has spawned the revenue earning social
enterprise.
The social enterprise is driven by two strong forces. First, the nature of desired social change often benefits
from an innovative, entrepreneurial, or enterprise-based solution. Second, the sustainability of the
organization and its services requires diversification of its funding stream, often including the creation of
earned income opportunities (Reis, as cited in Alter, 2006, p. 205). Social enterprise introduces a new not-
for-profit paradigm for creating sustainable value for people and the planet (Alter, 2006, p. 205).
The social enterprise was invented because not-for-profits are under pressure “to professionalize their services,
increase social impact, and be accountable for results. Furthermore, support for traditional, philanthropic, and
government sources is declining and competition for available funds is increasing” (Alter, 2006, p. 206). In
addition, “[…] not-for-profit market forces are galvanizing practitioners to explore alternative financing
approaches and more effective programming methods. Not-for-profit leaders understand that to be
competitive they must render high quality services to clients as well as realize significant social returns (Alter,
2006, p. 206).
The social enterprise is an entrepreneurial, strong, and more innovative not-for-profit organization. “The
integration of business tools and practices within not-for-profits builds organizational capacity that can
improve performance and increase their ability to effect lasting change. The social enterprise paradigm also
provides not-for-profits with a mechanism to deepen their social impact” (Alter, 2006, p. 206). This means to
enhance the mission by creating more meaningful social impact, reaching new markets, or diversifying the
social services. Furthermore, the social enterprise provides the not-for-profit leader with greater financial
independence and he can leverage the earned income for new program-related investments and ensures the
longevity of the organization.
Research Problem 24
A social enterprise pursues dual objectives: to generate sustainable social impact and the amount of money to
be earned. “The purpose of a social enterprise is defined by the emphasis and priority given to its financial and
social objectives” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
In organizations with a high compatibility between the business and the social mission, the social enterprise is
a natural fit. For example: Fair Trade products in agriculture or employment development programs. “In these
cases, the social enterprises are central to the organization’s mission and function as a self-funding programme
strategy, accomplishing mission goals while simultaneously increasing financial self-sufficiency” (Alter, 2006,
p. 207). But the social enterprise does not always seamlessly match with an organization’s mission. “[…] The
impetus to begin a social enterprise might be financially motivated, nevertheless the social enterprise can serve
to enhance or expand the organization’s social programmes and strengthen its mission” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
For example, an environmental organization, offering eco-tourism to generate income in order to finance the
reforestation. Alter pointed out a third group of organizations incorporating “social enterprises as an auxiliary
activity without concern for social benefit. In these instances, social enterprises are often unrelated to the
mission and are employed solely as a funding strategy” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
Alter claims that social enterprises’ financial objective is not by default profit and may differ among
organizations. According to Dees (as cited in Alter, 2006) a social enterprise does not need to be profitable to
be worthwhile, but can improve its efficiency and effectiveness by diminishing the need for donated funds,
finding a more reliable, diversified funding base, or by increasing market discipline in order to enhance the
quality of programs.
Alter identified three financial strategies for social enterprises. The first is to diversify the funding base of the
social enterprise by decreasing the reliance on donation or subsidies. “Organizations seeking to diversify
income may set modest financial objectives by for-profit standards. […] Organizations using social enterprise
to diversify income are more apt to practice mission-centered models” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). The second is to
achieve financial self-sufficiency. “Financial self-sufficiency is achieved by generating adequate income to cover
costs without continued reliance on donor funding” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). Therefore, organizations have to
run lucrative businesses in addition to the not-for-profit programs. “Organizations seeking to achieve full
financial self-sufficiency will opt for non-mission-oriented social enterprises that offer the greatest profit-
making potential over less productive enterprises geared towards achieving social benefit” (Alter, 2006, p.
208). The third strategy is to “[…] engage in social enterprise as a means to make best use of their resources
and to reduce costs” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). This can be done by sharing assets, back office functions, etc. “to
reimburse programme costs and make internal investments in hard-to-fund projects such as pilot programmes
or overheads” (Alter, 2006, p. 208).
Research Problem 25
As value creation properties are intertwined in the social enterprise, purpose and mission are inextricably
linked. The interrelationship between business activities and social programs is dictated by the social
enterprise’s purpose and relevance to the parent organization’s mission. Therefore a system of
classification based around “mission orientation” provides one determinant of social enterprise type (Alter,
2006, pp. 208-209).
Figure 3: Social enterprise type by mission orientation (Alter, 2006, p. 209)
Mission-centric type: “In the mission-centric social enterprise business activities are central to the parent
organization’s social mission. These social enterprises are created for the express purpose of advancing the
mission using a self-financing model” (Alter, 2006, p. 209).
Mission-related type: In this type, the social enterprise’s business activities are related to the organization’s
mission. They “have synergistic properties, creating social value for programmes and generating income to
subsidize programme costs or operating expenses” (Alter, 2006, p. 210). For example, an organization that
uses the catering services of schools, hospitals, or other social institutions in order to offer free meals for poor.
Another mission-related type is mission expansion. Alter quotes as an example a business consultancy for self-
employed single mothers, which open a sliding-scale fee-based childcare social enterprise.
Unrelated to mission type: This type of social enterprise is not related to the organizations mission. The
profit potential is the motivation for creating a social enterprise. For example Save the Children, a not-for-
profit organization, created a corporate licensing social enterprise. Licenses are granted to “companies in
consumer products industries, based on the mutually beneficial goal of increased profit for companies and a
significant and steady income stream for Save the Children’s work worldwide” (Alter, 2006, p. 211). The
licensee benefits of the social enterprise’s reputation to ameliorate their image and to attract socially conscious
consumers.
Mission
Centric
Unrelated
to Misson
Mission
Related
Type of Social Enterprise
Mission Motive Profit Motive
Research Problem 26
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Swiss Executive Report (2010): For the GEM report a typology
with four types of social enterprise was developed. This typology is based on three features of a social
enterprise. The first feature is the percentage of social and environmental goals related to the total goals. The
second is if the social company relies on an earned income strategy or not, and the third feature checks the
presence of innovation.
The four presented categories are:
1. Traditional NGO (high levels of social/environment goals; not-for-profit status),
2. Not-for-profit social enterprise (high levels of social/environmental goals; not-for-profit status;
innovation);
3. Hybrid social enterprise (high levels of social/environmental goals; earned income strategy “integrated” or
“complementary” to the mission) and;
4. For Profit social enterprise (high but not exclusively social/environmental goals; earned income strategy).
The fifth category, the socially committed businesses (Figure 4), has primarily a profit motive and is the link
between social and business entrepreneurship. For the GEM report, this category was included in the
spectrum of social entrepreneurial activities to capture the full extent of such activities, but they also point out
that current social entrepreneurship theories exclude them from this spectrum.
Research Problem 27
Figure 4: Classification of four social enterprise types (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Swiss Executive Report, 2010)
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, Analyzing Social Entrepreneurship from an Institutional Perspective:
Evidence from Spain (2010): This paper does not focus on social enterprise typologies, but mentions the
nonprofit, for-profit and mixed social enterprise types indirectly as follows: “Specially, some authors have
recently stressed the emergence of hybrid entities, or new forms of social enterprises, that use both elements of
the nonprofit sector and the for-profit sector” (Fowler, Borzaga and Defounrny, Austin et al., Townsend and
Hart as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, pp. 54-55).
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship - What is a social entrepreneur? (n.d.): A social
entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which are either
set up as not-for-profit or for-profit companies.
Earned Income
Strategy?
Social and Environmental Goals
as Percent of Total
Earned Income
Strategy?
NGO
Hybrid SE
CATEG 3
For profit SE
CATEG 4
Innovation-Driven
Organization
Traditional NGO
CATEG 1
Not-for-profit SE
CATEG 2
Socially Committed
Business
Social and Environmental
Goals > 67%
Social and Environmental
Goals < 50%
Social and Environmental
Goals 50%-67%
Yes No
No No Yes Yes
Research Problem 28
2.2.4 Constraints and Motivations
Dees (2001) pointed out that the difference between a business and social entrepreneur is the social mission,
which is a reason why they encounter distinctive challenges. Social entrepreneurs are often unable to monetize
the social value creation and to overcome this problem. They have to look for subsidies and donations to
finance the venture or are relying on volunteers to reduce costs. According to the Schwab Foundation for
Social Entrepreneurship (n.d.), social entrepreneurs are facing constraints imposed by ideology or field of
discipline. Weerawardena & Mort (2006) identified two types of constraints: drive for sustainability of the
organization and the achievement of the social mission and the influence of environmental dynamics.
Bornstein & Davis (2010) dedicated a whole chapter on the challenges like financing, talent seeking, or
evaluating social impact. The also pointed out, that in contrast to business entrepreneurs, social
entrepreneurs, depending on their business model, are facing different constraints. NPO are financed by
foundations, philanthropist or governments whose investments are modest in size and relatively short-term. In
addition, governments are elected officials with a short-term appearance of success rather than long-term in
order to be reelected. On the other hand, revenue generating social enterprises have accessed capital from
investors seeking financial and social impact. The literature about social entrepreneurship is mostly American
and therefore it is needed to understand what kind of constraints social entrepreneurs encounter in
Switzerland and why they started their venture.
2.3 Delimitations and Terms
The literature review is the theoretical base to delimit the terms used in the research question in order to
derive the theoretical framework (Chapter 2.4) for the data analysis (Chapter 4). Subsequently, the terms
“social entrepreneurship” and “social business typology” are delimited. There is no need to delimit the terms
“constraints” and “motivation”, because this research’s objective is to identify.
2.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship
The first terms to delimit are “social” and “entrepreneurship”. Finding an appropriate social entrepreneurship
definition can turn into a “tyranny of choice”. Event though, the reviewed articles and books were published
between 1998 and 2010, no commonly used definition of social entrepreneurship emerged. Weerawardena &
Mort (2006) and recently Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano (2010) pointed out that there is a substantial body of
literature on social entrepreneurship, but there is no consensus on all elements defining social
entrepreneurship. Table 3 summarizes the key differences between social and business entrepreneurship, in
order to find a way through the definitions.
Research Problem 29
Key difference between social and business
entrepreneurship
Source
Focuses first and foremost on the social and/or
ecological value creation and tries to optimize the
financial value creation.
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Mission to create and sustain social value;
social mission is the central criterion.
Dees (2001)
Focus on creating social value rather than
economic value.
Mair & Martí (2006)
Relative priority given to social wealth creation
versus economic value creation.
Venkataraman (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006)
Core values center on identifying, addressing and
solving societal problems.
Dryton (as cited in Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, &
Shulman, 2009)
Addressing social problems rather than individual
needs.
Harding, Westall & Chalkley (as cited in Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010)
Social innovations instead of economic
innovations.
Kramer, Austin et al., and Leadbeater (as cited in Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010)
Maximizing social value rather than economic
value.
Bornstein & Davis (2010)
Meeting social objectives rather than generate
personal financial profit.
Shaw & Carter (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano,
2010)
Are more concerned with caring and helping than
with making money.
Thompson (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano,
2010)
Creating social instead of personal wealth. Zadek and Thake (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, &
Soriano, 2010)
Table 3: Key difference between social and business entrepreneurship
The key difference between social and business entrepreneurship is, based on Table 3, the social mission,
aimed is to maximize the social value creation rather than economic value.
Social: The social mission is the social enterprise’s core business. The following social mission types were
identified in the literature:
Social Mission Types Source
Solutions to social problems. Ashoka (n.d.)
Education, health, welfare reform, human rights,
workers' rights, environment, economic
development, agriculture, etc.
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Elements such as social improvements and public
goods are often essential, but cannot be well
valued by the markets.
Dees (2001)
Research Problem 30
Social Mission Types Source
Often related to ethical motives and moral
responsibility;
Catalyze social change and/or address social
needs.
Mair & Martí (2006)
Food, shelter or education, etc. Seelos & Mair (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006)
Poverty, illness, illiteracy, environmental
destruction, human rights abuses, and corruption.
Bornstein & Davis (2010)
Table 4: Social mission types
Table 4 gives a direction of what a social mission can look like, but there is no clear definition of what makes a
mission social. Bornstein & Davis (2010) pointed out that the line between social and commercial enterprises
are not always clear. No clear social mission definition was found in the literature. Therfore the social mission
is delimited by the different types presented in Table 4.
Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship is a process by innovating, recognizing opportunities and taking
moderately risky decisions leading into action by using resources to create added value (Filion, et al., 2010).
Baron & Shane’s (2008) definition of entrepreneurship uses with exception of the risk dimension, the same
dimensions. Whereas most dimensions of the definition are understandable, the innovation dimension needs
closer explanations. According to Shane (2009), innovation is not the same as invention. It is the process of
using knowledge to solve a problem and not the discovery of a new idea. Porter (as cited in Westland, 2008)
goes further and defines innovation as invention and commercialization. „An innovation is a product or service
with a bundle of features that is – as a whole – new in the market, or that is commercialized in some new way
that opens up new uses and consumer groups for it“ (Westland, 2008, p. 6). The latest definition is used to
delimit the innovation dimension.
The use of the common business entrepreneurship definition for social entrepreneurship is appropriate
because the key dimensions mentioned above are found in most social entrepreneurship definitions. Authors
like Bornstein (2007), the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d.) and Thompson (as cited in
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010) corroborate this approach by pointing out that social entrepreneurs are
acting mostly like business enptrepreneurs, who follow a social mission in order to create social value. Last but
not least, it has to be mentionned, that entrepreneurship is a process and an entrepreneur is the person that
follows the entrepreneurial process.
Research Problem 31
2.3.2 Social Enterprise Typology
Following table presents the different social enterprise typologies identified in the reviewed literature.
Social Enterprise Typology Source
Not-for-profit
For-profit
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Purely philanthropic
Mixed
Purely commercial
Dees, Emerson, & Economy (2001)
Mission-centric
Mission related
Unrelated to mission
Alter (2006)
Leveraged nonprofit business model
Hybrid nonprofit business model
Social business model
Elkington & Hartigan (2008)
Traditional NGO
Not-for-profit
Hybrid
For-profit
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2009)
Nonprofit
For-profit
Mixed
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano (2010)
Table 5: Social enterprise typologies
Based on Table 5, the most named social enterprise types are the not-for-profit, mixed and for-profit social
enterprise. This typology is based on the earned income strategy of the social enterprise. Dees (1998)
(Chapter 2.2.2) distinguishes following earned income strategies for nonprofits: earned income from intended
beneficiaries, earned income from third party payers with a vested interest, and earned income from others.
Once the social entrepreneur has defined the earned income strategy, he has to determine the social
enterprise’s financial objectives, which can be: full philanthropic support, partial self-sufficiency, cash flow self-
sufficiency, operating expense self-sufficiency, full-scale commercialization, or mixed enterprises. Therefore,
the financial objectives are determining the social enterprise’s desired self-sufficiency degree. In this research, a
not-for-profit social enterprise is a nonprofit organization following an earned income strategy in order to
increase its self-sufficiency degree. If the social enterprise’s objective is to make profit, it is called a for-profit
social enterprise. A mixed social enterprise pursues not-for-profit and for-profit business activities, each of
them having its own earned income strategy. If the business activities’ cumulated earned incomes generate a
profit, it is impossible to distinguish a mixed from a for-profit social enterprise, and if the business activities’
cumulated earned incomes do not generate profit, it is impossible to distinguish a mixed from a not-for-profit
social enterprise. The solution to this problem is to split the mixed type into the mixed not-for-profit and the
mixed for-profit social enterprise. But the literature does not differentiate the mixed types. Based on this fact,
Research Problem 32
the types for the theoretical framework are, as the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship proposes,
the not-for-profit and the for-profit social enterprise type.
Elkington & Hartigan (2008), as presented in Table 5, are using the expression “business model”. The
typology as used in this this research, is a part of the business model. These types are applicable on every social
enterprise, but every social enterprise has its own business model. “A business model describes the rationale of
how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 14). It is build out
of nine blocks, which are represented in following business model canvas:
Figure 5: Business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 44)
The goal is not to digress, but to avoid confusion between the social enterprise typology and the business
model. While the business model consists of nine blocks, the typology, as used in the theoretical framework
(Chapter 2.4), is based on the revenue streams respectively the earned income strategy.
Key
Partners
Key
Activities
Value
Proposition
Customer
Relationship
Customer
Segments
Cost
Structure
Revenue
Streams
Key
Resources
Key
Channels
Research Problem 33
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this research consists of following steps:
Figure 6: Theoretical framework
The framework allows determining in the first step if an activity is entrepreneurial or not by analyzing the six
entrepreneurial dimensions as defined by Filion, et al. (2010). If yes, it has to be determined in the second
step if the entrepreneur follows a mission, which creates sustainable social value. If the entrepreneur is a social
entrepreneur, he is therefore running a social enterprise. The third and last step determines the social
enterprise’s type based on the self-sufficiency objective. If the self-sufficiency objective is set above 100%, it is a
for-profit social enterprise and if the self-sufficiency objective is set below or equal 100%, it is a not-for-profit
social enterprise. Both social enterprise types are the base to identify literal (predicting similar results within
each type) and theoretical (predicting contrasting results between both types) replications in order to develop
the propositions in Chapter 4.3.
Is the person an entrepreneur who innovates by
recognizing opportunities, taking moderately risky
decisions leading into action by using resources to create
added value (Filion, et al., 2010)?
Is the entrepreneur adopting a mission to create and
sustain social value (Dees, 2001)?
Is the social enterprise’s self-sufficiency objective
Diesen Abschnitt bitte nicht publizieren, v.a. nicht [...]
Thanks, sonst gut, Grüsse, Gregory
5.5.10 Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Explanations
Question No = CI.TN (C: case, I: interview no, T: Q = question, A = answer, N: question / answer number)
Cue Point = Timestamp in interview record file (hh:mm:ss)
Topic = Text, Question or Answer
Introduction
Hello, my name is Thomas Stalder and I’m actually writing my master-thesis at the University of Applied Sciences in Fribourg,
Switzerland. I’m conducting a study about Swiss social entrepreneurs, their motivations and constraints related to their social
enterprise typology. For that purpose I would like to interview you. The interview will take about 45-60 minutes.
Additional explanations to be given before the interview:
• Would you and the company remain anonymous? No
• Am I allowed to record the interview? Yes
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not wish to or may request me at any time to not record certain parts of the interview
for confidentiality reasons.
• You will get a paraphrased copy of the interview, which I would like you to approve before I use it for my master-thesis.
• Do you wish a copy of the final study? Yes
Appendix 114
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Interview
D1.Q1 Place
D1.A1 1 Amazee Ltd, Technoparkstrasse 1, 8005 Zürich
D1.Q2 Time
D1.A2 1 10:00 - 10:45, 18.06.2010
General questions about the social entrepreneur
D1.Q3 First name and surname?
D1.A3 1 Gregory Gerhardt
D1.Q4 Function?
D1.A4 1 00:55:00 CEO
General questions about the company
D1.Q5 When was the company founded?
D1.A5 1 00:01:02 September 2007
D1.Q6 Legal form of the company?
D1.A6 1 00:01:08 Limited company
D1.Q7 Number of employees?
D1.A7 1 00:01:16 8
D1.Q8 List of subsidiaries and number of employees in each case?
D1.A8 1 00:01:23 No
D1.Q9 In which geographical area is your social enterprise operating?
D1.A9 1 00:01:30 Basically in all English and German speaking regions of the world. Most traffic on the amazee.com platform comes from Switzerland,
Germany, USA and South Africa. All customers of the amazee's customized solutions are from Switzerland.
Mission
D1.Q10 Which social impact should be achieved by your company?
Appendix 115
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A10 1 00:02:01 The mission of amazee is to create collaborative platforms. The public platform amazee.com allows people to collaborate in a more
productive manner than Facebook allows. Facebook has a very consumer oriented culture, it is very egocentric and fun, but it is not
about earnest social collaboration. The amazee.com public platform is about serious social collaboration and it is subsidized by selling
customized platforms to clients, which are using the platform in a social responsible manner in their own company. Per example
KPMG is using a customized platform to raise funds for green-tech projects at the ETH Zurich and Lausanne. Another example is
Pascale Bruderer, the president of the Swiss National Council that is using the platform to create social benefits by bringing all
generation uniting projects together. For amazee, social means not just bringing something to poor people. They will also allow
political interaction, which can't be told to be good or bad, but it is social activity happening, it's society forming new groups, new
initiatives, new projects that want to change things. Therefore it's social in a more extensive sense.
D1.Q11 Has the initial social mission changed over time?
D1.A11 1 00:06:45 No, the mission, the social collaboration, has not changed, but the way they are monetizing the venture changed. They expected that
the platform will grow faster, having more people on the platform and monetizing it with advertising and project upgrades that will be
bought more often. Therefore they had to think about new ways to monetize the platform and that were the customized solution.
This grew out of the financial pressure they suddenly experienced.
D1.A11 2 00:07:38 They started with an angel funding of one million Swiss francs and lived and worked with it for one and a half year. Combined with
the financial crisis they got into a liquidity squeeze in May 2009. With this high pressure, they had to come with something new. They
won a competition of KPMG against other web developers, which ended to be their first customized solution sold. The amazee.com
solution was almost exactly meeting KMPG requirements. So luck and the financial pressure created this new revenue model, which
are the customized solutions. In May/June 2010 they have realized that this market works. They sold three mandates so far and need
some more customers. They had two steps in monetization of the company. The first from the amazee.com to the customized
solutions and the second from the customized solutions to classical web development in open source area, focused on Drupal.
D1.Q12 Why did it change?
D1.A12 1 -
D1.Q13 How did it change?
D1.A13 1 -
D1.Q14 What were the challenges when changing the social mission?
D1.A14 1
D1.Q15 What is your business model?
Appendix 116
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A15 1 00:04:23 The amazee.com platform has at least one third "social social" projects, one third social projects like political, common interests, etc.
which have no money to pay. Almost one third is willing to pay to have a private, more professional group, with enhanced social
collaborative functionalities and advertising are monetizing a little the amazee.com platform. But this does not found the company, so
they have to sell customized platforms to organizations and companies and to do some classic web development for funding it.
amazee.com is a fully scalable platform, the customized solutions are mid-scalable, but this is a very small market because a company
or organization needs more than 10'000 people to achieve the critical social mass to run the platform. Therefore they are also selling
customized non-scalable web solutions, which are now organically growing. But amazee is only proactively selling the customized
solutions.
Typology
D1.Q16 What is your degree of social objectives in percentage of all company objectives (integration of the social mission)?
D1.A16 1 10:38:00 60% social, 40% economical. The social objective is to provide a top notch, leading edge technology for society to interact online in a
productive sense. The next objective is to have a top team to maintain this top technology. For this, money is needed to generate a
positive cash flow to pay the team that creates the technology, which again creates the social change. This requires sales effort and
some marketing. The goal is rather to pay industry salaries and to increase the social objectives than creating profit above that.
D1.Q17 What is your degree of financial self-sufficiency in percentage (earned income strategy)?
D1.A17 1 00:13:21 100%, respectively 90% if the research projects, funded by the government, from different Universities and schools on amazee.com
are also taken in account.
D1.Q18 Is the company funded by donators? If yes, how many percent?
D1.A18 1 00:15:53 -
D1.Q19 Is the company funded by foundations? If yes, how many %?
D1.A19 1 00:15:57 -
D1.Q20 Is the company funded by government? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A20 1 00:15:57 -
D1.Q21 Is the company funded by other (own or external) business activities? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A21 1 00:16:02 -
D1.Q22 Is the company funded by equity? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A22 1 00:16:05 Yes. By angel investors and founders
Appendix 117
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.Q23 Is the company funded by debt? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A23 1 00:16:14 -
D1.Q24 Is the company funded by other sources (also in kind)? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A24 1 00:16:51 -
D1.Q25 Has the initial typology changed over time?
D1.A25 1 00:17:10 No
D1.Q26 Why did it change?
D1.A26 1
D1.Q27 How did it change?
D1.A27 1
D1.Q28 What were the challenges when changing the typology?
D1.A28 1
Motivation
D1.Q29 How did you recognize the opportunity?
D1.A29 1 00:17:25 Mr. Gerhardt was working at a private bank where he had a lot of fun. He came from a law school and there he was asking himself:
how will society best organize itself in an efficient and effective way? He was fascinated by the efficiency and effectiveness of the stock
market in the sense that it is a place where people have the same interests, shares can be sold anytime, within seconds, and worldwide.
This was enabled through the internet, which is the most efficient and effective media for information exchange. Combined with the
question how society will be organized in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years he concluded, that society will collaborate online by creating groups
and projects. Beside that, Mr. Gerhardt has an adventurous core and entrepreneurial traits. He left the bank where he had a decent
salary, but this was not the meaning he was looking for. He is always looking for challenges. He went to the boy scouts where he
learned to be social, and his parents are politically active.
D1.Q30 Why did you start this venture?
D1.A30 1 00:22:09 Mr. Gerhardt developed this idea with some friends and they started to write a business plan. At a certain point, they had to take the
decision if they will make it real or not. They thought that the plan is feasible and started the venture by looking for funding.
D1.Q31 Did you start the venture with partners or alone?
D1.A31 1 00:23:12 They were three founders. Two of them became operative and one not.
Appendix 118
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
General question about constraints
D1.Q32 What kind of constraints did you encounter respectively are you still confronted to. Please explain.
D1.A32 1 00:24:36 Financial constraints. Working in a social area is difficult because people are not willing to spend money. Basically the human being is
totally egocentric, he is driven by basic instincts that is himself primarily, sleep, food, sex, consumption, material goods, and stuff that
are fun. Once all of this is achieved, comes the area where amazee's market is. The biggest constraint is to convince people to buy a
product that has no direct commercial use. This may also be a reason why classical web development is a solution to cross subsidize
the amazee.com platform and to pay decent salaries.
Ask following questions, if necessary, to get more data about the constraints. Else goto Solutions.
Social constraints
D1.Q33 Did you encounter any cultural constraints?
D1.A33 1 00:26:10 Yes, they did some marketing in the US, but the Americans are fixed on US products. If it is not American, it will likely not being used.
The Swiss are more open to adopt American products like Facebook, Twitter, etc. You have to speak the language, understand what
the slang is, and speaking in web platform terms.
D1.Q34 Did you encounter any religious constraints?
D1.A34 1 00:28:08 No, amazee is totally neutral as long that the projects are legal and legitimate. It is the people's right to express themselves.
D1.Q35 Did you encounter any educational constraints?
D1.A35 1 00:29:29 They have a higher educated target group with an average age of 35, but this is not a constraint.
D1.Q36 Did you encounter any social transformation/change constraints?
D1.A36 1 00:29:57 No, amazee is about social change.
D1.Q37 Did you encounter any constraints concerning mobilization of people, protests, or negotiations?
D1.A37 1 00:30:15 Mobilization of people is always difficult to bring on a platform like amazee. They have to work for that. Facebook per example has the
incentive that users can look their picture, their friends, it is all about them, but social collaboration is about other people. That is the
fact about social business. It is not something the animal in the human being primarily wants to do.
D1.Q38 Did you encounter other social constraints?
D1.A38 1 00:31:00 Doing social business without personal benefits for the customer is always difficult to sell.
Appendix 119
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Ecological constraints
D1.Q39 Did you encounter any ecological constraints?
D1.A39 1 00:31:25 No
Political constraints
D1.Q40 Did you encounter any political constraints?
D1.A40 1 00:31:28 No
Economical constraints
D1.Q41 Did you encounter any constraints to fund the venture?
D1.A41 1 -
D1.Q42 Did you encounter other economical constraints?
D1.A42 1 00:31:33 Yes, it is to create a black zero.
Legal constraints
D1.Q43 Did you encounter any legal constraints?
D1.A43 1 00:31:40 Yes, the battle with Amazon took a lot of time and money. And some insignificant legal constraints by adapting the product to certain
markets like in the US, where the minimum age is 13 years to create an account on the platform.
Taxation constraints
D1.Q44 Did you encounter any constraints concerning taxation?
D1.A44 1 00:31:51 No
Ethical constraints
D1.Q45 Did you encounter any ethical constraints?
D1.A45 1 00:33:02 no
Appendix 120
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Stakeholder constraints
D1.Q46 Did you encounter any constraints with employees?
D1.A46 1
D1.Q47 Did you encounter any constraints with the management/board?
D1.A47 1 00:34:21 No
D1.Q48 Did you encounter any constraints with owner/shareholder?
D1.A48 1 00:34:27 No
D1.Q49 Did you encounter any constraints with government?
D1.A49 1 00:34:30 No, it has even been a strong enabler. The government is using the amazee platform to discuss with the citizens things like how to
improve the administration, the Swiss ID, etc. At workshops, amazee presented the government how other governments are using the
web technology to interact with their citizens and have even generated cash flow with it. The government is interested as far as it
shows new ways how people can collaborate online.
D1.Q50 Did you encounter any constraints with suppliers?
D1.A50 1 00:36:30 Switzerland needs more usability experts, web designers, social media interaction designers, computer scientists. The Swiss market is
not supplied with enough brain to evolve this cool and new industry.
D1.Q51 Did you encounter any constraints with customer resp. beneficiaries?
D1.A51 1 00:37:08 No
D1.Q52 Did you encounter any constraints with other stakeholders?
D1.A52 1 00:37:23 No. The users are helping them to improve the platform by suggesting new features in a constructive and productive way.
Other constraints
D1.Q53 Did you encounter other constraints we did not discuss so far?
D1.A53 1 No, the main constraints are money and talents.
Solutions
D1.Q54 What should be done to reduce any of the discussed constraints?
Appendix 121
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A54 1 00:37:59 To reduce the financial constraint amazee has to find a really sexy business model that creates cash flow. With the cash flow and the
good core team they will attract more talents. With them, they will create an even better product that convinces the market to use it.
They could also implement some gaming features to create a certain reputation index on the platform that makes people to come
back. In the other hand, they also have to push the customized solutions to generate cash flow.
D1.A54 2 00:39:15 Social entrepreneurship needs more role models. That's the only thing. Mr. Gerhadt would never demand the government to push
social entrepreneurship. Media could give specific success cases like the myclimate guys, to people that really improve the world
instead of making money. These role models could attract other people to become social entrepreneurs, too. The Swiss government
should treat social entrepreneurship within the classical start-up funding system like CTI and Swissnex. The government should
create a platform for social entrepreneurs where they can meet, working on concepts, and exchange with other social entrepreneurs.
Social entrepreneurs with financial support from the government can become lazy because they can rely on it. They should also battle,
like amazee, to survive, but this keeps someone agile. It is about showing role models that have succeeded in order to motivate other
to become like them.
D1.Q55 How should it be done?
D1.A55 1
D1.Q56 Who should do it?
D1.A56 1
Other questions
D1.Q57 Do you have any additional information not covered by this interview that you think are important to understand this topic?
D1.A57 1 00:43:55 It would be interesting to compare the youth and social background of social entrepreneurs. To find similar patterns. To see how they
socially were formed before becoming a social entrepreneur. What is the DNA of a social entrepreneur?
D1.Q58 Do you have any suggestions and comments to make about this interview?
D1.A58 1 00:45:35 No
Thank you for the interview! I wish you a pleasant day and furthermore a lot of success with your venture.
Appendix 122
5.5.11 Approval: Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld
Mr. Richter’s (personal communication, July 6, 2010) partial approval of the transcribed interview:
Guten Tag Herr Stalder
hier also noch die kleinen Korrekturen. Weiterhin alles Gute für Ihre Arbeit und eine schöne Sommerzeit dazu wünscht Ihnen
Paolo Richter
Gesamtleiter Gump- und Drahtesel
Waldeggstrasse 27
3097 Liebefeld
Tel. 031 979 70 70
www.gump-drahtesel.ch
Appendix 123
5.5.12 Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Explanations
Question No = CI.TN (C: case, I: interview no, T: Q = question, A = answer, N: question / answer number)
Cue Point = Timestamp in interview record file (hh:mm:ss)
Topic = Text, Question or Answer
Introduction
Hello, my name is Thomas Stalder and I’m actually writing my master-thesis at the University of Applied Sciences in Fribourg,
Switzerland. I’m conducting a study about Swiss social entrepreneurs, their motivations and constraints related to their social
enterprise typology. For that purpose I would like to interview you. The interview will take about 45-60 minutes.
Additional explanations to be given before the interview:
• Would you and the company remain anonymous? No
• Am I allowed to record the interview? Yes
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not wish to or may request me at any time to not record certain parts of the interview
for confidentiality reasons.
• You will get a paraphrased copy of the interview, which I would like you to approve before I use it for my master-thesis.
• Do you wish a copy of the final study? Yes
Interview
E1.Q1 Place
E1.A1 1 Gump- und Drahtesel, Waldeggstrasse 27, 3097 Liebefeld
E1.Q2 Time
E1.A2 1 24.06.2010, 14:00 - 15:00
General questions about the social entrepreneur
E1.Q3 First name and surname?
E1.A3 1 Paolo Richter
Appendix 124
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.Q4 Function?
E1.A4 1 00:01:23 Gesamtleiter
General questions about the company
E1.Q5 When was the company founded?
E1.A5 1 00:01:42 1993 wurde der Drahtesel und 1997 Gumpesel gegründet. 2005 wurden diese zusammengeführt.
E1.Q6 Legal form of the company?
E1.A6 1 00:02:11 Stiftung (Stiftung für soziale Innovation)
E1.Q7 Number of employees?
E1.A7 1 00:02:20 Mehr als 40 Festangestellte, die aber alle Teilzeit arbeiten. Dies entspricht ca. 27-28 Vollzeitstellen. Zusätzlich haben sie ca. 120
Stellen für Arbeitslose.
E1.Q8 List of subsidiaries and number of employees in each case?
E1.A8 1 In Liebefeld und der Laden Pico Bollo (ca. 20 Arbeitsplätze) im Stadtzentrum in Bern, wo sie Produkte, die sie in Liebefeld aus
Fahrradteilen produzieren, rezyklierte Spielsachen sowie Produkte von anderen sozialen Institutionen verkaufen.
E1.Q9 In which geographical area is your social enterprise operating?
E1.A9 1 00:03:35 Für den Berufsintegrationsbereich sind sie im Berner Mittelland und mit Velos für Afrika schweizweit tätig, wofür sie mit ca. 40
Partnern (Arbeitsprojekte, Städte, Gemeinden, private Unternehmen) zusammenarbeiten. In Afrika sind sie in West-, Süd- und
Nordostafrika aktiv. Velos für Afrika ist ein Teil von Gump- und Drahtesel.
Mission
E1.Q10 Which social impact should be achieved by your company?
E1.A10 1 00:04:22 - Im Norden ist es die Unterstützung von Arbeitslosen auf dem Weg zurück in den Arbeitsmarkt. Einerseits durch Qualifizierung,
persönliche Begleitung, die über die Arbeit hinausgeht, Bewerbungstraining als Vorstufe zur Vermittlung.
- Im Süden ist es die Schaffung von Arbeits- und Ausbildungsplätzen. Bis jetzt sind dadurch ca. 100 Arbeitsplätze entstanden sowie
Ausbildungsplätze, zum Beispiel an einer Berufsschule in Ghana und in Simbabwe für Jugendliche (v.a. AIDS Waisen, die völlig auf
sich selbst gestellt sind). Sowie die Förderung einer Treibstoff unabhängigen und kostengünstigen Mobilität.
E1.Q11 Has the initial social mission changed over time?
E1.A11 1 00:07:45 Nein, die Grundidee hat sich nie geändert.
Appendix 125
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.Q12 Why did it change?
E1.A12 1 -
E1.Q13 How did it change?
E1.A13 1 -
E1.Q14 What were the challenges when changing the social mission?
E1.A14 1 -
E1.Q15 What is your business model?
E1.A15 1 00:06:00 Die Haupttätigkeit ist die berufliche Integration von Arbeitslosen im Auftrag der Arbeitslosenversicherung. Dies entspricht ca. 75%
aller Einnahmen und Ausgaben. Die restlichen 25% werden durch Einzelaufträge von zuweisenden Stellen wie zum Beispiel
Sozialdienste, Jugendgericht, Vormundschaften, Flüchtlingshilfswerke und dem Produktverkauf finanziert. Wichtig ist zu verstehen,
dass dies öffentliche Gelder, aber keine Subventionen sind. Sie haben keine Deffizitgarantie. Sie müssen den Auftraggebern gute
Arbeit liefern, um weiterhin für sie arbeiten zu können. Es ist ein Markt wie ein anderer, wo gut und preiswert gearbeitet werden muss.
Gump- und Drahtesel muss selbsttragen sein, da die Stiftung für soziale Innovation nicht über die notwendigen Mittel verfügt, um sie
quersubventionieren zu können.
Typology
E1.Q16 What is your degree of social objectives in percentage of all company objectives (integration of the social mission)?
E1.A16 1 00:08:41 Die sozialen Ziele sind am wichtigsten. Es ist ihre Daseinsberechtigung. Würde es in der Schweiz keine Arbeitslosigkeit mehr geben,
hätten sie zumindest hier im Norden keine Daseinsberechtigung mehr. In diesem Falle würden sie versuchen, das Fahrradrecycling
für Afrika aufrechtzuerhalten, da dort viele Arbeitsplätze vom Projekt abhängig sind. Aber auch dort macht es nur Sinn, solange wie
auch ein Bedarf besteht. Dass sich damit die 40 Angestellten ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen können, ist ein schöner Nebeneffekt.
E1.Q17 What is your degree of financial self-sufficiency in percentage (earned income strategy)?
E1.A17 1 00:10:02 Im Grunde genommen sind es 100%, da ihre Verträge maximal ein Jahr dauern, die aber jederzeit von den Auftraggebern gekündet
werden können. Fairerweise muss auch gesagt werden, dass sie nicht von einem Tag auf den anderen auswechselbar sind. Wenn aber
die Politiker entscheiden, dass solche Dienste nicht mehr notwendig sind oder das Geld fehlt, kann sich die Situation sehr schnell
ändern. Würde man es nur auf den Produktertrag beziehen, wären es ca. 10%. Dies ist eine Frage der Definition.
E1.Q18 Is the company funded by donators? If yes, how many percent?
Appendix 126
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A18 1 00:12:47 Ja, aber nur ein kleiner Teil, vor allem für den Arbeitsintegrationsbereich. Zum Glück ist dies für Velos für Afrika anders. Dort
nehmen die Spenden zu, vor allem seit der Auszeichnung als Swiss Social Entrepreneur of the Year der Schwab Stiftung, sind viele
Türen aufgegangen. Dies hilft neue Partnerschaften aufzubauen, um die Partner in Afrika unterstützen zu können, da sie dort kaum
Bankkredite erhalten. Dies ist sehr wertvoll. Am meisten spenden Stiftungen.
E1.Q19 Is the company funded by foundations? If yes, how many %?
E1.A19 1 -
E1.Q20 Is the company funded by government? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A20 1 Nein, und es besteht auch keine Zusammenarbeit mit der Entwicklungshilfe DEZA (Direktion für Entwicklung und
Zusammenarbeit).
E1.Q21 Is the company funded by other (own or external) business activities? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A21 1 00:14:04 10% durch den Verkauf von Produkten.
E1.Q22 Is the company funded by equity? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A22 1 -
E1.Q23 Is the company funded by debt? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A23 1 -
E1.Q24 Is the company funded by other sources (also in kind)? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A24 1 00:14:50 Ja, das passiert immer wieder. Zum Beispiel hat ihnen DT Swiss Fahrradfelgen und Speichen, aufgrund eines Materialfehlers,
geschenkt, aus denen sie dann Kleiderbügel und grosse Büroklammern hergestellt haben. Des Weiteren wurde die Einrichtung
entweder selber hergestellt, Second Hand gekauft, sehr günstig oder gratis erhalten.
E1.Q25 Has the initial typology changed over time?
E1.A25 1 00:15:26 Nein. Klar gab es Schwankungen, aber im Grossen und Ganzen hat sich die Typologie nie geändert. Am Anfang war die
Arbeitslosenkasse der einzige Auftraggeber. Damals konnten auch Ausgesteuerte an einem ALV-Programm teilnehmen. Ende der
90er Jahre wurde diese Möglichkeit aber abgeschafft. Die Stiftung ist eine Nonprofit Organisation.
E1.Q26 Why did it change?
E1.A26 1 -
E1.Q27 How did it change?
E1.A27 1 -
E1.Q28 What were the challenges when changing the typology?
Appendix 127
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A28 1 -
Motivation
E1.Q29 How did you recognize the opportunity?
E1.A29 1 00:16:46 Als eine grosse Arbeitslosenwelle anfangs der 90er Jahre über die Schweiz einbrach, wurde Herr Richter angefragt, ob er nicht ein
Fahrradrecyclingprojekt mit Arbeitslosen starten wolle. Während des Studiums rezyklierte er schon Fahrräder zum Plausch und für
den Freundeskreis und arbeitete als stellvertretender Sozialarbeiter in der Stiftung. Das Programm wurde zum richtigen Zeitpunkt am
richtigen Ort gestartet. Sie sind mit null Franken gestartet und hatten umgehend Erfolg. Sowohl bei den Teilnehmern, die es sinnvoll
fanden, den Partnern in Afrika und beim Kanton, der die ausführende Stelle der Arbeitslosenversicherung ist und das Projekt
kontrollierte. Dadurch konnte Gump- und Drahtesel organisch wachsen.
E1.Q30 Why did you start this venture?
E1.A30 1 00:18:15 Durch die Anfrage ging für Herr Richter einen Wunsch in Erfüllung. Er wollte schon immer Sozialarbeit mit etwas handfestem in
Verbindung bringen. Dazu kamen noch die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und der ökologische Aspekt. Das war für ihn das Non-Plus-
Ultra. Die Verbindung des Sozialauftrages mit der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, der ökologischen Ausrichtung und der
ökonomischen Lebensfähigkeit war auch der Grund, warum die Jury der Schwab Stiftung, Gump- und Drahtesel den Preis verliehen
hat. Bei ihnen steht die Arbeit und nicht die Probleme der Menschen im Zentrum. Es ist die Arbeit, die verbindet. Herr Richter hat
immer gerne handwerklich gearbeitet. Vor der Gründung hatte er ein anderes Arbeitsprojekt durchgeführt und festgestellt, dass durch
die Arbeit einen weiteren Zugang zu den Menschen und ihrer Situation hergestellt werden kann. Da ihre Zielgruppe mehrheitlich aus
dem Handwerker- und Gewerbebereich kommen, können sie mit diesem zusätzlichen Zugang mehr erreichen.
E1.Q31 Did you start the venture with partners or alone?
E1.A31 1 00:20:33 Herr Richter hat Drahtesel alleine gegründet, wurde aber schnell von einem Kollegen unterstützt, um verschiedene Tätigkeiten
untereinander aufzuteilen. Zusammen arbeiteten sie ca. 70% und boten vier 60% Stellen für Arbeitslose an.
General question about constraints
E1.Q32 What kind of constraints did you encounter respectively are you still confronted to. Please explain.
Appendix 128
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A32 1 00:21:21 Die Finanzierung war eine grosse Herausforderung. Am Anfang wussten sie nicht, wie lange der Betrieb überleben wird. Während der
Gründungsphase entstanden viele ähnliche Arbeitsprojekte. Die Aufgabe wurde 1997/98 vom Bund an die Kantone übergeben.
Gleichzeitig gab es einen massiven Abbau dieser Angebote. Folglich mussten im Kanton 80% dieser Betriebe ihre Tätigkeit einstellen.
Gump- und Drahtesel musste um ihre Existenz kämpfen. Dank ihrem guten Ruf gehörten sie zu den 20%, die bestehen blieben. Die
unsichere Perspektive ist eine Herausforderung. Es ist eine dynamische Branche, in der sie, berechtigterweise, stets ihr Angebot den
Bedürfnissen resp. den Berufsgruppen der Arbeitslosen anpassen müssen. Dies alles zu organisieren ist sehr anspruchsvoll und
verlangt von allen Mitarbeitern eine sehr hohe Flexibilität.
E1.A32 2 00:23:13 Die kurze Einsatzdauer der Arbeitslosen wird als weitere Herausforderung angesehen. Die meisten Arbeitslosen sind ca. 2-3 Monate
im Einsatz und es ist sehr anspruchsvoll, so viel wie möglich aus ihnen "herauszuholen". In den Fachbereichen Mechanik, Metall,
Holz, Verkauf, Administration, etc. genügen 2-3 Monate, nur um Jemanden knapp einzuarbeiten. Pro Jahr nehmen ca. 800
Arbeitslose am Programm teil. All diese Personen müssen individuell betreut resp. als ganzer Mensch wahrgenommen werden. Die
Betreuer müssen sich voll auf diese Menschen einlassen können und deren Kompetenzen erkennen und herausfinden, wie man diese
aus ihnen herausholen kann, damit sie wieder den Weg in die Arbeitswelt finden können. Dies verlangt von den Betreuern eine sehr
hohe Professionalität und viel Empathie, damit sie sich einerseits auf die Personen voll einlassen, ihr Vertrauen gewinnen zu können.
Erst dies ermöglicht eine Veränderung. Andererseits müssen sich die Betreuer nach Feierabend auch von den teils sehr tragischen
Lebensgeschichten abgrenzen können.
E1.A32 3 00:25:28 Herr Richter würde es begrüssen, wenn es eine vorgezogene Entsorgungsgebühr für Fahrräder geben würde, damit dieser Teil der
Arbeit auf einem gesünderen Bein stehen würde. Sie sammeln ohne Gegenleistung pro Jahr zwischen 10'000 und 12'000 Fahrräder
ein. Es werden dazu zwar Personen aus dem Arbeitslosenprojekt eingesetzt, aber der Aufwand für das Einsammeln und Rezyklieren
müssen sie selber tragen.
Ask following questions, if necessary, to get more data about the constraints. Else goto Solutions.
Social constraints
E1.Q33 Did you encounter any cultural constraints?
Appendix 129
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A33 1 00:27:54 Durch die enge Begleitung und die vielfältigen Hintergründe der Teilnehmer entsteht kein "Problemghetto". Sie haben die Erfahrung
gemacht, wenn die Teilnehmer gut begleitet und durchmischt werden, es eine Chance und kein Hindernis ist. Die Probleme der
Teilnehmer relativieren sich sozusagen gegenseitig. So können zum Beispiel Teilnehmer aus der Schweiz ihre Klischees über andere
Kulturen, Religionen und Hautfarben abbauen. Andererseits sehen die Flüchtlinge, dass es in der Schweiz nicht allen gut geht und
nicht alles toll ist. In Afrika muss darauf geachtet werden, dass sie nicht ihre Ideen aufzwingen. Sie müssen auf deren Bedürfnisse
eingehen und verstehen, wie sie diese Probleme selber lösen. Dies sieht Herr Richter aber als Anforderung, die alles anspruchsvoller
macht und nicht als Hindernis.
E1.Q34 Did you encounter any religious constraints?
E1.A34 1 00:30:50 Nein
E1.Q35 Did you encounter any educational constraints?
E1.A35 1 00:30:55 Der Auftraggeber stellt zurecht, und auch sie an sich selbst, Anforderungen an die Qualifikationen des Personals. In der Werkstatt
muss jemand zum Beispiel nebst dem Fachausweis auch Qualifikationen im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung ausweisen können. Bis
auf wenige Ausnahmen, haben sie immer das notwenige, qualifizierte und motivierte Personal gefunden. Das Papier alleine genügt
nicht. Das Personal muss auch motiviert sein, mit Engagement und Flexibilität arbeiten zu wollen, die Werte mitzutragen und -
prägen.
E1.Q36 Did you encounter any social transformation/change constraints?
E1.A36 1 00:32:17 Am Anfang war es schwierig das Verbindende, das Ganzheitliche an die Leute zu bringen. Bei der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
wollte man keine Arbeitslosen mitfinanzieren und im Umweltbereich wollten sie keine Entwicklungszusammenarbeit machen, etc.
Damals herrschte noch viel mehr das "Schubladendenken". Heute wird dieses Verbindende anerkannt und als wichtig erachtet.
E1.A36 2 00:33:45 Das Phänomen der Arbeitslosigkeit wird immer noch zu fest individualisiert und die Ursache wird beim einzelnen Menschen gesucht.
Die Klischees wie "Wer will, der kann" bestehen nach wie vor und die soziale Verantwortung wird ausgeblendet. Fakt ist aber, dass es
nicht mehr für alle genug Arbeit und Jobs gibt, mit denen man den Lebensunterhalt verdienen kann. In den letzten Jahren ist der
Sozialstaat und die Idee der Solidarität in der Schweiz ziemlich unter Beschuss geraten.
E1.Q37 Did you encounter any constraints concerning mobilization of people, protests, or negotiations?
E1.A37 1 00:33:35 Nein
E1.Q38 Did you encounter other social constraints?
Appendix 130
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A38 1 00:35:40 Die Sozialversicherungen stehen unter Spardruck. Sie müssen Leistungen bei den Versicherten und gleichzeitig ihr Angebot abbauen.
Dadurch erhalten immer mehr Leute, die auf diese Leistungen angewiesen sind, weniger oder gar nichts und die Sozialversicherungen
werden immer rigider. Leute, die keine Leistungen mehr von den Sozialversicherungen erhalten, landen bei der Sozialhilfe. Auch dort
verlangen sie immer mehr Gegenleistungen, was grundsätzlich nicht schlecht ist. Wenn aber dies systematisch durchgezogen wird,
auch bei Leuten, die wirklich nicht können, entstehen enorme Folgekosten für den deren Unterhalt. Zudem liegen so Fähigkeiten
brach und die Leute werden krank. Sämtliche AHV und IV Revisionen der letzten Jahre bestätigen diesen Trend. Es fehlt eine
Grundsicherung, die einem einzelnen Menschen die Sicherheit gibt, dass für sein Leben grundsätzlich gesorgt ist, er sich der eigenen
Entwicklung widmen kann und sich nicht immer bei einer neuen Stelle erklären muss warum es nicht geht, speziell bei psychischen
Belastungen im Bereich der IV. Herr Richter befürchtet aber, dass dies in den nächsten Jahren zunehmen wird.
Ecological constraints
E1.Q39 Did you encounter any ecological constraints?
E1.A39 1 00:39:29 Ausser das mit der vorgezogenen Entsorgungsgebühr für Fahrräder gibt es keine.
Political constraints
E1.Q40 Did you encounter any political constraints?
E1.A40 1 00:39:54 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Economical constraints
E1.Q41 Did you encounter any constraints to fund the venture?
E1.A41 1 -
E1.Q42 Did you encounter other economical constraints?
E1.A42 1 00:40:00 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Legal constraints
E1.Q43 Did you encounter any legal constraints?
E1.A43 1 00:40:10 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Appendix 131
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Taxation constraints
E1.Q44 Did you encounter any constraints concerning taxation?
E1.A44 1 00:40:18 Nein, sie sind steuerbefreit.
Ethical constraints
E1.Q45 Did you encounter any ethical constraints?
E1.A45 1 00:40:23 Nein, sie haben ihre eigenen Ansprüche. Im Norden ist dies eine Kultur der Offenheit, wo jeder Mensch so sein kann wie er ist.
Stakeholder constraints
E1.Q46 Did you encounter any constraints with employees?
E1.A46 1 00:41:13 Die grosse Herausforderung ist in diesem anspruchsvollen, dynamischen und immer schneller werdenden Berufsfeld gesund zu
bleiben, damit man auch etwas weitergeben kann. Das Betriebsklima ist sehr wichtig.
E1.Q47 Did you encounter any constraints with the management/board?
E1.A47 1 00:42:05 Sie haben einen kleinen, flexiblen Stiftungsrat, die alle Selbständigerwerbende sind, die wissen um was es geht und schon seit 7-8
Jahren dabei sind.
E1.Q48 Did you encounter any constraints with owner/shareholder?
E1.A48 1 -
E1.Q49 Did you encounter any constraints with government?
E1.A49 1 -
E1.Q50 Did you encounter any constraints with suppliers?
E1.A50 1 -
E1.Q51 Did you encounter any constraints with customer resp. beneficiaries?
E1.A51 1 00:43:39 Ihre afrikanischen Partner sind zum Teil selber ihrem politischen und wirtschaftlichen Wirren ausgesetzt. Zum Beispiel hatte der
Bürgerkrieg an der Elfenbeinküste einen Einfluss auf die Zusammenarbeit für die Fahrräder in Burkina Faso, da plötzlich der
Handelsweg unterbrochen war und das Land 800'000 Flüchtlinge betreuen musste.
E1.Q52 Did you encounter any constraints with other stakeholders?
E1.A52 1 00:45:11 Die zuweisenden Stellen haben auch ihre Erwartungen, wenn sie jemanden für einen Einsatz vermitteln. Aber im Grossen und
Ganzen verläuft die Zusammenarbeit mit den zuweisenden Stellen problemlos.
Appendix 132
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Other constraints
E1.Q53 Did you encounter other constraints we did not discuss so far?
E1.A53 1 00:45:43 Nein
Solutions
E1.Q54 What should be done to reduce any of the discussed constraints?
E1.A54 1 00:46:08 - Bei der Finanzierung wäre es gut, wenn sie im Bereich des Arbeitslosenprojektes Reserven bilden und mit einer längeren
wirtschaftlichen Perspektive arbeiten könnten. Sie können nur das abrechnen, was sie tatsächlich gebraucht haben. Dies können sie
nur in den anderen Bereichen machen und dadurch Geld in die Entwicklung neuer Projekte investieren oder die minimale Reserve für
Kündigungsfristen von Löhnen und Mieten bilden.
- Bei der kurzen Einsatzzeit der Arbeitslosen wäre es schön, wenn sie mehr als 2-3 Monate teilnehmen könnten. Dadurch wäre viel
mehr möglich. Diese kurze Einsatzzeit ist aber von Arbeitslosengesetz vorgeben. Früher konnten sie maximal 6 Monate teilnehmen,
aber die Einsatzdauer fiel den Sparmassnahmen zum Opfer. Herr Richter ist überzeugt, dass es grundsätzlich genug Arbeit gäbe. Zum
Beispiel gibt es im Umweltbereich genügend Arbeit, die leider nicht bezahlt ist. Er vermutet, dass unser Wohlstand genügen würde,
um allen Leuten einen existenzsichernden Lohn zu bezahlen.
E1.A54 2 00:50:44 Herr Richter hat den Eindruck, dass es eher in den kleinen Firmen Patrons gibt, die ihre soziale Verantwortung wahrnehmen, zu ihren
Leuten schauen und auch Rücksicht auf Leute nehmen, wenn sie nicht topp leistungsfähig sind. Es gibt auch grosse Firmen, die das
gezielt machen. Dies sieht er auch als eine Art Social Entrepreneurship. Solches Handeln hat in unserer Gesellschaft keine monetären
Konsequenzen. Die Gesetzmässigkeit des Kapitals überwiegt den Rest, den Goodwill. Es hängt vom Willen und der Motivation von
einzelnen Personen ab und wird in unserem Wirtschaftssystem nicht wirklich gefördert.
E1.Q55 How should it be done?
E1.A55 1 -
E1.Q56 Who should do it?
E1.A56 1 00:49:45 Es liegt schlussendlich am politischen Willen, dass man die Prioritäten so setzt, dass alle die gleichen Chancen haben.
Other questions
E1.Q57 Do you have any additional information not covered by this interview that you think are important to understand this topic?
Appendix 133
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A57 1 00:53:38 Herr Richter wurde oft nach dem Beweggrund anderen zu helfen gefragt. Social Entrepreneurs werden oft mit einer besonderen Form
von Selbstlosigkeit und Altruismus in Verbindung gebracht. Er findet, dass dies nicht notwendig ist. Schlussendlich geht es ihm
besser, wenn es seinem Umfeld gut oder besser geht. Man muss eine Vision haben. Er hatte das Glück, dass er eine sehr konkrete
Vorstellung hatte, wo es entlang gehen sollte, und die Möglichkeit erhielt, diese umzusetzen. Das Ziel war nie möglichst viel Geld zu
verdienen, sondern das Leben lebenswert zu gestalten. Nicht nur materielle Bedürfnisse, sondern mehrere Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen.
Die Reduktion auf ein Bedürfnis kann auch eine geistige Verarmung sein. Schlussendlich ist das, was er macht, auch eigennützig. Es ist
ein Geben und Nehmen.
E1.Q58 Do you have any suggestions and comments to make about this interview?
E1.A58 1 00:56:43 Es war gut strukturiert.
Thank you for the interview! I wish you a pleasant day and furthermore a lot of success with your venture.
Appendix 134
5.5.13 Case A: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_A01 Opportunity recognition Impetus to found the social business was that the social problem is not linked to dissociation. A1.A29 1
Cat_A02 Intrinsic motivation - convinced that there are the same possibilities in social and economic sector A1.A30 1
- fascinated that it is also possible to induce social change A1.A30 1
- Inner locus of control A1.A30 1
- interested in innovation and change enabler A1.A30 1
Cat_A03 External motivation Creative environment, which activated this spirit A1.A30 3
Cat_A04 Social success constraint Biggest constraint was that having success in the social sector was not imperatively
considered as successful.
A1.A32 2
Nowadays, "left-winger" can be successful entrepreneurs. A1.A40 1
Success in the social sector was not desired by the social party. A1.A32 4
The economic sector appreciated this move. A1.A32 6
Cat_A05 Personal education constraint People doubted that people with a social education could be entrepreneurs. A1.A32 3
Social worker can be entrepreneurs A1.A32 5
Cat_A06 Competition constraint Vocational counselors asked themself what social workers want in their business. A1.A32 7
Cat_A07 External people constraint Faced enviousness people, was questioned, marveled, and thwarted. A1.A32 1
Schools asked themself why they would need social workers, but this is accepted yet. A1.A32 8
Cat_A08 Government constraint A big constraint was that public authorities want to administrate and not develop something
new.
A1.A32 10
All public authorities want to be the chiefs. A1.A32 9
Cat_A09 Employee constraint Because they are so innovative, they risk that the employees cannot follow. A1.A32 12
Employees work hard and have to find their work-life balance A1.A35 1
It is crucial to teach the employees ethical policies. A1.A45 1
It is hard to find and to pay people with social and economic competences. A2.A35 1
The work is intense and strong for the employees. They have to sell, to administer, and being
entrepreneurial.
A1.A32 11
They forgot to include, to advance, and to train the employees. A1.A32 13
Appendix 135
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
They have to deal with intercultural problems A2.A33 1
Cat_A10 Stamina constraint It takes a lot of stamina to fight the constraints. A1.A32 14
Cat_A11 Role conflict constraint Role conflict being employer and following a social mission A1.A33 1
Cat_A12 Financial constraint Financial controlling is crucial to survive. A1.A41 1
Financial controlling is important in order to survive and employees have to be aware of it. A1.A57 1
Cat_A13 Board members constraint As NPO it is hard to find reliable board members. A1.A47 1
They have capable board members with influence and a good social network. A2.A37 1
Cat_A14 Solution: Surveys to reduce
stakeholder constraint
They conduct all six month a survey with all allocation centers in order to improve themself. A1.A50 1
They conduct also surveys with adolescent in order to improve themself. A1.A51 1
They conduct regularly surveys with sponsors and internship companies, in order to improve
themself.
A1.A52 1
Cat_A15 Analyzing past, present, and future
to reduce constraint
An external office appraises their organization to avoid routine. A1.A56 1
Looking back and anticipation in order remaining successful and to reduce the constraints. A1.A54 1
Cat_A16 Solutions: Government The government should anticipate problems. A1.A56 1
Cat_A17 Beneficiary constraint If the economy is low, it is harder to find internships for the adolescent. A2.A42 1
It is hard to find internships for adolescent with lower educations, because of the shift to
highly qualified apprenticeship places.
A2.A36 1
Most companies offering internships to the adolescent perceive their social responsibility. A2.A54 2
Some employers use the adolescent as cheap labor. A2.A51 1
Cat_A18 Market constraint Challenge to anticipate market development for the next two to three or five years. Public
authorities base the allocated quotas on demographic reality.
A2.A53 1
Cat_A19 Solution: Financial constraint Thought about own or partner for-profit social enterprise for reinvesting profits. A2.A54 1
- Generating profits would help them to work more freely. A2.A54 1
Cat_A20 Solution: no government regulations There is no need for governmental regulations as long win-win situations exists for social
enterprises and the private sector.
A2.A54 3
Cat_A21 Juridical constraint Had to learn juridical knowledge. A1.A43 1
Appendix 136
5.5.14 Case B: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_B01 Market constraint Entrepreneurs have to face the market now and tomorrow B1.A28 1
Cat_B02 Social entrepreneur background - Employs for over 20 years 2-4 people with health problems or other handicaps.
- Motivation is based on the Christian religion: help other people and "by giving, you get more"
- It started with being a sports coach and as a pioneer in different areas of sharing with others.
B1.A29 1
Cat_B03 Opportunity recognition Adolescent in existing programs need a place to get practical experience. B1.A30 1
The adolescent's values make them difficult to find the right way and to fit into the business
world.
B1.A31 1
Cat_B04 Competition constraint Belief that the Jobfacorty is not needed and is a competitor with government support may
influence politicians to decide against a Jobfactory.
B1.A32 1
Cat_B05 Time constraint Social entrepreneurs need to be patient and calm. Convincing politicians is a long decision
making process.
B1.A37 1
Cat_B06 Employee constraint The employees have to work with people and not with machines. B1.A46 1
Cat_B07 Opportunity: suppliers Suppliers like to collaborate and helping them. B1.A50 1
Cat_B08 Opportunity: customer Customers are willing to support the Jobfactory. B1.A51 1
Cat_B09 Opportunity: collaboration with
universities
Collaborate with different universities and professors to evolve the Jobfactory. B1.A52 1
Cat_B10 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
research
Social entrepreneurship and social enterprises research has to be done to find out how to deal
with the constraints.
B1.A54 1
The future of social entrepreneurship has to be developed on the existing knowledge. B1.A55 1
Cat_B11 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
support
Support from universities and organizations like CTI should be extended to social
entrepreneurship.
B1.A56 1
Cat_B12 Social entrepreneurship opportunity Switzerland has the potential to bring social entrepreneurship to other countries in addition to
development aid.
B1.A57 1
Appendix 137
5.5.15 Case C: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_C01 Social entrepreneur background - Boy scout background helped to get job as youth worker. C1.A29 1
Needed a job to finance the studies. C1.A31 1
Cat_C02 Opportunity recognition - Got a lot of demands after winning a price with a project and through the youth internet
platform. This showed him that adolescents want to realize projects (opportunity
recognition).
C1.A29 1
Cat_C03 Employee constraint The employees are the association's showcase and have to fulfill very high exigency. One
employee can destroy the association's reputation.
C1.A46 1
Cat_C04 Board constraint Employees represented in the board take more care about themself instead of the business. C1.A47 1
Cat_C05 Time constraint Collaboration with big institutions is not easy because of their long decision making processes,
which can make the project realization impossible.
C1.A50 1
Cat_C06 Credibility constraint Credibility and keeping promises are key when dealing with adolescents. C1.A51 1
They have to do good work in order to get money for the projects. C1.A52 1
Cat_C07 Business model constraint Lack of social entrepreneurial models, because of the different customer relationship, which
does not directly pay the product.
C1.A53 1
Cat_C08 Solution: Good reputation - Good reputation and honest networks reduce the constraints. C1.A54 1
Cat_C09 Solution: Financial constraint - All in their sector should barter rather than using money. C1.A54 1
- He believes in giving, because he will get sometime something back C1.A54 1
Cat_C10 Solution: Cultural constraint - Reducing cultural differences by communicating. C1.A55 1
- Others can learn from them if they are credible. C1.A55 1
Cat_C11 Solution: Role model - The founder has to be an identification figure. C1.A55 1
- Selling projects to institutions, which invest in change maker. C1.A56 1
Cat_C12 Solution: Social entrepreneur
education
- Social entrepreneurs have to sell a product.
- Education for social entrepreneurs in order to teach them their production processes and
how to access markets.
C1.A56 1
Cat_C13 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
publicity
People have to be sensitized about social entrepreneurship and the possibilities of doing
meaningful for the society and the environment.
C1.A57 1
Cat_C14 Financial constraint - In the beginning, lacking reputation made it difficult to find money for the projects. C1.A32 1
Appendix 138
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
- As an association they did not get the needed capital to advance quickly, but they could
bypass it with volunteers.
C1.A32 1
Financial cycles have an influence on the money available for the projects. C1.A42 1
Cat_C15 Competition constraint - Youth workers and other NGO considered them as competitors.
- Established organizations dispersed untruth about them.
C1.A32 1
Cat_C16 Opportunity: Employees Many qualified people would like to work for them. C1.A35 1
Cat_C17 Opportunity: Social change Social change is their business. C1.A36 1
Cat_C18 Customer accessibility constraint Adolescents without internet connection or the affinity to use it will likely not find their offer. C1.A38 1
Cat_C19 Opportunity: Environmental
protection
They follow high environmental standards. The adolescent are keen towards environmental
protection.
C1.A39 1
Cat_C20 Political constraint Political decisions concerning youth support can have an impact on their business. C1.A40 1
Cat_C21 Solution: no government regulations The lack of laws for youth support is advancing the diversity and the inventive talent. C1.A43 1
5.5.16 Case D: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_D01 Opportunity recognition - With friend he developed the idea, wrote the business plan, and raised money to start the
venture.
D1.A30 1
- The efficient and effective information exchange for the stock markets was the impetus to start
the social collaboration platform.
D1.A29 1
Cat_D02 Social entrepreneur background - He always had adventurous, entrepreneurial traits, and looking for challenges.
- At the boy scouts he learned to be social, and his parents are politically active.
D1.A29 1
Cat_D03 Customer constraint - Humans are primarily egocentric. This makes it difficult to find money for social ventures.
- People have to be convinced to buy products without direct commercial use.
D1.A32 1
Human egoism makes it is difficult to mobilize people on their platform, where it is about other
people.
D1.A37 1
Appendix 139
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_D04 Solution: Customer constraint Social solutions with personal benefits are easier to sell. D1.A38 1
Cat_D05 Cultural constraint - Americans are fixed on US products. D1.A33 1
- They have to speak in web platform terms. D1.A33 1
Cat_D06 Financial constraint Generate profits to sustain. D1.A42 1
Cat_D07 Opportunity: Social change Their business is about social change D1.A36 1
Cat_D08 Juridical constraint Juristic battles are time consuming and expensive. D1.A43 1
Cat_D09 Opportunity: Government The government is an enabler as far as it shows new ways how people can collaborate. D1.A49 1
Cat_D10 Employee constraint Lack of usability experts, web designers, social media interaction designers, computer scientists
in Switzerland.
D1.A50 1
Cat_D11 Opportunity: Customer The users are helping to improve the platform. D1.A52 1
Cat_D12 Solution: Financial constraint - Develop a business model to generate enough cash flow to attract more talents, to evolve the
platform in order to attract more people to the platform.
- Pushing the customized solutions to generate more cash flow
D1.A54 1
Cat_D13 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
support
- Role models should inspire other to become social entrepreneurs.
- Classical start-up funding system should also advance social entrepreneurs.
- The government should create a social entrepreneur platform, where they can meet and work
on concepts.
D1.A54 2
Cat_D14 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
research
It would be interesting to know more on the social entrepreneur's social background. D1.A57 1
5.5.17 Case E: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_E01 Opportunity recognition - During the studies he started to recycle bicycles in his spare time and worked as a social worker
at the foundation, where he was asked to start a bicycle recycling project with unemployed.
E1.A29 1
- His wish was to combine social work and handcraft, development aid, and environmental E1.A30 1
Appendix 140
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
aspects, which enables additional access to the people's problems and to achieve more.
Cat_E02 Government constraint - Governmental decisions may lead to cutbacks and uncertainty in financing the social
enterprise.
E1.A32 1
Cat_E03 Customer constraint - Adapting their offer to the unemployed is demanding E1.A32 1
Cat_E04 Employee constraint - With some exceptions they always found motivated and qualified employees.
- The employees have to work with engagement and flexibility, to carry and form values.
E1.A35 1
Social mission can be achieved by maintaining a good work climate and remaining healthy in
this demanding field.
E1.A46 1
- Adapting their offer to the unemployed is demanding and demands a high flexibility of the
employees.
E1.A32 1
- The advisors' high professionalism and empathy enables change.
- The advisors have to delimit work and private life.
E1.A32 2
Cat_E05 Juridical constraint - The short assignment time for unemployed suffices sometimes just to train the unemployed. E1.A32 2
Cat_E06 Solution: Financial constraint An advanced recycling fee for bicycles should compensate the collecting and recycling process. E1.A32 3
- Generating profit would assure a longer financial perspective. E1.A54 1
Cat_E07 Solution: Juridical constraint - Longer stays of the unemployed would create more social change, but this is limited by the
law.
E1.A54 1
Cat_E09 Opportunity: Cultural differences - CH: Mixed unemployed teams help reducing clichés about other cultures. E1.A33 1
Cat_E10 Cultural constraint The African partners are also exposed to their own political and economic environment. E1.A51 1
- Africa: They have to understand their needs and the way they solve problems. E1.A33 1
Cat_E11 Opportunity: holistic concept Nowadays, the connective and holistic concept is accepted and considered as important. E1.A36 1
Cat_E12 Social welfare constraint The social state and the solidarity suffered the last couple of years in Switzerland. E1.A36 2
Cat_E13 Solution: Economic incentives to
support social responsibility
- Money overweighs goodwill, which depends on particular persons and is not really supported
by the economic system.
E1.A54 2
- Many small company owners realize their social responsibility. E1.A54 2
Cat_E14 Solution: Political will to ensure
equal opportunities for all
Political will determines if everyone gets the same chance. E1.A56 1
Cat_E15 Social entrepreneur background Social entrepreneurs do not have to be especially altruistic, it is all about give-and-take. E1.A57 1
Appendix 141
5.5.18 Cross-Case Analysis Pattern Matching
Please check the file MT_c_Within_and_Cross_Case_Analysis.xlsx on the DVD for the detailed overall pattern matching and type matching analysis.
Type Match
No
Typology Category Generalizing Category
No
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
TM1 FP Solution: Social
entrepreneurship support
Support from universities and organizations like CTI should be
extended to social entrepreneurship.
Cat_B11 B1.A56 1
- Role models should inspire other to become social entrepreneurs.
- Classical start-up funding system should also advance social
entrepreneurs.
- The government should create a social entrepreneur platform, where
they can meet and work on concepts.
Cat_D13 D1.A54 2
TM2 NFP Employee constraint It is crucial to teach the employees ethical policies. Cat_A09 A1.A45 1
The employees are the association's showcase and have to fulfill very
high exigency. One employee can destroy the association's reputation.
Cat_C03 C1.A46 1
TM3 NFP Employee constraint Employees work hard and have to find their work-life balance Cat_A09 A1.A35 1
The work is intense and strong for the employees. They have to sell, to
administer, and being entrepreneurial.
Cat_A09 A1.A32 11
Social mission can be achieved by maintaining a good work climate and
remaining healthy in this demanding field.
Cat_E04 E1.A46 1
- The advisors' high professionalism and empathy enables change.
- The advisors have to delimit work and private life.
Cat_E04 E1.A32 2
- The employees have to work with engagement and flexibility, to carry
and form values.
Cat_E04 E1.A35 1
TM4 NFP Solution: no government
regulations
There is no need for governmental regulations as long win-win
situations exists for socal enterprises and the private sector.
Cat_A20 A2.A54 3
The lack of laws for youth support is advancing the diversity and the
inventive talent.
Cat_C21 C1.A43 1
TM5 NFP Solution: Financial constraint - Generating profits would help them to work more freely. Cat_A19 A2.A54 1
- Generating profit would assure a longer financial perspective. Cat_E06 E1.A54 1
Appendix 142
5.6 Files (DVD-ROM)
In order to protect the interviewees’ privacy, only three copies of the DVD were handed out to the School of
Business Administration in Fribourg. The DVD contains following files:
File Name Content
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Willi (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Willi (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_2.mp3 Interview with Mr. Guerra (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_2.xlsx Interview with Mr. Guerra (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_B_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Fasnacht (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_B_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Fasnacht (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_C_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Gander (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_C_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Gander (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_D_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Gerhardt (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_D_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Gerhardt (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_E_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Richter (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_E_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Richter (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Master_Thesis_Thomas_Stalder.pdf This master-thesis
MT_c_Within_and_Cross_Case_Analysis.xlsx Within-case and cross-case analysis (incl. reduction,
categories, and matching patterns)
doc_153421614.pdf
On this brief illustration related to research propositions concerning social entrepreneurs in switzerland constraints.
School of Business Administration
Fribourg
Research Propositions Concerning Social
Entrepreneurs in Switzerland: Constraints and
Motivations Related to the Social Enterprise
Typology
Master-Thesis
Written in “Social Entrepreneurship”
Thomas Stalder
Rte des Arsenaux 24
1700 Freiburg
Tel. +4179 789 94 02
E-Mail: [email protected]
Supervising Expert:
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Rico J. Baldegger
External Assessor:
Prof. Mariana Christen Jakob
16th August 2010
I
Declaration
I hereby declare that this master thesis is the product of my own independent work. All content and ideas
drawn directly or indirectly from external sources are indicated as such. Parts that have been taken literally or
correspondingly from published or unpublished texts or other sources have been labeled as such. This paper
has not been presented to any examination board in the same or similar form before.
Fribourg, 16th of August 2010
Thomas Stalder
II
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything than can be counted counts.”
Albert Einstein
Acknowledgments:
Interviewees for taking their time:
André Willi, Impulsis
Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory Freiburg
Gregory Gerhardt, Amazee
Markus Gander, Infoklick
Martin Guerra, Impulsis
Paolo Richter, Gump & Drahtesel
Jonas Schafer for proofreading
Em?ke Lakatos for your love and patience
III
Table of Content
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Problems................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Research Problem ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Entrepreneurship .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship ............................................................................ 4
2.2.3 Social Enterprise and Typology ......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Constraints and Motivations .............................................................................................................. 28
2.3 Delimitations and Terms .................................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship....................................................................................................................... 28
2.3.2 Social Enterprise Typology ................................................................................................................. 31
2.4 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
3 Research Design ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Research Type ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.3 Research Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.4 Data and Data Collection Method .................................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Data Processing and Content Analysis ............................................................................................................. 37
3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
IV
4 Research Report ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2 Within-Case Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Case A: André Willi and Martin Guerra, Impulsis .......................................................................... 41
4.2.2 Case B: Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory ..................................................................................................... 43
4.2.3 Case C: Markus Gander, Infoklick..................................................................................................... 45
4.2.4 Case D: Gregory Gerhardt, amazee.com .......................................................................................... 47
4.2.5 Case E: Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel ................................................................................. 49
4.2.6 Case Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 51
4.3 Findings and Development of Propositions (Cross-Case Analysis) .......................................................... 51
4.3.1 Social Mission ........................................................................................................................................ 52
4.3.2 Social Entrepreneurship Advancement (TM1) .............................................................................. 52
4.3.3 Employee Mistakes (TM2) ................................................................................................................. 53
4.3.4 Employee Work-Life Balance (TM3) ............................................................................................... 53
4.3.5 Government Regulations (TM4) ...................................................................................................... 53
4.3.6 Financial Constraints (TM5) ............................................................................................................. 53
4.4 Implications ........................................................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.1 Implications for Social Entrepreneurship Theory .......................................................................... 54
4.4.2 Implications for Management ............................................................................................................ 54
4.4.3 Implications for Policy and Public Authorities ................................................................................ 54
4.5 Problems and Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 54
4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 55
V
5 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Table of figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.3 Bibliography........................................................................................................................................................... 58
5.4 Interview Guide .................................................................................................................................................... 60
5.5 Interview Database ............................................................................................................................................... 68
5.5.1 Approval: Case A, Interview 1 (A1): André Willi, Impulsis, Zürich ........................................... 68
5.5.2 Case A, Interview 1 (A1): André Willi, Impulsis, Zürich .............................................................. 69
5.5.3 Approval: Case A, Interview 2 (A2): Martin Guerra, Impulsis, Zürich ...................................... 80
5.5.4 Case A, Interview 2 (A2): Martin Guerra, Impulsis, Zürich ......................................................... 81
5.5.5 Approval: Case B, Interview 1 (B1): Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory, Giffers .................................... 90
5.5.6 Case B, Interview 1 (B1): Beat Fasnacht, Jobfactory, Giffers ....................................................... 91
5.5.7 Aproval: Case C, Interview 1 (C1): Markus Gander, Infoklick, Moosseedorf ...................... 101
5.5.8 Case C, Interview 1 (C1): Markus Gander, Infoklick, Moosseedorf ....................................... 102
5.5.9 Approval: Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich .............................. 113
5.5.10 Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich ................................................. 113
5.5.11 Approval: Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld ........ 122
5.5.12 Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld ........................... 123
5.5.13 Case A: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 134
5.5.14 Case B: Within Case Analysis Categories ...................................................................................... 136
5.5.15 Case C: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 137
5.5.16 Case D: Within Case Analysis Categories ..................................................................................... 138
5.5.17 Case E: Within Case Analysis Categories ...................................................................................... 139
5.5.18 Cross-Case Analysis Pattern Matching .......................................................................................... 141
5.6 Files (DVD-ROM) ............................................................................................................................................ 142
VI
Abbreviations
CHF Swiss franc
GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
NGO Non-governmental organization(s)
NPO Nonprofit organization(s)
Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary
Research Problem: Little is known about social entrepreneurs in Switzerland. No research papers have been
published about social entrepreneur in Switzerland so far. The presented theoretical framework is based on
existing social entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship literature in order to delimit the terms used in
the research question and to provide empirically valid propositions. The theoretical framework determines the
social entrepreneurial activity as well as the social enterprise type. A social entrepreneurial person innovates,
recognizes opportunities, takes moderately risky decisions leading into action by using resources to create
added value (Filion, et al., 2010), but adopts, in contrast to a business entrepreneur, a mission to create
sustainable social value (Dees, 2001). The social enterprise, which is run by a social entrepreneur, can be
classified as a not-for-profit or a for-profit social enterprise (Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,
n.d.).
Research Design: This exploratory multiple-case study research is based on Eisenhardt’s (1989) theory
building process, Yin’s (2008) methods and Mayring’s (2008) content analysis technique. The evidence was
collected by conducting semi-structured interviews.
Research Report: The study identified seven theoretical propositions for further social entrepreneurship
research in Switzerland, which were derived from the empirical evidence. Only matching patterns for the
constraints and solutions were identified. In addition, all matches for the not-for-profit social enterprises were
found in two out of the three cases. The propositions are: (1) the social mission is unresponsive to constraints,
(2 and 3) for-profit social entrepreneurs are attracted and not-for-profit social entrepreneurs are unaffected by
the classical start-up funding system. Classical start-up funding system should be extended to social
entrepreneurship, (4) the existence of a not-for-profit social enterprise is endangered if an employee does not
follow ethical policies. Regular ethical policy updates and monitoring should avoid compromising the
employees’ job and the social enterprise, (5) the work-life balances of not-for-profit social enterprise
employees are constrained by the professional and personal requirements. Employees need economic and
social education, need to know management expectancies, and a preventive concept to maintain a stable work-
life balance and working climate, (6) not-for-profit social enterprises do not need government regulations as
long as win-win situations between the social enterprise and the market exist, and (7) adapting service
agreements by paying the offered prices would increase the not-for-profit social enterprise’s financial viability
and their market orientation. These propositions have to be corroborated by using multiple sources of
evidence and verifying the propositions’ uniqueness for social entrepreneurship and for each social enterprise
type (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008). This step was skipped due to the time restriction set to conduct the
research.
Introduction 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Problems
Little is known about the constraints and motivations of social entrepreneurs in Switzerland. No research
papers have been published about social entrepreneur in Switzerland at the time this paper has been written.
The social entrepreneur’s primary objective is to create social rather than economic value. Maximizing the
social impact and therefore creating sustainable social change is a long term job and may take decades before
this change can be measured. The literature about social entrepreneurship is mostly American, and therefore it
is needed to understand what kind of constraints social entrepreneurs encounter in Switzerland and why they
started their venture.
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this study is to explore the constraints and motivations social entrepreneurs encountered in
Switzerland. The first step is to develop a theoretical framework based on the existing literature. The
theoretical framework’s has to determine a social entrepreneurial activity and the social enterprise’s type. The
social enterprise types are the base for the literal (predicting similar results) and theoretical (predicting
contrasting results) replication essential to develop the theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008).
The second step is to describe how this research is conducted by defining the research type, the research
sample, methods and the used techniques. The research report is the third and last part. It contains the within-
case narratives, the findings of the cross-case analysis, and the finding’s implications for social
entrepreneurship theory, management, and policy.
Research Problem 3
2 Research Problem
2.1 Introduction
This chapter is a literature review based on the terms used in the research question. Each reviewed article,
book, or web site in the literature review gives the reader a detailed insight into current theories of social
entrepreneurs, respectively social entrepreneurship, social enterprise typologies, and the social entrepreneur’s
constraints and motivations. The literature review contains also acknowledged business entrepreneurship
definitions in order to differentiate business from social entrepreneurship. The literature review is the base for
delimiting the terms used in this research, which again defines the theoretical framework. The theoretical
framework’s objective is to determine, if an activity lead by a person is entrepreneurial and social. If the activity
is social and entrepreneurial, the person in question is a social entrepreneur running a social enterprise. The
theoretical framework also determines the social enterprise’s type. The social enterprise types are the base for
the literal (predicting similar results) and theoretical (predicting contrasting results) replication essential to
develop the theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2008).
2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Entrepreneurship
Filion, et al., De l'intuition au projet d'entreprise (2010): Figure 1incorporates the main dimensions
within an entrepreneur is acting. This business entrepreneurship definition describes a continuous iterative
process, which renews and enhances what is done and what already exists. He is asking himself as a user of the
product or service what could be done better that does not exist? Which amelioration would the user of the
product or service like to benefit? What can be done to simplify or to reduce costs in his specific domain?
Research Problem 4
Figure 1: Les principales composantes d’un système d’activités entrepreneuriales (Filion, et al., 2010, p. 50)
Baron & Shane, Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective (2008): “Entrepreneurship, as a branch of
business, has important roots in economics, behavioral science, and sociology” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 12).
Furthermore they describe entrepreneurship as a process rather than only what an entrepreneur does
(common practice). “Entrepreneurship is a process that unfolds over time and moves through distinct but
closely interrelated phases” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
The entrepreneurial process cannot be divided into neat easily distinguished stages, but in general, it
involves generation of an idea for a new product or service and/or recognition of an opportunity,
assembling the resources needed to launch a new venture, launching the new venture, running and growing
the business, and harvesting the rewards (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
The authors point out, that “Individual, group, and societal factors influence all phases of the entrepreneurial
process. Thus, there is no reason to choose between a “micro” and a “macro” approach to entrepreneurship;
both perspectives are necessary” (Baron & Shane, 2008, p. 19).
2.2.2 Social Entrepreneur and Social Entrepreneurship
Dees Gregory, Enterprising Nonprofits (1998): This article is about NPO, but is fundamental to the
deduction of social entrepreneurship. There are several reasons for that. Two of them are the increasing
competition for the available funds to finance NPO and the competition on the markets they are in. On one
hand, the competition for the funds increased, the backers are demanding the organizations to operate on a
more commercial basis, and on the other hand, the NPO leaders are seeking to reduce the dependencies to
Risk
Use of Resources
Added Value
Action
Innovation
Opportunity
Recognition
Research Problem 5
them. This is leading NPO managers to seek for other sources of income to fund their organizations. To gain
financial sustainability and to get more reliable financial sources than just donations and grants, they need to
self-fund their organizations. This demands nonprofit leaders to develop a pro-business mindset.
Market-based funding approaches do have an important role to play in the social sector. If those social
programs that are able to generate their own income in fact do so, philanthropic dollars can be allocated to
activities that truly need to be subsidized (Dees, 1998, p. 57).
NPO have advantages like tax-exemption, volunteers, supplier discounts, and in-kind donations. This can lead
to conflicts when nonprofits are competing on commercial markets, because commercial companies do not
expect that NPO are behaving like them. The shift towards more commercial approaches is demanding
nonprofit leaders to act more or partially entrepreneurial. Dees claims that only a “few social enterprises can or
should be purely philanthropic or commercial” (Dees, 1998, p. 60). They should combine both, commercial
and philanthropic elements, in a productive balance. He identified the following earned income options for
social businesses:
Earned Income from Intended Beneficiaries: Ideally all social enterprises should get funds only if they
have achieved their intended social impact. Therefore the social enterprise should charge the full price for their
goods and services to their beneficiaries. They could finally judge if the good or service was good and worth
the price. In reality, many beneficiaries cannot afford the goods and services or even have no knowledge about
it (ex. nature, animals, etc.). It is very important that managers have to evaluate potential revenues for all
beneficiary groups, services and products.
Earned Income from Third Party Payers with a Vested Interest: When the beneficiaries are unable to pay,
someone else has to be charged. “The most likely direct payers are government agencies and corporations that
have a vested interest in an intended beneficiary group or the enterprise’s mission” (Dees, 1998, p. 62).
Governments have vested interest in collective goods and the welfare of the poor. The leaders should evaluate
how reliable their revenue streams are. It can be risky if they have a few major payers and if one of them cancels
the contract, it can be the organization’s end.
Earned Income from Others: Indirect sources such as advertising or co-branding may be another form of
third party payments. For instance a company may promote their own products by sponsoring a program of a
nonprofit (advertising) or a nonprofit may endorse a certain product related to their mission (co-branding).
The nonprofit leaders are required to be creative to find indirect revenue sources. They need to figure out how
they could create value for someone willing to pay.
Research Problem 6
The more direct the incomes are, the more they are related to the mission and vice versa. Because of this,
nonprofit leaders have to pay attention not to drift away from their mission by putting too many management
resources into indirect income generating activities. The leaders have to identify the potential sources of
earned income respectively to find the way how to finance the organization. The goal is not to make a
profitable business but to improve their effectiveness and efficiency by getting a more reliable and broader
funding base, or by increasing their market orientation. For this Dees proposes following financial approaches:
Full Philanthropic Support: If the leaders of a NPO do not find any potential sources of income regarding
their mission and values, “they must then decide on the right mixture of philanthropic sources: cash donations,
in-kind donations, and volunteer labor” (Dees, 1998, p. 64).
Partial Self-Sufficiency: If only a part of their operating expenses can be covered by earned income
sources, they will still need cash donations in order to pay all expenses, start-up costs, and investments. The
level of subsidy should be based on the organization’s mission. If the organization’s purpose is to serve the
poor, the level of subsidies will rather be high.
Cash Flow Self-Sufficiency: This means that a nonprofit organization is able to cover all their operating
expenses, but below market prices (volunteer work, below market wages, special discounts, etc.). The
investments needed to start and to run the organization are still funded by donations and grants.
Operating Expense Self-Sufficiency: The earned income is sufficient to cover all operating costs even at
market costs. Therefore they need only to fund the start of the organization by donations, grants, or below-
market loans. After the start-up period they will be able to fund their own investments.
Full-Scale Commercialization: All revenues are covering all cost at market prices without any subsidy even
for the start-up. “Because nonprofits cannot accept equity investments and it is difficult to be financed totally
with debt, such organizations often are structured as, or convert to, for-profit enterprises” (Dees, 1998, p. 66).
Mixed Enterprises: The last approach is that social businesses are running different programs with
different financial objectives and funding structures. Some programs may be full-scale commercial and others
need philanthropic subsidies. A social company may even be a for-profit organization with nonprofit
subsidiaries.
When becoming more commercial, leaders have to understand the risks of this shift and of moving too fast.
The organization needs staff that can understand and implement the new ideas. The leaders can also opt to
separate commercial from philanthropic activities in order to reduce conflicts within the organization itself
because of different cultures and operating styles. People from the business world may require higher salaries
than internal staff members, even when they have comparable education and experience. “Pay equity has to be
Research Problem 7
dealt explicitly, or it will fester” (Dees, 1998, p. 66). Getting more commercial means also to have staff with the
needed commercial skills, but salaries in nonprofits cannot compete with mainstream companies. Nonprofit
leaders could raise everyone’s salary, but that could be extremely costly and not doing it could discourage
them. They also should get legal and tax advice before changing the financial structure of the organization.
This article explains the reasons why the boundaries between nonprofit and for-profit organizations are fading.
At the end of the article, Dees named for the first time the leaders of more commercial nonprofits “social
entrepreneurs”.
Dees Gregory, The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship (2001): Nowadays Social entrepreneurship is a
commonly used expression. It is the combination of a social mission with business-like methods and
innovation. “Many governmental and philanthropic efforts have fallen far short of our expectations” (Dees,
2001, p. 1). Many social businesses are often inefficient, ineffective, and inert. Social entrepreneurs are needed
to face these problems. Social entrepreneurs per se are not a new phenomenon. There have always been social
entrepreneurs, but they were not named as such. Many important institutions were founded by social
entrepreneurs, as we would call them today. Social entrepreneurship is not limited to not-for-profit ventures. It
can also include for-profit businesses with a social purpose, such as developments banks.
But social entrepreneurship means different things to different people, which may be confusing.
Many associate social entrepreneurship exclusively with not-for-profit organizations starting for-profit or
earned-income ventures. Others use it to describe anyone who starts a not-for-profit organization. Still
others use it to refer to business owner who integrate social responsibility into their operations (Dees,
2001, p. 1).
Dees explains first the origins of the word “entrepreneur”. The French economist Jean-Baptiste Say said
around 1800 that “the entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of
higher productivity and greater yield” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 1). Therefore, according to Say, an
entrepreneur creates value. Joseph Schumpeter (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 1), another important economist,
describes entrepreneurs as follows:
[…] innovators who drive the “creative destruction” process of capitalism. In his words “the function of
entrepreneur is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production.” They can do this in many ways: “by
exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new
commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a
new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.” Schumpeter’s entrepreneurs are the
Research Problem 8
change agents in the economy. By serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things, they move
the economy forward.
Say and Schumpeter identified entrepreneurs as innovators and change agents behind economic progress.
Those terms have served as foundation for contemporary entrepreneurship definitions. Peter Drucker is one
of them. For Drucker (as cited in Dees, 2001) an entrepreneur is always searching to exploit opportunities
created by change rather than to cause change itself. Opportunity recognition is nowadays central to many
definitions of entrepreneurship respectively entrepreneurs. Drucker also explains, that “starting a business is
neither necessary nor sufficient for entrepreneurship” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 2). There is nothing especially
innovative or change oriented in opening another Mexican restaurant in the American suburb. “The same
would be true of new not-for-profit organizations” (Dees, 2001, p. 2). “Drucker also makes it clear that
entrepreneurship does not require a profit motive” (as cited in Dees, 2001, p. 2). Howard Stevenson (as cited
in Dees, 2001) added the element of resourcefulness to the opportunity-oriented definition. “Entrepreneurs
mobilize the resources of others to achieve their entrepreneurial objectives” (Dees, 2001, p. 2). Compared to
Say’s and Schumpeter’s definitions, Drucker’s and Stevenson’s, definitions of entrepreneurship are not limited
to business start-ups and for-profit ventures.
Social entrepreneurs are one type of entrepreneurs. The difference between a business and social entrepreneur
is the social mission, which is a reason why they encounter distinctive challenges. Dees claims that any
definition should reflect this. The social mission “becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation” (Dees,
2001, p. 2). Wealth creation is for business entrepreneurs a way of measuring value creation. Market discipline
determines mainly if they are creating value. Their goal is to shift resources to more economically productive
uses. If they do not create value, they will likely run out of business. Markets are not perfect, but they work
quite well to measure private value creation, especially for customers who are able and willing to pay.
“Entrepreneurs who can pay the most of the resources are typically the ones who can put the resources to
higher valued uses, as determined in the marketplace” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Thus businesses can only create
value when customers pay more than the costs of the good or service sold. The value or profit created by
business entrepreneurs is revenue minus costs. If customers are not willing to pay the price, which allows the
entrepreneur to generate profit, it is likely “that insufficient value is being created to justify this use of a
resource” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). For social entrepreneurs, in fact, markets do not work as well. For social
entrepreneurship elements such as social improvements and public goods are often essential, but cannot be
well valued by the markets. “That is what makes it social entrepreneurship” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Therefore it is
much harder to measure if a social entrepreneur is creating enough social value to justify the resources used in
creating that value. Even if a social business lasts for long, it does not proof that it is efficiently and effectively
improving social conditions. “It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value
Research Problem 9
is created by reducing pollution in a given stream […]?” (Dees, 2001, p. 3). Even if the social value creation
can be measured, social entrepreneurs often are unable to monetize it, enabling them to pay for the resources
used. Social entrepreneurs can overcome this problem, by looking for “subsidies, donations, and volunteers,
but this further muddies the waters of market discipline” (Dees, 2001, p. 3).
Dees’ definition of social entrepreneurship is based on Say’s value creation, Schumpeter’s innovation and
change agents, Drucker’s opportunities recognition and Stevenson’s resourcefulness. Dees (2001, pp. 4-5)
defines social entrepreneurship as follows:
Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in social sector, by:
Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value): This is the core of what
distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs even from socially responsible businesses.
[…] Profit is not the gauge of value creation, nor satisfaction, social impact is the gauge. Social
entrepreneurs look for a long-term social return on investment. […]
Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission: Where others see
problems, social entrepreneurs see opportunity. […] The key element is persistence combined with a
willingness to make adjustments as one goes. Rather than giving up when an obstacle is encountered,
entrepreneurs ask, “How can we surmount this obstacle? How can we make it work?”
Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning: Entrepreneurs are innovative.
[…] It does not require inventing something wholly new; it can simply involve applying an existing idea in
a new way or to a new situation. Entrepreneurs need not to be inventors. They simply need to be creative in
applying what others have invented. […] This willingness to innovate is part of the modus operandi of
entrepreneurs. […] It is a continuous process of exploring, learning, and improving. […] Entrepreneurs
tend to have a high tolerance for ambiguity and learn how to manage risks for themselves and others. They
treat failure of a project as a learning experience, not a personal tragedy.
Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand: […] They are skilled at doing more
with less and attracting resources from others. They use scarce resources efficiently, and they leverage their
limited resource by drawing in partners and collaboration with others. They explore all resource options,
from pure philanthropy to commercial methods of the business sector. They are not bound by sector
norms or traditions. They develop resource strategies that are likely to support and reinforce their social
missions.
Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created: Because
market discipline does not automatically weed out inefficient and ineffective social ventures, social
Research Problem 10
entrepreneurs take steps to assure they are creating value. This means that they seek a sound
understanding of the constituencies they are serving. […] Creating a fit between investor, values and
community needs is an important part of the challenge.
Last but not least, Dees claims that not every leader is an entrepreneur in the sense of Say, Schumpeter,
Drucker and Stevenson, neither in the business nor in the social sector.
Ashoka, What is a Social Entrepreneur? (n.d.): Ashoka defines social entrepreneur as follows:
Just as entrepreneurs change the face of business, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society,
seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions
to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social
entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.
Bornstein David, How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas
(Updated Edition), (2007): The book is mostly about case studies of social entrepreneurs around the world.
In order to enhance the base for the social entrepreneurship definition used in this paper, the focus is set on
the chapters: The Role of the Social Entrepreneur, In Search of Social Excellence, and Six Qualities of
Successful Social Entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneur cases are not considered, since there are no Swiss
cases among them.
Salomon & Winslow “[…] studied business entrepreneurs extensively. They have analyzed their orientation
to action, to risk and to growth “personal-value orientation” and “internal locus of control” and searched for
clues to explain the entrepreneur’s propensity to seek out and exploit change” (as cited in Bornstein, 2007, p.
92). In contrast, little attention is paid to social entrepreneurs. Their stories may be very inspiring, but it is
hard to make social entrepreneurs’ method comprehensible. The social entrepreneurs’ “[…] methods have
not received the rigorous, cross-industry scrutiny that is common to the study of business entrepreneurs”
(Bornstein, 2007, p. 92).
Later in the book, Bornstein refers to Ashoka, who encountered following problem in the late 1980’s: “[…]
Distribution channels of foreign aid and government spending is a problem. As long as money continued to be
channeled through large bureaucracies, subject to dictates of far-flung experts, aid would remain mired in poor
performance” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 151). To be effective, “[…] resources had to be placed in the hands of
people who really use them well” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 151). In other words, as Ashoka experienced, social
Research Problem 11
entrepreneurs are more effective than foreign aid and government spending. “To produce real change and
accelerate social innovation, far more resources would have to be channeled systematically to social
entrepreneurs” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 152). “The key is to put the problem-solving knowledge directly into the
hands of families and community members” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 155).
McClelland (as cited in Bornstein, 2007) figured out that the success of an entrepreneur has more to do with
the quality of their motivation rather than with their confidence, persistance, and knowledge. In contrast to
“average” entrepreneurs, succesfull entrepreneurs have a higher determination to achieve a long-term
objective meaningful to them, a more systematic way for opportunity recognition, obstacle anticipation, result
montitoring, a forward-looking planning, an increased concernment on quality and efficiency, and show more
engagement toward employees and partners. According to Bornstein, there are six qualities of successful social
entrepreneurs, which grow out of motivation:
Willingness to self-correct: “[…] The entrepreneur’s inclination to self-correct stems from the attachment
to a goal rather than to a particular approach or plan” (Bornstein, 2007, pp. 238-239) “Like young businesses,
social change organizations usually go through many iterations as their strategies or “business models” evolve
in response to problems, new opportunities and changing market conditions” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 239).
Without self-correcting, it is likely that the desired impact cannot be achieved.
Willingness to share credit: “[…] The more credit they share, the more people typically will want to help
them” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 240).
Willingness to break free of established structures: “Social entrepreneurs can cause change by redirecting
existing organizations […]” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241) or by building their own organizations.
[…] In doing so, they often assume considerable financial and professional risk. What they gain is the
freedom to act and the distance to see beyond the orthodoxy in their fields. This is critical because all
innovation entails the ability to separate from the past (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241).
Willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries: The primary functions of the social entrepreneur are: “to
create new social compounds; to gather together people’s ideas, experiences, skills, and resources in
configurations that society is not naturally aligned to produce” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 241).
Faced with whole problems, social entrepreneurs readily cross disciplinary boundaries, pulling together
people from different spheres, with different kinds of experience and expertise, who can, together, build
workable solutions that are qualitatively new. […] This fact may be why so many social entrepreneurs can
be found today integrating functions that otherwise would remain disconnected (Bornstein, 2007, p. 242).
Research Problem 12
Willingness to work quietly: Social entrepreneurs often “become recognized only after years working in
relative obscurity” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 242). “A person must have very pure motivation to push an idea so
steadily for so long with so little fanfare” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 243).
Strong ethical impetus: Ethics are the “why” respectively the motivation of a social entrepreneur. “In the
end, business and social entrepreneurship are very much the same animals. They think about the same
problem the same way. They ask the same types of questions. The difference is not in temperament or ability,
but in the nature of their vision” (Bornstein, 2007, p. 244).
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship - What is a social entrepreneur? (n.d.):
Social entrepreneurs drive social innovation and transformation in various fields including education,
health, environment and enterprise development. They pursue poverty alleviation goals with
entrepreneurial zeal, business methods and the courage to innovate and overcome traditional practices. A
social entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which
are either set up as not-for-profit or for-profit companies.
A social entrepreneur is a leader or pragmatic visionary who:
• Achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through a new invention, a different
approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies or strategies, or a combination of these.
• Focuses first and foremost on the social and/or ecological value creation and tries to optimize the
financial value creation.
• Innovates by finding a new product, a new service, or a new approach to a social problem.
• Continuously refines and adapts approach in response to feedback.
• Combines the characteristics represented by Richard Branson and Mother Teresa.
The Schwab Foundation employs the following criteria when looking for leading social entrepreneurs:
Innovation, Sustainability, Reach and social impact. […]
Social entrepreneurship is:
• About applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an
emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor.
• A term that captures a unique approach to economic and social problems, an approach that cuts across
sectors and disciplines grounded in certain values and processes that are common to each social
Research Problem 13
entrepreneur, independent of whether his/her area of focus has been education, health, welfare reform,
human rights, workers' rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, etc., or whether the
organizations they set up are non-profit or for-profit entities.
• It is this approach that sets the social entrepreneur apart from the rest of the crowd of well-meaning
people and organizations who dedicate their lives to social improvement.
Mair & Martí, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight
(2006): The basic premise of this paper is to bring structure in the field of social entrepreneurship, because it
is still poorly defined and that remains fuzzy. According to the authors, “Definitions of social entrepreneurship
typically refer to a process or behavior; definitions of social entrepreneurs focus instead on the founder of the
initiative; and definitions of social enterprises refer to the tangible outcome of social entrepreneurship” (Mair
& Martí, 2006, p. 37). They see social entrepreneurship as “a process involving the innovative use and
combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs” (Mair
& Martí, 2006, p. 37). This definition is based on three assumptions. The first one is the process of value
creation by combining resources in new ways. The second is that “these resource combinations are intended
primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting
social needs” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 37). And the third assumption is that social entrepreneurship does not
only include the offering of goods and services, but also the creation of new organizations. Social
entrepreneurship can occur in new or existing organizations, where it may be named social intrapreneurship.
“Like intrapreneurship in the business sector, social intrapreneurship can refer to either new venture creation
or entrepreneurial process innovation” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 37).
Mair and Martí, are also arguing about the “social“ and “entrepreneurial” element of their definition in order to
capture potential differences between social and business entrepreneurship:
Social: Social entrepreneurship is often related to ethical motives and moral responsibility, which can also
include less altruistic reasons like personal fulfillment. It is also important to mention, that business
entrepreneurship has also a social aspect. Business entrepreneurs, when pursuing selfish ends, are also
enhancing social wealth “by creating new markets, new industries, new technology, new institutional forms,
new jobs, and net increases in real productivity” (Venkataraman, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 38). The
difference between social and business entrepreneur is the focus on creating social value. Economic value
creation is a purpose to ensure financial viability.
Research Problem 14
Entrepreneurial: Nowadays, it is agreed that entrepreneurship research should set the focus on the
entrepreneurial behavior or process. The same also applies to the notion of opportunities as a defining element
of entrepreneurship.
Social Entrepreneurship resarch has followed, to some extent, the same evolution as business
entrepreneurship. In the early stage of social entrepreneurship research, researcher have focused on the
personality of the social entrepreneur. Social entrepreneurs are characterized by very special traits and a strong
ethical fiber (Dryton, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006), “special leadership skills” (Thomson, Alvy, & Lees, as
cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 38), and “a passion to realize their vision” (Bornstein, as cited in Mair & Martí,
2006, p. 38). Gartner (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006) repeadetly pointed out that asking “who the
entrepreneur is” is not the right question to ask. Therefore, Mair & Martí are skeptical if this approach can
explain differences between social and business entrepreneurship. A more fruitful approach may be to focus on
traditional, entrepreneurial behavior and process. Finally, a recent approach is to focus on the entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition and exploitation in order to create social value (Guclu, Dees, & Anderson, as cited in
Mair & Martí, 2006).
Distinctive features of social entrepreneurship: Social entrepreneurial activities can take place in not-for-
profit and for-profit basis and depends on the business model chosen to accomplish the social mission. It is not
limited to not-for-profit ventures. The Grameen Bank founded by Muhammad Yunus, for example, used
profits generated by their main activities to create new social ventures like Grameen Telecom and Grameen
Energy. “For the Grameen Bank, creating economic value is critical to ensure that it is able to continue with its
mission, namely to change the life of the poorest of the poor by providing loans” (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
Rather than profit versus not-for-profit, we argue that the main difference between entrepreneurship in the
business sector and social entrepreneurship lies in the relative priority given to social wealth creation versus
economic value creation. In business entrepreneurship, social wealth is a by-product of the economic value
created (Venkataraman, as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
The main focus of social entrepreneurs is on social value creation. „In social entrepreneurship, social wealth
creation is the primary objective, while economic value creation, in form of earned income, is necessary to
ensure the sustainability of the initiative and financial self-sufficiency“ (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 39).
An additional distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship lies in the limited potential to capture the value
created. Social entrepreneurs who address basic social needs, such as food, shelter or education, very often
find it difficult to capture economic value because, although the „customers“ are willing , often are unable
to pay even a small part of the price of the product and services provided (Seelos & Mair, as cited in Mair &
Martí, 2006, p. 39).
Research Problem 15
Finally, measurement of the social value is one of the greatest challenges for practitioners and researchers in
social entrepreneurship. “The real problem may not be the measurement per se, but how the measures may be
used to ‘‘quantify’’ the performance and impact of social entrepreneurship. Many consider it very difficult, if
not impossible, to quantify socio-economic, environmental and social effects“ (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 42).
Yet it is necessary to make major efforts in this direction and to develop useful and meaningful measures
that capture the impact of social entrepreneurship and reflect the objectives pursued. Clearly, more
research and managerial practice is needed in order to establish social impact as an essential dimension of
performance assessment (Mair & Martí, 2006, p. 42).
Bornstein & Davis, Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know (2010): Bornstein and
Davis defined social entrepreneurship in their book as follows:
Social Entrepreneurship is a process by which citizens build or transform institutions to advance solutions
to social problems, such as poverty, illness, illiteracy, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and
corruption, in order to make life better for many. In others words to create social value (Bornstein & Davis,
2010, p. 1).
Dees (as cited in Bornstein & Davis, 2010) offered the most widely cited definition and he is often referred as
the father of social entrepreneurship. Bornstein and Davis are also referring to Dees who based his thinking
about social entrepreneurship on Say and Schumpeter
1
.
“Social entrepreneurs have always existed, but they were called visionaries, humanitarians, philantropists,
reformers, saints, or simply great leaders” (Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 2). Attention was mainly paid on the
social entrepreneur’s personality, but rarely on the practical aspects of their venture. The Ashoka organization
popularized the term “social entrepreneur” during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Ashoka was founded 1980 by Bill
Dryton who recognized the need to build bridges between the social sector and the business world.
In addition to the definition, Bornstein and Davis argued about what a social entrepreneur is doing. “Social
entrepreneurs must attract attention and funding, overcome apathy and oppositions, shift behaviour and
mobilize political will, continually improve the idea, and take care of all the details in painstaking fashion, no
matter how long it takes” (Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 23). The role of a social entrepreneur is “to initiate and
lead change processes that are self-correcting, growth-oriented, and impact-focused. They create new
1
Dees theory is based on Say, Schumpeter, Drucker and Stevenson (p. 8)
Research Problem 16
configurations of people and coordinate their efforts to attack problems more successfully than before”
(Bornstein & Davis, 2010, p. 24).
But what are social entrepreneurs like? The following describes some properties of entrepreneurs the authors
mentioned in their book. Entreprenrus are confortable with uncertainty, they have a high need for autonomy,
are proactive, are minimizing risks, are good listeners, and are attracted by challenges where skills and not luck
are the key for success. They also have a higher inner locus of control, but are not necessarly highly
charismatic. Many social entrepreneurs recalled to their childhood when they were actively encourage by an
adult to take initiative or were influeced by a close and highly ethical person. Forthermore they may have
spoke up against injustice, are steadfast against doubsters and critics, and have the capacity to derive joy and
celebrate small successes, even with further difficulties ahead. Many social entrepreneurs believes that what
they are doing, is their life purpose
2
. Bornstein’s and Davis’ definition of social entrepreneurship also describes
a process, and are taking therefore the same approach by comparing “what they are doing”.
The main difference between business and social entrepreneurs is that social entrepreneur’s primary objectives
are to maximize social value rather than economic value. They are trying to maximize some form of social
impact, by addressing needs that have been ignored by other institutions. “In terms of skill and temperament,
social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different” (Bornstein
& Davis, 2010, p. 31). Business entrepreneurs also create social value by generating employment and meeting
needs, but they are maximizing economic value.
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, Analyzing Social Entrepreneurship from an Institutional Perspective:
Evidence from Spain (2010): Social entrepreneurship is not only tied to “the work of community, voluntary
and public organizations, but also private forms working for social rather than for-profit objectives” (Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55). According to Austin et al. “[…] social entrepreneurship is still emerging as
an area for academic inquiry. Its theoretical underpinnings have not been adequately explored, and the need
for contributions to theory and practice are pressing” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55).
They found out that there is no consensus among academics on all elements defining social entrepreneurship.
Zadek and Thake identified creating social instead of personal wealth as a key distinction of social
entrepreneurship (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010). For Kramer, Austin et al., and Leadbeater
it is social innovations instead of economic innovations and according to Harding, Westall & Chalkley it is
addressing social problems rather than individual needs (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010).
2
As explained in the Chapter”Mair & Martí, Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight”, it is
unlikely to distinguish social from business entrepreneurs by comparing their personality.
Research Problem 17
Thompson defined social entrepreneurs as “people with the qualities and behaviors we associate with business
entrepreneurs but who operate in the community and are more concerned with caring and helping than with
making money” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56), Shaw & Carter as “those individuals
who establish enterprises primarily to meet social objectives rather than generate personal financial profit” (as
cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56). Drucker, and Leadbeater “emphasize their creativity in
developing social innovations and change for improving the social context in which the entrepreneurs operate”
(Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 55). The authors are also referring to Mair and Martí, who see social
entrepreneurship as “a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue
opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs” (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, &
Soriano, 2010, p. 56), and to Austin et al. “whose central driver is the social problem being addressed” (as cited
in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, p. 56). The authors did not deflect their own definition of social
entrepreneurship, but used existing definitions to identify the influence of the institutional environment on
social entrepreneurship. This article is furthermore arguing on the institutional approach, which is out of this
research’s scope. It gives a broad overview how researchers differentiate between social and business
entrepreneurship.
Alter Sutia Kim, Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships (2006): The
author uses a simple definition for social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurship is the ability to combine
social interests with business practices to effect social change” (Alter, 2006, p. 205), but the main focus of her
work is set on social enterprise models (Chapter 2.2.3).
Weerawardena & Mort, Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model (2006):
According to the authors, social entrepreneurship has been conceptualized from different areas like “public
sector, community organizations, social action organizations, and charities. The majority of literature on social
entrepreneurship has evolved within the domain of nongovernment not-for-profit organizations”
(Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 22). In the literature review, they argue about different definitions of social
entrepreneurship. The conclusion of their review is “[…] that while there is a substantial body of literature on
social entrepreneurship emerging from a number of domains, the literature is fragmented and has not led to
the development of an empirically derived coherent theoretical framework” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p.
25). Their contribution to social entrepreneurship lies in the proposition of a multidimensional model.
Weerawardena and Mort identified risk management, proactiveness and innovativeness as the core behavioral
dimensions of social entrepreneurship, which are required to create social value. They suggest “[…] that social
Research Problem 18
entrepreneurial behavior is deeply influenced by the concurrent requirements of the environment, the need to
build a sustainable organization and the need to achieve the social mission” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, pp.
31-32). Opportunity recognition is meant to operate within these three constraints and is not identified “[…]
as a distinct dimension of the social entrepreneurship construct because it is embedded in the sustainability
dimension” (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 32).
Figure 2: Bounded multidimensional model of social entrepreneurship (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006, p. 32)
Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes
and ethical challenges (2009): The article highlights social wealth for measuring the contribution of social
entrepreneurship within the context of total wealth creation, which implies both economic and social wealth.
The authors used 20 definitions (Table 1) of social entrepreneurship “that integrates common points of view
and facilitates the development of a heuristic to measure the creation of total wealth” (Zahra, Gedajlovic,
Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 520).
Source Definition
Leadbetter (1997) The use of entrepreneurial behavior for social ends rather than for profit objectives, or
alternatively, that the profits generated from market activities are used for the benefit
of a specific disadvantaged group.
Thake and Zadek
(1997)
Social entrepreneurs are driven by a desire for social justice. They seek a direct link
between their actions and an improvement in the quality of life for the people with
whom they work and those that they seek to serve. They aim to produce solutions
which are sustainable financially, organizationally, socially and environmentally.
Dees (1998) Play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: 1) Adopting a mission to create
and sustain social value (not just private value), 2) Recognizing and relentlessly
pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, 3) Engaging in a process of
continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, 4) Acting boldly without being
limited by resources currently in hand, and 5) Exhibiting heightened accountability to
the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.
Environment Sustainability
Social mission
Risk Managment
Proactiveness Innovativeness
Research Problem 19
Source Definition
Reis (1999)
(Kellogg
Foundation)
Social entrepreneurs create social value through innovation and leveraging financial
resources…for social, economic and community development.
Fowler (2000) Social Entrepreneurship is the creation of viable socio-economic structures, relations,
institutions, organizations and practices that yield and sustain social benefits.
Brinkerhoff (2001) Individuals constantly looking for new ways to serve their constituencies and add value
to existing services
Mort et al. (2002) A multidimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous
behavior to achieve the social mission…the ability to recognize social value creating
opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovation, proactiveness
and risk-taking
Drayton (2002) A major change agent, one whose core values center on identifying, addressing and
solving societal problems.
Alford et al. (2004) Creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the ideas,
capacities, resources and social arrangements required for social transformations
Harding (2004) Entrepreneurs motivated by social objectives to instigate some form of new activity or
venture.
Shaw (2004) The work of community, voluntary and public organizations as well as private firms
working for social rather than only profit objectives.
Said School (2005) A professional, innovative and sustainable approach to systematic change that resolves
social market failures and grasps opportunities
Fuqua School
(2005)
The art of simultaneously pursuing both a financial and a social return on investment
(the “double” bottom line)
Schwab Foundation
(2005)
Applying practical, innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general,
with an emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor.
NYU Stern (2005) The process of using entrepreneurial and business skills to create innovative
approaches to social problems. “These non-profit and for profit ventures pursue the
double bottom line of social impact and financial self-sustainability or profitability.”
MacMillan (2005)
(Wharton Center)
Process whereby the creation of new business enterprise leads to social wealth
enhancement so that both society and the entrepreneur benefit.
Tan et al. (2005) Making profits by innovation in the face of risk with the involvement of a segment of
society and where all or part of the benefits accrue to that same segment of society.
Mair and Marti
(2006a)
…a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways…intended
primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating
social change or meeting social needs.
Peredo and McLean
(2006)
Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group….aim(s) at creating
social value…shows a capacity to recognize and take advantage of
opportunities…employ innovation…accept an above average degree of risk…and are
unusually resourceful …in pursuing their social venture.
Martin and Osberg
(2007)
Social entrepreneurship is the: 1) identification a stable yet unjust equilibrium which
the excludes, marginalizes or causes suffering to a group which lacks the means to
transform the equilibrium; 2) identification of an opportunity and developing a new
Research Problem 20
Source Definition
social value proposition to challenge the equilibrium, and 3) forging a new, stable
equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group through imitation and
creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium to ensure a better future for
the group and society.
Table 1: Definitions and descriptions of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman,
2009, p. 521).
Based on their findings, the authors suggest following definition: “Social entrepreneurship encompasses the
activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social
wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner” (Zahra,
Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 520). “As we have noted, accepted, reliable and valid measures of
social wealth do not currently exist” (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009, p. 529).
Research Problem 21
2.2.3 Social Enterprise and Typology
The type of social enterprise a social entrepreneur creates may depend on the social mission, the business
model, or laws. This chapter gives an insight into typologies that emerged in the literature.
Dees, Emerson, & Economy, Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs (2001): “Social
entrepreneurs realize that they have a wide range of options for structuring their organizations” (Dees,
Emerson, & Economy, 2001, p. 14). The authors identified the following social enterprise spectrum:
Continuum of Options
Purely Philanthropic Hybrids Purely Commercial
General Motives,
Methods, and Goals
Appeal to goodwill Mixed motives Appeal to self-interest
Mission-driven Balance of mission and
market
Market-driven
Social value creation Social and economic
value
Economic value
creation
Key Stakeholders
Beneficiaries Pay nothing Subsidized rates and/
or mix of full payers and
those who pay nothing
Pay full market rates
Capital Donations and grants Below-market capital
and/or mix of full
payers and those who
pay nothing
Market rate capital
Workforce Volunteers Below-market wages
and/or mix of full
payers and fully paid
staff
Market rate
compensation
Suppliers Make in-kind
donations
Special discounts
and/or mix of in-kind
and full price
Charge market prices
Table 2: The social enterprise spectrum (Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001, p. 15)
Elkington & Hartigan, The power of unreasonable people: how social entrepreneurs create markets
that change the world (2008): The autors found out that “social enterprises seem to be built from a relatively
small number of key ingredients” (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008, p. 31). As a result they identified three
categories, or business models.
Research Problem 22
Leveraged nonprofit ventures (Model 1): Most social enterprises of this model have typically the following
characteristics (Elkington & Hartigan, 2008, p. 33):
• A public goods is being delivered to the most economically vulnerable, who do not have access to, or
are unable to afford, the service rendered.
• Both the entrepreneur and the organization are change catalysts, with a central goal of enabling direct
beneficiaries to assume ownership of the initiative, enhancing its long-term sustainability.
• Multiple external partners are actively involved in supporting (or are being recruited to support) the
venture, financially, politically, and in kind.
• The founding entrepreneur morphs into a figurehead, in some cases for the wider movement, as others
assume responsibilities and leadership.
Hybrid nonprofit ventures (Model 2): Their main characteristics include the following (Elkington &
Hartigan, 2008, p. 38):
• As with model 1 ventures, goods and/or services are delivered to populations that have been excluded
or underserved by mainstream markets, but the notion of making (and reinvesting) profit is not totally
out of the question.
• Sooner or later, the founding entrepreneur – or his or her team – typically develops a marketing plan to
ensure that the poor or otherwise disadvantaged can access the product or service being provided.
• The enterprise is able to recover a portion of its costs through the sale of goods and services, in the
process often identifying new markets.
• To sustain activities and address the unmet needs of poor or otherwise marginalized clients, the
entrepreneur mobilizes funds from public, private and/or philanthropic organizations in the form of
grants, loans, or, in rare cases, quasi-equity investments.
• As mainstream investors and businesses enter the picture, even when they are not seeking mainstream
financial returns, they tend to push hybrid nonprofit ventures to become model 3 social businesses, to
ensure access to new sources of funding, particularly capital markets. This may be warranted in some
cases, but it risks refocusing activities to the point where the poorest will no longer be served.
Social business ventures (Model 3): The main characteristics of this model are (Elkington & Hartigan,
2008, p. 43):
• The entrepreneur sets up the venture as a business with the specific mission to drive transformational
social and/or environmental change.
Research Problem 23
• Profits are generated, but the main aim is not to maximize financial returns for shareholders but instead
to financially benefit low-income groups and to grow the social venture by reinvestments, enabling it to
reach and serve more people.
• The entrepreneur seeks out investors interested in combining social and financial returns.
• The enterprise’s financing – and scaling – opportunities can be significantly greater because social
businesses can more easily take on debt and equity.
Alter Sutia Kim, Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships (2006): Social
entrepreneurship creates social and economic value with a new type of institution by combining market
mechanism and social interests. This social and business world has spawned the revenue earning social
enterprise.
The social enterprise is driven by two strong forces. First, the nature of desired social change often benefits
from an innovative, entrepreneurial, or enterprise-based solution. Second, the sustainability of the
organization and its services requires diversification of its funding stream, often including the creation of
earned income opportunities (Reis, as cited in Alter, 2006, p. 205). Social enterprise introduces a new not-
for-profit paradigm for creating sustainable value for people and the planet (Alter, 2006, p. 205).
The social enterprise was invented because not-for-profits are under pressure “to professionalize their services,
increase social impact, and be accountable for results. Furthermore, support for traditional, philanthropic, and
government sources is declining and competition for available funds is increasing” (Alter, 2006, p. 206). In
addition, “[…] not-for-profit market forces are galvanizing practitioners to explore alternative financing
approaches and more effective programming methods. Not-for-profit leaders understand that to be
competitive they must render high quality services to clients as well as realize significant social returns (Alter,
2006, p. 206).
The social enterprise is an entrepreneurial, strong, and more innovative not-for-profit organization. “The
integration of business tools and practices within not-for-profits builds organizational capacity that can
improve performance and increase their ability to effect lasting change. The social enterprise paradigm also
provides not-for-profits with a mechanism to deepen their social impact” (Alter, 2006, p. 206). This means to
enhance the mission by creating more meaningful social impact, reaching new markets, or diversifying the
social services. Furthermore, the social enterprise provides the not-for-profit leader with greater financial
independence and he can leverage the earned income for new program-related investments and ensures the
longevity of the organization.
Research Problem 24
A social enterprise pursues dual objectives: to generate sustainable social impact and the amount of money to
be earned. “The purpose of a social enterprise is defined by the emphasis and priority given to its financial and
social objectives” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
In organizations with a high compatibility between the business and the social mission, the social enterprise is
a natural fit. For example: Fair Trade products in agriculture or employment development programs. “In these
cases, the social enterprises are central to the organization’s mission and function as a self-funding programme
strategy, accomplishing mission goals while simultaneously increasing financial self-sufficiency” (Alter, 2006,
p. 207). But the social enterprise does not always seamlessly match with an organization’s mission. “[…] The
impetus to begin a social enterprise might be financially motivated, nevertheless the social enterprise can serve
to enhance or expand the organization’s social programmes and strengthen its mission” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
For example, an environmental organization, offering eco-tourism to generate income in order to finance the
reforestation. Alter pointed out a third group of organizations incorporating “social enterprises as an auxiliary
activity without concern for social benefit. In these instances, social enterprises are often unrelated to the
mission and are employed solely as a funding strategy” (Alter, 2006, p. 207).
Alter claims that social enterprises’ financial objective is not by default profit and may differ among
organizations. According to Dees (as cited in Alter, 2006) a social enterprise does not need to be profitable to
be worthwhile, but can improve its efficiency and effectiveness by diminishing the need for donated funds,
finding a more reliable, diversified funding base, or by increasing market discipline in order to enhance the
quality of programs.
Alter identified three financial strategies for social enterprises. The first is to diversify the funding base of the
social enterprise by decreasing the reliance on donation or subsidies. “Organizations seeking to diversify
income may set modest financial objectives by for-profit standards. […] Organizations using social enterprise
to diversify income are more apt to practice mission-centered models” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). The second is to
achieve financial self-sufficiency. “Financial self-sufficiency is achieved by generating adequate income to cover
costs without continued reliance on donor funding” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). Therefore, organizations have to
run lucrative businesses in addition to the not-for-profit programs. “Organizations seeking to achieve full
financial self-sufficiency will opt for non-mission-oriented social enterprises that offer the greatest profit-
making potential over less productive enterprises geared towards achieving social benefit” (Alter, 2006, p.
208). The third strategy is to “[…] engage in social enterprise as a means to make best use of their resources
and to reduce costs” (Alter, 2006, p. 208). This can be done by sharing assets, back office functions, etc. “to
reimburse programme costs and make internal investments in hard-to-fund projects such as pilot programmes
or overheads” (Alter, 2006, p. 208).
Research Problem 25
As value creation properties are intertwined in the social enterprise, purpose and mission are inextricably
linked. The interrelationship between business activities and social programs is dictated by the social
enterprise’s purpose and relevance to the parent organization’s mission. Therefore a system of
classification based around “mission orientation” provides one determinant of social enterprise type (Alter,
2006, pp. 208-209).
Figure 3: Social enterprise type by mission orientation (Alter, 2006, p. 209)
Mission-centric type: “In the mission-centric social enterprise business activities are central to the parent
organization’s social mission. These social enterprises are created for the express purpose of advancing the
mission using a self-financing model” (Alter, 2006, p. 209).
Mission-related type: In this type, the social enterprise’s business activities are related to the organization’s
mission. They “have synergistic properties, creating social value for programmes and generating income to
subsidize programme costs or operating expenses” (Alter, 2006, p. 210). For example, an organization that
uses the catering services of schools, hospitals, or other social institutions in order to offer free meals for poor.
Another mission-related type is mission expansion. Alter quotes as an example a business consultancy for self-
employed single mothers, which open a sliding-scale fee-based childcare social enterprise.
Unrelated to mission type: This type of social enterprise is not related to the organizations mission. The
profit potential is the motivation for creating a social enterprise. For example Save the Children, a not-for-
profit organization, created a corporate licensing social enterprise. Licenses are granted to “companies in
consumer products industries, based on the mutually beneficial goal of increased profit for companies and a
significant and steady income stream for Save the Children’s work worldwide” (Alter, 2006, p. 211). The
licensee benefits of the social enterprise’s reputation to ameliorate their image and to attract socially conscious
consumers.
Mission
Centric
Unrelated
to Misson
Mission
Related
Type of Social Enterprise
Mission Motive Profit Motive
Research Problem 26
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Swiss Executive Report (2010): For the GEM report a typology
with four types of social enterprise was developed. This typology is based on three features of a social
enterprise. The first feature is the percentage of social and environmental goals related to the total goals. The
second is if the social company relies on an earned income strategy or not, and the third feature checks the
presence of innovation.
The four presented categories are:
1. Traditional NGO (high levels of social/environment goals; not-for-profit status),
2. Not-for-profit social enterprise (high levels of social/environmental goals; not-for-profit status;
innovation);
3. Hybrid social enterprise (high levels of social/environmental goals; earned income strategy “integrated” or
“complementary” to the mission) and;
4. For Profit social enterprise (high but not exclusively social/environmental goals; earned income strategy).
The fifth category, the socially committed businesses (Figure 4), has primarily a profit motive and is the link
between social and business entrepreneurship. For the GEM report, this category was included in the
spectrum of social entrepreneurial activities to capture the full extent of such activities, but they also point out
that current social entrepreneurship theories exclude them from this spectrum.
Research Problem 27
Figure 4: Classification of four social enterprise types (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Swiss Executive Report, 2010)
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, Analyzing Social Entrepreneurship from an Institutional Perspective:
Evidence from Spain (2010): This paper does not focus on social enterprise typologies, but mentions the
nonprofit, for-profit and mixed social enterprise types indirectly as follows: “Specially, some authors have
recently stressed the emergence of hybrid entities, or new forms of social enterprises, that use both elements of
the nonprofit sector and the for-profit sector” (Fowler, Borzaga and Defounrny, Austin et al., Townsend and
Hart as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010, pp. 54-55).
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship - What is a social entrepreneur? (n.d.): A social
entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which are either
set up as not-for-profit or for-profit companies.
Earned Income
Strategy?
Social and Environmental Goals
as Percent of Total
Earned Income
Strategy?
NGO
Hybrid SE
CATEG 3
For profit SE
CATEG 4
Innovation-Driven
Organization
Traditional NGO
CATEG 1
Not-for-profit SE
CATEG 2
Socially Committed
Business
Social and Environmental
Goals > 67%
Social and Environmental
Goals < 50%
Social and Environmental
Goals 50%-67%
Yes No
No No Yes Yes
Research Problem 28
2.2.4 Constraints and Motivations
Dees (2001) pointed out that the difference between a business and social entrepreneur is the social mission,
which is a reason why they encounter distinctive challenges. Social entrepreneurs are often unable to monetize
the social value creation and to overcome this problem. They have to look for subsidies and donations to
finance the venture or are relying on volunteers to reduce costs. According to the Schwab Foundation for
Social Entrepreneurship (n.d.), social entrepreneurs are facing constraints imposed by ideology or field of
discipline. Weerawardena & Mort (2006) identified two types of constraints: drive for sustainability of the
organization and the achievement of the social mission and the influence of environmental dynamics.
Bornstein & Davis (2010) dedicated a whole chapter on the challenges like financing, talent seeking, or
evaluating social impact. The also pointed out, that in contrast to business entrepreneurs, social
entrepreneurs, depending on their business model, are facing different constraints. NPO are financed by
foundations, philanthropist or governments whose investments are modest in size and relatively short-term. In
addition, governments are elected officials with a short-term appearance of success rather than long-term in
order to be reelected. On the other hand, revenue generating social enterprises have accessed capital from
investors seeking financial and social impact. The literature about social entrepreneurship is mostly American
and therefore it is needed to understand what kind of constraints social entrepreneurs encounter in
Switzerland and why they started their venture.
2.3 Delimitations and Terms
The literature review is the theoretical base to delimit the terms used in the research question in order to
derive the theoretical framework (Chapter 2.4) for the data analysis (Chapter 4). Subsequently, the terms
“social entrepreneurship” and “social business typology” are delimited. There is no need to delimit the terms
“constraints” and “motivation”, because this research’s objective is to identify.
2.3.1 Social Entrepreneurship
The first terms to delimit are “social” and “entrepreneurship”. Finding an appropriate social entrepreneurship
definition can turn into a “tyranny of choice”. Event though, the reviewed articles and books were published
between 1998 and 2010, no commonly used definition of social entrepreneurship emerged. Weerawardena &
Mort (2006) and recently Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano (2010) pointed out that there is a substantial body of
literature on social entrepreneurship, but there is no consensus on all elements defining social
entrepreneurship. Table 3 summarizes the key differences between social and business entrepreneurship, in
order to find a way through the definitions.
Research Problem 29
Key difference between social and business
entrepreneurship
Source
Focuses first and foremost on the social and/or
ecological value creation and tries to optimize the
financial value creation.
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Mission to create and sustain social value;
social mission is the central criterion.
Dees (2001)
Focus on creating social value rather than
economic value.
Mair & Martí (2006)
Relative priority given to social wealth creation
versus economic value creation.
Venkataraman (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006)
Core values center on identifying, addressing and
solving societal problems.
Dryton (as cited in Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, &
Shulman, 2009)
Addressing social problems rather than individual
needs.
Harding, Westall & Chalkley (as cited in Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010)
Social innovations instead of economic
innovations.
Kramer, Austin et al., and Leadbeater (as cited in Urbano,
Toledano, & Soriano, 2010)
Maximizing social value rather than economic
value.
Bornstein & Davis (2010)
Meeting social objectives rather than generate
personal financial profit.
Shaw & Carter (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano,
2010)
Are more concerned with caring and helping than
with making money.
Thompson (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano,
2010)
Creating social instead of personal wealth. Zadek and Thake (as cited in Urbano, Toledano, &
Soriano, 2010)
Table 3: Key difference between social and business entrepreneurship
The key difference between social and business entrepreneurship is, based on Table 3, the social mission,
aimed is to maximize the social value creation rather than economic value.
Social: The social mission is the social enterprise’s core business. The following social mission types were
identified in the literature:
Social Mission Types Source
Solutions to social problems. Ashoka (n.d.)
Education, health, welfare reform, human rights,
workers' rights, environment, economic
development, agriculture, etc.
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Elements such as social improvements and public
goods are often essential, but cannot be well
valued by the markets.
Dees (2001)
Research Problem 30
Social Mission Types Source
Often related to ethical motives and moral
responsibility;
Catalyze social change and/or address social
needs.
Mair & Martí (2006)
Food, shelter or education, etc. Seelos & Mair (as cited in Mair & Martí, 2006)
Poverty, illness, illiteracy, environmental
destruction, human rights abuses, and corruption.
Bornstein & Davis (2010)
Table 4: Social mission types
Table 4 gives a direction of what a social mission can look like, but there is no clear definition of what makes a
mission social. Bornstein & Davis (2010) pointed out that the line between social and commercial enterprises
are not always clear. No clear social mission definition was found in the literature. Therfore the social mission
is delimited by the different types presented in Table 4.
Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship is a process by innovating, recognizing opportunities and taking
moderately risky decisions leading into action by using resources to create added value (Filion, et al., 2010).
Baron & Shane’s (2008) definition of entrepreneurship uses with exception of the risk dimension, the same
dimensions. Whereas most dimensions of the definition are understandable, the innovation dimension needs
closer explanations. According to Shane (2009), innovation is not the same as invention. It is the process of
using knowledge to solve a problem and not the discovery of a new idea. Porter (as cited in Westland, 2008)
goes further and defines innovation as invention and commercialization. „An innovation is a product or service
with a bundle of features that is – as a whole – new in the market, or that is commercialized in some new way
that opens up new uses and consumer groups for it“ (Westland, 2008, p. 6). The latest definition is used to
delimit the innovation dimension.
The use of the common business entrepreneurship definition for social entrepreneurship is appropriate
because the key dimensions mentioned above are found in most social entrepreneurship definitions. Authors
like Bornstein (2007), the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d.) and Thompson (as cited in
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano, 2010) corroborate this approach by pointing out that social entrepreneurs are
acting mostly like business enptrepreneurs, who follow a social mission in order to create social value. Last but
not least, it has to be mentionned, that entrepreneurship is a process and an entrepreneur is the person that
follows the entrepreneurial process.
Research Problem 31
2.3.2 Social Enterprise Typology
Following table presents the different social enterprise typologies identified in the reviewed literature.
Social Enterprise Typology Source
Not-for-profit
For-profit
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (n.d)
Purely philanthropic
Mixed
Purely commercial
Dees, Emerson, & Economy (2001)
Mission-centric
Mission related
Unrelated to mission
Alter (2006)
Leveraged nonprofit business model
Hybrid nonprofit business model
Social business model
Elkington & Hartigan (2008)
Traditional NGO
Not-for-profit
Hybrid
For-profit
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2009)
Nonprofit
For-profit
Mixed
Urbano, Toledano, & Soriano (2010)
Table 5: Social enterprise typologies
Based on Table 5, the most named social enterprise types are the not-for-profit, mixed and for-profit social
enterprise. This typology is based on the earned income strategy of the social enterprise. Dees (1998)
(Chapter 2.2.2) distinguishes following earned income strategies for nonprofits: earned income from intended
beneficiaries, earned income from third party payers with a vested interest, and earned income from others.
Once the social entrepreneur has defined the earned income strategy, he has to determine the social
enterprise’s financial objectives, which can be: full philanthropic support, partial self-sufficiency, cash flow self-
sufficiency, operating expense self-sufficiency, full-scale commercialization, or mixed enterprises. Therefore,
the financial objectives are determining the social enterprise’s desired self-sufficiency degree. In this research, a
not-for-profit social enterprise is a nonprofit organization following an earned income strategy in order to
increase its self-sufficiency degree. If the social enterprise’s objective is to make profit, it is called a for-profit
social enterprise. A mixed social enterprise pursues not-for-profit and for-profit business activities, each of
them having its own earned income strategy. If the business activities’ cumulated earned incomes generate a
profit, it is impossible to distinguish a mixed from a for-profit social enterprise, and if the business activities’
cumulated earned incomes do not generate profit, it is impossible to distinguish a mixed from a not-for-profit
social enterprise. The solution to this problem is to split the mixed type into the mixed not-for-profit and the
mixed for-profit social enterprise. But the literature does not differentiate the mixed types. Based on this fact,
Research Problem 32
the types for the theoretical framework are, as the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship proposes,
the not-for-profit and the for-profit social enterprise type.
Elkington & Hartigan (2008), as presented in Table 5, are using the expression “business model”. The
typology as used in this this research, is a part of the business model. These types are applicable on every social
enterprise, but every social enterprise has its own business model. “A business model describes the rationale of
how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 14). It is build out
of nine blocks, which are represented in following business model canvas:
Figure 5: Business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2009, p. 44)
The goal is not to digress, but to avoid confusion between the social enterprise typology and the business
model. While the business model consists of nine blocks, the typology, as used in the theoretical framework
(Chapter 2.4), is based on the revenue streams respectively the earned income strategy.
Key
Partners
Key
Activities
Value
Proposition
Customer
Relationship
Customer
Segments
Cost
Structure
Revenue
Streams
Key
Resources
Key
Channels
Research Problem 33
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this research consists of following steps:
Figure 6: Theoretical framework
The framework allows determining in the first step if an activity is entrepreneurial or not by analyzing the six
entrepreneurial dimensions as defined by Filion, et al. (2010). If yes, it has to be determined in the second
step if the entrepreneur follows a mission, which creates sustainable social value. If the entrepreneur is a social
entrepreneur, he is therefore running a social enterprise. The third and last step determines the social
enterprise’s type based on the self-sufficiency objective. If the self-sufficiency objective is set above 100%, it is a
for-profit social enterprise and if the self-sufficiency objective is set below or equal 100%, it is a not-for-profit
social enterprise. Both social enterprise types are the base to identify literal (predicting similar results within
each type) and theoretical (predicting contrasting results between both types) replications in order to develop
the propositions in Chapter 4.3.
Is the person an entrepreneur who innovates by
recognizing opportunities, taking moderately risky
decisions leading into action by using resources to create
added value (Filion, et al., 2010)?
Is the entrepreneur adopting a mission to create and
sustain social value (Dees, 2001)?
Is the social enterprise’s self-sufficiency objective
Diesen Abschnitt bitte nicht publizieren, v.a. nicht [...]
Thanks, sonst gut, Grüsse, Gregory
5.5.10 Case D, Interview 1 (D1): Gregory Gerhardt, amazee, Zürich
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Explanations
Question No = CI.TN (C: case, I: interview no, T: Q = question, A = answer, N: question / answer number)
Cue Point = Timestamp in interview record file (hh:mm:ss)
Topic = Text, Question or Answer
Introduction
Hello, my name is Thomas Stalder and I’m actually writing my master-thesis at the University of Applied Sciences in Fribourg,
Switzerland. I’m conducting a study about Swiss social entrepreneurs, their motivations and constraints related to their social
enterprise typology. For that purpose I would like to interview you. The interview will take about 45-60 minutes.
Additional explanations to be given before the interview:
• Would you and the company remain anonymous? No
• Am I allowed to record the interview? Yes
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not wish to or may request me at any time to not record certain parts of the interview
for confidentiality reasons.
• You will get a paraphrased copy of the interview, which I would like you to approve before I use it for my master-thesis.
• Do you wish a copy of the final study? Yes
Appendix 114
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Interview
D1.Q1 Place
D1.A1 1 Amazee Ltd, Technoparkstrasse 1, 8005 Zürich
D1.Q2 Time
D1.A2 1 10:00 - 10:45, 18.06.2010
General questions about the social entrepreneur
D1.Q3 First name and surname?
D1.A3 1 Gregory Gerhardt
D1.Q4 Function?
D1.A4 1 00:55:00 CEO
General questions about the company
D1.Q5 When was the company founded?
D1.A5 1 00:01:02 September 2007
D1.Q6 Legal form of the company?
D1.A6 1 00:01:08 Limited company
D1.Q7 Number of employees?
D1.A7 1 00:01:16 8
D1.Q8 List of subsidiaries and number of employees in each case?
D1.A8 1 00:01:23 No
D1.Q9 In which geographical area is your social enterprise operating?
D1.A9 1 00:01:30 Basically in all English and German speaking regions of the world. Most traffic on the amazee.com platform comes from Switzerland,
Germany, USA and South Africa. All customers of the amazee's customized solutions are from Switzerland.
Mission
D1.Q10 Which social impact should be achieved by your company?
Appendix 115
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A10 1 00:02:01 The mission of amazee is to create collaborative platforms. The public platform amazee.com allows people to collaborate in a more
productive manner than Facebook allows. Facebook has a very consumer oriented culture, it is very egocentric and fun, but it is not
about earnest social collaboration. The amazee.com public platform is about serious social collaboration and it is subsidized by selling
customized platforms to clients, which are using the platform in a social responsible manner in their own company. Per example
KPMG is using a customized platform to raise funds for green-tech projects at the ETH Zurich and Lausanne. Another example is
Pascale Bruderer, the president of the Swiss National Council that is using the platform to create social benefits by bringing all
generation uniting projects together. For amazee, social means not just bringing something to poor people. They will also allow
political interaction, which can't be told to be good or bad, but it is social activity happening, it's society forming new groups, new
initiatives, new projects that want to change things. Therefore it's social in a more extensive sense.
D1.Q11 Has the initial social mission changed over time?
D1.A11 1 00:06:45 No, the mission, the social collaboration, has not changed, but the way they are monetizing the venture changed. They expected that
the platform will grow faster, having more people on the platform and monetizing it with advertising and project upgrades that will be
bought more often. Therefore they had to think about new ways to monetize the platform and that were the customized solution.
This grew out of the financial pressure they suddenly experienced.
D1.A11 2 00:07:38 They started with an angel funding of one million Swiss francs and lived and worked with it for one and a half year. Combined with
the financial crisis they got into a liquidity squeeze in May 2009. With this high pressure, they had to come with something new. They
won a competition of KPMG against other web developers, which ended to be their first customized solution sold. The amazee.com
solution was almost exactly meeting KMPG requirements. So luck and the financial pressure created this new revenue model, which
are the customized solutions. In May/June 2010 they have realized that this market works. They sold three mandates so far and need
some more customers. They had two steps in monetization of the company. The first from the amazee.com to the customized
solutions and the second from the customized solutions to classical web development in open source area, focused on Drupal.
D1.Q12 Why did it change?
D1.A12 1 -
D1.Q13 How did it change?
D1.A13 1 -
D1.Q14 What were the challenges when changing the social mission?
D1.A14 1
D1.Q15 What is your business model?
Appendix 116
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A15 1 00:04:23 The amazee.com platform has at least one third "social social" projects, one third social projects like political, common interests, etc.
which have no money to pay. Almost one third is willing to pay to have a private, more professional group, with enhanced social
collaborative functionalities and advertising are monetizing a little the amazee.com platform. But this does not found the company, so
they have to sell customized platforms to organizations and companies and to do some classic web development for funding it.
amazee.com is a fully scalable platform, the customized solutions are mid-scalable, but this is a very small market because a company
or organization needs more than 10'000 people to achieve the critical social mass to run the platform. Therefore they are also selling
customized non-scalable web solutions, which are now organically growing. But amazee is only proactively selling the customized
solutions.
Typology
D1.Q16 What is your degree of social objectives in percentage of all company objectives (integration of the social mission)?
D1.A16 1 10:38:00 60% social, 40% economical. The social objective is to provide a top notch, leading edge technology for society to interact online in a
productive sense. The next objective is to have a top team to maintain this top technology. For this, money is needed to generate a
positive cash flow to pay the team that creates the technology, which again creates the social change. This requires sales effort and
some marketing. The goal is rather to pay industry salaries and to increase the social objectives than creating profit above that.
D1.Q17 What is your degree of financial self-sufficiency in percentage (earned income strategy)?
D1.A17 1 00:13:21 100%, respectively 90% if the research projects, funded by the government, from different Universities and schools on amazee.com
are also taken in account.
D1.Q18 Is the company funded by donators? If yes, how many percent?
D1.A18 1 00:15:53 -
D1.Q19 Is the company funded by foundations? If yes, how many %?
D1.A19 1 00:15:57 -
D1.Q20 Is the company funded by government? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A20 1 00:15:57 -
D1.Q21 Is the company funded by other (own or external) business activities? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A21 1 00:16:02 -
D1.Q22 Is the company funded by equity? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A22 1 00:16:05 Yes. By angel investors and founders
Appendix 117
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.Q23 Is the company funded by debt? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A23 1 00:16:14 -
D1.Q24 Is the company funded by other sources (also in kind)? If yes, how many percentage?
D1.A24 1 00:16:51 -
D1.Q25 Has the initial typology changed over time?
D1.A25 1 00:17:10 No
D1.Q26 Why did it change?
D1.A26 1
D1.Q27 How did it change?
D1.A27 1
D1.Q28 What were the challenges when changing the typology?
D1.A28 1
Motivation
D1.Q29 How did you recognize the opportunity?
D1.A29 1 00:17:25 Mr. Gerhardt was working at a private bank where he had a lot of fun. He came from a law school and there he was asking himself:
how will society best organize itself in an efficient and effective way? He was fascinated by the efficiency and effectiveness of the stock
market in the sense that it is a place where people have the same interests, shares can be sold anytime, within seconds, and worldwide.
This was enabled through the internet, which is the most efficient and effective media for information exchange. Combined with the
question how society will be organized in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years he concluded, that society will collaborate online by creating groups
and projects. Beside that, Mr. Gerhardt has an adventurous core and entrepreneurial traits. He left the bank where he had a decent
salary, but this was not the meaning he was looking for. He is always looking for challenges. He went to the boy scouts where he
learned to be social, and his parents are politically active.
D1.Q30 Why did you start this venture?
D1.A30 1 00:22:09 Mr. Gerhardt developed this idea with some friends and they started to write a business plan. At a certain point, they had to take the
decision if they will make it real or not. They thought that the plan is feasible and started the venture by looking for funding.
D1.Q31 Did you start the venture with partners or alone?
D1.A31 1 00:23:12 They were three founders. Two of them became operative and one not.
Appendix 118
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
General question about constraints
D1.Q32 What kind of constraints did you encounter respectively are you still confronted to. Please explain.
D1.A32 1 00:24:36 Financial constraints. Working in a social area is difficult because people are not willing to spend money. Basically the human being is
totally egocentric, he is driven by basic instincts that is himself primarily, sleep, food, sex, consumption, material goods, and stuff that
are fun. Once all of this is achieved, comes the area where amazee's market is. The biggest constraint is to convince people to buy a
product that has no direct commercial use. This may also be a reason why classical web development is a solution to cross subsidize
the amazee.com platform and to pay decent salaries.
Ask following questions, if necessary, to get more data about the constraints. Else goto Solutions.
Social constraints
D1.Q33 Did you encounter any cultural constraints?
D1.A33 1 00:26:10 Yes, they did some marketing in the US, but the Americans are fixed on US products. If it is not American, it will likely not being used.
The Swiss are more open to adopt American products like Facebook, Twitter, etc. You have to speak the language, understand what
the slang is, and speaking in web platform terms.
D1.Q34 Did you encounter any religious constraints?
D1.A34 1 00:28:08 No, amazee is totally neutral as long that the projects are legal and legitimate. It is the people's right to express themselves.
D1.Q35 Did you encounter any educational constraints?
D1.A35 1 00:29:29 They have a higher educated target group with an average age of 35, but this is not a constraint.
D1.Q36 Did you encounter any social transformation/change constraints?
D1.A36 1 00:29:57 No, amazee is about social change.
D1.Q37 Did you encounter any constraints concerning mobilization of people, protests, or negotiations?
D1.A37 1 00:30:15 Mobilization of people is always difficult to bring on a platform like amazee. They have to work for that. Facebook per example has the
incentive that users can look their picture, their friends, it is all about them, but social collaboration is about other people. That is the
fact about social business. It is not something the animal in the human being primarily wants to do.
D1.Q38 Did you encounter other social constraints?
D1.A38 1 00:31:00 Doing social business without personal benefits for the customer is always difficult to sell.
Appendix 119
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Ecological constraints
D1.Q39 Did you encounter any ecological constraints?
D1.A39 1 00:31:25 No
Political constraints
D1.Q40 Did you encounter any political constraints?
D1.A40 1 00:31:28 No
Economical constraints
D1.Q41 Did you encounter any constraints to fund the venture?
D1.A41 1 -
D1.Q42 Did you encounter other economical constraints?
D1.A42 1 00:31:33 Yes, it is to create a black zero.
Legal constraints
D1.Q43 Did you encounter any legal constraints?
D1.A43 1 00:31:40 Yes, the battle with Amazon took a lot of time and money. And some insignificant legal constraints by adapting the product to certain
markets like in the US, where the minimum age is 13 years to create an account on the platform.
Taxation constraints
D1.Q44 Did you encounter any constraints concerning taxation?
D1.A44 1 00:31:51 No
Ethical constraints
D1.Q45 Did you encounter any ethical constraints?
D1.A45 1 00:33:02 no
Appendix 120
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Stakeholder constraints
D1.Q46 Did you encounter any constraints with employees?
D1.A46 1
D1.Q47 Did you encounter any constraints with the management/board?
D1.A47 1 00:34:21 No
D1.Q48 Did you encounter any constraints with owner/shareholder?
D1.A48 1 00:34:27 No
D1.Q49 Did you encounter any constraints with government?
D1.A49 1 00:34:30 No, it has even been a strong enabler. The government is using the amazee platform to discuss with the citizens things like how to
improve the administration, the Swiss ID, etc. At workshops, amazee presented the government how other governments are using the
web technology to interact with their citizens and have even generated cash flow with it. The government is interested as far as it
shows new ways how people can collaborate online.
D1.Q50 Did you encounter any constraints with suppliers?
D1.A50 1 00:36:30 Switzerland needs more usability experts, web designers, social media interaction designers, computer scientists. The Swiss market is
not supplied with enough brain to evolve this cool and new industry.
D1.Q51 Did you encounter any constraints with customer resp. beneficiaries?
D1.A51 1 00:37:08 No
D1.Q52 Did you encounter any constraints with other stakeholders?
D1.A52 1 00:37:23 No. The users are helping them to improve the platform by suggesting new features in a constructive and productive way.
Other constraints
D1.Q53 Did you encounter other constraints we did not discuss so far?
D1.A53 1 No, the main constraints are money and talents.
Solutions
D1.Q54 What should be done to reduce any of the discussed constraints?
Appendix 121
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
D1.A54 1 00:37:59 To reduce the financial constraint amazee has to find a really sexy business model that creates cash flow. With the cash flow and the
good core team they will attract more talents. With them, they will create an even better product that convinces the market to use it.
They could also implement some gaming features to create a certain reputation index on the platform that makes people to come
back. In the other hand, they also have to push the customized solutions to generate cash flow.
D1.A54 2 00:39:15 Social entrepreneurship needs more role models. That's the only thing. Mr. Gerhadt would never demand the government to push
social entrepreneurship. Media could give specific success cases like the myclimate guys, to people that really improve the world
instead of making money. These role models could attract other people to become social entrepreneurs, too. The Swiss government
should treat social entrepreneurship within the classical start-up funding system like CTI and Swissnex. The government should
create a platform for social entrepreneurs where they can meet, working on concepts, and exchange with other social entrepreneurs.
Social entrepreneurs with financial support from the government can become lazy because they can rely on it. They should also battle,
like amazee, to survive, but this keeps someone agile. It is about showing role models that have succeeded in order to motivate other
to become like them.
D1.Q55 How should it be done?
D1.A55 1
D1.Q56 Who should do it?
D1.A56 1
Other questions
D1.Q57 Do you have any additional information not covered by this interview that you think are important to understand this topic?
D1.A57 1 00:43:55 It would be interesting to compare the youth and social background of social entrepreneurs. To find similar patterns. To see how they
socially were formed before becoming a social entrepreneur. What is the DNA of a social entrepreneur?
D1.Q58 Do you have any suggestions and comments to make about this interview?
D1.A58 1 00:45:35 No
Thank you for the interview! I wish you a pleasant day and furthermore a lot of success with your venture.
Appendix 122
5.5.11 Approval: Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld
Mr. Richter’s (personal communication, July 6, 2010) partial approval of the transcribed interview:
Guten Tag Herr Stalder
hier also noch die kleinen Korrekturen. Weiterhin alles Gute für Ihre Arbeit und eine schöne Sommerzeit dazu wünscht Ihnen
Paolo Richter
Gesamtleiter Gump- und Drahtesel
Waldeggstrasse 27
3097 Liebefeld
Tel. 031 979 70 70
www.gump-drahtesel.ch
Appendix 123
5.5.12 Case E, Interview 1 (E1): Paolo Richter, Gump- und Drahtesel, Liebefeld
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Explanations
Question No = CI.TN (C: case, I: interview no, T: Q = question, A = answer, N: question / answer number)
Cue Point = Timestamp in interview record file (hh:mm:ss)
Topic = Text, Question or Answer
Introduction
Hello, my name is Thomas Stalder and I’m actually writing my master-thesis at the University of Applied Sciences in Fribourg,
Switzerland. I’m conducting a study about Swiss social entrepreneurs, their motivations and constraints related to their social
enterprise typology. For that purpose I would like to interview you. The interview will take about 45-60 minutes.
Additional explanations to be given before the interview:
• Would you and the company remain anonymous? No
• Am I allowed to record the interview? Yes
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not wish to or may request me at any time to not record certain parts of the interview
for confidentiality reasons.
• You will get a paraphrased copy of the interview, which I would like you to approve before I use it for my master-thesis.
• Do you wish a copy of the final study? Yes
Interview
E1.Q1 Place
E1.A1 1 Gump- und Drahtesel, Waldeggstrasse 27, 3097 Liebefeld
E1.Q2 Time
E1.A2 1 24.06.2010, 14:00 - 15:00
General questions about the social entrepreneur
E1.Q3 First name and surname?
E1.A3 1 Paolo Richter
Appendix 124
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.Q4 Function?
E1.A4 1 00:01:23 Gesamtleiter
General questions about the company
E1.Q5 When was the company founded?
E1.A5 1 00:01:42 1993 wurde der Drahtesel und 1997 Gumpesel gegründet. 2005 wurden diese zusammengeführt.
E1.Q6 Legal form of the company?
E1.A6 1 00:02:11 Stiftung (Stiftung für soziale Innovation)
E1.Q7 Number of employees?
E1.A7 1 00:02:20 Mehr als 40 Festangestellte, die aber alle Teilzeit arbeiten. Dies entspricht ca. 27-28 Vollzeitstellen. Zusätzlich haben sie ca. 120
Stellen für Arbeitslose.
E1.Q8 List of subsidiaries and number of employees in each case?
E1.A8 1 In Liebefeld und der Laden Pico Bollo (ca. 20 Arbeitsplätze) im Stadtzentrum in Bern, wo sie Produkte, die sie in Liebefeld aus
Fahrradteilen produzieren, rezyklierte Spielsachen sowie Produkte von anderen sozialen Institutionen verkaufen.
E1.Q9 In which geographical area is your social enterprise operating?
E1.A9 1 00:03:35 Für den Berufsintegrationsbereich sind sie im Berner Mittelland und mit Velos für Afrika schweizweit tätig, wofür sie mit ca. 40
Partnern (Arbeitsprojekte, Städte, Gemeinden, private Unternehmen) zusammenarbeiten. In Afrika sind sie in West-, Süd- und
Nordostafrika aktiv. Velos für Afrika ist ein Teil von Gump- und Drahtesel.
Mission
E1.Q10 Which social impact should be achieved by your company?
E1.A10 1 00:04:22 - Im Norden ist es die Unterstützung von Arbeitslosen auf dem Weg zurück in den Arbeitsmarkt. Einerseits durch Qualifizierung,
persönliche Begleitung, die über die Arbeit hinausgeht, Bewerbungstraining als Vorstufe zur Vermittlung.
- Im Süden ist es die Schaffung von Arbeits- und Ausbildungsplätzen. Bis jetzt sind dadurch ca. 100 Arbeitsplätze entstanden sowie
Ausbildungsplätze, zum Beispiel an einer Berufsschule in Ghana und in Simbabwe für Jugendliche (v.a. AIDS Waisen, die völlig auf
sich selbst gestellt sind). Sowie die Förderung einer Treibstoff unabhängigen und kostengünstigen Mobilität.
E1.Q11 Has the initial social mission changed over time?
E1.A11 1 00:07:45 Nein, die Grundidee hat sich nie geändert.
Appendix 125
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.Q12 Why did it change?
E1.A12 1 -
E1.Q13 How did it change?
E1.A13 1 -
E1.Q14 What were the challenges when changing the social mission?
E1.A14 1 -
E1.Q15 What is your business model?
E1.A15 1 00:06:00 Die Haupttätigkeit ist die berufliche Integration von Arbeitslosen im Auftrag der Arbeitslosenversicherung. Dies entspricht ca. 75%
aller Einnahmen und Ausgaben. Die restlichen 25% werden durch Einzelaufträge von zuweisenden Stellen wie zum Beispiel
Sozialdienste, Jugendgericht, Vormundschaften, Flüchtlingshilfswerke und dem Produktverkauf finanziert. Wichtig ist zu verstehen,
dass dies öffentliche Gelder, aber keine Subventionen sind. Sie haben keine Deffizitgarantie. Sie müssen den Auftraggebern gute
Arbeit liefern, um weiterhin für sie arbeiten zu können. Es ist ein Markt wie ein anderer, wo gut und preiswert gearbeitet werden muss.
Gump- und Drahtesel muss selbsttragen sein, da die Stiftung für soziale Innovation nicht über die notwendigen Mittel verfügt, um sie
quersubventionieren zu können.
Typology
E1.Q16 What is your degree of social objectives in percentage of all company objectives (integration of the social mission)?
E1.A16 1 00:08:41 Die sozialen Ziele sind am wichtigsten. Es ist ihre Daseinsberechtigung. Würde es in der Schweiz keine Arbeitslosigkeit mehr geben,
hätten sie zumindest hier im Norden keine Daseinsberechtigung mehr. In diesem Falle würden sie versuchen, das Fahrradrecycling
für Afrika aufrechtzuerhalten, da dort viele Arbeitsplätze vom Projekt abhängig sind. Aber auch dort macht es nur Sinn, solange wie
auch ein Bedarf besteht. Dass sich damit die 40 Angestellten ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen können, ist ein schöner Nebeneffekt.
E1.Q17 What is your degree of financial self-sufficiency in percentage (earned income strategy)?
E1.A17 1 00:10:02 Im Grunde genommen sind es 100%, da ihre Verträge maximal ein Jahr dauern, die aber jederzeit von den Auftraggebern gekündet
werden können. Fairerweise muss auch gesagt werden, dass sie nicht von einem Tag auf den anderen auswechselbar sind. Wenn aber
die Politiker entscheiden, dass solche Dienste nicht mehr notwendig sind oder das Geld fehlt, kann sich die Situation sehr schnell
ändern. Würde man es nur auf den Produktertrag beziehen, wären es ca. 10%. Dies ist eine Frage der Definition.
E1.Q18 Is the company funded by donators? If yes, how many percent?
Appendix 126
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A18 1 00:12:47 Ja, aber nur ein kleiner Teil, vor allem für den Arbeitsintegrationsbereich. Zum Glück ist dies für Velos für Afrika anders. Dort
nehmen die Spenden zu, vor allem seit der Auszeichnung als Swiss Social Entrepreneur of the Year der Schwab Stiftung, sind viele
Türen aufgegangen. Dies hilft neue Partnerschaften aufzubauen, um die Partner in Afrika unterstützen zu können, da sie dort kaum
Bankkredite erhalten. Dies ist sehr wertvoll. Am meisten spenden Stiftungen.
E1.Q19 Is the company funded by foundations? If yes, how many %?
E1.A19 1 -
E1.Q20 Is the company funded by government? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A20 1 Nein, und es besteht auch keine Zusammenarbeit mit der Entwicklungshilfe DEZA (Direktion für Entwicklung und
Zusammenarbeit).
E1.Q21 Is the company funded by other (own or external) business activities? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A21 1 00:14:04 10% durch den Verkauf von Produkten.
E1.Q22 Is the company funded by equity? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A22 1 -
E1.Q23 Is the company funded by debt? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A23 1 -
E1.Q24 Is the company funded by other sources (also in kind)? If yes, how many percentage?
E1.A24 1 00:14:50 Ja, das passiert immer wieder. Zum Beispiel hat ihnen DT Swiss Fahrradfelgen und Speichen, aufgrund eines Materialfehlers,
geschenkt, aus denen sie dann Kleiderbügel und grosse Büroklammern hergestellt haben. Des Weiteren wurde die Einrichtung
entweder selber hergestellt, Second Hand gekauft, sehr günstig oder gratis erhalten.
E1.Q25 Has the initial typology changed over time?
E1.A25 1 00:15:26 Nein. Klar gab es Schwankungen, aber im Grossen und Ganzen hat sich die Typologie nie geändert. Am Anfang war die
Arbeitslosenkasse der einzige Auftraggeber. Damals konnten auch Ausgesteuerte an einem ALV-Programm teilnehmen. Ende der
90er Jahre wurde diese Möglichkeit aber abgeschafft. Die Stiftung ist eine Nonprofit Organisation.
E1.Q26 Why did it change?
E1.A26 1 -
E1.Q27 How did it change?
E1.A27 1 -
E1.Q28 What were the challenges when changing the typology?
Appendix 127
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A28 1 -
Motivation
E1.Q29 How did you recognize the opportunity?
E1.A29 1 00:16:46 Als eine grosse Arbeitslosenwelle anfangs der 90er Jahre über die Schweiz einbrach, wurde Herr Richter angefragt, ob er nicht ein
Fahrradrecyclingprojekt mit Arbeitslosen starten wolle. Während des Studiums rezyklierte er schon Fahrräder zum Plausch und für
den Freundeskreis und arbeitete als stellvertretender Sozialarbeiter in der Stiftung. Das Programm wurde zum richtigen Zeitpunkt am
richtigen Ort gestartet. Sie sind mit null Franken gestartet und hatten umgehend Erfolg. Sowohl bei den Teilnehmern, die es sinnvoll
fanden, den Partnern in Afrika und beim Kanton, der die ausführende Stelle der Arbeitslosenversicherung ist und das Projekt
kontrollierte. Dadurch konnte Gump- und Drahtesel organisch wachsen.
E1.Q30 Why did you start this venture?
E1.A30 1 00:18:15 Durch die Anfrage ging für Herr Richter einen Wunsch in Erfüllung. Er wollte schon immer Sozialarbeit mit etwas handfestem in
Verbindung bringen. Dazu kamen noch die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und der ökologische Aspekt. Das war für ihn das Non-Plus-
Ultra. Die Verbindung des Sozialauftrages mit der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, der ökologischen Ausrichtung und der
ökonomischen Lebensfähigkeit war auch der Grund, warum die Jury der Schwab Stiftung, Gump- und Drahtesel den Preis verliehen
hat. Bei ihnen steht die Arbeit und nicht die Probleme der Menschen im Zentrum. Es ist die Arbeit, die verbindet. Herr Richter hat
immer gerne handwerklich gearbeitet. Vor der Gründung hatte er ein anderes Arbeitsprojekt durchgeführt und festgestellt, dass durch
die Arbeit einen weiteren Zugang zu den Menschen und ihrer Situation hergestellt werden kann. Da ihre Zielgruppe mehrheitlich aus
dem Handwerker- und Gewerbebereich kommen, können sie mit diesem zusätzlichen Zugang mehr erreichen.
E1.Q31 Did you start the venture with partners or alone?
E1.A31 1 00:20:33 Herr Richter hat Drahtesel alleine gegründet, wurde aber schnell von einem Kollegen unterstützt, um verschiedene Tätigkeiten
untereinander aufzuteilen. Zusammen arbeiteten sie ca. 70% und boten vier 60% Stellen für Arbeitslose an.
General question about constraints
E1.Q32 What kind of constraints did you encounter respectively are you still confronted to. Please explain.
Appendix 128
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A32 1 00:21:21 Die Finanzierung war eine grosse Herausforderung. Am Anfang wussten sie nicht, wie lange der Betrieb überleben wird. Während der
Gründungsphase entstanden viele ähnliche Arbeitsprojekte. Die Aufgabe wurde 1997/98 vom Bund an die Kantone übergeben.
Gleichzeitig gab es einen massiven Abbau dieser Angebote. Folglich mussten im Kanton 80% dieser Betriebe ihre Tätigkeit einstellen.
Gump- und Drahtesel musste um ihre Existenz kämpfen. Dank ihrem guten Ruf gehörten sie zu den 20%, die bestehen blieben. Die
unsichere Perspektive ist eine Herausforderung. Es ist eine dynamische Branche, in der sie, berechtigterweise, stets ihr Angebot den
Bedürfnissen resp. den Berufsgruppen der Arbeitslosen anpassen müssen. Dies alles zu organisieren ist sehr anspruchsvoll und
verlangt von allen Mitarbeitern eine sehr hohe Flexibilität.
E1.A32 2 00:23:13 Die kurze Einsatzdauer der Arbeitslosen wird als weitere Herausforderung angesehen. Die meisten Arbeitslosen sind ca. 2-3 Monate
im Einsatz und es ist sehr anspruchsvoll, so viel wie möglich aus ihnen "herauszuholen". In den Fachbereichen Mechanik, Metall,
Holz, Verkauf, Administration, etc. genügen 2-3 Monate, nur um Jemanden knapp einzuarbeiten. Pro Jahr nehmen ca. 800
Arbeitslose am Programm teil. All diese Personen müssen individuell betreut resp. als ganzer Mensch wahrgenommen werden. Die
Betreuer müssen sich voll auf diese Menschen einlassen können und deren Kompetenzen erkennen und herausfinden, wie man diese
aus ihnen herausholen kann, damit sie wieder den Weg in die Arbeitswelt finden können. Dies verlangt von den Betreuern eine sehr
hohe Professionalität und viel Empathie, damit sie sich einerseits auf die Personen voll einlassen, ihr Vertrauen gewinnen zu können.
Erst dies ermöglicht eine Veränderung. Andererseits müssen sich die Betreuer nach Feierabend auch von den teils sehr tragischen
Lebensgeschichten abgrenzen können.
E1.A32 3 00:25:28 Herr Richter würde es begrüssen, wenn es eine vorgezogene Entsorgungsgebühr für Fahrräder geben würde, damit dieser Teil der
Arbeit auf einem gesünderen Bein stehen würde. Sie sammeln ohne Gegenleistung pro Jahr zwischen 10'000 und 12'000 Fahrräder
ein. Es werden dazu zwar Personen aus dem Arbeitslosenprojekt eingesetzt, aber der Aufwand für das Einsammeln und Rezyklieren
müssen sie selber tragen.
Ask following questions, if necessary, to get more data about the constraints. Else goto Solutions.
Social constraints
E1.Q33 Did you encounter any cultural constraints?
Appendix 129
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A33 1 00:27:54 Durch die enge Begleitung und die vielfältigen Hintergründe der Teilnehmer entsteht kein "Problemghetto". Sie haben die Erfahrung
gemacht, wenn die Teilnehmer gut begleitet und durchmischt werden, es eine Chance und kein Hindernis ist. Die Probleme der
Teilnehmer relativieren sich sozusagen gegenseitig. So können zum Beispiel Teilnehmer aus der Schweiz ihre Klischees über andere
Kulturen, Religionen und Hautfarben abbauen. Andererseits sehen die Flüchtlinge, dass es in der Schweiz nicht allen gut geht und
nicht alles toll ist. In Afrika muss darauf geachtet werden, dass sie nicht ihre Ideen aufzwingen. Sie müssen auf deren Bedürfnisse
eingehen und verstehen, wie sie diese Probleme selber lösen. Dies sieht Herr Richter aber als Anforderung, die alles anspruchsvoller
macht und nicht als Hindernis.
E1.Q34 Did you encounter any religious constraints?
E1.A34 1 00:30:50 Nein
E1.Q35 Did you encounter any educational constraints?
E1.A35 1 00:30:55 Der Auftraggeber stellt zurecht, und auch sie an sich selbst, Anforderungen an die Qualifikationen des Personals. In der Werkstatt
muss jemand zum Beispiel nebst dem Fachausweis auch Qualifikationen im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung ausweisen können. Bis
auf wenige Ausnahmen, haben sie immer das notwenige, qualifizierte und motivierte Personal gefunden. Das Papier alleine genügt
nicht. Das Personal muss auch motiviert sein, mit Engagement und Flexibilität arbeiten zu wollen, die Werte mitzutragen und -
prägen.
E1.Q36 Did you encounter any social transformation/change constraints?
E1.A36 1 00:32:17 Am Anfang war es schwierig das Verbindende, das Ganzheitliche an die Leute zu bringen. Bei der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
wollte man keine Arbeitslosen mitfinanzieren und im Umweltbereich wollten sie keine Entwicklungszusammenarbeit machen, etc.
Damals herrschte noch viel mehr das "Schubladendenken". Heute wird dieses Verbindende anerkannt und als wichtig erachtet.
E1.A36 2 00:33:45 Das Phänomen der Arbeitslosigkeit wird immer noch zu fest individualisiert und die Ursache wird beim einzelnen Menschen gesucht.
Die Klischees wie "Wer will, der kann" bestehen nach wie vor und die soziale Verantwortung wird ausgeblendet. Fakt ist aber, dass es
nicht mehr für alle genug Arbeit und Jobs gibt, mit denen man den Lebensunterhalt verdienen kann. In den letzten Jahren ist der
Sozialstaat und die Idee der Solidarität in der Schweiz ziemlich unter Beschuss geraten.
E1.Q37 Did you encounter any constraints concerning mobilization of people, protests, or negotiations?
E1.A37 1 00:33:35 Nein
E1.Q38 Did you encounter other social constraints?
Appendix 130
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A38 1 00:35:40 Die Sozialversicherungen stehen unter Spardruck. Sie müssen Leistungen bei den Versicherten und gleichzeitig ihr Angebot abbauen.
Dadurch erhalten immer mehr Leute, die auf diese Leistungen angewiesen sind, weniger oder gar nichts und die Sozialversicherungen
werden immer rigider. Leute, die keine Leistungen mehr von den Sozialversicherungen erhalten, landen bei der Sozialhilfe. Auch dort
verlangen sie immer mehr Gegenleistungen, was grundsätzlich nicht schlecht ist. Wenn aber dies systematisch durchgezogen wird,
auch bei Leuten, die wirklich nicht können, entstehen enorme Folgekosten für den deren Unterhalt. Zudem liegen so Fähigkeiten
brach und die Leute werden krank. Sämtliche AHV und IV Revisionen der letzten Jahre bestätigen diesen Trend. Es fehlt eine
Grundsicherung, die einem einzelnen Menschen die Sicherheit gibt, dass für sein Leben grundsätzlich gesorgt ist, er sich der eigenen
Entwicklung widmen kann und sich nicht immer bei einer neuen Stelle erklären muss warum es nicht geht, speziell bei psychischen
Belastungen im Bereich der IV. Herr Richter befürchtet aber, dass dies in den nächsten Jahren zunehmen wird.
Ecological constraints
E1.Q39 Did you encounter any ecological constraints?
E1.A39 1 00:39:29 Ausser das mit der vorgezogenen Entsorgungsgebühr für Fahrräder gibt es keine.
Political constraints
E1.Q40 Did you encounter any political constraints?
E1.A40 1 00:39:54 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Economical constraints
E1.Q41 Did you encounter any constraints to fund the venture?
E1.A41 1 -
E1.Q42 Did you encounter other economical constraints?
E1.A42 1 00:40:00 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Legal constraints
E1.Q43 Did you encounter any legal constraints?
E1.A43 1 00:40:10 Nein, ausser die, die schon erwähnt wurden.
Appendix 131
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Taxation constraints
E1.Q44 Did you encounter any constraints concerning taxation?
E1.A44 1 00:40:18 Nein, sie sind steuerbefreit.
Ethical constraints
E1.Q45 Did you encounter any ethical constraints?
E1.A45 1 00:40:23 Nein, sie haben ihre eigenen Ansprüche. Im Norden ist dies eine Kultur der Offenheit, wo jeder Mensch so sein kann wie er ist.
Stakeholder constraints
E1.Q46 Did you encounter any constraints with employees?
E1.A46 1 00:41:13 Die grosse Herausforderung ist in diesem anspruchsvollen, dynamischen und immer schneller werdenden Berufsfeld gesund zu
bleiben, damit man auch etwas weitergeben kann. Das Betriebsklima ist sehr wichtig.
E1.Q47 Did you encounter any constraints with the management/board?
E1.A47 1 00:42:05 Sie haben einen kleinen, flexiblen Stiftungsrat, die alle Selbständigerwerbende sind, die wissen um was es geht und schon seit 7-8
Jahren dabei sind.
E1.Q48 Did you encounter any constraints with owner/shareholder?
E1.A48 1 -
E1.Q49 Did you encounter any constraints with government?
E1.A49 1 -
E1.Q50 Did you encounter any constraints with suppliers?
E1.A50 1 -
E1.Q51 Did you encounter any constraints with customer resp. beneficiaries?
E1.A51 1 00:43:39 Ihre afrikanischen Partner sind zum Teil selber ihrem politischen und wirtschaftlichen Wirren ausgesetzt. Zum Beispiel hatte der
Bürgerkrieg an der Elfenbeinküste einen Einfluss auf die Zusammenarbeit für die Fahrräder in Burkina Faso, da plötzlich der
Handelsweg unterbrochen war und das Land 800'000 Flüchtlinge betreuen musste.
E1.Q52 Did you encounter any constraints with other stakeholders?
E1.A52 1 00:45:11 Die zuweisenden Stellen haben auch ihre Erwartungen, wenn sie jemanden für einen Einsatz vermitteln. Aber im Grossen und
Ganzen verläuft die Zusammenarbeit mit den zuweisenden Stellen problemlos.
Appendix 132
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
Other constraints
E1.Q53 Did you encounter other constraints we did not discuss so far?
E1.A53 1 00:45:43 Nein
Solutions
E1.Q54 What should be done to reduce any of the discussed constraints?
E1.A54 1 00:46:08 - Bei der Finanzierung wäre es gut, wenn sie im Bereich des Arbeitslosenprojektes Reserven bilden und mit einer längeren
wirtschaftlichen Perspektive arbeiten könnten. Sie können nur das abrechnen, was sie tatsächlich gebraucht haben. Dies können sie
nur in den anderen Bereichen machen und dadurch Geld in die Entwicklung neuer Projekte investieren oder die minimale Reserve für
Kündigungsfristen von Löhnen und Mieten bilden.
- Bei der kurzen Einsatzzeit der Arbeitslosen wäre es schön, wenn sie mehr als 2-3 Monate teilnehmen könnten. Dadurch wäre viel
mehr möglich. Diese kurze Einsatzzeit ist aber von Arbeitslosengesetz vorgeben. Früher konnten sie maximal 6 Monate teilnehmen,
aber die Einsatzdauer fiel den Sparmassnahmen zum Opfer. Herr Richter ist überzeugt, dass es grundsätzlich genug Arbeit gäbe. Zum
Beispiel gibt es im Umweltbereich genügend Arbeit, die leider nicht bezahlt ist. Er vermutet, dass unser Wohlstand genügen würde,
um allen Leuten einen existenzsichernden Lohn zu bezahlen.
E1.A54 2 00:50:44 Herr Richter hat den Eindruck, dass es eher in den kleinen Firmen Patrons gibt, die ihre soziale Verantwortung wahrnehmen, zu ihren
Leuten schauen und auch Rücksicht auf Leute nehmen, wenn sie nicht topp leistungsfähig sind. Es gibt auch grosse Firmen, die das
gezielt machen. Dies sieht er auch als eine Art Social Entrepreneurship. Solches Handeln hat in unserer Gesellschaft keine monetären
Konsequenzen. Die Gesetzmässigkeit des Kapitals überwiegt den Rest, den Goodwill. Es hängt vom Willen und der Motivation von
einzelnen Personen ab und wird in unserem Wirtschaftssystem nicht wirklich gefördert.
E1.Q55 How should it be done?
E1.A55 1 -
E1.Q56 Who should do it?
E1.A56 1 00:49:45 Es liegt schlussendlich am politischen Willen, dass man die Prioritäten so setzt, dass alle die gleichen Chancen haben.
Other questions
E1.Q57 Do you have any additional information not covered by this interview that you think are important to understand this topic?
Appendix 133
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cue
Point
Topic
E1.A57 1 00:53:38 Herr Richter wurde oft nach dem Beweggrund anderen zu helfen gefragt. Social Entrepreneurs werden oft mit einer besonderen Form
von Selbstlosigkeit und Altruismus in Verbindung gebracht. Er findet, dass dies nicht notwendig ist. Schlussendlich geht es ihm
besser, wenn es seinem Umfeld gut oder besser geht. Man muss eine Vision haben. Er hatte das Glück, dass er eine sehr konkrete
Vorstellung hatte, wo es entlang gehen sollte, und die Möglichkeit erhielt, diese umzusetzen. Das Ziel war nie möglichst viel Geld zu
verdienen, sondern das Leben lebenswert zu gestalten. Nicht nur materielle Bedürfnisse, sondern mehrere Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen.
Die Reduktion auf ein Bedürfnis kann auch eine geistige Verarmung sein. Schlussendlich ist das, was er macht, auch eigennützig. Es ist
ein Geben und Nehmen.
E1.Q58 Do you have any suggestions and comments to make about this interview?
E1.A58 1 00:56:43 Es war gut strukturiert.
Thank you for the interview! I wish you a pleasant day and furthermore a lot of success with your venture.
Appendix 134
5.5.13 Case A: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_A01 Opportunity recognition Impetus to found the social business was that the social problem is not linked to dissociation. A1.A29 1
Cat_A02 Intrinsic motivation - convinced that there are the same possibilities in social and economic sector A1.A30 1
- fascinated that it is also possible to induce social change A1.A30 1
- Inner locus of control A1.A30 1
- interested in innovation and change enabler A1.A30 1
Cat_A03 External motivation Creative environment, which activated this spirit A1.A30 3
Cat_A04 Social success constraint Biggest constraint was that having success in the social sector was not imperatively
considered as successful.
A1.A32 2
Nowadays, "left-winger" can be successful entrepreneurs. A1.A40 1
Success in the social sector was not desired by the social party. A1.A32 4
The economic sector appreciated this move. A1.A32 6
Cat_A05 Personal education constraint People doubted that people with a social education could be entrepreneurs. A1.A32 3
Social worker can be entrepreneurs A1.A32 5
Cat_A06 Competition constraint Vocational counselors asked themself what social workers want in their business. A1.A32 7
Cat_A07 External people constraint Faced enviousness people, was questioned, marveled, and thwarted. A1.A32 1
Schools asked themself why they would need social workers, but this is accepted yet. A1.A32 8
Cat_A08 Government constraint A big constraint was that public authorities want to administrate and not develop something
new.
A1.A32 10
All public authorities want to be the chiefs. A1.A32 9
Cat_A09 Employee constraint Because they are so innovative, they risk that the employees cannot follow. A1.A32 12
Employees work hard and have to find their work-life balance A1.A35 1
It is crucial to teach the employees ethical policies. A1.A45 1
It is hard to find and to pay people with social and economic competences. A2.A35 1
The work is intense and strong for the employees. They have to sell, to administer, and being
entrepreneurial.
A1.A32 11
They forgot to include, to advance, and to train the employees. A1.A32 13
Appendix 135
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
They have to deal with intercultural problems A2.A33 1
Cat_A10 Stamina constraint It takes a lot of stamina to fight the constraints. A1.A32 14
Cat_A11 Role conflict constraint Role conflict being employer and following a social mission A1.A33 1
Cat_A12 Financial constraint Financial controlling is crucial to survive. A1.A41 1
Financial controlling is important in order to survive and employees have to be aware of it. A1.A57 1
Cat_A13 Board members constraint As NPO it is hard to find reliable board members. A1.A47 1
They have capable board members with influence and a good social network. A2.A37 1
Cat_A14 Solution: Surveys to reduce
stakeholder constraint
They conduct all six month a survey with all allocation centers in order to improve themself. A1.A50 1
They conduct also surveys with adolescent in order to improve themself. A1.A51 1
They conduct regularly surveys with sponsors and internship companies, in order to improve
themself.
A1.A52 1
Cat_A15 Analyzing past, present, and future
to reduce constraint
An external office appraises their organization to avoid routine. A1.A56 1
Looking back and anticipation in order remaining successful and to reduce the constraints. A1.A54 1
Cat_A16 Solutions: Government The government should anticipate problems. A1.A56 1
Cat_A17 Beneficiary constraint If the economy is low, it is harder to find internships for the adolescent. A2.A42 1
It is hard to find internships for adolescent with lower educations, because of the shift to
highly qualified apprenticeship places.
A2.A36 1
Most companies offering internships to the adolescent perceive their social responsibility. A2.A54 2
Some employers use the adolescent as cheap labor. A2.A51 1
Cat_A18 Market constraint Challenge to anticipate market development for the next two to three or five years. Public
authorities base the allocated quotas on demographic reality.
A2.A53 1
Cat_A19 Solution: Financial constraint Thought about own or partner for-profit social enterprise for reinvesting profits. A2.A54 1
- Generating profits would help them to work more freely. A2.A54 1
Cat_A20 Solution: no government regulations There is no need for governmental regulations as long win-win situations exists for social
enterprises and the private sector.
A2.A54 3
Cat_A21 Juridical constraint Had to learn juridical knowledge. A1.A43 1
Appendix 136
5.5.14 Case B: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_B01 Market constraint Entrepreneurs have to face the market now and tomorrow B1.A28 1
Cat_B02 Social entrepreneur background - Employs for over 20 years 2-4 people with health problems or other handicaps.
- Motivation is based on the Christian religion: help other people and "by giving, you get more"
- It started with being a sports coach and as a pioneer in different areas of sharing with others.
B1.A29 1
Cat_B03 Opportunity recognition Adolescent in existing programs need a place to get practical experience. B1.A30 1
The adolescent's values make them difficult to find the right way and to fit into the business
world.
B1.A31 1
Cat_B04 Competition constraint Belief that the Jobfacorty is not needed and is a competitor with government support may
influence politicians to decide against a Jobfactory.
B1.A32 1
Cat_B05 Time constraint Social entrepreneurs need to be patient and calm. Convincing politicians is a long decision
making process.
B1.A37 1
Cat_B06 Employee constraint The employees have to work with people and not with machines. B1.A46 1
Cat_B07 Opportunity: suppliers Suppliers like to collaborate and helping them. B1.A50 1
Cat_B08 Opportunity: customer Customers are willing to support the Jobfactory. B1.A51 1
Cat_B09 Opportunity: collaboration with
universities
Collaborate with different universities and professors to evolve the Jobfactory. B1.A52 1
Cat_B10 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
research
Social entrepreneurship and social enterprises research has to be done to find out how to deal
with the constraints.
B1.A54 1
The future of social entrepreneurship has to be developed on the existing knowledge. B1.A55 1
Cat_B11 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
support
Support from universities and organizations like CTI should be extended to social
entrepreneurship.
B1.A56 1
Cat_B12 Social entrepreneurship opportunity Switzerland has the potential to bring social entrepreneurship to other countries in addition to
development aid.
B1.A57 1
Appendix 137
5.5.15 Case C: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_C01 Social entrepreneur background - Boy scout background helped to get job as youth worker. C1.A29 1
Needed a job to finance the studies. C1.A31 1
Cat_C02 Opportunity recognition - Got a lot of demands after winning a price with a project and through the youth internet
platform. This showed him that adolescents want to realize projects (opportunity
recognition).
C1.A29 1
Cat_C03 Employee constraint The employees are the association's showcase and have to fulfill very high exigency. One
employee can destroy the association's reputation.
C1.A46 1
Cat_C04 Board constraint Employees represented in the board take more care about themself instead of the business. C1.A47 1
Cat_C05 Time constraint Collaboration with big institutions is not easy because of their long decision making processes,
which can make the project realization impossible.
C1.A50 1
Cat_C06 Credibility constraint Credibility and keeping promises are key when dealing with adolescents. C1.A51 1
They have to do good work in order to get money for the projects. C1.A52 1
Cat_C07 Business model constraint Lack of social entrepreneurial models, because of the different customer relationship, which
does not directly pay the product.
C1.A53 1
Cat_C08 Solution: Good reputation - Good reputation and honest networks reduce the constraints. C1.A54 1
Cat_C09 Solution: Financial constraint - All in their sector should barter rather than using money. C1.A54 1
- He believes in giving, because he will get sometime something back C1.A54 1
Cat_C10 Solution: Cultural constraint - Reducing cultural differences by communicating. C1.A55 1
- Others can learn from them if they are credible. C1.A55 1
Cat_C11 Solution: Role model - The founder has to be an identification figure. C1.A55 1
- Selling projects to institutions, which invest in change maker. C1.A56 1
Cat_C12 Solution: Social entrepreneur
education
- Social entrepreneurs have to sell a product.
- Education for social entrepreneurs in order to teach them their production processes and
how to access markets.
C1.A56 1
Cat_C13 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
publicity
People have to be sensitized about social entrepreneurship and the possibilities of doing
meaningful for the society and the environment.
C1.A57 1
Cat_C14 Financial constraint - In the beginning, lacking reputation made it difficult to find money for the projects. C1.A32 1
Appendix 138
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
- As an association they did not get the needed capital to advance quickly, but they could
bypass it with volunteers.
C1.A32 1
Financial cycles have an influence on the money available for the projects. C1.A42 1
Cat_C15 Competition constraint - Youth workers and other NGO considered them as competitors.
- Established organizations dispersed untruth about them.
C1.A32 1
Cat_C16 Opportunity: Employees Many qualified people would like to work for them. C1.A35 1
Cat_C17 Opportunity: Social change Social change is their business. C1.A36 1
Cat_C18 Customer accessibility constraint Adolescents without internet connection or the affinity to use it will likely not find their offer. C1.A38 1
Cat_C19 Opportunity: Environmental
protection
They follow high environmental standards. The adolescent are keen towards environmental
protection.
C1.A39 1
Cat_C20 Political constraint Political decisions concerning youth support can have an impact on their business. C1.A40 1
Cat_C21 Solution: no government regulations The lack of laws for youth support is advancing the diversity and the inventive talent. C1.A43 1
5.5.16 Case D: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_D01 Opportunity recognition - With friend he developed the idea, wrote the business plan, and raised money to start the
venture.
D1.A30 1
- The efficient and effective information exchange for the stock markets was the impetus to start
the social collaboration platform.
D1.A29 1
Cat_D02 Social entrepreneur background - He always had adventurous, entrepreneurial traits, and looking for challenges.
- At the boy scouts he learned to be social, and his parents are politically active.
D1.A29 1
Cat_D03 Customer constraint - Humans are primarily egocentric. This makes it difficult to find money for social ventures.
- People have to be convinced to buy products without direct commercial use.
D1.A32 1
Human egoism makes it is difficult to mobilize people on their platform, where it is about other
people.
D1.A37 1
Appendix 139
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_D04 Solution: Customer constraint Social solutions with personal benefits are easier to sell. D1.A38 1
Cat_D05 Cultural constraint - Americans are fixed on US products. D1.A33 1
- They have to speak in web platform terms. D1.A33 1
Cat_D06 Financial constraint Generate profits to sustain. D1.A42 1
Cat_D07 Opportunity: Social change Their business is about social change D1.A36 1
Cat_D08 Juridical constraint Juristic battles are time consuming and expensive. D1.A43 1
Cat_D09 Opportunity: Government The government is an enabler as far as it shows new ways how people can collaborate. D1.A49 1
Cat_D10 Employee constraint Lack of usability experts, web designers, social media interaction designers, computer scientists
in Switzerland.
D1.A50 1
Cat_D11 Opportunity: Customer The users are helping to improve the platform. D1.A52 1
Cat_D12 Solution: Financial constraint - Develop a business model to generate enough cash flow to attract more talents, to evolve the
platform in order to attract more people to the platform.
- Pushing the customized solutions to generate more cash flow
D1.A54 1
Cat_D13 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
support
- Role models should inspire other to become social entrepreneurs.
- Classical start-up funding system should also advance social entrepreneurs.
- The government should create a social entrepreneur platform, where they can meet and work
on concepts.
D1.A54 2
Cat_D14 Solution: Social entrepreneurship
research
It would be interesting to know more on the social entrepreneur's social background. D1.A57 1
5.5.17 Case E: Within Case Analysis Categories
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
Cat_E01 Opportunity recognition - During the studies he started to recycle bicycles in his spare time and worked as a social worker
at the foundation, where he was asked to start a bicycle recycling project with unemployed.
E1.A29 1
- His wish was to combine social work and handcraft, development aid, and environmental E1.A30 1
Appendix 140
Category
No
Category Generalizing Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
aspects, which enables additional access to the people's problems and to achieve more.
Cat_E02 Government constraint - Governmental decisions may lead to cutbacks and uncertainty in financing the social
enterprise.
E1.A32 1
Cat_E03 Customer constraint - Adapting their offer to the unemployed is demanding E1.A32 1
Cat_E04 Employee constraint - With some exceptions they always found motivated and qualified employees.
- The employees have to work with engagement and flexibility, to carry and form values.
E1.A35 1
Social mission can be achieved by maintaining a good work climate and remaining healthy in
this demanding field.
E1.A46 1
- Adapting their offer to the unemployed is demanding and demands a high flexibility of the
employees.
E1.A32 1
- The advisors' high professionalism and empathy enables change.
- The advisors have to delimit work and private life.
E1.A32 2
Cat_E05 Juridical constraint - The short assignment time for unemployed suffices sometimes just to train the unemployed. E1.A32 2
Cat_E06 Solution: Financial constraint An advanced recycling fee for bicycles should compensate the collecting and recycling process. E1.A32 3
- Generating profit would assure a longer financial perspective. E1.A54 1
Cat_E07 Solution: Juridical constraint - Longer stays of the unemployed would create more social change, but this is limited by the
law.
E1.A54 1
Cat_E09 Opportunity: Cultural differences - CH: Mixed unemployed teams help reducing clichés about other cultures. E1.A33 1
Cat_E10 Cultural constraint The African partners are also exposed to their own political and economic environment. E1.A51 1
- Africa: They have to understand their needs and the way they solve problems. E1.A33 1
Cat_E11 Opportunity: holistic concept Nowadays, the connective and holistic concept is accepted and considered as important. E1.A36 1
Cat_E12 Social welfare constraint The social state and the solidarity suffered the last couple of years in Switzerland. E1.A36 2
Cat_E13 Solution: Economic incentives to
support social responsibility
- Money overweighs goodwill, which depends on particular persons and is not really supported
by the economic system.
E1.A54 2
- Many small company owners realize their social responsibility. E1.A54 2
Cat_E14 Solution: Political will to ensure
equal opportunities for all
Political will determines if everyone gets the same chance. E1.A56 1
Cat_E15 Social entrepreneur background Social entrepreneurs do not have to be especially altruistic, it is all about give-and-take. E1.A57 1
Appendix 141
5.5.18 Cross-Case Analysis Pattern Matching
Please check the file MT_c_Within_and_Cross_Case_Analysis.xlsx on the DVD for the detailed overall pattern matching and type matching analysis.
Type Match
No
Typology Category Generalizing Category
No
Case /
Question
No
Answer
Counter
TM1 FP Solution: Social
entrepreneurship support
Support from universities and organizations like CTI should be
extended to social entrepreneurship.
Cat_B11 B1.A56 1
- Role models should inspire other to become social entrepreneurs.
- Classical start-up funding system should also advance social
entrepreneurs.
- The government should create a social entrepreneur platform, where
they can meet and work on concepts.
Cat_D13 D1.A54 2
TM2 NFP Employee constraint It is crucial to teach the employees ethical policies. Cat_A09 A1.A45 1
The employees are the association's showcase and have to fulfill very
high exigency. One employee can destroy the association's reputation.
Cat_C03 C1.A46 1
TM3 NFP Employee constraint Employees work hard and have to find their work-life balance Cat_A09 A1.A35 1
The work is intense and strong for the employees. They have to sell, to
administer, and being entrepreneurial.
Cat_A09 A1.A32 11
Social mission can be achieved by maintaining a good work climate and
remaining healthy in this demanding field.
Cat_E04 E1.A46 1
- The advisors' high professionalism and empathy enables change.
- The advisors have to delimit work and private life.
Cat_E04 E1.A32 2
- The employees have to work with engagement and flexibility, to carry
and form values.
Cat_E04 E1.A35 1
TM4 NFP Solution: no government
regulations
There is no need for governmental regulations as long win-win
situations exists for socal enterprises and the private sector.
Cat_A20 A2.A54 3
The lack of laws for youth support is advancing the diversity and the
inventive talent.
Cat_C21 C1.A43 1
TM5 NFP Solution: Financial constraint - Generating profits would help them to work more freely. Cat_A19 A2.A54 1
- Generating profit would assure a longer financial perspective. Cat_E06 E1.A54 1
Appendix 142
5.6 Files (DVD-ROM)
In order to protect the interviewees’ privacy, only three copies of the DVD were handed out to the School of
Business Administration in Fribourg. The DVD contains following files:
File Name Content
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Willi (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Willi (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_2.mp3 Interview with Mr. Guerra (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_A_Interview_2.xlsx Interview with Mr. Guerra (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_B_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Fasnacht (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_B_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Fasnacht (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_C_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Gander (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_C_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Gander (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_D_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Gerhardt (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_D_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Gerhardt (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Case_E_Interview_1.mp3 Interview with Mr. Richter (Audio file)
MT_c_Case_E_Interview_1.xlsx Interview with Mr. Richter (Transcription, incl. relevant
content selection, paraphrasing, and generalizing)
MT_c_Master_Thesis_Thomas_Stalder.pdf This master-thesis
MT_c_Within_and_Cross_Case_Analysis.xlsx Within-case and cross-case analysis (incl. reduction,
categories, and matching patterns)
doc_153421614.pdf