Search results

The purpose of this paper is to question the supposed self‐evidence of a core category in the social entrepreneurship literature: “social value creation”. By criticizing the taken‐for‐granted use of the dichotomy “social vs business” the paper aims to develop a multi‐dimensional approach that conceptualizes the creative entrepreneurial process as generating several forms of value for individuals and society.

The paper proceeds in two steps. First, the shortcomings of the “social vs business” dichotomy are revealed by analyzing its common yet mostly unquestioned use on several levels of inquiry. Then, some conceptual ideas from institutional theory and virtue business ethics are used to sketch a framework for the “social” dimensions of entrepreneurial value creation.

The result of the discussion is a coherent set of conceptual pairs, each characterizing two important aspects of “social” value beyond the utilitarian mainstream. In this respect, the paper gives an overview of potentially useful categories which could help to fill the conceptual void resulting from the vagueness of the “social value creation” concept.

The proposed categories are not exhaustive, as a brief outlook on further ambiguities of value creation shows. Nevertheless, they are an attempt to point out the fruitfulness of virtue business ethics to developing an extended understanding of entrepreneurial value creation for society. An important consequence is an uncommon view on what is the range of relevant examples of social entrepreneurship in the first place.

The paper offers novel, possibly more adequate categories for dealing with the societal and ethical qualities of entrepreneurial value creation. Eventually, it can lead future research to maybe less obvious, but equally important, expressions of social entrepreneurship.

Acknowledgement of the social impact created by organisations has become an increasingly frequent discussion among practitioners. The importance of such value creation cannot be understated, yet in an increasingly competitive funding environment, the need to articulate “true” value is paramount. The purpose of this paper is to examine how Australian and US managers of non-profit organisations (NPOs) and foundations view the measurement of the social impact of NPOs.

The paper includes 19 in-depth interviews of non-profit professionals in the USA and Australia. Respondents included non-profit managers, foundation managers and consultants in both countries.

The in-depth interviews found that in both countries respondents generally agreed that objective measures of impact are desirable, but recognised the difficulties in developing objective assessment frameworks enabling comparisons across the non-profit sector. These difficulties, as well as the implications for developing assessments of social value for NPOs, are discussed. This paper demonstrates that there is an opportunity to reposition reporting expectations. The NPO sector can pool together and build on each other’s strengths and market their outcomes as a collective entity. A sector-wide approach provides potential for much needed within-sector mentoring and will showcase the rich and varied outcomes generated by NPOs.

This research compares viewpoints in two Western countries, thus offering at least an exploratory examination of social impact assessment from an international perspective. Additionally, this research shows commonalities in terms of what is valued and what is most difficult for non-profits when determining social impact.

This paper aims to characterise the “social” in social entrepreneurship (SE) by examining social value creation (SVC) from the perspective of vulnerable beneficiaries within a developing country context. It uses the lens of care ethics to garner insights into SVC based on what beneficiaries care about in their work engagement with social enterprises.

The exploratory paper implements a multiple case study approach to theory building, which considers the rich, real-life developing country context wherein much SVC occurs. Data collection primarily uses in-depth interviews with beneficiaries in accordance with socially sensitive research methodologies involving vulnerable participants.

The findings offer an ethical view of SVC that is premised on what is of value to beneficiaries in SE. The authors find that SVC is a multi-dimensional and reciprocal process that is shaped as beneficiaries work for social enterprises. The reciprocal nature of the process engenders beneficiary altruism, which may heighten vulnerability and lead to the dark side of SE.

Many of the problems SE tries to address are situated in developing countries. The findings may enable social entrepreneurs, policymakers and social enterprise organisations to develop more responsive and more impactful solutions to social problems in developing countries. They further suggest that beneficiaries must not be looked upon merely as passive recipients of value but as active participants in the SVC process.

This paper contributes to critical SE discourse by giving voice to beneficiaries in SE.

The antecedents and typical stages of development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs in a given organization or type of organization have been of minor interest in CSR research. Contrary to that the chapter argues that CSR communication strategies need to take the genesis and drivers of CSR institutionalization into account.

The chapter develops a complex set of interrelated drivers for CSR institutionalization from a literature review – among them leadership styles and management fashion. The chapter further discusses the influence of leadership styles and management fashions on CSR institutionalization and focuses on the diffusion of management concepts along a management fashion cycle. It then refers to executive trainers as the key facilitator and promoter of new business concepts and presents data from a first online-survey among German speaking management trainers.

The chapter clears manager’s role in institutionalization of CSR by contextualizing their behavior in a portfolio of performance indicators. From a management fashion perspective the various forms of explicit and implicit CSR are linked to management styles.

The chapter lays ground for further research of CSR institutionalization and integration into business strategy by providing a conceptualization of CSR drivers and settings that relate to a given organization. As such it is designed as groundwork for a yet to develop CSR scorecard.

The connection between organizational type, organizational environment, leadership behavior, and the chosen CSR approach of a corporation is usually overseen. The chapter aims to uncover this connection.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the key factors for successful creation of social value using the social business model (SBM) as an explanatory framework.

This study follows the Krippendorff and Gioia’s methodology seeking the rigor while examining the selected case study – a social cooperative named La Paranza, in the city of Naples in the south of Italy. In doing so, the SBM canvas is used to present the research’s results in a systematic way.

The existence of a strong “identity” with the local context, the “enthusiasm and the wish to change things”, the presence of a “visionary”, acting as an orchestrator and the ability to provide for responses to the local needs were identified as key factors in the successful creation of social value in the examined case.

The main research limits stem from the single case study methodology approach, which embodies the researchers’ subjectivity. A comparative study based on the collection of multiple successful case studies is therefore suggested to develop a generalization of the key drivers underlying the process of social value creation.

The study’s originality results from its use of the SBM framework in presenting a successful example of social value creation. The examined empirical evidence is also original in itself, mainly because of its inner uniqueness as a new and innovative formula: this allows an in-depth investigation and the inspiration for new ideas in the ground of SBM and, in a broader sense, in the field of social innovation and social value creation.