Search results

This paper is concerned with developing a framework which allows both economic and social entrepreneurship to be analysed.

The framework is developed to accommodate the often neglected collective or pluralistic dimension of entrepreneurship. It draws on the behavioural approach to adopt a straightforward definition of social entrepreneurship – focusing on the creation of a social enterprise (co‐operative, mutual or voluntary organisation). The paper is exploratory, developing a conceptual framework, based on some case studies of social enterprises in a range of business sectors, in the UK.

The findings from this small scale study provide interesting models of entrepreneurship that contrast with conventional models for SMEs.

The research has implications for research on conventional entrepreneurship, as well as creating a basis for developing the new field of social entrepreneurship.

The paper provides policy implications for more effective support of social entrepreneurship.

The paper establishes the importance of some distinctive factors in social entrepreneurship for policy and further research.

The management of an organisation and the context within which this organisation evolves are recognised as two important aspects of any organisation. Few studies have been conducted however on the management function within the specific context of social enterprises, organisations that mix social goals and economic imperatives. This paper aims to examine the specific competences of management in social enterprises, by constructing a competence model, the emblematic tool of competence‐based management, relevant to the management of social enterprises.

The authors hypothesise that certain competences required of managers in social enterprises are specific, regarding the particular internal and external context of social enterprises, the governance model, etc. The methodology used is based on four main steps: a review of the literature and the conducting of exploratory interviews, the construction of a first draft of the competence model, the conducting of group interviews with managers of social enterprises in six European countries as this research takes place within the framework of a European research project on lifelong learning, and the final adaptation and validation of the competence model.

Seven main competences specific to the context of social enterprises emerge, each one being further developed as knowledge, skills, and competences.

The paper illustrates the interest in building up a competence model for the management of social enterprises.

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.

This article aims to explore the role of organisational legitimacy in understanding the emergence and development of “cross‐sector collaboration” between social enterprises and corporations.

An in‐depth case study of a long‐standing but fragile partnership between a UK‐based Fair Trade social enterprise and a large corporate retailer provides exploratory findings on the role of legitimacy at different stages of the collaboration process.

The findings highlight how pragmatic and moral legitimacy are mobilised by the social enterprise to justify collaboration throughout three major stages: the very decision of cross‐sector collaboration; the choice of the partner and the framing of the partnership; and the evolution of the collaboration.

While Fair Trade is not the only sector in which social enterprise‐corporate partnerships take place, it has been a pioneering domain revealing the potential as well as the challenges of such partnerships. Taking into account the role of legitimacy throughout the collaborative process is crucial both for comprehensive research and for informed practice.

Although it is documented by a single case study, this paper opens new research avenues to examine social enterprise‐corporate collaborations by developing a “non‐functionalist” view of such collaborations and showing the importance of legitimacy in understanding why and how they emerge, develop and sometimes fail.

Social entrepreneurial initiatives are often ascribed innovative roles for the public good. However, it is also argued that the same initiatives react to conditions in different contexts as well as to local or global trends. But, what roles and values are brought into practice by initiatives today and how can these be conceptualised as innovative? The aim of this paper is to empirically describe and analyse social entrepreneurship initiatives and contribute to the understanding of their role in the development of society.

The paper is based on a framework focusing on entrepreneurial dynamics, organisations and institutions. Empirically, it is grounded in four studies of social enterprises and their entrepreneurial initiatives in Sweden. Findings – The results reveal an intricate interplay between innovative challenges and institutional inertia as well as a combined role for social entrepreneurship initiatives in which innovative aspects can be more or less extensive.

The study contributes to problemising and nuancing the understanding of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in relation to innovation in society.

Work integration social enterprises (WISEs) create jobs through business ventures that function as locations for training and employment of disadvantaged workers. A key challenge for US WISEs is that the businesses that are easiest to launch and best suited to absorb large numbers of unskilled workers may be located in the same low wage labor market sectors out of which these interventions are designed to catapult workers. This paper aims to present data on an understudied aspect of WISEs: the labor market niches where they are active, the occupations associated with these labor market positions, and the work conditions offered through their WISE businesses.

Data presented in this paper are from a national WISE database developed by the author that includes 254 businesses associated with 123 WISEs, and a pilot study of 15 WISEs testing an instrument for use in a national survey of US WISEs. Each business associated with the WISEs in the national database was coded for industry, occupation and wage data using categories developed by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each WISE business was further coded as preparing its workers for either low or middle skill jobs. These data were analyzed using frequency counts, chi square tests of association and a two‐step cluster analysis. To explore employment conditions inside WISE businesses, the pilot study data were analyzed using a multiple case study analysis approach. Through focused coding techniques, descriptions of the employment conditions associated with the WISE jobs are reviewed.

Analysis at the level of occupation category reveals that about 72 percent of the jobs that WISEs train clients to perform exist in low skill occupations. Chi‐square tests of association between NTEE code (a proxy for target population) and job skill level are not significant suggesting that low skill training is utilized by organizations serving clients facing a range of disadvantage. Cluster analyses indicate that for WISEs targeting disabled populations and for newer organizations targeting the general unemployed populations, low skill job training pervades but for education organization and for older employment organizations, middle skill job training is more prevalent. The pilot data analyses show that the WISEs offer minimum wage or higher wage positions but many without guaranteed hours or a clear pathway out of WISE employment.

These data suggest WISEs in the USA have grown well beyond their earlier, narrower niche working with the disabled to employ a much broader portfolio of client populations, many higher functioning. However, the findings that many WISEs are positioned in the low skill labor market and on some dimensions can mirror the low skill labor market employment conditions suggest that additional aspects of WISE workforce development strategy should be taken into account.

The paper focuses on the labor market niches where WISEs are active, the occupations associated with these labor market positions, and the work conditions offered.

There is still no universal definition of the third sector in Europe, but it can be seen as including all types of non-governmental not-for-profit entities such as non-profit organizations, mutuals, cooperatives, social enterprises and foundations. This article attempts to make sense of the current shifting conceptualization of the third sector in Europe. It is based on short country summaries of the images and concepts of the third sector in 13 European countries by EMES Network’s members, first presented in 2008 (Defourny and Pestoff, 2008; nine of them were recently revised and are found in the appendix to this article.). The perception and development of the third sector in Europe is closely related to the other major social governance institutions/mechanisms, like the market, state and community and through the third sector’s interaction with them. Moreover, many third sector organizations (TSOs) overlap with these other social institutions, resulting in varying degrees of hybridity and internal tensions experienced by them. TSOs can generate resources from their activities on the market, by providing services in partnership with the state and/or by promoting the interests of a given community or group. The country overviews document a growing professionalization of TSOs in most countries and a growing dependency of public funds to provide services. This has important theoretical and practical implications for orienting the articles included in this book. Thus, it can provide a key for better understanding the discussion and analysis in the remainder of this volume.

The purpose of this paper is to review the development and impact of the Social Enterprise Journal (SEJ) from its inception in 2005 until present day.

The paper analyses the thematic content of SEJ and its impact data from 2005 until 2017.

SEJ has broken new ground in the study of social enterprise (SE). It was the first journal back in 2005 to commence the exploration of this field and since has been the first to publish works on defining SE, their performance management, critical perspectives plus international differences. The paper shows that in the early years, SEJ was dominated by conceptual work aiming to understand SE plus their governance and performance management, which was mainly based on UK descriptive case studies and uncritical. By 2010, SEJ became established internationally with various issues being 100 per cent dominated by international aspects of SE. Recent more critical work has also enabled a process of “myth busting” in the SE field. This paper also shows the growth of SEJ in downloads and citations.

The paper demonstrates the important role SEJ has played in both improving practice and informing policy.

The paper is the first to review the development and impact of SEJ.

The idea of leader as host came to me very suddenly on 16 February 2003, during a seminar by Matthias Varga von Kibéd and Insa Sparrer. It seems to me that the metaphor of leader as host offers a view on leadership that is at once rooted in millennia of practice and at the same time is something new and timely.Such metaphors are very important in my view ‐ they offer a rich and broad set of ideas about leadership in a way that allows interpretation into many different real‐life situations. Rather than a prescription, such metaphors offer us a way to engage with often difficult situations and quickly alter our thinking to come from another place. Building on the existing ideas of heroic and servant leadership, I hope you will find inspiration of a very practical kind in the metaphor and practice of the host.