Divergent Orientations of Social Entrepreneurship Organizations

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is now well established in the academic literature (Sullivan Mort and Weerawardena, 2007). A precise definition of the concept is, however, not yet agreed. Mair et al. (2006: 4–6) outline nine definitions used by different authors. Each definition establishes a connection with social goals and business processes, but varies in the emphasis placed on the individual social entrepreneur, organizational form and sector of operation, financial objectives and resource mobilization, and importance of the social mission and social impact. For example, Robinson (2006: 95) defines social entrepreneurship as a process: ‘the identification of a specific social problem and a specific solution… to address it; the evaluation of social impact, the business model and sustainability of the venture… ’. Cho (2006: 36) takes an organizational perspective: ‘a set of institutional practices combining the pursuit of financial objectives with the pursuit and promotion of substantive and terminal values’. Mair and Noboa (2006: 122) include innovation: ‘the innovative use of resource combinations to pursue opportunities aiming at the creation of organizations and/or practices that yield and sustain social benefits’. Hockerts (2006: 145) focuses on the sector of operation: ‘hybrid enterprises straddling the boundary between the for-profit business world and social mission-driven public and nonprofit organizations. Thus they do not fit complete in either sphere’. Many other definitions of social entrepreneurship exist. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.