Research Proposal on Social Entrepreneurship

Title

Social Entrepreneurship - Best practices and the role of technology

Introduction

This research proposal suggests an exploratory approach to collect the best

practices of successful social entrepreneurial ventures. It tries to establish a reliable
and easily accessible platform on which academicians and prospective social
entrepreneurs can build on. It is intended that full life-cycle stages of
entrepreneurship would be taken into consideration wherever possible. In addition,
how social entrepreneurs are making the best use of technology will be investigated
and documented.

Background and Rationale

Although the term ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ is relatively new, evidence shows that
some great social entrepreneurs have always existed in the last two centuries.
Altruism coupled with business sense has paved way for new opportunities for those
who have entrepreneurial skills and want to work for the betterment of the society.
Extraordinary people like Muhammad Yunus (Nobel Peace prize winner in 2006)
came up with brilliant ideas and succeeded at creating revolutionary products and
services dramatically improving human lives (Youssry 2007). As opposed to
traditional non-profits, which are dependant on charitable donations and government
subsidies, social enterprises are increasingly self-sufficient and sustainable (Boschee
& McClurg 2003).

There are a number of definitions for Social Entrepreneurship at the moment giving
broad and narrow meanings to it. Whatever they are, the underlying truth is that
making a social impact is as important for social entrepreneurs as creating personal
and shareholder value, if not more (Austin, Stevenson and Wei Skillern 2006). Social
Entrepreneurship is definitely more than the business or economic entrepreneurship.

Unlike some commercial/economic organisations that only voice their social concerns
through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) departments, social enterprises
treat their social and/or environmental responsibilities as the prime business cases.
The CSR initiatives can change with time and circumstances, and range from simply
organising donations by the employees to international social/voluntary projects
involving millions of pounds, depending on the interests and financial status of the
company. On the contrary, most social entrepreneurs get influenced by local
problems with which they have first-hand experiences and decide to stick to them for
a considerable time. They focus all of their resources and energies thinking about
and analysing the social issues and offer direct and often speedy solutions to the
people in need. Due to the stronger, quicker and more transparent impact the social
enterprises make on the society, there is an obligation to create and foster more and
more social entrepreneurs as compared to the CSR solutions from general
companies. Baron (2005) supports this by saying that corporate giving in the form of
social entrepreneurship is a better substitute to personal giving than that of profit-
maximising firms. Nonetheless, one should understand that both CSR and Social
Entrepreneurship are not mutually exclusive. They can go hand in hand for the sake
of a healthier society. If CSR is defined as “the business contribution to Sustainable
Development” (European Commission 2002), then the “individual entrepreneurs’
contribution to sustainable development” is Social Entrepreneurship (Seelos & Mair
2004).

However, many people still find it difficult to comprehend the marriage between
‘Social service’ and ‘Entrepreneurship’. It is yet to attract the required attention of the
academicians. There is confusion on who should teach this subject in universities. It
is lacking credibility as there is not enough research done on it.

Research Questions

It is suggested to focus this doctoral research on addressing the following points:

1. Practical differences between the tools, techniques, procedures used in

various stages of the life cycles of Entrepreneurship and Social
Entrepreneurship
2. Unique challenges, risks and opportunities for a Social Entrepreneur such as
arrangement of finances, scalability, measurement of success/growth,
availability of best practices, etc.
3. Role of technology in Social Entrepreneurship such as web 2.0, open-source
software, etc.

Theoretical Framework

Still an emerging field, Social Entrepreneurship is slowly picking up momentum

among researchers. The term ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ itself is seen as too broad
and vague and hence many people tried to give various definitions to it (Austin,
Stevenson and Wei Skillern 2006). According to Martin & Osberg (2007), Social
Entrepreneurship is defined as a concept with the following three components:

“(1) identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion,
marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means
or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;

(2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value

proposition, and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and
fortitude, thereby challenging the stable state’s hegemony; and

(3) forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential or alleviates the
suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stable
ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group
and even society at large.”

Page 2 of 5
A large range of not-for-profit, for-profit and mixed ventures (that have both not-for-
profit and for-profit elements in them) come under the umbrella of Social
Entrepreneurship (Dees 1998 & Hockerts 2006). Dees (1998) says that social
entrepreneurs are a rare breed with unique skills and interests. There is a great need
to encourage these people and also spread the awareness, support and guidance in
this area to attract others. This has been the motivation behind “Ashoka”, founded by
Bill Drayton, also called as the ‘Father of Social Entrepreneurship’. In the UK, Lord
Young of Dartington, Michael Young was one of the pioneers in this area. He was
responsible for about forty social organisations including a school for Social
Entrepreneurs. History has seen several of such innovative thinkers in addition to
institutions such as the Schwab, the Skoll and the Draper Richards foundations that
clearly understood how just a person like Muhammad Yunus (founder of Grameen
bank) or Vinoba Bhave (founder of the Land Gift movement) can change millions of
lives with simple ideas. The question is whether there exists a common platform in
the form of literature or research to spread the best practices in social
entrepreneurship? If yes, how many budding social entrepreneurs can access and
emulate them?

There is still a vacuum in the literature, research and awareness about the factors
that lead to success in the field of Social Entrepreneurship (Alvord et al. 2004;
Cramer 2003; Desa and Kotha 2006; Mulgan 2006). Leadbeater (1997) and
Thompson (2002) stress in their publications the urgent need to foster social
entrepreneurs. Mair, Robinson and Hockerts (2006) expect more research to be
done in understanding how values, systems and processes can affect sustainability
of social enterprises.

Technology especially Information Technology (IT) is becoming increasingly

important in eradicating the poverty and other social problems in developing
economies. Wise investments in the relevant technologies can help improve the lives
of common people in emerging countries. Some reputed not-for-profit organisations
such as ‘The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’, The Open Society Institute and The
MacArthur Foundation are focussing on technology-driven solutions to societal
needs. Latest internet based technologies (such as web 2.0 phenomenon and open
source projects) democratise the innovation by connecting the people on a global
level (von Hippel 2005).

However, the literature available in Social Entrepreneurship is yet to address the

complete role of technology in running social ventures (Mair & Martif 2004). Pearce,
J.M., Grafman, L., Colledge, T. & Legg, R. (2008) propose that a network formed with
free IT tools, Social Entrepreneurship and right learning mechanisms can make
sustainable development possible and free many poor people from sufferings.
Although Desa & Kotha (2006) did some research on the life-cycle of technology
social ventures (TSV), there is a need to work more on how technology addresses
some of the pressing practical issues faced by social entrepreneurs.

Beneficiaries

Social Entrepreneurship appeals to most social-conscious people of this generation

who would like to start their own ventures. Carrying out business by directly helping
the needy is the dream of many talented professionals. However, due to lack of
awareness, support and guidance, many enthusiasts are unable to step into this field
and therefore fail to utilise their skills to support the downtrodden. The suggested
research will create a good foundation of best practices for all the stages of business

Page 3 of 5
life cycle right from business idea to entrepreneur’s leave from the venture and
possibly equip the prospective social entrepreneurs with a technology tool kit
positively influencing their ventures. It will also contribute to the present ‘body of
knowledge’ of social entrepreneurship opening the doors to further research
opportunities in offering more practical solutions to budding social entrepreneurs.

Design/Methodology/Approach

In order to solve the research problems the data will be gathered by closely studying
the tools, techniques, processes and procedures adopted in successful social
ventures. It is suggested to carefully divide social enterprises based on pre-decided
criteria, choose a number of small to large successful enterprises in UK and India,
which fit in these categories, approach the founders & senior management and
conduct interviews with them. Wherever possible, surveys and questionnaires will be
used. Role of technology specifically the use of affordable information technology
tools in all the stages of the life cycle of these social businesses will be thoroughly
investigated.

It may not be feasible to analyse different types of varied businesses and derive a
clear set of established practices. Keeping this in view, it is expected to discuss the
findings based on the background, industry and type of the business. Quantitative
techniques are considered as well as there may be a need to combine both
quantitative and qualitative methods for more accurate analysis.

It is recommended to include only those ventures that are the brainchildren of one or
two entrepreneurs. In other words, institutional or co-operative social enterprises
(Spear 2006) will not be approached as the main goal behind conducting this
research is mainly to foster visionary social entrepreneurs.

My Previous Experience of Research & Career Aspirations

References

Alvord S.H., L. David Brown & C.W. Letts. 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and
Societal Transformation: an Exploratory Study.” Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science: 40: 260-282

Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern. 2006. "Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:

Same, Different, or Both?" Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, no. 1 (January
2006).

Baron, David P. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship.

Boschee, J. & McClurg, J. 2003. Toward a better understanding of social

entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions

Cramer, J. 2003. Ondernemen met hoofd en hart – duurzaam ondernemen:

praktijkervaringen. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.

Page 4 of 5
Dees, J.Gregory. 1998. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”.

Desa, G. & S. Kotha. 2006. “Ownership, Mission and Environment: An Exploratory

Analysis into the Evolution of a Technology Social Venture.” In Social
Entrepreneurship, ed. Mair J. et al. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hockerts, K. 2006. "Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures",

in Mair, J., Robinson, J. & Hockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Ingstad, Eline Synneva Lorentzen. 2008. Social entrepreneurship in academia:

Which role can a university play in pursuing technology based social
entrepreneurship?

Leadbeater, C. 1997. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur.

Mair, J. & Martif, I. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A
framework for future research. Working Paper 546. IESE Business school, University
of Navarra, Barcelona.

Martin, Roger L. & Osberg Sally. 2007. Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for
Definition.

Mulgan, G. 2006. Social Innovation, what it is, why it matters and how it can be
accelerated. London: The Young Foundation.

Pearce, J.M., Grafman, L., Colledge, T. & Legg, R. 2008. Leveraging Information
Technology, Social Entrepreneurship, and Global Collaboration for Just Sustainable
Development.

Seelos, C. & Mair, J. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship: The contribution of individual

entrepreneurs to sustainable development

Spear, R. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship: a different model?” International Journal of

Social Economics Vol. 33 No. 5/6, 2006.

Thompson, John L. 2002. The world of the social entrepreneur.

von Hippel, Eric. 2005. "Open source software projects as user innovation networks -
no manufacturer required." in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software,
edited by J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, and K. Lakhani. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Youssry, A. 2007. Social Entrepreneurs and Enterprise Development.

Page 5 of 5