The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-8614.htm

Social entrepreneurship
innovative challengers or
adjustable followers?
Malin Gawell

Social
entrepreneurship

203

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute (ESBRI),

Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose 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.
Design/methodology/approach 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.
Originality/value The study contributes to problemising and nuancing the understanding of
social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in relation to innovation in society.
Keywords Social entrepreneurship, Social enterprise, Social innovation, Civil society, Society,
Business ethics, Sweden
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The current interest in social entrepreneurship and the potential of social enterprises to
solve various challenges in society is combined with a young and largely fragmented
field of knowledge. This raises questions about ascribed roles such as the innovative
aspect of these ventures, among other things. Arguments for an innovative role stem
from a focus on dynamic changes (Schumpeter, 1934) and a faith in the agency of
individual actors (Dees, 2001), which many times is combined with the hope for a
better world. The literature on social entrepreneurship and (to a certain extent) that on
social enterprises often draw upon these arguments as concepts that are taken for
granted (Palmas, 2012). Additionally, the strength of institutions and structures are
used to argue for a less innovative role for individual actors (Garud et al., 2007).
However, both of these different approaches relate to the dynamics of innovations. To
help further develop knowledge about social entrepreneurship and the role(s) of social
enterprises in society, this paper aims to empirically describe and analyse whether, and
if so how, these actors act as innovative challengers or, instead, follow the development
in an adjustable way.
Social entrepreneurship initiatives and social enterprises are enacted and developed
in a specific context. Different cultures, ways to organise welfare and policies, legal

Social Enterprise Journal

Vol. 9 No. 2, 2013
pp. 203-220
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-8614
DOI 10.1108/SEJ-01-2013-0004

SEJ
9,2

structures etc. interact with the process and the forming of social enterprises (Defourny
and Nyssens, 2008). In this paper, the interaction is empirically contextualised in
Sweden based on four studies.
In this paper, a framework of entrepreneurial dynamics, organisations and
institutions is first presented. This is followed by a methodological and empirical
account and analysis. Finally, the analysis is concluded and discussed.

204
Entrepreneurial dynamics, organisations and institutions
Societies consist of more or less institutionalised organisations and other components
that relate to a sphere of society. These more or less institutionalised organisations act
within certain contexts such as geographical, branch-related or normative constructed
practices and/or regulations. The institutional arrangements of these contexts are
fundamental to understanding organisations because they tend to be taken for granted
(Berger and Luckmann, 1967) or reproduced without much reflection in practice
(Langer and Newman, 1979) and therefore create path dependencies (David, 1985;
Arthur, 1988).
Work on institutions has traditionally focused on continuity (Garud et al., 2007).
However, the interest in organisational innovation and institutional change has
increased (Stryker, 2000). Through conceptualisations such as institutional
entrepreneurship (Garud et al., 2007) and social entrepreneurship (Nicholls, 2010),
the institutional approach has been related to a complementary field that focuses on
change. To considering literature on institutions as well as on entrepreneurship and
innovation bring different perspectives on the longstanding structure-agency debate
and how agency is conceptualised and perceived, and what influential ability it can be
ascribed (Garud et al., 2007).
From the perspective of institutions, organisations are embedded in institutional
fields and subject to regulative, normative and cognitive processes that structure and
even define their interest and identity (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Clemens and Cook,
1999). This is commonly referred to as an embedded agency (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991;
Friedland and Alford, 1991; Seo and Creed, 2002). However, from the perspective of
entrepreneurship, the institutional setting is not necessarily given at the outset, at least
not in detail, but rather emerges during the entrepreneurial process (Gawell, 2008).
Nascent and emerging organisations contribute to the variation of evolutionary
processes (Aldrich, 1999) and the dynamics of industries or branches of organisations
(Aldrich, 1999; Schoonhoven and Romanelli, 2001), and thereby, contribute to the
dynamics of communities (Aldrich, 1999).
During the last decade, an increasing number of publications on entrepreneurship
have been related not only to businesses but also to their role as a societal phenomenon
(Spinosa et al., 1997; Swedberg, 2000; Hjorth et al., 2003; Steyaert and Hjorth, 2004,
2006; Gawell et al., 2009). Furthermore, a number of studies have been published on
social entrepreneurship (Mair et al., 2006; Nicholls, 2006; Perrini, 2006), social
enterprises (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001; Borzaga et al., 2008), and public
entrepreneurship (Bjerke, 2005), activist entrepreneurship (Gawell, 2006), or
societal entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 1990; Gawell et al., 2009).
However, even the classic entrepreneurship scholar Joseph Schumpeter argued as
early as 1911 that entrepreneurship as a dynamic challenging process could be
conceptualised in all spheres in society. This early writing was published only in

German and was not included in the English translation published in 1934. Because the
latter publication has been considered the standard reference in the field, research on
entrepreneurship has more or less been limited to businesses and economic aspects of
society (Swedberg, 2008). Schumpeter (1934) argued that entrepreneurship consists of
creating innovations rather than inventions and that entrepreneurship is to be
regarded only during the phase when actions are related to these issues. Therefore,
according to Schumpeter, nobody is an entrepreneur forever, but only when he or she is
actually pursuing innovative activities (Swedberg, 2000). Entrepreneurship does not
contribute only by smoothly adding to the economy or other parts of social life,
according to Schumpeter. A new combination of materials or forces also competes for
resources and demand. Contributions and creative destruction challenge the
established equilibrium. Entrepreneurship then brings new ideas into action and
challenges established and organised environments.
Kirzner (1973), on the other hand (and many others following him), views entrepreneurs
as alert and creative organisers who re-establish equilibrium. Entrepreneurship then adds
value or adds what is valued to the overarching discourse. This argument has been
adopted to a large extent in the emerging discourse on social entrepreneurship.
Methodology
This paper is based on four studies on current social entrepreneurial initiatives in
Sweden. These studies include cases and also their context, e.g. current policy
development in this field. The selection of cases is not representative of organisations
or entrepreneurial initiatives, in general. However, they are chosen to represent areas
where shifts currently can be noticed in practice and in policy debates and, in one case,
because it adds an innovative perspective (not only on an organisational level).
Furthermore, the cases chosen represent slightly different fields, thus providing a
dynamic aspect to the analysis.
The studied cases are the following:
.
Fryshuset (www.fryshuset.se) an activity house in Stockholm that has a
focus on anti-violence and youth. This house also organises activities in other
parts of Sweden and operates some international projects. This study was
conducted in 2009-2011.
.
Va gen
ut!
kooperativen
(www.vagenut.coop)
and
Kuling
(www.kulturarvet.se) are two work-integrating social enterprise (WISE)
initiatives that combine rehabilitation and work training with the start and
development of social enterprises as a way for the long-term unemployed to
return to the labour market and expand the labour market by creating jobs that
are adjusted for these people. This study was conducted in 2009-2011.
.
Criminals return to society (CRIS) and its initiative Creative Honest
Entrepreneurs an entrepreneurship training program carried out by and
for former criminals and/or drug abusers (www.kris.a.se). This study was
conducted in 2009-2011.
.
Activist entrepreneurship that is based primarily on the organisation Attac
Swedens (www.attac.se) entrepreneurial process, which focuses on global
justice. This study was conducted in 2001-2006 and included a follow-up analysis
in 2010.

Social
entrepreneurship

205

SEJ
9,2

The analysis is based on written documents, interviews and participative

observations, and it is conducted using an interpretive approach that focuses on
discourses and narratives that are related to everyday practices. The method was
developed along the lines of the linguistic turn in social science and a narrative
approach to organisational and entrepreneurship studies (Czarniawska, 1998, 2004;
Silverman, 2001; Steyaert, 2004).

206
The Swedish context and cases
During the 1980 s and 1990 s, politicians encouraged more private service providers
within the welfare system. In 1992, for example, school reform was passed that
encouraged more private initiatives through both permissions/legal structures and a
voucher system that aimed at making conditions equal for public and private
providers. This development was initiated in many areas. The developments varied in
form between branches. In health care, large public procurement was carried through.
However, national laws on freedom of choice introduced voucher systems in several
fields such as primary care, home care for elderly and in parts of psychiatric care. The
extent and form of this type of privatisation varies to a certain extent between county
councils and municipalities due to local autonomy and decentralised responsibilities
for welfare services. Nevertheless, the trend has been and continues to be significant.
Despite of these shifts, welfare services remain a public responsibility and are
primarily funded by the public.
The current government explicitly argues that welfare services are to be subject to
competition and neutral to organisational sizes and forms. Biases exist, however, in
how procurements are structured and who can compete. Larger enterprises, such as
international health care actors, have been successful in tender procedures whereas
many smaller enterprises and/or non-profit organisations have experienced difficulties.
The non-profit organisations are more used to another kind of relationship, both to
beneficiaries and public authorities. A common, but not the only narrative of non-profit
organisations in Sweden refers to so-called popular mass movements. Based on what
have been described as broad social movements, these organisations initiated services
to people in need during the second half of the nineteenth century. Apart for providing
services, these organisations engaged in advocacy to integrate their members
prioritised issues to the public agenda as the welfare state emerged during the
twentieth century. Several civil society initiatives, such as dental care for children,
nursing homes or public access to literature, became parts of the services provided by
the public sector. Since the establishment of the welfare state during the twentieth
century, the common narrative of civil society organisations has expressed a
complementary role with rather niched services combined with advocacy.
The popular mass movement model, with its ideology and advocacy role, open and
widely based membership, democratic structured decision-making, and independent
role in relation to the state, has dominated the debate and even marinated the
perception of civil society organisations in Sweden,and also to a large extent in the
other Nordic countries) (Hvenmark and Wijkstrom, 2004; Wijkstrom and Zimmer,
2011). The democratic governance structure has more or less been taken for granted,
despite the fact that this is not always the case within the sector. However, the popular
mass movement model is not the only organisational model. There have always been
several types of charitable, philanthropic, voluntary, community development-based

and non-governmental organisations. In addition, other stories regarding these types

of organisations exist even if they are not recognised in the dominant narrative.
The democratic aspects of civil society have remained in focus for many years and
have also been debated recently (Amna, 1999, 2005; Pestoff, 2009). Nevertheless,
innovative aspects of civil society and social economy have not been focussed on to the
same extent during recent decades, either in the public debate or in research, despite
the fact that the historically innovative role of what we would most likely refer to today
as social entrepreneurship or social enterprise is recognised in narratives regarding
popular mass movements and the literature pertaining to the Swedish welfare society
(Larsson, 2008).
In this overarching context, we see an increased interest in social and societal
entrepreneurship, and in social enterprises. These emerging concepts are not clearly
defined and different interest groups debate the meaning and at times claim these
concepts by promoting specific definitions. One section in this fragmented and
emerging field can be related to social purpose businesses grounded in business
discourse and practices. Another section is related to work that integrates social
enterprises (WISE) grounded in co-operative traditions. Yet other initiatives are
grounded in civil society, both in the forms of established non-profit organisations and
other types of organisations/initiatives.
Thus, the emerging field of social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in Sweden
extends beyond specific institutional fields, as in many other countries. Coordination is
not centralised; instead, several different actors actively work to promote development.
At times, these actors collaborate; however, at other times, they clearly work on behalf
of specific streams/versions of this specific field. The following cases will illustrate the
specific situation.
Youth-based entrepreneurial initiatives
During the early to mid-1980 s, Stockholm experienced a series of youth protests.
Groups of young people did not turn to established organisations and activities but
expressed alienation through protests featuring destructive and violent means. The
feeling arose that something had to be done, and anti-violence initiatives targeting
these young people were developed by public and private actors.
At this time, other groups demanded the provision of sports facilities and rehearsal
studios for bands. The YMCA basketball team sought an arena and felt the need to
revitalise their youth activities. People from these interest groups joined forces. Anders
Carlberg, a middle-aged construction worker engaged in union work with a
background in student politics in the late 1960 s was asked to organise some of
activities as a response to the riots mentioned above. This group, headed by Carlberg,
started and operated Fryshuset. Carlberg then became the main leader, holding
various, slightly different positions. During 2010, Carlberg partly retired, and a new
executive director was appointed.
At an early stage, a former cold store was used for social activities that primarily
focused on anti-violence activities, sports (primarily related to the YMCA basketball
team), and music (primarily through providing rehearsal studios for pop and rock
bands). This organisation was named Fryshuset, which means cold store in Swedish.
The name is now the brand of a well-known organisation.
Currently, Fryshuset operates in new facilities located in a large, nine-storey
building in Stockholm, and some activities are also carried out in other Swedish cities.

Social
entrepreneurship

207

SEJ
9,2

208

There are up to 40,000 visits each month. Fryshuset operates two skateboard halls,
three basketball halls, concert halls, dance halls, rehearsal studies and cafes. They
further operate a gymnasium (an upper secondary school) and approximately 30
different social projects. In total, approximately 420 people are employed, and turnover
was EUR 20 million in 2009 (www.fryshuset.se).
The initiative included at least four role(s) that emerged during the early phases,
and these have left clear imprints in the current organisation.
First, the group responded to problems caused by young people using what society
perceived as destructive means to express their frustrations. This problem attracted
renewed attention during the 1980 s but remains a constant issue, to which different
solutions have been applied.
Second, public initiatives and civil society organisations were established at this
time, although the activities concerned did not reach these groups of young people. A
need was sensed to try out new ways to approach these youth and to find new methods
to reach out and to cope with issues related to the violence among these groups;
additionally, there was a need to reach these groups with activities related to the aims
of more general public youth and/or civil society organisation policies.
Third, the well-known YMCA (which was established in London 1844 before
spreading internationally and becoming established in Sweden 1884) experienced
difficulties in attracting young people in the same numbers during the 1980 s as before,
as did many other old organisations. Specifically these difficulties were noticeable
among young people living in the suburbs that were built about the same time that
they were born. YMCA looked into their youth activities in general; in addition, YMCA
in Stockholm specifically needed a new basketball court.
Fourth, people playing rock and pop were looking for music studios. Many of these
people were influenced by the rock, pop and punk culture and brought some of these
ideals such as direct and loud expression, and informal and non-hierarchical ways of
organising into the house.
Within this initiative, a dialogue was introduced from the beginning with the young
people that had once been the cause of trouble. One central person involved with
developing working methods had worked as a police officer for several years and had
engaged for some time with youth in the city centre. He had come to know some of the
youth and attempted with them and others to find constructive methods in which the
youth themselves took part in creating solutions. As these young people started to use
their energy in a more constructive way, the results helped in mobilising resources.
When people were interviewed as to why things have been done in certain ways and
what has generated strength that moves at times against the wind to develop
activities in a different way than commonly done in the public sector or more
traditional youth organisations, many of the interviewees referred to the importance of
departing from the young peoples situation and involving them in constructing
solutions. These ideas are not radically different from commonly accepted ideas about
broadly based influence and participation, which have a long tradition in the Swedish
context. However, young people and people engaging in Fryshuset perceived that this
was not always the case in other established organisations practices at least not for
these groups of young people.
In a way, Fryshuset has done things differently than the public or civil society
organisations that had been established earlier. On the other hand, values and norms

are deeply rooted in the tradition of popular mass movements and the traditions of the
Swedish welfare model called folkhemmet (freely translated as peoples home)
with a vitalisation of the advocacy role for issues related specifically to young people.
Furthermore, it vitalised the role of civil society organisations as actors able to provide
slightly different activities and services than would be possible for the public sector.
The difference in being able to say to young people that we care not because we have
to, but because we want to has been a valuable asset according to the people in
Fryshuset.
There has also been an adjustment in the established forms for finance, such as that
provided by grant-giving institutions for youth activities. Fryshuset has also been a
successful beneficiary of emerging possibilities and assets provided for private actors
to run schools, neighbourhood social programmes, etc. The established structures of
the YMCA proved helpful, especially during early phases. Fryshuset has also attracted
private funding both from private for-profit enterprises as well as direct from
individuals; traditionally, this has been less common in the Swedish context. Thus far,
Fryshuset has been on the front lines of resource mobilisation, both in more traditional
forms (grants, public procurements or publicly funded consumer choice programs) and
in more philanthropic forms, which were less common during the twentieth century.
Entrepreneurial initiatives for the long-term unemployed
There is a long tradition of employment measures in Sweden. Primarily, various
initiatives for the long-term unemployed have been provided by the public sector. The
first initiatives of work-integrating social enterprises (inspired by southern European
co-operative models) were launched in the mid- 1990 s (Stryjan, 1996, 2006; Pestoff,
1998, 2009). Currently, there are approximately 200 work-integrating social enterprises
in Sweden (Tillvaxtverket, 2012). Many of these have been funded by the European
Social Fund to develop their social enterprises or projects related to specific aspects of
their development.
During the early phase of development, these work-integrating social enterprises
challenged established public support structures and struggled with public regulations
and administration. This struggle partly continues also today, even though attitudes
and also regulations appear to have become more favourable. Recently, there have been
both national projects funded by the European Social Fund and national and local
political initiatives that specifically promote the development of work-integrating
social enterprises. The Swedish government has for example promoted development
by commissioning national public authorities to collaborate with these enterprises and
other relevant authorities as well as by informing staff how to encourage the long-term
unemployed to turn to these work-integrating social enterprises.
In addition to the analysis of official documents and the observation of events and
interviews with policy makers, two case studies are examined in this study. Vagen Ut!
kooperativen (freely translated as the way out-cooperatives) were initiated in 2002
as a collaborative project between cooperative advisors and local authorities. These
cooperatives were initially funded by the European Social Fund. Apart from starting
new work-integrating social enterprises combined with training for the long-term
unemployed, these cooperatives focus on developing methods for collaborating with
the public welfare system. That includes providing information, training and
knowledge of how to adjust public procurements is a way that is also feasible for these

Social
entrepreneurship

209

SEJ
9,2

210

rather small entrepreneurial initiatives. Another case, Kuling (gale in English),

emerged from publicly organised rehabilitation for the long-term unemployed. This
organisation now operates work-oriented rehabilitation training combined with
initiating new work-integrating social enterprises and supporting ordinary small
businesses to hire the long-term unemployed.
These entrepreneurial initiatives are influenced by an increased interest in these
particular social enterprises that are characterised by the idea of combining the aims of
integrating the long-term unemployed in the labour market with business activities in
which profits are primarily reinvested in the venture. The participation in action as
well as decision-making is highlighted as a central success factor for reaching
employment and social goals. Empowerment is a key concept here. Furthermore, the
organisational separation from the public sector is emphasised even though roles and
finances are highly intertwined with public welfare aims, services and funds. Parts of
the funding come from public support to cover the long-term unemployed and/or the
rehabilitation of people with disabilities and/or compensation for a reduced capacity
for work. Other major funding came, in these cases, from the European Social Fund,
which aims to support the development of initiatives that are relatively new in the
Swedish context. Other business ideas, such as running cafes, cleaning, gardening,
carpentry etc., also add to the funding and create employment opportunities for people
that experience difficulties in the labour market. The funding from the European Social
Fund is temporary and is supposedly not necessary for long-term operation.
These entrepreneurial initiatives target a variety of people. The common
denominator is that they experience difficulties on the labour market. Some do so
because of disabilities, others because of social factors. Several have never had an
ordinary job, either short- or long-term. Their possibility of integrating into the labour
market varies. Several need adjustment and more or less continuous support. Others
just need a route and some time.
Among these initiatives, indicators of innovativeness are a bit ambiguous. These
initiatives all express a sense of not belonging to or being supported by ordinary
structures and describe themselves as non-ordinary labour market initiatives, ordinary
enterprises, and ordinary non-profit organisations. At the same time, the last few years
of increased interest in social entrepreneurship and social enterprises in general, and
more specifically, the increased policy interest in social enterprises that focus on work
integration, are experienced as moving with the flow. At the same time, these
initiatives all experience the difficulties and lack of resources required to sustainably
provide the necessary support, especially for individuals who have been out of work
for a very long time and/or who are coping with multiple difficulties.
The initiatives that have had a decade of experience within this particular field have
seen a great difference during these years. The phenomenon of work-integrating social
enterprises emerged during the 1990 s, and their early expansion correlated with
Swedish membership in the European Union and the European Social Funds operation
in Sweden. The model, or rather sets of models, of work-integrating social enterprises
in Sweden has been strongly influenced by southern European work cooperatives.
These organisations and methods were thereby already established in European
policies, including the European Social Fund. At that time, almost no-one within the
Swedish public administration knew what work-integrating social enterprises were
and even less how they could relate to these organisations within their regulations. The

early initiatives had, therefore, a clear innovative role. More recent initiatives instead
represent a refinement and implementation of these innovative ideas.
One reason why people have made the efforts to develop and to run these initiatives,
which has been highlighted in all cases, is the perceived need to develop forms and
methods to reach definite goals to support the individuals according to his or her
specific needs. Other established organisations have been referred to as bureaucratic,
stiff or insufficient in other ways. The studied initiatives are, according to people
engaged in them, perceived as more directly beneficial. A noticeable success factor that
is highlighted among these initiatives are the combination of sensibility, competence
and individual engagement both in relation to coaching participants and leadership in
relation to running a social enterprise. Many of the participants are also very positive.
However, a lack of more systematic evaluations from which extensive conclusions can
be drawn has remained.
An entrepreneurial initiative for former criminals to return to society
In 1997, Christer Karlsson was released from prison for the last time. After more than
thirty years in and out of prison, he decided to find another way of living. He contacted
others in a 12-step community that shared his wishes. Together, they decided to start a
new organisation to help people like themselves: the organisation Criminals Return to
Society, CRIS (www.kris.a.se).
CRIS wishes to inform and give hope to criminals and drug abusers that it is
possible to change. The basic idea is to help people who are released from prison to
stay away from crime and drugs by offering them a new, honest and drug-free social
network. Those that wish are met by CRIS as they leave prison. Their release is
celebrated in a drug-free environment in CRIS facilities, and the members of the
organisation offer comradeship, structure and, as far as possible, practical assistance.
The comradeship offered also includes support in dealing with problems such as drug
abuse and/or other behavioural or social problems. The guiding principles of CRIS are
honesty and freedom from drugs, as well as friendship and solidarity. The organisation
now has over 5,000 members, all of whom are former criminals and/or drug abusers.
Some local associations run outpatient care and various types of housing projects.
One of the difficulties for former criminals is to find an honest way to make a living.
Together with the need to improve knowledge about how to set up and run different
ventures, such as housing that supports lifestyle training for people who have just been
released from prison, ideas about an entrepreneurship program have developed. In
2008, funding from the European Social Fund was granted for a training program in
which people involved with CRIS are offered personal development training closely
connected to entrepreneurship training. The training program is called Creative Honest
Entrepreneurs. For approximately one week a month for almost one year, people from
different local branches of the organisation meet for class, to socialise and network.
Knowledge about the need for support structures to return to society is an important
basis for the organisation as well as the training program, Creative Honest
Entrepreneurs. People with a background in drug addiction and crime saw the need for
a type of initiative other than the regular public activities. One example that has been
emphasised by people in CRIS is being able to say I know what it is like, I know it is
possible to change, but I also know you have to change, you cant get away from that.
People engaged in CRIS also understand the need to develop constructive structures

Social
entrepreneurship

211

SEJ
9,2

212

including basic routines related to physical and mental health, social interaction and,
as a part of this, developing structures for possible ways to earn a living; they also
understand that there is a gap between the lives of people who have been released from
prison and established structures in society.
The fundamental basis of CRIS and Creative Honest Entrepreneurs is the decision to
change combined with the comradeship supporting the change and reminding in a
demanding way the steps that need to be taken. This CRIS lifestyle is expressed
through their principles. Through experience, the founders of CRIS realised the
necessity of these principles to developing a more constructive lifestyle.
The most noticeable innovative aspect occurs on a very personal level. The decisive
decision is fundamental. However, there remains a long journey that each individual
has to make within him- or herself, on a group level as well as in relation to different
groups in society, many times including their families and other types of personal
networks, and society in general. The aim is to manage to reach a durable position
where it is not only possible to help oneself but also to help others.
There are also other aspects in which the emerging Creative Honest Entrepreneurs
differ in relation to public sector initiatives and other organisations providing different
types of clinics or services containing methods for treatment and/or training. The
organisation CRIS and thereby also Creative Honest Entrepreneur-project is owned
and run by former criminals and/or drug abusers. Services are developed out of their
own identification of what problems have to be solved compared with those that are
possible for them, or others, to tackle.
Complementary to collaboration with public sector operative and funding
institutions as well as other non-profit actors, CRIS has developed a network of
well-known business leaders. Their networks have become more and more accessible
for giving advice, providing network facilities etc.
An entrepreneurial initiative for global justice, Another World
The organisation Attac Sweden was launched in Stockholm, Sweden, on 6 January
2001. According to the organisations website, Attac Sweden is a party-political
independent network aiming for global justice and democracy (www.attac.se, authors
translation). Attac is an organisation related to the global justice movement; many
people became aware of this organisation through the media as one of the
organisations demonstrating during the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999, in Prague in
2000, and in Gothenburg in 2001 (Thorn, 2002; Della Porta, 2007). During the first
years, Attac attracted great attention, and there was a great influx of people attending
meetings and joining as members. Attac appeared to fill a role related to the increased
interest both in the issues at stake and the new, non-hierarchical ways of organising.
Initially, Attac started in France. In December 1997, Ignacio Ramonet, chief editor of
Le Monde Diplomatique, wrote the following in an editorial: Why not set up a new
worldwide non-governmental organisation, Action for a Tobin Tax to Assist the
Citizen (ATTAC)? With the trade unions and the many social, cultural and ecological
organisations, it could exert formidable pressure on governments to introduce this tax
at last, in the name of universal solidarity (www.attac.org). The response was great,
and the association Attac was founded in France by citizens, associations, trade unions
and newspapers in June 1998. During the first two years, the association had 25,000
paying members (www.attac.org). The idea of Attac spread to several other countries.

However, these new organisations were not set up as copies of the French organisation.
In each country, a slightly different organisation was created, yet with the same
overarching goals.
The entrepreneurial process was successful in attracting attention and engaged
large numbers of people during preparation and the first six months. Some people
called meetings in a very informal way and people, mostly young people, turned up in
crowds. Meetings attracted many hundreds at a time when other organisations
complained about the decreased engagement of young people. Attac Sweden was, and
remains, a network-like organisation governed by direct democracy. There is still no
main office, and nobody received pay checks for their work for many years. The
website and a cell phone, which was passed around in a small working group, were
used to coordinate the organisation. The organisation was, only six months after the
formal launching, active during demonstrations related to the top EU meeting in
Gothenburg in 2001. Attac attempted to organise dialogue between protesters and
politicians at the meeting and largely succeeded. Nevertheless, there were fights
between certain groups of protesters and the police. Although Attac was not involved
in this, they were nevertheless associated with the protests by some, and the
organisation experienced a crisis. Six months later, they had recovered to large extent,
and since then, activities have found a more ordinary level. Currently, a couple of
thousand members continue the work for global justice.
Two primary sets of innovative aspects unfold in the case of Attac Sweden. One is
related to the issues at stake. That is, the attack on the established economic order and
the suggestions for another world. The other aspect is related to the formation of not
only a new organisation but also a new type of organisation within the Swedish
organisational landscape. These two sets of innovative aspects have, in practice,
emerged in a close interplay during the entrepreneurial process and have since been
constantly renegotiated and reconstructed (Gawell, 2006).
Both these sets of innovative aspects are not unique to Attac Sweden. The issues at
stake are more or less shared with other organisations within the social movement for
global justice that also had a noticeable active phase at this time. Several of the actors
within this movement also shared similar ideas about organising action through
networks that promoted the principles of a direct democracy and using relatively open,
internet-based communication tools. Attac Sweden was one of the actors applying
these organisational principles, which many established organisations perceived as
new in practice. Therefore, Attac Sweden has been one of the forerunners that can, and
have, been used as models for other organisations.
Regarding the issues at stake, there are again different aspects of innovation being
elaborated on in this case. There is a protest against the state of the world. There is an
analysis that the established economic system is a part of the problem and an analysis
of issues within the economic system that is particularly problematic. Furthermore,
there are suggestions regarding can be done differently to at least contribute to the
overarching aim of another world.
Social entrepreneurship initiatives innovative challengers and adjustable
followers
The studied cases contribute to a rather diverse description of dynamic processes on
personal, organisational and societal levels. It is not possible to say that any of the

Social
entrepreneurship

213

SEJ
9,2

214

cases are totally innovative in a unique way. Indeed, it is hardly possible to say that any
single activity or form of organising activities is uniquely innovative for these specific
ventures. However, each case has its own combination and construction, which means
that they more or less clearly contribute to small changes and potentially to dynamic
changes in the organisational landscape and in society at large. Related to the initial
question, the analysis of these cases indicates that these initiatives are both innovative
challengers (in particular aspects) and adjustable followers, (in (several) different
aspects). The theoretical approaches, dynamics and entrepreneurship on the one hand
and institutions on the other hand are then interrelated rather than independent of each
other. This brings the how-question to the fore. In what way(s) can social
entrepreneurship initiatives act as innovative challengers or adjustable followers?
Through the analysis of these cases, the dynamic aspects related to organised
practices and the ventures roles in society appear relatively clearly. There is, however,
another aspect that is slightly less obvious. It is related to the subtle nature in which
people, society and life itself can be understood. In these cases, this is expressed
through the articulation of narratives. These three aspects will be further elaborated
next.
Constructing (new) organisational practices
Noticeable in all these cases, is the construction of a focus that is conceptualised as an
organisational mission after some time. However, it is far from clearly articulated
during early stages. The narratives (re)constructed in documents and in interviews tell
stories of affectionate concerns of an anomaly that is perceived as important and
necessary to act upon, and even act upon in a slightly different way than within
established structures. This perceived necessity is not causally related to either needs
or the availability of opportunities (Gawell, 2012). The perceived anomaly and
perceived necessity to act are, in these cases, forces that challenge established
structures. Fryshuset and the initiatives for long-term unemployed people respond to
what they perceive as young or unemployed peoples needs. In the case of Attac
Sweden, the people concerned refer to a perceived necessity to act to change the
world. The case of CRIS expresses a slightly different story in that it clearly refers to
helping oneself and helping others because former criminals themselves have
started, developed and operated the organisation since it was established. This
bottom-up approach is not unique to CRIS. Organisations for people with disabilities
have developed similar approaches over more than a century. However, examining
civil society organisations in general and/or indicative studies of entrepreneurial
initiatives, some initiatives stem from a bottom-up approach that is founded and driven
by the people that experience the problem addressed by the venture. Other initiatives
are launched by concerned fellow human beings such as social entrepreneurs, and they
are operated from neither a bottom-up nor a top-down approach but rather from the
side (Gawell et al., 2009).
In all the cases studied, sensitivity towards the people in focus combined with
competence and engagement are indicated as crucial success factors. The necessary
competences differ somewhat between the cases. However, all in all, references are
made to both the issues at stake and issues related to running an organisation.
Participation and influence are highlighted in all the studied cases. This is well
grounded in the common Swedish narrative of popular mass movements and in other

spheres of society and is thus an institutional aspect that these ventures accord with,
even if the forms for participation differ. In the case of Attac Sweden, an open direct
democratic approach has more or less been taken for granted from the start. In the
initiatives for the long-term unemployed, participation and influence on planning
everyday activities and participating in organisational governance is emphasised. The
aim is potential co-ownership. However, the increased policy interest does not raise
strong demands on participation. Public funding only demands participatory working
methods, and this has led to a lower degree of participation as co-owners.
In the case of Fryshuset, young peoples participation and influence are facilitated
through rather informal working methods. These were partly developed because of
conditions associated with the public funding. However, the organisation is run as a
non-profit foundation without formal influence from members/participants. CRIS is
run as a membership-based organisation in which former criminals and people with
prior drug addiction can be members and thereby have a vote. The members do,
however, admit that they need to open up some of their activities to non-members due
to conditions associated with the funding to be able to expand some of their services
such as developing half-way houses and outpatient care. The analysis of participation
indicates that the studied ventures have adjusted to the conditions laid down by the
funding bodies, even if they all argue that participation as such is of great importance.
The engagement in (new) ventures has been referred to as possibilities to focus,
develop methods and provide added value, such as person-to-person relationships
beyond professional duties. The latter argument is related to a more professional
relationship as public civil servants that have a more formal role as well as working
hours associated with the employment.
(Re)negotiating roles in society
All these cases emerged during a time when there was a renewed interest in the private
provision of social welfare services. All initiatives, except Attac Sweden, provide
services of some kind combined with advocacy. The initiatives for the long-term
unemployed are the clearest providers of welfare services at the same time as they also
have outspoken aspects of business activities (with reinvestments of profits).
The shift towards more public procurements and the funding through sales of
services rather than grant-based funding of activities affects all cases except Attac
Sweden, which, in general, has hardly any public funding. Some of the initiatives think
that this shift is positive and even promote it. They refer to a decreased dependency on
public grants. Others think that the shift is negative, and refer to decreased funding in
general, less dialogue in the developing services and more centralised public
decision-making arising from the need for public savings and procurement routines. In
both cases, there is a dependency on public means, either in the forms of grants or the
forms of procurements/sales and an adjustment to routines and specific conditions.
Less explicitly elaborated is the issue of responsibility related both to the public
responsibility towards all citizens and taxpayers on the one hand and to civil society
organisations and other private actors as service providers on the other hand. The
increased use of private service providers results in increased attention being placed on
the responsibilities of these organisations towards citizens in rather general terms as
well as an assessment of the legitimacy of these organisations as representatives for
the provision of public services. The roles for co-operation with, for example, public

Social
entrepreneurship

215

SEJ
9,2

216

officials such as social workers, employment officers or the police, works well in some
cases but is less developed in other cases.
Articulating stories that might even create new worlds
Beyond their practices and roles in society, the cases studied relate to aspects of how
people, organisations and systems of thought are understood and conceptualised. In
the case of Attac Sweden, it was a matter of articulating their arguments about the
state of the world, the role of the established economic system, and the possibility for
change. Their arguments gradually developed into a more coherent story that was
referred to at times as knowledge about the current globalisation process. When the
organisation was established, this knowledge was largely considered to be alternative
and peripheral in relation to the dominant economic discourse. Some of these
narratives have now, a decade later, become part of the public agenda and part of the
common knowledge on globalisation.
Additionally, in other studies, arguments are combined with narratives. Most
noticeable is the articulation of stories related to empowerment and the creation of
socialised youth, as well as working and constructively honest individuals in society.
In some cases, this is clearly related to citizenship. In other cases, it is instead related to
functional people in society.
The stories articulated throughout the organisational process become more or less
taken for granted. Ultimately, these stories can affect how people, organisations and
systems of thought are understood and can therefore be referred to as disclosive stories
(Gawell, 2006) or disclosive spaces or worlds (Spinosa et al., 1997). The stories thus
articulated can be seen as more or less innovative challenges but meet many competing
stories, some of which are expressions of solid, institutionalised environments. The
impact of innovative challenges can therefore generally be assumed to be sparse and/or
modest, and has to be empirically explored. Historically, however, some examples exist
in which (social) entrepreneurial initiatives have facilitated social, political and/or
spiritual aspects that affect societies.
Conclusions
To conclude, the innovative roles of social entrepreneurship should not be exaggerated.
The ability to develop and adjust is crucial. Social enterprises that are developed
through entrepreneurial processes can adopt different models and roles to a greater or
lesser extent. In line with Schumpeter, new combinations are then constructed. The
analysis of the Swedish cases mentioned here emphasises the construction of (new)
organisational practices, the (re)negotiation of roles in society and the subtle
articulation of stories that even might create new worlds as areas in which social
entrepreneurship relates to the intricate dynamic of social change or, more specifically,
to the interplay between innovative challenges and institutionalised inertia.
Furthermore, this study indicates that different social entrepreneurship initiatives
take different roles in different aspects of their action.
These ventures, regardless of whether they are referred to as civil society or social
economy organisations have been described in Sweden as having a complementary
role in a welfare system that has been dominated by the public sector during the
second half of the twentieth century (Tradgardh, 2007). Among the cases studied,
adopting this role was not the only concern. The ventures have also responded to their

currently emerging role as service providers within a welfare system that is

undergoing transformation. It demands a constant adjustment in time in relation to
historical and/or cultural contexts, local and/or global trends and, more specifically, to
the issues at stake and conditions imposed by the funding agencies.
Largely, the studied initiatives express adjustments to contextual conditions
including different types of occurrences and trends. However, in relation to core issues,
a more distinct and intense role can be distinguished. In these cases, this distinction is
the basis for a boundary or an innovative challenge that other tasks are reconfigured
around. Some of the studied cases exhibit subtle differences from other initiatives; for
example, the long-term unemployed are being integrated in different ways. In other
cases, the differentiation towards other initiatives is expressed in aggressive terms,
such as a non-fighting fight club (the case of Fryshuset) or as an attack on established
structures (Attac Sweden). Regardless of impact, the study indicates both innovative
challenging roles and roles as adjustable followers.
Examining the articulation of the issues as stake, these initiatives vary regarding
the extent to which they differ from established structures. Initiatives aiming to
integrate long-term unemployed, youth and also former criminals can all be comprised
within the established aims of an inclusive well-functioning society as well as an
accepted opinion that there ought to be programs or initiatives targeting excluded
groups to reach those aims. Furthermore, these arguments fit within the dominant
established ideas of a market-based welfare system. These initiatives therefore relate to
Kirzners (1973) approach to entrepreneurship, which sees entrepreneurs as alert
organisers within established structures. However, in the case of Attac, the
overarching established structure, more specifically the economic system
dominating the notion of development, is also challenged. This initiative therefore
illustrates not only dynamics within a given system, but a double challenge, both on a
micro/meso organisational level and a macro level that can be understood in this case
as an overarching discourse on the notion of development. This can be related to
Schumpeters (1934) argument of entrepreneurship as radical innovations that in
economic contexts even challenge equilibria.
This study sheds light on how civil society organisations (re)construct their roles
and thereby social entrepreneurships dynamic role in society. Traces of the
constructions of initiatives can be seen in ongoing activities, shifts in documents or
references and impact evaluations of various types. The latter are primarily
evaluations that focus on specific goal-attainment and/or organisational outcomes. It is
therefore difficult to draw conclusions regarding the impact of these initiatives on
institutional structures without a more extensive study at the institutional level,
including an analysis of causes and effects. However, ten years after the establishment
of Attac, their arguments can be seen in the current public debate, within political
agendas and among people within what is the current established economic system.

References
Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Sage Publications, London.
Amna, E. (1999), Civilsamhallet, Demokratiutredningens forskarvolym VIII, SOU 1999:84,
Statens offentliga utredningar, Stockholm.

Social
entrepreneurship

217

SEJ
9,2

Amna, E. (2005), Scenoppning, scenvridning, scenforandring, in Amna, E. (Ed.), Civilsamhallet.

Nagra forskningsfragor, Riksbankens Jubileumsfond i samarbete med Gidlunds forlag,
Stockholm.
Arthur, B. (1988), Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics, in Anderson, E. (Ed.), The
Economy as an Evolving Complete System, Addison-Wesley, Reading. MA.

218

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967), Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of

Knowledge, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Bjerke, B. (2005), Public entrepreneurship marginal made central, paper presented at the
Enterprise and Innovation Conference, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, Routledge, New York,
NY.
Borzaga, C., Galera, G. and Nogales, R. (2008), Social Enterprise: A New Model for Poverty
Reduction and Employment Generation, EMES/UNDP, Bratislava.
Clemens, E. and Cook, J. (1999), Institutionalism: explaining durability and change, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 25, pp. 441-446.
Czarniawska, B. (1998), A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage Publications, London.
David, P. (1985), Clio and the economics of QWERTY, Economic History, Vol. 75, pp. 227-332.
Dees, G. (2001), The meaning of social entrepreneurship, FEDF Partners, available at: www.
redf.org
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2008), Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and
developments, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 202-228.
Della Porta, D. (2007), The Global Justice Movement, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Friedland, R. and Alford, R. (1991), Bringing society back in: symbols, practices and
institutional contradictions, in DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W. (Eds), The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Garud, R., Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2007), Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded
agency, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 957-969.
Gawell, M. (2006), Activist Entrepreneurship.Attacing Norms and Articulating Disclosive Stories,
Stockholm University, Stockholm.
Gawell, M. (2008), Social engagement and entrepreneurial action. Soci(et)al entrepreneurship
and different forms of social enterprises in current Swedish debate, in EMES Conference
Selected Papers (ECSP).
Gawell, M. (2012), Social entrepreneurship: action grounded in needs, opportunities and/or
perceived necessities?, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 83 No. 1.
Gawell, M., Johannisson, B. and Lundqvist, M. (2009), Entrepreneurship in the Name of Society.
Readers Digest of a Swedish Research Anthology, KK-stiftelsen, Stockholm.
Hjorth, D., Johannisson, B. and Steyaert, C. (2003), Entrepreneurship as discourse and life style,
in Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (Eds), The Northern Lights. Organization Theory in
Scandinavia, Liber, Malmo.

Hvenmark, J. and Wijkstrom, F. (2004), The popular movement marinade. The dominant civil
society framework in Sweden, in Stockholm School of Economics/EFI Working Paper
Series in Business Administration No 2004:18.
Johannisson, B. (1990), Community entrepreneurship cases and conceptualization, Journal of
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Kirzner, I. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Langer, E. and Newman, H. (1979), The role of mindlessness in a typical social psychological
experiment, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 295-298.
Larsson, J. (2008), Folkhemmet och det europeiska huset. Svensk valfardsstat i omvandling,
Hjalmarsson & Hogberg forlag, Stockholm.
Mair, J., Robinsson, J. and Hockerts, K. (2006), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, Hampshire.
Nicholls, A. (2006), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Nicholls, A. (2010), The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a
pre-paradigmatic field, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1042-2587.
Palmas, K. (2012), Re-assessing Schumpeterian assumptions regarding entrepreneurship and
the social, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 141-155.
Perrini, F. (2006), The New Social Entrepreneurship. What Awaits Social Entrepreneurial
Ventures?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Pestoff, V. (1998), Beyond the Market and State: Social Enterprises and Civil Democracy in a
Welfare Society, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Pestoff, V. (2009), A Democratic Architecture for the Welfare State. Promoting Citizen
Participation, the Third Sector and Co-Production, Routledge, London.
Schoonhoven, K. and Romanelli, E. (2001), The Entrepreneurship Dynamic. The Origins of
Entrepreneurship and Its Role in Industry Evolution, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto,
CA.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Seo, M. and Creed, D. (2002), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Silverman, D. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction, Sage, London.
Spinosa, C., Flores, F. and Dreyfus, H. (1997), Disclosing New Worlds. Entrepreneurship,
Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Steyaert, C. (2004), The prosaics of entrepreneurship, in Hjorth, D. and Steyaert, C. (Eds),
Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D. (2004), New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D. (2006), Entrepreneurship as Social Change, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Styrjan, Y. (1996), Sweden: the emergence of work-integration social entreprises, in Borzaga, C.
and Defourny, J. (Eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, Routledge, New York, NY.
Stryjan, Y. (2006), The practice of social entrepreneurship: notes toward a resource-perspective,
in Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D. (Eds), Entrepreneurship as Social Change, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.

Social
entrepreneurship

219

SEJ
9,2

220

Stryker, R. (2000), Legitimacy processes as institutional politics: implications for theory and
research in the sociology of organizations, Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
Vol. 17, pp. 179-223.
Swedberg, R. (2000), Entrepreneurship. The Social Science View, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Swedberg, R. (2008), Schumpeter. Om skapande forstorelse och entreprenorskap, Nordstedts
akademiska forlag, Stockholm.
Thorn, H. (2002), Globaliseringens dimensioner. Nationalstat, varldssamhalle, demokrati och
sociala rorelser, Bokforlaget Atlas, Stockholm.
Tillvaxtverket (2012), Facts on Social Enterprises, available at: www.tillvaxtverket.se, www.
sofisam.se
Tragardh, L. (2007), State and Civil Society in Northern Europe: The Swedish Model
Reconsidered, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
Wijkstrom, F. and Zimmer, A. (2011), Nordic Civil Society at a Cross-Roads, Nomos,
Baden-Baden.
Corresponding author
Malin Gawell can be contacted at: Malin.Gawell@esbri.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.