SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THE

CASE OF THE EAGLEHAWK RECYCLE SHOP

Jessie Harman
This paper provides a detailed analysis of a case of social entrepreneurship widely
recognised in Australia as successful. It seeks to answer the question: What are the
factors associated with successful social entrepreneurship? Using Austin, et. als
(2006) Framework for Social Entrepreneurship, the author suggests a number of
factors in the key areas of: opportunity, people, financial resources, economic and
institutional factors, organisational factors and social value. The paper concludes
with a discussion of the implications for practitioners, policy makers and researchers
of social entrepreneurship.

ocial entrepreneurship is not a new phenomenon in Australia. It

has always been possible to identify examples of nonprofit
organisations which have used entrepreneurial strategies to
achieve particular social purposes. However, whilst it may not be new
there is some, albeit limited, evidence that the incidence of social
entrepreneurship in Australia is increasing (Barraket, 2006). Driven
by a changing landscape - one that is increasingly characterised by
market-driven approaches (Field, 2001; Ryan, 1999) and/or pressing
social need - it would seem that more nonprofit organisations are
adopting entrepreneurial approaches and strategies.
There is also some evidence that policy makers in Australia are
becoming increasingly interested in social entrepreneurship. In the past
two years, the Victorian Government, for example, has provided funds
to a small number of nonprofit organisations and communities to
establish social enterprises (Lane, 2006). It is likely that the policy
environment, in several Australian states at least, will continue to
advance the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship.
As an area of academic interest, social entrepreneurship is still
emerging (Mosher-Williams, 2006) and there is much that remains to
be understood about the phenomena. In particular, the factors or
considerations which are critical to successful social entrepreneurship
are not well known. The amount of research into social entrepreneurship
in Australia is particularly limited.
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)
2008 by Institute for International Management and Technology. All Rights Reserved.

202 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

This paper aims to develop our understanding of social
entrepreneurship, specifically the factors which underpin its success,
using a case of social entrepreneurship widely recognised as successful
in Australia. It seeks to answer the key question: what are the factors
associated with the success of this particular case of social
entrepreneurship? In addressing this issue, the author also seeks to
respond to a common criticism that much social entrepreneurship
research lacks a systematic and theoretical approach. To this end the
author uses Austin, et.als (2006) analytical Framework for Social
Entrepreneurship to guide the research process.
The paper begins with a brief overview of social entrepreneurship.
The author discusses several perspectives on social entrepreneurship,
provides a working definition of the concept, and describes the research
framework which guides the analysis. She goes on to describe the
research method, identifying the case of social entrepreneurship and
justifying its selection. In the body of the paper the author explores
common themes in the research to identify and describe those factors
which appear to be related to successful social entrepreneurship. She
concludes the paper by providing some insights about value of the
research framework used in the research and some implications for
social entrepreneurship policy, research and practice.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
To research the factors associated with successful social
entrepreneurship it is firstly necessary to define social entrepreneurship.
There is no one, commonly agreed definition of social entrepreneurship
and the term is used variously in different contexts and by different
individuals.
One way of making sense of the various definitions of social
entrepreneurship is to group them according to their scope. Broad
definitions typically describe social entrepreneurship as innovative
activity with a social purpose which may occur in either the for-profit,
government or the nonprofit sectors (Dees, 1998). These definitions of
social entrepreneurship include social-purpose commercial ventures,
corporate social entrepreneurship and nonprofit organisations which
adopt commercial tools and knowledge. Narrow definitions, on the
other hand, tend to limit the focus of social entrepreneurship to
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

203 Harman
entrepreneurial activity in the nonprofit sector (Dart, 2004;
Thompson, 2002).
Another way of approaching definitions of social
entrepreneurship is to focus on innovation as the source of value
(Alvord, et.al., 2002; Schumpeter, 1951). Some definitions of social
entrepreneurship focus on combining commercial enterprises with
social impacts. Social entrepreneurs apply business skills and
knowledge (through trading) to generate resources which may then
be used to achieve social purposes (Emerson and Twersky, 1996).
Other definitions of social entrepreneurship emphasise innovation
to achieve social impact. Social entrepreneurs use innovative
approaches to solve intractable social problems; they may pay little
heed to economic viability using conventional commercial criteria
(Dees, 1998). Others still view social entrepreneurship as a means
of initiating large-scale social transformation, well beyond the scope
of the initial social problem (Alvord, et.al., 2002; Ashoka
Foundation, 2000).
Despite their differences, these definitions do share a number
of common features. Firstly, they focus on the creation of social
value, rather than shareholder value or personal value (Austin, et.al.,
2006). The key driver of social entrepreneurship relates, at least
initially, to solving a particular social problem or set of problems.
Secondly, the definitions encompass innovation (Dart, 2004; Alvord,
et.al., 2002) either in the process by which social value is created,
and/or or in the outcome of that process.
For the purposes of the paper, the author does not intend to
engage in a debate about the relative merits of various definitions
of social entrepreneurship. Rather, she adopts a definition which
satisfactorily encompasses both common aspects of social value
and innovation. The definition is broad and thus does not limit social
entrepreneurship to occurring in a type of organisation or sector. In
keeping with the research framework adopted in this study, the
author adopts the definition of social entrepreneurship expounded
by Austin, et.al. (2006). Social entrepreneurship then is innovative,
social value creating activity that can occur within or across the
nonprofit, business or government sectors (Austin, et.al. (2006).
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

204 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
One of the common criticisms of the social entrepreneurship
research, particularly research about the factors associated with
its success, is that it lacks a systematic and theoretical focus. In
an effort to avoid this criticism, the author adopts Austin, et.al.
(2006) analytical Framework for Social Entrepreneurship to guide
the research process and to provide the lens through which the
factors associated with social entrepreneurship can be viewed.
According to this framework, there are five components of
social entrepreneurship. These are: opportunity, human resources,
financial resources, contextual factors and the social value
proposition. These components are overlapping and interrelated,
with social value the central consideration.
O p p o r t u n i t y, a c c o r d i n g t o A u s t i n , et.al. ( 2 0 0 6 ) , i s t h e
initiating point for social entrepreneurship (p. 16). It represents
the vision of a future desired state, different from the present,
and the belief that this state can be achieved via a particular and
credible path of change. One of the challenges for social
entrepreneurship is ensuring that all parties share a common
understanding of the nature of this opportunity (Austin, et.al.,
2006).
Human resources and capital resources are the enabling
variables for social entrepreneurship. Like their commercial
counterparts, social entrepreneurs must understand the industry
in which they are planning to attract resources and start their
venture. Given the multiplicity of stakeholders commonly
involved in social enterprises, and the restricted and typically
short term nature of funding sources, this skill in dealing with
individuals needs, is especially important (Austin, et.al., 2006).
The context includes all those factors which are outside the
control of management, yet have an effect on the nature and
outcome of the opportunity. They shape the opportunities
available to the entrepreneur (Austin, et.al., 2006 p. 11).
Managing and adapting to these contextual factors, and indeed,
identifying which contextual factors are relevant, are critical
considerations for social entrepreneurs.
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

205 Harman
The social value proposition, according to Austin, et.al. (2006), is
the integrating driver of the framework (p.16). It represents the
substance of the bargain between the entrepreneurial venture and all
its resource providers. The case of social entrepreneurship is primarily
about creating social value, or impact for society. To deliver on this
social value proposition, the social entrepreneur must ensure that all
other components of social entrepreneurship opportunity, human
and capital resources and the context are in a state of alignment.
The next section of the report provides a brief description of the
methodology used in the study.
METHODOLOGY
This study provides an analysis of a particular case of social
entrepreneurship in Australia.
The study is inductive rather than deductive, designed to identify
the factors associated with successful social entrepreneurship. Given
the exploratory nature of the research, a case study approach is
considered most useful. The complexity of the phenomena provides
additional support for this approach. Case descriptions yield rich
information and enable identification and assessment of unexpected
patterns, which other methodologies may not reveal (Yin, 1984). The
cost of this is the increased difficulty associated with making
unambiguous conclusions.
The author has chosen this particular case of social entrepreneurship
because it is one widely recognised as successful. The Eaglehawk
Recycle Shop (ERS) has been profiled in several reputable books and
magazines, including several recent editions of Business Review
Weekly. Most recently, it has been featured as an example of a
successful social enterprise in a publication prepared by the Foundation
for Young Australians. In 2005, Peter Cox, the founder and driving
force behind the Eaglehawk Recycle Shop, was named Australian Social
Entrepreneur of the Year by Social Ventures Australia. Whilst
acknowledging the debate about what constitutes success when
discussing social enterprises, ERS meets most, if not all, of the
commonly cited criteria: it has operated for a lengthy period (indeed,
more than a decade), it has grown (both in terms of revenue and number
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

206 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

of employees) during that time, and it can demonstrate significant social
impact (Social Ventures Australia, 2006).
The author has used a mix of methods to generate information for
the study. She conducted in-depth interviews with key organisation
members, namely the Chair of the Board of Management and the CEO
of Future Employment Opportunities (the nonprofit organisation which
created ERS) as well as the manager responsible for the day to day
operations of ERS. She interviewed the Acting Chief Executive Officer
of Social Ventures Australia, a venture philanthropy organisation which
has worked closely with the organisation during the past two years.
She consulted published and unpublished articles and reports, as well
as archival material in the form of annual reports, performance reports
and other relevant organisational documents and records.
The author has focused the research on identifying common themes
relating to the factors associated with success of the Eaglehawk Recycle
Shop. Consistent with the research framework adopted, the author has
sought to identify factors related to the key analytical areas of
opportunity, people, financial resources, context and social value. She
has also sought to identify other factors which are important, but which
may fall outside the analytical model.
The next section provides a brief description of ERS by way of
background to the case. More detailed information about the social
enterprise is provided in the analysis of particular factors in later sections
of the study.
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
The Eaglehawk Recycle Shop (ERS) is a community recycling
enterprise located at the Eaglehawk Landfill (or tip) in Eaglehawk,
Central Victoria.
Created in 1994, ERS is an offshoot of Future Employment
Opportunities (FEO), a community based nonprofit organisation
providing job seekers and others in Central and Northern Victoria with
training, employment placement services and enterprise activities.
ERS business proposition is relatively simple; workers sort through
the domestic waste delivered by householders to the municipal tip.
They retrieve goods and other materials which can be recycled and reused, and then on-sell these to individuals and businesses. Most of the
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

207 Harman
salvaged goods and materials are sold from a shop at the landfill site;
metals are sold on contract to scrap metal dealers.
The scope of the operation has increased somewhat since its
inception. In addition to salvaging and selling goods and materials, the
business now tags electrical items and de-gases refrigeration units. It
has also increased its geographic reach, and now has management
contracts and scavenger rights for three neighbouring sites also operated
by the City of Greater Bendigo Council. In 2006, ERS recycles almost
4,000 tonnes of waste, and has an annual income of more than
AUD$400,000 (Future Employment Opportunities, 2006).
Since its inception, ERS has operated as a Division of FEO. The
City of Greater Bendigo Council, which manages and operates the
Eaglehawk site, is an important partner and stakeholder for ERS.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP FACTORS ASSOCIATED
WITH SUCCESS
In this section the author identifies and describes key themes relating
to the factors associated with this case of successful social
entrepreneurship. Those themes are organised around the analytical
areas identified in the Social Entrepreneurship Framework. Themes
are clearly identified in bold print.
The Opportunity
In the case of the ERS, the initial opportunity identified by Cox in
1993 was to establish a community recycling enterprise which would
create employment for long term unemployed local jobseekers in the
municipality at a time when insufficient jobs were available. Equally
importantly, the venture would extend the life of the Eaglehawk
municipal tip (which had limited capacity) by reducing the amount of
waste to landfill. Cox could see that the opportunity would deliver
benefits to individual job seekers (who would gain employment), to
the local government council (which could defer the decision and costs
associated with finding a new landfill site) to the community (who
would have access to cheap second hand goods and materials), to
government (who would reap the taxation benefits from the additional
jobs created) and to the environment (through increased recycling).
The enterprise, if successful, would also enhance the profile of FEO in
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

208 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

the community, and bring much needed (and unrestricted) income into
the organisation. However, Cox could also see that success of the
enterprise required the active support (and inputs) of these key
stakeholder groups.
One of the key factors associated with the success of ERS is that
key stakeholders have a common understanding of the nature of the
opportunity. Cox, together with members of FEOs Board of
Management and key staff, have invested considerable time and energy
with key stakeholders, particularly at the outset of the enterprise,
articulating the opportunity, describing the enterprise and ensuring
stakeholders support.
Another factor associated with ERSs success seems to be that Future
Employment Opportunities (FEO) is perceived to be a credible
organisation to operate the social enterprise. The organisation is well
regarded within its community for its work with jobseekers, particularly
long term unemployed jobseekers. The organisation has been operating
in the Eaglehawk community for more than 25 years, and for much of
that time, its focus has been on assisting long term unemployed job
seekers who face multiple barriers into employment, training and
enterprise. At the same time, the organisation is known for having an
entrepreneurial orientation. The majority Board of Management
members are business people, and the organisation has established
and operates several other social enterprises, one (an Enterprise Park)
which pre-dates ERS.
FEO limited risk at the outset by trialling the enterprise for a 6
month period. Cox negotiated with Council and with the local office of
the (then) Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and
Training (DEET) to trial the enterprise for a six month period in 1994.
The support from DEET was particularly significant; they agreed to
fund FEO to conduct a 360 hour Recovery and Sales Yard course at
the landfill site for the (then) unemployed jobseekers during the six
month trial period. They also permitted these individuals to continue
to receive their fortnightly unemployment benefits during that period
while the enterprises viability was being assessed.
The enterprise has experienced steady and managed growth. In
the period between 1994 and 2006 growth has been steady: staff
numbers have increased from 5 full-time staff to fourteen (nine full
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

209 Harman
time and five part-time), the amount of domestic waste materials recycled
annually has increased to almost 4,000 tonnes of waste in 2005/2006
and this has been mirrored in an increase in annual income to more
than $400,000 AUD in 2006 (Boston Consulting Group, 2006). This
growth has been resourced from within the enterprise.
The organisation is currently planning for its next stage of growth,
and is negotiating with the local Council for a licence to handle industrial
waste. Cox is also working with Social Ventures Australia to document
the community recycling enterprise model and he plans to share that
model to other communities keen to embrace the initiative. Growth in
the enterprise has been planned and managed, and the organisation
has been able to avoid issues related to unplanned growth.
Human Resources
The social entrepreneur has the capacity to work across many diverse
constituencies. From the outset, Cox has demonstrated his capacity to
work with multiple, often diverse stakeholders. He has a rich network
of government, business and community contacts in the area and is
involved in a number of local committees and initiatives. His personal
philosophy of never do anything alone has underpinned his approach
to ERS, and has been particularly important in terms of mobilising
financial and other inputs to the enterprise. This capacity to work across
stakeholders would appear to be akin to Alvord, et.als (2002) notion
of bridging capacity.
Related to this, Cox has also demonstrated his capacity to
understand the perspectives and concerns of those stakeholders whose
support is critical for the initiative (akin to Austin, et.als (2006) political
and relationship management skills). Coxs reputation for fairness and
trust may be a significant contributor to this capacity to build and then
maintain strategic partnerships.
The social entrepreneur has a long term commitment to the initiative.
Cox has maintained his leadership of, and commitment to, ERS for
thirteen years. This commitment has been instrumental in enabling the
enterprise to address many of the challenges associated with its
operation. Some of the most significant internal challenges have related
to managing employees with typically low levels of education and
other personal issues often associated with long term, even generational,
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

210 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

unemployment. Significant external challenges have related to
maintaining relationships with key stakeholders (especially Council).
Coxs commitment has also seen him invest considerable resources
into recruiting and developing the manager of the enterprise (who has
been in place since start-up) and supporting the enterprise to broaden
its scope of activities where appropriate. In the past two years, Cox has
been working with Social Ventures Australia on strategies to scale-up
the initiative by supporting other communities to adopt the community
recycling model. This long term commitment (which manifests itself
in Coxs ability to overcome hurdles and pursue strategies to strengthen
the future of the enterprise) is consistent with Alvord, et.als (2002)
notion of adaptive capacity.
Cox demonstrates a heightened sense of accountability for the
outcomes. From the initial stages of the enterprise Cox has been
concerned about monitoring, measuring and reporting performance of
the enterprise. Whilst the measurement systems themselves are relatively
simple, they are nonetheless in place, clear and effective. All employees
in the enterprise are responsible for recording sales and cash receipts
on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, and performance is discussed
by all employees at the regular weekly staff meeting. Those results are
reported back to Cox, and by Cox in turn to FEOs Board of
Management. In recent years, Cox has endeavoured to more accurately
capture and communicate the overall business and social value of the
enterprise. SVAs Social Return on Investment (SROI) tool has provided
Cox with an effective means of both capturing and communicating
that value to various stakeholders.
There are others in the organisation, beyond the social entrepreneur,
whose skills and knowledge are critical to successful social
entrepreneurship. While much research on social entrepreneurship has
focused on the role of the social entrepreneur, there are clearly others
closely associated with the success of ERS. They include, most notably,
the former Chair of the Board of Management, Leon Scott, a wellknown local businessman and entrepreneur, Rotarian and former Mayor
of the local Council. His knowledge of the workings of business, and
his network of contacts, seem to have been instrumental in the success
of the enterprise. At the same time, the day to day manager of ERS,
Peter Buck, has been an important contributor its success. Peter came
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

211 Harman
to the enterprise in 1994 with a background in the building and
demolition industry and experience in managing people in that
industry. His knowledge of materials, and his capacity to supervise
and work with employees of the ERS, has been valuable.
Key people within the enterprise are resourceful; able to mobilise
assets and other resources within the community. An important
aspect of ERS success has related to the resourcefulness of key
people associated with the enterprise. Cox and others have been
able to bring key assets and resources into the enterprise, quite often
at little or no direct cost to its operation. Council provides the
scavenging licence and other arrangements at the landfill site as an
in-kind contribution; in the enterprises first six months of operation
workers contributed their labour whilst still technically unemployed.
More recently, SVA have provided pro-bono mentoring and business
advice to support Cox to scale up the enterprises social impact.
This resourcefulness is also captured in a particular view of
assets, which emphasises their potential, rather than their actual
value. Coxs capacity to see the potential value of the municipal tip
is one example of this. His and others willingness to restore and
use cast-off items of machinery and equipment are also examples.
This resourcefulness reflects the opportunistic spirit and nature of
the enterprise and, on a practical level, has served to reduce its
costs.
Financial Resources
Enterprise is financially self-sustaining. ERS has funded almost all
of its direct and indirect operating costs over its twelve and a half
year life directly out of sales. Approximately eighty percent of ERS
expenditure goes to wages with the remaining twenty percent used
to cover purchase of materials and equipment, overheads and other
expenses. All profits from operations are reinvested in the enterprise.
Whilst this arrangement may have constrained the enterprises
growth somewhat, it has enabled the organisation to avoid risks
associated with an undue reliance on external funding sources, and
an ongoing preoccupation with sourcing external funds.
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

212 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

From time to time ERS has successfully accessed small amounts of
funding from a diverse range of partners. Given the manner in which
the enterprise was started, limited start up capital was required. The
Federal Government contributed some initial funds up-front and
continues to provide wage subsidies when jobseekers gain employment
in the enterprise. On several occasions ERS has secured small grants
from various organisations to purchase specific items, such as canopies
to protect the goods for sale, a tip truck and front-end loader. These
funds, secured through competitive selection processes, have provided
several benefits for ERS: they have enabled the enterprise to purchase
particular one-off items and served to increase its range of partners.
Context
Contextual forces have been instrumental in creating the entrepreneurial
opportunity. In particular, economic and institutional factors at start-up
gave impetus to the enterprise. Perversely, it was adverse contextual
conditions in the early 1990s which were significant. With unemployment
rates in Eaglehawk above 20% there were insufficient jobs for those
who wanted to work and levels of community concern about the impacts
of unemployment were high. Consequently there was significant demand
for, and interest in, potential solutions to the unemployment problem.
Cox and key members of his Board were able to present ERS as a
sustainable way of creating new jobs in the municipality.
Support from government partners was also important. High
unemployment in the early 1990s meant that government was funding
a range of initiatives to support unemployed job seekers. Against that
backdrop, local personnel from the (then) Federal Department of
Employment, Education and Training (DEET) had some flexibility in
the way they allocated public monies. They contributed funds to FEO
to conduct a 360 hour Recovery and Sales Yard for workers (which
enabled FEO to employ Buck to deliver that training during the six
month trial) and they gave permission for job seekers to work in the
business for that period while still in receipt of unemployment benefits.
Social Value Proposition
The deal is relatively simple. The nature of the deal between the partners
is relatively straightforward. Whilst there is a formal, written agreement
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

213 Harman
between the key partners (FEO and local government), the relationship
between the partners emphasises trust, rather than the legal ties
(Sahlman, 1996). That is not to say the relationship is without tensions;
however the level of trust or goodwill which exists between the key
partners has seen them address and overcome challenges in the
relationship.
The enterprise is generating value for all key partners. The venture
has produced significant and measurable outcomes (value) for all its
key partners during its life. ERS is credited with extending the life of
the Eaglehawk landfill, saving the local government authority many
tens of thousands of dollars per year in waste disposal costs (Boston
Consulting Group, 2006). It has generated savings to government and
the taxpayer, conservatively estimated to be around $14,000AUD per
year for each new position created - $4,000AUD from new taxes and
$10,000 through no longer paying unemployment benefits (SVA,
2006). It has provided meaningful work and training to people who
were previously unemployed. By reducing environmental impacts, it
has also generated important benefits for the environment (Boston
Consulting Group, 2006). Finally, it has built the credibility of FEO
within and beyond its local community by demonstrating that the
organisation is innovative, efficient and achievement oriented. The
creation of this social value has remained the primary focus of the
enterprise.
Finding appropriate ways to communicate this value to different
stakeholders has been important for ERS. In 2006, Cox applied SVAs
Social Return on Investment (SROI) measurement tool to calculate both
the business value and social value of ERS. This tool has helped Cox
to quantify and communicate the value more effectively.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
In addition to the factors already identified, there are a number of others
which emerged through the research process. These additional factors
do not fit quite so comfortably within the research framework adopted
by the author, and appear to relate to dynamic organisational
characteristics. These additional factors are: participative and democratic
decision making processes and the level of organisational support for
the enterprise.
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

214 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

Decision making processes within the enterprise are participative
and democratic. From the outset all workers within the enterprise have
been actively involved in planning and operating the business. Workers
have regular weekly meetings to plan, discuss and provide feedback
on performance and other issues related to the enterprise. These
meetings are also used for training, which is generally provided on
the job. This approach to managing the business has been instrumental
in promoting teamwork and developing high levels of ownership
amongst the workers.
There is a strong level of organisational support for the enterprise.
ERS operates as a division of the FEO, the founding organisation, and
there are no plans to separate it from the founding entity. FEO continues
to make a significant investment in the enterprise in terms of providing
organisational support for the enterprise, especially in areas of strategic
and financial management. This arrangement also benefits FEO, which
derives reputational benefits from the successful enterprise.
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE
This exploratory analysis identifies a number of factors associated with
successful social entrepreneurship using the Australian case of the
Eaglehawk Recycle Shop. At the same time, the paper also explores
the utility of Austin, et.als (2006) Framework for Social
Entrepreneurship in guiding the research process.
The research prompts a number of observations. Firstly, the Framework
for Social Entrepreneurship adopted by the author seems to be an
appropriate lens through which to view social entrepreneurship and the
factors which are related to its success. In the case of ERS, it is definitely
useful to organise and analyse those factors around variables relating to
the opportunity, the people and financial resources, the context and the
social value proposition. However, there are also other factors which do
not sit so quite so comfortably within the framework, suggesting that some
adaptation may be useful. In particular, it may be useful to include a variable
relating to organisational factors, such as the extent of support which exists
between the social enterprise and its founding organisation.
Secondly, although exploratory, the research provides some
potential insights and guidance, both for policy makers and
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

215 Harman
practitioners, around the key factors which may be associated with
successful entrepreneurship. From the case of ERS, these are:
(1) in terms of the opportunity that key stakeholders share a common
understanding of its nature and view the founding body as a credible
organisation to operate the enterprise. Growth should be planned
and managed;
(2) in terms of people- the social entrepreneur demonstrates the capacity
to work across, and understand and manage, the interests of diverse
constituencies. He or she should also possess a long term
commitment to the initiative and a heightened sense of accountability
for its outcomes. In addition to the social entrepreneur, there will be
others in the enterprise whose skills, experience and resourcefulness
will be closely associated with its success;
(3) in terms of financial resources, the enterprise should be financially
self-sustaining;
(4) key elements of the context, especially economic and institutional
factors, will shape the opportunity, and
(5) the deal creates social value for all key stakeholders
At the same time, the author provides a note of caution. The research is
exploratory, and concentrates on one particular case of social
entrepreneurship in Australia. As such, it raises as many questions it
answers, not the least of which is whether factors associated with the
success of ERS are similar to those for other cases of successful social
entrepreneurship in Australia. That is a topic for future and more
extensive research.
REFERENCES
Alvord, S., Brown, D. and Letts, C. (2002) Social entrepreneurship and social transformation:
An exploratory study, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, working paper no.
15.
Ashoka Innovators for the Public (online) (2002) Selecting leading social entrepreneurs,
(Cited December 2006). Available from <http://www.ashoka.org>.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different or both?, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30:1, 1-22.
Barraket, J. (online) (2006) Community and social enterprise: What role for government?,
(cited November 2006). Available from <www.dvc.vic.gov.au>.
Boston Consulting Group (online) (2006) Community Recycling Ventures: Driving improved
environmental sustainability and employment opportunities, Draft Report, (Cited
September 2006) Available from <www.employment-bendigo.com>.
Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

216 Successful Social Entrepreneurship

Dart, R. (2004) The legitimacy of social enterprise, Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
14:4, 411-424.
Dees, J.G. (1998) Enterprising nonprofits, Harvard Business Review, 76:1, 54-66.
Emerson, J. and Twersky, F (Eds.) (1996) New Social Entrepreneurs: The Success, Challenge
and Lessons of Non-profit Enterprise Creation, San Francisco, Roberts Foundation,
Homeless Economic Development Fund.
Field, C. (online) (2001) How social entrepreneurs can make a difference, Available from
<http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/pubs/workshops/11_2001/sen_field.pdf>.
Future Employment Opportunities Inc. (2006) Our vision: Work for All, Annual Report 20052006.
Lane, C. (online) (2006) Community enterprise and community strengthening, (cited December
2006). Available from <www.dvc.vic.gov.au>.
Mosher-Williams, R. (2006) Much more to do: Issues for further research on social
entrepreneurship, in Mosher-Williams, R. (Ed.), Research on Social Entrepreneurship:
Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field, ARNOVA Occasional Paper
Series 1:3.
Ryan, W. (1999) The new landscape for nonprofits, Harvard Business Review, 77:1, 127136.
Sahlman, W.A. ( 1996) Some thoughts on business plans, In W.A. Sahlman, H. Stevenson,
M.J. Roberts, & A.V. Bhide ( Eds), The Entrepreneurial Venture, Boston, Harvard
Business School Press, pp. 138 176.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1951) Essays: On Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles and the
Evolution of Capitalism, in Richard V. (ed.) Clemence, Cambridge, Addison-Wesley.
Social Ventures (2006) Australia Out there: Investing in Social Change, Annual Report
2005-2006.
Thompson, J. (2002) The world of the social entrepreneur, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 15:5, 412-431.
Yin, R. (1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverley Hills, CA, Sage
Publications.

Jessie Harman is Lecturer in Marketing, School of Business, University

of Ballarat, Australia.

Journal of Services Research, Special Issue (February, 2008)

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