The world of the social entrepreneur

Author(s):
John L. Thompson (Huddersfield University Business School, Huddersfield, UK)

Acknowledgements:

The author acknowledges a contribution from Dr W.K. Bolton to the “issues”

section in this paper

Abstract:

The term “social entrepreneurship” is being adopted and used more

extensively, but its meaning is not widely understood. In particular, the scope
of social entrepreneurship in both business and the voluntary sector has not
been mapped effectively. This paper seeks to do this. It begins by defining
social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship. Then, using projects
considered for a charter award under the Duke of York’s Community
Initiative, it looks at what social entrepreneurs do and achieve for the
community, at the wide scope of their world, and at the help that is available
and needed. The paper includes two case studies of successful social
entrepreneurs as a means of drawing out a number of important issues and
lessons. It provides a new map for understanding the complexity and the
many facets of the world of the social entrepreneur and the voluntary sector.
It questions whether the UK government’s stated desire for an “explosive act”
of volunteering can happen without more substantial support, and concludes
that whilst the growth of this sector is urgent and vital, a number of hurdles
remain to be overcome.

Keywords:
Entrepreneurialism, Voluntary organizations, Leadership

Type:
Conceptual paperCase study

Publisher:
MCB UP Ltd

Copyright:
© MCB UP Limited 2002
Published by MCB UP Ltd

Citation:
John L. Thompson, (2002) "The world of the social entrepreneur", International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 5, pp.412-
431, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550210435746
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A
CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT
Abstract This paper undertakes an analytical, critical and synthetic examination of “social
entrepreneurship” in its common use, considering both the “social” and the “entrepreneurship” elements
in the concept. On both points there is a range of use, with significant differences marked out by such
things as the prominence of social goals and what are thought of as the salient features of
entrepreneurship. The paper concludes with the proposal of a suitably flexible explication of the concept:
social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or persons (1) aim either exclusively or in some
prominent way to create social value of some kind, and pursue that goal through some combination of (2)
recognizing and exploiting opportunities to create this value, (3) employing innovation, (4) tolerating risk
and (5) declining to accept limitations in available resources.
 Social entrepreneurship: the need,
relevance, facets and constraints
 Tanvi GandhiEmail authorView ORCID ID profile and
 Rishav Raina

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research20188:9

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-018-0094-6
© The Author(s). 2018

 Received: 22 April 2017

 Accepted: 5 March 2018
 Published: 13 April 2018
Abstract
Social entrepreneurship is gradually becoming a crucial element in the worldwide
discussion on volunteerism and civic commitment. It interleaves the passion of a
common cause with industrial ethics and is notable and different from the present other
types of entrepreneurship models due to its quest for mission associated influence. The
previous few years have noticed a striking and surprising progress in the field of social
entrepreneurship and has amplified attention ranging throughout all the diverse sectors.
The critical difference between social and traditional entrepreneurship can be seen in
the founding mission of the venture and the market impressions. Social entrepreneurs
emphasize on ways to relieve or eradicate societal pressures and produce progressive
externalities or public properties. This study focuses mainly on the meaning of social
entrepreneurship to different genres and where does it stand in respect to other forms of
entrepreneurship in today’s times.
The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship
Posted: 4 Nov 2009

Albert Shapero
affiliation not provided to SSRN

Lisa Sokol
affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: 1982

Abstract
Conventional ways of viewing the social aspects of entrepreneurship are considered
unsatisfactory; hence, this emphasis is recast in terms of the "entrepreneurial event." The
entrepreneurial event is shaped by groupings of social variables (such as ethnic groups) and the
social and cultural environment. The entrepreneurial event is denoted by initiative-taking,
consolidation of resources, management, relative autonomy, and risk-taking. The proposed
paradigm attempts to include all versions of the entrepreneurial event and all variables
(situational, social, and individual) identified with the event. The paradigm will answer two basic
questions: what brought about the life-changing event? and why this particular event? Negative
information, events, or displacements often lead to entrepreneurial events. The particular action
taken depends upon (1) perceptions of desirability (values), and (2) perceptions of feasibility.
The utility of the paradigm lies in its application to questions of policy, historical examples, and
future research. (TNM)

Keywords: Startups, Background (biographical), Entrepreneurial environment, Entrepreneurial

orientation, Social factors, Cultural models

Suggested Citation:
Shapero, Albert and Sokol, Lisa, The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship (1982). Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship, Vol. , p. 72-90 1982. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1497759
Pre-Paradigmatic Status of Social
Entrepreneurship Research: A Systematic
Literature Review
Article in Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 4(2) · February 2013 with 74 Reads
DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2013.777360

Abstract
Social entrepreneurship research has been presented in literature as a field of action in a pre- paradigmatic state, a
field that lacks an established epistemology. Despite that impediment, several qualitative and quantitative studies
have already been undertaken on the sole base of some institutions’ worldview and without previous solidification of
theory. Consequently, critics and social constructivists have found much ambivalence in these and owing to the
resulting mess, even question social entrepreneurship’s legitimization as a distinctive item of research. Articles on the
topic of social entrepreneurship make use of a variety of frameworks, borrowing from neo-institutional or dialectic
theory, bringing with them different research methods and views from other disciplines. Instead of proposing another
conceptual approach and yet contributing to the ongoing discussion, the authors enact on a deductive journey by
examining and clustering underlying paradigmatic assumptions found in a large-scale sample (>300) of current
articles. In comparison to results from management (entrepreneurship) literature, the study finds statistical evidence
to the hypotheses that SE differs in researchers’ paradigms, that seminal SE research transcends the foci on either
detached structures or individuals, and that research in SE is often led by advocacy worldviews of the researchers
themselves.