Content uploaded by Johanna Mair
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johanna Mair on Jun 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight
Johanna Mair *, Ignasi Martı
´
IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Av. Pearson 21, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
Social entrepreneurship, as a practice and a field for scholarly investigation, provides a unique opportunity to challenge,
question, and rethink concepts and assumptions from different fields of management and business research. This article puts
forward a view of social entrepreneurship as a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way
that is not dominated by direct financial benefits for the entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms
of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and development versus capturing economic
value. To stimulate future research the authors introduce the concept of embeddedness as a nexus between theoretical perspectives
for the study of social entrepreneurship.
#2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Social entrepreneurship as a practice that integrates
economic and social value creation has a long heritage
and a global presence. The global efforts of Ashoka,
founded by Bill Drayton in 1980, to provide seed
funding for entrepreneurs with a social vision (http://
www.ashoka.org); the multiple activities of Grameen
Bank, established by Professor Muhammad Yunus in
1976 to eradicate poverty and empower women in
Bangladesh (http://www.grameen-info.org); or the use
of arts to develop community programs in Pittsburgh by
the Manchester Craftsmen’s Guild, founded by Bill
Strickland in 1968 (http://www.manchesterguild.org):
these are all contemporary manifestations of a
phenomenon that finds its historical precedents in,
among other things, the values of Victorian Liberalism.
While entrepreneurial phenomena aimed at eco-
nomic development have received a great amount of
scholarly attention, entrepreneurship as a process to
foster social progress has only recently attracted the
interest of researchers (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004;
Dees & Elias, 1998). Similar to entrepreneurship in its
early days as a field of scholarly endeavor, social
entrepreneurship research is still largely phenomenon-
driven. Existing most studies are typically based on
anecdotal evidence or case studies, applying diverse
research designs and methods and introducing insights
from other disciplines. Like entrepreneurship, which
even today lacks a unifying paradigm (Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000), the term ‘‘social entrepreneur-
ship’’ has taken on a variety of meanings (Dees,
1998).
The concept of social entrepreneurship is still poorly
defined and its boundaries to other fields of study
remain fuzzy. While to some this may appear to be a
problem, we see it as a unique opportunity for
researchers from different fields and disciplines, such
as entrepreneurship, sociology and organizational
www.socscinet.com/bam/jwb
Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–44
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 932534200; fax: +34 932534343.
E-mail addresses: jmair@iese.edu (J. Mair),
docimarti@iese.edu (I. Martı
´).
1090-9516/$ – see front matter #2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
theory, to challenge and rethink central concepts and
assumptions.
This article aims to unveil the core of social
entrepreneurship in order to guide future research.
Our basic premise is that if social entrepreneurship is to
become a structured field of research, an effort must be
made to clarify and define key concepts and constructs.
To this end, we draw on practical examples of social
entrepreneurship to identify and elaborate on the
essential components.
While the view of social entrepreneurship put
forward in this article is far from complete, we see it
as an important first step to enhance our theoretical
understanding of the phenomenon and facilitate future
research. We contend, with Weick (1995), that a good
theory explains, predicts, and delights. This article
represents an effort to stimulate research that goes
beyond descriptive studies to realize the promise of
social entrepreneurship as a source of explanation,
prediction, and delight.
The article is organized as follows. First, we examine
the meaning of the terms ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneur-
ship’’, which constitute the essence of the phenomenon.
We offer a working definition of social entrepreneurship
and elaborate on its distinctive characteristics. In a next
step, we portray social entrepreneurship as a fascinating
playground for different theories and literatures. In
particular, we build on sociology and organizational
theory and look at how structuration theory and theories
on institutional entrepreneurs, social capital and social
movements, may contribute to the understanding of
social entrepreneurship. We conclude with some
questions for future research that could define the
future of social entrepreneurship as an area of research.
2. On the concept of social entrepreneurship
The concept of social entrepreneurship means
different things to different people and researchers
(Dees, 1998). One group of researchers refers to social
entrepreneurship as not-for-profit initiatives in search
of alternative funding strategies, or management
schemes to create social value (Austin, Stevenson, &
Wei-Skiller, 2003;Boschee, 1998). A second group of
researchers understands it as the socially responsible
practice of commercial businesses engaged in cross-
sector partnerships (Sagawa & Segal, 2000;Waddock,
1988). And a third group views social entrepreneurship
as a means to alleviate social problems and catalyze
social transformation (Alvord et al., 2004).
It is important to note the conceptual differences
between definitions. Definitions of social entrepreneur-
ship typically refer to a process or behavior; definitions
of social entrepreneurs focus instead on the founder of
the initiative; and definitions of social enterprises refer
to the tangible outcome of social entrepreneurship.
Despite the large number of definitions, systematic
attempts to map initiatives and definitions are rare (see
Boschee (1995) and Waddock and Post (1995), for two
exceptions). While complementary definitions, each
focusing on different aspects of the phenomenon, are
not necessarily an impediment in the search for theory,
we still do not have a comprehensive picture of the
phenomenon and lack a clear understanding of how
social entrepreneurship should be studied.
This article sets out to elucidate the meaning of
social entrepreneurship in order to facilitate further
research. Building on established research in entrepre-
neurship and recent studies on social entrepreneurship,
we propose a working definition of the concept. We
view social entrepreneurship broadly, as a process
involving the innovative use and combination of
resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social
change and/or address social needs.
Definitions of entrepreneurial phenomena are hardly
able to capture the whole picture. The definition offered
in this article aims to reflect some of our basic
assumptions. First, we view social entrepreneurship as a
process of creating value by combining resources in
new ways. Second, these resource combinations are
intended primarily to explore and exploit opportunities
to create social value by stimulating social change or
meeting social needs. And third, when viewed as a
process, social entrepreneurship involves the offering of
services and products but can also refer to the creation
of new organizations. Importantly, social entrepreneur-
ship, as viewed in this article, can occur equally well in
a new organization or in an established organization,
where it may be labeled ‘‘social intrapreneurship’’. Like
intrapreneurship in the business sector, social intrapre-
neurship can refer to either new venture creation or
entrepreneurial process innovation. The organizational
context in which social entrepreneurship occurs, i.e.,
newly created or established organizations, sets it apart
from other more loosely structured initiatives aimed at
social change, such as activist movements.
In the next paragraphs, we will elaborate on the
definition put forward in this article by systematically
examining the two defining terms of the concept,
namely, ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘entrepreneurship’’. This
approach will allow us to capture the essence of social
entrepreneurship and explore potential differences
between social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship
in the business sector.
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–44 37
2.1. The social element in the definition
Possibly, the greatest challenge in understanding
social entrepreneurship lies in defining the boundaries
of what we mean by social. At first glance, social
entrepreneurship might be thought to differ from
entrepreneurship in the business sector in that the latter
is associated with the profit motive, whereas social
entrepreneurship is an expression of altruism. We argue
against such a dichotomous line of thinking for two
reasons. First, although social entrepreneurship is often
based on ethical motives and moral responsibility, the
motives for social entrepreneurship can also include less
altruistic reasons such as personal fulfillment. Second,
and more importantly, entrepreneurship in the business
sector also has a social aspect. As Venkataraman puts it,
‘‘entrepreneurship is particularly productive from a
social welfare perspective when, in the process of
pursuing selfish ends, entrepreneurs also enhance social
wealth by creating new markets, new industries, new
technology, new institutional forms, new jobs, and net
increases in real productivity’’ (1997: 133). While the
profit motive might be ‘‘a central engine’’ of
entrepreneurship, it does not preclude other motiva-
tions. Shane, Locke, and Collins (2003), for example,
demonstrate the importance of motivation to the study
of entrepreneurship.
What then is the distinctive social domain of social
entrepreneurship? Analysis of three successful cases of
social entrepreneurship around the globe—the Grameen
Bank in Bangladesh, the Aravind Eye Hospital in India
and Sekem in Egypt—reveals a common feature: all
three creatively combine resources—resources that
often they themselves do not possess—to address a
social problem and thereby alter existing social
structures. The Grameen Bank, founded by Professor
Muhammad Yunus in 1976, has changed the life of
millions. By bringing financial services to the poor,
particularly women, it helps them establish profitable
businesses to fight poverty (Yunus, 1999). Over the last
twenty years, the Aravind Eye Hospital, established in
1976 by Dr. Venkataswamy in India, has offered eye-
care services and cataract surgery to cure blindness at a
very small fraction of the cost of such services in the
developed world (http://www.aravind.com). Finally,
Sekem, created by Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish in 1977 as
a social venture, is today a multi-business. It not only
creates economic, social, and cultural value, but has also
had a significant impact on Egyptian society. It was
instrumental in reducing pesticide use in Egyptian
cotton fields by 90% and has created institutions such as
schools, a university, an adult education center, and a
medical center (Seelos & Mair, 2005a). In sum, these
examples show how social entrepreneurship catalyzes
social transformation by meeting social needs. Value
creation in all three cases embraces both social and
economic aspects. The main focus, however, is on social
value, while economic value creation is seen as a
necessary condition to ensure financial viability.
It is important to note that while the above examples
of social entrepreneurship in developing countries have
been deliberately chosen to illustrate the global
dimension of the phenomenon, social entrepreneurship
also occurs and has been studied in the developed world.
A large number of studies have actually centered on
community development in the United States, Canada
and the UK.
2.2. The entrepreneurial element in the definition
While early studies centered on the question of how
the personality or background of the entrepreneur
determines entrepreneurial behavior today it is widely
recognized that the focus of entrepreneurship research
should be the entrepreneurial process or behavior. An
increasing number of researchers are studying entre-
preneurial processes outside of the business sector and
the role of entrepreneurship in society. Finally, although
the field is still characterized by multiple paradigms, the
notion of opportunities has been widely accepted as a
defining element of entrepreneurship.
Research on social entrepreneurship has to some
extent replicated the empirical and theoretical evolution
of entrepreneurship. Researchers have focused on the
personality of the social entrepreneur, the particular
behavior or process involved, or the social opportunity
in order to emphasize its entrepreneurial nature and thus
differentiate it from other phenomena. A popular—
early—stream of research has focused on the person-
ality of the social entrepreneur. According to studies
following this approach, social entrepreneurs are
characterized by very special traits (Drayton, 2002),
special leadership skills (Thompson, Alvy, & Lees,
2000), a passion to realize their vision (Bornstein,
1998), and a strong ethical fiber (Drayton, 2002).
Despite the ongoing momentum of research aimed at
identifying distinctive entrepreneurial individual differ-
ences, we are skeptical whether this approach will
elucidate key differences between social entrepreneurs
and other actors. It has been repeatedly pointed out that
‘‘who the entrepreneur is’’ is not the right question to
ask (Gartner, 1988). Building on a behavioral tradition
in entrepreneurship, we argue that examining the set of
activities underlying social entrepreneurship as a
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–4438
process may be a more fruitful approach. A number of
researchers have emphasized the entrepreneurial process,
i.e., ‘‘how’’ entrepreneurs act, as a way of differentiating
between social initiatives and social ‘‘entrepreneurial’’
initiatives (Dees, 1998). Finally, a recent stream of
research has focused on the ‘‘social value creating’’
nature of the opportunities entrepreneurially discovered
and exploited, in order to distinguish social entrepreneur-
ship from other entrepreneurial phenomena (Guclu,
Dees, & Anderson, 2002).
2.3. Distinctive features of social entrepreneurship
A number of authors have emphasized the not-for-
profit nature of social entrepreneurial activities as a
distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship. We argue
that social entrepreneurship can take place equally well
on a for-profit basis. Our examination of various for-
profit and not-for-profit initiatives suggests that the
choice of set-up is typically dictated by the nature of the
social needs addressed, the amount of resources needed,
the scope for raising capital, and the ability to capture
economic value. The following examples illustrate
this pattern.
The Institute for One World Health (IOWH),
founded by Dr. Victoria Hale in 2000, is the world’s
first not-for-profit pharmaceutical company and devel-
ops drugs for neglected diseases (http://www.iowh.org).
It has challenged traditional assumptions within the
industry that seemed incompatible with providing
medicines to those most in need in developing
countries. It has redesigned the whole value chain of
drug development and delivery (Seelos & Mair, 2005b).
Not-for-profit status allowed IOWH to raise the
necessary capital to set up the operation and ensure
other critical resources such as compounds and expert
time. The specific business model that Dr. Hale has
chosen for IOWH and the particular (basic social) needs
IOWH targets clearly favor the adoption of a not-for-
profit operating scheme.
The business model that Muhammad Yunus devel-
oped for the Grameen Bank or that Dr. Abouleish chose
for Sekem, on the other hand, fits perfectly with a for-
profit scheme. Both the Grameen Bank and Sekem use
profits generated by their main activities to engage in
new social ventures: Grameen has launched ventures
such as Grameen Telecom or Grameen Energy, while
Sekem has launched several social ventures, including
a university and a hospital. In sum, whether social
entrepreneurs choose a not-for-profit or a for-profit
vehicle often depends on the particular business model
and the specific social needs addressed.
Rather than profit versus not-for-profit, we argue that
the main difference between entrepreneurship in the
business sector and social entrepreneurship lies in the
relative priority given to social wealth creation versus
economic wealth creation. In business entrepreneur-
ship, social wealth is a by-product of the economic
value created (Venkataraman, 1997); in social entre-
preneurship, the main focus is on social value creation.
However this does not mean that social entrepreneurial
initiatives should not embrace an ‘‘earned income’’
strategy, quite the opposite as the examples described
previously aptly demonstrate. For the Grameen Bank,
creating economic value is critical to ensure that it is
able to continue with its mission, namely to change the
life of the poorest of the poor by providing loans. The
same holds for the Aravind Eye Hospital (to continue
providing eye services and cataract surgery for the
poor), for Sekem (to continue building a better Egypt),
and for IOWH (to develop drugs to fight neglected
diseases in developing countries). In social entrepre-
neurship, social wealth creation is the primary
objective, while economic value creation, in the form
of earned income, is necessary to ensure the sustain-
ability of the initiative and financial self-sufficiency.
An additional distinctive feature of social entrepre-
neurship lies in the limited potential to capture the value
created. Social entrepreneurs who address basic social
needs, such as food, shelter or education, very often find
it difficult to capture economic value because, although
the ‘‘customers’’ are willing, often they are unable to
pay even a small part of the price of the products and
services provided (Seelos & Mair, 2005a).
Research on social entrepreneurship has clearly drawn
on and benefited from previous work on entrepreneur-
ship. Approaches and constructs stemming from research
on entrepreneurship in the business sector shaped the first
attempts to conceptualize social entrepreneurship. We
believe thatnow it is time to go one step further:the rise of
social entrepreneurship, both as a practice and as a
theoretical endeavor, provides a unique opportunity for
the field of entrepreneurship to challenge, question, and
rethink important concepts and assumptions in its effort
towards a unifying paradigm.
3. Perspectives for studying social
entrepreneurship
The variegated nature and multiple expressions of
social entrepreneurship make it a fascinating play-
ground for different perspectives and literatures. A
common feature of emergent fields of research is the
absence of clear theoretical boundaries and the need to
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–44 39
coalesce thinking from other disciplines. Undoubtedly,
this involves the risk that social entrepreneurship ‘‘may
never gain the consensus and legitimacy that academics
seek and may be viewed merely as a venue in which other
disciplinary perspectives may be tested’’ (Busenitz et al.,
2003). We believe, however, that knowledge on social
entrepreneurship can only be enhanced by the use of a
variety of theoretical lenses and a combination of
different research methods. Rather than providing an
exhaustive list of perspectives, we aver that social
entrepreneurship has different facets and varies accord-
ing to the socioeconomic and cultural environment.
Viewing social entrepreneurship as a process resulting
from the continuous interaction between social entre-
preneurs and the context in which they and their activities
are embedded, we bring together insights from sociology,
political science and organization theory to enrich our
theoretical understanding of the subject.
In a seminal article, Granovetter (1985) argued that
economic environments are embedded in social and
structural relationships that modify neoclassical pre-
dictions of atomistic economic behavior. We believe
that social entrepreneurship, like entrepreneurship in
the business sector, cannot be understood in a purely
economic sense but needs to be examined in light of the
social context, and the local environment. Thus, we see
the concept of embeddedness as the nexus between the
ideas and theoretical perspectives introduced in the
following sections: structuration theory, institutional
entrepreneurship, social capital, and social movements.
3.1. Structuration theory
The concept of embeddedness implies that it is
impossible to detach the agent (social entrepreneur)
from the structure (community, society, etc.). One of the
issues that has received most attention in recent decades
in sociological literature is the duality of agency and
structure, and the integration of the two (Bourdieu,
1977; Giddens, 1979, 1984).
The examples of the Aravind Eye Hospital in India or
Sekem in Egypt illustrate this duality of agency and
structure. While the context (structure) enabled Dr.
Venkataswamy and Dr. Abouleish (agents) to act, their
actions altered the socioeconomic context (structure). In
response to this apparent dichotomy and continuous
dynamism, Giddens’ (1979, 1984) structuration theory
is an attempt to articulate a process-oriented theory that
treats structure as both a product of and a constraint
upon human action. Giddens’ theory may help us to
better understand how social entrepreneurship comes
into being by directing our attention to a fundamental
unit of analysis: the interaction between the social
entrepreneur and the context. That interaction is crucial
to understanding the process of social entrepreneurship.
Thus, structuration theory provides a promising lens to
examine how the context enables and constrains the
appearance of social entrepreneurship and how social
change occurs.
3.2. Institutional entrepreneurship
DiMaggio (1988) introduced the notion of institu-
tional entrepreneurship as an attempt to explain how
institutions arise or change. Institutional entrepreneurs
are actors who have an interest in modifying institu-
tional structures or in creating new ones. They leverage
resources to create new institutions or transform
existing ones (Fligstein, 1997).
The foregoing examples of social entrepreneurship
also allow us to visualize how the activities of the
founders of Grameen Bank or Sekem catalyzed social
change by altering long-established institutions or
organizational fields. Indeed, social entrepreneurs’
ability to change norms (e.g., money cannot be loaned
without collateral, much less to the poor) may turn out
to be even more significant than the initial problems that
they set out to address. Accordingly, we argue that an
institutional entrepreneurship perspective is a promis-
ing way to understand the role of social entrepreneur-
ship in changing or giving birth to norms, institutions
and structure. Furthermore, it may be an interesting lens
through which to study the emergence of social
entrepreneurship; for example, by examining the
conflict between the values of social entrepreneurs
and their perceptions of reality or, in institutional
entrepreneurship terminology, between social entrepre-
neurs’ beliefs and their shared norms (i.e., institutions).
We also see potential for the social entrepreneurship
phenomenon to inform theory on institutional entrepre-
neurship. Neither DiMaggio’s (1988) nor Fligstein’s
(1997) theory of institutional entrepreneurship are
explicit about the paradox of embedded agency (Holm,
1995). Highly embedded actors may be conditioned by
the very institution and therefore not consider changing
existing rules. Embeddedness might reflect both an
enabling and a constraining condition at the same time.
Although it is easier for highly embedded social
entrepreneurs to ensure access to resources and win
legitimacy, less embedded actors are more likely to
engage in social ventures that challenge rules and norms,
as they are not ‘‘locked’’ into the existing structure.
Clearly, an answer as to whether such a paradox exists
and how to resolve it will require further research.
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–4440
3.3. Social capital
Social capital is broadly described by researchers as
actual and potential assets embedded in relationships
among individuals, communities, networks and socie-
ties (Burt, 1997;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Sociol-
ogists and organizational theorists have elaborated three
highly interrelated dimensions of social capital:
structural capital—the structure of the overall network
of relations (Burt, 1992); relational capital—the kind
and quality of an actor’s personal relations (Granovetter,
1992); and cognitive capital—the degree to which an
individual shares a common code and systems of
meaning within a community (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). The third, or cognitive, dimension also refers to
how normative and mimetic forces shape behavior, and
its implications are therefore consistent with our
previous discussion. In what follows we will elaborate
on how the first two dimensions may contribute to the
study of social entrepreneurship.
The structural dimension refers to the overall pattern
of connections between actors—that is, whom one
reaches (Burt, 1992). Various authors have emphasized
the importance of networks for social entrepreneurship.
Structural capital defines the potential or possibilities
that the social entrepreneur has to access information,
resources and support. It is important to understand the
structural dimension of social capital, how it can be
built, increased and, most importantly, maintained,
since it is one of the factors that will determine whether
and to what extent social entrepreneurs are able to solve
and alleviate social problems, and elevate them to the
public sphere.
The relational dimension of social capital focuses on
the quality of relationships, such as trust, respect and
friendliness. There is growing evidence that when trust
is built up between parties, they are more eager to
engage in cooperative activity, through which further
trust may be generated (Fukuyama, 1997). The
Grameen Bank’s credit delivery system is a good
example. Borrowers are organized into small homo-
geneous groups, sharing responsibility for loans granted
to other members of their group, and facilitating
solidarity, as well as participatory interaction. It is
important to understand how trust is created among the
different members of the group, but also how trust
between the members and the Grameen Bank is
sustained.
Although the literature on social capital mainly
emphasizes its positive consequences, social capital
may also involve risks and less desirable effects.
Previous research has identified four important negative
consequences: exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on
group members, restrictions on individual freedoms,
and downward leveling norms (Portes, 1998).
Consider the characteristic of the Grameen Bank
credit delivery system: it enhances solidarity. While
solidarity is generally thought to be positive, in some
circumstances it may backfire. Various authors have
emphasized the downside of overembeddedness. For
example, Gargiulo and Bernassi (1999) claimed that
strong solidarity with ingroup members may result in
overembeddedness, which reduces the flow of new ideas
into the group and can result in parochialism and inertia.
3.4. Social movements
Social movement researchers have focused their
efforts on four key issues: (1) political opportunities and
threats; (2) resource mobilizing structures and active
appropriation of sites for mobilization; (3) collective
action frames and identity formation; and (4) estab-
lished repertoires of contention and innovative collec-
tive action by challengers and their member opponents
(McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly, 2001).
Several insights from the social movements literature
have been applied to the study of social entrepreneurship.
Both social movements and social entrepreneurship are
concerned with social transformation. Efforts by scholars
working on social movements to understand the
motivation behind the desire to bring about social change
are highly relevant to the study of social entrepreneur-
ship. Similarly, knowledge on the different tactics used
by social movements—e.g., mobilization of people,
protest, negotiation, etc. (Andrews, 2001)—may be
useful for social entrepreneurship research and practice.
Finally, the social movements literature cautions
about evaluating initiatives exclusively in terms of
success or failure. Andrews stated that ‘‘success implies
the attainment of specific, widely shared goals, but the
goals of most social movements are contested by
participants and observers. Goals also change over the
course of a movement’’ (2001: 72). Applying these
insights to assess outcome or performance of social
entrepreneurship, one could argue that instead of
focusing on the success or failure of a program or
initiative, it would be better to start measuring degrees
of success or failure, always bearing in mind the
intended and unintended consequences of the initiative.
This would allow us to study whether and how learning
takes place in the process, and to find out how social
entrepreneurs detect and manage problems and errors
and, more importantly, whether they learn from those
failures and change their behavior accordingly.
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–44 41
To enhance our knowledge of social entrepreneur-
ship as a field of study and practice, it is necessary to
consider the properties and purpose of the system in
which social entrepreneurs are embedded, and also
clarify their role within the system. Our purpose in
this section has been to stress the importance of the
continuous interaction between social entrepreneurs
and the context in which they are embedded. This will
help us to understand and explain why and how social
change is possible.
4. Final remarks
The objective of this article has been to arouse
academic curiosity for social entrepreneurship. We
consider social entrepreneurship to be a particularly
exciting and fruitful research topic and it is our hope
that this article will bring us a step closer toward
legitimizing and inspiring social entrepreneurship as a
means to create social and economic value and as a field
of research.
The working definition of social entrepreneurship
put forward in this article is intended to facilitate a more
detailed examination of the main components of social
entrepreneurship, namely the social element and the
entrepreneurial element. We suggested that further
empirical and conceptual work is needed to establish a
comprehensive picture of social entrepreneurship.
Many of the issues we have brought up in this article
are typical of any emerging field of research: the need to
draw boundaries so as to delimit scope and clarify
whether it really is an independent field of research, and
the need to identify the different levels of analysis,
disciplines and literatures. To conclude, we will
elaborate on topics and issues we consider important
in order to advance our understanding of social
entrepreneurship: social entrepreneurship as an inde-
pendent field of research, assessing social performance
and impact, and clarifying the role of embeddedness.
Probably one the most controversial issues is
whether social entrepreneurship is an independent field
of research. Many studies on social entrepreneurship
have adopted concepts and terminology used in the
established entrepreneurship literature. Does this imply
that social entrepreneurship is a sub-category of
entrepreneurship, in which the social context provides
a new and unusual setting in which to study and test
entrepreneurial phenomena? In this article, we have
tried to identify the distinctive domain of social
entrepreneurship. We argued that social entrepreneur-
ship differs from other forms of entrepreneurship in that
it gives higher priority to social value creation—by
catalyzing social change and/or catering to social
needs—than to value capture. We believe that social
entrepreneurship deserves considerable attention as a
field of research. It has enormous potential to inform
and enhance the field of entrepreneurship, as it provides
an excellent opportunity to challenge and rethink
central concepts and assumptions.
Assessing social performance and impact is one of
the greatest challenges for practitioners and researchers
in social entrepreneurship. The real problem may not be
the measurement per se, but how the measures may be
used to ‘‘quantify’’ the performance and impact of
social entrepreneurship. Many consider it very difficult,
if not impossible, to quantify socio-economic, environ-
mental and social effects. As Emerson pointed out, ‘‘for
many of those active in the social sector, it has been
taken as a virtual given that most elements of social
value stand beyond measurement and quantification’’
(2003: 40). Yet it is necessary to make major efforts in
this direction and to develop useful and meaningful
measures that capture the impact of social entrepreneur-
ship and reflect the objectives pursued. Clearly, more
research and managerial practice is needed in order to
establish social impact as an essential dimension of
performance assessment.
We have repeatedly emphasized that social entrepre-
neurship takes on multiple forms, depending on socio-
economic and cultural circumstances. Put differently, we
pointed to the importance of the concept of embedded-
ness to the study of social entrepreneurship. A promising
area of research lies in examining the enabling and/or
constraining effects of embeddedness. A high level of
embeddedness may inhibit the emergence of initiatives
aimed at social change—particularly when those
initiatives involve changing the rules of the game. This
poses an interesting additional question: assuming that
social entrepreneurship involves various stages, e.g., an
intention formation stage, a start-up stage, a growth stage,
a consolidation stage, etc., how does embeddedness
affect social entrepreneurship at each of these various
stages? One could argue that embeddedness has a
positive effect on the ability of entrepreneurs to access
and ensure critical resources and is therefore important
during the start-up, development, or scaling out stage. On
the other hand, it may have a negative effect during the
intention formation stage, i.e., the phase when the
entrepreneur decides whether or not to take on the
challenge.
It is important to note that, given the early stage of
the field, a wide variety of research questions requires
further attention. Social entrepreneurship provides a
fascinating playground for research drawing from
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–4442
different perspectives and literatures. We conclude with
a list of questions that provides only a snapshot of
important issues. If context and embeddedness is so
important, to what extent is it possible to transfer
practices and scale out initiatives across geographic and
community borders? Are some forms of organizing for
social entrepreneurship better suited to address specific
needs than others? How does social entrepreneurship
differ in developed and developing countries? Can we
observe geographical clusters with higher levels of
social entrepreneurial activity, e.g., India and Bangla-
desh, or Brazil and Ecuador? If so, what explains the
emergence of such clusters? Are there isomorphic
forces within and across clusters? What institutional
factors explain the emergence of social entrepreneur-
ship and what theoretical lenses may help us understand
those factors? What is the link between social entre-
preneurship and sustainable development, and how
can social entrepreneurship contribute to sustainable
development?
It is our hope that the answers to these questions, and
the further questions and answers to which they give
rise, will help to consolidate social entrepreneurship as
a fertile source of explanation, prediction and delight.
References
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepre-
neurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Beha-
vioral Science, 40(3): 260–282.
Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social movements and policy implementation:
The Mississippi civil rights movements and the war on poverty,
1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66(1): 71–95.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2003). Social entrepre-
neurship and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or
both? (Working paper series no. 04-029). Harvard Business
School.
Bornstein, D. (1998). Changing the world on a shoestring. Atlantic
Monthly, 281(1): 34–39.
Boschee, J. (1995). Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3):
20–25.
Boschee, J. (1998). Merging mission and money: A board member’s
guide to social entrepreneurship.http://www.socialent.org/pdfs/
MergingMission.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2004.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 339–365.
Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., III, Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler,
G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in
emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Manage-
ment, 29(3): 285–308.
Dees, G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship.http://
www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf.
Accessed on October 30, 2004.
Dees, J. G., & Elias, J. (1998). The challenges of combining social and
commercial enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1): 165–178.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In
L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations:
Culture and environment (pp. 3–22). Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.
Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial
and competitive as business. California Management Review,
44(3): 120–132.
Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social
and financialreturns. California Management Review, 45(4): 35–51.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American
Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397–405.
Fukuyama, F. (1997). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of
prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Gargiulo, M., & Bernassi, M. (1999). The dark side of social capital.
In R. Leenders, & S. M. Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital
and liability (pp. 298–322). Boston: Kluwer.
Gartner, W. (1988). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question.
American Journal of Small Business, 12(4): 11–32.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The
problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3):
481–510.
Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic
sociology. In N. Nohria, & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and
organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25–26). Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Guclu, A., Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2002). The process of social
entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pur-
suit. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship:
Duke—The Fuqua School of Business.
Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation
processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 40(3): 398–422.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital,
and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 23(2): 242–266.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in
modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1): 1–24.
Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good:
Creating value through business and social sector partnership.
California Management Review, 42(2): 105–122.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005a). Entrepreneurs in service of the poor—
Models for business contributions to sustainable development.
Business Horizons, 48(3): 241–246.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005b). Sustainable development, sustainable
profit. European Business Forum, 20: 49–53.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial
motivation. Human resource management review, 13(2): 257–279.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneur-
ship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1):
217–226.
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Less, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship: A
new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision,
38(5): 328–338.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship
research. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entre-
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–44 43
preneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Waddock, S. A. (1988). Building successful partnerships. Sloan
Management Review, 29(4): 17–23.
Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1995). Catalytic alliances for social
problem solving. Human Relations, 48(8): 951–972.
Weick, K. (1995). Definition of theory. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), Black-
well dictionary of organizational behavior (pp. 565–567). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Yunus, M. (1999). Banker to the poor: Microlending and the battle
against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs.
Web pages quoted
http://www.aravind.com
http://www.ashoka.org
http://www.grameen-info.org
http://www.iowh.org
http://www.manchesterguild.org
J. Mair, I. Martı
´/ Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 36–4444
