Content uploaded by Julia Freudenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julia Freudenberg on Dec 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The creation of the English-language version of these publications is Þ nanced in
the framework of contract No. 607/P-DUN/2018 by the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education committed to activities aimed at the promotion of education.
* Julia Freudenberg – PhD Candidate, Leuphana University.
** Jantje Halberstadt – Leuphana University.
Correspondence address: Leuphana University, Berthold-Schwarz-Str. 4, 22147 Hamburg; e-mail: julia.
freudenberg@gmx.de.
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania, vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2: 40 –60
ISSN 1644-9584, © Wydziaï ZarzÈdzania UW
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
How to Integrate Refugees Into the Workforce
– Different Opportunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
Submitted: 23.08.17 | Accepted: 07.02.18
Julia Freudenberg*, Jantje Halberstadt**
The literature on the role of (social) entrepreneurship for the vocational integration of refugees is scare.
Drawing on examples of successful (social) enterprises, this paper aims to address this gap by proposing
a typology of refugee and refugee-related (social) entrepreneurship, using Germany as main example.
It aims to provide a framework for future research on these kinds of entrepreneurship by identifying
three types of entrepreneurship for refugees and two by refugees, namely social intrapreneurship,
intermediary concepts and job creation for refugees as well as refugee entrepreneurship and refugee
social entrepreneurship by refugees.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship, refugees, vocational integration, work, framework, entrepreneurship
by refugees, entrepreneurship for refugees, intrapreneurship.
Jak wïÈczyÊ uchoděców do siïy roboczej
– róĝne moĝliwoĂci przedsiÚbiorczoĂci (spoïecznej)
Nadesïany: 23.08.17 | Zaakceptowany do druku: 07.02.18
W literaturze istnieje niewiele opracowañ dotyczÈcych roli przedsiÚbiorczoĂci (spoïecznej) w integracji
zawodowej uchoděców. Celem artykuïu jest – przy wykorzystaniu przykïadów pomyĂlnie dziaïajÈcych
przedsiÚbiorstw (spoïecznych) – uzupeïnienie tej luki propozycjÈ typologii dziaïalnoĂci przedsiÚbiorczej
prowadzonej przez uchoděców oraz przedsiÚbiorczoĂci (spoïecznej) zwiÈzanej z uchoděcami, gïównie
na przykïadzie Niemiec. Celem jest okreĂlenie ram przyszïych badañ tych rodzajów przedsiÚbiorczoĂci
poprzez identyfikacjÚ trzech typów dziaïalnoĂci przedsiÚbiorczej podejmowanej na rzecz uchoděców
ibdwóch typów takiej dziaïalnoĂci podejmowanej przez uchoděców, a mianowicie: intraprzedsiÚbiorczoĂci
spoïecznej, pojÚÊ poĂrednich i tworzenia miejsc pracy dla uchoděców oraz przedsiÚbiorczoĂci uchoděców
i spoïecznej dziaïalnoĂci przedsiÚbiorczej prowadzonej przez uchoděców.
Sïowa kluczowe: przedsiÚbiorczoĂÊ spoïeczna, uchoděcy, integracja zawodowa, praca, ramy, przedsiÚ-
biorczoĂÊ uchoděców, przedsiÚbiorczoĂÊ na rzecz uchoděców, intraprzedsiÚbiorczoĂÊ.
JEL: L31
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
41
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
1. Introduction
In 2016, the forced displacement of more than 65.6 million individuals
globally reached the highest numbers on record, even exceeding the previ-
ous record in 2014 and 2015(UNHCR, 2015a, 2016, 2017). As described
by Charnoff (2015), “Globally, conflict and violent persecution have dis-
placed more people than at any time since World War II”. In coun-
tries such as Turkey, “[…] the largest refugee-hosting country worldwide
[…]” (UNHCR, 2015b) or the Lebanon, which has the largest number
of refugees in relation to its national population (232 refugees per 1,000
inhabitants; UNHCR, 2015a), these developments have already led to
major humanitarian crises.
Thus, one of the major challenges, today and in the future, will be
to integrate refugees. Since the successful integration into workforce has
abpositive impact on long-term societal integration (Ager and Strang,
2008; Phillimore and Goodson, 2006), there is a great need and potential
for research on how to foster this and overcome challenges like missing
language skills or difficulties with the expected qualifications. However,
this is challenging in different ways. Even though current figures are
still not available, it appears that the qualifications of refugees do not
match or meet required standards (Brücker, Hauptmann and Vallizadeh,
2015). Furthermore, even if certificates or diplomas are available, these
documents are not necessarily officially recognized in host countries to
the full or to some extent (Chiswick and Miller, 2007; Dietz et al., 2015;
Mirbach and Triebl, 2010; OECD, 2006). Therefore, innovative and sus-
tainable concepts are needed that can be used to integrate refugees into
the workforce.
For this reason, we draw attention to entrepreneurial activity that can,
we argue, offer many opportunities for both entrepreneurs and refugees,
and these could be exploited with social or more traditional approaches to
entrepreneurship. As we see a huge gap between the ad hoc awareness in
science and practice, we followed the research question: What are relevant
(social) entrepreneurial concepts to foster the vocational integration of refu-
gees? To identify and categorize these concepts, we conducted a literature
review and, since studies on social entrepreneurship by and for refugees are
scarce, added successful cases of matching entrepreneurial activity. Based
on the results, we carve out different perspectives on the topic and propose
a research framework for further classification and better understanding on
how entrepreneurial activities play a critical role for refugee integration. As
all these activities are context-specific, as the refugees’ situation and their
options are bound to a large extent to the country’s context, we decided
to focus on the situation in Germany, but also consider further important
examples from abroad.
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
42
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
2. Important Parameters for Refugee Integration
Before addressing the complex challenge of how to integrate refugees in
the workforce, we first need to clarify our understanding of the term refu-
gee, as this definition has profound implications for (social) entrepreneurial
activities, for example with regard to legal status. As the situation with and
about refugees is rather complex, the definition of the term “refugee” is
important. In a next step, the importance of work for integration and the
need for (social) entrepreneurial activities will be discussed.
2.1. Definition of “Refugees” and Integrational Influence of Work
The Geneva Convention defines refugees as individuals who had to leave
the country of their nationality due to a “well-founded fear of being perse-
cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion” (UNHCR, 19 54). Even though there is
a debate on this definition in general and its narrow scope in particular
(Robinson, 2012), the mandate provided by UNHCR had to be interpreted
more broadly and extended significantly over the past twenty years (Betts,
Lo escher and Milner, 2012; Milner, 2014). As Glynn (2012) explains, “refu-
gees in the twentieth century often comprised people escaping persecution,
wars and humanitarian disasters”. In everyday discussions and in the media,
the term refugee is often used interchangeably with words such as asylum
seeker, or migrant, but there are crucial differences. Joly et al. (1992) even
define five types of refugees in Europe. When it comes to refugees, many
host countries distinguish between first asylum seekers (sought protection
as refugee, but claim not yet assessed) and then “recognized refugees,”
a distinction that has major implications concerning the legal status of
abperson. In contrast to refugees, migrants are often defined as people
who “choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or
death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases
for education, family reunion, or other reasons” (UNHCR, no date). The
question, however, whether or not it is possible to categorically differenti-
ate between refugees and migrants only based on the distinction between
voluntary or forced migration is highly controversial (Seukwa, 2014). Often,
“refugees are treated as just a part of the immigrant population without
stating anything about them separately” (Wauters and Lambrecht, 2006).
While there are some factors, challenges, and difficulties that are
shared by both refugees and migrants, it is important, as numerous schol-
ars have argued (Bernard, 1977; Bo llinger and Hagstrom, 2004; Cortes,
2004; Gitelman, 1978; Gold, 1992; Rose, 1985; Wauters and Lambrecht,
2006) to consider the differences when conducting research on refugees.
Both target groups differ in terms of their demographic, family-related,
social, occupational, and economic characteristics. For example, refugees
often cannot rely on a social network, whereas migrants usually can. As
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
43
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
they had to escape from their country of origin, refugees usually have no
or only little access to their former resources. They normally will not only
have no assets or certificates, but they are also less likely be familiar with
the language spoken in the host country, in part because they often do not
even know which country they will be able to reach. Not all refugees are
suited for paid work, as some may be traumatized or lack the occupational
skills needed in their host countries. All of these factors have abmajor
impact on the lives of refugees and can severely limit opportunities for
integration and participation.
Many refugees have already arrived and more are projected to come;
for this reason, their integration has been at the center of public discussion
in general and debates on policy in particular (Ager and Strang, 2008).
Although there is no generally accepted model, definition, or theory for the
integration of refugees (Castles et al., 2002), a helpful conceptual framework
has been proposed by Ager and Strang (2008), which addresses what they
describe as the ten core domains of integration. The first one is employ-
ment. The identification of vocational integration, which many researchers
regard as the probably most important factor for social integration, affects
many areas of life such as gaining economic value and independence, estab-
lishing contacts, receiving social recognition, improving language skills, or
boosting self-esteem (Ager and Strang, 2008; Bloch, 1999; Coussey, 2000;
Deakins, Ram and Smallbone, 2003; Juretzka, 2014; Kontos, 2003a; Philli-
more and Goodson, 2006; Tomlinson and Egan, 2002; Van den Tillaart,
2007). Asylum seekers and refugees coming to the EU and to Germany
possess know-how, talents, skills, and (working) experience that need to be
recognized, developed, and promoted (EQUAL, 2007). It is important to
no te here that the persons most “capable of acting” are the ones who were
the first to arrive in Europe (Hieronymus, 2014). Some of them have been
regarded as highly skilled human resources (Fong et al., 2007; Klingholz,
Reiner, Sievert and Stephan, 2014). Thus, integrating refugees could be
seen as an integral part of securing enough skilled labor. Their potential
is increasingly acknowledged by German society and those of other host
countries (Juretzka, 2014). It therefore makes sense to support the integra-
tion of refugees into the labor market because it not only helps refugees,
but also is beneficial to the economy a nd so ciety as a whole.
2.2. The Need for (Social) Entrepreneurial Activity
Several strategies have been used to improve the vocational integration of
refugees. The involvement of the state, churches and religious organizations,
and the non-profit sector has increased in recent years, especially with the
additional funding provided by the European Social Fund (ESF). Since the
resources available are, however, neither sufficient nor adequate to address
the needs of refugees, new solutions must be found to address the situation
beyond what is known as a “care and maintenance” approach (Chanoff,
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
44
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
2015). Social entrepren eurial activity can be crucial in this respect because
it may help to develop and implement required innovative approaches, e.g.
through the foundation of market-oriented social enterprises for disabled
people as suggested by Gidron (2014). Social entrepreneurship has been
described as delivering visionary and creative new (business) models that can
solve social problems by discovering and exploiting opportunities to create
sustainable social value (Bornstein, 2004; Mair and Marti, 2004; Zahra et
al., 2009). Although some authors seek to move beyond definitional debates
concerning social entrepreneurship (Grimes et al., 2013), there is still no
common definition (Zaefarian, Tasavori and Ghauri, 2015; see Bacq and
Janssen, 2011, Brouard and Larivet, 2009, Dacin, Dacin and Matear, 2010
and Nandan and Scott, 2013, providing lists of up to 37 different defini-
tions). Many researchers agree, however, that social entrepreneurship is
“the process of employing market-based methods to solve social problems”
(Grimes et al., 2013) and that social entrepreneurial activity “[…] combines
the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline,
innovation, and determination […]” (Dees, 1998, p. 1). As Wulleman and
Hudson (2016, p. 183) state: “Social enterpris es can be for-profit, NPOs,
hybrids, in the private or public sectors, but have to achieve a social goal.”
Agrawal and Gugnani (2014, p. 439) add that in social entrepreneurship
“higher priority is given to promoting social value” than “capturing eco-
nomic value.” These activities often specifically address needy or minority
groups (Kidd and McKenzie, 2014; Wang and Altinay, 2012). According to
the Schwab Foundation, social entrepreneurship aims to “[apply] practical,
innovative and sustainable approaches to benefit society in general, with an
emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor” (Schwab Foundation,
no date). Frank (2006, p. 234) found non-profit entrepreneurs to “operate
under a different incentive structure that for-profit entrepreneurs.” Martin
and Osberg (2007) stated that “[t]he social entrepreneur’s value proposition
targets an underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged population that
lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve the transformative
benefit on its own.” This particularly applies to refugees, a “particularly
vulnerable population” (Harris, Minniss and Somerset, 2014, p. 9202), and
several successful companies have already been founded to address this gap.
Even though the combination of social entrepreneurship and the integra-
tion of refugees into the labor market seem to be a promising approach,
research on these issues is scarce. A systematic review of successful examples,
academic research, and the reports issued by organizations working with
refugees showed that there are only very few peer-reviewed studies.
2.3. Analyzing Relevant Literature and Practical Cases
In order to get an overview of existing research and empirically based
insights on using entrepreneurial activities as well as practical examples to
improve the current environment for fostering refugees’ opportunities within
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
45
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
the labor market, we started to conduct a systematic literature review. We
used a four-step search process based on keywords as presented in the
following figure. The keyword combinations consist of different expres-
sions used for refugees and entrepreneurial term components. Since our
research focuses on bringing together refugees and companies, we also
included terms for intrapreneurial activities as intrapreneurship describes
entrepreneurship within existing organizations (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001,
2003). After searching for articles and examples covering the determined
combination or key terms, we checked them for fitting into our topic and
removed those dealing with other questions, but using the same term com-
binations. For the remaining articles, we reviewed the cited literature and
exemplary cases in the relevant fields. For these results, we repeated step
two and checked them again for matching our topic et cetera.
Identification or articles via keyword combinations, e.g.
Control for fit into our main topic
(entrepreneurial activities focusing
on refugees and work)
Include article/example in list
Review of cited articles
examples in relevant areas
Exclude article/
example from list
Allocate article/
example to field
• Refugee*
• Asylum Seek*
• (Im)migrant*
• Ethnic minorit*
• (Social) entrepr*
• (Social) ventur*
• Social business*
• Self-employ*
• (Social) intrapr*
1.
&
2.
3.
match
no match
4.
Fig. 1. Systematic literature review process. Source: Own illustration, compiled by the authors.
This search process conducted within (scientific) literature databases
and searching engines delivered a broad variety of interesting examples of
entrepreneurial activities in the respective field. Unfortunately, we found
far fewer research articles than expected. Even though we initially got quite
a lot of hits, for several reasons most of them did not fit when having
abcloser look at them: a considerable amount of literature dealt with the
so-called refugee effect, not dealing with refugees themselves, but describ-
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
46
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
ing the phenomenon of people choosing being an entrepreneur because of
lacking alternatives, for example as a response to unemployment or poor
future employment opportunities (Oladele, Akeke and Oladunjoye, 2011;
Thurik et al., 2007).
Other “mismatches” can be traced back on the applied terms. All terms,
particularly migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities, are used often and by
many, but there is no clear differentiation – sometimes they are used inter-
changeably, some authors make differences. Often, “refugees are treated as
just a part of the immigrant population without stating anything about them
separately” (Wauters and Lambrecht, 2006, p. 510). Indeed, as shown above,
there are some factors, challenges and difficulties, which are similar for
migrants and refugees. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to do separate
research as both target groups differ in basic parts of their demographic,
family-related, social, occupational and economic characteristics (Bernard,
1977; Bollinger and Hagstrom, 2004; Cortes, 2004; Gitelman, 1978; Gold,
1992; Rose, 1985; Wauters and Lambrecht, 2006).
The review process of practical entrepreneurial activities in the field of
vocational integration of refugees was conducted comparably, but through
public search engines as Google, as well as our existing networks in both
the “third sector” and the refugee networks. We compared and analyzed
the identified examples with regard to their approach towards refugees
and their concrete action taking: What does the (social) entrepreneur or
the initiative do? Are they approaching refugees or migrants? Do they
support refugees in finding existing jobs, creating jobs or starting to be
self-employed? Who founded the initiative, a local or a refugee? Who are
their employees?
Based on both, the systematic literature review and the review process
of entrepreneurial activities, we found different perspectives on (social)
entrepreneurship, which will be discussed as follows.
3. Different Perspectives on (Social) Entrepreneurship
and Refugees
3.1. Types of Refugee Focused Entrepreneurship
When it comes to refugee entrepreneurship, different types of entre-
preneurial activity can be observed. Considering practical examples and
research on related fields (such as migrant entrepreneurship), two different
types of entrepreneurial activity are discerned: entrepreneurship for and
entrepreneurship by refugees. In the following, we will focus on these two
types and identify subtypes. In both cases, entrepreneurial activity can reduce
refugees’ dependency on aid and foster their ability to promote absustain-
able integration into the workforce and society in general (Rigeterink and
Rogers, 2000). This activity can be a response to a wide range of social
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
47
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
issues, and the new ventures can have very different organizational forms or
structures, since social entrepreneurship can take the form of, for example,
non-profit organizations in the public sector as businesses following a social
mission (Roper and Cheney, 2005).
3.1.1. Entrepreneurial activity for refugees
Existing companies’ internal concepts (social intrapreneurship)
In this survey, only a few examples of intrapreneurial efforts involving
refugees have been identified. The authors argue, however, that there is
considerable potential for future activities in this area. According to Bode
and Santos (2013), social intrapreneurs respond to perceived shortcomings
in society and utilize the resources of the firm to provide market-based
solutions to address them. Spitzeck (2010) provided a similar definition:
“Social intraprene urs create innovations which are both socially and finan-
cially beneficial by leveraging the resources and capabilities of their organi-
zations.” Grayson et al. (2014) similarly defined social intrapreneurs as “[…]
people within a large c orporation who take direct initiative for innovations
that address social or environmental challenges while also creating com-
mercial value.” Intrapreneurial activity can begin in companies or other
organizations and could, as it will be shown below, have a social impact
by fostering refugee employment.
There are a few examples that indicate that intrapreneurial approaches
can be effective. For instance, the Toronto Region Immigrant Employ-
ment Council (TRIEC) already applies innovative solutions to immigrant
employment and considers entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial approaches
(TRIEC, 2015). Chipotle, primarily known for selling food, established
abfoundation supporting refugees in different ways (Cipotle, 2015). Schmitz
and Scheuerle (2012) examined three German Christian non-profit orga-
nizations operating in the field of social integration and social services.
One of these worked with refugees. The paper stressed the potential of
social intrapreneurship and provided a research agenda, but it also noted
that most of the studies on social entrepreneurship do not consider intra-
preneurship. More specifically, Schmitz and Scheuerle (2012) described
intrapreneurship as an “[…] almost neglected perspective in the discourse
on social entrepreneurship.” It is emphasized that intrapreneurial activities
could increase refugee employment.
Intermediary concepts (social entrepreneurship)
Some other activities observed during the research project aimed to
integrate refugees into the labor market, for example, by bringing together
refugees and companies or offering training. Since these activities are meant
to mediate between refugees and potential employers, they are called inter-
mediary concepts, which can be primarily observed in the non-profit sector.
For example, the organization Refugee Action, which supports refugees
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
48
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
concerning a wide range of issues, is part of an initiative bringing together
refugees and employers using the Internet platform jobtarget.co.uk (Refu-
gee Action, 2015). The Refugee Council offers advice on employment and
support services to refugees in the UK (The Refugee Council, 2015). Jane
Leu, the founder of “Upwardly Global,” described how she came to the
conclusion that private and governmental efforts have failed to integrate
refugees with a professional background into the workforce, and she there-
fore established a non-profit organization. This organization helps refugees
to find a job that matches their skills (Brock, 2008; Upwardly Global, 2011).
ISeek is another example of an organization sup porting refugees during
their job search by, e.g., introducing different employment services offered
by other organizations or the government on their website (ISeek, 2015).
A recent German example is the launch of a job search engine target-
ing refugees and companies, www.workeer.de. As shown by critics such as
Bloch (2004), there are similar activities that seek to connect refugees and
potential employers in other countries.
As indicated by a few recent examples, the integration of refugees into
the labor market has, however, also great potential for social ventures
pursuing “[…] a hybrid business model [that] combines conventional busi-
ness management practices and market discipline with real accountability
for social and environmental outcomes” (Olsen and Galimidi, 2009). The
authors see a considerable potential especially for new social ventures whose
business activity, i.e., offering services such as matching processes, diversity
and integration consulting, and legal support to companies will contribute to
solving increasing social problems related to the core business model, namely
getting refugees to work. One of these ventures, Impact Dock, a start-up
in Hamburg, Germany, aims to match refugees and key players from local
companies for mutual benefit by means of a cross-mentoring approach as
the first step (Impact Dock Hamburg, 2015). There are several advantages
for companies and the mentors provided by them: increasing their attrac-
tiveness as prospective employers, reducing organizational blindness, access
to high competencies, building up high loyalty, and improving intercultural
competencies. Mentees may benefit by establishing new contacts, acquir-
ing vocational insights, and even receiving job offers. The vision of Impact
Dock is to develop a network and implement a process that makes it raise
awareness among businesses and the general public concerning the (high)
potential of refugees as prospective employees. Besides concepts such as
the one by Impact Dock, there is an enormous variety of social business
models that aim to mediate between refugees and employers. Some offer
IT-based matching tools or educational and job-training concepts, whereas
others offer childcare and thereby enable refugees with children to enter
the labor market.
Research has not paid attention to these and related intermediary con-
cepts yet, although some studies have indirectly addressed this issue. In
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
49
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
their article examining social entrepreneurial identity, Bull et al. (2008) at
least discuss an example involving refugees. Conducting a case study using
a narrative approach, the authors focus on a social entrepreneur and his
story founding a refugee help center in Australia. Among other services,
the center seeks to prepare refugees for the labor market.
Generating refugee employment (social entrepreneurship)
In addition to these intermediary concepts, there are also those that
aim to create jobs for refugees. Integrating refugees into the workforce by
generating specific employment can lead to (business) models that reflect
the competencies of refugees and that foster employee diversity. A grow-
ing number of such activities can be observed worldwide. For example, the
UNHCR piloted a project that provided support to social entrepreneurs
who aimed to expand or create new jobs for refugees and asylum seekers
and that included a competition for the best projects, which were awarded
equipment and funding for their first month of operation (UNHCR, no
date). A quite similar project called Ankommer (Arrivers) was recently
(2015) funded by SocialImpact and the KfW Foundation (www.ankommer.
eu), which is meant to support the founding of start-ups with the specific
purpose of creating jobs for refugees. In addition to projects such as Ank-
ommer, there are also smaller local projects that pursue similar goals. For
example, Bosnian Handicrafts, which was founded by Lejla Radoncic and
supported by the Schwab Foundation, employs female refugees displaced
by the war in Bosnia in a handicrafts business (BHcrafts, no date). Another
social business is Palestyle, a company offering handbags and clutch bags
hand-stitched by a Palestinian woman living in a refugee camp in Lebanon
(Redvers, 2014). Even (pop-up) restaurants that, for instance, use other
restaurants as a venue when these are not open during regular business
hours or vacations can draw on the cultural background of refugees. They
offer multi-national food and provide information on refugees, their nations,
and their personal stories, especially concerning their flights. In this manner,
they can offer opportunities for employment and raise awareness at the
same time (see, for example, the LOKAL, Lüneburg Leuphana University
– Schub, no date).
Of course, hybrid forms combining these kinds of ventures and those
based on the intermediary concept can be observed as well. One of these
is run by Jem Stein, who restores bicycles with the help of young refugees
and give them to others. According to Stein, “Bikes, for refugees who have
nothing, are literally a means of social mobility – getting out and about to
get a job” (Pozniak, 2013). Another example is CUCULA, a company that
produces and sells furniture produced by refugees and that thereby provides
them with vocational training for the labor market (CUCULA, no date).
As indicated by these examples, there are several possibilities for inte-
grating refugees into the labor market, but these have yet to be examined
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
50
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
by researchers. The survey of the literature only yielded a few studies on
social entrepreneurship involving refugees. In their article on the general
understanding of social entrepreneurship, Roberts and Woods (2005) at
least mentioned the possible impact that social entrepreneurial activity can
have by creating jobs for refugees. Barraket et al. (2014) addressed refugees
as a target group for entrepreneurial activity in their paper on concepts
and classifications of social enterprises in Australia. As an example, Bar-
raket et al. refer to Rewi Alley, a social entrepreneur who coined the
term “Gung Ho,” which means “work together,” and who provided work
for refugees escaping from China starting in 1937. To analyze opportunity
identification in social entrepreneurship, Corner and Ho (2010) conducted
multiple case studies focusing on an exemplary social enterprise, the Trade
Aid Incorporated (TAI), a company supporting Tibetan refugees by selling
the ir handcrafted goods.
3.1.2. Entrepreneurial activity by refugees
In addition to examining social ventures created providing crucial support
to refugees, the authors also consider entrepreneurial activity by refugees.
Depending on their legal status, refugees can either found their own busi-
ness or become social entrepreneurs in projects or organizations.
Refugees’ self-employment (business entrepreneurship)
Even though self-employment is a frequently proposed option in the
literature on the vocational integration of refugees, this legal status is only
granted in countries such as Germany to refugees who are allowed to stay
and have been recognized as asylum seekers. Most studies that examine
refugee entrepreneurship suggest that this involves refugees founding their
own company and thereby creating their own places of employment. This
approach allows refugees to gain both economic value and social recogni-
tion (Deakins, Ram and Smallbone, 2003; Kontos, 2003a; Van den Tillaart,
2007). Because it reduces unemployment among refugees and fosters their
integration into society, this kind of venturing can be described as social
entrepreneurship (or as social entrepreneurial activity), even though these
ventures are not social ventures, but traditional businesses.
Refugee entrepreneurs can be found in a variety of business fields. Some
organizations have identified different examples of successful refugee entre-
preneurs, who may sell artificial flowers, open hair cutting salons, become
involved in automotive sales, own video production companies, or sell dif-
ferent products (e.g. Robb, 2015; UNHCR/Dunmore, 2015; Wolfington,
2006). Many refugee entrepreneurs can be identified in the food business,
for example as founders of grocery stores or restaurants (Ayadurai, 2011;
Fong et al., 2007) About one third of the entrepreneurs in the Indian
bicycle industry are refugees from Pakistan (Singh, 1994).
While only some studies state that especially ventures by migrant entre-
preneurs coming from developing countries are of low added value, mar-
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
51
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
ginally innovative, and often not profitable (Light and Rosenstein, 1995;
Waldinger, 1999, ©1996), it is, in light of the high number of practical
examples and in combination with other empirical studies, very likely
that these dimensions are also important when it comes to other refugee
entrepreneurs. As Else, Krotz and Budzilowicz (2003) stated, “Refugee
entrepreneurs are truly the genuine article. Like entrepreneurs everywhere,
they are focused on measurable results, want fast and effective business
development services, and are keenly interested in becoming self-sufficient.”
This observation is supported by Macchiavello (2010), who argued that
“[i] nstead of being regarded as shiftless, destitute and dishonest, they are
given abpsychological boost by being perceived as would-be-entrepreneurs
worthy of trust.” Thus, fostering entrepreneurial activity of refugees is fre-
quently recommended (Ayadurai, 2011).
Whereas these three studies explicitly address the situation of refugees,
the literature has primarily focused on the importance of self-employment of
ethnic minorities. In recent decades, many studies have investigated what is
now referred to as “minority” or “ethnic entrepreneurship” (Hammarstedt,
2001; Kloosterman and Van Der Leun, 1999; Kontos, 2003b; Leung, 2003;
Li, 2000; Masurel et al., 2002; Pécoud, 2003; Portes, 1995; Spener and
Bean, 1999; Tienda and Raijman, 2004; Waldinger, Aldrich and Ward,
1990). However, these studies either do not pay attention to refugees as
abseparate group or, if research about refugees in the vocational context
can be found, self-employment is hardly ever covered as a separated field of
research (Beiser and Hou, 2000; Bollinger and Hagstrom, 2004; DeVoretz,
Pivnenko and Beiser, 2004; Valtonen, 1999).
There are, however, exemplary studies that do focus on refugee entrepre-
neurship. For example, Gold (1988, 1992) compared the specific situation of
recent refugees to that of economic immigrants and analyzed its impact on
entrepreneurial activities. He focused on refugee businesses in the US and
evaluated the prospects of refugee self-employment with a distinct emphasis
on the characteristics, resources, and motives of self-employed refugees. In
their work on the integration of refugees into the Norwegian labor mar-
ket, Hauff and Vaglum (1993) examined how the traumatic experiences of
refugees may affect entrepreneurial activity. Fong et al. (2007) analyzed the
challenges and success factors of refugee entrepreneurs in Texas. Ayadurai
(2011) specifically focused on female refugees initiating entrepreneurial
ventures in Kuala Lumpur, whereas Wauters and Lambrecht (2006) studied
refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium. They described refugee entrepreneur-
ship as “[…] killing two birds with one stone. By promoting this kind of
entrepreneurship both the integration of refugees in society can be aided
and entrepreneurship in general can be boosted” (p. 509). While this and
the other studies discussed above address very different contexts, they all
stress the particular potential of refugee entrepreneurship and the specific
challenges refugee entrepreneurs have to face and overcome.
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
52
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
Refugee social entrepreneurship
Refugee entrepreneurs can also found a business that matches directly
the criteria of social entrepreneurship. This hybrid venture can address the
social issues of integrating refugees into the labor market in a variety of ways.
They can do so by engaging in the same kind of social entrepreneurial activity
discussed above, namely ventures that either hire refugees or act as inter-
mediaries. As suggested by the “protected market hypothesis” (Light, 1972),
the initial markets for ethnic entrepreneurs are their respective communities:
“If ethnic communities have special sets of needs and preferences that are
best served by those who share those needs and know them intimately, then
ethnic entrepreneurs have an advantage” (Aldrich and Waldinger, 1990). It
is very likely that this is also true for refugees and that they may develop
entrepreneurial solutions for problems that are also their own or that are
experienced by those living in close relation to them. One example is the Red
Lion Bakery, founded by a Sierra Leonean refugee in a refugee camp. As
the demand for products increased, he trained other refugees and employed
them (Cavaglieri, 2010). A Liberian refugee founded a school that is free of
charge for the children in his refugee camp and developed it into an orga-
nization offering a variety of programs today (VAAFD, no date). To foster
social entrepreneurship among refugees, programs such as RISE (Refugee
Initiative for Social Entrepreneurs) offer programs to empower, support,
and fund this kind of entrepreneurship (Spear et al., 2013).
While there are many other initiatives in addition to the ones described
ab ove, there are, to the best of our knowledge, only a handful of studies
–bGold (1992), Teasdale (2009, 2010) and Merie (2015) – on this important
topic. In the study already mentioned above, Gold (1992) showed that
self-employed refugees in the US founded their business with the intention
of hiring co-ethnic employees. In his studies, Teasdale (2009) draws back on
a case study dealing with a social enterprise founded by a group of refugees
and asylum seekers, who produced a theatrical play based on their collective
experiences. As shown by a study conducted by Merie (2015), which focused
on refugees’ perception of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship,
refugee social entrepreneurship can be a promising strategy for integrat-
ing refugees, as they have a high potential for being social entrepreneurs.
3.1.3. Typology of Refugee focused entrepreneurship
As shown above, several types of (social) entrepreneurial activity can be
identified by distinguishing between two perspectives on entrepreneurship,
namely for and by refugees. Activities by non-refugees (for refugees) can be
divided into social intrapreneurship, which involves internal entrepreneurial
efforts, and social entrepreneurship, which either results in job opportunities
for refugees or intermediary solutions bringing together refugee employees
and employers. The entrepreneurial activities of refugees are mainly seen
as refugee business entrepreneurship to create and foster self-employment.
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
53
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
Refugee entrepreneurship can, however, also include social entrepreneur-
ial activity or even specifically focus on issues related to the daily lives of
refugees. In this case, it is also possible to distinguish between ventures
that hire refugees and intermediary concepts (for refugees by refugees).
There are, of course, also other hybrid concepts that do not match one of
the types of entrepreneurial activities for refugees that we propose here.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the types of entrepreneurial activity that
can be used to integrate refugees in the labor market.
Refugee Integration via Entrepreneurial Activities
– Research Fields –
Non-Refugees‘ Entrepreneurial Activity (for refugees)
Refugees‘ Entrepreneurial Activity (by refugees)
V. Refugee Social Entrepreneurial (by refugees for refugees)
Existing Companies‘
Internal Concepts
(Social Intrapreneurship)
Intermediary Concepts
(Social Entrepreneurship)
Generating Refugee
Employment
(Social Entrepreneurship)
Refugees‘ Self-
Employment (Business
Entrepreneurship)
I. II. III. IV.
Fig. 2. Entrepreneurial activity as a means to integrate refugees into the labor market:
activities and possibilities for future research. Source: Own illustration, compiled by the
authors.
4. Conclusion
In light of the recent dramatic increase in the number of refugees world-
wide, their integration becomes more and more important. As vocational
participation is one of the key factors for successful integration into society,
many actors have begun to explore different possibilities and ideas; these
approaches are, however, not sufficient. To address this shortcoming, we
propose a greater emphasis on (social) entrepreneurial approaches which
could facilitate the integration of refugees into workforce and society. In
their comprehensive survey of the literature on migrant businesses, Men-
zies, Brenner and Fillion (2003) noted that many studies “[…] point to
the limitations of current knowledge, the lack of currently viable theoreti-
cal models and the necessity for future theoretically grounded research.”
As our results show, entrepreneurial activities for refugees have received
even less academic attention. Studies on (social) entrepreneurship by and
for refugees are scarce, and more research needs to be conducted on all
perspectives on entrepreneurial activities. In our review, we identified abfew
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
54
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
important studies examining different dimensions of refugee (social) entre-
preneurship. There is, however, potential for improvement in terms of both
quality and quantity. More specifically, sustainable approaches need to be
developed, and these need to be promoted to a greater extent than they
have in the past.
Especially through our analysis of entrepreneurial activities, we found
several strategies to achieve refugee integration, leading to a typology of
potential research areas. Following the proposed structure of (social) entre-
preneurial activities, we argue, many possibilities for future research on the
vocational integration of refugees shall be pursued. Even though the practi-
cal approaches are multiple and diversified, they are as well too unique and
often too prototyped to be scalable. A further limitation of our research is
the focus on mainly German or European practical examples, as it shows
the specific challenges in the highly restricted European market, where
many informal activities are simply forbidden. Addressing research questions
within these different categories, future research can most certainly provide
and develop a solid knowledge base to inform practice about how to become
more effective and efficient. Entrepreneurial activities by and for refugees
are promising research areas that should be investigated carefully to learn
“[…] how to translate research findings into solutions” (Rousseau, 2006,
p. 267). In other words, there is a great demand for practically oriented
research in each of the fields we examined to support the development of
approaches that foster the long-term integration of refugees.
References
Ager, A. and Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016.
Agrawal, S. and Gugnani, R. (2014). Creating successful business model: Lessons for
social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 18(5/6), p. 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2014.064720.
Aldrich, H.E. and Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Annual Reviews
Sociology, (16), 111–135.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-
cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 495–527.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7–24. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/14626000310461187.
Ayadurai, S. (2011). Challenges faced by women refugees in initiating entrepreneurial
ventures in a host country: Case study of UNHCR women refugees in Malaysia.
Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(3), 85–96.
Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review
of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship
& Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.
577242.
Barraket, J., Douglas, H., Eversole, R., Mason, C., McNeill, J. and Morgan, B. (2014).
ICSEM Working Paper: Concepts and classifications of social enterprise in Australia.
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
55
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
Beiser, M. and Hou, F. (2000). Gender differences in language acquisition and employ-
ment consequences among southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Canadian Public
Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 26(3), p. 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3552403.
Bernard, W.S. (1977). Immigrants and refugees: Their similarities, differences, and needs.
International Migration, 14(4), 267–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.1976.
tb00947.x.
Betts, A., Loescher, G. and Milner, J. (2012) The United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR): The politics and practice of refugee protection. 2nd ed. (Routledge
global institutions series, 62). New York: Routledge.
BHcrafts. (no date). From humanitarian to successful business project. Retrieved from:
http://www.bhcrafts.org/ (1.09.2015).
Bloch, A. (1999). Refugees in the job market: A case of unused skills in the British
economy. In: A. Bloch and C. Levy (eds), Refugees, citizenship, and social policy
in Europe (pp. 187–210). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press;
St.bMartin’s Press.
Bloch, A. (2004). Making it work – Refugee employment in the UK.
Bode, C.S. and Santos, F.M. (2013). The organizational foundations of corporate social
entrepreneurship. INSEAD Working Paper Collection, (7).
Bollinger, C.R. and Hagstrom, P. (2004). Poverty rates of refugees and immigrants. UKCPR
Discussion Paper Series (December).
Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world – Social entrepreneurs and the power of
new ideas. Oxford.
Brock, D. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Teaching resources handbook for faculty engaged
in teaching and research in social entrepreneurship. Ashoka's Global Academy for
Social Entrepreneurship.
Brouard, F. and Larivet, S. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: Definitions and boundaries.
ANSER – ARES 2009 Conference Association. Ottawa, 27–29 May 2009.
Brücker, H., Hauptmann, A. and Vallizadeh, E. (2015). Flüchtlinge und andere Migranten
am deutschen Arbeitsmarkt: Der Stand im September 2015. IAB Kurzbericht, (14).
Bull, M., Jones, R., Latham, J. and Betta, M. (2008). Narrative construction of the social
entrepreneurial identity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
14(5), 330–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550810897687.
Castles, S., Korac, M., Vasta, E. and Vertovec, S. (2002). Integration: Mapping the field:
Report of a project carried out by the University of Oxford, Centre for Migration and
Policy Research and Refugee Studies Centre. Oxford.
Cavaglieri, S. (2010). Livelihoods & micro-finance in refugee camps. Rome, Italy: Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Chanoff, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship: A new front in the refugee crisis. Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sasha-chanoff/a-new-front-in-the-refuge_b_6832244.
html (10.08.2015).
Chiswick, B.R. and Miller, P.W. (2007). The international transferability of immigrants’
human capital skills.
Cipotle. (2015). Chipotle helps refugees replant their roots, 31 August. Retrieved from:
http://thesocialintrapreneurs.com/chipotle-helps-refugees/.
Corner, P.D. and Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00382.x.
Cortes, K.E. (2004). Are refugees different from economic immigrants? Some empirical
evidence on the heterogeneity of immigrant groups in the United States (IZA Discussion
Paper No. 1063).
Coussey, M. (2000). Framework of integration policies. Strasbourg.
CUCULA. (no date). Refugees comapny for crafts and design. Retrieved from: http://
www.cucula.org/en/ (1.09.2015).
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
56
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. and Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t
need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
Deakins, D., Ram, M. and Smallbone, D. (2003). Addressing the business support needs
of ethnic minority firms in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Govern-
ment and Policy, 21(6), 843–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0305.
Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship.
DeVoretz, D., Pivnenko, S. and Beiser, M. (2004) The economic experiences of refugees
in Canada (IZA DP No. 1088).
Dietz, J., Joshi, C., Ess es, V.M., Hamilton, L.K. and Gabarrot, F. (2015). The skill para-
dox: Explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(10), 1–33 (1318–1334).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.990398.
Else, J., Krotz, D. and Budzilowicz, L. (2003). Refugee microenterprise development: Achie-
vements and lessons learned.
EQUAL. (2007). A beginning has been made: New opportunities for vocational integration
in the thematic field of asylum. Memorandum by the Development Partnerships of
the National Thematic Network on Asylum in the European Community Initiative
EQUAL (2002–2007). Berlin.
Fong, R., Busch, N.B., Armour, M., Heffron, L.C. and Chanmugam, A. (2007). Path-
ways to self-sufficiency: successful entrepreneurship for refugees. Journal of Ethnic
And Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 16(1–2), 127–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J051v16n01_05.
Frank, P.M. (2006). Non-profit entrepreneurship: Extending the concept of profit oppor-
tunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6(3),
224–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2006.009876.
Frese, M., Bausch, A., Schmidt, P., Rauch, A. and Kabst, R. (2012). Evidence-based
entrepreneurship: Cumulative science, action principles, and bridging the gap between
science and practice. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 1–62. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000044.
Gidron, B. (2014). Market-oriented social enterprises employing people with disabilities:
A participants’ perspective. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 60–76. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.829116.
Gitelman, Z. (1978). Soviet immigrants and american absorption efforts: A case study
in Detroit. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 55(1), 77–82.
Glynn, I. (2012). The genesis and development of article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Conven-
tion. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(1), 134–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fer054.
Gold, S.J. (1988). Refugees and small business: The case of Soviet Jews and Vietna-
mese. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11(4), 411–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870
.1988.9993613.
Gold, S.J. (1992). The employment potential of refugee entrepreneurship: Soviet Jews
and Vietnamese in California. Review of Policy Research, 11(2), 176–186. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992.tb00400.x.
Grayson, D., McLaren, M. and Spitzeck, H. (2014). Social intrapreneurism and all that
jazz: How business innovators are helping to build a more sustainable world. Sheffield:
Greenleaf Publishing.
Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S., Vogus, T.J. and Miller, T.L. (2013). Studying the origins
of social entrepreneurship: Compassion and the role of embedded agency. Academy
of Management Review, 38(3), 460–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0429.
Hammarstedt, M. (2001). Immigrant self-employment in Sweden – Its variation and some
possible determinants. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(2), 147–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985620010004106.
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
57
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
Harris, N., Minniss, F.R. and Somerset, S. (2014). Refugees connecting with a new country
through community food gardening. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 11(9), 9202–9216. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110909202.
Hauff, E. and Vaglum, P. (1993). Integration of Vietnamese refugees into the Norwegian
labor market: The impact of war trauma. International Migration Review, 27(2), p.b388.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2547130.
Hieronymus, A. (2014). „Nein zum Heim – Ja zur Humanisierung des Europäischen
Asyl- und Einwandererrechts!”: Reflexionen zum Konflikt über eine Schule, die zu
einem Asylbewerberheim wurde – zur Aktualität von Alltagsrassismus, institutionel-
lem und strukturellem Rassismus in Europa. In: M. Gag and F. Voges (eds), Inklusion
auf Raten: Zur Teilhabe von Flüchtlingen an Ausbildung und Arbeit (pp. 137–155).
(Bildung in Umbruchsgesellschaften, 10). Münster [u.a.]: Waxmann.
Impact Dock Hamburg. (2015). Prototyp – Cross-mentoring (31 August). Retrieved from:
http://impactdock.de/.
ISeek. (2015). Employment resources for immigrants and refugees (31 August). Retrieved
from: http://www.iseek.org/guide/immigrants/immigrantemployment.html.
Joly, D., Nettleton, C. and Poulton, H. (1992) Refugees: Asylum in Europe? Boulder:
Westview Press.
Juretzka, I. (2014). Eine rechtpolitische Betrachtung des Arbeitsmarktzugangs von Asyl-
suchenden und Geduldeten. In M. Gag and F. Voges (eds), Inklusion auf Raten:
Zur Teilhabe von Flüchtlingen an Ausbildung und Arbeit (pp. 92–107). (Bildung in
Umbruchsgesellschaften, 10). Münster [u.a.]: Waxmann.
Kidd, S. and McKenzie, K. (2014). Social entrepreneurship and services for marginalized
groups. Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Care, 7(1), 3–13. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/EIHSC-03-2013-0004.
Klingholz, R. and Sievert, S. (2014). Krise an Europas Südgrenze: Welche Faktoren steuern
heute und morgen die Migration über das Mittelmeer? (Discussion Paper No. 16). Berlin.
Kloosterman, R.C. and Van Der Leun, J.P. (1999). Just for starters: Commercial gentri-
fication by immigrant entrepreneurs in Amsterdam and Rotterdam neighbourhoods.
Housing Studies, 14(5), 659–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673039982669.
Kontos, M. (2003a). Considering the concept of entrepreneurial resources in ethnic
business: Motivation as a biographical resource? International Review of Sociology,
13(1), 183–20 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0390670032000087050.
Kontos, M. (2003b). Self-employment policies and migrants’ entrepreneurship in Ger-
many. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(2), 119–135. http://dx.doi.org/1
0.1080/0898562032000075131.
Leung, M.W.H. (2003). Beyond Chinese, beyond food: Unpacking the regulated Chinese
restaurant business in Germany. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(2),
103–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0898562032000075140.
Leuphana University – Schub. (no date). LOKAL. Retrieved from: https://www.leuphana.
de/schub/schub-camp/bewerber-teams-2015/lokal.html (1.09.2015).
Li, P.S. (2000). Economic returns of immigrants’ self-employment. Canadian Jour-
nal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 25(1), p. 1. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/3341909.
Light, I.H. (1972). Ethnic enterprise in America: Business and welfare among Chinese,
Japanese, and blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Light, I.H. and Rosenstein, C.N. (1995). Race, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship in urban
America (Sociology and economics). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Macchiavello, M. (2010). Livelihoods strategies of urban refugees in Kampala. Forced
Migration Review, 26–27.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2004). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction and delight. University of Navarra.
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
58
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
Martin, R.L. and Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepren eurship: The case for definition.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from: http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/social-
entrepreneurship-case-definition (10.08.2015).
Masurel, E., Nijkamp, P., Tastan, M. and Vindigni, G. (2002). Motivations and perfor-
mance conditions for ethnic entrepreneurship. Growth and Change, 33(2), 238–260.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0017-4815.00189.
Menzies, T.V., Brenner, G.A. and Filion, L.J. (2003). Social capital, networks and ethnic
minority entrepreneurs: Transnational entrepreneurship and bootstrap capitalism.
In: H. Etemad and R. Wright (eds), Globalization and Entrepreneurship. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Menzies, T.V., Filion, L.J., Brenner, G.A. and Elgie, S. (2003) A Study of entrepreneurs’
ethnic involvement utilizing personal and business characteristics (Working paper
2003-18).
Merie, K. (2015). Resettlement and self-sufficiency: Refugees’ perceptions of social entre-
preneurship in Arizona.
Milner, J. (2014). Introduction: Understanding global refugee policy. Journal of Refugee
Studies, 27(4), 477–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feu032.
Mirbach, T. and Triebl, K. (2010). Auswertung Qualifikat ionserhebung: Befragung zur Qua-
lifikation der Teilnehmenden der Projekte des ESF-Bundesprogramms zur arbeitsmarktli-
chen Unterstützung für Bleibeberechtigte und Flüchtlinge mit Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt.
Erhebung im Rahmen der Programmevaluation. Hamburg.
Nandan, M. and Scott, P.A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship and social work: The need for
a transdisciplinary educational model. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 257–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.684428.
OECD. (2006). International Migration Outlook – 2006. OECD.
Oladele, P.O., Akeke, N.I. and Oladunjoye, O. (2011). Entrepreneurship development:
A panacea for unemployment reduction in Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in
Economics and Management Sciences, 2(4), 251–256.
Olsen, S. and Galimidi, B. (2009). Managing social and environmental impact: A new
discipline for a new economy. Brown Journal of World Affairs (Spring), 15(2), 1–14.
Pécoud, A. (2003). Self-employment and immigrants’ incorporation: The case of Turks
in Germany. Immigrants & Minorities, 22(2-3), 247–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02
61928042000244853.
Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2006). Problem or opportunity? Asylum seekers, refugees,
employment and social exclusion in deprived urban areas. Urban Studies, 43(10),
1715–1736.
Portes, A. (1995). The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity,
and entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Pozniak, H. (2013). Social enterprise is the way forward. The Telegraph. Retrieved from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10399011/Social-enterprise-is-
the-way-forward.html (10.08.2015).
Redvers, L. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: business smiles. Retrieved from: http://vision.
ae/focus/social_entrepreneurship_business_smiles (10.08.2015).
Refugee Action. (2015). Refugees and asylum seekers: Diversity matters (31 August).
Retrieved from: https://targetjobs.co.uk/careers-advice/equality-and-diversity/324299-
refugees-and-asylum-seekers-diversity-matters.
Rigeterink, P. and Rogers, M. (2000). Doubling the income of Africa’s poorest farmers
| seToolbelt. Retrieved from: http://www.setoolbelt.org/resources/1606 (10.08.2015).
Robb, K. (2015). Meet Australia’s next generation of refugee entrepreneurs. Retrieved from:
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/leadership/46277-meet-australia-s-next-generation-
of-refugee-entrepreneurs.html (10.08.2015).
Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept
of social entrepreneurship. Business Review, 7(1), 45–51.
Management Issues – Problemy ZarzÈdzania vol. 16, no. 1(73) part 2
, 2018
59
How to Integrate Refugees into the Workforce – Different Oppor tunities for (Social) Entrepreneurship
Robinson, C.D. (2012). Too much nationality: Kashmiri refugees, the south Asian refugee
regime, and a refugee state, 1947–1974. Journal of Refugee Studies, 25(3), 344–365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fes030.
Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005). The meanings of social entrepreneurship today:
Leadership, learning and human resource management. Corporate Governance:
The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 95–104. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/14720700510604733.
Rose, P.I. (1985). Asian Americans: From pariahs to paragons. In: N. Glazer (ed.),
Clamor at the gates (pp. 181–212). San Francisco: ICS Press.
Rousseau, D.M. (2006). Is there such a things as “evidence-ased management”? Academy
of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269.
Schmitz, B. and Scheuerle, T. (2012). Founding or transforming? Social intrapreneurship
in three German Christian-based NPOs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives,
1(1), 13–36.
Schwab Foundation. (no date). What is a social entrepreneur? Retrieved from: http://www.
schwabfound.org/content/what-social-entrepreneur (31.08.2015).
Seukwa, L.H. (2014). Soziale Arbeit mit Flüchtlingen zwischen Macht und Ohnmacht.
In: M. Gag and F. Voges (eds), Inklusion auf Raten: Zur Teilhabe von Flüchtlingen an
Ausbildung und Arbeit (pp. 49–59). (Bildung in Umbruchsgesellschaften, 10). Münster
u.a.: Waxmann.
Singh, S. (1994). Refugees as entrepreneurs: The case of the Indian bicycle Industry. Jour-
nal of Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 81–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097135579400300105.
Spear, R., Noya, A., Clarence, E. and Aiken, M. (2013). Boosting social entrepreneurship
and social enterprise creation in the Republic of Serbia: OECD local economic and
employment development (LEED) Working Papers, (2013/12).
Spener, D. and Bean, F.D. (1999). Self-employment concentration and earnings among
Mexican immigrants in the U.S. Social Forces, 77(3), 1021–1047. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/sf/77.3.1021.
Spitzeck, H. (2010). ‘The Yunus inside’ – How social intrapreneurs create and blend socie-
tal and business value. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1725254.
Teasdale, S. (2009) The contradictory faces of social enterprise: Impression management
as (social) entrepreneurial behaviour (Working Paper 23).
Teasdale, S. (2010). How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an
inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), 89–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495141003601278.
The Refugee Council. (2015). Supporting and empowering refugees (31 August). Retrieved
from: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/.
Thurik, A.R., Carree, M.A., van Stel, André J. and Audretsch, D.B. (2007). Does self-
employment reduce unemployment? Jena economic research papers, 2007-089 (Acces-
sed: 30 August 2015).
Tienda, M. and Raijman, R. (2004). Promoting Hispanic immigrant entrepreneurship
in Chicago. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, (9), 1–21.
Tomlinson, F. and Egan, S. (2002). From marginalization to (dis)empowerment: Orga-
nizing training and employment services for refugees. Human Relations, 55(8),
1019 – 1043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055008182.
TRIEC. (2015). Supporting immigrant employment contributes to prosperity in the GTA
(31 August). Retrieved from: http://triec.ca/triec-and-rbc-announce-winners-of-8th-
annual-immigrant-success-awards/.
UNHCR. (1954). Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Retrieved from: http://
www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx (2.07.2015).
UNHCR. (2015a). Global trends – Forced displacements in 2014: World at war.
UNHCR. (2015b). UNHCR global appeal 2015 update: EUROPE. UNHCR Global
Appeal, 130–135.
Julia Freudenberg, Jantje Halberstadt
60
DOI 10.7172/1644-9584.73.3
UNHCR. (2016). Global trends – Forced displacement in 2015.
UNHCR. (2017). Global Trends 2016.
UNHCR. (no date). Development of refugee community and social entrepreneurship. Retrie-
ved from: http://www.migration4development.org/en/projects/development-refugee-
community-and-social-entrepreneurship (1.09.2015).
UNHCR. (no date). UNHCR – Refugees. Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/
pages/49c3646c125.html (24.11.2015).
UNHCR/Dunmore, C. (2015). Refugee businesses promise brighter future for Azraq camp.
Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/55423f766.html (10.08.2015).
Upwardly Global. (2011). About us – Jane Leu (9 June). Retrieved from: https://www.
upwardlyglobal.org/about-upglo/about-us.
VAAFD. (no date). “Vision awake” – Africa for development. Retrieved from: http://www.
vaafd.com/about-vaafd/ (1.09.2015).
Valtonen, K. (1999). The societal participation of Vietnamese refugees: Case studies in
Finland and Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(3), 469–491. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976696.
Van den Tillaart, H. (2007). Etnisch ondernemerschap in Nederland: ontwikkelingen en
perspectieven. Migrantenstudies, 23(2), 76–98.
Waldinger, R.D. (1999, ©1996). Still the promised city? African-Americans and new immi-
grants in postindustrial New York. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Waldinger, R.D., Aldrich, H. and Ward, R. (eds). (1990). Ethnic entrepreneurs: Immigrant
business in industrial societies. Newbury Park, Calif.: SAGE Publications (Sage series
on race and ethnic relations, v. 1).
Wang, C.L. and Altinay, L. (2012). Social embeddedness, entrepreneurial orientatio n
and firm growth in ethnic minority small businesses in the UK. International Small
Business Journal, 30(1), 3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242610366060.
Wauters, B. and Lambrecht, J. (2006). Refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium: Poten-
tial and practice. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(4),
509–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0008-x.
Wolfington, E. (2006). A Commentary: Immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs. Retrieved
from: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/bridges/spring-2006/a-commentary-
immigrant-and-refugee-entrepreneurs (10.08.2015).
Wulleman, M. and Hudon, M. (2016). Models of social entrepreneurship: Empirical
evidence from Mexico. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 162–188. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/19420676.2015.1057207.
Zaefarian, R., Tasavori, M. and Ghauri, P.N. (2015). A corporate social entrepreneurship
approach to market-based poverty reduction. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade,
51(2), 320–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2015.1021606.
Zahra, S.A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D.O. and Shulman, J.M. (2009). A typology of
social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.
