How do social entrepreneurs form intentions to create a social venture?
Mair and Noboa address this important question by building on well- established entrepreneurship literature on the intention formation process. Previous work has depicted intentions as a reliable predictor of entrepreneurial activity that culminates in the formation of new ven- tures. This research stream within the field of entrepreneurship has drawn from social psychology, which views intentions as powerful pre- dictors of behavior, especially in the case of purposive, planned, and goal-oriented behavior (Bagozzi, Baumgartner and Yi, 1989). In the case of entrepreneurial behavior – aiming at social value creation – the degree of purpose might even be more pronounced.
Investigating the sources and antecedents of behavioral intentions to set up a social venture, Mair and Noboa contribute to a more compre- hensive picture of SE. At the same time, they shed light on the fuzzy boundaries between entrepreneurship and SE. Bird (1988), one of the first authors to emphasize the importance of intentions for studying entrepreneurial phenomena, claimed that studying intentions allows us to distinguish between entrepreneurial activity and strategic man- 92 Social Entrepreneurship
agement. Thus, studying the intention formation process of social entrepreneurs might indeed provide a more nuanced understanding of whether SE constitutes a separate field of study.
While the majority of existing intention formation models consider both individual and situational variables as important determinants of entrepreneurial intentions, Mair and Noboa focus on individual-based differences. Opting for a parsimonious approach they restrict their analysis to a specific set of dynamic and malleable variables. They build on and extend existing research in several ways. First, in line with existing models, Mair and Noboa draw from Ajzen’s work on the origins of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and Shapero and Sokol’s seminal work on entrepreneurial event formation (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). They also include perceived desirability and feasibility as important antecedents of intentions. However, they go one step further, or better, one step backwards, and specifically look at the set of variables that affect perceived desirability and feasibility. In short, their model suggests that intentions to set up a social venture develop from perceptions of desirability, which are affected by emotional and cognitive attitudes (empathy and moral judgment), and from percep- tions of feasibility, which are instigated by ‘enabling’ factors such as self-efficacy and social support. The second main contribution lies in the fact that the authors are the first to investigate intention forma- tion in the context of ventures where social value creation is the primary objective.
Finally, the paper invites future empirical and conceptual research.
To date, very little is known about the relationship between opportu- nity recognition and intentions development. Does one precede the other? By the same token, little is known about the way social entre- preneurs discover and exploit social opportunities. Do social entrepre- neurs search for opportunities or suddenly discover them? Do they show an above-normal level of entrepreneurial alertness? What prior information is relevant for the discovery/exploitation of social oppor- tunities? To what extent do social entrepreneurs rely on gut feeling to evaluate social opportunities?
To conclude, the contribution of the two papers in this chapter lies in the insightful description and conceptualization of the social entre- preneurial process. Mair and Noboa as well as Robinson succeed in advancing our understanding of SE without neglecting existing know- ledge in entrepreneurship theory. They therefore make the first steps towards a comprehensive picture of the SE process and, at the same time, challenge and advance existing frameworks and concepts in the Johanna Mair 93
field of entrepreneurship. Both chapters provide an inspiring source for further empirical and theoretical research.
References
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,50: 179–211.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial oppor- tunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing,18(1):
105–33.
Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H. and Yi, Y. 1989. An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology,10: 3–62.
Bird, B. J. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention.
Academy of Management Review,13(3): 442–61.
Dees, J. G. 1998. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Paper. Centre for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham. Available: http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/
documents/dees_SE.pdf.
DeTienne, D. R. and Chandler, G. N. 2004. Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test.Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(3): 242–57.
Gaglio, C. M. and Katz, J. A. 2001. The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Small Business Economics, 16: 95–111.
Mair, J. and Martí, I. 2005. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of expla- nation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business: forthcoming.
McGrath, R. G. and MacMillan, I. 2000. The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review,25(1): 217–26.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In S. V. Kent (ed.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research:
An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz, and R. Brockhaus (eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth,Vol. 3: 119–38. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
94 Social Entrepreneurship
7
Navigating Social and Institutional Barriers to Markets: How Social
Entrepreneurs Identify and Evaluate Opportunities
Jeffrey Robinson
Introduction
Entrepreneurship research can be broadly placed into three categories:
that which examines the people (entrepreneurs); that which examines the process and that which examines the entrepreneurial or business opportunities. This chapter specifically looks at social entrepreneurial opportunities and the process of identifying and evaluating these types of opportunities. I address three important questions:
• What makes social entrepreneurial opportunities different from other types of opportunities?
• What makes social entrepreneurship special?
• How do social entrepreneurs find social entrepreneurial opportunities?
The phenomenon of social entrepreneurship
For the purposes of this chapter, I define social entrepreneurship (SE) as aprocess(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) that includes: the identifica- tion of a specific social problem and a specific solution (or set of solu- tions) to address it; the evaluation of the social impact, the business model and the sustainability of the venture; and the creation of a social mission-orientedfor-profitor a business-oriented nonprofit entity that pursues the double (or triple) bottom line. This approach to defining SE allows for future research directions and for clearer distinctions from
‘traditional’ entrepreneurship.
95
Recently, there has been an explosion of interest in the phenome- non of SE. It is an attractive area for practitioners, policy makers, the media and business schools because it addresses several issues in society (Dees, 1998; Thompson, 2002; Alvord, Brown and Letts, 2004;
Brainard and Siplon, 2004). SE is a uniting concept that demonstrates the usefulness of business principles in achieving social goals. The term SE is an umbrella term that includes social enterprises, social venture capital, and social purpose organizations. It is a term that is being used all around the world to describe the people, the ventures and the activ- ities that innovate for social good. Social entrepreneurs who span these sectorial boundaries are particularly adept at innovation.
Social entrepreneurship has the potential to bring an interdiscipli- nary array of actors together leading to various boundary-spanning research and practical activities. The result of such boundary- spanning is the rearrangement and recombination of the existing organizational forms and roles. This hybridization of organizational forms and roles follows the law of requisite variety: difficult problems require innovative solutions. Social entrepreneurs are engaged in creating these innovative solutions.
Although SE is a global phenomenon, it has not happened in all of these places for the same reason. In developed nations, SE is on the rise because of the decline of the welfare state. Vital gaps in the social safety net and changes in the institutional environment have led to social entrepreneurial opportunities. As I report in this chapter, the ability to fill these gaps with innovative solutions is a phenomenon worthy of study. In less-developed, developing and emerging economies, SE arises out of a combination of distrust of the NGO community, apathy within the private sector, and the impotence of the government to provide services to the people.
For example, in Soweto, South Africa, social entrepreneur Mdala Mentoor created Soweto Mountain of Hopein response to the dire con- ditions of poverty that existed in his community. His organization generated funds from the products and artwork developed onsite and from the businesses they are incubating. In both of these exam- ples, those that pursue social entrepreneurial opportunities are using the same process to achieve their goals. I will discuss this process later in the chapter.
Initiating a research agenda in SE
Much of the media attention related to SE focuses on the exceptional- ism of individual social entrepreneurs. While I agree that these actors 96 Social Entrepreneurship
are important, I believe that the process of SE is underexplored. It also concerns me that a focus on the actors alone will lead some to believe that the achievements of social entrepreneurs can only be made by an elite. Academic research must go further and demystify how SE takes place. To date, however, there has been little academic research con- ducted in this area. My own literature review of academic journals and working papers posted at universities revealed only 15 papers that directly addressed SE research issues.
The point here is that we need more than journalistic accounts of the phenomenon of SE. I propose that academic research exploring the phenomenon of SE can take two paths. One path is to analyze SE in the light of current explanations of organizational life. Alterna- tively, scholars may take a grounded theory approach and see what new theories might come out of an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.
This chapter begins with a discussion of two relevant theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of SE: the Austrian approach and entry barriers. I then present a framework for understanding entry into social sector markets and demonstrate its relevance to SE. I discuss how this framework explains the first two steps in the SE process (identification and evaluation) and the navigation process that takes place. In the second half of this chapter, I apply the framework to an analysis of six social venture case studies and demonstrate its usefulness for future research on social entrepre- neurs. Finally, I present three themes that arise out of a second analysis of the data, and the implications of these themes for research and practice.