نوع شناسی کارآفرینان اجتماعی : انگیزه ها، فرایندهای جستجو و چالشهای اخلاقی

Social entrepreneurship has been the subject of considerable interest in the literature. This stems from its importance in addressing social problems and enriching communities and societies. In this article, we define social entrepreneurship; discuss its contributions to creating social wealth; offer a typology of entrepreneurs' search processes that lead to the discovery of opportunities for creating social ventures; and articulate the major ethical concerns social entrepreneurs might encounter. We conclude by outlining implications for entrepreneurs and advancing an agenda for future research, especially the ethics of social entrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurs make significant and diverse contributions to their communities and societies, adopting business models to offer creative solutions to complex and persistent social problems. We propose that social entrepreneurship “encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner". In this article, we highlight social wealth as a metric for measuring the contributions of social entrepreneurship within the context of total wealth maximization. To us, “total wealth” comprises both economic and social wealth. Our proposed metric, therefore, acknowledges that any economic and social value created may offset the economic and social costs incurred. It also takes into account the forgone costs of other opportunities not pursued. Building on the work of Hayak, Kirzner and Schumpeter, we also identify three types of social entrepreneurs: Social Bricoleur, Social Constructionist, and Social Engineer. Social Bricoleurs usually focus on discovering and addressing small-scale local social needs. Social Constructionists typically exploit opportunities and market failures by filling gaps to underserved clients in order to introduce reforms and innovations to the broader social system. Finally, Social Engineers recognize systemic problems within existing social structures and address them by introducing revolutionary change. As a result, these entrepreneurs often destroy dated systems, and replace them with newer and more suitable ones. Given these differences, we propose that these three types of social entrepreneurs vary in how they discover social opportunities (i.e., search processes), determine their impact on the broader social system, and assemble the resources needed to pursue these opportunities. We also discuss ethical issues unique to each type of social entrepreneur. A key contribution of our article is highlighting key ethical concerns encountered when uniting economic thinking with the desire to generate social wealth. These challenges vary based upon social entrepreneurs' motives, the resources needed to pursue their ambitions, as well as the governance and control mechanisms employed to regulate their behaviors. Because the goals of social ventures are deeply rooted in the values of their founders, balancing the motives to create social wealth with the need for profits and economic efficiency can be tricky. Applying new and untested organizational models also raises concerns about the accountability of the actors involved. Furthermore, social entrepreneurs operate in domains with scant governance and oversight. This enables some to cut ethical corners or place their personal agendas and economic objectives ahead of the fiduciary needs of their clients. We conclude by outlining key implications for social ventures' founders and entrepreneurs. We also offer an agenda for future research on the ethics of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship is an important topic that has sparked ongoing discussion and debate (Austin et al., 2006). Some scholars have begun to delineate the distinct domain of this phenomenon, examine its potential to address social problems, and explore its implications for wealth creation (Austin et al., 2006, Bornstein, 2004, Davis, 2002, Dees et al., 2004 and MacMillan, 2005). To some, social entrepreneurship offers innovative solutions to complex and persistent social issues by applying traditional business and market-oriented models (Spear, 2006, Dorado, 2006, Mair and Noboa, 2003 and Pearce and Doh, 2005). As such, social entrepreneurship provides an alternative to a culture of greed and selfishness (Hemingway, 2005 and Mintzberg et al., 2002). Still, others view social entrepreneurship as a vague and poorly understood concept (Martin and Osberg, 2007) whose practice raises thorny ethical concerns (Fowler, 2000). These issues reflect the unique values that social entrepreneurs hold and the search processes they follow in identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities. In this article, we have two objectives. First, we build on the work of Hayek (1945), Kirzner (1973) and Schumpeter (1934) to advance a typology that identifies three types of social entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs vary in how they define opportunities, view their missions, acquire resources, and address social ills. Second, we use the proposed typology of social entrepreneurs to explore various ethical issues encountered in practice. Entrepreneurial activities are often associated with the opportunity to cut ethical corners (Barendsen and Gardner, 2004 and Kuratko and Goldsby, 2004). Yet, balancing social wealth with the desire to make profits and maintain economic efficiency is no simple matter. The new and untested organizational models that social entrepreneurs follow often raise concerns about their accountability and contributions. To fully appreciate these concerns, we first discuss the importance and domain of social entrepreneurship.

In this article, we have defined social entrepreneurship, explained the major reasons for the growing interest in it, defined it, and identified three major social entrepreneurial types. We have also discussed some key ethical issues that arise from the practice of social entrepreneurship. We will now reflect on the managerial implications of our typology and identify directions for future research. 5.1. Managerial implications Our article has several implications for the management of social ventures and the various stakeholders they serve and/or rely on for support. Though we have discussed the practices of several successful social entrepreneurs, efforts to create social wealth or launch new social ventures are risky activities. However, social innovation runs the risk of social upheaval. There is also the possibility that the ventures and innovations they initiate might not create social wealth. As we have noted, accepted, reliable and valid measures of social wealth do not currently exist. While the aggressive actions of business entrepreneurs are often offset by the reality of market mechanisms, social entrepreneurs may operate in a realm with fewer checks and balances. Our article encourages social entrepreneurs to keep the goal of maximizing social wealth in mind and urges them not to get caught up in the elegance or novelty of their own creation. Further, even though the pursuit of opportunities to increase income might be alluring, these activities should not be undertaken if they diminish the social venture's ability to serve its constituency. Such an inversion of means and ends raises serious ethical concerns, particularly for those volunteers and financial donors who wish to support an organization's social mission, rather than the technical operations. The lack of oversight and the potential for unethical actions should also encourage social entrepreneurs to adopt effective mechanisms that help to monitor their ventures. Social entrepreneurs share many of the same characteristics as their for-profit cohorts — risk-taking, proactiveness and independence. As such, some social entrepreneurs might be susceptible to taking unnecessary risks. Or, they may pursue innovation merely to create change, as opposed to enhancing social wealth. Social entrepreneurs should consider creating external advisory boards and implement effective governance mechanisms to make sure their ventures do not fall victim to the ethical abuses we have analyzed earlier. Furthermore, given these fundamental differences in the strategic intent and organizational needs of particular social entrepreneurs, we have underscored the need for distinct managerial styles in each of the three types. The three different social entrepreneurs we discussed may experience similar hurdles just as entrepreneurial organizations struggle with issues of growth and evolution from a new venture towards a more professional organization. For instance, Social Bricoleurs may operate very informal ventures. Scaling up and operating larger organizations requires Social Constructionists to develop much more complex and formal managerial systems. Social Engineers, however, may benefit more from charismatic leadership in garnering public attention and galvanizing support for their ventures' missions. This article also reinforces the importance of opportunity recognition in the realm of social entrepreneurship. It encourages social service providers and nascent social entrepreneurs to explore and integrate models of discovery and entrepreneurship into their operations. The pursuit of earned income-generating opportunities, new revenue streams, or innovative means of creating social wealth could be enhanced by adopting a more entrepreneurial mindset within an organization. Given the shrinking pool of public funding, all social service organizations need to consider alternative means of support or novel ways to create social wealth. Lessons learned from the competitive sector might prove invaluable to social ventures' sustained viability. 5.2. Future research directions Our article highlights a further need to articulate the domain of social entrepreneurship and outlines several criteria by which this delineation could be achieved. Clearly, definitions of social entrepreneurship should incorporate both economic and social outcomes. Further, given that the concept of social wealth is key to our definition, future researchers should clarify the meaning and dimensions of this concept. Researchers could integrate insights from research on organizational effectiveness (Cameron and Whetten, 1983 and Herman, 1990) as they measure social costs and benefits. The definition of opportunity costs also requires thoughtful attention. These costs typically involve entrepreneurs' foregone opportunities as well as any missed opportunities to employ these resources differently to create greater social wealth. Future definitions of opportunity costs should also consider social costs arising elsewhere. Social entrepreneurs and their ventures need to be studied closely in future research. Our definition of social entrepreneurship underscores the various actions and processes followed to discover and exploit opportunities. It also captures the motivation and personality of those individuals who establish these ventures. By examining these motivations and actions, future researchers can capture the variety of social ventures. Some ventures are simple replications of existing organizations. Others consolidate, revamp and replace obsolete organizational forms. Social ventures also vary in their scale and scope, depending on the magnitude of the social opportunities pursued (Zahra et al., in press). Documenting these differences, as well as their causes and implications for the types of opportunities pursued, can also enrich our understanding of the effect of different organizational forms on the success of social entrepreneurship. The antecedents of social entrepreneurship also require careful analysis which might include societal, organizational and individual variables. The various interactions among these variables could also spark the recognition of different social opportunities and determine how entrepreneurs exploit them. As research matures, greater attention to theory building on the antecedents of different social ventures becomes a priority. Exploring the milieu within which these entrepreneurs exist, how they function, and why their ventures succeed or fail can enrich theory building on social ventures. Future researchers would also benefit from studying the contextual variables that influence different social entrepreneurial types. The three types we have discussed in this article could reflect the effective roles social entrepreneurship plays at different points in the life of their ventures. They might signal the growing maturity of social entrepreneurs in learning how to assemble resources and pursue different opportunities. The personality of the entrepreneur, the social mission to be accomplished, and the munificence of the external environment might also influence the selection of a given type. Ethical transgressions can hamper entrepreneurs' ability to create social wealth. As a result, the ethical issues associated with different social entrepreneurial types deserve thoughtful analysis. Under what conditions are these different entrepreneurs willing to cut ethical corners? How can social ventures develop early warning systems of such ethical violations? How can new social ventures curb their founders' potential unethical transgressions? These questions underscore the importance of research on social entrepreneurship and its ethics. We hope our article inspires others to pursue research on these important issues.