Add Thesis

Social entrepreneurship

The dual role of Bricolage on Innovation

Written by M. Madajová, S. Mpumwire & P. P. Mishra

Paper category

Master Thesis

Subject

Business Administration>Entrepreneurship

Year

2017

Abstract

Master Thesis: Social Entrepreneurship Most definitions of entrepreneurship, such as the Harvard definition, tend to focus on the realization of economic results-capital accumulation and wealth creation, while entrepreneurship does have social results and benefits-work, employment, and a sense of belonging , Community, friendship, self-respect, social status and ability development (cf. Southern, 2001:265). This raises the question of whether we can distinguish entrepreneurship from social enterprises, and whether they must operate in different ways. In the past, social and community enterprises tended to (1) rely on funding, (2) not be self-sufficient, and (3) hire non-entrepreneurs, which puts the enterprise at risk and may undermine its social value. The research of Chell (2007) promotes a model in which social and community enterprises should pursue their own efforts in a thorough entrepreneurial way. It has the following characteristics: non-individual profit-making enterprises include business activities that create value for social purposes and wealth in order to achieve renewal. Sustainability of investment and business. (Chell, 2007) Pursuing a career with a thorough entrepreneurial approach, that is, the entrepreneurial spirit with the goal of economic development, has long received extensive attention from academia (Martin and Osberg, 2007), and the entrepreneurial spirit with the goal of promoting social progress It has only recently attracted the interest of researchers (Alvord, Brown, and Letts, 2004; Dees and Elias, 1998, Mair and Martí, 2006). In terms of practice, the agency has initiated multi-year plans and implemented interventions to help poor and marginalized groups. Government aid agencies and private foundations have invested billions of dollars to support these initiatives (some of which are very innovative). However, the results of these initiatives are often disappointing in terms of effectiveness and sustainability, including their ability to extend their impact to major social changes (for example, Cernea, 1987; Tendlar, 1989). (Alvord, et al., 2004) Solving social problems—such as the sustainable alleviation of problems related to chronic poverty—usually requires fundamental changes in political, economic, and social systems. The challenge of business entrepreneurship is to create a viable and evolving business organization, while the challenge of social entrepreneurship is the change of the social system that generates and sustains problems. (Alvord, et al., 2004) The concept of "social entrepreneurship" in the 1980s came from Ashoka's Bill Drayton and New Ventures' Ed Skloot, the latter funding social innovators around the world. 3.2.3 Business model towards sustainable development From the above discussion, it can be inferred that although there is some reluctance in applying BMor entrepreneurial activities to generate income for social enterprises, its role cannot be ignored and it does have huge potential (Dees, 2007). In the United States, only 39% of small businesses are profitable, and 50% of businesses close down within 5 years. For social enterprises, the situation is more difficult due to conflicting priorities and lack of business perspective (Foster and Bradach, 2005). The challenge for social enterprises is to reshape themselves from reliance on philanthropy to an organization with a source of commercial income. This does not mean that this is an impossible task. To cope with the transformation, NFP leaders should consider the strategic issues of positioning social enterprises, such as related to its mission, and examine operational issues that involve changes. According to the DTI publication (DTI, 2002:19), the commercially successful American NFPsoften has a corporate-led board of directors, recruits key managers from the corporate sector, and has a strong corporate culture-these practices are usually in the UK Doesn't exist in peers. (Chell, 2007) Muhammad Yunus provides us with a good view of the previous state we were in before SE was seen as a sustainable alternative: "When we want to help the poor, we usually give them Provide philanthropy. In most cases, we use philanthropy to avoid recognizing problems and find solutions. Charity has become a way to shirk responsibility. Charity is not a solution to poverty. Charity will only make poverty permanent by taking the initiative to stay away from the poor Charity allows us to continue our own lives without worrying about the poor. It soothes our conscience.” (Dees, 2007) This is no longer the case today. Leading social entrepreneurs are focused on achieving sustainable results and will use whatever tools are most likely to work; they embrace innovation, value effective management, and are willing to adapt to various operations and business models with help. Their wishes even include the use of for-profit organization forms or mixed structures containing for-profit and non-profit elements. (Dees, 2007) In addition, social entrepreneurs will be happy to develop market-based solutions that rely solely on their own interests, if possible, allowing scarce charity or government resources to be allocated to areas that really need subsidies. They will enthusiastically work on a neglected market opportunity while improving social conditions. Grameen Bank is an example of a legal for-profit institution owned by its borrowers, which is now financially self-sustaining. Read Less