Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Examination of Four Sources - Essay Example

?Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Examination of Four Sources The topic to be discussed today concerns social entrepreneurship and how it renders revolutionary ideas in shaping modern-day business operations. As a background, the term has been introduced in response to the pressures given by external publics—especially by government and by local communities—on how a firm should conduct its operations (taking into consideration the ecological, social, and cultural implications of its various business activities). The continued degradation of natural resources due to commercial activities, the proliferation of anti-social behaviors in various marketing campaigns, and the rise of cases surrounding improper employee treatment have contributed to the need for a different approach to business—thus, social entrepreneurship. As such, four sources have been identified and will be used to gain deeper perspectives and insights on the topic. The first source is an academic paper written in 2003 by Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg entitled Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship. The second source is a Harvard Business School paper written in 2009 by James Austin and Ezequiel Reficco entitled Corporate Social Entrepreneurship. The third source is working paper written in 2009 by Filipe Santos entitled A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. The last source is think piece written in 2003 by Charles Leadbeater entitled Social enterprise and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years. All of these works have been developed to explore the theoretical and practical dimensions of social entrepreneurship in an analytical and scholarly manner. Therefore, using these sources will not only widen my perspective on the conceptual implications surrounding social entrepreneurship, it will also help me better appreciate the concept from a pragmatic and process-oriented view. Firstly, Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg, in their paper entitled Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship, elucidated the essential characteristics of social entrepreneurship which are summarized as “adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value); recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission; engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning; acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand; and exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created” (Boschee & McClurg 4). In this regard, self-sufficiency is the determining factor of social entrepreneurship, which springs from the embracing of innovative and goal-driven ideas that contribute in the reconfiguration of business processes. Thus, it is the fulfillment of specific social goals and not the maximization of market shares and profits that becomes the company’s ‘bottom line’. Analyzing the authors’ discussion on the key characteristics of social entrepreneurship, it can be claimed that they have indeed clarified what makes this type of entrepreneurship unique and worth pursuing. Secondly, in the Harvard Business School paper entitled Corporate Social Entrepreneurship, authors James Austin and Ezequiel Reficco purported that the proper execution of CSE lies in the creation of a culture that empowers employees toward becoming effective leaders. As such, the authors posited that in order to produce a significant and comprehensive transformation in business operations, the firm must “adopt a socio-entrepreneurial mindset and cultivate a socio-entrepreneurial environment that enables fundamental organizational transformation” (Austin & Reficco 3). Top leaders have a pivotal role in not only determining how the principles of CSE help the company attain its business objectives, but also in spearheading the integration of all business processes as aligned with the set goals. Looking at the authors’ major views on the redefinition of the company’s culture, it can be said that their emphasis on the honing of solid corporate values in developing skilled and purpose-driven individuals makes sense, especially when taken into consideration the effects of working environments on employee productivity and work outlook. Thirdly, Filipe Santos, in A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship, talked about the need to establish a conceptual framework that will shed light on the role of social entrepreneurs in modern economies. As such, he argued that social entrepreneurs are different from both social activists and commercial entrepreneurs for they play both economic and social roles (Santos 5). Thus, the various sectors of society should learn to understand their motivations and activities in order to contribute in the attainment of their social goals. Examining further the author’s standpoint, it can be claimed that while it makes sense to underscore the significance of developing the right framework toward understanding the nature of social entrepreneurship in modern economies, it seems logically questionable to assign social responsibility to a few members of society. Thus, social entrepreneurs should not be deemed as guardians but more as catalysts toward creating various changes in society. Lastly, Charles Leadbeater’s Social enterprise and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years argued the role of the government in formulating policies that support social entrepreneurship or encourage the formation and realization of socially-innovative ideas. Such thesis is based on his assumption that “the way social enterprises operate is often, at least implicitly, a critique of the limitations of public service provision” (Leadbeater 3). In this regard, while he did not want to bank on the shortcomings of the government as regards the implementation of their programs on local trade, education, and even military initiatives, he stressed on the vitality of these shortcomings in influencing the emergence of social entrepreneurs. Therefore, given the diversity of people’s expectations in addressing the most-pressing societal problems, social entrepreneurs can assist the government in fulfilling its major and minor social functions. As further pointed out, “Social enterprises often cater for needs which the state does not fully meet: for example independent living schemes for young adults with learning disabilities” (Leadbeater 4). Evaluating Leadbeater’s contention on the need to foster cooperation between government officials and social entrepreneurs to ensure the success of various social projects, it can be asserted that the author’s viewpoint is logical especially when reexamined the doctrine of communal good. Comparing the lessons obtained from each source, it is interesting to note that all of them stress on the value of innovative thinking in motivating social entrepreneurs to pursue their respective social goals. In this light, while recognizing and critically understanding the various issues in society are crucial, it is the determination and execution of specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-bound solutions that truly characterize social entrepreneurs. Therefore, reinforcing the main contentions of the four authors on social entrepreneurship, there is really a need to inculcate a holistic and relevant understanding on the role of social entrepreneurship in modern society. Contrasting the main lessons obtained from each source, it can be pointed out that each of the sources seems to possess a different perspective on how social entrepreneurship should be handled (in terms of its day-to-day operations). Borrowing Leadbeater’s theory on the role of the government in affecting the emergence of social entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurship should be majorly supported by programs initiated by the government. On the other hand, looking at Filipe Santos’ view on the same topic, he believed that social entrepreneurs should first and foremost adopt an entrepreneurial mindset when implementing their social projects in order to maintain its daily business operations. In an opposite light, Boschee and McClurg stressed on the significance of adopting a socially-driven mindset (and not a business perspective that emphasizes on the increase in market share and growth in business profits) in attaining the success of a social project. Austin and Reficco added on this thinking by infusing the role of inspiration in furthering social goals. Thus, leaders have a part to play in making sure that all employees in the company understand why social entrepreneurship is created and what benefits it can bring to them. Through this exercise, I was able to spot some areas for improvement when reading and studying specific research materials. The first area for improvement focuses on being able to appropriately sort out the major arguments in a given material and bring out the author’s main thesis and state it in a succinct and encompassing manner. The second area for improvement underscores the ability to more critically analyze a given material by comparing and contrasting its key arguments with other materials having the same topic. These areas for improvement could be honed by reading more scholarly articles and developing a healthy skeptical mind. List of Sources Austin, James & Reficco, Ezequiel. Corporate Social Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 2009. Web.13 Mar 2013. Boschee, Jerr & McClurg, Jim. Towards a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship. Caledonia.Org, n.d. Web. 13 Mar 2013. Leadbeater, Charles. Social Enterprise and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years. Cabinet Office: Office of the Third Sector, 2007. Web. 12 Mar 2013. Santos, Filipe. A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. INSEAD Social Innovation Center, 2009. Web. 12 Mar 2013. Read More