Compare and Contrast the Treatment of Social Enterprise - Essay Example

Compare and Contrast the Treatment of Social Enterprise Table of Contents Introduction 3 Critical Review 4 Concepts of Social Entrepreneurship 4 Degree of Synonymity between Social Entrepreneurship and CSR 5 Issues Related With Social Entrepreneurship 7 Conclusions and Justifications 10 References 11 Introduction Developing social enterprises has been one of the most important phases of the business environment persisting in the present era. These enterprises are incorporated with the notion of sufficing the social needs of the present day society. Organisations in the present domain are also establishing their business as per the needs of the environment as well as the society. This is noted to be strongly affecting the business environment in a positive manner and further enhancing the quality of the lifestyle prevalent within the society (Kawasaki, 2008). Notably, with a coexistence of profit maximisation and investment trends in progressing the overall social system, different approaches of the management have also been improving accordingly. With the integration of social approaches within the system of entrepreneurship, the degree of transparency also is enhanced on a sustained basis within the system and leading to approach based systems of the management to perform. The social enterprises operating in the present era are noted to be investing majority of its income for social development. Moreover, these organisations are maintaining the accuracy and transparency of the system and illustrating the different attributes of operations that has many a times led to the synonymity of the terms, ‘social entrepreneurship’ and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Leadbeater, 1997). With this concern, the essay aims to establish an in-depth understanding of the different concepts of social enterprises that are operating in the present domain. The different strategic implementations have also been elaborated by comparing and contrasting the views presented by two scholars, Charles Leadbeater and Guy Kawasaki. With effective support from the other scholars, a proper understanding could be developed gaining the support of effective scholars. Critical Review Concepts of Social Entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurs are most likely to progress in the years to come and are also likely to enhance their growth simultaneously. It is even noted that social entrepreneurship are likely to find a place within all modes of business operation and develop the social system along with profit maximisation (Leadbeater, 1997). According to Kawasaki (2008), the trends prevalent within the domain of business environment are noted to be developing over the years based on the different needs of enhancement reflecting on the notion of maintaining certain responsibilities along with earning profits. Both the scholars are of the notion that social entrepreneurs are even likely to gain popularity in the business environment in the long run. Additionally, Whitton (2006) argues that adhering to the community and social responsibility has emerged as one of the major needs of social progress among different entrepreneurs. Thus, it can be duly noted that the different scholars has affirmed social entrepreneurship to expand in the global domain and find a proper place within the business environment (Kawasaki, 2008; Leadbeater, 1997). According to Leadbeater (1997), there exists a concept that the social entrepreneurship is directly linked with the organisation that is usually considered as a non-profit making organisation. This phenomenon needs to be changed as the different organisations working or initiating social advancement are aligned towards maximising profits as well as investing the majority of their earned profits towards a specific problem faced by the society. Kawasaki (2008) however comments on the fact that social entrepreneurs are born through the effective strategies of innovativeness among entrepreneurs serving for the fulfilment of the various environmental needs and illustrating different concepts of socialising. People are also dealing with various environmental issues for incorporating the concepts of social entrepreneurship. Hence, the people dealing with issues related with the society are noted to be addressing the different attributes to meet with the needs of sufficing social innovations and emphasising the concepts of social entrepreneurship. In this regard, Short & et. al. (2009) commented that with the progression in the concepts of social entrepreneurship, the different strategies are likely to enhance prominence and build up a better system of management within the social environment. The growth of social entrepreneurship business, witnessed in the present domain, is majorly inclined towards developing its abilities to meet with the diverse social problems within a community. Social entrepreneurs, with the efficient handling of the diverse social needs, are thus emphasised towards enhancing their contribution in the community as a whole (Zahra & et. al., 2009). Correspondingly, Kawasaki (2008) states with integration in strategies, social entrepreneurship are likely to find a positive place within the domain of business enterprises and extend strategies for satisfying the diverse needs of innovations. Furthermore, Zahra & et. al. (2008) comments that with the initiation of globalisation, there has been a huge shift in the concepts of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs are finding a prominent domain within the same and enhancing their level of prominence. Degree of Synonymity between Social Entrepreneurship and CSR There are certain concepts of capitalism that influences different entrepreneurship strategies and are noted to be affecting the innovative domain prominent within social settings. Concepts of social services are often affected by the concepts of organisations that are into developing social services or charitable organisations. However, it is also noted that often the concept of social entrepreneurship is confused with that of CSR practices of organisations (Jenkins, 2011). McGoey (2012) shares his views that philanthrocapitalism is often related with the concepts of social entrepreneurship. Leadbeater (1997) also comments that social enterprises are organisations operating as other normal enterprises and inclined towards maximising profits. However, unlike other organisations, these enterprises are also inclined towards investing their profits towards eradicating a particular ailment that is prominent within a social domain (Leadbeater, 1997). Correspondingly, the different organisations must be developing attributes to meet with the diverse needs of different social entrepreneurship dimensions, which is again noted to be improving based on the basic models of charitable donations (Kawasaki, 2008). Correspondingly, Leadbeater (1997) states that there are several strict rules prominent within the social entrepreneurial system, affecting the progression of the system that is prevalent within the domain of entrepreneurship. Kawasaki (2008) also affirms that different organisations dealing with social entrepreneurship are affected by the stricter policies prominent within the domain. In this regard, Cooke (2008) commented that organisations need to increase its prominence in the global arena and are majorly inclined towards align its corporate social investment to maintain innovative index and maintain social prominence. Leadbeater (1997) also reflects on the fact that development of different regulations, such as the federal, state and local regulations, could effectively enhance the ability of the organisation to sustain. Kawasaki (2008) on the other hand comments on the fact that the adoption of skills and other attributes are likely to improve the overall concepts that will further lead to the enhancement of overall attributes of performances. Correspondingly, Hartigan (2014) comments that with the rising notions of capitalism, different concepts are also enhancing over the years, based on the incorporation of concepts related with capitalist notions. Thus, with the emerging needs of innovation, it is evident that the notions related with social entrepreneurship is enhancing over the past years. Reviewing the views established by theses scholars it is evident that the concepts depicted by Leadbeater (1997) and Kawasaki (2008) do not fall in line with each other. However, they do not even contradict each other’s views completely. It is thus noted that the standpoints put up by both the authors are important for the improvement of the concepts of social entrepreneurship (Kawasaki, 2008; Leadbeater, 1997). According to Kawasaki (2008), the need of social entrepreneurs has been enhancing in the present era. This has in turn enhanced a concept of integrating ethical framework within the educational system that will help in incorporating the concepts that are related with the notions of providing support to the society along with maximising the support. Additionally, the scholar even comments that by using different supports, this segment can be made more visible within the society and enhance the ability of the sector to provide a better system of entrepreneurship (Kawasaki, 2008). In this regards, different scholars are noted to be integrating the concepts that the existing within the social entrepreneurship system, which must be developed to increase the efficiency of prevailing practices to meet with the diverse needs of societal expansion (Shaw & Carter, 2005). Issues Related With Social Entrepreneurship The major issues related with the notions of social entrepreneurship are identified to be related with lack of social recognitions related with the same. Bruyat & Julien (2000) has argued about the fact that through diversification within the concepts of entrepreneurship, there have been immense shifts noted within the same. Notably, the different concepts related with the same are identified to be spreading over the years. Correspondingly, there has been a huge amount of change that is incorporated within the system of entrepreneurship and the same has been identified to be spread across different notions and fields (Shaw & Carter, 2005). In this regard, Zahra & et. al. (2009) argued that social entrepreneurship is still behind gaining prominence in the global domain. This form of entrepreneurship is also noted to be gaining prominence and developing the different settings of the recent community and society, to which they belong. In this regard, Shaw & Carter (2005) comments that the contemporary system of governance prominent within the social entrepreneurship is affecting the progression of the social system and even ethical concerns those are attached with the system of entrepreneurship. However, Kawasaki (2008) comments that the use of social media within the domain of social entrepreneurship is going to create an impact on the overall concepts related with the notions of social entrepreneurship. By increasing the prominence of the social entrepreneurs and by integrating the concepts within the organisational operation, it will be able to develop the business with a parallel progression of their society they belong. Contradicting the views of Kawasaki (2008), Leadbeater (1997) concentrates his responses towards the notion of financial support that would act as the sole requisite to enhance the situations of the social enterprises. Conversely, the notion that has been presented by Leadbeater (1997) could not be completely nullified, as capital generation is the sole need for increasing the performances of a particular organisation irrespective of the mode of business that they have been associated. Coviello & Munro (1995) thus supports the arguments that are presented by Leadbeater (1997) by suggesting that the need for fund is prevalent at every business background and is considered as the only support that could ensure the development of stable and established business. Grassl (2012), on the other hand, projects his views based on terminological confusion that has been affecting the overall meaning of the concept and creating a hindrance among the value creation associated with the notions of social entrepreneurship. Leadbeater (1997) has accordingly expressed his views that the overall concepts aligned with the needs of social entrepreneurship lacks recognition that has been affecting the overall strategies underlining the concepts related with the same. Identifiably Kawasaki (2008) comments lack of prominence has been hampering the different concepts underlying the strategies adopted by social entrepreneurs to enhance existing business. This could be suggested with regard to the fact that both the scholars have effectively affirmed identification to act as a source of stress for illustrating the different underlying principles of social entrepreneurship. Hence, based on the different views that are adopted by the two scholars it is noted that the issues associated with the concepts of social entrepreneurship is affecting the development of the same in the long run (Molina, 2010). Additionally, terminological confusions are acting as a huge amount of stress to meet with the needs of progression that are to be incorporated within the concepts of social entrepreneurship that are prevailing within the existing organisational system (Kawasaki, 2008; Mitchell & et. al., 2002). Rather the advancement of these concepts is even going to affect the overall progression that is evident within different social and ethical systems those have been prominent within the social entrepreneurship system (Mitchell & et. al., 2002). With the progression of the society and the need for social entrepreneurship, it is evident that the issues related with conceptualisation of the social entrepreneurship must be mitigated to increase its prominence and expand the scope of performances of the same (Kawasaki, 2008; Leadbeater, 1997). Conclusions and Justifications The scholars, i.e. Leadbeater & Kawasaki, while depicting their views about the concept of social entrepreneurship and enhancing the overall understanding attached with the concepts of social entrepreneurship, reflected on the need of prominence to enhance the efficiency of this entrepreneurs. There are several issues related with the concepts of social entrepreneurship that are identified by the scholars in their works. Notably, the two alarming issues that have been affirmed by both the scholars are noted to be terminological confusion existing within the concept associated with operations of social entrepreneurship. Correspondingly, the different needs of progression within the system of entrepreneurial practices within the concept are needed to be backed by financial strengths, which will only be available with prominence. In this regard, both the scholars identified that the concepts related with the advancement of social entrepreneurship must be focused on popularising the system and increasing its prominence within the global domain. However, there was a certain amount of contradictions visible within the concepts presented by the two scholars. While Leadbeater (1997) has elaborated on the legal relaxation related with the concepts of social entrepreneurship that must be practised in the social and global domain, Kawasaki (2008) provided his views on the basis of the different needs of promotion that is likely to enhance the various aspects related with the progression of social entrepreneurship system. Conversely, both the scholars positively elaborated their views and affirmed that based on the needs of social progression, social entrepreneurship is likely to find a positive affluence within the social domain. References Bruyat, C. & Julien, P. A., 2000. Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, pp. 165–180. Coviello, N. E. & Munro, H. J., 1995. Growing the Entrepreneurial Firm. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 49-61. Grassl, W., 2012. Business Models of Social Enterprise: A Design Approach to Hybridity. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, pp. 37-60. Jenkins, G. W., 2011. Who’s Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism? Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 61, Iss. 3, pp. 1-69. Kawasaki, G., 2008. Reality Check: The Irreverent Guide to Outsmarting, Outmanaging, and Outmarketing Your Competition. Penguin. Leadbeater, C., 1997. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. Demos, pp. 1-94. Molina, A. H., 2010. Hybridity in Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Resources. [Online] Available at: http://www.euclidnetwork.eu/eu-funding-and-policy/resources/doc_view/147-hybridity-state-and-civil-society.html [Accessed March 30, 2015]. McGoey, L., 2012. Philanthrocapitalism and Its Critics. Poetics, Vol. 40, pp. 185-199. Mitchell, R. K. & et. al., 2002. Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 93-104. Short, J. C. & et. al., 2009. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 161-194. Shaw, E. & Carter, S., 2005. Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Antecedents and Empirical Analysis of Entrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes. Babson College. [Online] Available at: http://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/fer_2004/web-content/Section%20XXIII/P1/XXIII-P1_Text.html [Accessed March 29, 2015]. Whitton, D., 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: Developing Robust Hope in the Next Generation. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, Vol. 2, Iss. 4, pp.1-15. Zahra, S. A. & et. al., 2009. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24, pp. 519-532. Zahra, S. A. & et. al., 2008. Globalization of Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 117-131. Read More