Chapter 1

Educating Social
Entrepreneurs
Educating Social
Entrepreneurs
From Idea Generation to Business

Plan Formulation
Volume I
Paul Miesing and Maria Aggestam

Educating Social Entrepreneurs: From Idea Generation to Business Plan
Formulation, Volume I
Copyright Business Expert Press, LLC, 2017.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other
except for brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
First published in 2017 by

Business Expert Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.businessexpertpress.com
ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-252-4 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-253-1 (e-book)
Business Expert Press Principles for Responsible Management Education

Collection
Collection ISSN: 2331-0014 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2331-0022 (electronic)
Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India
First edition: 2017
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America.

Abstract
Educating Social Entrepreneurs: From Idea Generation to Business Plan
Formulation appears at the time of unprecedented environmental d isasters,
natural resources depletion and significant failure of governments and global
business to attend social problems occurring around the globe. In the world
of downsizing, restructuring and social changes, notions of traditional ven-
ture creation and the ways of creating social values have been challenged.
Drawing from contributions by scholars of social entrepreneurship
from Europe, North and South America, and Africa, this edited volume
reveals interdisciplinarity of entrepreneurship research. To assist the read-
ers, students, and teachers in understanding some dilemmas of our time,
the contributors to these collections adopt an array of theoretical frame-
works that all examine a multitude of societal and business issues in which
the social entrepreneur surfaces.
This Social Entrepreneurship book draws examples from various parts
of the global business world and various societies and prepares students,
scholars, and entrepreneurial managers to deal with the challenges pre-
sented by a new and diverse business environment. It is our belief that
these two volumes endorse the importance of social entrepreneurship in
the competitive business landscape and prepare students of business and
other faculties to create their own business plan for a social venture.
Illuminating troublesome aspects of the global social and business
worlds, this Social Entrepreneurship book comprises two volumes and
covers key issues such as defining social entrepreneurship; contexts for
social entrepreneurship; pitching and communicating social opportuni-
ties; and also implementing social opportunities that covers the areas of
organizational structures and hybrid organization for social enterprises;
mobilizing resources to fund social ventures; scaling the social ventures;
and ecopreneuring as social enterprises.
Students, scholars, and entrepreneurs who want to prepare themselves
to help the poverty-stricken world and deal with social entrepreneurship
will find this to be beneficial reading.
Keywords
case studies, entrepreneurship, social business plan, social entrepreneurship
Contents
Introductionix
Part I Defining Social Entrepreneurship 1

Chapter 1 Social Entrepreneuring: Whats Good for Society
Is Also Good for Business3
Maria Aggestam
Chapter 2 I Think Therefore I Am Social Entrepreneurial
Identity and Network Development35
William Wales and Christopher Stein
Chapter 3 Purpose versus Profits43
Jerrid P. Kalakay
Chapter 4 Free Geek Toronto: Tradeoffs in Open Source and
Triple Bottom Line Organizations47
Ushnish Sengupta
Chapter 5 Worksheet for Defining Social Entrepreneurship57
Paul Miesing
Part II Contexts for Social Entrepreneurs 61

Chapter 6 Recognizing and Reframing Social Problems
into Business Opportunities: MECE and
Value Chain Analysis63
Sunny Jeong
Chapter 7 The Significance of Stakeholders in Social Enterprises73
Caroline Wigren-Kristoferson
Chapter 8 Creating Social Value81
Alia Weston
Chapter 9 The Organizational Form Design Studio89
Elizabeth A.M. Searing
viii Contents
Chapter 10 Beyond the Business Case97

Gary Shaheen
Chapter 11 Worksheet for Contexts for Social Entrepreneurs113
Paul Miesing
Part III Recognizing, Pitching, and Communicating

Social Opportunities 117
Chapter 12 Best Social Enterprise Pitch Competition119
Jerrid P. Kalakay
Chapter 13 Mapping Stakeholders and Developing
Communication Strategies123
Rachida Justo, Rakhi Mehra, and Ashley King-Bischof
Chapter 14 Marketing a Social Enterprise: Generating Questions
toConstruct Observation Experiences147
Mary Conway Dato-on
Chapter 15 Soup-On-The-Go: Jonis Soup Fellowship151
Jennifer S.A. Leigh
Chapter 16 Worksheet for Recognizing, Pitching, and
Communicating Social Opportunities159
Paul Miesing
Resources161
About the Authors165
Additional Readings173
Index177
Introduction
Paul Miesing
University at Albany, State University of New York
In simple terms, a social enterprise is an organization created to have

a specific social impact in a financially viable manner by reinvesting its
profits in areas that are otherwise outside the conventional economic
mainstream. These organizations are becoming increasingly popular and
important as disparities increase in wealth, education, employment, clean
water and sanitation, health care, technology, affordable and clean energy,
and environmental degradation. Moreover, we face one of the greatest
challenges the world has ever known: natural resource depletion along
with the negative impact of climate change. It is important to note that
there has also been significant failure from governments, nongovernment
organizations (NGOs), charities, and foundations in meeting these sig-
nificant societal challengesso much so that solving them has become a
top global priority (United Nations, Millennium Development Goals,
n.d.).
While markets are powerful engines of economic growth, busi-
nesses have often been criticized for not doing enough to remedy these
problems. For instance, well-established multinational corporations are
often unwilling or unable to solve these issues, sometimes on ideological
grounds. Even when companies attempted to tackle large societal issues
with public services, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, or
through donations to charities, these efforts were insufficient and even
made CSR sound like a clich. But for social enterprises, value accrues
to both society and the economy; hence, they must maximize returns
on total social value. Moreover, millennials surveyed said that while they
have a positive view of business role in society, they still want businesses
x Introduction
to focus more on people (employees, customers, and society), products,

and purposeand less on profits (Deloitte Millennial Survey 2016).
Many of the markets where social enterprises try to alleviate social
problems have constellations of multiple and diverse stakeholders who are
willing and able to share in defraying the costs of these transactions. Busi-
ness strategy guru Michael Porters description of the principle of shared
(not shareholder) value in the Harvard Business Review became HBRs
Top Article of 2011 and one of its 10 Must Reads: The opportunity
to create economic value through creating societal value will be one of the
most powerful forces driving growth in the global economy (Porter and
Kramer 2011). Later that year, Hitt and colleagues similarly wrote about
social entrepreneurship (Hitt et al. 2011):
[M]any have argued that entrepreneurial activity is a major

contributor to economic development and growth, creating new
jobs and enhanced market valuations (Baumol and Strom 2007).
Yet entrepreneurial activity can provide other benefits to society
as well.
A new area of research referred to as social entrepreneurship
examines how entrepreneurs develop enterprises with the intent of
helping societal members, often those who are underprivileged and
have low incomes (Kistruck et al. 2011). This focus has become a
significant and growing research area (Short, Moss, and Lumpkin
2009; Zahra et al. 2008). Essentially, social entrepreneurs estab-
lish organizations to meet social needs in ways that improve the
quality of life and increase human development over time (Zahra
et al. 2008) while benefiting owners in ways that continue revenue
flow and allow them to earn a return on their investment.
[There are also] attempts to create new companies that
enrich the natural environment and/or are designed to overcome
or limit others negative influences on the physical environment.
For example, novel innovations could be used to address a num-
ber of environmental problems (Adner and Kapoor 2010). Many
firms may take actions to reduce the negative influences their oper-
ations typically have on the environment with the hope of creating
a positive greening effect (Delmas and Montes-Sancho 2010).
Introduction xi
Thus, overall entrepreneurial activity can help to build new

economic, social, institutional, and cultural environments and
thereby provide significant benefits to society (Rindova et al.
2009).
As a result, social entrepreneurs have emerged by using markets,

business techniques, management principles, and private sector practices
to solve social/cultural or environmental problems as well as remaining
financially viablethe proverbial triple bottom line of people, planet,
and profits. While noble in purpose, these innovators face inherent disad-
vantages. Without relying on charities, grants, and donations, these enter-
prises must develop a sustainable business model that often targets the
bottom of the pyramid (Prahalad and Hart 2002) requiring innovative
solutions and multiple sources of funding (e.g., loans, impact investors,
crowdfunding, business plan competitions) and other resources (e.g.,
time, expertise, networks, volunteers) that are novel yet can be scaled and
replicated by others. According to Ashoka, Social entrepreneurs are indi-
viduals with innovative solutions to societys most pressing social prob-
lems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and
offering new ideas for wide-scale change (What is a Social Entrepre-
neur? n.d.). Not bound by traditional limits of business ventures, social
entrepreneurs succeed by collaborating, being lean (bricoleur), man-
aging risks, and creating new ways to measure their impact. Ironically,
their approach has migrated to well-established organizations in both the
private and public sectors (e.g., such NGOs as BRAC and Oxfam).
This Workbook evolved from a dearth of practical, hands-on, inter-
active materials for social entrepreneurshipsomewhat surprising given
the disciplines recent growth in popularity (e.g., Bornstein 2012). For
instance, a recent review of social entrepreneurship texts highlights the
need for richer pedagogical materials: instructors and professors are gen-
erally left on their own when it comes to activities that emphasize the
create level of critical thinking. Future editions of these texts could
more thoughtfully consider how to include activities that will encourage
creating on the part of students (Moss and Gras 2012). Moreover, there
is a tremendous need for cases, examples, and models in the developing
world.
xii Introduction
This is precisely the purpose of this volume. We organized a workshop

in May 2015 specifically to develop commentaries that provide background
information on a topic, exercises that offer opportunities to experience the
topic, and short cases (2 to 5 pages that can be handled within one class
hour) that can be used to discuss how to apply the topic. This approach
should help aspiring social entrepreneurs create their business plans.
We structure this workbook into two volumes based on the topics that
emerged from the workshop and resulting submissions: Volume I contains
sections on Defining Social Entrepreneurship; Contexts for Social Entre-
preneurs; and Recognizing, Pitching, and Communicating Social Oppor-
tunities. Volume II is concerned with implementation so covers sections
on Organizational Structures and Hybrid Organizations for Social Enter-
prises; Mobilizing Resources to Fund Social Ventures; Scaling the Social
Venture; and Ecopreneuring as Social Enterprises. We also have a variety of
resources useful in developing a social business plan, including a worksheet
at the end of each section that helps the student reflect on that topic in
building their business plan. There is also a template of items to consider
in writing that plan as well as a variety of additional resources.
Our hope is that aspiring social entrepreneurs will develop a stron-
ger and more meaningful social enterprise as a result of this volume. We
invite readers and users of this Workbook to share their experiences and
specially to provide feedback that would be valuable in future revisions
and improvementswhat works or does not, should items be added or
deleted, are there other approaches that should be included?
References
Adner, R., and R. Kapoor. 2010. Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How
the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance
in New Technology Generations. Strategic Management Journal 31, no. 3,
pp.30633.
Baumol, W.J., and R.J. Strom. 2007. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1, nos. 12, pp. 23337.
Bornstein, D. 2012. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. New York Times
(November 13) available at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/
the-rise-of-social-entrepreneur/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Introduction xiii
Delmas, M.A., and M.J. Montes-Sancho. 2010. Voluntary Agreements to

Improve Environmental Quality: Symbolic and Substantive Cooperation.
Strategic Management Journal 31, no. 6, pp. 575601.
Deloitte Millennial Survey. 2016. Millennials Want Business to Shift Its
Purpose available at www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/
articles/gx-millennials-shifting-business-purpose.html
Hitt, M.A., R.D. Ireland, D.G. Sirmon, and C.A. Trahms. 2011. Strategic
Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and
Society. Academy of Management Perspectives 25, no. 2, pp. 5775.
Kistruck, G., J.W. Webb, R.D. Ireland, and C. Sutter. 2011. Microfranchising
in Base-of-the-Pyramid Markets: Institutional Challenges and Adaptations
to the Franchise Model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35, no. 3,
pp.50331.
Moss, T.W., and D. Gras. 2012. A Review and Assessment of Social
Entrepreneurship Textbooks. Academy of Management Learning & Education
11, no. 3, pp. 51827.
Porter, M.E., and M. Kramer. 2011. Creating Shared Value: How to Fix
Capitalism and Unleash a New Wave of Growth. Harvard Business Review
89, pp. 6277.
Prahalad, C.K., and S.L. Hart. 2002. The Fortune at the Bottom of the
Pyramid. strategy+business (January 10) First Quarter/Issue 26 available at
www.strategy-business.com/article/11518?gko=9a4ba
Rindova, V., D. Barry, and D.J. Ketchen. 2009. Entrepreneuring as
emancipation. Academy of Management Review 34, no. 3, pp. 47791.
Short, J.C., T.W. Moss, and G.T. Lumpkin. 2009. Research in Social
Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 3, no. 2, pp. 16194.
United Nations, Millennium Development Goals (n.d.) available at www.
un.org/millenniumgoals/
What is a Social Entrepreneur? available at www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur
Zahra, S.A., H.N. Rawhouser, N. Bhawe, D.O. Neubaum, and J.C. Hayton.
2008. Globalization of Social Entrepreneurship Opportunities. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 2, no. 1, pp. 11731.
PART I
Defining Social
Entrepreneurship
CHAPTER 1
Social Entrepreneuring:
Whats Good for Society Is
Also Good for Business
Maria Aggestam
Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship,
Lund University
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to address and alert us to the creation of
novel entrepreneurial activities, organizations, and companies that stim-
ulate new business development in the poverty-stricken global world and
to highlights entrepreneurial practice concerned with contesting climate
changes. The Global situation, with its attendant financial crises, significant
corporate greed, and ruthless profit-seeking by globalized capitalism with
evident environmental disasters, has created a growing concern in various
societies. This study explores the potential of social entrepreneurship on
two unique and personal platforms. Both platforms illustrate contextually
grounded acts which that are also the means by which social entrepreneur-
ship preserves the possibility of change. Both cases give primary emphasis
to independent, individual action, and agency that helps us better appre-
ciate the complexity of how entrepreneurial activities are enacted. Consis-
tent with this, each of the cases is located in the wider context of globalized
capitalism while focusing on particular issues concerned respectively with
wide-reaching conditions of local poverty, contesting climate change and
abuse of global natural resource at different levels of society. Emphasis
is given to the process of poverty-stricken conditions worldwide and of
4 EDUCATING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
the fight against the abuse of our shared natural environmental reserves
through which social entrepreneurial opportunities are realized.
Is social entrepreneurship critical to addressing the inequalities of the
world? Some entrepreneurship researchers have argued that social entre-
preneurship is ill-equipped to serve the disadvantaged part of the world
population, and also our environment, and therefore cannot change the
world for the better. Yet, for some, commercial companies and ruthless
profit-seeking by globalized capitalism are close allies. This situation,
with its attendant financial crises, significant corporate greed, and grow-
ing awareness of environmental disasters, has created a growing market
for social entrepreneurship and boosted the attractiveness of social entre-
preneurship education. The younger generation has found itself delving
deeper into the constituents of global capitalism and is gradually starting
to abandon the dot.com get-rich model in favor of supporting both
social entrepreneurship and socially and environmentally conscious ide-
als. This study follows in the footsteps of the debate in the academic
community and explores the potential of social entrepreneurship on two
unique and personal platforms.
Both platforms illustrate contextually grounded acts that are also
the means by which social entrepreneurship preserves the possibility of
change. Both cases give primary emphasis to independent, individual
action and agency that helps us better appreciate the complexity of how
entrepreneurial activities are enacted. Consistent with this, each of the
cases is located in the wider context of globalized capitalism while focus-
ing on particular issues concerned respectively with wide-reaching con-
ditions of local poverty and contesting climate change and global natural
resource abuse at different levels of society. Emphasis is given to the pro-
cess of poverty-stricken conditions worldwide and of the fight against the
abuse of our shared natural environmental reserves through which social
entrepreneurial opportunities are realized.
The aim of this study is to address and alert us to the creation of
novel entrepreneurial activities, organizations, and companies that stim-
ulate new business development in the poverty-stricken global world
and to highlight entrepreneurial practice concerned with contesting cli-
mate changes with particular forward-looking process of imagining (Ford
2002). Here, social entrepreneurship can be seen in two directions. First,
Social Entrepreneuring 5
it covers the ways in which extreme poverty in the world can be elimi-
nated by using simple market-based methods and also illustrates the chal-
lenges of the self-help model of venture creation for survival. Second, the
study identifies and illustrates powerful social entrepreneurial activities in
the international arena concerning essentials of ideologically controlling
global capitalism and reacting to emergent environmental problems
depending on abuse of our common natural resources, an issue very
much neglected by worldwide government policies and business prac-
tices. The findings draw attention to the value of social entrepreneuring
that has been triggered by the practice of social responsibility, and almost
heroic entrepreneurial assertiveness inventing imaginative change-process
in poverty-traumatized global areas. Third, it relates to the positioning of
social entrepreneuring as a means of widening the theoretical understand-
ing of entrepreneurial practices in the area of the self-help movement and
social environmental responsibility.
The poverty level of society is an indisputable but neglected aspect of
entrepreneurship studies. Despite the growing approval of the multidis-
ciplinary background of the field, social-related entrepreneuring1 contin-
ues to be underemployed in entrepreneurship research (Shaw and Carter
2007). Numerous factors contribute to this state of affairs. The general
tendency is that market-oriented enterprises represent the primary inter-
est of entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship scholars fail to
recognize the role of the individual in a poverty-affected environment
(Dees 1996). Even less attention is given to environmental sustainabil-
ity of our business societies. It is also recognized that the field of entre-
preneurship has a disproportionately quantitative focus, which makes it
more complicated when studying complex fields of inquiry, such as social
entrepreneurship. Moreover, social entrepreneurship in terms of research
has been regarded as uninteresting contexts, and therefore unglamorous
1
Entrepreneuring is defined here as an action on the part of an entrepreneur to
bring about new initiatives, to create something newsuch as new ideas, new
ventures, or a new set of possibilitiesso as to enhance peoples socio-economic
environment. To put it simply, entrepreneuring is what entrepreneurs do in the
process of value-creating (Aggestam 2012; Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009;
Steyaert 2007).
and unappealing to study. Altogether, social entrepreneurs appear to have

very little significance in the ever-changing world of business (Dees 1996,
1998; Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006) and environmental
abuse by the business and corporate world.
In this chapter it is disputed that social entrepreneurs militate against
capitalistic endeavors that often are short-sighted and profit-oriented and
provide portrayals of three entrepreneurial personalities, which stands out
both for their capacity to move almost seamlessly between the business
world and survival under poverty conditions. The other two are promot-
ing radical changes in contemporary capitalistic society by creating aware-
ness about industrial abuse of natural resources. They organize around
assorted environmental and climate change issues, particularly those
which deal with the natural environment. Their goal is to gain participa-
tion and influence in the decision-making processes of governments and
businesses to take responsibilities for those destructions. In his words:
What is good for society is also good for business (Petter Stordalen,
FT.com/wealth: 42 to 43).
To illustrate this argument, the focus is on how the individual entre-
preneur became a powerful force in local economic structures, contin-
ually assessing an impoverished reality and facilitating a climate for
socio-economic and environmental change (e.g., Mair and Mart 2006;
Shaw and Carter 2007). Above all, the question is what triggers social
entrepreneuring and what kind of human and environmental abuse fac-
tors become incubators in the entrepreneurship initiation process. This
question remains essential for entrepreneurship research and practice,
holding out the promise of a more profound understanding of social
entrepreneurship. The case study method is helpful for illustrating the
new initiatives taken within the issues of climate changes demanding bet-
ter management of resources in a new, sustainable and more long-term
manner.
The study is neo-institutionalist in the sense that it draws on the
insights of the radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurshipin partic-
ular, Lachmanns subjectivist perspectiveto understand how the social
entrepreneur creates opportunities through expectations of an imagined
future and exploits opportunities to create wealth through continuous
resource recombination. Conceptualizing human and environmental
issues as subjective facilitates the examination of what triggers social

entrepreneuring, especially when combining business with self-help
movements or fighting against the abuse of our environment for the sake
of economic gain.
The chapter is organized as follows. The next section provides the
broad theoretical framework within which the paper is located. This
is followed by a description of the case studies, which offers details on
research sites, methods, and data analysis. The final section presents find-
ings, conclusions, and implications for research and practice.
Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship

Research on social entrepreneurship has clearly benefited from previous
work on entrepreneurship. The rise of social entrepreneurship as both a
theoretical construct and practical approach provides a unique oppor-
tunity for the field to be enhanced. Given importance to social entre-
preneurship, this study is based on conceptual insights of the Austrian
economist Ludwig Lachmann who conducted a radical re-examination
of the way in which economic theory was developing steering it in
the most novel of directions (Boehm et al. 2000), and is used here to
conceptualize his challenging approach of imagination. Lachmanns
original economic framework takes an interest in the intelligibility of
human activities through subjective lenses and provides the overall
framework that guides this chapter. Furthermore, his wide and generic
view emphasizes a unique disequilibrium perspective, which takes into
account institutional context and multiple levels of analysis, [and] offers
new theoretical insights into how social entrepreneurs create opportuni-
ties through expectations of an imagined future (Chiles, Bluedorn, and
Gupta 2007). Indeed, in some instances, such as sustainable governance
of nature resources and the self-help movement,2 using imagination actu-
ally creates an incubator for the entrepreneurship initiation process and
illuminating the dynamics of social entrepreneuring.
2
The self-help movement aims to change the perception of the poor by showing
them how to create a new sustainable life for themselves.
The considerable insights from entrepreneurship and the neo-

institutional conceptual tradition (Lachmann 1986; Scott 1995) help
to understand how social entrepreneurial performance may emerge and
respond to extreme poverty or the brutality of the environmental misman-
agement of worldwide resources. Neo-institutionalists have focused on cog-
nitive elements of individual performance based on subjectively constructed
aspirations that influence and guide actions (Lachmann 1986). Drawing on
these constructs together in the context of the neo-institutional tradition
suggests that both internal (personal) and external (environmental) forces
may prompt social entrepreneuring processes (Scott 1995).
Equal consideration is given to the entrepreneurial ability to imagine a
better world for people who are involved in environmental and economic
improvement processes and who are committed to creating environmen-
tal sustainability and societal change worldwide. Evidence of these abil-
ities, for example, may include the ability to exert authority, frame new
practices and behaviors, set new agendas for organizational action, and
creatively bring together unusual new ideas for the improvement of grass-
roots systems. Further, they conflate into larger, international forum in
the form of protest against the outrageous actions of corporations and
mismanagement of societal resources for own gain, just to mention a few.
Chell (2007) called capabilities of this kind alienable (e.g., leaders capa-
bilities, business expertise) and inalienable (e.g., tacit knowledge, other
unique personal assets) resources that together comprise the intelligibil-
ity3 of social entrepreneuring.
In the same vein as Chells view, Kwiatkowski (2004) also assigned
value to embodied human capabilities (such as cognitive, emotional, and
intellectual) that may benefit and distinguish the social entrepreneur over
3
Social entrepreneuring takes an interest in the intelligibility of human practices.
Human practice becomes intelligible through a number of factors. Studies have
investigated individual psycho-social characteristics including personality traits
(Chell 1985), psychodynamics (Kets de Vries 1977), personal needs and motives
(e.g., McClelland 1961), socialization and societal group membership (Hagen
1962); and various combinations of socio-economic background, personal char-
acteristics, education and work experience, position within the local community
(Kets de Vries 1977), and the role of personal networks (e.g., Johannisson 1988;
1998).
other individuals. This form of agency requires imaginative mind-sets

that have the capacity to strive to imagine and create a better world
(Sarasvathy et al. 2003). For Sarasvathy, effectual process ends are not pre-
determined but continually redefined in order to construct new mental
models for others or to create solutions to environmental and economic
problems. Dorado (2005), for instance, pointed to projective agency, that
is, agency that is involved in imaginative thought and actions directed
toward changing existing and creating novel practices and procedures.
The term social entrepreneuring4 is used to refer to a number of
approaches to efficiently catering for basic human needs that existing
market-related business ventures and governments have failed to fulfil.
More specifically, social entrepreneuring combines an emphasis on the
notions of entrepreneurial creation,5 taken basically from Lachmann
(1986). It is and understood as a continuous recombinative process leads
to economic progress at the societal level, intimately tied to the entre-
preneurs position (Sternberg 1997; 2000). Lachmann claims that (social)
entrepreneurs create plans based on their subjective, individual knowledge,
visions and expectations. Expectations apply to various factors and condi-
tions that focus on the unknown future that entrepreneurs have to imag-
ine. For Lachmann, entrepreneurs create ex nihilo, through what Ford
(2002) called the forward-looking process of imagining that allows them to
think outside the box, where the box is defined largely by the limits of
knowledge rooted in interpretations of the past (Chiles, Bluedorn, and
Gupta 2007). Moreover, Lachmann suggests that because various entre-
preneurs interpret their past and their accumulated knowledge differently,
they construct their future goals, philanthropies, and ideals subjectively.
As related earlier, an element of entrepreneurial personality (Chell
2007; Sternberg 2004; Sternberg et al. 2000) becomes central. Consistent
with this, the focus is on the founder of the initiative (Mair and Mart
2006) whose crucial distinguishing characteristic (of social entrepreneur-
ing) is cognitive abilitythat is, imagining the perceived opportunities
4
See Dacin, Dacin, and Matear (2010) and Shaw and Carter (2007) for various
definitions of the concept within the entrepreneurship literature.
5
Entrepreneurial creation is an issue that both Kirzner and Schumpeter
neglected.
upon which action is based, action that fits the specific needs of the
local situation and that can also catalyze socio-economic change and
needs (Aggestam 2014a). Cognitive ability is defined here as a mental
quality that predetermines a persons responses to and definition of a
given situation (Cooley 1918), an interpretation and understanding of a
shared view on humankind (Baron 2004). Drawing upon these strands of
thinking is the individual entrepreneurs cognitive processing, that is, the
product of individual mind and imagination that is especially significant
in the social entrepreneurship movements within suffering environments
and communities.
Also, the term entrepreneuring has a particular resonance in this
study because of its dual but related dynamics: it is associated with
socio-cognitive approaches focusing on agentic aspects of solitary entre-
preneurial performance in response to environmental and poverty-related
triggers and, as Chell (2007) explained it, influences entrepreneurs
actions and the ways in which they might think about or represent images
of situations to themselves. This line of inquiry views the social entrepre-
neur as an agent of change who is always dependent on socio-economic
circumstances but also on exclusive personalized, practical knowing, and
active mental processing of situated information.
What are the challenges of social entrepreneuring? The experience of
the phenomenon in practice is extremely scarce (Light 2006; Porter and
Kramer 2011) and the increase in attention paid to social entrepreneurship
is insignificant within entrepreneurship research. There may be reasons
for this insignificance. For example, social entrepreneuring may elicit a
set of affective processes in traditionally difficult business situations. Also,
it may trigger emotional challenges. These challenges are often grounded
in depiction, for instance, circumstances where markets are identified as
failed (McMullen 2011) or a social entrepreneurs new ideas may appear in
the situation where there is a considerable institutional vacuum (Austin,
Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Mair and Mart 2006) that the cre-
ation of new economic entities, philanthropy-related organizations, or
start-ups are being realized without institutional support.
In addition, social entrepreneurs actions have to reflect and accord
with their individual values and intrinsic satisfaction (Aggestam 2014).
This means that excitement and passion may also have to underpin their
activities. In other words, social entrepreneuring can be viewed as chal-

lenging because it requires strong personal encounters to be able to handle
extreme situations (at various levels of society) with empathy and balanced
intelligence (Chell 2007; Sternberg 1988, 1997) and where knowledge,
resources, and infrastructure are missing. Researchers largely agree that
social entrepreneuring involves a broad set of actions of entrepreneurial
agency with a social or economic mission that aims to change people,
communities, and societies for the betterfor example, providing cre-
ative and imaginative solutions to their most pressing social, environmen-
tal, and economic problems (Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004; Chell 2007;
Dees 1996; Mair and Mart 2006). This means that social entrepreneurs
play a pivotal role in the creation of social values (Dacin, Dacin, and
Matear 2010; Shaw and Carter 2007) using market-based methods to
solve socio-economic and environmental problems. In opposition to the
self-interest of for-profit businesses, social entrepreneurship creates new
socio-economic values by using market-oriented practices specifically to
sustain created values (Mair and Mart 2006) in order to bring about
improvements to society.
Description of the Study

To explore the phenomenon of social entrepreneuring, I have chosen to
study Hand in Hand International, an organization initiated and devel-
oped by P. Barnevik, who began his involvement by targeting the poor-
est segment of the population in India (see also Aggestam 2014b). The
second case reveals the insides about the work of Petter and Gunhild
Stordalen, originators of Stordalens Institute, Stordalen Foundation and
the GreeNudge Foundation, all of which deal with the creation of protec-
tive institutions against vagaries of the corporate world and destructions
of natural resources.
I selected those cases for the purpose of understanding human and
environmental factors, in particular when combining business ventures
with sustainable responsibility within movements in impoverished envi-
ronments. I choose to highlight these particular cases for three reasons.
First, I consider as Miller et al. (2012) do, that social entrepreneuring is
a particularly interesting subject for study entrepreneurial activities such
as the creative, imaginative, risk-taking, achievement, confident, and

independent attributes of an entrepreneur exploiting and working in a
poverty-stricken environment. It illustrates how the poor and marginal-
ized have been empowered to participate in market activities. A second,
local venture creation involving small firms required the constant affir-
mation of their members in order to keep going. Because those small
local enterprises were difficult to create (due to the lack of resources) and
maintain, their founders have to keep up with education, resource man-
agement and group cooperation, just to mention a few.
Third, there are two diverse structures of entrepreneurial activities
in those two cases; the first one is concerned with the umbrella organi-
zation created by Percy Barnevik, a high-profile Swedish entrepreneur,
and the second case is concerned with organizations building focused
on developing worldwide awareness of environmental abuses of natural
resources created by Gunhild and Petter Stordalen. Moreover, the Hand
in Hand structure has been effective in enabling the continued building
and existence of small firms, and Barneviks model has been replicated in
many developing countries. Also, Petter Stordalen is an unusual example
of an anti-capitalist billionaire who is a committed environmental activist
but also incorporates his and Gunhilds ideas into their businesses. For
example, their company GreeNudge puts considerable pressure on inter-
national communities to create protective institutions against the vagaries
of the market.
Above all, these cases provide a unique opportunity to understand
social entrepreneurship and its impact on society while implementing
their imaginative ideas at various levels of societies. Equally central to
social entrepreneurship is the notion that, as Petter Stordalen says: If we
dont take responsibility when we run our businesses our planet will go
straight to hell.
Methodology
The neo-institutional perspective has implication for the methodologies in
this study. Essentially, my intention was not to chronologically document
lives or activities of social entrepreneurs. I was more fascinated by under-
standing the meaning their visions, ideas, actions, and events held for
them. Social entrepreneurs have shown extraordinary committed person-

alities characterized by constant affirmation and faith in their activities/
doings focused on the beneficiaries and receivers for continued existence.
This focus on the understanding of the shared meaning of the social
entrepreneurial activities, beneficiaries accounts, and rapidly transform-
ing natural environment provided limelight and enhanced the method-
ological stand of the study.
The neo-institutional perspective also has consequence for the meth-
ods used. The methodology was qualitative and essentially case study
based. The data collection technique was based on primary and second-
ary data, retrieving documents directly from Hand in Hand International
from 2012; media research such as the Guardian and Washington Post
newspapers; Percy Barneviks (2012) autobiography, Jag Vill Frndra
Vrlden [I Want to Change the World], the book on Barnevik by Haag and
Petersson (1999); and the book on the new global leaders by Kets de
Vries and Florent-Treacy (1999). Information about Gunhild and Petter
Stordalen was retrieved from the media, in particular from the Financial
Times where I first discovered their existence. My intention has been not
to follow worldwide developments chronologically but rather to under-
stand the role and triggers of both entrepreneurs and also how the vari-
ous activities unfolded. To understand the entrepreneurial mind-set, the
biographies have been very helpful. The analysis of documents retrieved
from the Internet covered a period of one year. Finally, I analyzed all doc-
uments and material for common themes relevant to the special interest
in this chapter. My documents analysis was guided by a meaning-centered
perspective (Taylor and Bogdan 1984) rather than focusing entirely on
reporting statistics. However, I included some illustrative statistics to pro-
vide an accurate picture of the field.
1. Intrinsic Case Study

This case study did not set out to test hypotheses or attempt to con-
firm a priori theories about the social entrepreneurship processes
within the context of the self-help movement. In selecting these cases,
the aim was to generate novel insights and understand the dynam-
ics of a single setting, upon which I developed my analysis. How-
ever, a single setting does not usually offer grounds for generalization
to other settings, and this may constitute a limitation of the study.

These case studies were also guided by Czarniawska-Joerges (1996)
notion that theory enriches practice, but only by virtue of reflec-
tion, and they are not presenting speculatively constructed mod-
els in advance. Grounded in such perspectives, these cases are best
characterized as an intrinsic case study (Stake 1994) that provided
insights and allowed reflective understanding of the activities taken
by social entrepreneurs.
In this research, a case study approach has been used following
Stake (1994). This means that the analysis uses what Chia (1996)
identifies as an ontology of becoming (as contrary to an ontol-
ogy of being). The premise was that the case is not a method but an
object to be studied (Stake 1994). I was attracted to Stakes approach
because he was interested in studying how individual members of
our society came to make sense of the social and economic envi-
ronment worldwide. Stake (1994) distinguished intrinsic,6 instru-
mental, and collective cases. Intrinsic cases, which were the focus of
this study, are chosen because they enable the researcher to discover
and understand the phenomena of interest. The primary purpose of
such a study of a case is discovery, not theory-testing. The approach
also allowed for a widening of the theoretical explanation of entre-
preneurial practices that bring about economic and environmental
change, development of societies, and entrepreneurship.
2. Markers of Difference: Percy Barnevik and Petter and Gunhild
Stordalen
This section presents two unique social entrepreneurs. Key to these
insights offered is the globalized capitalism that constituted the con-
text where they lived their lives as business people.
Percy Barnevik represents and provides an example of
philanthrocapitalism, understood here as a regenerative model of
capitalism in which resources are returned to society. It can be dis-
tinguished by operations using business principles. Born in 1941,
a Swedish business chief executive, chairman of multinational and
6
Intrinsic cases are exemplified by: Akenfield (Blythe 1955/1969); Argonauts of
the Western Pacific (Malinowski 1922/1984); Gods Choice (Peshkin 1986).
global corporations such as ABB (19882002), Investor AB, General

Motors, AstraZeneca, Sandvik, Asea and many other worldwide con-
glomerates, Barnevik turned to philanthropy after a high-profile cor-
porate career. Broadly, he intended to lift millions of people, mainly
in non-industrialized countries, out of the worlds deepest poverty
and has channeled large amounts of his own private funds into wel-
fare schemes. He is the only social entrepreneur who is actively prac-
ticing and applying entrepreneurship using business principles in
projects focused on eliminating poverty in several poverty-stricken
countries.
Petter Stordalen owns the largest hotel chain in Scandinavia,
Nordic Choice Hotels, with 170 high-end hotels in many countries,
employs 10,000 people, and controls 11 well-established brands. His
career started at age 10 within the strawberry business, helping his
fathers grocery store to flourish. The next step in his business career
was the foundation of Steen and Strom Invest, one of Norways big-
gest real estate companies. His interests centered on not only issues
related to business world but also the environment. He has been a
dedicated environmentalist, as became evident to the world when in
2002 he chained himself to the UKs Sellafield nuclear reprocessing
plant in protest of handling nuclear waste. In 2007, he was charged
with trespassing after entering a top-secret area on Malmykalven,
an island close to Oslo, to protest at the dumping of toxic mud. His
background is one of social and economic privilege, and his con-
cerns about our environment originated from his practical concerns.
He says: It started when we started to look at energy? We wanted
to save energy because we wanted to save money (FT/Wealth: 44
to 45). At that point he was not aware of the role that the natural
environment was playing; such thoughts only occur to him later. He
describes himself as a techno-optimist and sees his responsibility
to promote new technology as catalyst for change. His interest in
electricity issues led him to invest in Think Global, an Oslo-based
electric car company, which ended in what he called disaster or
financial collapse. His green outlook is grounded in the view that
people are at risk if they fail to respect the planets natural limits.
His view is that climate change is being ignored and that we are
embarking on a battle between capitalism and free market funda-

mentalism on the one hand, and an overheated planet on the other.
For the moment, capitalism is winning. It wins every time, for exam-
ple, when corporation and big business talk about economic growth
and whenever this leads to the breaking of emissions commitments
already made. The spiral of market fundamentalists action is outside
public control. The catastrophic results of this muddying and pro-
crastination are now undeniable.
Hand in Hand International and Percy Barnevik

1. Initiation Process
Hand in Hand was founded by two Swedish teachers, Gunnel and
Ole Blomquist, in 1988 as a small project to help free small chil-
dren (from four years old) from industrial slavery. These children
were basically sold or given away by their parents who had borrowed
money from local milling/weaving companies that they were unable
to repay. The Blomquists were traumatized by situations characterized
as poverty, illiteracy, and hunger, and started raising funds to enable
to free the children from the oppressive conditions in which they
lived. They were committed to making a difference, but resources
were very limited. At first their goal was to feed the hungry children
after the long hours they spent working. The next step was to find
premises in which to start schools, and to provide school uniforms,
school buses, and education in English. This was the beginning of
the initiative to buy the children back from the industries for which
they worked. They wanted to build a better and sustainable future
for children freed from industrial slavery as well as for those still
enslaved. A third development within the project was an initiative to
build simple housing in villages. They networked widely to find the
resources and they actively sought outside help. At this point, their
first contact with Percy Barnevik occurred. He visited their small site
in 2003 and started to be involved in the project. This involvement
was initiated by the expansion of schools and was focused mainly
on the education and economic empowerment of women. Gener-
ally, men were untrustworthy and almost never repaid their loans,
o ffering various excuses, and also lacked a sense of responsibility for

their obligations. Women paid back 99.7 percent of their loans and
were willing to learn, work hard, and take responsibility. The aim has
been to educate them to start their own ventures in the future.
Hand in Hand International is an exclusive model of microfi-
nance. It targets the very poorest level of society (living on less than
a dollar a day), individual women or groups who have never had
business-related opportunities in the globalized capitalist economy
or run any form of cash-related venture.
Loans averaging $125 were given predominantly to women run-
ning or starting new ventures. The model is unique in its own way
because it is based on a projection of success and prosperity. Conse-
quently, in order to borrow more money, the women went through
a period of comprehensive training. The women need to show that
they understand their own self-interest and their involvement in
their small ventures. Percy Barnevik says: We teach 75 000 women
a year to read, write, and do basic math in 150 days. This is followed
by training in entrepreneurship, finance, and basic operations in a
variety of ventures such as baking, sewing, or making jute bags. That
takes three to four months. After this extensive training, a cash injec-
tion may be available and this has to be invested directly in the small
business created. The cash borrowed is closely monitored so that it
is spent on creating ventures and not on consumption. The aim is
to develop skills for self-employment and provide income needed to
support the family or individual. The model also has extensive social
requirements apart from providing microloans.
Child labor has been a critical problem in India. Realizing
that child labor could not be eliminated without raising the living
standards of parents, a five-pronged strategy is followed: education,
health, dissemination of government schemes for the underprivi-
leged, incorporating microfinance, and awareness of the importance
of a clean environment and personal hygiene.
It demands that the health situation is improved, that children
are forced out of work and into schools (some 30,000 pupils have
been freed) and that villages are basically cleaned. These factors are
connected and create a self-sustaining way of life. Hand in Hand
may, for example, help to provide villages with new school teachers,
but the villagers have to pay the teachers wages out of their own
resources. Hand in Hand does not allow the situation of depend-
ency on outside help, and the aim is to create prosperity based on
villagers understanding of the situation.
In 2012, Hand in Hand provided help to 771,000 Indian
women, who have created 810,000 small business ventures and 5,500
medium-sized companies. The number is growing by 400 a day. The
microfinance model has also been expanded to South Africa, China,
Brazil, and Afghanistan. According to Barnevik, the goal is to help
a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day. He posits that
creating a job costs approximately $200 in non-industrial countries
and that the industrial world is inefficiently spending $110 billion a
year on aid. Applying this model may potentially have a huge impact
on the development of the poorest and lessen various economic and
social tensions.
2. The Concept of Success
The experience of Hand in Hand International is that women repay
99.7 percent of their loans. The loans make it possible for women
to create financial independence by setting up small ventures. As
the system develops, a self-help movement starts. Percy Barnevik
donated $17 million of his own money to Hand in Hand Interna-
tional. He says that the most important thing here is our knowl-
edge, ability and passion. Those are the factors that help to create
incubators in the entrepreneurship initiation processes. Engaging
in a process of continuous learning, initiation, and practical adap-
tation, he is very efficient at soliciting support from other donors.
Importantly, he adds:
everything is quantified. All the way down to the bottom you

have targets and follow-up, like in a super-efficient company.
Productivity and quality everywhere. Therefore, I get so irritated
when I read these big bilateral aid organizations saying its very
difficult to measure. Not at all. Its like hospitals and schools and
everything. They say: These are people, you cant measure people.
I say: Bullshit, you can measure it. (Guardian, 22 January 2008)
Percys formula relies heavily on volunteers: 50,000 of them, in addi-

tion to the 2,600 people he currently employs. He gets deeply involved in
anticipating the needs of people for whom no one really cared before. He
then provides a business survival model that insists on extensive training
for borrowers. This training not only provides rules for their ventures
but also redefines their life. Everything I learned as a CEO applies in
this world as well, he says (Washington Post, December 23, 2008). The
idea is to listen closely to women and society and to their basic problems.
But the vision is personal. Percy Barnevik, of course, is one member of
a large team at Hand and Hand International, and he makes decisions
and choices. Mostly he relies on tenacity, trust, and his own judgment
and looks for the multiplier factor of excellence on a small scale. There
is a tight connection between his personality as a social entrepreneur and
what he is creating. In the poverty universe, Percy Barnevik inspires peo-
ple to be innovative, engaged, and active. He is genuinely interested in
articulating his socio-economic vision of improvement, which he pas-
sionately pursues. His critical set of ingredients for success is enthusiasm,
creativity, and passion (interview on Swedish Radio, October 15, 2011).
Above all, the empowerment of women who were in the most abject pov-
erty demonstrates the imaginative and original way in which the process
was conducted. This has been done without regard to local traditions.
Percy Barnevik has been a pioneer in locating opportunities for women
that prove beneficial. The definition of the situation was instrumental in
dictating Barneviks new initiatives, imagination, and passion for work.
He underscores that for him the most serious giftarguably the only seri-
ous oneis our knowledge, abilities, and passions. According to Vaishna
Roy, communications officer of Hand in Hand International:
This place is run like a corporate. Percy keeps telling us not to

measure ourselves against other NGOs but with companies. We
have regular board meetings, prepare annual reports and have
fixed targets. Percy reads the reports and distributes them to the
other potential donors abroad. He is an impressive figure. He used
to joke about how he bathed using a small bucket and a mug and
about all the children in the village following him when he went
on his morning jogs.
Another employee, N. Sivakumar, who first met him in 2007, says:
He is very motivating and also precise. If somebody gives an idea,

he refuses to accept a vague outline and insists that it is action-
oriented. He also comes up with new ideas. Percy is constantly
asking us, how many lives have you touched?
By the end of 2012, Hand in Hand International had helped set up

1, 244,260 sustainable jobs, 771,000 mobilized and trained women, and
810,000 small enterprises. Another initiative involving Barnevik was started
in 1998 in Kancheepuram by a group of Swedish women who wanted to
stop the child laborers working in mills there. Barnevik entered the stage in
2002, changing it into a not-for-profit enterprise across 18 districts, in four
states in the country. The same model has been adopted in South Africa,
Afghanistan, and Brazil. The model of venture creation in Central and
North India was shaped by speed, low costs, scale, and transparency.
The Stordalens
Petter Stordalen. Petter Stordalen owns one of the biggest hotel chains
in Scandinavia and his net worth is $1.61 billion. He is the owner and
CEO of Home Invest, Chairman of the board of Nordic Choice Hotels
and Home Properties, and board member of Home Capital. He is also a
partner in the Stordalen Foundation, which supports the European Cli-
mate Foundation and is one of the eight major contributors. His personal
philosophy based on corporate responsibility at Nordic Choice Hotels
led to the removal of pornography from pay TV in its bedrooms, and in
2007 the company became the worlds first smoke-free hotel chain. In
2008, every hotel was certified in accordance with the ISO 14001 stan-
dard. The hotel restaurants provide meat but guests are recommended
healthy eating choices. The company also works with Rainforest Founda-
tion Norway and helped preserve 53,600 hectares of tropical rainforest in
2012. The same year, Nordic Choice Hotels won the Grand Travel Award
for Best Work Place for the fourth year in a row.
He is a committed environmentalist and has been aware of how
corporate interests have systematically exploited our common natural
resources leading to environmental disaster. All such natural disasters

produce new irony-laden accounts of a climate increasingly inhospitable
to the very businesses, corporations, or industries that are mostly respon-
sible for them in the first place. He also takes action himself. For instance,
in 2002, he chained himself to the UKs Shellafield nuclear reprocess-
ing plant in protest of governmental approval of treating nuclear waste.
In 2010 he married Gunhild, who holds a PhD in medicine and who
inspired Petter Stordalen to undertake philanthropic pursuits, which
resulted in founding Stordalen Institute with the goal of promoting social
and environmental responsibility. A combination of Petters ideals and
money and Gunhilds knowledgeable beliefs are aiming to make capital-
ism more human-friendly. They are pioneers in the area of fighting abuses
of our natural resources by capitalistic companies and corporation and
say if we do not act now to protect our environment, the world will go
to hell. Both Gunhild and Petter work together in various companies
and associations, and their motto is eat healthy and make an effort to
develop the worlds sustainable food production. For example, Choice
Hotels provide 70 percent organic food. The main big issues of our time,
is how we can feed nine billion people with healthy food without totally
destroying our planet.
They are constantly developing new ideas in order to find com-
mon ground for peoples health, sustainability, and acting for synergies
that may influence industries, politicians, and scholarly research. Their
aim is to work more closely with capitalist forces in industry in order
to integrate sustainability with enterprise DNA in order to identify
sustainable research opportunities and to quicken the pace of change
processes.
Gunhild Stordalen. Gunhild Storedalen is cofounder and chair of
Stordalen Foundation and CEO of GreeNudge, director of the board
of Nordic Choice Hospitality Group, Eco, Zero, and European Climate
Foundation. She is a founder member and the chairman of the board of
the Stordalen Foundation. She is a medical doctor from the University
of Oslo and holds a PhD in pathology/orthopedics, and a member of
the Norwegian Medical Associations committee for human rights, cli-
mate change, and global health. She is totally dedicated to climate- and
health-related issues and strongly supports sustainability initiatives.
1. Stordalen Foundation
The Stordalen Foundation was co-founded with Gunhild Stordalen.
Their actions could be primarily explained as: fighting for the world
and give the planet the chance to survive. They understand climate
change as essentially a battle between capitalism and the planet
and for the moment capitalism is undeniably winning. It wins every
time a corporation talks about economic growth and uses it as an
excuse for breaking emissions commitments already made. Enter-
prises and corporate interests have systematically exploited our natu-
ral resources enriching financially only a small group of people. They
did so by lifting regulation, cutting social spending, and forcing
large-scale privatizations of public sphere, among the other actions.
For example, communal forests around the world are being turned
into corporate hands building legally new business formation: tree
farms. Those tree farms refer to ways in which the industrial world
and big corporation preserved their beneficial financial interests
throughout international exchange system called carbon credits.
In other words, the global community has been drained of natural
resources by industry and big corporations who enacted environ-
ments through carbon credits exchange system, called sometimes
as a very lucrative scam. Accumulation of natural disasters produces
new irony-laden records of increasingly inhospitable climate point-
ing at the very business and corporate world most responsible for its
cause and warming. That is one way to see how market fundamental-
ism helps overheat the planet.
The Stordalen Foundation also supports other initiatives that
promote animal welfare such as Blue Cross in UK and Dyrebeskyt-
telsen Kongsberg in Denmark. Other projects include Water for Life,
which has helped to build wells and to improve sanitary conditions
for school children in Malawi, Nepal, and Madagascar. Also Nordic
Choice and UNICEF started a three-year project, Free to Grow, in
order to help children grow up free from violence and violations of
their rights.
Through Nordic Choice Hotels, the Stordalen Foundation
finances European Climate Foundation (ECF), as one of eight larg-
est sponsors. The ECF was created in 2008 to promote climate and
energy policies that greatly reduce Europes greenhouse gas emissions

and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role
in mitigating climate change. The organization drives its own pro-
jects but also finances and helps set policy for a number of climate
related organizations in Europe. Gunhild Stordalen has served on
the supervisory board since 2010.
2. GreeNudge and Gunhild and Petter Stordalen
GreeNudge (www.greenudge.no), financially supported by the
Stordalen Foundation, aims at promoting and financing projects
related to climate measurement and behavioral research. Established
in 2011 in Oslo, Norway, GreeNudge is a not-for-profit organiza-
tion that is working together with various intergovernmental bodies
entrusted with disaster prevention, research institutions, organi-
zations, and businesses to create new knowledge on cost-effective
measures that incentivize climate-friendly behavior. Fighting for our
collective chances of survival, they hope that those new findings and
new instruments can be implemented on a larger scale and thereby
reduce emissions significantly. The organization also aims to under-
stand how the global food system contributes to greenhouse gas
emissions, providing for research and promoting ways to reducing
them. Broadly, it strongly promotes and enables sustainable choices
in everyday life to create emission-free solutions and green growth. It
is also part of Danish Nugin Network. GreeNudge is led by Gunhild
Stordalen and an operational council that consists of a multidiscipli-
nary team that includes climate researchers, consumer researchers,
and a deputy director. The organization runs its own projects but
also supports a number of climate change-related endeavors, thereby
strengthening feelings of solidarity and eliciting considerable public
support.
3. EAT: Science, politics and business sharing food for thought
In 2013, The Stordalen Foundation, in cooperation with the Stock-
holm Resilience Centre, started EATan international consor-
tium, a platform for world leading universities, research centers,
governments, philanthropic foundations, non-government actors
and organizations, and companies, in which all share the common
understanding that it is essential to collectively address issues of
food, health, and sustainability primarily framed to save the planet

(www.eatforum.org/partner/stordalen-foundation). This requires
more interdisciplinary knowledge of the interconnections between
food and agriculture, health and nutrition, environmental sustain-
ability, and socio-economic factors. Scientific research is at the heart
of the EAT Initiative, and the flagship of its structural design is a
network of world-leading universities and research institutions, with
the common objective of advancing knowledge and identifying syn-
ergistic solutions within the nexus of food, health, and sustainability.
Findings and Interpretation

This section presents a broader conception of social entrepreneuring
based on discussion of the case study data and findings from a neo-
institutionalist standpoint. As indicated previously, my intent was to
inform entrepreneurship scholars and practitioners on those aspects of
social entrepreneuring not captured by other perspectives. In highlight-
ing the progressively developed success of social entrepreneur Percy Barne-
vik and how he pursued his mission in the self-help movement model
he created, this chapter emphasizes the business aspects of social entre-
preneuring, in particular illustrating how his work has been carried out
successfully. Thus far, it is also evident that Gunhild and Petter Stordalens
radical activities are illustrative for taking responsibilities for sustainable
resource management both in home country and internationally. This pro-
cess of influencing the business context involved providing clear examples
of for-profit companies that have been enhanced by sustainable manage-
ment of resources and also focused environmental responsibility. Follow-
ing this path, this study also offers a certain theoretical framework for
successful venture creation and practical articulation of sustainable envi-
ronmental responsibilities within the social entrepreneuring approach.
An analysis of the Hand in Hand organization suggests that success-
ful social entrepreneuring was built around the powerful presence and
experience of Percy Barnevik who promoted autonomy, inclusion, trust,
imagination, excitement, and passion to enhance the self-worth of local
individuals in order to eradicate poverty in all its forms. Therefore, this
study implies that unspecified and non-concrete goals and purposes for
survival in impoverished areas are ineffective if not linked to the personal

experience of the individual social entrepreneur.
The case of Percy Barnevik exclusively illustrated the process of creating
business values by providing solutions to social problems. His undertakings
and organizing drive aimed to impose a new order and new patterns of
life in villages and have been based on his personal analytical and practical
capabilities, as clearly demonstrated. More specifically, his predispositions
in this case study were partly personal (internal), and partly environmental
(external), stimulated by conditions of extreme poverty and willingness to
help others better themselves. From this, it also follows that social entrepre-
neuringor what Sternberg (1997) termed balanced intelligenceis at
the crux of venture creation and establishment. Such subjective knowledge
suggests that successful venture creation often rests on the individuals abil-
ity to be analytical, creative, and practical. (See Table 1.1 for cases that are
indicative and illustrative of how they were carried on in various contexts
and how new meaningful realities have been created in poverty regions.)
Table 1.1 Examples of the new entrepreneur

New
entrepreneurs Quotation from H & H international cases
Nadera, North She did not believe that she had the skills to run her own busi-
Afghanistan ness. Today she has a business plan and runs her own poultry
farm with help from her mother.
Christine, Machakos, For the first time she began saving money each week and learn-
Kenya ing the business skills she needed to start her own business. She
is 67 years old and started her own business making and selling
baskets and rope.
Usha, India To begin with she set up a tailoring business. This was so suc-
cessful she took out another loan and bought a taxi or share
auto. Today she runs two businesses, earns 6000 INR per
month (US$120) and employs her brother as the taxi driver.
Thandazile, She learned financial discipline and received business training
Swaziland before taking a loan to establish a piggery, supplying local
restaurants and supermarkets. Today her business has an annual
turnover of US$3500.
Cathrine, Eastern Inspired by business training, she also has a business plan. She
Africa has taken a loan so that she can build up her farming business
to include chickens, a goat, and a dairy cow.
Source: Case studies from Hand in Hand International projects in various countries.
By highlighting these newly created successful small businesses and

turning attention to learning and believing in its own business and sur-
vival capacity, we can see the emergence of meaningful realities for those
women whose previous shared reality was one of poverty and starvation.
They have been able to transform their own context and socio-economic
status.
In highlighting the success of Barnevik and also the Stordalens, Iam
not implying that their strategies were perfect or their activities were
not beset by problems and political contradictions. Rather, their actions
demonstrated the enormous complexity of the processes they were
involved in and that their accomplishment was based on their imagina-
tion, past business experiences, and considerable corporate practices. These
were combined with what Chell (2007) called alienable resources, such
as leadership, business planning expertise, and other performative skills
that build on and ensure the success of their activities. In both cases, the
nature of the social entrepreneur is conceived as a product based not only
on his business background but also on the values of his national heritage.
Lachmanns notion of individual knowledge, experience, and expec-
tations being the critical component of a social entrepreneurs ability to
engage in the venture creation process seems to hold true. My findings
demonstrate that both Stordalens and Barneviks creative actions seemed
to be about what Ford (2002) called the forward-looking process of imag-
ining that allowed them to stretch out over time and space, and also
provided the signaling mechanism allowing them to initiate new envi-
ronmentally friendly and developmental projects. Both entrepreneurs
provided hard financial resources as well as a softer, personal support
mechanism through their links. Characteristics and consistent outcomes
were also ascribed to their personalities that have been shaped by the cred-
ibility of business experiences and incubation of their ideas. Stordalens
case demonstrated also the way he has been building his own credibil-
ity within local business milieu by providing and sustaining eco-friendly
rules. The important goal for him was the maintenance of his credibility
as demonstrated by the degree of his involvement in the projects. Both
entrepreneurs have been aggressive in framing and applying their experi-
ences at the local and international level of activity. This persistence also
helped to build influence in Europe.
My findings also provide evidence in support of entrepreneurs instan-

tiating social entrepreneuring through their cognitive abilities, which are
a combination of analytical, creative, and practical skills useful in the pro-
cess of imagining the future. As these cases show, Barnevik and Stordalen
cognized the women differently and, based on these cognitive abilities,
make decisions to support and promote their ideas. The study shows
that in Barneviks case, only women have been capable of sustaining their
business successfully. Gunhild Stordalen becomes most exemplary and
significant Scandinavian women who not only inspired but also created
organization important for survival of our planet.
Another factor that appears to be highly personalized was the empa-
thetic awareness of the situation, alongside cognition of facts that problema-
tized the very nature of the abused natural resources and poverty-stricken
environments. The data shows that fundamental capitalist-driven resource
abuse by the business world and their controversial tactics lucks strong
opponents. They proceed with their damaging actions as they wish to.
On the other hand, the poverty-stricken environments did not have the
economic power to create an existence of its own. Rather, it suggests that
successful environmentally friendly progress-building is fostered around
forward-looking personal imagination, expertise, and balanced intel-
ligence. In short, the evidence demonstrates that the cognitive-related
attributes of entrepreneurs represent one of the major resources for social
entrepreneuring. Furthermore, by using these attributes, the process of
social entrepreneuring has been initiated, enhanced, and solidified.
Conclusions
The aim of this chapter was to provide a solid foundation on which con-
ceptualization of social entrepreneurial processes can proceed. To achieve
this, the chapter provided a brief introduction to Lachmanns ideas,
which run counter to the current mainstream entrepreneurship para-
digm based on Schumpeter and Kirzner (e.g., Shane and Venkataraman
2000). Lachmann shed unique light on entrepreneurial creation, issues
that both Schumpeter and Kirzner neglected, and also opened up new
ways of thinking about entrepreneurial exploitation of opportunities as a
continuous recombinative process (Chiles, Bluedorn, and Gupta 2007).
Empirically based theorizing offers a broad challenge to mainstream

entrepreneurship studies by foregrounding the emergence of creative
entrepreneurial practice, which comprises personal roles and dynamics.
Moreover, meaningful actions of social entrepreneurs are more difficult to
build, maintain, and sustain than are business enterprises mainly because
they have to possess highly personalized empathetic awareness, alongside
an awareness of the situation and common sense. Also that include a
forward-looking vision to be able to develop socially responsible alliances.
Examining social entrepreneuring processes allowed the identification
of the nature of the social entrepreneur as highly personalized and empha-
sizes the individual contribution to socially responsible actions toward
business and survival of our societies and also to the self-help movement
in the developing world. That is, social entrepreneurship can operate
essentially as a creative act that uses forward-looking inventive imagina-
tion and capital resources to empower disadvantaged people and encour-
age them to take control of their lives. It is applicable when a powerful
and high-status entrepreneur endorses these practicesan emphasis that
is important for widening our theoretical and practical understanding of
activities that are labeled social entrepreneuring.
The analysis suggests that an individuals capabilities are important
for the success of social entrepreneuring. Accordingly, the findings reveal
that the situations in which social entrepreneurs are not fulfilling their
promises and obligations depend on their lack of competence and per-
sonal attributes. Stordalen and Barnevik are an illustration of the oppo-
site. They have the capabilities to evaluate progress by how well they and
the others in the projects prosper and improve the situation. Both cases
draw heavily on their private achievements in business and the pivotal
role given to triggers, which facilitated their actions.
Findings and analysis revealed that women are the instrumental driv-
ing force for economic growth in a poverty-stricken society. It was evident
that only women were able to work with Percy Barnevik to make their
projects succeed. Women initiated new ventures and have had a signifi-
cant impact on their home economy and on ending extreme poverty in
their localities. The case strongly indicated that womens venture creation
within Hand in Hand International may also be positioned as a unique
kind of opportunity for developing society not only economically but
also sustainably. That said, the research results discussed here suggest the
need for further work to examine the performance and growth of wom-
ens businesses within the self-help movement. Entrepreneurship scholars
could also enrich the approaches of both Lachmann and Sternberg by
building connections between them and studying women in this success-
ful project. Another reason to extensively study this group of women is
the lack of studies and models that can be used to explain and disseminate
the results worldwide.
To conclude, my analysis also demonstrates that social entrepreneur-
ing is a process of creating conditions for both environmental and devel-
opmental movements. This is a critical part that requires greater depth of
understanding to make a difference in the business and corporate skull-
duggery and social sphere.
Another interesting issue within social entrepreneurship is philan-
thropy that sees creation of sustainable businesses as a primary practice
to provide a holistic view of problems and solutions in the process of
wealth creation (Edwards 2008). Philanthropy accentuates the interpre-
tation of social issues (Miller et al. 2012) as the root of entrepreneurial
action. In functional terms it can be distinguished from more conven-
tional approaches such as non-governmental and other nonprofit aid
organizations as it reinforces and applies entrepreneurial capabilities
and score-keeping to our most persistent challenges in order to create
responsible and sustainable wealth. This approach primarily challenges
various socio-economic and environmental issues such as poverty, home-
lessness, child slavery, environmental abuse of resources by corporate
business spheres, and other societal problems (Bishop and Green 2009).
When it comes to understanding basic grounds of social entrepreneur-
ship, the commitment to economic and social values (Austin, Steven-
son, and Wei-Skillern 2006) used by market-based organizational forms
become important for sustainability and survival (Mair and Mart 2006;
Hartigan 2006) of our planet. This endogenic stance of social entrepre-
neurships harmonizes with Webers (1968) notion of understanding the
situation (verstehen) that helps scholars encounter developmental chal-
lenges by paying attention to meaningful realities (Chell 2000; Dempsey
and Sanders 2010) and actions of social entrepreneurs. Consequently,
defining meaningful realities precedes the actual identification of
socio-economic problems by defining the situation (Cooley 1918), a pro-

cess where social entrepreneurs through creative, analytical, and practical
thinking (Sternberg 1997) imagine future solutions (Lachmann 1986).
Again it was apparent in both cases that the definition of the situation was
instrumental and was a process element in shaping the eventual choice of
tactics and market-based methods toward imagined solutions. It is in this
way that understanding of social entrepreneuring ideas can be helpful.
Implications: The Future for Social Entrepreneuring

in Entrepreneurship Research
While the social entrepreneurship approach within entrepreneurship
research has not substantially increased in popularity over the years, the
concept itself is not new and has been used in the past by various social
scientists. Although its use has intensified slightly, due to its founding per-
sonalities, business angels, leaders of big corporations, global compa-
nies, and other visible actors, much entrepreneurship research has been
overlooked. A perspective that has not been fully explored, for the reasons
mentioned earlier, is that of the cross-disciplinary approach of, for exam-
ple, entrepreneurial action. However, as highlighted in the previous discus-
sion, social entrepreneurship involvement can also be problematic. Yet, it is
through social entrepreneurship that successful entrepreneurial action can
convert lack of resources into a small venture and job creation into
a sustainable environment for the poverty-stricken population. Despite
some empirical and theoretical development (e.g., Grant and Berry 2011;
Miller et al. 2012), there is a need for further understanding of particular
social issues that may involve social entrepreneurs, the embeddedness of
the process they are involved in, and the impact of socio-economic mecha-
nisms on the process of creation of meaningful realities for the poor.
While this case study has demonstrated that social entrepreneuring
is a process creating conditions for a successful self-help movement, fur-
ther research is needed to generate findings in other contexts. I have also
argued that by conceptualizing social entrepreneuring we can understand
better what triggers social entrepreneuring and what kind of human and
contextual factors become incubators in the entrepreneurship process.
The crucial element of future research on social entrepreneurship is a
cross-disciplinary agenda. Such a cross-disciplinary agenda could be use-

ful in studying, for example, the entrepreneurial potential of women in
poverty-stricken environments, the view of investors within the world of
extreme poverty, or documenting how social entrepreneurs move from
conception to implementation. Implications for practitioners lie in high-
lighting the importance of balanced intelligence combined with personal
imagination when working within extreme poverty situations.
References
Aggestam, M. 2014a. Conceptualizing Entrepreneurial Capital in the Context
of Institutional Change International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal 10, no. 1, pp. 165186.
Aggestam, M. 2014b. Social Entrepreneuring: The Case of Swedish
Philanthrocapitalism. In Entrepreneurship, People and Organisations:
Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Blackburn, F. Delmar,
A.Fayolle and F. Welter. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Alvord, S., L. Brown, and C. Letts. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal
Transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 40, no. 3, pp. 260282.
Austin, J., H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillern. 2006. Social and Commercial
Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 30, no. 1, pp. 122.
Barnevik, P. 2012. Jag Vill Frndra Vrlden [I Want to Change the World].
Stockholm: Mnpocket.
Baron, R. 2004. Opportunity Recognition: A Cognitive Perspective Academy of
Management Proceedings, pp. A1A6.
Bishop, M. 2010. Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save The World. New
York: Bloomsburg Press.
Boehm, S., I. Kirzner R. Koppl, D. Lavoie, and P. Lewin. 2000. Remembrance
and Appreciation RoundtableProfessor Ludvig M. Lachmann. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology 59, no. 3, pp. 367417.
Chell, E. 2000. Toward Researching the Opportunistic Entrepreneur: A Social
Constructionist Approach and Research Agenda. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology 9, no. 1, pp. 6380.
Chell, E. 2007. Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship: Toward a Convergent
Theory of the Entrepreneurial Process International Small Business Journal
25, no. 1, pp. 526.
Chiles, T., A. Bluedorn, and V Gupta. 2007. Beyond Creative Destruction
and Entrepreneurial Discovery: A Radical Austrian Approach to
Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 28, no. 4, pp. 467493.
Chia, R. 1996. Organizational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice. Berlin, Germany

and New York: De Gruyter.
Cooley, C.H. 1918. Social Process. New York: Scribner.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. 1996. A City Reframed: Managing Warsaw in the 1990s.
Sweden: GRI, Gothenburg University.
Dacin, P., T. Dacin, and M. Matear. 2010. Social Entrepreneurship: Why We
Dont Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward from Here. Academy
of Management Perspectives 24, no. 3, pp. 3757.
Dees, J. 1998. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship available at www.redalmarza.
com/ing/pdf.
Dempsey, S. and M. Sanders. 2010. Meaningful Work? Nonprofit
Marketization and Work/Life Imbalance in Popular Autobiographies of
Social Entrepreneurship Organization 17, no. 4, pp. 437459.
Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional Entrepreneurship, Partaking, and Convening.
Organization Studies 26, no. 3, pp. 385414.
Edwards, M. 2008. Philanthrocapitalism and its Limits. International Journal of
Not for Profit Law 10, no. 2, pp. 2229.
Ford, C. 2002. The Futurity of Decisions as a Facilitator of Organizational
Creativity and Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 15,
no. 6, pp. 635646.
Grant, A. and J. Berry. 2011. The Necessity of Others is the Mother of Invention:
Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking and Creativity.
Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 1, pp. 7396.
Haag, M. and B. Petersson 1999. Percy Barnevik: Makten, Myten, Mnniskan
[Percy Barnevik: The Power, the Myth, and the Person]. Stockholm: Ekerlids.
Hartigan, P. 2006. Its About People, not Profits. Business Strategy Review 17,
no. 4, pp. 4245.
Johannisson, B. 1988. Business FormationA Network Approach. Scandinavian
Journal of Management 4, nos. 34, pp. 8399.
Kets de Vries, M., and E. Florent-Treacy. 1999. The New Global Leaders: Richard
Branson, Percy Barnevik, David Simon and Remaking of the International
Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kwiatkowski, S. 2004. Social and Intellectual Dimensions of Entrepreneurship.
Higher Education in Europe 29, no. 2, pp. 205220.
Lachmann, L. 1986. The Market as an Economic Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Light, P. 2006. Searching for Social Entrepreneurs. In Research on Social
Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field, ed.
R. Mosher-Williams, pp. 89104. Indianapolis: Association for Research on
Nonprofits Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Mair, J., and I. Mart. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of
Explanation, Prediction and Delight. Journal of World Business 41, no. 1,
pp. 3644.
McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand.

McMullen, J. S. (2011), Delineating the Domain of Development
Entrepreneurship: A Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive
Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, no. 35, pp. 185193.
Miller, T., M. Grimes, J. McMullen, and T. Vogus. 2012. Venturing for Others
with Heart and Head: How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship.
Academy of Management Review 37, no. 4, pp. 616640.
Porter, M.E., and M. Kramer. 2011. Creating Shared Value: How to Fix
Capitalism and Unleash a New Wave of Growth. Harvard Business Review
89, pp. 6277.
Rindova, V., D. Barry, and D. Ketchen. 2009. Entrepreneuring as Emancipation.
Academy of Management Review 34, no. 3, pp. 477491.
Scott, R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a
Field of Research. Academy of Management Review 25, no. 1, pp. 217226.
Shaw, E., and S. Carter. 2007. Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development 14, no. 3, pp. 418434.
Stake, R. 1994. Case Studies. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds.
N.Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. 1988. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence.
New York: Viking.
Sternberg, R. 1997. Successful Intelligence. New York: Plume.
Sternberg, R. 2000. Cross-Disciplinary Verification of Theories: The Case of the
Triarchic Theory. History of Psychology 3, no. 3, pp. 177179.
Sternberg, R. 2004. Successful Intelligence as a Basis for Entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing 19, no. 2, pp. 189201.
Sternberg, R., G. Forsythe, J. Hedlund, R. Wagner, W. Williams, S. Snook,
and E. Grigorienko. 2000. Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Steyaert, C. 2007. Entrepreneuring as a Conceptual Attractor? A Review of
Process Theories in 20 Years of Entrepreneurship Studies. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development 19, no. 6, pp. 453477.
Taylor, S., and R. Bogdan. 1984. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods:
The Search for Meanings. New York: Wiley.
Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster.
Index
Alienable resources, 26 dot.com get-rich model, 4
Balanced intelligence, 25 EAT Initiative, 2324

Barnevik, Percy Empowering Women in Rwanda:
Hand in Hand International TheBlue Sweater (Novogrtaz),
model, 1620 6772
regenerative model of capitalism, Entrepreneuring, definition of, 5
1415 Entrepreneurship, 711
Burkes pentad method, 7677
Business plan, writing, 161164 Financial Times, 13
Forward-looking process of
Child labor, 17 imagining, 26
Communicating social opportunities, FOSS. See Free and Open Source
159160 Software
Communicating with stakeholders Free and Open Source Software
apathetic, 138 (FOSS), 47, 5152
Centre for Policy Research, 137 Free Geek Toronto
defenders, 137 description of, 4748
latents, 138139 FOSS possibilities, 5152
Michael and Susan Dell governance structure, 52
Foundation, 136137 history of organization, 50
microfinance agencies, 136 Junction community, 4950
promoters, 135136 mission, vision, and activities, 49
World Bank Private Sector Team, open source organization, 48
137 social, environmental, and financial
Context-centric aspects goals, 5354
branding and market positioning, target population, 51
104 volunteer involvement, 53
competitive environment, 104
description of, 98
GreeNudge, 23
distribution, 104
financing, 104105
market assumptions, 103104 Hand in Hand International
networks, 105 concept of success, 1820
Contexts for social entrepreneurs initiation process, 1618
mission, 113 Harvard Business Review, x
scope, 114
stakeholders, 115 Inclusive entrepreneurship template
values, 114 context-centric aspects, 98, 109
vision, 114 individual-centric aspects, 97100,
Corporate citizenship, 123 109
178 Index
theoretical framework, 106109 exercise schedule, 44

venture-centric aspects, 98, 109 group share, 45
Individual-centric aspects, 97100, pre-reading and preparation work,
109 44
purpose/learning objectives, 4344
Mavunos project stakeholders sorting of decisions, 4445
Africa-Based Fund, 141 time required, 44
Agricultural Nongovernmental
Organization, 141 Social enterprise, definition of, ix
apathetics, 143144 Social enterprise incubator, 96
defenders, 142143 Social enterprise legal structure
latents, 143 assignment, 151152
mapping and prioritizing, 140 case study, 152157
monitoring, 144 discussion questions, 157
promoters, 140141 learning objectives, 151
ranking influence and interest, 140 Social enterprise pitch competition
Safaricom, 142 debriefing and reflection, 122
Mutually Exclusive and Collectively exercise schedule, 120
Exhaustive (MECE) gaining feedback, 122
framework. See Social personal reflection on pitch, 122
problems pre-reading and preparation work,
120121
Novogrtaz, Jacqueline, 6772 presentation, 121
purpose/learning objectives,
Observation experiences, constructing 119120
description of, 147 time required, 120
exercise, 148150 Social entrepreneurial identity and
learning objectives, 148 network development
purpose of, 148 closing reflection on social
Organizational Form Design Studio entrepreneurial identity, 41
analysis and discussion, 9495 crafting personal social narrative,
background and preparation, 39
9091 exercise schedule, 37
description of, 89 identifying heroes and
determinants, organizational form, organizations, 4041
9293 learning objectives, 36
exercise schedule, 90 opening reflection on social
group size, 89 entrepreneurial ideals, 3839
learning objectives, 89 overview and background, 35
Social Enterprise Incubator-case prework, 38
study, 96 purpose/learning objectives, 3637
time required, 90 time required, 37
Urban Food Deserts-case study, weak ties, 40
9596 Social entrepreneurship
definition of, xxi
Purpose vs. Profits entrepreneurship, 711
class discussion, 45 findings and interpretations, 2427
debriefing and reflection, 45 future for, 3031
Index 179
intrinsic case study, 1314 Stakeholders mapping

markers of difference, 1416 advocating to latents, 130131
neo-institutional perspective, background on, 128129
1213 background on identifying,
worksheet for, 5760 126128
Social problems engaging promoters, 129130
activity analysis, 66 exercise format, 125
case study, 6772 group discussion, 125126
complexity of, 63 informing apathetics, 131132
evaluation and planning, 67 informing defenders, 130
exercise schedule, 6667 specific learning objectives, 125
group size, 65 time required, 125
purpose/learning objectives, 64 Stordalen Foundation, 2223
required time, 6566 Stordalen, Gunhild, 21, 23
value analysis, 6667 Stordalen, Petter, 1516, 23
Social value
creating/making, 8182 Value chain analysis. See Social
exercise schedule and activities, problems
8387 Venture-centric aspects
group size, 82 description of, 98
learning objectives, 82 equipment and production,
time required, 83 102103
Social ventures, 9293 new venture infrastructure,
Stakeholders 101102
background on, 7577 operations, 102
Burkes pentad, 7677 Venture concept, 100101
class discussion and debriefing, 80 Venture opportunity, 101
description of, 7374
exercise schedule, 74 Worksheet
financial and nonfinancial, 124 contexts for social entrepreneurs,
group discussion, 7880 113115
group size, 74 defining for social entrepreneurs,
prework, 7475 5760
process instructions, 7778 for recognizing, pitching, and
purpose/learning objectives, 74 communicating social
required time, 74 opportunities, 159160
worksheet for contexts, 115 Writing business plan, 161164

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educating Social

From Idea Generation to Business

Paul Miesing and Maria Aggestam

Copyright Business Expert Press, LLC, 2017.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

First published in 2017 by

ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-252-4 (paperback)

Business Expert Press Principles for Responsible Management Education

Collection ISSN: 2331-0014 (print)

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

First edition: 2017

Printed in the United States of America.

Part I Defining Social Entrepreneurship 1

Part II Contexts for Social Entrepreneurs 61

Chapter 10 Beyond the Business Case97

Part III Recognizing, Pitching, and Communicating

In simple terms, a social enterprise is an organization created to have

to focus more on people (employees, customers, and society), products,

[M]any have argued that entrepreneurial activity is a major

Thus, overall entrepreneurial activity can help to build new

As a result, social entrepreneurs have emerged by using markets,

This is precisely the purpose of this volume. We organized a workshop

Delmas, M.A., and M.J. Montes-Sancho. 2010. Voluntary Agreements to

and unappealing to study. Altogether, social entrepreneurs appear to have

issues as subjective facilitates the examination of what triggers social

Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship

The considerable insights from entrepreneurship and the neo-

other individuals. This form of agency requires imaginative mind-sets

activities. In other words, social entrepreneuring can be viewed as chal-

Description of the Study

as the creative, imaginative, risk-taking, achievement, confident, and

them. Social entrepreneurs have shown extraordinary committed person-

1. Intrinsic Case Study

to other settings, and this may constitute a limitation of the study.

global corporations such as ABB (19882002), Investor AB, General

embarking on a battle between capitalism and free market funda-

Hand in Hand International and Percy Barnevik

o ffering various excuses, and also lacked a sense of responsibility for

everything is quantified. All the way down to the bottom you

Percys formula relies heavily on volunteers: 50,000 of them, in addi-

This place is run like a corporate. Percy keeps telling us not to

Another employee, N. Sivakumar, who first met him in 2007, says:

He is very motivating and also precise. If somebody gives an idea,

By the end of 2012, Hand in Hand International had helped set up

resources leading to environmental disaster. All such natural disasters

energy policies that greatly reduce Europes greenhouse gas emissions

food, health, and sustainability primarily framed to save the planet

Findings and Interpretation

survival in impoverished areas are ineffective if not linked to the personal

Table 1.1 Examples of the new entrepreneur

By highlighting these newly created successful small businesses and

My findings also provide evidence in support of entrepreneurs instan-

Empirically based theorizing offers a broad challenge to mainstream

socio-economic problems by defining the situation (Cooley 1918), a pro-

Implications: The Future for Social Entrepreneuring

cross-disciplinary agenda. Such a cross-disciplinary agenda could be use-

Chia, R. 1996. Organizational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice. Berlin, Germany

McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: Van Nostrand.

Balanced intelligence, 25 EAT Initiative, 2324

theoretical framework, 106109 exercise schedule, 44

Part I Defining Social Entrepreneurship 1

Part II Contexts for Social Entrepreneurs 61

Chapter 10 Beyond the Business Case97

Part III Recognizing, Pitching, and Communicating