Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Survival of Social Enterprises A tale of overcoming scarce resources
Master’s Thesis 30 credits Department of Business Studies Uppsala University Spring Semester of 2017
Date of Submission: 2017-05-30
Ina Sandén Maria Äng Supervisor: Linda Wedlin
Abstract Social enterprises often face initial developmental challenges connected to resource scarcity,
both in their external and internal environment, therefore they often rely on external actors, to
develop, scale up and thrive. Fifteen in-depth interviews with social enterprises were
conducted in order to explore how social enterprises utilise the support from an external actor,
in this case incubators. Pierre Bourdieu's capital theory (1986) was used to facilitate the
understanding of the provided support, and the convertibility of capital was applied to explore
how social enterprises utilise the provided support. The theory of capital and capital
conversion was applied as a lens to analyse and interpret the empirical findings. The study
reveals that social enterprises convert all types of capital with social capital proving to be
convertible into all other forms of capital and economic capital as being a difficult conversion
for social enterprises. Furthermore, social capital was identified as a valuable resource, which
can help social enterprises to address the issue of resource scarcity.
Key words: social enterprises, resource scarcity, capital, capital conversion, external support
2
Acknowledgements
Hereby, we would like to take the opportunity of thanking all of the people who in any way
have been involved in the process of writing this thesis and helping us to finish our final
assignment and complete our years of university studies. We would foremost like to express
our gratitude towards the fifteen social enterprises and entrepreneurs who gave us a few
minutes of their scarce time to provide us with interesting and valuable insights; Anton
Håkansson, Emma Rosman, Laura de Clercq, Lisa Löfgren, Viktor Lidholt, Ebba Åkerman,
Yvonne Malmström Grimme, Elin Lutke, Cecilia Bödker Pedersen, Caroline von Uexküll,
Nicholas Roman, Julia Östfeldt, Micael Gustafsson, Erik Kylén, Hanna Lindquist and Lina
Lagerbäck. Thank you for telling your tale of overcoming scarce resources and the history of
your social enterprise.
Furthermore we would like to thank our very intelligent seminar group and supervisor Linda
Wedlin for supporting us throughout this semester and providing us with interesting, and at
times confusing discussions, but ultimately rendering very valuable comments and feedback.
Lastly we wish to credit Uppsala University for providing us with an extensive education and
for being our home university for the last 5 years.
Stockholm, May 29th, 2017
Ina Sandén and Maria Äng
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEALING WITH RESOURCE SCARCITY 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1SOCIALENTERPRISES 62.2BOURDIEU’SCAPITALTHEORY 82.3BOURDIEUWITHINENTREPRENEURIALLITERATURE 92.4THEFORMSOFCAPITAL 102.4.1ECONOMICCAPITAL 102.4.2SOCIALCAPITAL 112.4.3CULTURALCAPITAL 132.4.4SYMBOLICCAPITAL 152.5THEORETICALAPPROACH 16
3. METHODOLOGY 18
3.1RESEARCHDESIGN 183.2SAMPLESELECTION 183.3THEINTERVIEWS 193.4OPERATIONALIZATION 213.5THEANALYSISPROCESS 23
4. ANALYSIS 25
4.1WHATRESOURCESDIDTHESOCIALENTERPRISESRECEIVE? 254.2HOWSOCIALENTERPRISESDEALWITHRESOURCESCARCITY 274.2.1CONVERSIONOFECONOMICCAPITAL 284.2.2CONVERSIONOFSOCIALCAPITAL 294.2.3CONVERSIONOFCULTURALCAPITAL 344.2.4CONVERSIONOFSYMBOLICCAPITAL 36
5. REFLECTIVE DISCUSSION 41
6. CONCLUSION 43
6.1LIMITATIONS 446.2SUGGESTIONSFORFUTURERESEARCH 44
REFERENCES 46
APPENDIX 1 51
4
1. Dealing with Resource Scarcity During recent years, a new corporate trend has been on the uprise: to tackle global problems
by combining both social and financial value (Suni 2017). Market based models have been
recognised as a promising approach for addressing the social problems of our time and social
enterprises continue to emerge as problems stay unsolved (Lall et al. 2013; Scarlata &
Alemany 2010; Augustinsson 2011). Even though new social enterprises continue to arise,
many of these innovative companies encounter challenges in their early stages and many
initiatives fail to survive (Lall et al. 2013; Mulgan et al. 2007).
Researchers argue that social enterprises face major barriers to success, which is why many
fail to establish ventures sustainability (Noruzi & Rahimi 2010). In addition to the challenges
faced by traditional entrepreneurs, the social aspect of social enterprises implies an added
complexity with additional challenges specific for social enterprises (Kourilsky 1995; Tracey
& Phillips 2007). Furthermore, due to the social mission of social enterprises, investors often
perceive social enterprises as a risky investment as they fear less or slower return on
investment (Kasper & Marcoux 2014). This results in a restrained access to external financing
since there are fewer investors willing to invest in social enterprises, compared to traditional
start-ups. Besides the challenge related to accessing financing, they also encounter a lack of
adequate mechanism able to promote, adapt and scale social enterprises (Mulgan et al. 2007).
Among others, these factors imply that social enterprises often have a limited access to
external resources. However, social enterprises also face scarcity of internal resources. Social
entrepreneurs have trouble in harnessing the limited resources that are available and they
often lack adequate and crucial business competencies needed to manage the organisation
(Leadbeater 1997; (Lall et al. 2013).). The lack of internal resources result in difficulties to
build efficient teams, develop viable business models, raise investments and find appropriate
target groups (Reach for Change 2016; Lall et al 2013).
Due to the specific lack of resources, social enterprises are regarded as an exceptionally
demanding form of entrepreneurship (Habaradas & Aure 2016) and they are generally reliant
on external support in order to survive (Mulgan et al. 2007; Antadze & Westley 2010).
Incubators are one example of actors within the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship that can
provide social enterprises with support and facilitate the development of new enterprises
(Björk et al. 2014). The process of how entrepreneurs utilise and manage resources has
5
attracted increasing academic interest the entrepreneurial field (Baker & Nelson 2005;
Sullivan & Ford 2014). The aspect of how social entrepreneurs and their social enterprises
manage, utilise and leverage resources provided through incubators, has however not
explicitly been explored in contemporary research. Since the trend of the social enterprises is
on the uprise, researchers argue that there is a growing need to understand how they utilise
available resources (Björk et al. 2014). Due to the specific restriction of both external and
internal resources, we argue that it is of interest to explore how they overcome initial
challenges, survive and develop a viable business. Seeing as incubators provide social
enterprises with support, granting access to resources, we further find it interesting to explore
how social enterprises manage and utilise the resources received through incubators.
Hence, the aim of this thesis is to investigate how social enterprises utilise external support
provided by incubators in order to deal with resource scarcity. By applying the social
enterprises’ perspective, this paper will aim to deepen our understanding of social enterprises
and answer the following research question:
How social enterprises utilise resources obtained from incubators?
In order to understand social enterprises’ utilisation of resources, we identify Pierre
Bourdieu’s theory of capital and the notion of conversion of capital (1986) as an appropriate
conceptual lens. Bourdieu's framework has been identified as a valuable tool to study the
utilisation and management of resources by entrepreneurs (Pret et. al 2016), whereby we
argue that capital theory, and particularly conversions, will facilitate our understanding of
how social enterprises can leverage support. On a theoretical level, the thesis seeks to add to
existing empirical research on social enterprises and how they deal with scarce resources.
Furthermore, the study aims to contribute to theory on conversions of capital, by investigating
conversions in relation to social entrepreneurship. For social enterprises, the study can be of
value as it can provide them with insights in how to deal with the challenge of scarce
resources.
6
2. Literature Review This section will draw upon existing research within the field of social entrepreneurship and
relevant academic articles concerning Pierre Bourdieu's theory of capital (1986). Initially, a
conceptualisation of the term social enterprises will be outlined. Secondly, a review of
Bourdieu's work on capital and conversions is presented, followed by a summary of
entrepreneurial literature based on Bourdieu's capital theory and subsequently an outline of
the forms of capital and their conversions. We conclude with a theoretical approach used for
the purpose of this thesis.
2.1 Social Enterprises
Social enterprises are initiatives that cut through sector boundaries and combine business
logics with socially driven goals to create social impact (Augustinsson 2011; Mulgan et al.
2007; Di Domenico et al. 2010). As they fuse entrepreneurial and innovative practices with
commitment to both social and economic goals, social enterprises blur the lines between non-
profit and private sectors and are often considered to be hybrid organisations (Dees 1998;
Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship 2001). Social enterprises have become an
increasingly significant field of enquiry in several academic disciplines and researchers are
keen to understand and explain the contradictory aspects of the organisational form (Di
Domenico et al. 2010). Even though substantial efforts have been made to define the concept
of social enterprises, there is still no universal definition available (Leadbeater 1997; Prabhu
1999; Shaw & Carter 2007). The lack of definition is, according to Shaw and Carter (2007)
due to the social enterprise’s heterogeneity and diversity regarding organisational form,
structure, performed activities and client group. Furthermore, the terms social
entrepreneurship and social innovation can create further confusion since they are often used
interchangeably with social enterprises (Antadze & Westley 2010; Luke & Chu 2013), as a
social enterprise often is driven by a social entrepreneur and aims to create social innovation.
Consistent with Abu-Saifan (2012), we adopt an inclusive definition of social enterprises,
which suggests that social enterprises include both non-profit organisations and for-profit
organisation. Social enterprises operating as non-profit organisations incorporate commercial
methods and adopt business practices in order to achieve both social and commercial activity
(Abu-Saifan 2012; Habaradas & Aure 2016). They differ from traditional non-profits due to
7
their business like approach to address societal issues, whereby generated profits and
revenues are used to improve social benefits (Luke & Chu 2013; Adu-Saifan 2012). For-profit
social enterprises on the other hand are explicitly designed to fulfil a social purpose while
simultaneously achieve sustainability and create financial value (Luke & Chu 2013; Adu-
Saifan 2012).
The social mission of social enterprises implies an added complexity for developing the
organisation and business (Tracey & Phillips 2007; Habaradas & Aure 2016). Due to their
societal focus, social enterprises tend to locate activities and operations in markets
characterised by a scarcity of resources, creating a specific set of challenges for social
enterprises (Di Domenico et al. 2010). As social impact, rather than profit, often is regarded
the primary goal of the social enterprise, the expectations early stage investors have on return
on investment can be misaligned with the actual generated return (Lyons & Kickul 2013). The
degree of risk taking can also be perceived higher, as it involves taking risks on less
established approaches with a potential higher risk of failure (Kasper & Marcoux 2014).
Social enterprises do not only have to deal with external resource scarcity, but they also face
internal scarcities of resources. It is argued that many social enterprises find difficulty in
accessing and harnessing the available resources needed in order to succeed (Lall et al.
2013). Furthermore, the individuals behind social enterprises often lack adequate and crucial
business competencies and need to develop analytical and executive skills to help them
manage the organisation, especially when the organisation grows and becomes more complex
with larger financial commitments (Leadbeater 1997). Moreover, social initiatives tend to
lack internal capabilities and resources to build efficient teams, develop viable business
models, identify an appropriate customer base or raise investments necessary to prosper and
scale up (Reach for Change 2016; Lall et al 2013).
In the ecosystem of social innovation and entrepreneurship, there are several actors that
support the development of social enterprises; as venture philanthropic organisations, social
innovation networks and incubators (John 2006; Björk et al. 2014). Incubators are
organisations with an overall aim to support the growth of new enterprises by providing a
wide range of resources and services, whereby the label incubator comprises a large range of
different organisations, such as business incubators, accelerators, science parks and other
similar supporting organisational forms (ECEDG 2002). The provided support differs
8
between different incubators, but in general they offer support as counselling, business
advisors, office space and access to networks through incubator programs (Hansen et al.
2000; Hackett & Dilts 2004; Bollingtoft & Ulhoi 2005).
2.2 Bourdieu’s Capital Theory
In Bourdieu's theory of capital (1986), the sociologist identifies four forms of capital,
economic, social, symbolic and cultural. The holding of capital enforces a social structure
where success is dependent on acquired capital, creating a setting where everyone has
different prerequisites for succeeding. Furthermore, Bourdieu (1986) argues the impossibility
to introduce only one form of capital and advocates that all four forms should be introduced,
not solely the one form presented by economic theory. An incomprehensive recitation of all
forms of capital, would fail to encompass the structure and functions of the social world.
According to Bourdieu (1986), it is paramount to understand that social, symbolic and
cultural forms of capital are equally important to economic capital, if not more important, in
explaining social actions.
The accumulation of capital is considered a timely process but once acquired, capital can
function as a powerful mechanism with the capacity to produce profits and the ability to be
exchanged and transformed into other forms of capital, a process referred to as conversions of
capital. In this conversion process, Bourdieu (1986) argues that each form of capital is
convertible into other forms. The sociologist further claims that conversion implicates an
exchange of transactions between agents and that transforming capital is characterised by a
high degree of risk and uncertainty due to the incommensurability of various forms of capital.
The conversion process occurs when one form of capital, that is already a part of an actor's
resources, is utilised in a way that enables access to other forms of resources. Figure 1. below
illustrates the different forms of capital, as outlined by Bourdieu (1986), in relation to
entrepreneurial literature on economic, social, cultural, symbolic capital their conversions.
9
Figure 1. Forms of capital (Pret et al. 2016)
One of Bourdieu's area of interests has focused on the reflection and problematizing of
legitimisation of power relations in social structures and fields (Foster 1986). Bourdieu draws
attention to issues such as social class and structures, and explores these issues in the context
of higher education, strategies in achieving and upholding social ties and having a powerful
social position, and the classificatory power of language (Foster 1986, Jenkins 1992).
However, the framework has also gained attention within adjacent disciplines such as
organisational literature (Everett 2002). Organisational researchers argue that Bourdieu's
research encompasses a critical yet reflexive outline from which to better study organisations,
since it highlights symbolic features of structures and considers them in relation to both
individual and societal structures (Everett 2002). The use of capital theory in organisational
literature exemplifies how the theory can be applied on an organisational level, even though
Bourdieu mainly explores capital on individual levels.
2.3 Bourdieu within Entrepreneurial Literature
Bourdieu’s work on capital has emerged as a significant theoretical theme in entrepreneurship
literature and has been used to explore how entrepreneurs accumulate and utilise various
forms of capital (de Clercq & Voronov 2009; Terjesen & Elam 2009; Shaw et al. 2013;
Harvey et al 2011; Pret et al. 2016). Within the entrepreneurship field, De Clerq and Voronov
(2009) explore Bourdieu's framework in relation to legitimacy and highlight that capital can
function as an exchange mechanism through which powerful relations are legitimised and
10
maintained. Shaw, Gordon, Harvey and MacLean (2013) on the other hand use Bourdieu's
framework as a tool for analysing the forms of capital possessed by entrepreneurs and how
entrepreneurs deploy capital to enter into and become actors embedded within certain
business fields. In this study, the authors apply the notion of capital and its conversions to
understand how entrepreneurs can use existing capital to gain access to additional forms of
capital.
Harvey et al. (2011), highlight the importance of accumulating all forms of capital and the
leveraging of these resources to develop the enterprise and ensure continuous capital
accumulation. The ability to accumulate and convert business significant capital is further
emphasised by several entrepreneurial researchers, who claim that it is a crucial characteristic
for successful entrepreneurs (Shaw et al 2013; Barringer et al. 2005; Finkelstein et al 2007).
Entrepreneurial researchers have also found that the conversion of capital occasionally can
involve multiple forms of capital, whereby two forms together can generate another form
(Pret et al. 2016)
It is argued that the existent body of research combining the notion of Bourdieu’s capital and
entrepreneurship often is disjointed, whereby a majority of preceding studies focus on one or
two forms of capital, and often disregarding their convertibility (Pret et al. 2016; Stam et al.
2014; Bowey & Easton 2007). Pret, Shaw and Drakopoulou Dodd (2016) highlight this gap
and draw on all forms of Bourdieu’s capital to explore how and why entrepreneurs transform
their capital, and emphasise the complex nature of capital conversions. The research by Pret et
al. (2016) addresses the convertibility of capital in an industry specific context, namely that of
craft entrepreneurship, and the authors call for further research on capital conversions in other
contexts as they expect considerable variation between industries (Pret et al. 2016).
2.4 The forms of capital
The four forms of capital will be outlined and explained in the following section, along with a
review of the conversions of capital.
2.4.1 Economic Capital
Bourdieu (1986) defines economic capital as financial asset or institutionalised in the form of
property rights. This is also highlighted by Shaw et al (2013) and Harvey et al. (2011) who
11
describe economic capital as all tangible resources such as factories, manufacturing facilities
and equipment, in addition to all intangible assets such as patents, trademarks and goodwill.
Additionally, Bourdieu (1986) claims economic capital to have particular abilities for
enhancing access to the other forms of capital, which is further emphasised by Shaw et al.,
(2013) who argue that economic capital is the master form of capital. Other researchers have
also claimed that economic capital is the most essential resource for small enterprises
(Brinckmann et al., 2011; Winborg and Landström 2001). However, even though Bourdieu
states that all forms of capital can be derived from economic capital, the sociologist instructs
caution in assuming that economic capital has precedence above the other forms of capital
(Bourdieu 1984).
Conversion of economic capital
As previously mentioned all forms of capital can be derived from economic capital, however
at the cost of a transformation effort (Bourdieu 1986). The possession of economic capital can
facilitate and leverage access to social, cultural and symbolic capital which both individually
and collectively can enhance performance and power of a social enterprise (Maclean et al.
2006). However, even though economic capital can enable immediate access to some
resources without secondary costs, transforming economic capital possessed by a firm into
other forms of capital is often a complex and time-consuming process. It requires extensive
and long-term investments in time, effort, attention, care and concern in order to successfully
convert monetary aspects into other forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986). Therefore, invested
effort could be regarded rather wasteful from an economic viewpoint, but within
entrepreneurial literature, building on logics of social exchange it is seen as a solid investment
which will yield monetary or social returns in a long-term perspective (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw
et al 2013). In general terms, investing in an elite education can facilitate the development of
essential skills (DiMaggio 1979) and financing admission to respected schools or programs
can grant access to valuable networks (Randle et al. 2014).
2.4.2 Social Capital
According to Bourdieu (1986) social capital consists of social obligations, connections,
associations, relationships and networks that are of significant importance in regards to
accessing information, resources and assets (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; Harvey et al.
2011). Thus, social capital can provide access to collectively owned capital and enables
12
entrepreneurs to benefit from shared capital (Pret et al 2016). Furthermore, Bourdieu argues
that networks of relationships are the product of investment strategies intended to establish
and uphold social relationships that can prove to be useful and important sources of social
capital. The investment strategy is based upon transforming already contingent relationships
with neighbours and colleagues, into relationships that can be of use in the future. The
processes of maintaining and reproducing social capital implies a constant process of social
exchange which implicates a never ending need to invest both time and energy in the
upholding of social relations (Bourdieu 1986).
The quantity of social capital acquired by an agent is dependent on the dimensions of the
network, the larger the network and the more connections that can be utilised effectively, the
greater the volume of social capital (Bourdieu 1986). However, the value of social capital can
never be guaranteed (Burt 1997) considering that the value of social capital is contingent upon
an agent’s willingness to share his network of relations and the fact that social capital is
inextricably associated with a particular agent, it is also contingent upon the fortunes of that
agent (Harvey et al. 2011). Given the complicated and mutually dependent relationship
between an agent and social value, it is advocated to accumulate social capital within a variety
of networks, to ensure a broad intake of available resources and to reduce the risk of a
network collapse (Burt 2000; Maclean 2008).
Conversion of social capital
Social interaction and network ties can, according to existing research, help actors obtain
access to other actors’ resources and capital (Tsai & Ghoshai 1998; Shaw 2006). Hence, Tsai
& Ghoshai (1998) argue that centrality in a network of social interactions can, along with
trustworthiness and a shared vision, facilitate direct or indirect capital exchange between
actors. According to the authors, tacit social arrangement and informal social relations are
additional forms of social capital with potential positive implications on resource and capital
conversion.
Even though the process is quite time-consuming, Karatas-Özkan (2011) argue that social
capital can, through a process of relational learning, be converted into cultural capital. In this
process, actors can acquire skills from other actors within networks or through existing
relations (Pret et al 2016). In turn, social capital can generate symbolic capital through the
spillover effect that can occur through association with reputable actors (Reuber & Fischer
13
2005). Additionally, social connections can be converted to symbolic capital by enabling
access to respected events, media exposure and facilitation of reputation building (Pret et al.
2016). Lastly, membership in networks and strong social ties can allow access to collectively
held assets which can support conversion of social capital into economic capital, as contacts
can provide resources at a lower cost over even for free (Rooks et al. 2014; Pret et al. 2016).
The transformability into economic capital is however dependent on the strength of the ties
and networks, and maintaining these can be a demanding process (Rooks et al. 2014).
2.4.3 Cultural capital
Cultural capital encompasses forms of prominent societal skills and knowledge, which
endows individuals or organisations power and a higher status in society (Bourdieu 1986).
The form of capital derives value from the ability to access and assemble institutions and
cultural products in society or a specific field of business (de Clercq & Voronov 2009). In
short, cultural capital is the personal dispositions, skills, knowledge, know-how and
capabilities of an entrepreneur, key employees and business associates in an organisation or
enterprise (Harvey et al 2011).
According to Bourdieu’s theory of capital (1986), cultural capital exists in three different
forms: an embodied state, an objectified state and an institutionalised state. The embodied
state takes the form of long-lasting personal dispositions and refers to the ability to behave
according to rules and conducts of relevant contexts (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; de
Clercq & Voronov 2009). Acquisition of the embodied form of capital occurs quite
unconsciously, often in the absence of deliberate action, through socialisation to traditions and
culture (Bourdieu 1986). Objectified cultural capital refers to cultural activities, material
objects and media that represent a symbolic value, such as an artfully designed office space or
a physical location of operations that inherit strategic value (Bourdieu 1986; de Clercq &
Voronov 2009). In addition, Ingram, Hechavarria and Matthews (2014) identify socio
economic status and net worth as proxy measures to estimate objectified cultural capital.
Lastly, institutionalised cultural capital involves institutional recognition and refers to
credentials and certifications that exhibit qualities and knowledge deemed valuable in a given
context (Bourdieu 1986; de Clercq & Voronov 2009). It often takes the form of educational
qualifications and the recognition that resides in institutionalised cultural capital can indicate
possession of certain abilities, which can provide the holder with credibility (Bourdieu 1986).
14
Conversion of cultural capital
As cultural capital is an integral part of the individual or organisation embodying it, Bourdieu
(1986) argues that cultural resources and assets are not instantaneously transmitted to others.
The sociologist however claims that converting cultural capital to other entities or into other
forms of capital bears a high risk of capital loss in the process, due to the high level of
disguise and concealment. He argues that institutionalised cultural capital is especially
difficult to convert and that these cultural resources, such as academic qualifications, are
neither transmissible nor negotiable. The other forms of cultural capital however have the
ability to be transmitted to others in the holders surrounding environment (Bourdieu 1986).
Both the transmission and accumulation of cultural capital is continuous and diffuse
processes, which occur unconsciously without deliberate action or control, and through
socialisation (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu (1986), time is an important factor in
this process and the effectiveness of transforming and converting cultural capital is highly
dependent on the available, usable time. Extant research on capital theory within
entrepreneurship literature emphasise that technical and market knowledge that stems from
cultural capital is essential for entrepreneurs’ to develop a compelling value proposition and
to establish successful ventures (Harvey et al. 2011; Helfat & Lieberman 2002). According to
Davidsson and Honing (2003), possession of large amounts of cultural capital, as relevant
education and especially experience, can have positive implications for an entrepreneur's
ability to acquire and convert other forms of capital.
Pret et al. (2016) have found that cultural capital appears to have high rates of conversion into
both economic and symbolic capital in an entrepreneurial context. The authors claim that
cultural capital can contribute to skills that may enable entrepreneurs to produce cultural
artefacts and resources that hold economical value. Practical experience and skills are in such
a scenario considered to be the most important components of transforming cultural capital
into economic capital (Pret et al. 2016). Cultural capital can also be converted into symbolic
capital, since cultural resources as industry experience can facilitate and promote reputation
building (Beverland 2005; Bitektine 2011). This is further emphasised by Pret et al. (2016),
who suggests that talented entrepreneurs, hence entrepreneurs with high levels of cultural
capital, can be assigned high levels of prestige. Cultural capital can also be converted into
social capital, for instance in the form of high socioeconomic status which can assist
15
entrepreneurs to gain access to wider social networks (Pret et al. 2016; Anderson & Miller
2003).
2.4.4 Symbolic capital
Symbolic capital refers to the legitimacy, credibility and reputation of an actor as perceived
by others and is often associated with the possession of status, prestige, honour and reputation
(Bourdieu 1986; 1993; Terjesen & Elam 2009). According to Bourdieu (1993), symbolic
capital can represent the ability to mediate power through its inherent prestige and to
manipulate symbolic artefacts and resources as writing, myth and language (De Clercq &
Voronov 2009). Harvey et al. (2011) further claim that symbolic capital can be referred to as a
generator of trust to important stakeholders as financiers, partners, employees and customers.
Hence, symbolic resources may have the ability to empower an entrepreneur’s business. As
symbolic capital closely aligns with actor’s reputation or prestige, it can engender beliefs
within specific field that the organisation will deliver performance and provide value along
key dimensions of the given field (De Clercq & Voronov 2009; Harvey et al 2011). Thereby,
symbolic capital is recognised to be a particularly powerful form of capital (Pret et al 2016;
De Clercq & Voronov 2009). The value that symbolic capital can bring to an entrepreneur is
therefore strongly dependent on the importance other actors within the field attribute to
symbolic recognitions (Pret et al 2016; Fuller & Tian 2006).
Conversion of symbolic capital
Symbolic capital is argued to be less liquid than other forms of capital and can thereby be
harder to convert and acquire (Harvey & MacLean 2008). In the context of entrepreneurs,
symbolic resources as reputation and brand, can be converted to the other forms of capital, in
the form of contracts from partners, revenues and support from various key social networks
and ties (Terjseen & Elam 2009). For instance, prestige and reputation can according to
Lawrence (2004) be converted into cultural capital by providing opportunities for
apprenticeships with recognised experts. Similarly, Coulson (2012) and Lawrence (2004)
claim that an entrepreneur's symbolic capital can be converted into social capital as
professional distinction and prestige can facilitate contact building and access to social
networks. By utilising the power gained through credentials and recognition, entrepreneurs
are able to grow their business and to pursue both social and business goals (Pret et al. 2016).
For instance, Zott and Huy (2016) claim that displaying symbols of achievement may
16
establish legitimacy, which can increase sales and thereby result in a conversion of symbolic
capital into economic capital.
2.5 Theoretical approach
As presented in the literature review, the social aspect of social enterprises implies an added
complexity as they face extensive resource scarcity, along with the challenges faced by
traditional entrepreneurs. Due to a higher degree of risk perceived by investors, social
enterprises have more difficulties finding sustainable financing which implies a limited access
to external resources. Furthermore, a lack of internal capabilities such as business acumen,
implies restricted internal resources. Adding to the traditional entrepreneurial challenges of
developing the enterprise and ensure continuous resource accumulation, the limited external
and internal resources create a specific set of challenges for social enterprises: to access new
and manage available resources. Furthermore, they often need to seek support within the
ecosystem of social entrepreneurship, where incubators are one example of an available
supporting function. In order to understand how incubators can enable social enterprises’
development, the aim of this thesis paper is to investigate how social enterprises utilise and
leverage the external support provided by incubators to deal with the challenges connected to
their resource scarce environment.
To fulfil this aim, this thesis will seek to examine and increase the understanding of social
enterprises and their development by applying Bourdieu’s theory of capital (1986). The
theory identifies four forms of capital; economic, social, cultural and symbolic, and describes
how each form of capital is convertible into another form through a transformation processes.
We argue that Bourdieu’s theory of capital is a relevant tool for analysing how social
enterprises utilise resources provided by incubators, as capital and conversions of capital can
be understood as a theoretical translation of the research question. The resources social
enterprises receive from incubators can be understood as the different forms of capital
presented in the aforementioned literature. Moreover, conversion of capital can be understood
as a means for social enterprises to utilise the provided capital, by transforming different
forms of capital into other forms. By applying these theoretical concepts to the studied
phenomena, Bourdieu’s theory of capital will help us understand how social enterprises utilise
provided resources, or if theoretically phrased convert provided capital. In the forthcoming
17
analysis and discussion the theoretical definitions of capital and conversions will be used in
order to address the aim of the study.
In order to answer the research question and investigate conversions of capital in our studied
context, we will initially need to map what forms of capital social enterprises received from
incubators. Using the definitions of the different forms of capital presented in the above
literature review, we will aim to identify and link the provided resources to economic, social,
cultural or symbolic capital. Once the resources have been connected to a form of capital, the
mapping will serve as a ground and enable analysis of how social enterprises convert capital.
The research presented in the above literature on capital conversions, will help us understand
how social enterprises can convert capital. Even though Bourdieu applies capital theory on an
individual level of analysis, the theory has also been used to understand organisational
structures, whereby we argue that it is a valuable theory that can be used to explore
conversions in the context of social enterprises.
18
3. Methodology The following section will outline the chosen methodology and explain how the study was
conducted, and present an argumentation for selected choices. Furthermore, this section
presents limitations with the conducted process and implications for the results.
3.1 Research Design
The aim of this thesis paper is to explore how social enterprises use and leverage support from
incubators. To fulfil this objective and enable a deeper understanding of how social
enterprises utilise received support, a qualitative study is preferred. A qualitative study
enables the analysis of behaviours and experiences more comprehensively and in depth
(Saunders et al., 2009). In addition, qualitative method facilitates the explorative approach to
the empirical findings and allows for an extensive concluding discussion (Saunders et al.,
2009). The primary data of the study consisted of semi-structured interviews whereby
investigations with fifteen social enterprises were conducted. The interviews were further
complemented with secondary sources obtained from the social enterprises, as annual reports,
income statements and information from websites.
In order to better understand the nature of how social enterprises convert received capital, the
study adapts an inductive approach building on existing research in entrepreneurship
literature. The context in which relationships are studied is important within the inductive
approach and it is advocated to use a small sample selection and instead conduct in-depth
investigations, whereby this study examines a sample of fifteen social enterprises.
Furthermore, the inductive approach is preferred when researching a novel phenomenon on
which there is little existing literature (Saunders et al. 2009), such as social enterprises and
their deployment of resources.
3.2 Sample Selection
To enable a deep understanding of the studied phenomena, a similar group of social
enterprises were selected by adopting a judgemental sampling approach (Saunders et al.
2009). The organisations were selected based on a number of criterions considered
particularly important for the specific context. The primary criterion was that the social
enterprise should be a relatively small actor, probable to have limited access to resources and
19
capital. Such enterprises were considered to be reliant on external support in the early years of
operations and thereby suitable to portray how the support was utilised. Hence, large-scale
social businesses or MNCs engaged in social innovation projects were ruled out of the sample
selection. Another main criteria were that the studied social enterprise had received or
currently were receiving support from an incubator. Since incubators are characterised by an
overall aim to support start-up enterprises, we considered it highly plausible that the study
objects had received various forms of capital throughout the incubator program. Therefore,
the study was limited to investigate support received from incubators, and not other types of
investors or supporting functions.
In order to identify suitable enterprises, the websites of some incubators were searched to
ensure that the social enterprise indeed received or had received support. A final criterion was
that the social enterprise both had its origin from Sweden and was based in Sweden, a
criterion chosen to facilitate access to subject companies. In addition, to delimit the study to
social enterprises in one national context was reasoned to contribute to a deeper
understanding of the phenomena in the specific setting. Lastly, to facilitate the data collection,
the judgement sampling was combined with a convenience sampling, based on the ability to
access intended sample. Based on the aforementioned criterion, a number of social enterprises
were identified suitable and were contacted whereby fifteen social enterprises were identified
as suitable to partake in the study.
Furthermore, the respondents representing the social enterprise also needed to hold certain
criteria. To gain a general and comprehensive perspective of provided support, mainly
founders, co-founders, CEO’s or Operating Officers, were asked to participate. As all
participating social enterprises were relatively small organisational entities, in terms of
employees and operations, these participants were deemed to have comprehensive insights
and could therefore provide an overall perspective of the engagement with incubators and
contribute to the understanding of the studied phenomena.
3.3 The Interviews
Throughout this explorative study, Kvale’s (1983, 1996) proposed guide of how to perform
qualitative studies and conduct interviews is applied. Kvale’s four steps of how to conduct
interviews are; thematizing, planning of interviews, conducting the interviews and
20
transcription of interviews (Kvale, 1983, 1996). The initial step of thematizing addresses the
questions of what, how and why the phenomenon is researched. What is investigated: how
social enterprises utilise the resources and support provided by incubators, how; by
conducting interviews with social enterprises previously or currently involved with an
incubator, why; to increase the understanding of the development process of social
enterprises. The interviews were planned and structured using a semi-structured format,
which enables a degree of flexibility and emergence of new issues, concurrently as it ensures
the responses of specific, important questions. The semi-structured format is advocated when
the purpose of the interviews is to gather data that will be analysed qualitatively, answering
the questions of ’what’ and ’how’ but also placing much emphasis on the ’why’ (Saunders et
al. 2009).
Prior to the interviews, each participant was sent a thematic overview of the discussion
subjects, since it is important that respondents are aware of the major topics addressed in an
interview (Cassel, 2015). The thematic overview of subjects was however not used by the
interviewers, who deployed a more thorough and detailed set of questions in order to assure
complete coverage of the theoretical literature and avoid the risk of forgetting a question.
Considering that the respondents only were disclosed with the thematic overview of subjects,
the discussion allowed for a deeper focus on personal reflections instead of being tied to
predetermined, standardised questions.
Both interviewers were present during the interviews, since this facilitated the process of
adding additional questions and asking follow-up questions without any unnecessary
interruption of the interview. As far as manageable, the interviews were conducted in person,
since that facilitates the establishment of a trusting environment and personal connection to be
made without unnecessary misunderstandings of questions. In person interviews also enables
the respondents to reflect on events without necessary preparation and eludes any reluctance
of providing sensitive and confidential information to someone they never met. However, due
to limitations such as geographical location, some interviews had to be conducted over phone
or Skype. Even though interviews conducted by telephone could affect the interpretation of
responses and implicate a loss of nonverbal data, Cassel (2015) argues that they are
favourable since they can overcome obstacles such as distance and lack of time.
21
Considering that this study investigates social enterprises in Sweden, all interviews were
conducted in Swedish since that was the primary language of the respondents. This facilitated
the communication and enabled more open discussions and conversations. The interviews
were concluded with an open ended question, since this provided the interviewee with the
opportunity to add certain aspects that were not discussed or brought up by the interviewers
and sums up the interview and previous discussion in a favourable manner (Cassel 2015).
Probing questions were used when the responses from open questions did not reveal the
underlying reasoning involved or when the response was unclear, this was done in order to
receive a more comprehensive narrative of the phenomena (Saunders et al. 2009).
When conducting semi-structured interviews, interviewers need to be aware that the means of
interaction with the interviewee and how questions are asked can impact the collected data
(Silverman 2007). In order to avoid such interviewer bias, the authors phrased questions
clearly and openly so that the respondent could fully understand them and communicated
them in a neutral tone of voice. In addition, probing questions could encourage significant
responses without imposing own judgements (Saunders et al. 2009).
3. 4 Operationalization
All of the interviews started with open background questions where the respondents were
asked to describe the social enterprise and their role in the organisation. According to Lundahl
and Skärvad (1999), such an approach gives the respondents a chance to become comfortable
in the interview setting and can enable a relaxed discussion between interviewee and
interviewers. The warm-up questions also provided the interviewers with a general
understanding of the social business and gave the opportunity to contextualise the
interviewee’s answers (Bryman & Bell 2007).
In order to secure that the research objectives of the study were answered in a rigorous way,
the rest of the questions were operationalized by transforming the theoretical constructs of
capital into feasible measures (Saunders et al. 2009). By doing this, the interviewers could
avoid theoretical explanations of the forms of capital and their conversions and thereby
facilitate the respondent’s full understanding of the questions, as they may not be familiar
with the theoretical concepts. The measures identified specific factors familiar to the
interviewee, which enabled the authors to create a link between theory and the empirical
22
findings and could facilitate the empirical testing process. Furthermore, conceptual definitions
were presented in relation to the theoretical definitions with the aim to contextualise the
purpose the theoretical constructs fulfilled in the study. Table 2 below illustrates the
operationalization process from theoretical concept and definition into investigative measures
and related questions.
Concept Theoretical Definition Conceptual Definition Investigative Parameters
Economic Capital
Financial assets, other tangible and intangible business assets
To understand how social enterprises utilise financial investments and other business assets
Financing, investment, financial support, investors, free services, ability to employ
Social Capital
Actual and potential resources able to access through a durable network of relationships
To understand how social enterprises utilise social networks and relations
Relationships, networks, contacts, partnerships
Cultural Capital
Personal dispositions, cultural goods, education and skills
To understand how social enterprises utilise expert advice and knowledge
Counselling, expert advice, knowledge, competence
Symbolic Capital
Possession of legitimacy, prestige and reputation
To understand how social enterprises use legitimacy and symbolic resources
Reputation, brand, media presence, PR
Conversion Transform one form of capital to another
To understand how social enterprises utilise received support and resources, and transform it into other resources
Utilise, use, take advantage of, make use of, harness
Table 2. Operationalization process
The questions were constructed to cover the four forms of capital and their conversions and
grouped accordingly. The conceptual definitions and the investigative parameters of the
different forms of capital also served as a basis for operationalization of conversions of
capital, and were combined with the definition and parameters for conversion. Due to the
intangible manner of capital conversions, the questions asked to investigate conversions were
often implicit and the investigative parameters were used to understand how the enterprises
could utilise the resources. In order to grasp how capital could be converted, open questions
were asked to get the respondents to reflect upon how a received resource could generate an
additional resource, which enabled the respondent to elaborate in a liberal and open
discussion.
23
3.5 The analysis process
Shortly after the interviews were conducted and prior to the transcription, notes were taken of
the initial reflections and thoughts. The notes provided a summary of the initial impressions
and observations that were made during the interview. The interviews were transcribed
shortly after they were conducted in order to fully capture what the participants expressed and
how they expressed it (Saunders et al. 2009). Furthermore, it could eliminate risk of
misinterpretation and for valuable insights to be lost (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). Some of the
responses were used as quotes in the discussion, to highlight certain reflections or believes
and were in those cases translated into English. Translation could have resulted in potential
misinterpretation, but the interviewers attempted to translate quotes with highest caution and
carefulness to reduce such risks.
The analysis process, which started while conducting the interviews, was followed by
categorisation and interpretation of the empirical data. The transcribed interviews were used
and the material was coded and categorised into different themes, whereby the themes were
arranged primarily in accordance with Bourdieu’s (1986) four forms of capital and identified
conversions of capital. Initially, the received forms of capital was categorised according to the
themes, which further served as a basis for identifying how one form of capital could be
converted into another form. Conversions were identified when a respondent explained how a
received resource could generate an additional resource. Coding and categorising provided a
clear overview of the empirical material, which facilitated the analysis process as it enabled
the interviewers to more clearly connect findings with the theoretical concepts of capital.
Before the step of coding and categorising, the interviewers ruled out the enterprises’ own
resources or resources that the respondents had received from other supporting functions such
as investors. This distinction was made to make sure only capital from incubators was
investigated.
In order to validate the empirical findings from the interviews a triangulation process was
conducted, where primary data were complemented by secondary data. The secondary
material was used to examine, compare and verify the answers from respondents and to find
additional connections to theory (Saunders et al., 2009). Since some of the investigative
parameters had a high degree of incommensurability, these parameters were more difficult to
validate. However, to ensure a validity in the empirical findings related to intangible and
24
abstract means, we examined whether the incubators’ brand or logo were used on an
enterprises homepage, mail-by-line or in annual reports. This provided a us with a suggestion
of the incommensurable value of an incubators’ trademark, which deemed especially relevant
for analysing symbolic capital.
25
4. Analysis This section presents the empirical findings derived from fifteen interviews while discussing
them in relation to each other and previous research considered in the aforementioned
literature review. Initially, a brief description of Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital that were
provided by incubators is presented, followed by a section discussing how capital can be
converted.
4.1 What resources did the social enterprises receive?
The support provided by incubators varied in regards to format, size and durability but the
support also shared several characteristics. Based on the empirical material, the most
commonly identified types of support are presented below and connected to the theoretical
concepts of capital (Bourdieu 1986). Table 3 outlines the support that social enterprises
received by participating in the incubator program.
Social enterprise Economic capital Social capital Cultural capital Symbolic capital
Blue Call Seed investment Free office space
External Networks Internal Connections Community
Advisory Boards Training
Quality Mark Publicity
Challengize No financial investment Free office space
External Networks Expert Coaching Training
Publicity Quality Mark
Cirkus Unik Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections
Advisory Boards Training
Legitimacy Quality Mark
DayCape Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections Community
Advisory Boards Training
Quality Mark
Föreningen Storasyster
Yearly investment External Networks Training Quality Mark
Föreningen Tillsammans
Yearly investment External Networks Internal Connections Community
Advisory Boards Training
Credibility Quality Mark Publicity
Invitations- departementet
Yearly investment Alliances Associations
Workshops Prestige Quality Mark
Learning to Sleep
No financial investment External Networks - Quality Mark Publicity
Medfilm No financial investment Subsidised office space
External Networks
External Coaching Training
Prestige
26
Newsvoice Seed investment Free office space
External Networks Internal Connections Community
Expert Coaching Training
Quality Mark Credibility Publicity
Picture my Life
No financial investment Free office space
External Networks Internal Connections
Expert Coaching Training
Quality Mark
Svenska med Baby
Yearly investment
Alliances Associations
Workshops Reputation Prestige
Trine Seed Investment External Networks Workshops Training
Validity
Welcome Investment Subsidised office space
External Networks Internal Connections
Workshops Legitimacy
We Unite Design
Yearly investment Community Advisory Boards Workshops
Publicity
Table 3. Types of support
Bourdieu (1986) defines economic capital as tangible and intangible financial assets, support
and investments. The empirical findings show that the received financial support varied
between the interviewed social enterprises. The majority of the interviewed organisations
received financial support in the form of yearly investments, while three organisations
received smaller seed investments and three of them did not receive any financial support. In
addition to smaller investments, another resource regarded as economic capital was the free or
subsidised office space, a support six of the interviewees received.
The empirical findings indicate that social enterprises benefit from social capital in the form
of networks, connections, associations and relationships by their engagement with the
incubator. All of the interviewed social enterprises claimed that participating in incubator
programs enabled access to the incubators external network, which according to Bourdieu
(1986) translates into social capital. A majority of the respondents highlighted that incubators
also provided internal connections within the incubator program. The general opinion was
that it could open up to and facilitate building of internal relations, as the enterprises had the
opportunity to interact with other social enterprises. In addition, some incubator programs
provided a shared office space with other enterprises, whereby a majority of the respondents
perceived that such an environment further enabled access to connections and facilitated
informal meetings. Furthermore, the empirical material shows that being a part of an
incubator can make entrepreneurs feel included in a context since they can share experiences
with others in the same position, which is especially valuable according to social enterprises
27
with only one, or a few, full-time employees. This is exemplified by Håkansson (Day Cape):
“I think it provides a lot of support, it is nice to know that everyone is more or less in the
same boat, everyone has got their own issues and challenges they struggle with, but you can
share that a little and everyone encourages one another which is nice”.
One prominent feature of all the supporting initiatives was expert advice, workshops, training
and coaching, which is seen as means to develop cultural capital. Cultural capital is regarded
to incorporate the personal dispositions, skills, knowledge and capabilities of individual actors
within an organisation (Harvey et al. 2011). The incubator programs’ training and coaching
was largely connected to the development of specific set of skills or area of knowledge, often
in the form of lectures or workshops. In order to develop the business acumen of social
enterprises, experts within particular business fields were hired to educate them within areas
as business modelling, business development, media and public relations. Löfgren (Blue Call)
exemplifies the educational element when reflecting upon the counselling by coaches: “The
coaches are great, they are all former entrepreneurs who they themselves have made
profitable exists but also failed at managing companies, so they really have a broad
knowledge within enterprise building”. The above-mentioned quote illustrates cultural
capital, exemplified in the forms of expert advice and knowledge. In addition, several
respondents emphasised that incubators contributed with a business mind-set and some
highlight that incubators helped them enforce accountability through the development of
reporting templates and identification of relevant and measurable indicators. This further
demonstrates how social enterprises were provided cultural capital through the support from
incubators.
A general perception was that the association with incubators and participation in the various
programs provided a sense of legitimacy or validity, which can represent symbolic capital
(Bourdieu 1986). All of the respondents considered the provided legitimacy to be a significant
component of the incubators’ support and nine of the respondents directly claimed that the
support from incubators implied a quality mark.
4.2 How social enterprises deal with resource scarcity
As mentioned in the literature review, capital can be converted into other forms of capital and
Harvey et al. (2011) emphasises the importance for entrepreneurs to leverage available
28
resources in order to create a prosperous enterprise. How the studied enterprises converted the
capital gained through the incubator’s support will hereunder be presented and analysed.
4.2.1 Conversion of Economic Capital
As the amount of financial support varied between the studied social enterprises, the
perceived contribution of the support and the ability to utilise it also varied. The empirical
material indicates that financial support mainly contributed to development of competence
and knowledge since the social enterprises were able to hire employees or expert consultants,
which can be seen as economic capital converted into cultural capital.
Social Capital Cultural Capital Symbolic Capital
There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study
Investments enable employment and salaries to existing employees Investments enable the hiring of expert consultants with needed competence
There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study
Table 4. Conversion of Economic Capital
The financial support enabled several of the social enterprises to employ for the first time, or
to hire external consultants with the needed capabilities and knowledge. Åkerman
(Invitationsdepartementet) emphasises how they could convert financial support into
capabilities and skills, by employing staff and hiring consultants: ”Salaries really, and to be
able to hire two more people, that is still our largest expense, and of course IT-consultants
and these seminars we arrange, but that's really what the money goes to”. The possibility to
recruit new employees increases the social enterprises’ human capital and internal knowledge.
In addition, new employees or external consultants also provide social enterprises with
additional knowledge or competence, that was unattainable prior to the financial support.
Thereby, it can be argued that provided economic capital is converted into cultural capital,
since it according to Harvey et al. (2013) provides capabilities and skills held by employees.
Another example of a conversion between economic and cultural capital are the costless or
subsidised business services that many of the social enterprises received. These business
services implied access to expert knowledge in certain fields, and are argued to be a
conversion of economic capital to cultural capital. The empirical material presents several
cases where social enterprises acquired valuable insights within fields ranging from law and
29
public relations to patents and trademarks, without having to reimburse their advisor.
Malmström (Picture My Life) reflects upon this: “...when you needed help with something
you could also receive ‘value checks’ for certain agencies that worked with the particular
issues, that's how they helped us get our trademark protection”. The quote illustrates how
economic capital was converted into cultural capital through the use of value checks, which
rendered knowledge concerning trademarks and protection.
The findings did not present any concrete evidence that social enterprises could convert
financial support into social or symbolic capital. The financial support that some of the social
enterprises received, was not used to gain access to memberships, nor did it enable symbolic
value in the form of a prestigious education. Hence, cultural capital was the only form of
capital identified as derived from economic capital, which suggests that it is difficult for
social enterprises to leverage financial support into other types of resources. It is plausible
that the need to invest time, effort and attention towards the transformation of economic
capital into other forms, is one reason as to why cultural capital was the only form identified
as derived from economic capital. The interviewees strongly expressed time as being a scarce
resource, which can explain the single conversion of economic capital into one other form of
capital in the context of social enterprises. In a long-term perspective, the investment effort
could however still yield monetary returns in the future and it is not necessary to regard it as
wasteful (Bourdieu 1986; Shaw 2013).
4.2.2 Conversion of Social Capital
One of the considerable benefits with support from incubators was, according to the social
enterprises, access to increased social capital in the form of networks, associations and
relationships. The use of networks can according to several respondents provide entry to
additional networks and thereby enable contact with new investors. According to previous
research, this suggests that social capital is significant in regards to accessing new resources
(Bourdieu 1986; Shaw et al. 2013; Harvey et al. 2011). In the empirical context, social capital
was the only form detected as convertible to all other forms of capital, which suggest that the
form of capital is a highly valuable resource for social enterprises as it can be leveraged in
various ways.
30
Economic Capital Cultural Capital Symbolic Capital
The large social networks render access to new investors Social contacts provide access to venues or services free of charge
Knowledge, skills and competence are acquired through relations within the network Competent and knowledgeable people are appointed board members
Association with respectable actors create beneficial spill-over effects Contacts provide access to events and media exposure Impact on reputation building, both positive and negative effects
Table 5. Conversion of Social Capital
Conversion of social to economic capital
Throughout the interviews, social capital in the form of networks, relationships and contacts,
was highlighted as a prominent feature of the incubator program. The social enterprises
emphasise the significance of having access to large networks, hence large volume of social
capital, which was enabled by the incubators. Kylén (Medfilm) reflects upon the meaning of
this, in relation to their development process and further investments:
“It is hard to know where we would be today without them, I think the reason as to why
we got the first round of investment was because we were a part of this internal board
formed by [incubator] where business angels also participated, that is how we got in
contact with that investor, if we hadn't been a part of the board, we would never have
met him...”
The fact that the incubators’ large social networks provided access to an additional set of
potential investors was regarded as a highly important aspect of the incubator program.
Several of the respondents stressed the issue of how the social capital of incubators facilitated
the search for new investors and Löfgren explains that they have gained all their current
investors by searching in their incubator’s network. Another respondent emphasises this
conversion of social capital to economic capital even further by stating: “that investment was
actually a recommendation from [incubator] or more of a tip that they [additional investors]
gladly saw that we applied for the investment” (Åkerman, Invitationsdepartementet). The
aforementioned examples illustrate how social support from incubator programs can be
utilised to gain financial support in the form of new investors, thereby confirming the direct
convertibility of social capital into economic capital.
31
The empirical material also presents incidences when conversion of social capital into
economic capital has occurred more indirectly, which can be found in several cases.
According to theory, entry to networks can enable access to collectively owned assets since
contacts sometimes are capable of providing resources at lower economic cost or free of
charge (Pret et al. 2016). Håkansson (Day Cape) describes such a situation, where their
contact could provide access to a location without charging for it.
“We brainstormed a lot with our business advisor, and at one point we were about to
organise an event for children with autism but we didn't have a suitable venue, but these
brainstorming meetings were always held at their office which was kind of a cool office
space, so we just asked, can we use your office? And they made it happen.” (Håkansson,
Day Cape)
This quote illustrates how Day Cape’s business advisor, which in this instance is regarded as
social capital initially granted by the incubator, provided access to a location free of charge,
thereby rendering economic capital. Besides getting access to locations and venues free of
charge, the empirical material also illustrates that social capital, as relations and social ties,
can enable services such as consultants and knowledgeable experts free of charge, resulting in
a conversion into economic capital. Håkansson exhibits how creativity and the courage to ask,
ultimately can result in the conversion of social capital to economic capital. This is supported
by many of the respondents, who claim that even though the incubator provides them with
resources, it is up to the enterprise themselves to utilise the support for it to have effect on
their business. Hence, conversion of social capital to economic capital is a conscious and
determined process for social enterprises, where they must take deliberate action for
conversion to occur.
Conversion of social to cultural capital
Social capital was also found to be convertible into cultural capital, through learning
processes with relations and contacts, as stated by Karatas-Özkan (2011). This conversion
process is described by Pret et al. (2016), who claim that actors acquiring skills from other
actors through existing relations within the same network can be seen as conversion of social
capital to cultural capital. In the context of social enterprises, social capital has been found as
convertible into cultural capital in several examples. The conversion process can occur both
32
informally and formally within the networks that the incubators provide access to. A formal
conversion is exemplified by Rosman (Welcome): “We have some formalised events such as
‘lunch-and-learn’ which is once a month, were an enterprise tells the story of their journey
and what they have done”. Other examples of conversion from social capital to cultural
capital occur more informally with people simply talking and exchanging knowledge within
the network: “All enterprises are in different stages, which we also can benefit from, we can
learn from their mistakes and try to avoid some pitfalls” (Östfeldt, Föreningen Tillsammans).
By gaining access to the incubators’ large social network, the social enterprises can
circumvent the possible lack of resources in the form of knowledge and know-how, since they
instead gain these insights from the other incubated enterprises in the network.
Furthermore, the empirical material highlights another positive effect of converting social
capital to cultural capital, namely the use of contacts obtained through the network as board
members. This is true for many of the social enterprises, and illustrated by the following
quote “[...] otherwise it’s their networks really, through them we have found more people for
our board, who we think contribute with great knowledge and engagement” (Rosman,
Welcome). The example describes how social enterprises utilise their engagement with
incubators and particularly, their social capital, in order to gain access to competent and
relevant people to appoint to a board of directors.
Conversion of social to symbolic capital
According to theoretical researchers, social capital can be transformed into symbolic capital
through spillover effects derived from associating with respectable actors (Reuber & Fischer
2005). In the empirical context, the respect and reputation emanating from incubators was
considered an intrinsic feature since it could generate positive spill-over effects. The
incubators were often portrayed as respectable actors, whereby many respondents illustrated
that they leveraged being associated with the incubators, thereby converting social capital into
symbolic capital. The symbolic value of being connected with a respectable actor was
according to the respondents, important for social enterprises since it can increase their
legitimacy, or as expressed by Åkerman (Invitationsdepartementet): “I would say that it is a
quality stamp, both because they do a lot of interesting things in a variety of different fields,
but mainly because it is so strongly associated with a powerful business woman in charge of a
large corporate group”. The quote illustrates a conversion of social capital to symbolic
capital since the powerful businesswoman in this case was a social contact enabled by the
33
engagement with the incubators, but which also resulted in symbolic capital for the social
enterprise due to her prestigious reputation.
Furthermore, theory states that social connections and networks can be converted to symbolic
capital by providing access to certain events (Pret et al. 2016), which is indicated in the study.
Åkerman (Invitationsdepartementet) exemplifies how their incubator arranged a large
seminar: “[...] where prominent influencers from business sector and academia are invited to
present and lecture [...] to be seen in those contexts enables us to reach out to a very
interesting and influential network that I would never have had access to if I had sent out the
invitations myself”. The quote reflects how social enterprises convert social capital into
symbolic capital, as the context in itself provides social enterprises with a symbolic value
because of the strong association with the respectable actors within the incubators network.
Another conversion that was highlighted throughout the empirical investigation is illustrated
by Östfeldt (Föreningen Tillsammans): “I would never have such an entryway to politicians
and I would never been able to meet and talk to them if it weren’t for the [incubator], which
makes it extremely valuable”. The empirical example aligns with the theoretical argument that
association with an respectable actors, in this case incubators, can have positive spill-over
effects, whereby social capital can be converted into symbolic capital (Reuber & Fischer
2005).
However, a few respondents did not agree that association with start-up incubators was
positive towards all stakeholders. For instance, Löfgren (BlueCall) was unsure whether being
associated with their incubator was positive towards potential partners and media:
“It’s possible it could backlash when it comes to media and partners since our
[incubator] screams start-up, it’s perceived as a school and we could therefor be
perceived as business-rookies. Towards partners that might not be a quality mark since
it becomes apparent that we are a new company, compared to if we would have
positioned us as an established company and push the ‘start-up stamp’ aside”.
The findings imply that conversion of social capital to symbolic capital in the context of
social enterprises is dependent on the reputation and character of the associated actor as
perceived by others. In the example above, social capital is converted into symbolic capital
through the association with incubators focusing on start-ups, rendering an unwanted
34
symbolic reputation for the social enterprise in question. Social enterprises that seek to
establish themselves, as reliable and professional actors might thereby not aim to be
associated with start-up incubators, as they believe some stakeholders will perceive them as
novices. However, the findings show that willingness of association is largely dependent on
context, and that in some contexts and towards other stakeholders, association with start-ups
can also imply positive influences. Moreover, as the social enterprises at times avoid
highlighting association with incubators, the finding also illustrates the active and deliberate
nature of converting social capital.
4.2.3 Conversion of Cultural Capital
According to the literature review, possession of large amounts of cultural assets, as relevant
experience and education, can facilitate the conversion process of cultural capital (Shaw et al
2013; Davidsson & Honing 2003). Cultural capital was a pronounced and valuable
component of the incubator programs and the findings indicate that the social enterprises, to
some extent, have converted their acquired cultural assets into other capital forms.
Economic capital Social Capital Symbolic Capital
Pitch training can help attain new investors Expert advice, counselling and workshops can enhance business development, which can increase income
There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study
Industry experience can improve reputation building The advice and knowledge received from incubators provide a symbolic value
Table 6. Conversion of Cultural Capital
Conversion of cultural capital to economic capital
Some of the respondents highlighted that the pitch training was very valuable for them when
approaching investors. Roman (Challengize) emphasised that the pitch training was a
determinant factor for him in attaining economic capital, and explained how they utilised
cultural capital in the following quote:
35
“They have definitely helped us get in contact with investors, I have never raised money
in my life so I didn't know at all what I was doing, but we attended pitch trainings,
investor meet-ups, learned how to sell our idea, how to convey a sense of hope and
future and through them [incubator] I have learned, now I could take that with me and
probably use that experience in a future company, which I never could have before [...]”
(Roman, Challengize).
The excerpt describes how the social enterprise learned how to approach investors, how to
talk to them and how to convey the right message at pitch events, which are all components
that can be regarded as cultural capital. Hence, it illustrates how the social enterprise
converted cultural capital into economic capital. Lidholt (Newsvoice), who had only been a
part of the incubator a short period of time, was confident that the pitch training would be
decisive when he was going to raise new capital and pitch to potential investors. These
examples illustrate how social enterprises have (or plan to) utilised cultural capital in the form
of skills and training and converted it into economic capital. Hence, the findings are in
accordance with Pret et al’s (2016) reasoning that practical skills are considered important
components that facilitate an entrepreneurs’ conversion of cultural capital into economic
capital.
In addition, many respondents emphasised the importance of expert advice and counselling in
regards to their organisational and operational development and the empirical findings show
how these were utilised to gain additional forms of capital. Östfeldt (Föreningen
Tillsammans) believes that they were able to generate higher incomes, due to the workshops
and trainings provided in the incubators program, indicating a conversions of cultural capital
into economic capital. Even though many respondents highlighted the positive implications
cultural capital had, the findings did not suggest any other concrete evidence of expert advice
and counselling being converted into financial assets, yet. A potential explanation could be in
accordance with Bourdieu’s (1986) reasoning that conversion of cultural capital is a variable
of time, whereby it is plausible that the social enterprises could yield financial returns in a
longer run.
Conversion of cultural capital to symbolic capital
Research presented in the literature review also highlighted that cultural capital in the form of
industry experience can facilitate and promote reputation building and thereby be transformed
36
into symbolic capital (Beverland 2005; Bitektine 2011). The empirical findings suggest that
the cultural assets such as expert advisors and counselling, received from incubators can be
transformed into symbolic value. For instance, Kylén (Medfilm) described how one of their
subsequent investors had been very positive to the fact that they received advice from experts:
“Surely, I believe it was only favourable that they saw that we could utilise the expert and
competence part, and that they brought in consultants without any costs for us. As business
angels they regarded it as very promising”. The quote illustrates how the expert competencies
provided by incubator, creates a symbolic value within the social enterprise, since other
external actors regarded it as promising feature.
The empirical material indicates that social enterprises were able to convert cultural capital
into both economic and symbolic capital. Although the findings indicate examples of such
conversions, the conversion of cultural capital into symbolic or economic capital was not a
common conversion in the context of social enterprises. The finding thereby indicates a
difference between industries regarding the convertibility of cultural capital since previous
research has found cultural capital to be a natural conversion into economic and symbolic
capital (Pret et al. 2016). Neither does the empirical material find any support for cultural
capital converted into social capital in the case of social enterprises. Despite the importance
attributed to cultural capital by the respondents, the findings suggest that conversion of
knowledge and skills into social capital is a difficult process for social enterprises.
4.2.4 Conversion of Symbolic Capital
As previously mentioned, a majority of the respondents claim that the quality mark received
through incubator participation had positive implications toward several stakeholders. The
empirical findings reveal that symbolic capital, as increased legitimacy and quality markings,
in many cases was converted into economic capital. The study further identifies indications of
social enterprises leveraging symbolic resources into social capital by facilitating entrance
into partnerships.
37
Economic capital Social Capital Cultural Capital
Quality mark creates legitimacy and trustworthiness towards new investors Reduces the perceived risk Incubators brand receive a high degree of media exposure, leading to new investors
Prestige and reputation can facilitate and generate partnerships
There is little or no evidence of this conversion in this study
Table 7. Conversion of Symbolic Capital
Conversion of symbolic capital to economic capital
The general perception was that the quality mark and the prestige it entails ensured social
enterprises with legitimacy and trustworthiness towards new, potential investors as these often
were aware of the brand of the incubator. Thereby, many interviewees claimed that they could
use the incubator’s brand when raising money, as they believed that the legitimacy received
through incubators could, and had, helped them to attain new investors. The effect the
incubator’s brand had on attaining investors is emphasised by Löfgren (BlueCall): “Since it is
only 8 % of the applicants to [incubator] that get accepted, a sort of selection process has
already been made – these are interesting people with an enterprise that is ‘approved’ ”.
Malmström Grimme (Picture My Life) also mentioned that the quality mark has been positive
for them when looking for potential investors. She emphasised the specific challenges for
social enterprises to raise capital, and she believed that the quality mark could help reduce the
risk perceived by investors. In addition, Malmström Grimme also thought that being a part of
the incubator could facilitate the process of receiving a loan from Almi Företagspartner,
which is a public company that offers loans to small-medium enterprises: “[...] and Almi,
there they are well established and it is easier to come to them and say that you are a
[incubator] company” (Malmström, Picture My Life). Hence, the interviews imply that social
enterprises use symbolic capital in the form of legitimacy and quality markings, to reduce risk
and create trustworthiness towards both investors and loan companies, thereby converting
symbolic capital into economic capital.
Besides the brand and reputation of the incubator, many respondents believed that the media
attention, which is regarded as symbolic capital according to Pret et al. (2016), they received
through the incubator had positive effects and as Gustafsson (Learning to Sleep) describes:
38
“We have received quite a lot media space in start-up related medias, as DiDigital and
Breakit because of [incubator] and it has absolutely helped us when raising capital. It has
been good for us – and we want to use it”. This quote illustrates how they utilised symbolic
value inherent in media attention, and how it helped them raise investments by gaining
additional investors, which according to theory can be regarded as a conversion of symbolic
capital into economic capital. Many of the social enterprises agree and claim they have used
their incubator’s name when approaching and interacting with media, as they believe it will
enhance their reach. Löfgren (Bluecall) also shared the perception that media attention has
helped them to attain investors, and explains that their current lead investor contacted them
due to an article in the start-up magazine Breakit. The findings indicate that using the
incubator’s name in relevant media, illustrates an additional method whereby social
enterprises utilise symbolic value and convert it into economic capital.
Nine of the fifteen interviewed social enterprises mention their incubator or have their logo on
the website, which according to Malmström Grimme (Picture my Life) is a way of leveraging
the quality mark. In accordance with Terjseen and Elam (2009), these social enterprises could
potentially utilise the power inherent in the name of the incubator as means to pursue both
business and societal goals. Furthermore, Pret et al (2016) argue that displaying symbols of
achievement can establish legitimacy, which can increase sales and allow entrepreneurs to
convert symbolic capital into economic capital. In that sense, using the logo of the incubator
or displaying their engagement on the website can be seen as an attempt to transform
symbolic value into economic capital through an increase of sales. However, only three
respondents explained how they were able to convert symbolic capital to economic capital in
the form of increased sales or market reach. Håkansson (Day Cape) described that he uses the
symbolic value when pitching to potential clients: “[...] and then it is always good if you are
going to pitch to a school or an organisation to say that we have a good quality mark. That
has been very useful”. The quote illustrates how the symbolic value of being a part of an
incubator facilitates the sales process for social enterprises, and thereby resulting in increased
economic capital.
Besides these respondents, none of the interviewed enterprises believed that the legitimacy
and quality mark could be used to gain more clients or users. For instance, some respondents
believed that their clients were unfamiliar with the incubator’s brand, which is exemplified by
Rosman (Welcome): “Even though it is great being a part of [incubator], no one on the street
39
knows about them [...] it has absolutely created an awareness, but hasn’t generated any new
users”. That the average citizen is unfamiliar with the incubators was a common perception
among the interviewees and they believed that only a small crowd recognises the incubator’s
brand. Since the finding suggests that clients of social enterprises can be unaware of the
incubator’s brand, the symbolic value of the incubators’ brand is argued to be modest in
relation to customers and users. Hence, it is probable that social enterprises have limited
ability to convert symbolic capital into economic when the inherent symbolic value is low.
To conclude, as only three of the fifteen respondents perceived that they could leverage
symbolic value into financial capital, through income generated by increased sales and market
penetration, the empirical support for this type of conversion is weak in the context of social
enterprises.
Conversion of symbolic capital to social capital
The empirical findings also reveal that social enterprises convert symbolic capital into social
capital, as some respondents emphasise the symbolic power of their incubator’s name and that
they have utilised it to expand their possession of social capital in forms of networks and
relations. This is illustrated by von Uexküll (Svenska med Baby) who reflects over the power
their incubator’s name have in enabling access to new connections: “If you talk to politicians
for instance, it is easier for them [incubator] to get a meeting than it would be for us. [...]
they open up for other potential partners”. This conversion of symbolic capital to social
capital emphasises how symbolic value such as brand, can open doors and enable social
enterprises to get in contact with actors they would not be able to access without the support
from their incubator.
Four of the respondents further claim that the reputation and prestige of the incubator have
provided benefits towards collaborative partners and imply that they utilise this symbolic
value to gain new partners. These interviewees emphasise the value of the name towards
collaborative partners, and von Uexküll (Svenska med Baby) expresses how they utilised their
incubator’s name when approaching and trying to set up meetings with potential partners:
“The name. It has more power. It is much more well known than Svenska med Baby for
example, which is unknown for many”. Lutke (Cirkus Unik) further exemplifies how
legitimacy from their incubator helped them secure their biggest collaborative partner and
described what that partner said before entering into their partnership: “If [incubator] believes
40
in you - why shouldn’t we believe in you?”. Lutke also highlights that they could improve
their existing partnerships when becoming part of the incubator, as a result of the inherent
credibility. These examples illustrate the importance of symbolic value for small social
enterprises in attaining partners and how the enterprises leverage the incubators’ support to
achieve these means.
Conversion of symbolic capital to cultural capital
In the aforementioned literature review, Lawrence (2004) argues that reputation and prestige
can enable opportunities for apprenticeships with recognised experts. Even though the
findings show that the social enterprises have received advice, training and apprenticeships
from experts in various formats, the respondents did not imply that this was enabled by
symbolic resources. Neither do the findings suggest that social enterprises utilised their
symbolic capital to gain such opportunities. Hence, the studied social enterprises do not
convert symbolic capital into cultural capital, by leveraging symbolic resources to gain access
to expert advice and training.
According to theory, symbolic capital can be converted into cultural capital in the form of
new employees. Rosman (Welcome) described how they often use the brand of the incubator
in recruitments, which is also supported by secondary data, as she beliefs that it brings them
legitimacy. However, she was although uncertain on how much impact the name could
actually have in attracting new talent and mentioned that they had not seen any effect of it yet.
The symbolic power of generating trust in potential employees appears to be limited in the
context of social enterprises and the study does not find support for social enterprises
converting symbolic value into cultural value in the form of employees and human capital.
Thereby, the studied social enterprises did not appear to be able to convert their symbolic
resources and transform it into cultural capital.
41
5. Reflective Discussion The conversion of capital varied depending on the form of capital, where social capital proved
the most prominent to convert, and economic capital demonstrated a more limited
convertibility. Social capital was the only form of capital that was converted into all the other
forms, thereby rendering access to several forms of economic, cultural and symbolic
resources. The social support provided by incubators enabled access to both formal and
informal networks and contacts, which proved to be very valuable for social enterprises as
they could profit from the social capital in numerous ways. That social capital demonstrated
many incidences of being converted into other forms of capital could be explained by the
characteristics of incubators. According to Burt (1997) the convertibility of social capital is
contingent upon an actor’s willingness to share networks of relations. Considering that
incubators are characterised by their mission to facilitate development of enterprises, this
implies a high willingness to incorporate social enterprises within their network. It is thereby
plausible that their mission is a factor explaining why social capital could frequently be
converted. Furthermore, since our findings suggest that social capital is converted to all other
forms and shows many cases of such conversion, it is arguable to suggest social capital to be
the most important form of capital in regards to conversion of capital for social enterprises.
This correlates with the finding that a clear majority of the respondents perceived access to
networks as the most important component of the incubators’ support. As most social
enterprises were at a young development stage, the high ability to convert social capital in our
studied context could be explained by importance attributed to social networks for start-up’s
development. For instance, a young enterprise might not have been able to build own
networks yet, whereby they draw upon incubator’s network to gain additional resources.
An interesting finding is that all forms of capital could be converted into economic capital.
This finding could suggest that converting resources into economic capital is a relatively
uncomplicated endeavour for social enterprises. Furthermore, the finding could also imply
that economic capital is perceived crucial for the development and survival of social
enterprises, something that is partly supported by the respondents. As claimed by one
respondent, social enterprises have difficulty in finding investors, whereby converting other
forms of capital into financial resources might be a means for them to deal with the scarcity of
economic capital. We also consider it important to highlight the fact that a clear majority of
respondents emphasised symbolic capital as one of the primary features of the incubators
42
support, even though the empirical findings suggest that the form of capital mainly is
convertible into one form. The reason for this can probably be ascribed the legitimacy and
mark of quality that social enterprises received through the incubators, since it provided them
with a value that is perhaps more difficult to attain by other means. Although, social
enterprises in general have difficulties in attaining all resources, the gaining of legitimacy
could be exceptionally difficult as they often are small organisational actors. Furthermore, as
conversion of symbolic capital mainly occurs into economic capital, the importance attributed
to symbolic capital could also be due its ability to attract economic capital, which further
confirms the indication of economic capital as a crucial component for the survival of the
enterprise.
From the empirical material we can acknowledge that the support from incubators provide
development opportunities for social enterprises. However, the findings also suggest that
conversions in general do not occur unconsciously and the respondents emphasise the
importance of creativity and fortitude in order to leverage received support. This suggests that
converting capital is an active process for social enterprises, which requires active
engagement and determination along with a sense of creativity in order to convert one form of
capital into another. Hence, only receiving support from the incubator is plausibly not
sufficient for the resources to have positive implications for their business development.
Instead, it is arguable that it requires creativity for social enterprises to utilise and take
advantage of these opportunities in order to address the issue of resource scarcity.
Furthermore, converting capital to generate more, and additional forms, of capital could
potentially be seen as a crucial component to cope with this challenge. Moreover, since social
enterprises have a particularly restricted access to resources, capital conversions could be
especially important for social enterprises, as they need to make the most of the resources
they have.
43
6. Conclusion The aim of this thesis has been to investigate how social enterprises utilise external support
provided by incubators in order to deal with resource scarcity. To fulfil this aim we have
adopted Bourdieu's theory of capital and the notion of conversions to explore how social
enterprises can utilise capital obtained from incubators. On a theoretical level, the study
contributes by studying capital conversions in the context of social enterprises and thereby
adding further perspectives to the multifaceted nature of capital and their conversions.
We conclude that social enterprises convert all forms of capital, however the extent and
degree of conversions varied. Social capital is identified as the most converted form of
capital, and the only one that can be transformed into all the other forms of capital. Our
findings demonstrate that social enterprises convert social capital in the form of networks and
relationships to render access to new investors, gain additional knowledge and skills and
enable access to respected events. We thereby claim that social capital is a crucial resource for
social enterprises to attain, since it can enable access to additional resources and thereby
address the issue of resource scarcity. For social entrepreneurs, this finding present a possible
way of coping with resource scarcity and we encourage social entrepreneurs to especially
leverage the networks and relations they access through incubators.
The study furthermore shows how social enterprises convert symbolic capital to economic
capital, by leveraging legitimacy and quality marks to attain new investors. The results
present cultural capital as convertible into economic and symbolic capital, as pitch training
rendered access to new investors and coaching was utilised to improve reputation. Economic
capital was a difficult conversion for social enterprises and was only convertible into cultural
capital in the form of employees and consultants. The importance of economic capital in the
development of social enterprises should however not be undermined. The study rather
suggests that all other forms could be converted into economic capital and we thereby argue
that economic capital is crucial for venture sustainability and growth.
As presented above, support from incubators provides social enterprises with opportunities to
deal with resource scarcity, as they can utilise provided resources to generate additional
resources. This study concludes by arguing that social enterprises must be active and creative
in order to be able to utilise these resources. We thereby urge social entrepreneurs to think
44
outside the box and to have courage to fully exploit provided support in order to successfully
operate in their resource scarce environment.
6.1 Limitations
One limitation of this thesis paper is the sample of the study. Since the sample of fifteen
social enterprises is a rather limited number of study objects, it is not possible to generalise
beyond the context of this research. Moreover, as only one interview per enterprise was
performed, the validity of the findings could potentially be limited. As the phenomenon only
is studied in a Swedish context the findings might not be representative for social enterprises
in other countries. Furthermore, as the study only incorporates social enterprises, the result is
neither applicable in other entrepreneurial contexts or industries. Another limitation of the
study is that the empirical data was collected during a limited point of time. Since it can be
time consuming to convert some forms of capital into other forms, it is plausible that some
conversion had not yet occurred, thereby affecting the results of the study. A last potential
limitation is the choice of theory to study how social enterprises utilise resources from
incubators. Even though we recognize it as a useful and valuable theoretical lense, we
acknowledge that it could have affected the results. We are also aware the difficulty of
measuring all aspects of conversions, due to the incommensurability of some capital forms
and recognise that this could have potential implications for the findings.
6.2 Suggestions for Future Research
As the sample of the above study has been limited to fifteen social enterprises, we encourage
future researchers to study capital conversions in a larger scope within the context of social
enterprises. A larger number of research objects would allow for future research to obtain a
certain degree of generalizability of the results and therein increase our understanding of how
social enterprises can convert capital. Furthermore, seeing as capital conversions is a time-
consuming and complex process, we suggest future researchers to adopt a more longitudinal
study that would expand the scope of the study and potentially identify additional
conversions. In addition, a study adopting a more global perspective would also further our
understanding of the studied phenomena and increase the degree of generalizability outside
the Swedish border. This research also recognises the need for future research of capital
45
conversions in other industries, since there is a possibility that the rate of conversions is
context dependent and thereby, one could expect considerable differences between industries.
Lastly, we acknowledge that Bourdieu’s capital theory is not the only relevant theory to
examine our aim and encourage researchers to look into other theories to further understand
how social enterprises can leverage resources from incubators, but also other external actors
within the ecosystem of social entrepreneurship. Such a study could identify alternative ways
to deal with resource scarcity; ways that might have been overlooked do to the chosen
theoretical lens.
46
References Abu-Saifan, S. 2012, "Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries", Technology Innovation Management Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 22. Anderson AR and Miller CJ 2003, “‘Class matters’: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process”. The Journal of Socio-Economics 32(1): 17–36. Antadze, N & Westley, F. 2010, “Funding Social Innovation: How do we know what to grow?”. The Philanthropist, vol 23, pp. 343-356. Augustinsson, E. 2011, ABC of Social Innovation, Forum for Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship Baker, T. & Nelson, R.E. 2005, "Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 329-366. Barringer, B.R., Jones, F.F., & Neubaum, D.O. 2005, ”A quantitative content analysis of the characteristics of rapid growth firms and their founders. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 663–687. Beverland MB 2005, “Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines”. Journal of Management Studies 42(5): 1003–1029. Bitektine A 2011, “Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status”. Academy of Management Review 36(1): 151–179. Björk, F., Hansson, J., Lundborg, D., Olofsson, L., Malmö University & Faculty of Culture and Society 2014, An Ecosystem for Social Innovation in Sweden : A strategic research and innovation agenda. Brinckmann J, Salomo S and Gemuenden HG 2011, “Financial management competence of founding teams and growth of new technology-based firms”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(2): 217–243. Bryman, A. B. & Bell, B. E. 2007. Business research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. Bøllingtoft, A. & Ulhøi, J.P. 2005, "The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency?", Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 265-290. Bourdieu, P. 1993, Sociology in question. London: Sage. Bourdieu, P 1984, “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu P 1986, “The forms of capital”. In: Richardson JG (ed.) The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241-58 Burt, R.S. 1997, "The Contingent Value of Social Capital", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 339-365. Burt, R.S. 2000, "The network structure of social capital", Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 345-423.
47
Bowey JL and Easton G 2007, “Entrepreneurial social capital unplugged: An activity-based analysis”. International Small Business Journal 25(3): 273–306. Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. 2001, “Social Entrepreneurship Discussion Paper. No. 1”. Cassell, C. 2015, Conducting research interviews for business and management students. Los Angeles, California: SAGE. Coulson S 2012, “Collaborating in a competitive world: Musicians’ working lives and understandings of entrepreneurship”. Work, Employment & Society 26(2): 246–261. Davidsson P and Honig B 2003, “The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs”. Journal of Business Venturing 18(3): 301–331. De Clercq, D. & Voronov, M. 2009, "Toward a Practice Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Legitimacy as Habitus", International Small Business Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 395-419. Dees, J.G. 1998. “Enterprising non-profits”. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55–67. Denzin, N.Lincoln, Y., 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. DiMaggio PJ 1979, “On Pierre Bourdieu”. American Journal of Sociology 84(6): 1460–1474. Domenico, M.D., Haugh, H. & Tracey, P. 2010, "Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 681-703. European Commission Enterprise Directorate General (ECEDG) 2002, “Benchmarking of Business Incubators”, Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services, Kent. Everett, J. 2002, "Organizational Research and the Praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu", Organizational Research Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 56-80. Finkelstein, S., Harvey, C., & Lawton, T. (2007). Breakout strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Foster, S.W. 1986, "Reading Pierre Bourdieu", Cultural Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 103-110. Fuller, T. and Tian, Y. 2006, “Social and symbolic capital and responsible entrepreneurship: An empirical investigation of SME narratives”. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 287–304. Habaradas, R.B. & Aure, P.A.H. 2016, "Managing social enterprises in the Philippines: challenges and strategies", Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 39. Hackett, S.M. & Dilts, D.M. 2004, "A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research", The Journal ofTechnology Transfer, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55-82. Hansen, M.T., Chesbrough, H.W., Nohria, N., Sull, D.N. 2000, “Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy”, Harvard Business Review, vol 78, no 74, Harvey, C., Gordon, J., Maclean, M. & Shaw, E. 2011, "Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy", Business History, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 425-450. Harvey C and Maclean M 2008, “Capital theory and the dynamics of elite business networks in Britain and France”. Sociological Review 56 (supp. 1): 105–120.
48
Helfat, C.E. and Lieberman M., 2002, "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history", Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 725-760. Ingram, A.E., Hechavarria, D.M. & Matthews, C.H. 2014, "Does Cultural Capital Matter? Exploring Sources of Funding in New Venture Creation", Small Business Institute Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1. Jenkins, R. 1992, Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge. John, R. 2006. “Behind the Check: How Venture Philanthropists Add Value”. Oxford Said Business School, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Oxford, England. Kasper, G. & Marcoux, J. 2014, The Re-Emerging Art of Funding Innovation, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Stanford University, Stanford. Karataş-Özkan M., 2011, “Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning: Towards a multi- layered approach”. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (9–10): 877–906. Kourilsky, M. L., 1995. “Entrepreneurship education: Opportunity search of a curriculum” Business Education Forum. 50(1):11-15. Kvale, S. 1983. The qualitative research interview-a phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 171-196. Kvale, S., 1938-2008 1996, Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing, SAGE, Thousand Oaks. Lall, S., Bowles, L. & Baird, R. 2013, "Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The Role of Accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises", Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 105-137. Lawrence, T.B. 2004, "Rituals and Resistance: Membership Dynamics in Professional Fields", Human Relations, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 115-143. Leadbeater, C. 1997, “The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur”, Demos, London. Luke, B. & Chu, V. 2013, "Social enterprise versus social entrepreneurship: An examination of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in pursuing social change", International Small Business Journal, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 764-784. Lundahl, U. & Skä rvad, P. 1999, Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lyons, T.S. & Kickul, J.R. 2013, "The Social Enterprise Financing Landscape: The Lay of the Land and New Research on the Horizon", Entrepreneurship Research Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147-159. Maclean, M. 2008, "New rules - old games? Social capital and privatisation in France, 1986-1998", Business History, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 795-810. Maclean M, Harvey C and Press J 2006, “Business Elites and Corporate Governance in France and the UK”. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sanders, B. 2007, “Social innovation what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated” Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship
49
Noruzi, M.R. & Rahimi, G.R. 2010, "Notice of Retraction An exploration of social entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurship era", IEEE, , pp. 759. Prabhu, G.N. 1999, "Social entrepreneurial leadership", Career Development International, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 140-145. Pret, T., Shaw, E. & Drakopoulou Dodd, S. 2016, "Painting the full picture: The conversion of economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital", International Small Business Journal, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1004-1027. Randle K, Forson C and Calveley M 2014, “Towards a Bourdieusian analysis of the social composition of the UK film and television workforce”. Work, Employment & Society. Epub ahead of print 20 October. DOI: 10.1177/0950017014542498. Reach for Change 2016, “Vår Metod”. http://sweden.reachforchange.org/sv/om-oss/var-metod (Retrieved: 2017-04-03) Reuber AR and Fischer E 2005, “The company you keep: How young firms in different competitive contexts signal reputation through their customers”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(1): 57–78. Rooks, G., Klyver, K. & Sserwanga, A. 2016, "The Context of Social Capital: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Entrepreneurs in Uganda", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 111-130. Saunders, M., 1959, Lewis, P., 1945 & Thornhill, A. 2009, Research methods for business students: Elektronisk resurs, 5.th edn, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow. Scarlata, M. & Alemany, L. 2010, "Deal Structuring in Philanthropic Venture Capital Investments: Financing Instrument, Valuation and Covenants", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. S2, pp. 121-145. Shaw E., 2006, “Small firm networking: An insight into contents and motivating factors”. International Small Business Journal 24(1): 5–29. Shaw, E. & Carter, S. 2007, "Social entrepreneurship", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 418-434. Shaw, E., Gordon, J., Harvey, C. & Maclean, M. 2013;2011;, "Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy", International Small Business Journal, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 580-599 Silverman, D., 2007. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Qualitative Research. London. Sage Stam W, Arzlanian S and Elfring T 2014, “Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators”. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1): 152–173. Sullivan D.M., and Ford C., M. 2014, “How Entrepreneurs use networks to address changing resource requirements during early venture development”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(3): 551–574. Suni, A. 2017. “Nya bolagstrenden: Att tackla globala problem”. DiDigital. 19 march 2017. http://digital.di.se/artikel/nya-bolagstrenden-att-tackla-globala-problem (Retrived: 2017-04-03)
50
Terjesen S and Elam AB 2009, “Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33(5): 1093–1120. Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. 1998, "Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks", The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 464-476. Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. 2007, “The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 264–271. Winborg J and Landström H 2001, “Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: Examining small business managers’ resource acquisition behaviors”. Journal of Business Venturing 16(3): 235–254. Zott C and Huy QN 2007, “How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources”. Administrative Science Quarterly 52(1): 70–105.
51
Appendix 1 Table of conducted interviews
Company Name Title Type Duration Date
Day Cape Anton Håkansson Founder In person 45 min 17.02.24
Welcome Emma Rosman & Laura de Clercq
Co-founder/ CEO & Communication
In person 50 min 17.03.09
Blue Call App Lisa Löfgren Co-Founder In person 45 min 17.03.15
Newsvoice Viktor Lidholt Founder In person 40 min 17.03.15
Invitations- departementet
Ebba Åkerman Minister of Dinners Phone 45 min 17.03.15
Picture My Life Yvonne Malmström Grimme
CEO In person 40 min 17.03.16
Cirkus Unik Elin Lutke Co-founder Skype 60 min 17.03.23
Föreningen Storasyster
Cecilia Bödker Pedersen
Operating Officer In person 40 min 17.03.28
Svenska med Baby
Caroline von Uexküll Operating Officer In person 45 min 17.03.29
Challengize Nicholas Roman CEO & Co-founder In person 45 min 17.04.03
Föreningen Tillsammans
Julia Östfeldt Operating Officer Phone 50 min 17.04.03
Learning To Sleep Micael Gustafsson CEO Skype 40 min 17.04.04
Medfilm Erik Kylén CEO Phone 50 min 17.04.06
Trine Hanna Lindquist Communications & Growth Manager
Phone 50 min 17.04.10
We Unite Design Lina Lagerbäck Operating Officer Phone 70 min 17.04.24