Social entrepreneurship research paper

Bishop’s University

Social Entrepreneurship Creating Change in the Global Community

Topics in Entrepreneurship For: Steve Karpenko

BMG 320

By: Adam Hargreaves,

Rebecca Knox

April 8th, 2015

2 Social Entrepreneurship

Table of contents 1.0 Abstract 2.0 What is a social enterprise?

2.1 Entrepreneurship definition 2.2 Social Entrepreneurship Definition 2.3 Types of Social Ventures 2.4 Why is it needed?

3.0 History of Social Entrepreneurship

3.1 Early Social Entrepreneurship 3.2 Modern Social Entrepreneurship

4.0 Financial Constraints

4.1 Government Grants 4.2 Crowdfunding 4.3 Venture Philanthropy

5.0 How Can the Field Attract Talented Workers? 5.1 What Are We Looking For? 5.2 “Mass Recruiters” 5.3 A Case: Teach For America 6.0 How Government & Social Entrepreneurs Work Together 6.1 What is Currently Happening? 6.2 What Government Can Do 7.0 How Do Schools Nurture Social Entrepreneurship 7.1 University Level 7.2 Earlier Years 7.3 Where Can We Go From Here?

8.0 Discussion

1.0 Abstract

The primary goals with regards to our research were to define in our own terms what

constitutes being a social entrepreneur- essentially being an entrepreneur with social

causes being at the forefront. Additionally, we hoped to learn from this research so that

we may begin to create a dialogue surrounding the creation of a unique Canadian model

for needs specific to our communities.

We found the use of a social enterprise can achieve not just social but financial

growth all while improving the community. We have looked at specific cases of social

entrepreneurs to attempt to assess what they have done right and where they could have

used help. Through assessing these cases of success and failure stories, we hoped to

gather knowledge so that we can ground it in our own cultural backgrounds and

eventually present ideas on how to establish a social enterprise within our communities.

We researched both quantitative as well as qualitative data as we felt this would

help us paint a better picture of the social enterprise atmosphere in Canada. We focused

our research on six main ideas within the spectrum related to social entrepreneurship.

Each one of these sections deals with a specific aspect of a social enterprise- each serving

it’s own important function within the well-oiled machine that is social entrepreneurship.


2.0 What Is A Social Enterprise?

2.1 Entrepreneurship Definition

To understand Social entrepreneurship we first would like to define

entrepreneurship to help in comparing and contrasting the two. Entrepreneurship is

“the process of creating value by bringing together a unique package of resources to

exploit an opportunity.”(Forbat, 2007). The main goal of typical entrepreneurship is

to maximize profits and shareholders wealth.

2.2 Social Entrepreneurship Definition

In its simplest form social entrepreneurship is “the use of business practices and

techniques in an attempt to solve social problems in a sustainable way.”(The new

Heroes, 2005). How this concept is applied to actual real world situations ranges

tremendously.

The definition for social entrepreneurship has long been debated amongst

the business community as to what exactly makes a social enterprise count as a

social and not a business enterprise. So far there has not been a consensus as to

what makes a social entrepreneur. Does any business count as a social enterprise

because they hire people, reducing unemployment? We argue no, a company that

introduces potato chips to China would not be considered a social entrepreneur

even though they hire thousands of people. A better definition of social

entrepreneurship is a process where people build or change institutions to advance

solutions to social problems, such as illiteracy, illness, human rights, environmental

destruction and corruption with the purpose of improving life. (Bornstien & Davis.

2010). Not just trying to fix but understanding how an issue relates to society allows

social entrepreneurs to develop ingenuous solutions and to mobilize resources to

help society. Unlike traditional businesses, social enterprises focus on the

maximization of social betterment, rather than maximizing profit gains. (Baron &

Davis. 2010).

2.3 Types of Social Ventures

In “The Power Of Unreasonable people”, John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan

categorize social entrepreneurs, business structures as falling under three different

models, varying between situations and economic climates. The three models are,

leveraged non-‐profit, hybrid non-‐profit and social businesses.(Elkington & Hartigan.

2007). A leveraged non-‐profit venture needs external financing in order to operate

and provide a public good. On the other hand, a hybrid non-‐profit venture retains a

portion of its profits in order to maintain operations and further social good. Finally

a social business venture generates profits, the difference being they reinvest this

profit to further social benefits instead of returning the profits to their shareholders.

.(Elkington. & Hartigan. 2007). Companies may transition between stages as they

grow, starting as a leveraged non-‐profit until they eventually have enough profits to

be self-‐sustainable and become a Social Business venture.

2.4 Why is it Needed?

Why have social enterprises? Why not use regular business or the government to

solve these social issues? One reason social entrepreneurship is needed is most


businesses will look at a social problem and not see large profit growth therefore

will not waste investor capital on this venture. Business entrepreneurships need to

maximize shareholder wealth once publicly listed and social programs don’t always

have the highest monetary return. The reason we cant rely on Government to solve

these problems is typically governments term is four years, which leads to a

constant cycle of people starting projects and not completing them or only

producing short term solutions to be re-‐elected in the next term. Social

entrepreneurs on the other hand are focused on the social return and are willing to

have slow profit growth and will stay with the project till a solution is met, this leads

to more sustainable and long-‐term solutions.

Another reason people may want to start looking into social

entrepreneurship is due to ‘Deloitte’s global 2015 millennial survey’, which found

that Millennials believe a successful business should be measured in more then just

financial performance, but also believe businesses should seek to improve society.

Millennials are also very charitable and strive to improve social life; 63 percent of

Mellennials have donated to charity, 43 percent have actively volunteered and 52

percent have signed petitions. (Deloitte,2015). What this means for business owners

is the next generation of the workforce doesn’t want to work for the typical “greedy”

business world. They want to be part of a company that attempts to improve the

world. Therefore in order to attract future leaders companies need to become social

enterprises that serve a higher purpose as well as produce profits.

3.0 History of Social Entrepreneurship

Credit for popularizing the term “Social Entrepreneurship” can be given to William

Drayton, founder of Ashoka the world’s first organization to promote social

entrepreneurship. During a visit to India in the early 1980’s Drayton was inspired

by Vinoda Bhave’s “land gift movement”, which aimed to break the poverty cycle by

getting the richer people to give their land up so it could be more fairly distributed

to the less wealthy people. The success of this movement showed Drayton the

effectiveness of social entrepreneurship in making change for the

better.(Leadbeater, 1996). Ashoka is now a worldwide company promoting the idea

of creating social change through the use of an informative website. Ashoka offers

advice on financing and support for social entrepreneurs in all different types of

economic climates around the world.

3.1 Early Social Entrepreneurship

Although the term was only made popular 35 years ago social entrepreneurs have

always existed, in the past however they were called visionaries, humanitarians,

philanthropists or saints. (Bornstein & Davis. 2010). Some early pioneers of social

entrepreneurship are:

1. Robert Owen (1771-‐1858) – This mill owner was a pioneer in the social

entrepreneurship movement. He improved working conditions at factories; he also

laid the foundation of the cooperative movement by starting a store for factory


workers to buy goods for a little more then wholesale price. Leading to a better

quality of life for all his workers. (Owen, 1908)

2. Florence Nightingale (1820-‐1910) – Arguably one of the most famous social

entrepreneurs in history, Florence founded the first nursing school and outlined

modern nursing practices. This has saved countless lives and continues to today.

(Florence, Nightingale, 2015)

3. William Booth (1829-‐1912) – William and his wife started the East London

Christian Mission in 1865 to bring the Christian message to those in need by

meeting their physical and spiritual needs. He later rebranded in 1878 to Salvation

Army open to all races, and needs. (Salvation Army, 2015).

In the past Social Entrepreneurs were typically non-‐profit organizations

relying on external financing to continue their social good. This method can work

and is used around the world even today but charitable programs tend to have less

long lasting effect as they are not self sustainable and are constantly looking for

more funding. This all started to change as we entered the 21st century and social

entrepreneurship began to be redefined, no longer relying on others to remain open

but finding creative ways to have social impact, while making enough profit to be

sustainable.

3.2 Modern Social Entrepreneurship

In later years social entrepreneurships have changed from charitable organizations

to actual businesses that are able to more effectively solve social problems while

still being self-‐sustainable.

Technology has had a major influence in social entrepreneurship becoming a

global movement, more particularly the internet and social networking have had the

largest impact allowing social entrepreneurs to collaborate and share ideas must

faster then ever before. (Malecki, 1997). The Internet has enabled social

entrepreneurs to spread their ideas globally with little to no money on open source

websites, this has lead to the global community coming together to solve local

problems by collaborating online. Some examples of social ventures that have

succeeded thanks to new technology include companies such as ‘Khan Academy’.

Khan Academy is a website that uses instructional videos to allow anyone with

access to a computer, the ability to learn a range of subjects at their own pace, for

zero cost. Khan Academy’s goal is to increase education worldwide. (Khan Academy,

2015).

Toms shoes also became a global brand through social networking, founded

by Blake Mycoskie in Arlington Texas, it is a for profit business, Toms social swing

is, for every pair of shoes sold a new pair is given to an impoverished child, “the one

for one concept”. (Walkley. 2009). Toms spread their campaign and ideal across

social media and quickly became one of the most well-‐known shoe companies in the

world, using their social movement as a positive marketing tool. Toms has expanded

their product range, now supplying, eye exams, birthing classes and access to water


to underprivileged people in third world countries. To date Toms has helped restore

sight for 275,000 people, supplied 67,000 weeks of safe drinking water and helped

train 40 million women across the globe on safe birthing practices. (Toms.ca, 2015).

Toms is a very good example of a modern social business venture because they

make a large profit but reinvest a majority back into the social programs they have

set up.

4.0 Financial Constraints

Social entrepreneurs have proven that they are able to improve social problems and

make a difference but are often hindered by a lack of funding and have trouble

finding traditional investors willing to invest in social problems. A business that

does not promise profits within five to seven years will not attract traditional

investment no matter how important their work is. Social businesses are typically

able to be self-‐sustainable once up and running but for the non-‐profit social

enterprises they rely on foundations, philanthropists or governments, all options

typically consisting of modest sized investments that are relatively short term.

(Bornstein & Davis. 2010). Social entrepreneurs have a hard time receiving

traditional finance due to their business plan, which puts social impact at the top of

its priorities, compared to traditional businesses that are focused on monetary

return. Social entrepreneurs have difficulty receiving funding from governments, as

they typically like to pay for services as they are delivered, rather then investing in a

long-‐term solution. (Bornstein & Davis. 2010). A new form of financing has started

to emerge called venture philanthropy, a type of venture capitalist who seeks social

impact over monetary growth. (Weiss & Clark. 2015). Although this new type of

investment is exciting for the world of social entrepreneurship it is still in its early

stages and not very many venture philanthropists institutions exist. Social

entrepreneurs are starting to combine all the different types of funding, including

grants, bank loans, crowd funding and venture philanthropy together in order to

achieve maximum social impact. The most common and new forms of financing a

social enterprise are described in detail below.

4.1 Government Grants

One of the main sources social entrepreneurs seek funding from is the government

as they have the resources to fund social programs and the motive to create social

impact. Typically receiving government funding gives more credibility to an

organization; if they are consistently receiving grants and winning competitions for

funding they may attract additional investors as a result. (Sherman, 2004). Another

benefit of government funding is it can sometimes be accompanied by professional

assistance. The government who is providing the grant my also offer workshops,

seminars and consulting in order to help the social enterprise grow and maximize

impact. Government grants can also help improve their network by introducing

them to a larger group of social entrepreneurs. Sometimes governments will bring

together all the recipients of a particular grant in order to expand their network, as

well as compare experience and increase awareness of other potential funding or

resources for that particular type of venture. (Canada Business, 2014).


Even with these benefits some social enterprises decide to stay away from

government grants for a couple of reasons. To qualify for funding organizations may

have to reshape their business in order to fit in the guidelines set out by the

government, this may be hard to do while still maintaining the social ideal. Another

downside to government grants is the monitoring of your business; typically larger

grants will come with a stipulation that the business practices and performance will

be monitored. (Sherman, 2004). Some entrepreneurs find this monitoring to be

quite intrusive and may decide to avoid government grants for this reason.

Potentially costly problems with government grants are some work on a

reimbursement basis, making businesses upfront the costs and submit cost reports

then wait for reimbursement. This would not be bad if it weren’t for governments

being notoriously slow in payback, sometimes going two too three months before

reimbursement is received. (Sherman, 2004). For a social enterprise that is well

organized and likes taking direction a government grant may be a good source of

financing, as it cost nothing other then time to receive a grant. For others the lack of

certainty and availability of loans may make government grants a bad decision

when finding financing.

4.2 Crowdfunding

One of the more recent and most successful forms of financing is a concept known as

crowd funding, (or crowdsourcing). Tripling in the last year becoming a 16 billion

dollar industry Crowdfunding is quickly turning into one of social entrepreneurs

favorite avenues for financing. (Clifford, 2015). Crowdfunding is an Internet based

form of funding that doesn’t ask for one large loan but instead asks for many small

loans from multiple individuals to reach a large fundraising goal. (Lambert &

Schwienbacher. 2010) Instead of offering equity like a typical public investment,

crowd funding often uses a reward program, which offers incentives that increase in

value as the value of the donation increases, in some unique cases it may be strictly

donation based.( Ordanini, et al, 2011). These incentives typically are products

offered by the company or products made specifically for the crowd funding

campaign. This method avoids traditional funding such as banks and grants; crowd

funding goes directly to the consumer and asks for help in getting a project off the

ground or to the next step. Crowd funding has become a popular avenue for social

entrepreneurs to receive funding as it is easier to convince the public to invest in

social good and is much less risk for multiple investors putting in small amounts

compared to traditional financers taking on the full risk of the entire loan. Some

benefits of Crowdfunding is it is essentially a marketing tool as much as it is an

investment tool, companies are able to spread their business idea to a very large

audience and intern may meet others who share similar ideas. A Crowdfunding

campaign is fairly simple to put together compared to a traditional business plan

needed for most loans or grants. Crowdfunding uses videos and visuals and usually

consists of a pitch about the idea or product in an informal manner. Crowdfunding

campaigns also normally receive a lot of feedback on their idea and this may help

maximize their impact having input from others. In other industries the fear of

people copying the idea is considered a con, in social entrepreneurship most

encourage others to go out and do a social good using their idea, this can be seen as


a plus depending on the goals of the entrepreneur. (Isenberg, 2012). The United

states also recently passed a law allowing entrepreneurs to sell small shares in their

company on a Crowdfunding style platform, this would avoid the heavy cost of going

public and could see a new type of investor using Crowdfunding. People will now

receive payment if the project succeeds so they will be invested in its progress more

then with previous Crowdfunding campaigns. (Finley, 2015). Crowdfunding is seen

as a very viable option for social entrepreneurs seeking funding and has a very

promising future as the world comes closer with technology and millennials starts

addressing social issues together.

4.3 Venture Philanthropy

Venture capitalism has been around for as long as entrepreneurs have been around

investing in seemingly risky ventures hoping for large returns. The new form of this

has emerged specifically for the social entrepreneurship sector known as venture

philanthropy. Venture philanthropy uses the expertise and techniques used in

venture capitalism but focuses on social impact over return on investment. They

measure their return in capacity improvement and people helped over monetary

growth. It is estimated that there are 40 institutional funders currently using this

approach, investing upwards of 60 million a year and growing. (Frumkin. 2003).

What venture philanthropist are trying to do is not just be a supplier of cash like a

charity, but instead consult and work with social institutions so they can further

their social impact and increase reach which is the goal of a Venture Philanthropist.

(Frumkin, 2003).

Some benefits to Venture philanthropy is the investors are looking for social

return over monetary return, so entrepreneurs are able to focus on social

improvement instead of having to worry about paying back a loan. Another benefit

is the typical length of a venture philanthropist investment, unlike bank loans or

grants that are typically one time investments, a Venture philanthropists investment

is typically 5-‐7 years and can go far beyond that. (Chauhan, 2015). The Benefit of

this is Venture Philanthropist will likely add more money as they see the project

growing and its social capacity increasing. Along with supplying funds Venture

philanthropist will typically also give intellectual and human capital to the social

venture they have invested in. (Chauhan, 2015). Some social entrepreneurs find

Venture Philanthropy the best fit for their business as they may be passionate about

their cause but benefit from having a business consultant to make their venture

sustainable therefore furthering its impact to the community. Others prefer the

more hands off approach of a bank loan, opting out of the venture philanthropist

team member approach to investing.

5.0 How Can the Field Attract Talented Workers?

5.1 What Are We Looking For?

Unlike regular businesses that follow a structured business model, social

entrepreneurs are more likely to create solutions to problems without a road map,

or plan of attack per se. This often open ended work calls for a different kind of

brain, a revolutionary thinker. So what are we looking for? According to Bornstein

and Davis:


• Those Looking for Rewarding work (More Than Money)

• Critical thinkers, decision makers, risk takers

• Empathetic, caring individuals

• Socially aware individuals

As previously mentioned, the members of the millennial generation have both a

strong social sensibility as well as social responsibility. (Deloitte, 2015) This shift

towards a more socially aware generation is causing a shift in the way we do

business say Bornstein and Davis. Sagawa and Jospin state that organizations, much

like individuals, form their own identities and personalities. These charismatic

personalities act as a magnet for attracting individuals who are equally as

charismatic and passionate about the same issues. (Sagawa & Jospin, 2008) The

future looks bright for social enterprises with an incoming workforce that values

rewarding work that will change the communities they are a part of.

5.2 “Mass Recruiters”

Bill Drayton, a global social entrepreneur, believes that the utmost important

success factor for a social enterprise is the acquisition and cultivation of great

potential. (Drayton, 2006) Drayton believes the key to success lies within inspiring

and helping young minds to realize what they can be capable of. Drayton refers to

social entrepreneurs as “mass recruiters” (Drayton, 2006)-‐ constantly working to

challenge great minds to reach their full potentials. Most of this “recruitment” is

done informally, as there are not many programs in place that allow for a structured

growth plan of these exemplary minds. One example of a very successful social

enterprise is Teach For America, which Drayton argues can serve as a model for all

recruiting social entrepreneurs.

5.3 Teach For America

Teach For America’s mission is to “grow the movement of leaders who work to

ensure that kids growing up in poverty get an excellent education.” (Teach for

America, 2015) The educators involved with teach for America are social

entrepreneurs that are willing to receive less pay in exchange for more rewarding

work. Teach For America is a perfect example of Drayton’s “mass recruiter” theory.

They are constantly on the hunt for young minds whose values of education are

aligned with those of the organization. (Bornstein et al, 2010) With their charismatic

organization, Teach For America has been able to attract young educators from top

universities across the United States.

Wendy Kopp, who presented the idea in her 1989 undergraduate thesis at

Princeton, dreamed up Teach For America in a university classroom. In 1990, 500

committed individuals made Kopp’s dream a reality, and it the movement has been

growing ever since. Teach For America’s model helps attract and inspire the best

and brightest from around the country: Recruit, Train, and Foster. (Teach For

America, 2015)

o We recruit committed recent college graduates and professionals of

all backgrounds to teach for two years in urban and rural public

schools


o We train and develop these corps members so that they have an

immediate positive impact on their students

o We foster leadership of our alumni as they address this problem from

all sectors

Teach For America should be treated as a template for social change in

America. Teach For America have proven themselves to be extremely successful

since their inception. The numbers don’t lie: Teach For America credit themselves

with transforming education in New Orleans, where the percentage of students

scoring basic or above on state wide testing has increased from 30% in 2000 to 53%

in 2010. (Teach For America, 2015)

6.0 How do Government and Social Entrepreneurs Work Together?

6.1 What is Government Doing Currently?

As previously mentioned, the government offers grants to some social enterprises.

However, fitting into the parameters of what the government grant requires proves

difficult for many social entrepreneurs-‐ causing many of them to seek funding

elsewhere. (Sherman, 2004) The government and social entrepreneurs have

historically “suffered from a mutual lack of respect and trust.” (Bornstein et al,

2010) Due to the different approaches taken by each to problem solving, different

pressures, and different needs-‐ government and social entrepreneurs do not always

work well together. However, government departments could greatly benefit from

having the minds of social entrepreneurs at their disposal, as it would make for

fresh, effective, and unique solutions to structural issues.

6.2 What Can Government Do?

Bornstein and Davis suggest that governments do not need to abolish ineffective

government resources, but instead deploy their resources differently within the

social sector. (Bornstein & Davis, 2010) They suggest that rather than forcing social

entrepreneurs into strict guidelines for funding, they should instead “harness the

potential of social entrepreneurs and citizen organizations to achieve policy goals,

just as they do with business entrepreneurs and companies.” (Bornstein & Davis,

2010) Social entrepreneurs are long-‐term solution makers, which many government

officials are not. It is said that this difference alone would make solutions much

more effective with the help of social entrepreneurs.

7.0 How Do Schools Nurture Social Entrepreneurship?

7.1 University Level

As Gordon Bloom explains, many university students enter post-‐secondary

education with a strong desire to create social change but are not always given a

structured curriculum to help them achieve their dreams. (Bloom, 2006) Bloom

goes on to explain the structures used by Harvard and Stanford Universities to

foster growth of future social entrepreneurs. Bloom talks about the Social

Entrepreneurship (or SE) Lab at Harvard. In the figure below, Bloom deconstructs

the basic structure and goals of the lab. As we can see, the SE lab provides a very

hands-‐on, and collaborative curriculum specially designed for those wishing to put

their theory into practice.


(Bloom, 2006)

Bornstein and Davis state that although indeed, “social entrepreneurship has

made inroads to academia, it remains far from mainstream.” (Bornstein et al, 2010)

As of 2010, there were 350 professors in over 35 countries teaching social

entrepreneurship to their students. (Bornstein et al, 2010)

In Canada, new social entrepreneurship initiatives are “popping up across

the country.” (Lewington, 2013) McGill, University of British Colombia, and Simon

Fraser University are among many that have retooled their entrepreneurship

curriculums to fit with what Anita Nowak, integrating director of the Social

Economy Initiative at McGill, calls a “generational zeitgeist.” (Lewington, 2013)

From a more localized perspective, Enactus Canada is “shaping generations of

entrepreneurial leaders who are passionate about advancing the economic, social

and environmental health of Canada.” (Enactus, 2015) Enactus Canada is part of a

global student movement with 35 other countries-‐ creating social, economic, and

environmental change all over the globe. At smaller schools, such as Bishop’s

University, where there aren’t high numbers of enrolled students, Enactus is a

significant tool for aspiring social entrepreneurs.

7.2 Earlier Years

Elanor Duckworth explains that young children are, in fact, very developed

intellectually. She argues that children are forced to lose their curious and

resourceful ways when they enter institutions as their “natural enthusiasm and

inquisitiveness becomes subordinated to the needs of adults enlisted to teach them.”

(Duckworth, 20000) Duckworth suggests that if adults and educators stop

discouraging children’s ideas that seem different or crazy and instead encourage

and structure moments when children have their own ideas, children could let their

willingness to try blossom. This being said, the Roots of Empathy organization

(explained further in section 7.3) encompasses the qualities that Duckworth

suggests make up a much-‐needed program within primary schools.

7.3 Where Can We Go From Here?

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”-‐

Nelson Mandela (BrainyQuote, 2015)


Grossberg argues that in society, youth are extremely important and full of

potential, yet they are also feared. (Grossberg, 1994) He argues that as a body, youth

need to be integrated into spaces where they can use their full potential to change

things. Mary Gordon, founder of Roots of Empathy, insists, “Everyone can be a

change maker”. (Bornstein et al, 2010) She suggests that the onus of teaching

children to be leaders is on educators. Her organization, Roots of Empathy, teams

up with elementary and pre-‐school educators to “change the world-‐ child by child.”

(Roots of Empathy, 2015) Gordon’s Organization does this by teaching empathy to

children early on so that they may build “caring, peaceful, and civil societies” later

on down the road. (Roots of Empathy, 2015)

In terms of where to go in the future, Roots of Empathy is a great start. Roots

of Empathy already have educators across Canada, and the world. If every Canadian

early childhood educator could receive Roots of Empathy training-‐ imagine how

much the country could benefit, and how many young social entrepreneurs would

be coming out of the woodwork. When speaking on the importance of education for

social entrepreneurs, Delgado states, “For social youth enterprises to make the

impact they are capable of making in this country, content on this subject must be

addressed in the nation’s classrooms at the secondary and postsecondary levels.”

(Delgado, 2004)

9.0 Discussion

It has become clear through our research that there has been a societal paradigm

shift towards the consideration of social issues that has enabled social

entrepreneurship to flourish over recent years. We believe that in this rapidly

growing and changing society, people will continue to become more and more

socially aware and responsible. We believe with the emergence of these new

mindsets and practices, social entrepreneurs have bright futures ahead of them.

Additionally, we believe that not only will this new, rapidly changing atmosphere

bring success to social entrepreneurs, but also will forever change the way we do

business.

Through a brief historical overview and social entrepreneurship’s functions,

we were able to develop our own definition of what social entrepreneurship means,

in our minds. Our idealized, brief definition of social entrepreneurship is an

organization or initiative that finds a need unmet, or poorly met need within society

that they seek to change for the betterment of the society as a whole.

We briefly touched on the different types of financing available for those

wishing to create social change. We also discussed how to attract the talented,

passionate minds needed within a social enterprise-‐ and what exactly that entails.

When researching the potential partnerships between social entrepreneurs

and governments, the question was asked: “How much involvement should

governments have?” There is certainly a complex and detailed answer to this that

could be a research paper on its own. The track record between the two have not


been the best-‐ but we believe if changes were made on both ends, the pair could do

exceptional things on the global scale.

Perhaps the most important section of our research was that of the education

being done in terms of social entrepreneurship. Although there are existing

programs that cater to the needs of the developing minds of young social

entrepreneurs, they are by no means mainstream and therefore not accessible by

all. It is our belief, along with the beliefs of many others, that if educated about social

matters, about empathy, and about caring from a young age-‐ anyone can be a

change maker.

References

Baron, D. (2007) "Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship." Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. no. 3 : 683-‐717 Biography.com. (2015). Florence Nightingale. The Biography.com website. Retrieved 04:05, Mar 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.biography.com/people/florence nightingale-‐9423539. Bloom, G. (2006) “The Social Entrepreneurship Laboratory (SE Lab): A University Incubator for a Rising Generation of Social Entrepreneurs” from Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Bornstein, D., Davis, S. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs TO Know. New York: Oxford University Press. Brainy Quote. (2015) Education Quotes. Retrieved from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_education.html Canadabusiness.ca,. (2014). Government grants and financing – Canada Business Network. Retrieved 22 March 2015, from http://www.canadabusiness.ca/eng/page/2848/ Chauhan, L. (2015). Venture Philanthropy: An approach supported by collaboration, LIFT Philanthropy partners. Liftpartners.ca. retrieved February 28 2015

Clayton, J., (1908) Robert Owen: Pioneer of Social Reforms Fifield, London Clifford, C. (2015). Crowdfunding nearly tripled last year, becoming a 16 billion dollar industry. Entreprenuer. Retrieved from http://www.entreprenuer.com/article/2244503 Delgado, M. (2004) Social Youth Entrepreneurship: The Potential for Youth and Community Transformation. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Deloitte,. (2015). Millennial Survey 2015 / Deloitte / Social impact, innovation. Retrieved from http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about deloitte/articles/millenialsurvey.html Drayton, William. “The Citizen Sector Tranformed” in Nicholls, ed., Social


Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Elkington, J., Hartigan, P. (2007) The Power of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Create Markets that Change the World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Enactus. (2015). Enactus Canada. http://enactus.ca/ Finley, K. (2015). The Crowdfunding site that lets you sell shares in your videogame or movie, Wired. Wired. Retrieved 4 April 2015, from http://www.wired.com/2015/01/chroma-‐fund/ Forbat J. (2007). Entreprenuership : The Seeds of Success. Petersfeild: Harrison House Frumkin, P. (2003). Inside Venture Philanthropy, Society, 40(4). 7-‐15. Grossberg, L. (1994). The political status of youth and youth culture. In J.S. Epstein (ed.), Adolescents and their music (pp.25-‐46). New York: Garland Press. Isenberg, Daniel (April 23, 2012). "The Road to Crowdfunding Hell – Daniel Isenberg – Harvard Business Review". Blogs.hbr.org. Retrieved August 19, 2012. Khan Academy,. (2015). Khan Academy. Retrived 22 April 2015, from https:www.khanacademy.org/about Lambert, Thomas, and Armin Schwienbacher. 2010. “An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding.” Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1578175 Leadbeater, C. (1996). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos. Lewington, J. (2013). Universities that teach you to change the world. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian university-‐report/idealist-‐universities-‐have-‐programs-‐for you/article14963902/?page=1 Malecki, E. J. (1997). Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local, regional, and national change.University of Illinois at Urbana-‐Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. The New Heroes. (2005) What is Social Entrepreneurship, Oregon Public

Broadcasting. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-‐funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of service management, 22(4), 443-‐470. Roots of Empathy. (2015) Home. http://rootsofempathy.org/ Sagawa, Shirley, and Deb Jospin. The Charasmatic Organization: Eight Ways to Grow a Nonprofit That Builds Buzz, Delights & Donors, and Energizes Employees. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass, 2008. Salvationarmyusa.org,. ‘The Salvation Army – History of the salvation army’. N.p., 2015. Wed. 6 Mar. 2015 Sherman, A., (2004) “pros and cons of receiving a government grant.” Hudson Institute. Teach for America. (2015) “Our History”. https://www.teachforamerica.org/our organization/our-‐history Toms.ca,. (2015). TOMS : One For One. Retrieved 14 March 2015, from http://www.toms.ca/what-‐we-‐give

Weiss, T., & Clark, H. (2015). ‘Venture philanthropy’ is new buzz in business. Forbes. Walkley, Alison (2009-‐11-‐20). "TOMS founder Mycoskie comes to SHU". Fairfield Citizen. Retrieved March 14, 2015.

Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship research paper