1
An introduction to social entrepreneurship in Europe
Enrico Testi, Mario Biggeri, Marco Bellucci, Roel During, and H. Thomas R. Persson
A worldwide phenomenon
In recent years, the search for alternative and more sustainable models of economic and human development has increased significantly (Anand & Sen, 1994; Stiglitz et al., 2009; Crane & Matten, 2016). The traditional idea of enterprises as mere profit-maximizing organizations, as well as the notion that entrepreneurs are interested only in maximizing their personal gains, has also been questioned (Freeman, 1984; Elkington, 1998; Bagnoli, 2004; Bellucci & Manetti, 2018). Enterprises set up for social purposes rather than profit maximization or personal gain have a long history in Europe, especially in Italy and the United Kingdom (Bellucci et al., 2012; Testi et al., 2017). However, the advocacy activities of Nobel Peace Prize winner Prof. Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, have had the greatest impact in changing the perception of enterprises among the general public. According to Muhammad Yunus (2003), âPersonal gains is not the only possible fuel for free enterprise. Social goals can replace greed as a powerful motivational force. Social-consciousness-driven enterprises can be formidable competitors for the greed-based enterprisesâ (p. 149).
The 2008 economic crisis, in tandem with growing concern for sustainability issues, has resulted in a widespread awakening of consciousness (Becattini, 2015). For this reason, social entrepreneurship, social innovation, and social enterprises (SEs) have received a great deal of attention. The exact meanings of these concepts and how they relate to one another has, at various times, been the subject of intense debate, particularly as their relevance and popularity in policy circles has ebbed and flowed. All three concepts are capable of facilitating positive social change, including tackling problems associated with aging populations, widening access to education, and promoting a gender-balanced and just society. These concepts are also seen as measures to foster policy innovation by engaging both policy makers and citizens.
SEs are often perceived as being able to satisfy the growing need for social services in a context of decreased public spending while also creating greater employment opportunities, especially for people who have been excluded from the labor market (Defourny & Nyssen, 2006; Borzaga et al., 2008). In Europe, for instance, SEs started to assume greater importance after the Social Business Initiative (SBI) was launched by the EU Commission in 2011. The SBI aimed to create a favorable financial, administrative, and legal environment for SEs, thereby allowing them to operate on equal footing with other types of enterprises.
The SBI drew attention to the relationship between SEs and the larger economic environment in which they are set while also emphasizing how various features of the system influence the overall development and performance of SEs. Since SEs are often seen as having a positive impact on society and contributing to human and economic development (Scarlato, 2012), many countries have tried to pinpoint the best methods to promote their establishment and success. This strategy had already been emphasized in academic circles for several years, but policy makers lagged behind. In her seminal paper on creating a workable research agenda for SEs, Helen Haugh (2005) claimed that the environmental context in which SEs operate deserved further research, an argument that has also been put forth by Peattie and Morley (2008). Moreover, given the increasingly relevant role of SEs across much of Europe, many research strands require new scientific contributions, including how to assess the impact generated by these organizations and/or the best way to promote accountability and sustainability reporting from a triple bottom line perspective (Elkington, 1998; Manetti et al., 2015; Bellucci et al., 2012; Bellucci & Manetti, 2018; Manetti & Bellucci, 2016).
European policy has also focused on the related concept of social innovation (Ilie & During, 2012). For instance, in 2010, the European Commission published a set of recommendations (EU, 2010) on how member states can achieve innovation in all policy fields. The Commission expressed the need to foster innovation by adopting a more strategic approach. âInnovation,â it argued,
Social innovation is, of course, a pivotal part of this strategy, and specific recommendations have been devoted to it. For example, social innovation policies (Biggeri et al., 2017) have been drawn up to help member states modernize their education systems; deal with the challenge of aging populations; and âdevelop a better understanding of public sector innovation, identify and give visibility to successful initiatives, and benchmark progressâ (EU, 2010).
SEs are often regarded as vectors of social innovation. Looking at how SEs and the concept of social innovation have developed in several different countries allows us to discuss the differences that have emerged in national, regional, and urban contexts. A multitude of practices have been highlighted in our study, some of which are embedded in local economies, while others are embedded in social and cultural initiatives. Different approaches to value creation, competition, and revenues can be found all across Europe and will be presented in this volume. And yet, despite these differences, a few common âcoordinationâ mechanisms can also be detected. For instance, when an SE and/or social innovation complements/operationalizes a specific policy, affects change in social relationships, or empowers vulnerable groups, a âcoordinationâ mechanism has been employed. This, in turn, allows the government, private groups, and individuals (e.g. social entrepreneurs and social innovators) to come together, often with positive results.
Coordination mechanisms are products of various types of interactions, including exchanges of information, ideas, and commitment. Studying them requires a bottom-up evolutionary perspective, one that goes beyond the scope of recently developed governance modelsâmost notably multilevel and multi-stakeholder governance. In fact, these two models overestimate the role of governmental actors and underestimate other sources of innovation (Van Assche et al., 2013). Moreover, understanding what actually constitutes an enabling ecosystem for SEs (and assessing its influence) requires new analytical frameworks that take into account dynamic developmental processes that shape both ecosystems and the SEs that operate in those ecosystems (Biggeri et al., 2017).
Enabling the Flourishing and Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship for Innovative and Inclusive Societies (EFESEIIS project)
The various chapters in this edited volume discuss the main results of the EFESEIIS project, an initiative that had four main objectives. The first objective was to construct an evolutionary theory that can explain how social entrepreneurship developed differently in various European countries. The researchers examined the history and evolution of social entrepreneurship; its operational and organizational forms; and how social entrepreneurship was often shaped by communities, cultures, traditions, social innovation, and dialogue between the state and its citizens.
The second objective involved identifying the various features of an enabling ecosystem for social entrepreneurship. This objective is especially important to policy makers who want to better understand how to promote social entrepreneurship in their particular countries. The project partners agreed that social entrepreneurship is a mainly local phenomenon, meaning that its activities are usually performed at the local level and focus on local problems. Social entrepreneurship is thus expressed through relationships with consumers and producers, the financial sector, support services, and policy makers operating at the local level. Of course, it is also influenced by the broader context in which it takes place, including the dominant discourses and ideologies that often define any given historical moment and the various cultural, legal, and institutional features of the jurisdiction itself. As a result, our research had to consider all of these components when building a framework capable of analyzing ecosystems and how they may or may not support SEs.
The third objective was to identify the New Generation of Social Entrepreneurs (NGSEs). Social entrepreneurs have faced unique conditions in the past decade or so. On the one hand, the 2008 economic crisis precipitated drastic welfare cuts in the name of austerity, which reduced the incomes of some social entrepreneurs, created new social problems that had to be addressed, and spurred innovative approaches. On the other hand, significant attention has been placed on social entrepreneurship by citizens, governments, and financial institutions, which has had a profound impact on NGSEs. Likewise, the EFESEIIS project made an effort to examine the various features, needs, constraints, and contributions to social innovation that often characterize NGSEs, which will, in turn, help policy makers, financial institutions, and support organizations harness their potential.
The final objective of this study was to provide advice to stakeholders on how to draft policies and services that will foster social entrepreneurship and social innovation. All in all, this volume hopes to provide new theoretical and empirical contributions that can address all four research objectives.
In order to meet these research objectives, a large European consortium was formed. The group was led by PIN S.c.r.l. Servizi didattici e scientifici per lâUniversitĂ di Firenze (Italy); its research center ARCO (Action Research for CO-development); and research institutions from several different European countries, including Glasgow Caledonian University (Scotland), Fondacija Za Razvoj Ekonomske Nauke (Serbia), Impact Hub Vienna (Austria), Nxitja e Biznesit Social Sha (Albania), Science Po â Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques Paris (France), Stichting Dienst Landbou wkundig Onderzoek â Alterra (the Netherlands), and Syddansk Universitet (Denmark). Our researchers examined SEs in 11 countriesâAlbania, Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Serbia, Scotland, Sweden, and the Netherlandsâand received funding from the European Unionâs Seventh Framework Programme.
The researchers implemented a complex research design that was built on both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The findings were used to determine how social entrepreneurship and SEs emerged in various countries, placing special emphasis on their coevolution with major institutions, their reciprocal relationship with their ecosystems, and how people who have recently founded SEs differ from older generations of social entrepreneurs. All of the project partners created in-depth case studies on NGSEs. They also surveyed representatives from several SEs and presided over focus groups and one-on-one interviews with stakeholders. All in all, more than 1,500 social entrepreneurs and stakeholders were involved in the three-year project.
Data analysis has been done at a micro, meso, and macro level. Our micro-level analysis focuses on the internal features of social entrepreneurship, such as the background of entrepreneurs, behavioral issues, management techniques, business design, social value creation, sustainability, market orientation, and innovation. Our meso-level analysis, meanwhile, focuses on how social entrepreneurs and SEs interact with their surrounding environmentsâmost notably customers, policy makers, financial institutions, support services, other social entrepreneurs/enterprises, and citizensâand the extent to which they rely on social capital. Lastly, our macro-level analysis focuses on national and international trends, paying special attention to various legal, historical, and cultural contexts. Thanks to the passion, knowledge, and experience of social entrepreneurs and their stakeholders, the EFESEIIS project was able to examine and assess many of the issues related to SEs in several European countries.
The âglossary controversyâ: basic definitions of social entrepreneurship and social innovation
The scholarly literature has not been able to reach a consensus in terms of how SEs ought to be defined or classified (Nicholls, 2006; Hockerts, 2006; Jones & Keogh, 2006). Some of the difficulties in defining SEs stem from the interchangeable use of terms such as social business (Yunus & Weber 2008) and social entrepreneurship. According to Borzaga and his colleagues (2012), the terms social entrepreneurship, social business, and SE tend to overlap because all of them refer
The EMES network defines SEs as
Using ideas that were initially formulated by both Borzaga and Defourny (2001) and Defourny and Nyssens (2010, 2012), the EMES envisioned an ideal type of SE that is based on a set of indicators covering economic/entrepreneurial and social/participatory governance dimensions. The economic/entrepreneurial dimension includes the following indicators: a continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services, a significant level of economic risk, and a minimum amount of paid work. The social dimension includes an explicit aim to benefit the community, an initiative launched by a group of citizens or civil society organizations, and limited profit distribution. The participatory governance dimension includes a high degree of autonomy, decision-making power that is not based on capital ownership, and a participatory approach to governance that involves various parties affected by the activity (Defourny & Nyssens, 2012).
Social entrepreneurship is a broad term that has many different meanings (Zahra et al., 2009). It encompasses not only entrepreneurial activities but also activities that create social value, such as entrepreneurial attitudes in public entities and NGOs. Social entrepreneurship is therefore an umbrella concept that also includes social business. According to Mair and MartĂ (2006), âdefinitions of social entrepreneurship typically refer to a process or behavior; definitions of social entrepreneurs focus instead on the founder of the initiative; and definitions of social enterprises refer to the tangible outcome of social entrepreneurshipâ (p. 37).
The growing use of the term social innovation has only made ma...