Canadian Centre for Social
Entrepreneurship
School of Business
University of Alberta
Prepared By:
Sherrill Johnson
May, 2003
Acknowledgements
The author and the Canadian Centre for
Social Entrepreneurship (CCSE) would like to acknowledge the support of many
individuals and organizations in the completion of this project. We would particularly like to thank all of
the young social entrepreneurs who were generous with their time and insights
for this research. We are also grateful
to several individuals who were instrumental in directing us to these dynamic
young social entrepreneurs and helping to shape our research ideas: Don McNair, Saralyn Hodgkin, Avril Orloff,
Laurent Leduc and Mai Anh LeVan. Lori
Hanson and Mary-Frances Wright provided valuable feedback on the structure and
content of this paper.
The CCSE is very grateful for the financial
support provided by Alberta Economic Development, without which this research
would not have been possible.
Preface
In broad terms, this research is grounded
in, as well as the result of, many conversations held between the author, Gary
McPherson, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Social
Entrepreneurship (CCSE), and various individuals involved in dual bottom-line
initiatives, i.e., those which work towards meeting social and economic goals
simultaneously. This is both an
emerging and rapidly growing area of practice in Canada, and one that resonates
particularly with young Canadians (35 and under). As is common in areas of emerging and practitioner-driven
subject matter, the research literature and documentation lags far behind.
More specifically, this research was
sparked by a discussion with Don McNair, publisher of “Making Waves: Canada’s
Community Economic Development (CED) Magazine.”
Responding to the CCSE’s literature review, and its assertion that there
were virtually no documented cases of social entrepreneurship in Canada, he
commented that his recent experience with Canadian CED projects had: “…satisfied me that the greater number of
them embody the traits of social entrepreneurship as [the literature review]
describes, endeavouring as they do explicitly to blend economic, social, and
environmental goals within the mission and functions of businesses, nonprofits,
development corporations, co-operatives, and all manner of social
enterprises.”
This paper is one attempt to address some
of the gaps in the Canadian social entrepreneurship debate, and to explore the
intersections between socially entrepreneurial initiatives and the well-established
field of community economic development in Canada.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Social entrepreneurship is characterized by
an emphasis on ‘social innovation through entrepreneurial solutions.’ Socially entrepreneurial activities blur the
traditional boundaries between the public, private and non-profit sectors, and
emphasize hybrid models of for-profit and non-profit activities. Cross-sectoral
collaborations are implicit within this model, as is the development of radical
new approaches to address long-standing and complex social/economic
problems. In the last decade, both the
concept and practice of social entrepreneurship have been embraced in the U.S.
and Britain. Subsequently, significant
organizational and institutional resources have materialized in both these
countries to encourage and support nascent social entrepreneurs and their
activities.
Canada faces many of the same social and
economic challenges as Britain and the U.S., but here both the theory and
practice of social entrepreneurship have been met with far less enthusiasm
overall. However, there is one very
important exception: many young
Canadians (aged 18-29) appear very open to embracing dual bottom-line
initiatives and there are an increasing number of young Canadian social
entrepreneurs emerging in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. This paper examines and analyzes the
experience and practice of six young social entrepreneurs.
The purpose of this research is
threefold. First, as the literature on
Canadian social entrepreneurship is sparse, this research will compare the
individual and organizational characteristics of young Canadian social
entrepreneurs with those identified in the research literature, in order to
establish how representative the research is to the Canadian experience. Second, the goal is to focus on the
accomplishments of, and identify challenges faced by young Canadian social
entrepreneurs in order to provide insight as to how future initiatives in this area can be supported by
organizations such as the CCSE. Third, this research will examine the
intersection(s) between socially entrepreneurial initiatives and CED in
Canada. If there is, as expected,
significant overlap between the two fields, the implications of this for the
development of social entrepreneurship will be discussed.
It should be emphasized that because social
entrepreneurship is an under-researched area in general (and essentially an
un-researched area in Canada) that the research this paper draws from was a
pilot project. As such, this paper and
the research it is based on are not
meant to provide definitive answers per se, but rather to provide some
preliminary insights into this emerging area, and act as a starting point for
future research and activities. As the
CCSE is located within the Business School at the University of Alberta, the
findings are particularly relevant for future CCSE initiatives aimed at
engaging the next generation of business leaders in social enterprises.
The first section of this paper provides
background and context for this discussion.
In particular it looks at key debates within the social entrepreneurship
literature and identifies primary characteristics of social entrepreneurs. It also presents a brief discussion of the
‘nexus generation’ (Canadians 18-34 years of age) and the potential for this
group to become a vibrant generation of social entrepreneurs. The second section provides details of the
research methodology employed in this project.
The third section synthesizes the experience of six young Canadian
entrepreneurs working towards dual or even triple-bottom lines. Each of these individuals is responsible for
creating and implementing a for-profit or not-for-profit venture designed to
align their social vision with their entrepreneurial drive. Specifically, this section presents the
analytical findings of this research in three areas: testing practice against the literature;
highlighting key issues arising from this research and the implications of
these for future initiatives in the area of social entrepreneurship; and
examining the intersection between social entrepreneurship and community
economic development.
2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
2.1 Social Entrepreneurship
Defining what social entrepreneurship is,
and what its conceptual boundaries are, is not an easy task. This is in part because the concept is
inherently complex, and in part because the literature in the area is so new
that little consensus has emerged on the topic.
While the ideas fuelling social entrepreneurship are not new (Victorian
private hospitals and the hospice movement are both cited as examples of social
entrepreneurship (Thompson et al., 2000)) the term as it is used in the
academic and popular literature currently encompasses a rather broad range of
activities and initiatives.
Peter Drucker argues that social entrepreneurs “...change
the performance capacity of society” (Gendron, 1996, p. 37) while Henton et al.
(1997) speak of ‘civic entrepreneurs’ as “...a new generation of leaders who
forge new, powerfully productive linkages at the intersection of business,
government, education and community” (p.1).
Schulyer (1998) describes social entrepreneurs as “...individuals who
have a vision for social change and who have the financial resources to support
their ideas....who exhibit all the skills of successful business people as well
as a powerful desire for social change” (p. 1).
Boschee (1998) presents social entrepreneurs as “...non-profit
executives who pay increased attention to market forces without losing sight of
their underlying mission” (p. 1).
Thompson et al. (2000) describe social entrepreneurs as “...people who
realize where there is an opportunity to satisfy some unmet need that the state
welfare system will not or cannot meet, and who gather together the necessary
resources (generally people, often volunteers, money and premises) and use
these to ‘make a difference’”(p. 328).
In spite of the varying definitions of
social entrepreneurship, one commonality emerges in almost every
description: the ‘problem-solving
nature’ of social entrepreneurship is prominent, and the corresponding emphasis
on developing and implementing initiatives that produce measurable results in
the form of changed social outcomes and/or impacts. For example, McLeod (1996) quotes one social
entrepreneur who criticized his own organization’s earlier ineffective
approach, noting they originally asked “...’how many people walked in the door’
rather than ‘how many people are better off for having walked in the door?” (p.
103).
The locus of social entrepreneurship is
also a subject of debate in the research literature. Some authors argue that social
entrepreneurship exists primarily in the not-for-profit sector with the goal of
providing business expertise and market-based skills to help this sector become
more efficient at providing and delivering services. Others, including the CCSE, define social
entrepreneurship more broadly, arguing that social entrepreneurship can occur
within the public, private or not-for-profit sectors, and is in essence a
hybrid model involving both for-profit and not-for-profit activities as well as
cross-sectoral collaboration.
This latter definition puts more emphasis
on the ‘entrepreneurial’ nature of these activities and the creativity and
innovation that entrepreneurs bring to solving social problems in unique ways
rather than focusing on the social benefits such services can provide. This conceptualization suggests social
entrepreneurship can take a variety of forms, including innovative
not-for-profit ventures, social purpose business ventures (e.g., for-profit
community development banks, and hybrid organizations mixing for-profit and
not-for-profit activities (e.g., homeless shelters that start small businesses
to train and employ their residents)) (Dees, 1998).
In this spirit, Henton et al. (1997) comment that “...(l)ike
the business entrepreneur, the civic entrepreneur operates in a time of
dramatic change, sees opportunity and mobilizes others in the community to work
toward their collective well-being” (p. 4), essentially acting as catalysts for
social change processes. It is the
innovativeness of the approach that essentially defines this conceptualization
of social entrepreneurship. Dees (1998)
comments that just as not every new business venture qualifies as
‘entrepreneurial,’ not every social venture qualifies as ‘socially
entrepreneurial.’ This isn’t to
depreciate the impact of non-entrepreneurial social initiatives in any way, but
merely to make the distinction clear given the broad use of terminology around
social entrepreneurship.
2.2 Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurs
While many definitions of social
entrepreneurship emphasize the ‘social’ rather than the entrepreneurial nature
of the activity (e.g., by focussing on non-profit organizations and their
activities), much of the literature on social entrepreneurs emphasizes the
‘entrepreneurial’ characteristics of such individuals. They are often compared to business
entrepreneurs with a social mission, or more colourfully as being “...one
species in the genus entrepreneur” (Dees, 1998, p. 3). James (2001) echoes this sentiment, noting
that social entrepreneurs are “…like other entrepreneurs, only they are in it
for the social improvement, not the money” (p. 58).
Many authors note that social entrepreneurs
(much like economic entrepreneurs) do not allow the lack of initial resources
to limit their options, and that their reach often exceeds their grasp (e.g.,
Dees, 1998; Henton et al., 1997). In
addition, many social entrepreneurs share with their economic counterparts a
strong desire to be in control of their environment, the urge to experiment,
and a higher than average tolerance for uncertainty (Prabhu, 1999). Catford (1998) notes that social and economic
entrepreneurs share the same focus on vision and opportunity and the same
ability to convince and empower others to help them turn these visions into a
reality. In social entrepreneurs,
however, these characteristics are coupled with a strong desire for social
justice.
There are also other major differences
between social and economic entrepreneurs.
Prabhu (1999) argues that they are distinguished primarily by ideology,
which guides their choices of mission, means and ends, and that social
entrepreneurs are “...persons who create or manage innovative entrepreneurial
organizations or ventures whose primary mission is the social change and
development of their client group” (p. 140) rather than the pursuit of profit. Social entrepreneurs involved in for-profit
activities see profit as a means to an end, while economic entrepreneurs see
profit as an end in itself (Dees, 1998; Thalhuber, 1998) In addition, social entrepreneurs are generally
operating in community environments that are dynamic and somewhat
unpredictable” (De Leeuw, 1999), adding yet another layer of complexity to the
process. Burnham (2002) highlights the
importance of developing advisory boards that are comfortable with risk and
possessing an entrepreneurial vision and to support non-profit organizations
undertaking socially entrepreneurial initiatives.
Somewhat unlike their economic
counterparts, social entrepreneurs emerge not only as highly entrepreneurial
individuals, but also highly collaborative ones, providing “....collaborative
leadership to bring diverse parties to the table, identify common ground and
take joint action. They build bridges”
(Henton et al., 1997, p. 153). The
ability to develop a network of relationships and contacts is a hallmark of
visionary social entrepreneurs, as is the ability to communicate an inspiring
vision in order to recruit and inspire staff, partners, and volunteers
(Thompson et al., 2000, p.331). Because
social entrepreneurship often demands establishing credibility across multiple
constituencies, and the ability to mobilize support within those
constituencies, networking is a critical skill for social entrepreneurs
(Prabhu, 1999). Unlike economic
entrepreneurs, Prabhu argues that social entrepreneurs are often highly
supportive of each other’s efforts, in some cases writing letters to one
another to show this support.
The social entrepreneur emerges as a rare
individual with multiple talents, including no less than the ability “...to
analyse, to envision, to communicate, to empathize, to enthuse, to advocate, to
mediate, to enable and to empower a wide range of disparate individuals and
organizations” (De Leeuw, 1999, p. 261).
Continuing along this theme, Bornstein (1998) characterizes a social
entrepreneur as “...a pathbreaker with a powerful idea, who combines visionary
and real world problem-solving creativity, who has a strong ethical fibre and
who is totally possessed by his or her vision for change” (p.36).
Dees (1998) identifies five criteria that
social entrepreneurs possess: adopting a mission to create and sustain social
value; recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that
mission; engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and
learning; acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand;
and exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies
served and to the outcomes created (p.4).
Dees argues that the closer an individual gets to satisfying these
criteria, the more that individual fits the model of a social
entrepreneur. But he also recognizes
that in many ways, the literature on social entrepreneurship describes “...a
set of behaviours that are exceptional.
These behaviours should be encouraged and rewarded in those that have
the capabilities and temperament for this kind of work....Should everyone
aspire to be a social entrepreneur?
No. Not every social leader is
well-suited to being entrepreneurial.
The same is true in business. Not
every business leader is an entrepreneur in the sense that Say, Schumpeter,
Drucker and Stevenson had in mind” (Dees, 1998, p.6).
While common sense dictates that not
everyone will have the skills and talents required to undertake entrepreneurial
activity for social and/or economic purposes, Thompson et al. (2000) raise the
issue of latent entrepreneurial ability.
It is possible that latent social entrepreneurship exists in individuals
with “...the potential to be entrepreneurial but, for some reason or another,
the talent is trapped and needs spotting and releasing” (p. 332).
2.3 Resistance to Social Entrepreneurship
As mentioned in the introduction to this
paper, the concept and practice of social entrepreneurship has been widely
embraced in the U.S. and the U.K., but has met with less enthusiasm in Canada,
with the exception of young Canadians.
Adoption (or non-adoption) of a concept is complex and multi-faceted,
but there are likely a few key reasons why Canadians have been slow to embrace social
entrepreneurship and its potential for addressing long-standing social
problems.
A recent literature review noted the dearth
of documented Canadian examples of social entrepreneurship (Johnson,
2002). Based on our experiences at the
CCSE, we are starting to believe this reflects a discomfort with the
terminology of social entrepreneurship (and a corresponding lack of research in
this area) rather than a lack of socially entrepreneurial initiatives. In particular, the language of social
entrepreneurship, and in particular its application of business terminology to
the discussion of social change, has not resonated with Canadian organizations
as it has in Britain and the United States
The first factor has to do with Canada’s
political and economic history and the development, starting in the 1960s, of a
broad-based social safety net. This was
accomplished through policy mechanisms such as medicare, and a commitment to
tax-based mechanisms which provide a more equitable distribution of income across
the population than in either the U.S. or the U.K. This has been eroded somewhat in recent
years, due in part to a globalized economic system and the emergence of a
global neo-liberal philosophy which emphasizes market forces as the best method
for income redistribution. Yet many
Canadians still view the state (or state-funded non-profit organizations) as
the ‘provider of choice’ in the area of social services and are suspect of
initiatives that blur the boundaries between the private sector and social
service providers (either government or non-governmental organizations).
Globalization processes have also created
an increasingly powerful market sector, one in which governments at all levels
are finding they have less overt power to regulate or even influence. Recent grassroots opposition to globalization
processes attest to a growing citizen unease with an increasingly powerful
market sector, and some view this as an opportunity for the private sector to
balance corporate profit with a corresponding commitment to public
responsibility (Reis, 1999, p.2).
However, many are also concerned about a perceived imbalance of power
between the private and public sectors and view social entrepreneurship and
similar initiatives as steps down a very slippery slope towards increased
private sector control.
The language of the private sector may also
form barriers to the acceptance of social entrepreneurship in Canada. Social entrepreneurship, rooted as it is in
entrepreneurial approaches and ideology, uses the language of business. For many individuals committed to improving
social conditions, there is a discomfort with terminology such as ‘revenue
streams’ and ‘return on investment’ in reference to social goals. At one level this may be the relatively
simple discomfort that comes with encountering unfamiliar terms, and one that
can be alleviated as fluency with business jargon increases. At another level, there is a very deep
discomfort reflecting basic ideological differences. Many individuals and organizations are
uncomfortable with a model that appears to require a demonstrated ‘return on
investment’ when that investment is centred around fulfilling basic human
needs. However, others argue that
shifting the language, for example from ‘aid recipients’ to ‘investees’ is an
important mechanism for empowering individuals.
2.4
The Nexus Generation and Social Entrepreneurship
The resistance noted above applies primarily in the case of senior-level individuals and organizations with a long history of working towards social improvements. As noted earlier in this paper, young Canadians (35 years and under) have been much more open to adopting socially entrepreneurial approaches than older Canadians. In 2001 the CCSE initiated research on the topic of ‘Engaging the Next Generation of Social and Civic Leaders’ conducted via interviews with members of the Nexus generation (Canadians 18-34 years of age).
This project asked socially engaged Nexus
generation respondents how the voluntary, public and private sectors could
attract and engage young Canadians in present and future civic and social
initiatives. The majority of respondents
indicated a strong desire to be more socially and civically active, but felt
frustrated by constraints and barriers in each of the sectors. Respondents noted that they were searching
for ways to effectively meld their social and civic concerns with their
professional development, and ultimately wanted to find ways to make tangible,
lasting contributions in this area. Not
surprisingly, Nexus generation respondents felt that currently the voluntary,
public and private sectors could all be more effective in engaging young
Canadians in civic and social issues (the full report on “Strengthening the
Generational Chain: Engaging the Next
Generation of Social and Civic Leaders in Canada” is available on the CCSE website at www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/publications).
This group responded favourably to the idea
of hybrid models of social engagement that combined elements of for-profit and
not-for-profit activities. Activities
falling into this category include social enterprise, in which not-for-profits
create a for-profit enterprise and channel profits into social mission work, and
venture philanthropy, which employs a venture capital model for supporting and
fostering philanthropic work.
Respondents indicated strong interest in the creation and growth of
socially responsible businesses, and strong support for a ‘socially engaged’
private sector. They indicated that they
felt the private sector had a responsibility to put something back into the
communities that support their business, and that they want to support
companies that do so. These findings are
supported by the results of this research as well.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
A qualitative research methodology was
chosen for this pilot project as this approach is useful in situations where “… there is little known
about a domain...or when the research question pertains to understanding or
describing a particular phenomenon or event about which little is known” (Field
and Morse, 1985, p. 11). Qualitative
methods are used often in cases where a topic has not been previously addressed
in a research context, and as such,
“…the problem itself may not be clear…a qualitative researcher may enter
a setting with a topic for study, rather than a clearly delineated question”
(Field and Morse, 1985, p. 9).
In this
case a research framework was developed drawing on various sources. A sample of the research questions in attached
as Appendix A of this paper. The first
section of the research framework seeks general information about the
characteristics of the firm, including organizational age, size, location,
budget/revenue. The second and third
sections draw on the existing social entrepreneurship literature, asking
questions related to social entrepreneurship in general, and characteristics of
the individual social entrepreneurs.
This was intended to test the literature for its relevance and accuracy
to the experiences of a) Canadian social entrepreneurs, and b) young social
entrepreneurs, two groups who have not been the study of published research to
date. These sections were supplemented
by questions designed to draw out the community development aspect of various
socially entrepreneurial initiatives.
A small sample size was selected, in part
due to time and budget constraints, and in part to do a test run of the
research approach. It is hoped that the
findings of this project will be used to inform a larger future study of young
Canadian social entrepreneurs.
Possible
respondents were identified largely through personal contacts with individuals
through the CCSE network. Possible
respondents had to meet the following criteria:
·
under the age of 30;
·
founders/principals of
organizations working towards a dual-bottom line (social and economic returns)
·
innovative, creative ventures
(e.g., not replicating something already in existence);
·
can be based in the for-profit
or not-for-profit sector, but some form of enterprise development must be
involved.
In the words of one of the research
participants, Rahul Raj, the organizations had “…to employ a
business-disciplined approach to achieving a social mandate.”
Of the initial individuals identified
through the CCSE’s network and meeting the above criteria, each of the first
six individuals approached agreed to participate in the research project via
the interview process. A list of the
participants and a brief description of their organizational role and goals is
provided in Appendix B of this document.
4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Testing The Literature
The first purpose of this research was to
test the experiences and motivations of a group of young Canadian social
entrepreneurs against the characteristics identified in the social
entrepreneurship literature. This
section provides a brief introduction to (and overview of) the participants and
discusses the overlap between the theory and the practice of this group of young
social entrepreneurs.
4.1.1 Research Participant Overview (organized by organization/company age)
- Rahul Raj, Founder and Executive Director, Meal Exchange
- A not-for-profit organization (founded 1993, Waterloo, ON). Under this innovative programs, students are able to transform unused meal plan points into groceries, which they then deliver to local community organizations and food banks. Meal Exchange programs now exist at 45 post-secondary and 5 secondary educational institutions across Canada. The organization is run on a franchise concept, where each campus runs a Meal Exchange Chapter. Raj estimates that through this program, over $260,000 worth of food will be donated to community organizations this year.
- Age at organization founding: 17
- Education: Business/Philosophy Degree
- Current organizational staff: 3 full-time
- Chris Godsall, Founder and Advisor, Santropol Roulant
- A not-for-profit organization (founded 1994 in Montreal, PQ) engaging youth in an innovative meals-on-wheels service. Since its inception, Santropol Roulant has delivered over 200,000 meals to 1,100 seniors, engaged over 1,200 volunteers and created more than 200 temporary and training jobs for youth. The organization has also won numerous awards, including the Peter F. Drucker Award for non-profit innovation (1997).
- Age at organization founding: 26
- Education: Political Science/English Degree; Business Master’s Degree
- Current organization staff: 2 full-time
- Simon Boone, Founder and Principal, Generation Solar
- A for-profit company (founded 1998 in Peterborough, ON) working in the area of sustainable energy technology, and working to meet a triple-bottom line (meeting social, environmental and economic goals).
- Age at company founding: 25
- Education: Engineering Degree
- Current company staff: 2 full-time (partners)
- Geordie Ouchterlony, Founder and Principal, Home Grown Organic Foods
- A for-profit company (founded in 1998 in Halifax, NS) dedicated to increasing consumer awareness about the benefits of organic foods, increasing the organic foods market, and helping organic food producers generate sustainable long-term profits.
- Age at company founding: 25
- Education: Environmental Engineering
- Current company staff: 11
- Leo Wong, Founder and Advisor, Youth One
- A not-for-profit organization (founded 2000, in Edmonton, AB) to create an on-line community for youth and through this link youth and youth-at-risk with information regarding resources available in the broader community.
- Age at organization founding: 21
- Education: Business Degree, currently doing PhD in Marketing
- Current organization staff: 1
- Natalie Chinsam, Founder and Director, HumanityLink International
- A not-for-profit organization (founded 2002 in Toronto, ON) focussed on creating links between Toronto and Guyana. Natalie was also responsible for the creation, development and implementation of “Yes Youth Can” Entrepreneurial Forums in Toronto and Newfoundland, and has been asked to coordinate similar events across Canada.
- Age at organization founding: 26
- Education: Business Degree
- Current organization staff: 0 full time, 3 part-time
Respondents were asked about the size of
their annual organizational budget.
Responses varied from categories of ‘less than $50,000/year’ to annual
budgets ‘greater than $250,000/year.’
4.1.2
Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurship
Imagine, some of the brightest people in
the world are looking to develop stain-resistant, wrinkle-free pants. If you had taken that team’s intellect and
applied it towards addressing even one simple social problem, chances are we’d
make tremendous progress. (Rahul Raj, Founder and Executive Director, Meal
Exchange)
From a reading of the literature, there
appear to be three key characteristics of socially entrepreneurial
ventures. The first is that each
initiative emphasizes a problem solving approach. Secondly, socially entrepreneurial approaches
address identified problems through the development of creative and innovative
solutions, and by finding new ways to harness existing resources to meet latent
demand. Thirdly, these ventures employ
some form of dual-bottom line strategy, incorporating social goals with an
enterprise approach. As Godsall
commented during the research interview “What I’m really interested in is
taking the same kind of energy and passion that the classic entrepreneur has
and applying them to social problems….An entrepreneur is always trying to find
a way to connect some new thing, new approach, new capability to latent demand
for something.” All six of the
entrepreneurs interviewed met these criteria.
In the for-profit sector, both Generation
Solar and Home Grown Organic Foods are employing a business model to meet a
triple-bottom line and have created ventures that attempt to meet economic,
social and environmental goals simultaneously.
Generation Solar is attempting to meet growing demand for green
environmental technologies and ultimately Boone would like to see his company
“….install enough renewable energy technology to offset its existence. So in other words, our company consumes energy
just being here and I would like there to be a net benefit to the environment
from this company.”
In the not-for-profit sector, Meal Exchange
identified a ‘hidden’ resource (unused points from student meal plans) and
found a way to direct these to community organizations to address local hunger,
leveraging a small base of organizational funding to create a significantly
larger community impact, and engaging what is currently estimated to be around
300 active volunteers nationally in the process. Founder Raj identifies one of his
organizational goals as increasing the size of the ‘volunteer market’ rather
than ‘stealing market share’ in this area.
He notes that Meal Exchange has a “…compounded annual growth rate over
the past 5 years of greater than 80 percent.
We’ve taken it from two campuses in 1998 to 45 in 2003.”
What is particularly notable in the above
examples is the amount off volunteer engagement in relation to the staffing
levels of these not-for-profit organizations, and the impact these ventures are
having on generating civic engagement in young Canadians. Some of these ventures specifically target
the civically unengaged and make the creation of an entry point for youth
volunteers a specific goal. As Raj notes
about Meal Exchange, “what determines success is how engaged individuals are towards
volunteerism.”
Also notable among the not-for-profit
organizations was a wariness of developing any type of dependency on government
grants. This is in recognition, as Wong
notes, that “…in a not-for-profit environment, always going after funding is
taxing and not exactly sustainable. To
start a program and have it die three years down the road is tragic for
everyone involved.” Wong went on to say
that while small grants may provide useful start-up funding, socially
entrepreneurial organizations need to begin searching for alternative revenue
streams immediately. Youth One publishes
Moz Magazine, an off-line version of Youth One, and funds publication solely
through the sale of advertising. The
organization is also exploring other revenue generation alternatives, including
training youth volunteers to provide affordable information technology (IT)
training within the not-for-profit sector.
Godsall echoed these sentiments, noting that from its inception,
Santropol Roulant didn’t want to “create dependencies” on public funding. As such, it was important for the
organization to start thinking about sustainability (and the core funding
required to support this) “…from day one.”
Godsall felt that not only was this critical to ensuring an organization’s
future, but it also helped to focus on efficient management of resources, and
to get not-for-profit organizations into the mindset of “diversifying their
portfolio of financial sources.”
4.1.3 Characteristics of Social Entrepreneurs:
The thing about being a social
entrepreneur is that it’s easy to do the organizational chart. You make a list of all the jobs, you draw one
box, put your name there and throw all the jobs in that box. (Chris Godsall, Founder and Advisor,
Santropol Roulant)
The research literature describes social
entrepreneurs as possessing a set of characteristics that are exceptional. Although the age, size and scope of their
operations vary, the young social entrepreneurs listed above share many
characteristics. In addition to being an
articulate and charismatic group, all
were fluent in the language of both the social and business worlds - an
essential characteristic of those wanting to work in the hybrid world of social
entrepreneurship. Four of the six
participants have formal business training (Chinsam, Godsall, Raj, and Wong),
supplemented in some cases (e.g. Raj, Chinsam) with significant private sector
experience. All but two indicated
previous entrepreneurial experience, including two who had set up companies
previously through their involvement with Junior Achievement. Of the two who denied having previous
entrepreneurial experience, one noted that he had taken a lead on several
non-entrepreneurial initiatives (e.g., conference planning, fundraising) that
provided him with the requisite skill set for undertaking an entrepreneurial
venture.
Of the respondents who had set up
for-profit initiatives, both mentioned during the interview that ‘maximizing
profit’ was not the main goal, but rather that their entrepreneurial ventures
were a means to other ends, including job flexibility. This is in line with the social
entrepreneurship literature, which also notes ‘control over one’s environment’
and ‘urge to experiment’ as characteristics of social entrepreneurs. Boone noted that he wanted the flexibility of
running his own business, and that he actually liked the idea of not knowing
how much he would earn each month. He
also noted the importance of doing something he “…felt good about. The business is far more to me than just
earning a living. I didn’t want to be
exploiting people just to make money, or exploiting the environment.” Ouchterlony noted that creating an
entrepreneurial venture was highly motivated by
“…my character and my desire to be independent and be in control over my
work environment and to have more say than as an employee in terms of how
things are being done….I certainly like to have some say over how, when, where
and why things are being done.” Both
noted a desire to keep lifestyle needs relatively simple, thus minimizing
economic requirements.
A lack of attention to profit maximization
was also noted in the not-for-profit sector respondents. Chinsam commented that with the
Entrepreneurship Development Forum, “Everyone was telling me I should be
charging people, charging a participants
fee. But that takes away from the reason
why I’m doing the forum. As long as
expenses are covered, and participants can come for a minimal fee, then I’m
happy. And for a lot of people, that’s
stupid. But I’m a social entrepreneur,
not an entrepreneur.” After six years
in the private sector, Raj passed up an offer of a lucrative promotion and left
the private sector in order to work full-time as the Executive Director of Meal
Exchange.
A key characteristic of social
entrepreneurs is not allowing a lack of initial resources to limit action, and
this group decidedly possessed this characteristic. When asked during the interviews if they had
all their resources in place before taking action, all responded in the
negative, and most just laughed before responding ‘far from it’ or more
colourfully, ‘hell, no.’
Correspondingly, they exhibited a high level of comfort with
uncertainty, with all ranking themselves between somewhat or very comfortable
with uncertainty.
The literature also notes that social
entrepreneurs, like their economic counterparts, focus strongly on vision and
opportunity and use this in turn to encourage others to help turn this vision
into a reality. Again, this group of
social entrepreneurs validated the existing research in this area. As noted above, they were all articulate and
charismatic communicators, and each exhibited a high degree of commitment to
(and passion for) their ventures. All
indicated they’d had good success in convincing others to share and participate
in their vision. Most respondents noted
the importance of having a clear vision and communicating it effectively and
recognizing that even good ideas need to be ‘sold’ effectively. As Chinsam noted, “…people don’t just give
you money. You have to go out there and
sell your organization and sell yourself and your idea. But they’ll also want to know ‘what’s in it
for me?’”
The literature and respondents both
identified the importance of environments that encourage creativity and
openness to risk. However, it was also
noted that these types of environments also need to allow for mistakes, an
inherent part of innovation. Several of
the respondents credited the strength of the ventures for attracting the
attention of others. For example,
Godsall commented: “I think that
Santropol Roulant was like a wind-up toy.
And we wound it up and it started moving and people just couldn’t keep
their eyes off it and they wanted to be a part of it. I mean within the first year we were
nominated for a Peter F. Drucker award for non-profit innovation…because people
were fascinated by the relationships. So
Keith and I were really lucky that we found something that interested us but
also interested others, and that was relevant to our community, and probably
the whole country.”
Another key factor in convincing others to
participate in socially entrepreneurial ventures was the passion, enthusiasm
and commitment of the social entrepreneur.
Ouchterlony attributed his success to being able to communicate
effectively and “…going beyond the economic return on investment and inspiring
and motivating people to become involved based on the ideology and the
practicality and the mission more so than the economics.” He also noted that “major enthusiasm” helped
in this goal.
The commitment to a social mission, coupled
with a willingness to take financial risks was demonstrated clearly by these
young social entrepreneurs. Raj
demonstrated his commitment to Meal Exchange during a time when his
organization was facing a severe funding challenge: “Fortunately I had the luxury of having a day
job so I secured on one day a $30,000 line of credit from TD and a $30,000 line
of credit from Canada Trust and away we went.”
Chinsam noted that while she eventually found the funding to offset the
costs of the first Yes Youth Can Entrepreneurial Development Forum via
partnerships, if necessary she would have “…taken the funding out of my
personal bank account” to hold the event.
She also noted during the interview that “HumanityLink does not pay my
bills. If anything, I work to pay my
HumanityLink bills!”
Finally, a defining characteristic of
social entrepreneurs is their ability to complement their entrepreneurial
skills with a high capacity for collaboration.
All respondents noted that networking with others sharing similar goals
(linking social and economic goals) was something they did, although the
responses on a 5-point scale were somewhat varied. Four of the respondents rated it as ‘somewhat
or very important.’ Of the other two,
one expected it to become more important in the future as the organization
grew, and the other noted that while it was something they did, their venture
would have occurred with or without this networking. Godsall notes that “…when you’re a social
entrepreneur you do a lot of reporting, but you don’t necessarily get a lot of
support. So the networks become a source
of support.”
With respect to mentorship the responses
were similar. All respondents indicated
some experience with mentorship over the course of their experience
implementing socially entrepreneurial ventures, with respondents noting that
this mentorship involved a variety of individuals and changed over time
according to organizational and personal need(s) and requirements. As one respondent noted, social entrepreneurs
are characterized by their interest in creating something that didn’t
previously exist, and as such the traditional mentorship model (having a mentor
who has already travelled the same path) doesn’t work. This factor likely contributes to the
prevalence of multiple mentors noted by respondents, rather than one or two key
individuals. Most respondents indicated
that mentors played an important role in their initiative’s growth and
development, but two noted that while mentorship was very helpful, they would
have begun their ventures with or without this assistance. Again, this echoes the findings of the
literature on social entrepreneurs (and entrepreneurship in general).
4.2 Synthesis of Results
While the findings above demonstrate a
strong correlation between the research literature and the experiences of young
Canadian social entrepreneurs, it doesn’t capture the whole picture. This section attempts to complement the
findings above by highlighting other aspects of the experiences of the research
respondents, including the challenges faced in undertaking dual-bottom line
initiatives, the existing and potential supports identified by respondents, and
the respondent’s commitment to community building through socially
entrepreneurial initiatives.
While the young social entrepreneurs
interviewed for this paper were all successful in the sense that they were able
to get their ventures off the ground (and the majority had been in existence 5
years or longer), respondents identified several challenges in trying to
simultaneously meet social and economic goals (and potentially environmental
ones as well).
One prominent concern was around human
resource issues, and the challenges inherent in attracting and retaining
talented individuals with limited budgets, particularly within (but not limited
to) organizations based in the not-for profit sector. One respondent noted the lack of affordable
training available, in spite of the organization’s desire to ‘invest’ in
training resources for the staff and volunteer base. Another respondent commented on having to
‘fight tooth and nail’ to convince a funding organization that it was a good
strategy to raise the salary of their executive director to $35,000/year. Godsall commented when trying to attract
talented individuals to socially entrepreneurial ventures “…you should never
have to ask them to make [large]
sacrifices.” While all of the
not-for-profit organizations have mobilized significant volunteer resources,
three of the respondents made reference to the limitations of relying on
volunteer labour as volunteers often juggled multiple commitments. One respondent noted that while profit
maximization wasn’t the overriding goal of his enterprise, working towards a
dual- or triple-bottom line made it far more difficult to make money and thus
sustain the organization and its employees.
A second issue raised by social
entrepreneurs in the not-for-profit sector was the need for funding that
accommodates the risks inherent in employing innovative (and therefore
untested) strategies for addressing social challenges. One respondent suggested that seed funding
working on a venture capital model would be helpful. In other words, a fund that might invest
$1,000 each in 10 innovative ideas, recognizing that majority might fail, but
the ones that succeed will likely have a high social and/or economic
payoff. In addition to the lack of
funding to support socially entrepreneurial approaches (compared to the
resources and funding available for small-business start-ups) many of the young
entrepreneurs noted the challenges either they or their organizations faced in
being perceived as ‘credible’ due to their youth. While this is a challenge faced by young
entrepreneurs in general, it is yet another challenge for social entrepreneurs
who are breaking new ground harnessing social and economic goals.
On a related topic, several respondent
commented directly or indirectly about the impacts of the structural barriers
that exist between the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, and the
challenges this presented for social entrepreneurs. For example, in searching for seed funding to
support the training of Youth One volunteers to deliver IT training within the
not-for-profit sector, Wong told the story of one funding organization that
thought the idea had merit, but which provided funding to private sector
initiatives only, and not those in the not-for-profit sector.
Related to the youth factor is the
challenge young social entrepreneurs identified with respect to lacking access
to both capital and networks until their organizations had some proven degree
of success. Chinsam noted the difficulty
in finding partners for her Entrepreneurial Development Forums until she had
proven their viability by running two successfully. Other respondents noted similar challenges in
the early stages of their organization’s development.
Finally, a lack of evaluation mechanisms
for gauging organizational effectiveness was a factor noted by several
respondents, who indicated that traditional mechanisms for evaluating return on
investment (ROI) were often not relevant to their organizational goals and
priorities. However, it was difficult to
find measurement tools to evaluate
social and/or environmental ROI, and far too expensive and/or time consuming to
attempt to develop these on their own.
Although these young social entrepreneurs
identified several challenges encountered in their experiences and practice,
they also identified some supports – either those that were in place and were
helpful, or those that they wish would have been in place when they were
starting their ventures. In particular,
about half the respondents indicated they’d received some guidance and/or support from organizations set up to help
support young entrepreneurs. Some of the
respondents made reference to support (financial and otherwise) they’d received
from the McConnell foundation, while others had participated in various programs
supporting the growth and development of entrepreneurial organizations (e.g.,
the Community Opportunity and Innovation Network in Peterborough, and the ‘Open
for Business’ program run through the Centre for Education and Entrepreneurial
Development section of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)). One respondent also noted the importance of
small organizations partnering with, or nesting within, larger
organizations.
Almost all indicated the difficulty of
efficiently and effectively tracking ‘performance indicators’ for their
organizations, and would appreciate more support in this area, either in
customizing existing tools or in the creation of performance measurement guides
for dual-bottom line initiatives. On a
related note, the issue of affordable training was also raised, including
materials such as ‘best practice’ guides for socially entrepreneurial
ventures.
In spite of the considerable challenges
faced, and the corresponding lack of supports for young social entrepreneurs in
Canada, all of the respondents appears committed to combining social and
economic goals in their initiatives. The following quotes highlight both the
responsibility these young entrepreneurs feel towards their local communities
and the depth of their commitment to meeting dual-bottom lines through their
enterprise development.
“I think every organization, every entity
in our community has a responsibility for the community they take part in, and
it would be irresponsible for them NOT to have a socially-oriented
position…..Because our mandate is to connect youth to resources, build their
community. And hopefully with a stronger
and healthier community people are going to take more action to initiate their
own ideas…. We want to expose youth to social goals, and have them start
thinking about these goals. Because a
lot of these young people will become business leaders.” (Leo Wong, Youth One)
“Frankly, the social world just needs
it. I mean, I’m not that old, but even
in my lifetime I haven’t seen significant progress made to address social
issues. And often we look toward the
government to address these things, and they’re just riddled with
bureaucracy. So when you need to get
something done you just do it…. Individuals are brilliant. They know what to do to help their own
people. They just don’t have the
resources to do it. If you can help
them, you will be successful.” (Rahul Raj, Meal Exchange)
“I just feel the two [social and economic
goals] go hand in hand and that people need to take responsibility for their
actions.” (Natalie Chinsam, HumanityLink
International)
“I hope that we can show other people that
its possible to integrate something that is good for the community and good for
the environment and that you can make a living at it. …in a broader sense, we understand the integration
of community and the business and the environment and how they’re all
interdependent.” (Simon Boone,
Generation Solar)
“It only makes sense. It’s a community we live in, we don’t live in
a sterile world where everything is all business and there is no return,
there’s no cause to the effect. I think
that believing that will only get the world in deeper trouble than it’s already
in.” (Geordie Ouchterlony, Home Grown Organic
Foods)
“How can this community consider itself
safe and successful if young people don’t feel as hopeful as they should, or in
some cases aren’t hopeful, and how can you define this community as safe and
secure if older people don’t feel important? We found it depressing, and at the
same time, here was something we could do that was so easy, and that actually
begins the exploit the best characteristics of young people , what young people
bring to the table – lots of energy, a desire to learn, these kinds of
things.” (Chris Godsall, Santropol
Roulant).
4.3 Social Entrepreneurship as Community Economic Development
There is some irony in the resistance to
social entrepreneurship in Canada, as there is significant conceptual overlap
between social entrepreneurship and certain types of community economic
development (CED), a well established field with many active supporters.
As noted in the preface to this paper, this research was sparked by a comment from one such
supporter who noted that within the field of CED, initiatives with an
entrepreneurial component shared many characteristics of the CCSE’s definition
of social entrepreneurship. In
particular, many CED projects feature multi-functional community strategies
(somewhat similar to the multi-sectoral approaches of social entrepreneurship),
and an emphasis on specifically integrating or merging social and economic
goals (Perry, 1999).
There are many intersections between social
entrepreneurship, with their emphasis on creating collaborative cross-sectoral
approaches and developing innovative local-level approaches for addressing
entrenched social problems. Examining
social entrepreneurship through the lens of community economic development
further may help to provide some useful insights into the practical and
theoretical development in this emerging area.
In addition, the community economic development literature may also
supplement the existing social entrepreneurship literature on the topic of
‘constraints and challenges’ faced by those employing entrepreneurial
approaches to address social issues.
While CED can include virtually any
activity that can be seen locally as contributing to community improvement, it
always includes some form of business development opportunity. The same holds true for socially
entrepreneurial initiatives; while they contribute to community improvement in
a wide variety of ways, each has some form of enterprise as a hallmark of its
entrepreneurial roots. Perry (1999) goes
on to note that in the field of CED “…business development is expected to
result not only in ownership opportunities and profits, but also in some
wider social benefits” (p. 21, italics added). Again, this very clearly overlaps with the
hybrid social/economic approach of social entrepreneurship.
CED practitioners recognize that successful
business enterprises depend on more than just financial capital. “Businesses are also beholden to others, to
their communities, not just to their financial investors. Indeed, businesses have stakeholders as well
as shareholders” (Ninacs, 1998, p. 19).
In both CED and social entrepreneurship, enterprises recognize the need
to attempt to ensure a good return of stakeholder investment as well as
shareholder investment. It is also
worth noting that small business is the main (but not exclusive) focus of both
CED and social entrepreneurship.
In addition to sharing some similar core
characteristics, those venturing into the area of dual-bottom line enterprises
also face similar challenges. For
example, business planning guides are not concerned with non-traditional
business issues such as ‘stakeholder return on investment’ (ROI) and community
benefits (Ninacs, 1998).
5.0 IMPLICATIONS AND CLOSURE
5.1 Fostering Social Entrepreneurship In Canada
The mission of the CCSE is to support and
foster social entrepreneurship in Canada.
But supporting socially entrepreneurial initiatives at a national level
will require more than the leadership of one small organization. Ultimately, it is an area that will require
leadership from the public and private sector, as well as from business schools
across the country. For the purposes of
this research there are essentially two groups of young social
entrepreneurs: those who are already
active in this area, and latent social entrepreneurs – those with an interest
in employing an entrepreneurial approach to meet social goals, but who have not
taken concrete steps towards starting an initiative.
The six young entrepreneurs interviewed
during the course of this research exemplify the active social
entrepreneur. While they identified many
challenges to conducting socially entrepreneurial ventures in Canada, each
found ways to overcome these barriers and succeed in their chosen mission. As noted earlier in this paper, practicing
social entrepreneurs tend to possess a set of characteristics that are
exceptional. While it is likely these
individuals would have succeeded no matter what supports were in place, all
noted challenges in their work, and identified supports that did (or could)
have made it easier to accomplish a dual-bottom line goal.
In addition, it stands to reason that there
is a group of latent Nexus generation social entrepreneurs waiting to emerge if
the conditions are right. These
individuals have the potential to make significant economic and social
contributions within Canada, but may need a little support and encouragement to
start them on their social entrepreneurship journey. It was also indicated that highlighting the
work of existing young social entrepreneurs (e.g., through the creation of case
studies or via the media) would provide
visible models of alternative approaches to the traditional division
between economic and social goals.
Respondents interviewed for this research
highlighted the need for supports in the area of human resources, including
affordable training relevant to organizational growth and team-building in
general, as well as to specific aspects of socially entrepreneurial ventures
(e.g., accounting issues faced by dual- or triple-bottom line initiatives). Also noted was the need to compensate those
involved with socially entrepreneurial ventures in ways that do not require
significant sacrifice at the individual level.
In other words, to create an environment where individuals can ‘do well
by doing good.’
Young social entrepreneurs need many of the
same supports that any young entrepreneur would need, but with a twist. For example, all entrepreneurial ventures
typically need evaluation tools and ways to measure performance. But social entrepreneurs face the additional
challenges of attempting to measure effects such as social and/or environmental
return on investment which are difficult to quantify. In addition, the young entrepreneurs
interviewed for this paper noted a lack of existing tools for measuring
socially entrepreneurial performance and the lack of time and resources to
customize existing measurement instruments.
Without these tools, it is difficult to evaluate the impact socially
entrepreneurial organizations are making.
One respondent noted that access to short and concise summaries of best
practices in social entrepreneurship would be very useful.
Young social entrepreneurs face many of the
other challenges that young entrepreneurs face in general: lack of access to networks providing social
and economic capital; lack of business experience; and difficulties being
perceived as ‘credible’ by those older and more experienced. While there are many programs in the public,
private and not-for-profit sector fostering the identification and support of
young entrepreneurs, there are no similar programs in Canada dedicated to
fostering young social entrepreneurs, in spite of the potentially significant
impact this group could make.
Given the lack of existing research, both
on Canadian social entrepreneurship and on young social entrepreneurs, this is
a rich area for further research. This
could include, but should not be limited to: the development of social
entrepreneurship case studies for use in Canadian business schools; development of a ‘tool-kit’ for Canadian social
entrepreneurs, including relevant evaluation and performance measurement tools;
and more broadly, research on the general and specific issues affecting young
social entrepreneurs (and the practice of social entrepreneurship) in Canada.
5.2
Closure
Research indicates that the Nexus
generation (Canadians aged 18-35) are open to, and looking for, hybrid models
of development to combine social and economic goals. Finding ways support and foster active and
latent social entrepreneurship within this group is a significant and
worthwhile task, as members of this generation are poised to become the next
generation of Canadian social, economic and civic leaders. It is hoped the findings of the pilot
research project conducted for this paper provide a starting point for further
discussion in the emerging and important area.
The final words in this paper come from
Rahul Raj, who at the age of 27 has already has a decade’s worth of experience
in social entrepreneurship. Asked what
advice he would give others wanting to undertake a socially entrepreneurial
venture, he said: “They have to believe
in it to the nth degree and not only them, but also their support network –
their family, their spouse, their friends.
Everyone has to be in, because it is really hard. [Compared to working in the private sector]
the same luxuries aren’t there, it’s not a glamorous position. The pay is not
high. And you work the same amount if
not more. So there just has to be this
ridiculous level of commitment. So be
sure. Very sure.….if new people are
starting (socially entrepreneurial) ventures up, and they get a whole bunch of
buy-in from the for-profit sector, and the not-for-profit sector, and they
change their mind, they’ve just given the social entrepreneurship community a
bad name. We don’t have the luxury of
having people bail, because we’re trying to change perceptions.” Does he have any regrets about the path he’s
chosen? “Not one…Not one.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bornstein, David (1998) “Changing the world
on a shoestring: an ambitious foundation promotes social change by finding
‘social entrepreneurs’” in Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol. 281, No. 1,
pp34-39.
Boschee, Jerr (1998)
“What does it take to be a social entrepreneur?” found on National
Centre for Social Entrepreneurs website ( 5pp.
Burnham, Katie (2002) “What skills will nonprofit leaders need in
the future?” in Nonprofit World, Vol. 20, No. 3, May/June 2002, pp.
33-35.
Cannon, Carl (2000) “Charity for profit:
how the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by sharing wealth” in National
Journal, June 16, pp. 1898 - 1904.
Catford, John (1998) “Social entrepreneurs
are vital for health promotion - but they need supportive environments too” in Health
Promotion International, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 95-97.
Coeyman, Marjorie (1999) “Social
entrepreneurs eagerly move forward” in Christian Science Monitor, April
27, Vol. 91, Issue 105, p. 17.
De Leeuw, Evelyne (1999) “Healthy cities:
urban social entrepreneurship for health” in Health Promotion International,
Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 261-269.
Dees, J. Gregory (1998) The Meaning of
‘Social Entrepreneurship.’ Comments and
suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Funders Working Group,
6pp.
Dees, J. Gregory (2001) Enterprising
Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social
Entrepreneurs. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 330pp.
Dowell, William (2000) “Investing in social
change” in Time, July 24, Vol. 156, Issue 4, p. 55.
Field, Peggy A. and Janice Morse
(1985) Nursing Research: The Application of Qualitative Approaches. Aspen Publishers: Rockville, Maryland.
Fowler, Alan. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to
social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?” in Third World Quarterly,
Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 637-654.
Gendron, George (1996) “Flashes of genius:
interview with Peter Drucker” in Inc., May 16, Vol. 18, Issue 7, pp.
30-37.
Henton, Douglas, John Melville and Kimberly
Walesh (1997) “The age of the civic entrepreneur: restoring civil society and
building economic community” in National Civic Review, Summer, Vol. 86,
No. 2, pp, 149-156.
Herman, Robert D. and Denise Rendina
(2001) “Donor reactions to commercial
activities of nonprofit organizations:
an American case study” in Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol.
21, No. 2, pp. 157-169.
Hibbert, Sally A., Gillian Hogg and Theresa
Quinn (2002) “Consumer response to
social entrepreneurship: the case of the
Big Issue in Scotland” in International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 288-301.
Horsnell, Andy and John Pepin (2002) “Social entrepreneurship basics” in Front
and Centre, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.
1-6.
James, Colin (2001) “Social entrepreneurs” in Management,
October, 2001, p. 58.
Johnson, Sherrill (2001) “Strengthening the Generational Chain: Engaging the Next Generation of Social and
Civic Leaders in Canada.” Paper
produced for the Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (10 pp.)
Johnson, Sherrill (2002) “Social
Entrepreneurship Literature Review.” Paper
produced for the Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (18 pp.)
Lassiter, April (1997) “The new social
architects” in Policy Review, July/August, pp. 52-56.
McLeod, Heather (1997) “Cross over: the
social entrepreneur” in Inc. Special Issue: State of Small, Vol. 19, No.
7, pp.100-104.
Ninacs, Bill (1998) “What is the business of business?” in Making
Waves: Canada’s CED Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 19-21.
Perry, Stewart (1999) “Some terminology and
definition in the field of community economic development” in Making Waves:
Canada’s CED Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 20-23.
Prabhu, Ganesh N. (1999) “Social entrepreneurial leadership” in Career
Development International, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 140-145.
Reis, Tom (1999) Unleashing the New Resources and
Entrepreneurship for the Common Good: a Scan, Synthesis and Scenario for
Action. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 27pp.
Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (no
date). “What is a social entrepreneur?”
on website (address unclear).
Salter, Chuck (2000) “Hope and Dreams” in Fast
Company, September 2000, pp. 178-204.
Schuyler, Gwyer (1998) “Social
entrepreneurship: profit as a means, not an end” in Kauffman Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurial Education (CELCEE)
website ( 3p.
Sheerman, Barry (2000) “The role of the social entrepreneur” in Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, October, 2000, p. 198.
Thalhuber, Jim (1998) “The definition of a social entrepreneur”
found on National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs website ( 3pp.
Thompson, John, Geoff Alvy and Ann Lees
(2000) “Social entrepreneurship - a new look at the people and the potential”
in Management Decision, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 348-338.
Thompson, John (2002) “The world of the social entrepreneur” in International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 412-431.
Van Slambrouk, Paul (1998) “A businesslike
approach to helping the homeless” in Christian Science Monitor, October
7, Vol. 90, Issue 220, pp.1.
Warwick, David (1997) “Will social
entrepreneurs blossom or hit bottom?” in People Management, October 9,
Vol. 3, Issue 20, p. 56.
Young, Michael (1997) “Do-gooders with
savvy” in New Statesman, February 21, p. 20.
Zadek, Simon and Stephen Thake (1997) “Send
in the Social Entrepreneurs” in New Statesman, June 20, Vol. 26, Issue
7339, p. 31.
Appendix A: Interview
Questions
1)
Characteristics of the Firm:
a)
How long has this
organization/company been in existence?
b)
How many principals does the
organization/company have?
c)
What was the age of the
principals when the organization/company began?
d)
Could you briefly describe the
leadership structure of the company?
e)
What is the mission statement
of the organization/company?
f)
How many employees does the
organization/company currently have?
g)
How many volunteers does the
organization/company currently have?
h)
Where is organization/company
located?
i)
Do you have plans to expand to
any other locations in the next 2 years?
j)
What is annual revenue of the
company/annual budget of the organization?
a.
Under $50,000
b.
$50,000 – 150,000
c.
$150,000 – 250,000
d.
Over $250,000?
2
Social Entrepreneurs:
a)
Had you been involved with
other entrepreneurial activities before this?
a.
If so, can you provide some
details?
b)
Why did you choose an
entrepreneurial approach in this situation?
c)
Why did you choose to
incorporate a social/environmental goal into your initiative?
d)
How comfortable are you with
uncertainty (on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being not comfortable at all and 5 being
very comfortable)?
e)
Did you have all the resources
in place to start this initiative before taking action?
f)
Have you been successful in
convincing others to participate in this initiative?
a.
If yes, how?
b.
If no, why not?
g)
Do you network with others
interested in combining social and economic goals?
a.
If yes, how important is this
to you (on a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 being not important and 5 being very
important)?
b.
If no, is there a reason for this?
h)
Do you have a mentor for this
initiative?
a.
If yes, who and how did you
find this person?
b.
If yes, how important do you
think your mentor has been (on a scale from 1-5 with 1 being not important, and
5 being very important)?
c.
If no, do you wish you had one?
i)
Have you ever heard the term
social entrepreneur?
a.
If yes, do you consider
yourself one and why?
b.
If no, why not?
Social Entrepreneurship/Community
Economic Development:
a)
Assuming that your
organization/company is successful in the way you want it to be, what will the
social and/or environmental impact be?
b)
Again, assuming your
company/organization is successful, can you identify those who will benefit
from this success?
c)
What are your contributions to
your local community through this initiative?
d)
What do you consider the
biggest challenges in incorporating social and/or environmental goals into an
entrepreneurial initiative?
e)
What has been most helpful to
you in this process of combining economic and social/environmental goals?
f)
What supports would have helped
you in using an entrepreneurial approach with a dual bottom line?
g)
What advice would you have for
others undertaking this type of approach?
Appendix B: List of Research Participants
Simon Boone, Founder and Principal
Generation Solar (www.generationsolar.com)
“Generation
Solar are leaders in the field of sustainable energy solutions. We conduct business in a socially and
environmentally responsible manner while exceeding applicable regulations. We improve the quality of life for our
clients, employees, and community, both locally and globally.”
Natalie Chinsam, Founder and Director
HumanityLink International (www.humanitylink.org)
“HumanityLink International focuses on providing assistance
to enhance the lives and opportunities for those in need in the greater Toronto
area and in the developing regions of the Americas and the Caribbean.” Initial projects include ‘Yes Youth Can’
Entrepreneurial Development For a in Toronto and Newfoundland.
Chris Godsall, Founder and Advisor
Santropol Roulant (www.santropolroulant.org)
“Santropol Roulant is a Montreal-based,
not-for-profit organization founded and run by young people in the community.
We bring people together across generations and cultures through our innovative
meals-on-wheels service, our intergenerational activities and volunteer
programs. Santropol Roulant uses food as
a vehicle to break social and economic isolation between generations and to
strengthen and nourish our local community. We engage a diversity of people to
take an active role in their communities through initiatives that address the
health and food security needs of seniors and Montrealers living with a loss of
autonomy.”
Geordie Ouchterlony, Founder and Principal
Home Grown Organic Foods (www.hgof.ns.ca)
“Home Grown
Organic Foods is a locally owned business dedicated towards satisfying the
growing demand for healthy, locally grown, affordable and ecologically
sustainable organic food. We offer an
efficient and cost-effective home delivery service of fresh organic fruits and
vegetables every week.”.
Rahul Raj, Founder and Executive
Director
Meal Exchange (www.mealexchange.com)
“The mission of Meal Exchange is to
promote student civic engagement through the development of solutions to hunger
in Canada..
Meal Exchange is a student-focused charity and a simple idea. On-campus
volunteer student co-ordinators facilitate donations through each university's
Food Service organization. Students simply choose to donate to Meal Exchange at
their residence café or dining hall. Donated points are accumulated and valued,
while the coordinator determines which products are most in need by local food
banks and agencies. Student volunteers then distribute the goods.”
Leo Wong, Founder and Advisor
Youth One (www.youthone.com)
“To foster, build, foster and strengthen
the youth community so that young people can pursue their dreams without being
restricted by social barriers. We’re
looking at building connections between all the available resources out there
so that youth have a better ability to find out about these resources. This idea began when I was in high school,
out of the frustration I saw in a lot of young people, not know that
information and services were out there.”