WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008

Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

Doctoral Proposal - Social Entrepreneurial Firms: a study on the process of value creation
This is a work in progress. Please do not cite without permission of the author.
Robin Stevens
University College Ghent
Department of Business Administration and Public Administration
Voskenslaan 270
09/248.88.39
E-mail: robin.stevens@hogent.be

Abstract
Thisdoctoralproposaloffersaresearchagendatostudytheprocessof(social)valuecreationin
social entrepreneurial firms (SEFs) building on three resourcebased view constructs: social
mission business model social performance. We start with an overview of two literature
streams who study social value creation: the business and society literature and the social
entrepreneurship literature and develop a conceptualization of SEFs. We further provide a
research design encompassing a database to study SEFs, a quanlitative casestudy design and
develop a quantitative survey which operationalizes the three key constructs to study this
process. We hope this doctoral thesis results in a profound understanding of social value
creationandintherelationbetweensocialperformance,economicperformanceandthesocial
missionofsocialentrepreneurialfirms.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 1

PaperStevens

Introduction
The creation of social value by firms increasingly gains attention. While the narrow focus
on profit maximization is questioned, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR hereafter)
moved towards a mainstream business practice (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007; Porter and
Kramer, 2006) and pressure on firms to engage in CSR has increased over the last 3 decades (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Carroll, 1998; Porter and
Kramer, 2006; Jenkins, 2006). Many scholars, politicians, non governmental organisations,
entrepreneurs and managers ask firms to act in a more social responsible way and thereby
to create social value. Social value creation by firms has been studied from two broad perspectives. First there is the business and society literature who looks at the actions that
appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm, required by law
(McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Next to the CSR research stream, social entrepreneurship
literature emerged from the management and entrepreneurship literatures, looking at entrepreneurial activity as a source of social value creation (Christie and Honig, 2006). Social
entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial activity that primarily serves a social objective" has
been on the rise in recent decades (Austin et al., 2006; Roberts and Woods, 2005; Peredo
and McLean, 2006; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006).
To date however, there is little research done on the process of social value creation
within firms and in both research traditions further research is necessary. First, in the social entrepreneurship literature most empirical work is limited to explorative cases or
qualitative field studies (e.g. Anderson et al., 2006; Waddock and Post, 1991; Roberts and
Woods, 2005; Dorado, 2006). Here there is an actual need for large scale empirical research. Second, in the research on CSR, the focus has mainly been laid on large organizations (Jenkins, 2006; Lepoutre and Heene, 2006; Fuller and Tian, 2006). As a result many
scholars (e.g. Murillo and Lozano, 2006; Jenkins, 2006) acknowledge the need to study CSR
in a SME context. We believe we will contribute to narrow these two gaps by studying
value creation in social entrepreneurial firms (SEFs) with a large scale standardized survey.
Our main and overall research question is the following: how do social entrepreneurial
firms create value? We conceptualise SEFs as organisations with a social mission, financed
at least 50% by private investors which achieve sustainability through trading and are less
then 15 years old. More theoretical, conceptual and especially empirical scholarly attention on those firms will lead to a more profoundly understanding of social entrepreneurship
and will advance the knowledge on CSR.
The research question will be addressed in this doctoral dissertation by first developing a
theoretical framework for capturing value creation in SEFs. Secondly, a three-part empirical study on social entrepreneurial firms in Flanders will be conducted. Primarily, we will
focus on three resource based view concepts (Peteraf, 1993; Barney, 1991) to describe the
process of social value creation: social mission, business model and social performance. By
conducting two explorative studies in SEF (an explorative case study research and an explorative quantitative research) on these concepts we hope to get a general understanding
of this process. This will be followed by a profound study on the relation between the social mission, social performance and economic performance in a hypothesis testing research. Doing so, this doctoral study will advance our understanding on how social value is
created in organisations and on the relation between social mission, economic and social
performance within social entrepreneurial firms. Furthermore, we believe that the measures we will develop for these constructs will as well advance the business and society lit2

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

erature by providing a tool for analysing the corporate social responsibility of regular corporations.
The remainder of the proposal is organized as follows: First, we present a literature review
on economic value creation, social entrepreneurship and the business and society literature. Second, we provide a conceptualization of social entrepreneurial firms. Third, we
discuss the theoretical framework for analyzing the process of social value creation and
the analyses of the nature of SEFs. Fourth, the research questions will be posed. In the
fifth part of the proposal we will outline the research design and methods and finally, the
expected contribution to management science and practice is highlighted.

1. Literature review

We provide a succinct literature review on social value creation. We start the review
with a discussion of the value concept after which we move on to the business and society
literature and the social entrepreneurship literature.
Value creation is a central concept in the management and organization literature (Lepak
et al., 2007) as the primary pursuit of business is creating and maintaining value (Sirmon et
al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2003; Elkington et al., 2006). Kang et al. (2007) define value as
the difference between benefits derived and costs incurred, which results in a greater
level of appropriate benefits than target users currently possess (Sirmon et al., 2007). In
this context, Bowman and Ambrosini (2000) argue that a distinction is needed between
use value and exchange value. Use value is subjectively assessed by the (potential /
target) customers, which can refer to the individual, group / organization or society level
(Lepak et al. 2007). Target users can be customers in the traditional sense, displaying willingness to pay for the value offered, or clients that are benefiting from the value created
by the firm. Exchange value or economic value refers to the total exchange value offered by costumers (i.e. what a SEF generates financially) and is only realized at the point
of sale. Although getting insight in the exchange value of social entrepreneurial firms is
important, we are especially interested in the use value of these firms. Given the predominant social mission of these firms, we will analyze the social benefits that are generated by the social entrepreneurial firm for the individual customer / client, organizations
and / or society as a whole. Brickson (2007) refers in this context to social value as 'that
which enhances well-being for the earth and its living organisms'.
Both the business and society literature and the social entrepreneurship literature have
social value creation at the heart of their academic interest. The business and society
literature has investigated numerous issues and interrelated concepts (Dentchev, 2005;
Antal and Sobczak, 2004) of which the best known and most discussed concept is corporate
social responsibility. Although numerous definitions exist in the literature (e.g., Carroll,
1999), CSR refers to the specific actions that organizations undertake to move beyond their
economic and legal responsibilities, addressing ethical issues and potentially embracing
philantropic actions (Carrol, 1979). Today, the academic debate surrounding CSR centers
around at least two important challenges. First, there is still no agreement on the basic
assumption that CSR is indeed a responsibiliy of firms beyond their wealth generating function (Aguilera et al., 2007; Barnett, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2003). Following the ideas of
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 3

PaperStevens

Milton Friedman, some advocate that a business organization exists primarily for the profit
of the stockholders. The main argument against CSR is that expending limited resources on
social issues necessarily decreases the competitive position of a firm by unnecessarily increasing its cost (Barnett, 2007). This perspective has dominated curricula of business
schools and the thinking of future managers for years (Brickson, 2007). Second, the analysis of CSR is strong in theory but empirical methods have not been resolved (McWilliams,
2006). Scholars studied CSR from different theoretical angles such as institutional theory
(Campbell, 2007), stakeholder theory (Brickson, 2007), the resource-based view (Russo and
Fouts, 1997), multilevel theory (Aguilera et al., 2007), and social movement theories (Den
Hond and De Bakker, 2007). Exemplary for this debate is the research on the connection
between CSR and corporate performance (Marquis et al., 2007; Ruf et al., 2001). In other
words, does the creation of social value results in economic value? Some studies indicate
no relationship (f.e. McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Aupperle et al., 1985), some a positive
(f.e. Russo and Fouts, 1997) and some a negative relationship (f.e. McWilliams and Siegel,
2001; McWilliams et al., 2006), which shows an inconsistency in the results.
Whereas CSR emerged in a corporate context (e.g., Porter and Kramer, 2006; Brickson,
2007), social entrepreneurship originated from the non-for-profit sector (Dees, 1998; Johnson, 2000; Mort et al., 2003; Fowler, 2000; Weerawardena and Mort, 2006; Sagawa and
Segal, 2000; Emerson, 2003). More specifically, social entrepreneurship is seen as a response to diminishing government involvement in the economy and society (e.g., Sharir
and Lerner, 2006; Perrini and Vurro, 2006; Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007; Nicholls, 2006;
Sullivan, 2007; Spence and Rutherfoord, 2001) and extended rapidly to the private and
public sector (Johnson, 2000). Although the CSR literature and the social entrepreneurship
literature share a primary interest in the creation of social value, its fundamental assumptions are distinct: Socially responsible companies are those, whose primary goal is profit
(Caroll, 1999), whereas, social entrepreneurs emphasize social value nd economic value
creation as a necessary condition to ensure (financial) viability (Dorado, 2006; Schuler and
Cording, 2006).
To date, there are different approaches to social entrepreneurship (Mair and Marti, 2006,
Peredo and McLean, 2006; Dorado, 2006) and there is not one universally accepted definition of what constitutes a social entrepreneur (Shaw and Carter, 2004; Harding, 2004; Dorado, 2006). Therefore, the literature on social entrepreneurship still hearts around two
main themes: the level of analysis and the locus of social entrepreneurship. Regarding the
level of analysis, the field potentially embraces individual, organisational and interorganisational levels of analyses. At the individual level, definitions of social entrepreneurs focus
on the founder of the initiative (Mair and Marti, 2006), who is generally referred to as a
change maker (Barendsen and Gardner, 2004; Shaw and Carter, 2004; Sharir and Lerner,
2006; Van Slyke and Newman, 2006), acting upon an opportunity and gathering resources
to exploit it. At the (inter)organisational level, definitions of social entrepreneurship typically refer to the process of value creation, including opportunity recognition, adopting a
mission to create social value, engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation,
and learning (e.g. Dees, 1998; Anderson et al., 2006; Waddock and Post, 1991; Roberts and
Woods, 2005). The second debate addresses the issue of where or in which contexts social
entrepreneurship actually occurs. Mair and Marti (2006) contest the views that social entrepreneurship is limited to the non-profit sector on one hand or to socially responsible
actions of mainstream business practice on the other. They conclude that social entrepreneurship refers to a means to tackle social problems and catalyze social transformation,
4

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

irrespective of the for-profit or not-for-profit status of the organisation (Marti and Mair,
2006; Simms and Robinson, 2005; Roberts en Woods, 2005; Austin, 2006; Nicholls, 2006;
Korosec and Berman, 2006). The European perspective on social enterprises (Nyssens,
2006; DTI, 2007; Vidal, 2005) can be positioned within this perspective, referring to organizations with an explicit aim to benefit the community, initiated by a group of citizens
and in which the material interest of capital investors is subject to limits.

2. Towards conceptualisation of social entrepreneurial firms

To study social entrepreneurship and the social value creation in social entrepreneurial
firms, we developed a conceptualisation of Social Entrepreneurial Firm as an organization with a social mission, financed at least 50% by private investors which achieves sustainability through trading and is less then 15 years old. The next paragraphs discuss the
arguments underlying our conceptualisation.
First, there is a general consensus that social entrepreneurship is a entrepreneurial activity that primarily serves a social objective" (Austin et al., 2006; Roberts and Woods, 2005;
Peredo and McLean, 2006; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), making the social mission the central and defining characteristic (Dees, 1998; Tracey and Jarvis, 2007). SEFs share a mission
for realizing social value, rather than personal and shareholder wealth, which is the key
driver for commercial entrepreneurial activity. Although a clear definition of what constitutes a social mission is lacking, there is agreement that social missions have the desire to benefit society or to contribute to the welfare or well-being in society in common
(Mort et al., 2003; Peredo and Mclean, 2006).
Second, at least part of the working (start) capital of SEFs comes from private sources
(other than subsidies/gifts/grants). With this criterion we want to exclude public organizations which are completely financially dependent on government or philanthropic support
(Dees and Anderson, 2002) and capture these types of organizations that are able to mobilize private money (e.g., bank loan, equity financing, ).
Third, following DTIs (2007) definition of social enterprise, SEFs achieve sustainability
through trading. According to this view, trading viability, social aims and social ownership
are the distinguishing features of these firms (e.g. Tracey and Jarvis, 2007). In practice
this means that SEFs receive a considerable proportion of their revenues by trading and
these may or may not align with the social goals that the enterprise is pursuing (DTI,
2005). Trading is seen as the selling of services or products. Nyssens (2006) adheres to this
perspective and argues that social enterprise is a continuous activity, producing and selling goods and/or services.
In support of the private capitalization and trading argument, the OECD (1999) characterizes social enterprises as entities that finance their activities by a combination of different types of market resources (resulting from the sale of goods and services), nonmarket resources (government subsidies and private donations), and non-monetary resources (voluntary work).
Fourth, borrowing from life cycle models of organizations (typically ranging from 3 to 9
phases, e.g., ORand and Krecker, 1990; Gersick, 1994), we focus on the entrepreneurial
stage of SEFs. This stage is marked by early innovation, little structure and planning and
the search for appropriate business model(s). Kazajian and Rao (1999), for example, sampled relatively young technology-based new ventures (mean age of 6.7 years) to study capability creation. The firms had to be created within the last 15 years, in order to capture
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 5

PaperStevens

their developmental character as new, emerging organizations provide a unique opportunity to assess how and why capabilities develop. In a similar fashion, Sapienza et al. (2006)
sampled young firms to study internationalization. Following these authors, we will sample
SEFs less than 15 years old.
Table 1 summarizes the main components of our conceptualization of a social entrepreneurial firm, suggesting a number of indicators that will be used for screening the sample
frame we are currently constructing.
Component

Operationalisation

Measure

Dominant social value proposition

at founding

organisational goal (Autio et

al, 2002)

Absolute measure: 2 items on 5

point-Likert scale
Relative measure: Dividing 100
points to 6 different organizational goals

Trading

Product and service sales

% of product / service revenues

from total sales
Euro volume product and service
sales

Private capital

Capital structure

Start capital in absolute numbers

( volume start capital)
% start capital from 3F, BA,
VC, banks, corporate investors

Entrepreneurial stage

Young (Mintzberg, 1992)

Age in years (max 15 years)

Organic structure

Brief start up history (qualitative)

Centralized decision making

Organizational structure

Table 1: Components of SEF conceptualization

3. Theoretical model
The main aim of this research is to gain in depth understanding in the process of social
value creation for which we use the resource-based view (RBV). The basic argument of the
RBV is that internal, firm-specific (valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable) resources and capabilities lead to a competitive advantage (Maritan, 2001; Lei et al., 1996;
Colbert, 2004; Lado et al., 1992), provide the basis of superior firm performance (Lado et
al., 2006; McWilliams et al., 2006; Ray et al., 2004) and leads to value creation (Amit and
Zott, 2001). From this perspective, Sirmon et al. (2007) argue that the resource-based
view explains the process of value creation. Conceptually this translates into gaining insight in how the social mission develops into particular business models and subsequent
levels of social performance. Next paragraphs describe these three constructs.
6

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

3.1 Social mission

We propose four constructs to capture the nature of the social mission of social entrepreneurial firms. The constructs need to be further operationalized in a standardized questionnaire making international comparison possible.
Although there is limited agreement about their purpose and content (Bartkus et al., 2000)
and the relationship between mission statements and performance appears not been
proven by empirical research (Sidhu, 2003; Bartkus et al., 2006; Bart, 1997), mission
statements serve an important strategic role in organisations (Stone, 1996; Ireland and
Hitt, 1992). More especially, mission statements are usually considered the cornerstone of
every companys strategy formulation exercise and essential component of planning systems in large organizations (Bart, 1997; OGorman and Doran, 1999). By aiding strategy
formulation and implementation, they can lead to superior performance (Sidhu, 2003;
Bartkus et al., 2006). An effective mission statement describes the firms fundamental,
unique purpose (Ireland and Hitt, 1992). Ideally, this is in line with the values and expectations of major stakeholders (Johnson et al., 2005). Logically, mission statements can be a
useful tool to analyse the mission of SEFs. For example, Marcus and Anderson (2006) believe that ethical obligations are reflected in how firms define their missions. More especially the researchers successfully supported the following hypothesis: the degree to which
a firms mission is broad leads to the acquisition of a social competency.
We believe that norms and values of the SEF can provide a valuable insight in the social
mission of the SEF. Values are defined as the shared beliefs of organization members and
refer to the culture prevalent in the organization (Sidhu, 2003). An argument for researching and describing the values and norms of SEFs can be found in the study of Agle et al.
(1999) where the values of CEOs are linked to the corporate social performance of organizations. Embedded in the social economy context and literature, VOSEC1 and Nyssens
(2006) argue that the social economy consists of organizations characterized by putting
added value for society central to their mission, adhering to a number of basic values (see
table 2). Furthermore, we could hypothesis that organisational commitment (Maznevski et
al., 1997), collectivism (Mowday, Steers and Porters, 1979) and other-regarding interest
(Agle et al., 1999) are strong values in SEFs (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001).
VOSEC

Nyssens (2006)

Labor has right of way over capital

Limited profit distribution

Democratic decision making

Decision-making power not based on capital ownership

A participatory nature, which involves the various parties affected by the activity

Embeddedness in society

An explicit aim to benefit the community

An initiative launched by a group of citizens

Transparency

A participatory nature, which involves the various parties affected by the activity

Sustainability

VOSEC = Vlaams Overleg Sociale EConomie is a virtual network organization grouping social economy
initiatives in Flanders
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 7

PaperStevens

Quality
Table2: Norms and values in social enterprises

Next, the construct of organisational identity refers to the set of beliefs or meanings
that addresses the question of who are we? (Foreman and Whetten, 1999; Fiol, 2001,
1991, 2002; Brickson, 2007; Dutton et al., 1994; Dyer and Whetten, 2006). Researchers
generally define organizational identity as members shared perceptions about their organizations central, distinctive, and enduring qualities (Brickson, 2007, 2005; Dutton and
Duckerich, 1991). For example Fiol (1991) approaches organizational identity as a core
competence contributing to competitive advantage. According to Brickson (2007, 2005),
the concept of organizational identity is perfectly positioned to inform how businesses relate to stakeholders and why they relate to them as they do. There is a growing interest in
examining organizational identity as a determinant of corporate social performance (Dyer
and Whetten, 2006). A number of operationalizations of organisational identity can be
found in the literature (e.g., Dutton et al., 1994; Brickson, 2005). Foreman and Whetten
(1999) operationalize organizational identification in terms of multiple and competing
identities. They follow Albert and Whetten (1985) in considering a particular type of hybrid-identity organization, namely those that are constituted according to two seemingly
incompatible value systems. A normative system (emphasizing traditions and symbols, internalization of an ideology and altruism, like that of a church or family); and a utilitarian
system (characterized by economic rationality, maximization of profits and self-interest)
like that of a business. We suggest to measure the normative utilitarian value systems of
social entrepreneurial firms. Here important questions can be asked: does this kind of multiple identity also exists in social entrepreneurial firms? Is their a typical defining organisational identity in SEFs? Do SEFs have a strong social identity?
Finally, assessing Carrolls (1979) perspective on what entails corporate social responsibility potentially provides insight in the nature of the social mission of SEFs. For evaluating
the extent to which SEFs move beyond their economic and legal responsibilities we will use
Aupperles (1985) operationalization of economical, legal, ethical and philanthropical actions. Looking at corporate orientation toward social responsibility, rather than performance, (Ruf et al., 1998), the measurement tool has been used successfully by numerous
scholars (e.g., Ibrahim et al., 2008; Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1995; Agle et al., 1999).
We are confident that these four approaches will provide a complete picture of what SEFs
are really about and how the entrepreneurial, commercial and the social component interplay in those organisations. We hope that our questionnaire - that reflects the social and
commercial/entrepreneurial component in the SEFs - not only benefits the social entrepreneurship literature but can be a valuable tool for assessing the corporate social responsibility of regular commercial firms.
In addition to the social mission every social entrepreneurial firm needs to be supported by
a plausible business model, in order to achieve social value creation in a sustainable way.
We discuss this construct in the next section.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

3.2 Business Model

Following the social mission, each social entrepreneurial firm develops a revenue model
and structure of how its product or service will reach the end customer. To be effective a
SEF needs a fitting business model (Perrini and Vurro, 2006). A conceptual vagueness characterises the term with as many definitions as they are proponents of the term (e.g.
Venkatraman and Henderson, 1998; Magretta, 2002; Timmers, 1998; Morris et al., 2005;
Bonaccorsi et al., 2006; Alt and Zimmerman, 2001; Mahadevan, 2000). Even so, these definitions refer all somehow to how and where value in an organization is created. Despite
wide-spread use in the industry, the idea of a business model is rarely studied in academic research, except for some pioneering research focused on e-business.
Amit and Zott (2001) believe that a business model, which builds on the resource-based
view, can be a good tool for analysing value creation and define it consequently: A business model depicts the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as
to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities. We follow this line of
argument and propose the construct of business model as a useful building block for studying the process of social value creation in social entrepreneurial firms. Authors have argued that answering this question requires an understanding of the strategic capabilities of
the organisation (Teece et al., 1997; Miller, 2003), and an analysis of the position of the
organisation in the value chain (Guclu et al, 2002).
The strategic capability of a firm is underpinned by the resources (Barney, 1991) and competences (Hamel and Prahalad, 1990) of the organization. Organizations must bundle their
resources to build capabilities, and leverage those capabilities with the purpose of creating
and maintaining value for customers and owners. Consequently, in most definitions, capabilities refer to the ability to coordinate and deploy those resources to perform tasks (e.g.
Kazanjian and Rao, 1999; Mustar et al., 2006; Ray et al., 2004; Sapienza et al., 2006; Sirmon et al., 2007; Lichtenstein and Brush, 2001). Direct observation of capabilities is not
possible and is a well-known problem in the literature on the resource-based view of the
firm. Therefore, finding reasonable proxies for firm capabilities proved to be extremely
challenging (Alcaser, 2006). Some general conceptualisations are made of capabilities (e.g.
Harrison and Miller, 1999; Lenz, 1980), but few researchers have actually operationalised
the construct. Perhaps even more than the strategic capabilities literature, the emergent
literature on dynamic capabilities and their role in value creation is riddled with inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and outright contradictions (Zahra et al., 2006). Many
scholars (e.g. Lepak et al., 2007; Pettus, 2001; Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Galunic and
Eisenhardt, 2001; Colbert, 2004; Rindova and Kotha, 2001; Griffith and Harvey, 2001; Luo,
2000) link dynamic capabilities to the rapidly changing and hypercompetitive environment
of firms. Consequently, they are mostly defined as the firms ability to integrate, build,
and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt et al., 2000; Sapienza et al., 2006; Marcus and Anderson, 2006). Learning mechanisms play a key role in the shape of dynamic capabilities
(Zollo and Winter, 2003). Marcus and Anderson (2006) found that general dynamic capabilities that drive competitive advantage are not the same as those that drive social responsibility. More research on the dynamic capabilities and strategic capabilities of SEF leading
to social competencies and finally to social performance is an important challange.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 9

PaperStevens

The value chain is adopted as an analytical tool for strategic management (Lado et al.,
1992) and describes a series of value-adding activities connecting a companys supply side
with its demand side (Rayport and Sviokla, 1995). Essentially, an organizations value chain
embraces discrete but related sets of activities concerned with designing, developing, producing, and marketing outputs to customers (Lado et al., 1992). Consequentally, Hwang
(1999) presents the following approach to categorize such activities: Overall administration
Research and development Design Production Marketing Distribution Customer
service. Value chain analysis is argued to consist of four major factors: (1) defining the
nature of the external market the organisation serves, (2) identifying the particular products or services that are at the heart of the organisations existence, (3) identifying the
critical activities that are needed to deliver the products or services to the customer /
client, and (4) determining the value created by these activities (Porter, 1985). Value
chain analysis has several applications for researchers (e.g. Gamble et al., 2004; Pathaniajain, 2001). For managers, it allows to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their
companys operation by examining the value chain upstream and downstream (Nicovich et
al., 2007). Important questions regarding the value chain and SEFs can be asked. For example, are SEFs upstream of downstream competitors (Nicovich et al., 2007) as described
by Galbraith and Kazanjian? Which activities in the value chain of SEFs (Hwang, 1999) are
the most important in SEFs? How do the four major factors of value chain analysis (Porter,
1985) look like in SEFs?

3.3 Social performance

Social entrepreneurship scholars have lamented that there is a substantial lack of research
in top-tier journals that demonstrate the social performance of organisations (Margolis and
Walsh, 2003; Mair et al., 2006; Ruf et al., 1998). In addition, in the social sector, it has
been taken as a virtual given that most elements of social value stand beyond measurement and quantification (Emerson, 2003). Nonetheless, social performance has been the
subject of academic attention from different angles. For example, some authors have focused on the problem of non-profit organisations and mission-driven organizations to
measure their performance (Wood, 1991; Lingane and Olsen, 2004; Kaplan, 2001; Sawhill
and Williamson, 2001). We will especially use the concept of corporate social performance
to assess the social performance of SEF.
Corporate social performance is defined by Wood (1991) as a business organizations configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness and policies, programs and observable outcomes as they relate to the firms societal relationships.
According to this view, social outcomes are divided into three types: the social impact, the
programs an organisation uses to implement CSR activities and the policies in place to deal
with social issues. CSP can be described as a snapshot of a firms overall social performance at a particular point in time a summary of the firms aggregate social posture (Barnett, 2007). Schuler and Coring (2006) define CSP as a voluntary business action that produces social third-party effects. Researchers that have looked at the social impact of
businesses, paid attention to assessment devices such as social indicators, social reporting
and accounting, the social balance sheet and social return on investment (Wood, 1991;
Pearce, 2005, Lingane and Olsen, 2004). Increasingly, scholars are questioning the traditional separation between economic and social value (e.g. Elkington et al., 2006; Clarkson,
1995; Wheeler et al., 2003). Emerson (2006; 2003) and Elkington et al. (2006) claim that
from a value creation perspective, there is no difference between a for-profit and a not10 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

for-profit firm. Not-for-profits create economic worth and for-profit companies have social
and environmental impacts. Emerson notes that we not simply seek the ability to track
financial, social or environmental performance, but rather each of these three aspects of
value creation is key to achieving and maximizing the total, blended return. We will follow
this line of thought and study the blended value of SEFs. Next to economic performance
indicators, we will take corporate social performance to inform our analyses. This is in line
with Lepak, et al. (2007), arguing that the source and target of value creation need to be
clear to understand how value is created at the firm level. A double or triple bottom
line approach is central to interpreting social venture outcomes (Nicholls, 2006).

4. Research Questions
The literature review reveals many unresolved questions in the new academic field of social entrepreneurship. Our main and overall research question is: How do social entrepreneurial firms create social value? As this is a relative new field of research where empirical
research is sparse, we first need to get a general and broad understanding of the process
(Lichtenstein and Brush, 2001). Therefore the first two parts of the research project will
be explorative in nature aiming at generating a global understanding of the process of
value creation in social entrepreneurial firms. To capture this process we will use the
model as described above. Logically, the sub research questions are: How does the social
mission of social entrepreneurial firms look like? How does the business model of SEF look
like? What levels of performance are reached within SEF? Thirdly, a hypothesis testing research will be developed on the relation between social mission, social performance and
economic performance. Possible hypothesises are: SEFs with a strong social mission reach a
higher level of social performance. SEFs with a weak social mission reach a lower level of
social performance. SEFs with a high level of social performance reach a high level of economic performance.
RQ 1: How do social entrepreneurial firms create value? (Study 1 and 2)
RQa How does the social mission of social entrepreneurial firms looks like? What is
the nature of SEF?
RQa-1 Mission statement
- Do SEFs explicitly formulate mission statements?
- Are these mission statements of SEFs complete (Sidhu, 2003)?
- What is the relation between commercial and social objectives?
- What is the content of the mission statements of SEFs?
RQa-2 Norms and values
- What are the values and norms within SEF (e.g., commitment, values of social economy,)?
RQa-3 Organisational Identity
- Do SEFs have a multiple organizational identity?
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 11

PaperStevens

- How does the identity(ies) of SEFs look like?

- How strong is the organizational identification within SEFs? (Dutton et al.,
1994)
RQb How does the business model of SEF looks like?
- How does the value chain of SEFs looks like?
- How does the external market of the SEFs looks like?
- What are the resources and capabilities underlying the SEFs?
- Are SEFs upstream of downstream competitors? (Nicovich et al., 2007)
- Which activities in the value chain of SEFs (Hwang, 1999) are the most important in SEFs?
RQc What levels of performance are reached within SEF?
- What is the economic performance SEFs?
- What is the social performance of SEFs? (Wood, 1991)
- Do SEFs measure their social performance?
- To what extent do SEFs reach their mission?
RQ 2 What is the relation between social mission, economic performance and social performance within SEFs? (Study 3)
H1 SEFs with a strong social mission reach a high level of social performance.
H2 SEFs with a low social mission reach a low level of social performance.
H3 SEFs with a high level of social performance reach a high level of economic performance.

5. Research design and methods

The empirical research in this doctoral dissertation will be divided in two stages (table 3):
an explorative and a hypothesis testing stage. The first two studies aim at gaining in depth
understanding in the process of social value creation in SEFs. We will do this both qualitatively through in depth case study analysis and quantitatively through the administration of
a survey which operationalizes the aforementioned concepts. The third study will specifically focus on testing hypotheses on how the social mission of SEFs translates into different
levels of social and economic performance. Data for study 2 and 3 will be provided by the
same survey. The next paragraphs discuss the sample and sample frames and the three
complementary methodological approaches.

12 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

Explorative
Case study - qualitative

Study 1

Survey - quantitative

Study 2

Hypothesis testing

Study 3

Table 3: Studies in this doctoral research

5.1 Explorative qualitative research

The first study of the doctoral dissertation will be explorative in nature and makes use of
the case-study method for gaining insight in the process of social value creation in SEFs.

5.1.1 Sample and sample frame

One of the main challenges when designing empirical studies in social entrepreneurship is
that sample frames representing the population of interest SEFs -- are not available. To
address this gap we took the investment portfolios of social investors in Flanders (Belgium)
for constructing a non probability, quota sample as a point of departure (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Yin, 2003; Judd et al., 1991). In total, VOSEC (Vlaams Overleg Sociale EConomie, Flemish
association grouping actors in the social economy) lists 8 social investors located in Flanders. From these, we selected the investors that (1) locate their investment activities for
the most part in the Flemish region (excluding f.e. third world micro-finance projects) and
(2) are not restricted to traditional banking activities. We analysed the year reports from
the 4 remaining social investors in Flanders and conducted a round of interviews with the
investment managers in order to obtain data on the scope of their activities and the investment portfolios. Table 4 provides descriptive data on each of these investors, such as
the number of new projects per year, the number of organisations in portfolio per year and
the mean capital invested / available. Applying theoretical sampling, we will select out of
each investor portfolio one case which we believe has the most potential for gaining insight in the process of social value creation. In theoretical sampling, cases are chosen for
theoretical, not statistical, reasons, meaning that they are selected because they are particularly suitable for illuminating and extending relationships and logic among constructs
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
Social investor

HEFBOOM

TRIVIDEND

NETWERK
TEVRIJ

Mean number of new projects /

year

33

11

15.5

Mean number of organizations in

portfolio / year

32

19

12

Mean capital available for investment / year (K )

2174

2250

73500

Mean % of capital invested in

projects / year

56

32

22

REN-

KRINGLOOPFONDS

Table 4: Descriptive analysis of social investors in Flanders (data for 2004-2006) (to be completed)

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 13

PaperStevens

5.1.2 Data collection and analysis.

The first part of the research project (Study 1) will use an explorative case-study design.
Using case studies is especially appropriate in new topic areas (Eisenhardt, 1989; Dutton
and Duckerich, 1991), like social entrepreneurship. Following Brown and Eisenhardt (1997)
and Galunic and Eisenhardt (2001) the cases must be treated as a series of independent
experiments that confirm or disconfirm emerging conceptual insights. We will collect data
on the process on social value creation through open-ended interviews. Conducting interviews is appropriate as interviews are a highly efficient way to gather rich, empirical data
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, open-ended responses can help in the formulation of new hypotheses and are useful in scouting a new area of research (Judd et al.,
1991). Open-ended questions are asked with a relatively small pretest sample of the population that is to be studied. We will use the principles of Miles and Huberman (1994) as a
guide for transcribing the interviews and analysing the data.

5.2. Survey
The survey of this doctoral research will provide data for study 2 and 3. On the one hand,
the survey will provide explorative qualitative data on the process of social value creation
and on the other hand it provides data to test hypothesis on the relation between social
mission, social performance and economic performance.

5.2.1 Sample
For study 2 and 3 we will enlarge our sample frame to construct a sample frame that theoretically reflects our population of interest (SEFs) as defined earlier and allows us to test
hypothesis. Therefore we will develop the following sample strategy (see table 5). (1) List
of social enterprises in Flanders, compiled by VOSEC (N = 600). (2) List of cooperatives in
Flanders that have people-planet-profit objectives at their heart of operations. This list
has been compiled by FEBECOOP, the Belgian Federation for the Social and Cooperative
Economy (N ~ 75) and (3) the investment portfolios of all social investors that invest in
local projects (as described earlier). Each of these lists will be screened for identifying the
SEFs as described in the conceptualization section. More especially, we will perform a
telephone screening of all organisations in our sample on the four criteria of SEFs. Once we
have decided on a final sample we will discuss our selection with experts from VOSEC, FEBECOOP and the social investment firms, to make sure the selection provides a representative view on social entrepreneurial firms. For the second and third part of the doctoral
research we will interview the final sample of the SEFs we listed.
Social economy sector

Portfolios of social investors

Constructed by VOSEC

Listed by VOSEC

Total list: N~600

Total list: N~100 (2004-2006)

Cooperatives
Constructed by FEBECOOP
Total list: N~75

Telephone screening for selecting SEFs as described above

Final Sample: N~150

Final Sample: N~70

Final sample: N~200 Social entrepreneurial firms (after removing overlaps)

Table 5: Sample frame

14 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

Final Sample: N~60

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

5.2.2 Data collection and analysis

Study 2 will use a extensive questionnaire for gaining explorative quantitative data
on the process of social value creation. The challenge lies in operationalising the constructs to describe the process of social value creation. For example social mission will
be operationalised by looking at the mission statement, the norms and values, CSR and the
organisational identity of the SEFs. In our survey, we will use existing, validated measures
(see Table 6) and we will construct new items. For these new items we will use different
scale techniques (Judd et al., 1991) as multiple-item scales provide a usable measure of a
theoretical construct. It allows researchers to reduce the complexity of data, test hypotheses about the nature of a construct and improves reliability and validity of measurement. For example, Likert-scale items are used to investigate the attitudes of respondents
to a series of written or verbal statements (items). The statements form sets of questions,
with respondents asked to represent their strength of feeling on a common categorical
scale (Dittrich et al., 2007). For example we can ask respondents about the relative importance of social goals (1-very important to 7-of no importance).
Construct
Social Mission

Mission statement

Operationalization

References

Core components

Sidhu et al., 2003

Quality

Bartkus et al., 2006

Organizational goals
Norms and Values

Autio et al., 2000

Collectivism

Maznevski et al., 1997

Commitment

Mowday et al., 1979

Jauch et al., 1978

Organisational identity

CSR

Other-regarding interest

Agle et al., 1999

Self interested values

Agle et al., 1999

Relation with stakeholders

Brickson, 2006

Utilitarian and normative

Forman and Whetten, 2002

Typology of Carroll

Wartick and Cochran, 1985

Aupperle, 1985

Business Model

Content

Typology

Lai et al., 2006

Elements

Bonaccorsi et al., 2006

Alt and Zimmerman, 2001
Mahadevan, 2000

Resources

types of assets

Lai et al., 2006

Capabilities

Typology

Alcaser, 2006

Environment

Marcus and Anderson, 2006

Upstream or downstream

Nicovich et al., 2007

Content/elements

Hwang, 1999

KLD index

Agle et al., 1999

Value chain

Social performance

Corporate social perf

Graves and Waddock, 1994

Bass et al., 1997
Turban and Greening, 1997
Ruf et al., 2001
Greening and Turban, 2000

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 15

PaperStevens

Dyer and Whetten, 2006

Sustainability
Economic
ance

IFC

Thorpe and Prkash-mani, 2003

ROI

perform-

Table 6: Existing operationalizations of the constructs (under construction)

The second part of the survey (Study 3) will test the relationship between the social
mission, social performance and economic performance of the SEFs in our sample. For constructing this survey we will repeat the steps taking by Forman and Whetten (1999) and
hold several focus groups to aid us in developing the appropriate survey items. Small pilot
studies will be conducted to check the external validity of the survey items.

Social Mission

H2+
?

H1+
?

Economic
Performance

H3+

Social Performance

Figure 1: Hypothesis testing research: relation between social mission, economic-, and social performance

2006

2007

2008

Literature study
Developing
framework

theoretical

Constructing sample social

investors
Study 1 Explorative casestudy
Operationalising constructs
and developing survey
Constructing
extended
sample frame and sample
telephone screening
Pretesting Survey
Writing paper on sample
Conducting interviews
face to face
Reporting
data

and

analyzing

Writing doctoral dissertation

16 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

2009

2010

2011

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

Table 7: phases in doctoral research

6. Expected Contribution
The contribution of this doctoral dissertation will be situated on two different levels. First
there is an expected contribution to scientific theory. Secondly, we hope that our research
results advance knowledge on SEFs and the creation of social value by firms. Doing so, we
hope to advance actual social value creation and to benefit society by extension.

6.1 Contribution to theory

This doctoral study will be on the edge of different research traditions. First, this doctoral
research will especially contribute to the social entrepreneurship literature. The social
entrepreneurship literature is in need for an empirical study that moves away from exploration to theory based hypothesis testing research in a context where the entrepreneurial
character of social value creation is most prominent (Anderson and Dees, 2006). This research will offer a conceptualization of SEFs and an empirical study on the process of social value creation.
Second, this research will have value for strategic management science. The proposed
theoretical model integrates the advantage-seeking perspective from strategic management and the opportunity-seeking perspective from entrepreneurship (Hitt et al., 2001)
to investigate the process of social value creation in social entrepreneurial firms. We have
to develop a questionnaire to measure resource based view constructs in standardized
items like social performance, social mission and business model. The challenge in testing
constructs from the resource-based view of the firm is identifying and measuring the most
critical resources of firms (Hitt et al., 2001) and to do so, it is helpful to focus on a single
industry (Dess et al., 1990).
Third, this research will advance the knowledge on organisational identity and organisational theory by operationalising this construct and applying the construct in a social entrepreneurship context. In the field of organizational identity, several researchers have
proposed identity-based models of organizational identification but unfortunately few are
operationalized and tested (Foreman and Whetten, 2002). Furthermore, major empirical
gaps remain despite the constructs 20-year history (Brickson, 2005). This doctoral research would build further on the knowledge around organizational identity.
Fourth, this doctoral research will advance the understanding of the social component of
firms and thereby will be of interest to the business and society literature and the research
on corporate social responsibility. We believe that the instrument we will develop for assessing the social and entrepreneurial/commercial component of SEF can also be applied
to assess the nature of social responsible firms. For example Ruf et al. (1998) acknowledge
that the measurement of CSP is essential for theory development in the research area of
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 17

PaperStevens

social performance. Second, the B&S literature has largely overlooked small businesses and
entrepreneurial firms in how they address social issues, especially at the level of discretionary activities. Although interest for CSR in SMEs is increasing, the research developed
today does not specifically focus on entrepreneurial entities that have a social mission as
their key social value proposition. We will fill this gap.

6.2 Contribution to society: social doctoral performance?

As well as in academic attention as in practice there has been an unprecedented wave of
growth in social entrepreneurship globally over the last ten years (Nicholls, 2006). Social
entrepreneurship has become a powerful global phenomenon and social business entrepreneurs can become very powerful players in the national and international economy according to Muhammad Yunus2 (2006). It is clear that social entrepreneurship has a strong link
with society. The world is constantly changing (Wheeler et al., 2003) and is now making
excellent ground for social entrepreneurship. Two phenomena nurture the growing interest
and importance. First, social entrepreneurship did not emerge within a corporate context
with a focus on social issues management. Rather, the attention for social entrepreneurship originated from the non-profit sector, where entrepreneurial initiatives were increasingly seen as alternative funding schemes as public funding decreased substantially (Dees,
1998; Johnson, 2000; Mort et al., 2003; Fowler, 2000; Weerawardena and Mort, 2006; Sagawa and Segal, 2000; Emerson, 2003). Second, many scholars (e.g. Sharir and Lerner,
2006; Perrini and Vurro, 2006; Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007; Nicholls, 2006; Sullivan,
2007; Spence and Rutherfoord, 2001) notice a trend in many countries of diminishing government involvement in the economy and society who made it increasingly more difficult
for welfare states to answer social needs and claims. Dees (1998) believes that we have
come to a point where entrepreneurial approaches to social problems are accepted. Social
entrepreneurs have a social mission (Austin et al., 2006; Roberts and Woods, 2005; Peredo
and McLean, 2006; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006) and the desire to benefit society or to
contribute to the welfare or well-being in society in common (Mort et al., 2003; Peredo
and Mclean, 2006). Therefore, research on social entrepreneurship has the potential to
benefit society as well. Mair and colleagues (2006) acknowledge the great social relevance
of research on social entrepreneurship. We hope that by advancing the knowledge on SEFs
and the creation of social value by firms, the doctoral dissertation advances the real creation of social value for society.

Winner of nobelprice for peace in 2006 and founder of the Grameen Bank

18 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

References
Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. 1990. Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
AGLE, B. R., MITCHELL, R. K., SONNENFELD, J. A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values.
Academy of Management Journal. 42(5): 507-525.
AGUILERA, R. V., RUPP, D. E., WILLIAMS, C. A., GANAPATHI, J. 2007. Putting the s back in
corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 32(3): 836-863.
ALVAREZ, S., BUSENITZ, L. 2001. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal
of management, 27: 755-775.
AMIT, R., ZOTT, C. 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22:
493-520.
ANDERSON, R. B., DANA, L. P., DANA, T. E. 2006. Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship,
and economic development in Canada: opting-in to the global economy. Journal of world
business, 41: 45-55.
ANDERSON, B. B., DEES, J. G. 2006. Rhetoric, reality, and research: building a solid foundation for the practice of social entrepreneurship. In: NICHOLLS, A. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change. Oxford University Press, New York:
144-168.
AUPPERLE, K. E., CARROLL, A. B., HATFIELD, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal. 28(2): 446-463.
AUSTIN, J. E. 2006. Three avenues for social entrepreneurship research. In: MAIR, J., ROBINSON, J., HOCKERTS, K. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
AUSTIN, J. Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:
Same, Different or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1-22.
BARENDSEN, L., GARDNER, H. 2004. Is the social entrepreneur a new type of leader?
Leader to leader, 34: 43-50.
BARNEY, J., (2001), Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. In: Journal of management, 27, pp.643-650.
BARNETT, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review. 32(3): 794-816.
BARON, R. 2006. Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs connect the dots to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 104-119.
BARTKUS, B., GLASSMAN, M., McAFEE, B. 2000. Mission Statements: Are they smoke and
mirrors? Business Horizons, 43(6): 23-29.
BARTKUS, B., GLASSMAN, M., McAFEE, B. 2006. Mission statement quality and financial
performance. European Management Journal, 24(1): 86-94.
BOWMAN, C., AMBROSINI, V. 2000. Value Creation Versus Value Capture: Towards a Coherent Definition of Value in Strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1): 1-15.
BRICKSON, S. L. 2007. Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the
firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review. 32(3): 864-888.
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 19

PaperStevens

BROWN, S. L., EISENHARDT, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administration Science Quarterly. 42: 1-34.
BUCOLO, E. French social enterprises: a common ethical framework to balance various
objectives. In: NYSSENS, M. 2006. Social Enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public
policies and civil society. Routledge, London and New York.
CALIA, R., GUERRINI, F., MOURA, G. 2007. Innovation networks : From technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation. 27: 426-432.
CAMPBELL, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review.
32(3): 946-967.
CAMPI, S., DEFOURNY, J., GREGOIRE, O. 2006. Work integration social enterprises: are
they multiple-goal and multi-stakeholder organizations? In: NYSSENS, M. 2006. Social Enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. Routledge, London
and New York.
CARROLL, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39-48
CARROLL, A. B. 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and society review,
100/101: 1-7.
CARROLL, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3): 268-295
CHRISTIE, M., HONIG, B. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: New Research Findings. Journal of
World Business, 41: 1-5.
CLARYSSE, B., HEIRMAN, A. 2007. Which Tangible and Intangible Assets Matter for Innovation Speed in Start-Ups? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4): 303-315.
COLBERT, B. A. 2004. The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review. 29(3):
341-358.
DEES, G. J. 1998. Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard business review. 76(1): 54-67.
DEES, Gregory J., ANDERSON, Beth Battle, (2002), For-profit social ventures. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education.
DEFOURNY, J., NYSSENS, M. 2006. Defining social enterprise. In: NYSSENS, M. 2006. Social
Enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. Routledge, London and New York. 3-26.
DELAUNOIS, P., BECKER, E., Luxembourg: work-integration social enterprises in an emerging third sector. In: BORGZAGE, C., DEFOURNY, J. 2001. The emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge, London and New York.
DEN HOND, F., DE BAKKER, F. G. A. 2007. Ideologically motivated activism: how activist
groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review.
32(3): 901-924.
Dentchev, N. 2005. Corporate social performance: business rationale, competitiveness
threats and management challenges. Doctoral thesis defended at the Faculty of Economics
and Business Administration, UGent. Belgium.
DORADO, S. 2006. Social entrepreneurial ventures: different values so different process of
creation, no? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 11(4): 319-343.
20 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

DTI, 2002. Social enterprise: a strategy for success. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Available at www.sbs.gov.uk
DTI, 2005. A survey of social enterprises across the UK. London: Department of Trade and
Industry. Available at www.sbs.gov.uk
DTI, 2007. Researching social enterprise. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Available at www.sbs.gov.uk
DUTTON, J. E., DUKERICH, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal. 34(3): 517-554.
EISENHARDT, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
EISENHARDT, K. M., GRAEBNER, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal. 50(1): 25-32.
ELKINGTON, J., EMERSON, J., BELOE, S. 2006. The value palette: a tool for full spectrum
strategy. California Management Review. 48(2): 6-28.
EMERSON, J. 2003. The blended value proposition: integrating social and financial returns.
California Management Review. 45(4): 35-51.
EMERSON, J. 2006. Moving ahead together: Implications of a blended value framework for
the future of social entrepreneurship. In: NICHOLLS, A. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. New
models of sustainable social change. Oxford University Press, New York. 391-406.
FOREMAN, P., WHETTEN, D. 2002. Mebers identification with multiple identity organizations. Organization science. 13(6): 618-635.
GALUNIC, D. C., EISENHARDT, K. M. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate
forms. Academy of Management Journal. 44(6): 1229-1249.
GODFREY, P., HATCH, N. 2007. Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for
the 21st Century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70: 87-98.
GERSICK, C. 1994. Pacing strategic change: the case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal. 1994. 37(1):9-45.
GUCLU, A., DEES, G.J., ANDERSON, B. 2002. The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serous pursuit. Working paper from Fuqua School of Business.
HEMINGWAY, Christine A. 2005. Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of business ethics. 60: 233-249.
HOCKERTS, K., 2006. Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures. IN:
Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. (eds.), Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan, 142-154.
HULGARD, L. Danish social enterprises: a public-third sector partnership. In: NYSSENS, M.
2006. Social Enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. Routledge, London and New York.
HUSTED, B. W., SALAZAR, J. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 75-91.
IRELAND, D. R., HITT, M. A. 1992. Mission statements: Importance, challenge, and recommendations for development. Business Horizons. 35(3): 34-43.
IRELAND, D., HITT, M., SIRMON, D. 2003. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management. 29(6): 963-989.

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 21

PaperStevens

IRELAND, D., KURATKO, D., MORRIS, M. 2006. A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part I. Journal of business strategy. 27(1): 10-17.
JENKINS, H. 2006. Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics. 67(3): 241-256.
JOHNSON, G., SCHOLES, K., WHITTINGTON, R. 2005. Exploring corporate strategy: text and
cases. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
JUDD, C., SMITH, E., KIDDEr, L. 1991. Research methods in social relations. HBJ, USA.
KANG, S., MORRIS, S. S., SNELL, S. A. 2007. Relational archetypes, organizational learning,
and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management
Review. 32(1): 236-256.
KAPLAN, R.S. 2001. Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit management & leadership. 11(3): 353-370
KAZANJIAN, R., RAO, H. 1990. Research note: The creation of capabilities in new ventures
a longitudinal study. Organizaiton Studies, 20(1): 125-142.
KING, G., KEOHANE, R. VERBA, S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in
Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 115-149.
KLOFSTEN, M. 2005. New venture ideas: an analysis of their origin and early development.
Technology analysis and strategic management. 17(1): 105-119.
KOROSEC, R., BERMAN, E. 2006. Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. May/June: 448-462.
LADO, A. A., BOYD, N. G., WRIGHT, P. 1992. A competency-based model of sustainable
competitive advantage: Toward a conceptual integration. Journal of Management. 18(1):
77-91.
LADO, A., BOYD, N., WRIGHT, P., KROLL, M., 2006. Paradox and theorizing within the resource-based view. In: Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 115-131.
LEI, D., HITT, M. A., BETTIS, R. 1996. dynamic core competences through meta-learning
and strategic context. Journal of Management. 22(4): 549-569.
LEPAK, D. P., SMITH, K. G., TAYLOR, M. S. 2007. Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review. 32(1): 180-194.
LICHTENSTEIN, B. M., BRUSH, C. G. 2001. How do resource bundles develop and change
in new ventures? A dynamic model and longitudinal exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice. 25(3): 37-59.
LINGANE, A., OLSEN, S. 2004. Guidelines for social return on investment. California Management Review. 46(3): 116-135
LUMPKIN, G. 2005. The role of Organizational Learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4): 451-472.
MARGRETTA, J. 2002. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review. 80(5): 86-92
MARGOLIS, J., WALSH, J. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social intiatives by
business. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48: 268-305.
MARQUIS, C., GLYNN, M. A., DAVIS, G. F. 2007. Community isomorphism and corporate
social action. Academy of Management Review. 32 (3): 925-945.
MAIR, J., MARTI, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business. 41: 36-44.
22 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

MAIR, J., NOBOA, E. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In: MAIR, J., ROBINSON, J., HOCKERTS, K. 2006. Social entrepreneurship.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
MARITAN, C., (2001), Capital investment as investing in organizational capabilities: an empirically grounded process model. In: Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), pp.513-531.
MCWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal. 21: 603-609.
MCWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review. 26 (1): 117-127.
McWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D., WRIGHT, P. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic
Implications. Journal of Management Studies. 43(1): 1-18.
MILES, M., HUBERMAN, A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
MONLLOR, J. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: A study on the source and discovery of social
opportunities. Paper presented at the ISERC3 conference. Copenhagen.
MORAY, N., CLARYSSE, B. 2005. Institutional change and resource endowments to sciencebased entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 2005, 34(7): 1010-1027.
MORRIS, M. SCHINDEHUTTE, M., ALLEN, J. 2005. The entrepreneurs business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research. 58: 726-735.
MORT, G. S., WEERAWARDENA, J., CARNEGIE, K. 2003. Social entrepreneurship: Towards
conceptualisation. International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector marketing, 8(1):
76-88.
NICHOLLS, A. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change. Oxford University Press, New York.
NYSSENS, M. 2006. Social Enterprise. At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil
society. Routledge, London and New York.
OECD. 1999. Social Enterprises, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
ORAND, A., KRECKER, M. 1990. Concepts of the life cycle: their history, meanings, and
uses in the social sciences. Annual review of sociology. 16: 241-261.
PEREDO, A. and CHRISMAN, J. 2006. Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise.
Academy of Management Review. 31(2): 309-328.
PEREDO, A. and MCLEAN, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business. 41: 55-65.
PERRINI, F., RUSSO, A., TENCATI, A. 2007. CSR Strategies of SMEs and Large Firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3): 285-300.
PERRINI, F., VURRO, C. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: innovation and social change across
theory and practice. In: MAIR, J., ROBINSON, J., HOCKERTS, K. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
PORTER, M. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
Free Press: New York.
PORTER, M., KRAMER, M. 2006. Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 84 (12): 78-92.
RAY, G., BARNEY, J., MUHANNA, W. 2004. Capabilities, business, business processes, and
competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resourcebased view. Strategic Management Journal. 25(1): 23-37.
oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 23

PaperStevens

RAYPORT, J. F., SVIOKLA, J. J. 1995. Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business
Review. 73(6): 75-85.
ROBERTS, D. and WOODS, C. 2005. Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of
social entrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review. 45-51.
RUSSO, M., FOUTS, P., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal. 40, 3:534-559.
SAPIENZA, H. J., AUTIO, E., GEORGE, G., ZAHRA, S. A. 2006. A capabilities perspective on
the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth. Academy of Mangement Review. 31 (4): 914-933.
SAWHILL, J.C., WILLIAMSON, D. 2001. Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management & leadership. 11(3): 371-386
SCHULER, D. A., CORDING, M. 2006. A corporate social performance-corporate financial
performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review. 31(3):
540-558.
SEELOS, C., MAIR, J. 2005. Sustainable development, sustainable profit. European Business
Forum. 20: 49-53.
SHAW, E., CARTER, S. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley.
SHARIR, M., LERNER, M. 2006. Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual
social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business. 41: 6-20.
SHERMAN, David, A., Social entrepreneurship: pattern-changing entrepreneurs and the
scaling of social impact. Pre-publication version submitted to the academy of management, January 2006.
SIDHU, J. 2003. Mission Statements: Is it time to shelve them? European Management Journal. 21(4): 439-446.
SIMMS, S. V. K., ROBINSON, J. 2005. Activist or entrepreneur? An identity based model of
social entrepreneurship. Paper submitted to the USASBE/SBI.
SIRMON, D. G., HITT, M. A., IRELAND, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review.
32(1): 273-292.
STABELL, C. B., FJELDSTAD, O. D. 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: on
chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal. 19: 413-437.
STONE, R. A. 1996. Mission statements revisited. SAM Advanced Management Journal.
61(1): 31-38.
TIMMERS, P. 1998. Business Models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets. 8: 3-8.
THOMPSON, John, ALVY, Geoff, LEES, Ann, 2000. Social entrepreneurship a new look at
the people and the potential. Management decision, vol. 38, 5, pp.328-338.
TURBAN, D. B., GREENING, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal. 40(3): 658672.
VAN SLYKE, D. M., NEWMAN, H. K. 2006. Venture philanthropy and social entrepreneurship
in community redevelopment. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(3): 345-368.
VENKATRAMAN, N., HENDERSON, J. 1998. Real strategies for virtual organizing. Sloan Management Review. 40(Fall): 33-48.
24 oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability

WorkinProgresspleasedonotcitewithoutpermissionoftheauthor

VIDAL, I. 2005. Social enterprise and social inclusion: Social enterprises in the sphere of
work integration. International Journal of Public Administration, 28: 807-825.
YIN. K. 2003. Case study research. Design and methods. Sage Publications. Londen.
WADDOCK, S. A., POST, J. E. 1991. Social Entrepreneurs and catalytic change. Public Administration Review. 51(5): 393-401.
WHEELER, D., COLBERT, B., FREEMAN, R. E. 2003. Focusing on value: reconciling coproate
social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal
of General Management. 28(3): 1-28.
WILLIAMSON, D., LYNCH-WOOD, G., RAMSAY, J. 2006. Drivers of Environmental Behaviour
in Manufacturing SMEs and the Implications for CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3): 317330.
WOOD, D., (1991), Corporate social performance revisited. In: Academy of Management
Review. 16(4): 691-718.
ZADEK, S., THAKE, S. 1997. Send in the social entrepreneurs. New Statesman, 123(4339).

oikos Ph.D. summer academy 2008 Entrepreneurial Strategies for Sustainability 25