Differentiating Between Commercial and Social Entrepreneurship

Austin et al. surveyed various definitions of social entrepreneurship and observed that they ranged from broad to narrow.[1]  Among the broader definitions are those see social entrepreneurship as an “innovative activity with a social objective in either the for-profit sector, such as in social-purpose commercial ventures[2] or in corporate social entrepreneurship[3]; or in the nonprofit sector, or across sectors, such as hybrid structural forms which mix for-profit and nonprofit approaches[4]”.  A much narrower definition focuses on “applying business expertise and market-based skills in the nonprofit sector such as when nonprofit organizations develop innovative approaches to earn income”.[5]  Austin et al. noted that the common factor across all the definitions of social entrepreneurship appears to an underlying drive “to create social value, rather than personal and shareholder wealth”[6], and that the activities of the social entrepreneur could be characterized as innovative (i.e., the creation of something new rather than simply the replication of existing enterprises or practices).  For themselves, Austin et al. defined social entrepreneurship as “innovative, social value creating activity that can occur within or across the nonprofit, business, or government sectors”.[7]

As noted above, Austin et al., as well as others, acknowledge that social entrepreneurship can be practiced in multiple sectors using different organizational forms and the decision as to form depends, among other things, on the objective of the activity and the optimal strategy for mobilizing the required resources.  Austin et al. focused their interest on the nonprofit and business sectors and on differentiating between “commercial entrepreneurs” and “social entrepreneurs” through the examination of four fundamental theoretical propositions: 

  • Market failure: Market failure creates different opportunities for commercial and social entrepreneurs. For example, commercial entrepreneurship may not be a viable option when commercial market forces do not meet a social need (e.g., public goods or situations where the customers needing a product or service are not able to pay).  In these situations, social entrepreneurs may see an opportunity where commercial entrepreneurs only see problems in achieving their economic objectives.
  • Mission. Differences in mission are a fundamental distinguishing factor: “the fundamental purpose of social entrepreneurship is creating social value for the public good, whereas commercial entrepreneurship aims at creating profitable operations resulting in private gain”. This is not to say that social entrepreneurs do not seek, or cannot obtain, profits, nor does it mean that products and services created by commercial entrepreneurs do not have some social value.  The key point is that differences in mission will likely manifest itself in multiple areas of enterprise management and personnel motivation.
  • Resource mobilization. Commercial and social entrepreneurs face different challenges with respect to financial and human resource mobilization that causes them to take fundamentally different approaches to managing their financial and human resources. For example, social entrepreneurs are largely restricted in their ability to tap into the same capital markets as commercial entrepreneurs due to the non-distributive restriction on surpluses generated by nonprofit organizations and the social purposes that are deeply embedded in social enterprises.  Social entrepreneurs may also find that their inability to compensate staff as competitively as in commercial markets makes it more difficult to recruit the talent needed in order for the venture to be successful and they must often rely on nonpecuniary compensation that is valued by people interested in working on social causes.
  • Performance measurement. Difficulties in measuring a social entrepreneur’s performance with respect to social impact are a distinguishing factor from commercial entrepreneurship and create complications for social entrepreneurs with respect to accountability and relations with stakeholders. Commercial entrepreneurs, and the stakeholders of such entrepreneurs interested in measuring their performance, have been able to rely on relatively tangible and quantifiable measures of performance such as financial indicators, market share, customer satisfaction, and quality. However, there is far from any consensus on measuring social change due to non-quantifiability, multi-causality, temporal dimensions, and perceptive differences of the social impact created.  Moreover, social entrepreneurs have a higher number and wider range of stakeholder relationships, thus increasing the time and effort that must be invested in managing those relationships.[8]

Austin et al. cautioned that the propositions were presently primarily to facilitate comparisons and that in reality one can find many social purpose enterprises that are quite similar to their commercial counterparts, particularly when the social purpose enterprise is engaged in operational activities that include development and sale of products and services that both meet a social need and generate revenues needed in order for the enterprise to remain viable and sustainable and attract financial and human resources.  In turn, many commercial enterprises have recognized that there are opportunities for enhancing their economic value by incorporate social purpose into their products, services and business practices, even if they have not wholly embraced “triple-bottom-line” accounting and reporting.

In order to test their propositions, Austin et al. compared commercial and social entrepreneurship using the “PCDO” analytical framework proposed by Sahlman based on four interrelated elements that are crucial for the management of entrepreneurial activity[9]:

  • People: This element  is defined as those who activity participate in the venture or who bring resources to the venture and includes both those within the organization and those outside the organization who must be involved in order for the venture to be successful.
  • Context: This element includes relevant factors that are generally outside of the control of the entrepreneur but which be expected to have an impact on his or her activities (e.g., the general economy, taxes and other regulations and the socio-political institutions in the areas in which the entrepreneur intends to operate).
  • Deal: The term “deal” to refer to the substance of the bargaining among participants in the venture that defines who among the participants in a venture gives what, who among the participants in the venture gets what, and how and when those deliveries and receipts will take place.
  • Opportunity: Austin et al. defined the term “opportunity” as “any activity requiring the investment of scarce resources in hopes of a future return”.[10]  The entrepreneur must have a vision of a future that is better for him or her and must also be able to develop and implement a credible path to change the current situation to that desired future state.

People and financial resources

Austin et al. observed that, in many ways, the human and financial capital inputs essential to the entrepreneurial venture are quite comparable between social and commercial entrepreneurship.[11] The “people” element of the PCDO model includes those actively participate in the venture or who bring resources to the venture and includes both those within the organization and those outside the organization who must be involved in order for the venture to be successful. This element includes not only the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur such as his or her skills, attitudes, contacts, goals and values, but also the cumulative skills, attitudes, knowledge, contacts, goals and values of all participants that provide the mix of resources that contribute to the success of the venture.  According to Austin et al., “both commercial and social entrepreneurs must consider the managers, employees, funders, and other organizations critical to their success, and how to capture this human talent for their ventures”.[12]  For social ventures there will be a need for board members, managers and staff who believe in the mission and who have the unique skills and talents to help the entrepreneur bring the mission alive.  To attract these human resources, social entrepreneurs must have a strong reputation that engenders trust among those who might be willing to work with them, a factor that is all the more important given that the social entrepreneur is asking contributor to invest their time in a cause rather than a commercial business that can be assessed using objective performance measures.

While social entrepreneurs have needs with respect to human resources that are similar to those of commercial entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs are often unable to offer market rates to potential key hires and are generally not able to offer other incentives such as stock options unless they have elected to organize and operate their ventures using a for-profit organizational form.[13]  Because of these limitations, social entrepreneurs must develop different tools for motivating potential participants in the venture.  Social entrepreneurs also rely heavily on volunteers to serve in key positions, such as serving on the board of directors, and to carry out important activities such as fundraising, and working with volunteers creates special management issues that need to be understood and addressed by social entrepreneurs.  Issues relating to limited financial resources extend outside the organization also and many social entrepreneurs depend on the willingness of professional service providers such as lawyers and accountants to provide their service for free or at heavily reduced rates.

Austin et al. noted that while commercial entrepreneurs, once they have achieved a minimum level of economic success, will generally have access to capital from a range of investors and financial institutions offering a wide array of financing instruments and terms, social entrepreneurs have fewer channels for accessing unrestricted sources of capital and must also rely heavily on a range of funding sources such as individual contributions, foundation grants, member dues, user fees, and government payments.  Other unique issues that social entrepreneurs must confront is the need to be continuously engaged in some sort of fundraising activity given that revenues from operations rarely cover all of the costs associated with carrying out the organization mission and the lack of flexibility to shift the organization’s products or services quickly, as commercial entrepreneurs often do, to take advantage of new funding opportunities since such a transition will typically face opposition from participants who have become emotionally and psychologically invested in focusing on the current need or problem using the existing products and services.

Austin et al. concluded that while commercial and social entrepreneurs have similar needs with respect to human and financial resources, “social entrepreneurs are often faced with more constraints: limited access to the best talent; fewer financial institutions, instruments, and resources; and scarce unrestricted funding and inherent strategic rigidities, which hinder their ability to mobilize and deploy resources to achieve the organization’s ambitious goals”.[14]  While social entrepreneurship can be pursued using for-profit organizational forms, such a path creates challenges for social entrepreneurs with respect to maintaining a focus on the social mission while meeting the expectations of investors for economic returns.  Austin et al. advised that the constraints on their actions made it imperative for social entrepreneurs “to develop a large network of strong supporters, and an ability to communicate the impact of the venture’s work to leverage resources outside organizational boundaries that can enable them to achieve their goals”.[15]

Austin et al. also highlighted a specific managerial challenge for social entrepreneurs, namely the need to be able to manage “a wider diversity of relationships with funders, managers, and staff from a range of backgrounds, volunteers, board members, and other partners, with fewer management levers, as financial incentives are less readily available, and management authority over supporters, volunteer staff, and trustees is rather limited”.[16] In addition, social entrepreneurs must become adept at working collaboratively with other social entrepreneurs, for-profit businesses and governmental units to gain access to critical resources that the social entrepreneur cannot build and maintain on his or her own.  For example, social entrepreneurs will need to be able to work with outside for-profit vendors to develop information systems for communicating with members, volunteers and funders, and will need to have skills required to forge and maintain successful strategic alliances with corporate and governmental partners.[17]  Finally, Austin et al. suggested that it was important for social entrepreneurs to proactively participate in professional and sector-wide knowledge sharing networks in order to broaden their own skills and remained connected to ideas and talent available through other sector participants.

Austin et al. argued that social entrepreneurs needed to develop and remain intensely focused on their specific social value principal derived from scanning the context for opportunities and the availability of the human and financial resources necessary to achieve the greatest social impact.[18]  They cautioned social entrepreneurs about the dangers of becoming too obsessed on organizational aspects of their mission.  Austin et al. noted that it social entrepreneurs will naturally assume that the bigger the organization becomes, and the more resources it has at its disposal, the more effective it will be at creating social impact; however, many social entrepreneurs veer off track when furthering the organization becomes an end in and of itself.  Similar problems arise when social entrepreneurs are tempted to expand their mission beyond available resources.  Austin et al. pointed out that societal demand for social-value creation is enormous and social entrepreneurs will have more opportunities than they can possible handle.  As such, they need to pay careful attention to the scope of the opportunity that they can pursue effectively given the constraints on human and financial resources applicable to them.  Austin et al. also admonished social entrepreneurs to be open to working with complementary organizations outside of their own venture’s organizational boundaries to create social value and engage in networking activities with stakeholders in the relevant context to identify methods for collaborating with others in order to leverage resources that are outside of the social entrepreneur’s own organizational boundaries.

Context

The external context for entrepreneurship includes factors that are relevant to the conduct and outcome of the entrepreneurial activities but which are generally outside of the control of the entrepreneur.  Examples include the general economy, taxes and other regulations and the socio-political institutions in the areas in which the entrepreneur intends to operate. Specific contextual factors identified by Austin et al. included economic environment, tax policies, employment levels, technological advances, and social movements such as those involving labor, religion and politics.  All of these factors are important to both commercial and social entrepreneurs and all of them need to understand that context frames the opportunities and risks for every new venture and that they need to determine which factors must be consciously addressed from a strategic perspective and which are best left to play out as they will since the entrepreneur has limited time and ability to attend to everything that might have an impact on the venture.

A substantial amount of research has been conducted on the relationship between context and entrepreneurship generally and context and social entrepreneurship specifically.  For example, Meek et al. and Kerlin have argued that the incidence of environmental and social entrepreneurship in a given region or country is influenced by the broader institutional context (i.e., social norms and government incentives) and dominant socio-economic factors.[19]  Schick et al. contend that the most crucial factors relating to the success of ecopreneurial start-ups are the entrepreneur and the local culture.[20]  In their model for sustainability entrepreneurship, O’Neill et al. argued that various contextual factors materially influence the sustainability entrepreneurship process including regulatory, socio-cultural, place, macroeconomic, political, demographics, tax and environment[21].

Austin et al. explained the particular influence of various contextual factors on social entrepreneurs.[22]  For example, the philanthropic market that provides capital to social entrepreneurs is highly affected by economic activity: the philanthropic activities of for-profit organizations depend on the commercial success of their products and services, many non-profit endowment funds are invested in stock markets and the peaks and valleys of those market impact the amounts that funds are comfortable donating to social entrepreneurs and charitable contributions by individuals depend on their feelings about their level of discretionary income.  As for laws and regulations, Austin et al. stressed that social entrepreneurship will be impacted by laws regulating the tax-exempt status or operations of non-profits, tax policies that influence the amount of giving to the sector in which the social entrepreneur is operating, and specific political and social policies that affect the needs or resources available for certain types of issues most commonly addressed by social entrepreneurs (i.e., education, environment, health, and housing).  In addition, social entrepreneurs must be able to compete with other organizations in their own “industry” contexts for scarce resources needed in order to their ventures to be viable (e.g., philanthropic dollars, government grants and contracts, managerial talent, volunteers, community mindshare, political attention and clients or customers).

Austin et al. argued that while the critical contextual factors are analogous in many ways, the impact of the context on a social entrepreneur differs from that of a commercial entrepreneur because of the way the interaction of a social venture’s mission and performance measurement systems influences entrepreneurial behavior.  One difference cited by Austin et al. was the social entrepreneurs can, in many instances, achieve some degree of success with respect to their primary goal of social impact even in circumstances where the context would otherwise be inhospitable for commercial entrepreneurs.  For example, an economic downturn will generally make it difficult for commercial entrepreneurs to accumulate resources and identify viable economic markets; however, tough economic times intensify social needs and create opportunities for social entrepreneurs to take steps to meet those needs.  Social entrepreneurs can also make an impact with relatively small constituencies initially and then build on those successes to change the overall context by raising awareness and attention to a social issue and messaging about how they have been able to develop solutions that can be scaled with greater participation from others willing to join the movement.  Another factor mentioned by Austin et al. was that while the social marketplace does not reward entrepreneurs for superior performance as readily as commercial entrepreneurs are recognized in their marketplace, the marketplace for social entrepreneurship is more patient and is slow to punish inferior performance, perhaps because supporters of social entrepreneurs are most focused on their social mission and not as interested in emphasizing the same level of accountability and performance that is rigorously measured for commercial ventures.[23]

Austin et al. cautioned, however, that while the impact of contextual factors on social entrepreneurship is often ambiguous, perhaps causing social entrepreneurs to pay less attention to their operating context, they nonetheless should be doing appropriate monitoring of their context for opportunities and threats in order to develop an adaptive strategy that takes into account various contingencies.[24]   One obvious illustration of how monitoring can be important to a social entrepreneur is when it provide information about changes in direction and focus of philanthropic capital markets that can be used to identify useful new programs, fundraising strategies and potential alliances.

“Deal”

Austin et al. used the term “deal” to refer to the substance of the bargain that define who among the participants in a venture gives what, who among the participants in the venture gets what, and how and when those deliveries and receipts will take place.[25]  The deal emerges from a bargaining process that normally addresses topics such as economic benefits, social recognition, autonomy and decisions rights, satisfaction of deep personal needs, social interactions, fulfillment of generative and legacy desires, and delivery on altruistic goals.[26] Both commercial and social entrepreneurs need to engage in negotiations to create mutually beneficial contractual relationships (i.e., “deals”) with investors to gain access to financial resources and with potential participants with the skills and talent required in order for the venture to achieve its goals, whether economic or social.  However, according to Austin et al. the terms of these deals are fundamentally different for commercial and social entrepreneurs due to the way in which resources must be mobilized and because of the ambiguities associated with performance measurement.  Austin et al. explained specific differences with respect to so-called “value transactions” in the following areas[27]: 

  • Given the relative dearth of financial awards and incentives available to social entrepreneurs, they must rely more heavily on creative strategies that emphasize non-financial incentives in order to recruit, retain, and motivate staff, volunteers, members, and funders.
  • While commercial entrepreneurs are used to dealing with consumers with bargaining power, including the ability to switch their buying activities to competitors of the entrepreneur, social entrepreneurs are generally working with consumer with little or no economic capability and few alternatives for obtaining and consuming the products and services available from the social entrepreneur. While this certainly impacts the nature of the “deal” with consumers for social entrepreneurs, it does not mean that they operate without a market since they often must bargain with third-party payers and other sources of subsidy working on behalf of the ultimate consumers.
  • While commercial entrepreneurs have a wider range of financial deals to consider and generally can strike bargains with investors and other sources of financing that provide them with more flexibility and time to put the funds to good use, social entrepreneurs work with investors that provide capital that covers only a small portion of the needs of the venture and which will typically be exhausted with a short period of time.[28] As a result, according to Austin et al., “social entrepreneurs are thus required to spend a significant portion of their time, on an ongoing basis, cobbling together numerous grants, many of which come with spending restrictions and varied expectations of accountability, just to meet day-to-day operating costs”.
  • Striking a bargain with investors is complicated by the absence of an objective measure of performance similar to the economic returns and valuation metrics used in structuring deals for commercial ventures. Since the goal of social entrepreneurship is to have social impact, and the quantification or precise measurement of social impact is complicated, Austin et al. counseled social entrepreneurs to focus on, and be able to explain, their mission, theory of change and the process by which their social innovations will eventually have a social impact and generate superior social returns.

Austin et al. commented that social entrepreneurs face different challenge from their counterparts in the commercial sector when negotiating the terms of the deal with social investors and other looking to participate in the mission of the social entrepreneur.  Philanthropic funders and volunteers are less interested in the economic returns and incentives offered by commercial entrepreneurs and instead bring a different set of personal motivations and requirements that must be acknowledged and satisfied by social entrepreneurs.  For example, a donor may want a position on the board of directors, impose restriction on the use of the funds provided by the donor and/or require that the social entrepreneur provide reports on the use of the funds and the progress of the organization toward achieving the projected social impact.  The goals and requirements of various donors may sometimes be conflicting, add obligations to an already full agenda for the social entrepreneur and limit the social entrepreneur’s flexibility in allocating resources to reach organizational goals.  All this led Austin et al. to observe that “negotiating deals between the social entrepreneur and various resource providers that create alignment between goals and incentives is considerably more complex and challenging in social than in commercial entrepreneurship”.[29]

Opportunity

An entrepreneur sees an opportunity as a desired future state that is different from the present and which he or she believes is possible to achieve.  In order to exploit an opportunity in either the commercial or social sector, there must be an investment of scarce resources in hopes of a future return.  In general, both commercial and social entrepreneurs are concerned about customers, suppliers, entry barriers, substitutes, rivalry, and the economics of the venture; however, Austin et al. emphasized that a key difference between them is that commercial entrepreneurship focuses on economic returns while social entrepreneurship focuses on social returns.[30]  Austin et al. observed that “change” is generally difficult and it is challenging for both commercial and social entrepreneurs to bring followers together to agree on a common definition of opportunity and change that can be shared and used as motivation for joint action by the multiple constituencies that must work together in order to create change.  For example, change usually impacts power relationships, economic interests, personal networks, and even the self-image of participants.

In addition, the opportunities pursued by the two types of entrepreneurs vary due to fundamental difference in missions and response to market failure.  According to Austin et al., commercial entrepreneurship tends to focus on breakthroughs and new needs, whereas social entrepreneurship often focuses on serving basic, long-standing needs more effectively through innovative approaches, often when there has been some type of market failure that has caused commercial entrepreneurs to abandon attempts to service the need.  Austin et al. explained that commercial entrepreneurs are only interested in opportunities that involve a large, or growing total market size and the industry must be structurally attractive; however, social entrepreneurs are less concerned about market size so long as there is a recognized social need, demand or market failure.

Austin et al. observed that while commercial entrepreneurs often find it challenging to identify and capture opportunities that are unexploited, profitable and high-growth, social entrepreneurs usually have little problem finding unmet social needs or demands, particularly since they can either finance their activities through revenues generated from operations or, if necessary, turn to donors to provide capital in the event that the activity is not financial sustainable on its own (e.g., if the ultimate consumers are not able to cover enough of the costs of the goods or services for the social entrepreneur to “break even”).  While have so many opportunities would seem to be an advantage for a social entrepreneur, Austin et al. cautioned that the breadth and intensity of the needs among the consumers often propels social entrepreneurs into unexpected and rapid growth caused by pressures from funders, demand for their products or services, and the social entrepreneurs’ own conviction that growth is necessary in order for the organization to achieve the desired social impact.[31]

While growth due to acceptance in the marketplace fulfills the personal needs of social entrepreneurs and builds upon their values, such situations may lead to a crisis for the social entrepreneur if expansion comes before he or she has had a change to make plans on how to manage the pace of growth.  Austin et al. advised that social entrepreneurs need to realize that they have great latitude in the paths that they can choose to pursue their chosen opportunities and that there may be times when growth is not the best approach to take in order to achieve the goals of the organization or have greatest social impact.  Lack of financial resources is obviously one reason for not pursuing rapid growth; however, social entrepreneurs must also make a candid assessment of their organizational capacities with respect to human resources and the impact that growth might have on the quality of products and services the organization offers.

If growth is the preferred approach, the social entrepreneur must plan for a long-term growth strategy and avoid actions that needlessly squander the limited resources of the organization.  Social entrepreneurs also need to recognize that while they might be intrigued by scaling the organization directly, the more prudent approach is often partnering with other organizations to work together to disseminate social innovation.  While commercial entrepreneurs do partner with others in alliances to tap into needed resources, they are often reluctant to do so out of concern for losing control over their innovations and/or diluting their profits and market share.  These concerns are not relevant to social entrepreneurs who should be primarily interested in bring their innovations to the largest consumer group possible.  For example, a social entrepreneur may consciously limit the scope of products and services that his or her organization offers directly while partnering with other organizations that offer complimentary products and services and working with those partners to make it easy for the ultimate consumers to have all of their needs addressed seamlessly and efficiently.

This post is part of the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project’s extensive materials on  Entrepreneurship and Sustainability and Entrepreneurship.

Notes

[1] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[2] J. Dees and B. Anderson, “For-profit social ventures”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education (special issue on social entrepreneurship), 2 (2003), 1; and. J. Emerson and F. Twersky (Eds), New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation (San Francisco: Roberts Foundation, Homeless Economic Development Fund, 1996).

[3] J. Austin, H. Leonard, E. Reficco and J. Wei-Skillern, Corporate social entrepreneurship: A new vision of CSR. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 05-021 (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2004).

[4] J. Dees, “The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”, Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University (1998).

[5] T. Reis, Unleashing the new resources and entrepreneurship for the common good: A scan, synthesis and scenario for action (Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 1999); and J. Thompson, “The world of the social entrepreneur”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5) (2002), 412.

[6] S. Zadek and S. Thake, “Send in the social entrepreneurs”, New Statesman, 26 (1997), 31.

[7] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[8] See also R. Kanter and D. Summers, “Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach” in W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 154.

[9] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1 (citing W. Sahlman, “Some thoughts on business plans”, in W. Sahlman, H. Stevenson, M. Roberts and A. Bhide (Eds), The entrepreneurial venture (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996), 138); and P. van Eijck, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Institutional profile and cross-country comparison Denmark & US and its Viability (Rotterdam: Bachelor Thesis in Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organizations Economics from Erasmus School of Economics, January 2012).  For further discussion of the “PCDO” analytical framework, see “Research on Entrepreneurship” in “Entrepreneurship: A Library of Resources for Sustainable Entrepreneurs” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).

[10] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1,5 (citing W. Sahlman, “Some thoughts on business plans”, in W. Sahlman, H. Stevenson, M. Roberts and A. Bhide (Eds), The entrepreneurial venture (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996), 138, 140).

[11] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[12] Id.

[13] S. Oster, Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and cases (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

[14] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] J. Austin, The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and business succeed through strategic alliances (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000).

[18] Id.

[19] W. Meek, D. Pacheco and J. York, “The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context”, Journal of Business Venturing [e-journal] 25(5) (2010), 493; and J. Kerlin, “A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations [e-journal], 21(2) (2010), 162.

[20] H. Schick, S. Marxen and J. Freimann, “Sustainability issues for start-up entrepreneurs”, Greener Management International [e-journal] (38) (2002), 56.

[21] G. O’Neill, J. Hershauer and J. Golden, “The Cultural Context of Sustainability Entrepreneurship”, Greener Management International [e-journal] 55 (2009), 33.

[22] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[23] C. Letts, A. Grossman and W. Ryan, High performance nonprofit organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact (New York: Wiley, 1999).

[24] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[25] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[26] R Martin and S. Osberg, “Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2007, 28.

[27] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[28] C. Letts, A. Grossman and W. Ryan, High performance nonprofit organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact (New York: Wiley, 1999).

[29] J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[30] Adapted from J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1) (2006), 1.

[31] Id. (citing J. Bradach, “Going to scale”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1 (2003), 18; S. Colby, N. Stone and P. Carttar, “Zeroing in on impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2 (2004), 24; and J. Dees, B. Anderson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Scaling social impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1 (2004), 24).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s