The intent of this research is to look into the function of networking for societal enterprisers. The research conducts three instance surveies of Indian societal enterprisers and investigates the function of networking for these enterprisers in put to deathing their concerns. In the survey, a literature reappraisal uniting traditional web theory and entrepreneurship theory with recent research on societal entrepreneurship is presented.
The survey shows that networking plays a function in enabling the societal enterpriser to take on a many-sided function set. Hence, the function of networking can be seen as assisting the societal enterpriser to be present and active in different functions at the same time, which helps the societal enterpriser in pull offing the tenseness built-in in running a commercial concern.
What is societal entrepreneurship?
Social entrepreneurship is about acknowledging a societal job and utilizing entrepreneurship rules to form, make, and pull off a venture to do societal alteration.
What is societal enterpriser?
A socialA entrepreneurA isA defined asA theA personA whoA takes inaugural in carryingA aA
“ RoleA inA bringingA togetherA philanthropicA motivesA andA businessA acumen ” A ( NordicA InnovationA Centre, A 2009, A
p.A 21 ) .A
Social entrepreneurship has caught the eyes of theoreticians around the universe in recent old ages ( Dees, 2001 ; Leadbeater 1997 ; Thompson 2002 ) . A batch of research has been done on the societal entrepreneurship from both academic and concern point of position. Not merely has academic research been inspired by Professor Muhammed Yunus by looking into the construct from a development point of position ( Mair and Seelos,
2007 ) , but societal entrepreneurship has besides progressively caught the eyes of concern research workers ( Bloom
and Chatterji, 2009 ; Thompson, 2002 ) . Social entrepreneurship provides an interesting position on concern research, as it apparently combines the facet of normally known entrepreneurial driving force with an underlying thrust to impact society towards the better ( Dees, 2001 ) . In modern society, with increasing demands on companies to ‘think globally ‘ and act consequently ( Matten, Palazzo, and Scherer, 2009 ) , these societal concern enterprises become significantly discernible, non the least sing the nature of their societal missions, which are frequently inherently characterized by a planetary concern ( Bamburg, 2006 ; Bloom and Chatterji, 2009 ) .
Understanding the behaviour and driving forces of societal enterprisers, widely defined as the 1s set abouting societal entrepreneurship, can intensify the penetration into how a modern concern can take a coincident function of both a profitaˆ?oriented concern and a socially responsible histrion. A valuable beginning of inspiration for this research originates from a fact that societal enterprisers are utilizing networking to advance their merchandise and concern,
For eg: Prateek Khandelwal, who initiated a concern offering ecologically, produced paper bags in 2006. Specifically highlighted the usage of networking to place himself and his concern mission: “ I tend to transform every societal state of affairs – from a nuptials to a formal meeting – into a ‘working ‘ infinite. I ever grasp the chance to discourse and vent my sentiments, irrespective of the fortunes, and I often find myself in arguments about entrepreneurship, moral, manner, and the environment. This is how I connect with people, and it leads to new connexions and ideas, animating me to constantly act in new waies. This remark provides an interesting position on how a immature enterpriser with a societal mission apprehends different societal forums as chances to develop his concern.
1.2 Problem Area
I found it relevant to analyze a group of market participants that has increased in figure in a comparatively short clip period, to see how these participants interact with their milieus to determine their concerns. This is interesting as the societal enterprisers take on a variable set of function dimensions, including a corporate, a personal, and a sociallyaˆ?driven function ( KKaˆ?stiftelsen, 2009 ) . Existing research points to that the function of networking for enterprisers is to widen the single plus base, comparatively small account of the map of networking for this group of societal enterprisers was found. With the comparatively new academic field of societal entrepreneurship as a starting point, this paper is set out to do three inaˆ?depth instance surveies of Indian societal enterprisers and their networking behaviour.
1.3 Purposes and Research Question
It has been argued that houses are dependent on relationships with their external environments in order to be able to make competitory advantages in markets, since resources critical to a house can stretch across the house ‘s boundary lines ( Dyer and Singh, 1998 ) . In their classical proviso, No Business is an Island, Hakansson and Snehota ( 1989 ; updated version 2006 ) argue that houses are nil without their relationships. The intent of this research is to understand the function of networking for societal enterprisers in put to deathing their concerns. In order to carry through that intent, the survey aims to carry on three instance surveies of Indian societal enterprisers in order to reply the undermentioned research inquiry:
What function does networking drama for the three societal enterprisers included in the survey?
1.4 Previous research
Throughout the old ages, different theories have provided several penetrations into what constitutes and drives the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. The enterpriser is typically referred to as a individual with the ability to hold on a concern chance in a context and to turn such an chance into a venture with aid from important personal motive and thrust ( Shane, 2003 ) , and enterprisers are claimed to represent a major driver of invention in economic systems ( Drucker, 1985 ) . It is likely no happenstance that the term “ societal enterpriser ” contains the word enterpriser, since the societal enterpriser is likewise recognized as a individual with a important drive force and motive ( Dees, 2001 ) .
A chief job confronted with when covering with research on societal enterprisers lies in the fact that the field does non dwell of much consensus sing how a societal enterpriser is specifically defined. Research workers seem to hold on that a societal enterpriser in one manner or another operates with a certain mission in head ( Dees, 2001 ; Leadbeater, 1997 ; Mair and Marti, 2006 ) ; such a mission is related to facets such as the environment, the community, society at big, moralss, etc. However, no consensus sing the extent to which the mission is cardinal to the societal enterpriser ‘s concern has been
reached. Writers stating that there is minimal demand on what focal point on societal mission is required for an enterpriser to measure up as specifically societal have questioned the term societal entrepreneurship
In a survey from 2006, Austin et al compares societal and commercial entrepreneurship. In the survey, Austin et Al ( 2006 ) highlight the function of networking for societal enterprisers particularly for mobilising resources ; the ground for this is claimed to be that a societal enterpriser must trust on a strong web of contacts that will supply him with resources since he provides fiscal inducements to a lesser extent than a commercial enterpriser. In The universe of the societal enterpriser, Thompson ( 2002 ) underlines the demand of equal webs for societal enterprisers in order for such histrions to be able to interchange thoughts and to assist each other.
A recent study published on societal entrepreneurship in India, has the purpose of increasing the figure of societal entrepreneurial enterprises in the state. Sing networking, the study states that societal entrepreneurship frequently implies networking and partnership across social sectors. Particularly, the study underlines the function of the populace sector for the societal enterpriser, apart from the civil society and the private sector more normally mentioned in combination with societal entrepreneurship. ( KKaˆ?stiftelsen, 2009 ) .
A recent maestro ‘s research from Stockholm University focused on look intoing the concern conditions for societal enterprisers in India. One of the decisions of that survey was that the Indian concern context offers small entree to relevant cognition and advice to the societal enterpriser for making ventures. ( DeCasas and von Schantz, 2008 ) .
1.5 Contribution made by the research
By uniting a web attack to entrepreneurship with empirical informations from three Indian societal enterprisers, this research aims to supply an penetration into the function of networking for societal enterprisers. By casting visible radiation on the function of networking for three selected societal enterprisers, the purpose is to add to academia a new position on societal entrepreneurship based on qualitative observations of how the societal enterprisers interact with their milieus. The writers believe such an add-on to be valuable and relevant for several academic subjects in the treatment of societal entrepreneurship.
3. Literature Reappraisal
3.1 Introduction to the Literature Review
This subdivision aims to supply the reader with penetration into the literature used as a background in analysing the function of networking for the societal enterprisers included in the survey. By depicting cardinal web theory, the purpose is to convey forward the function of networking for a societal enterpriser in a web. In add-on, by showing a theoretical position of enterprisers ‘ networking, the research besides highlights how webs and networking are of import for enterprisers. This will be followed by a presentation of theory on the cardinal components of societal entrepreneurship. To round off this subdivision of the research, a description of the map of the literature reappraisal for the coming analysis will be given.
3.2 Why Networking?
An appropriate starting point for understanding web behaviour is to see the basic inquiry: why do companies web? There is by and large a wellaˆ?established reply in theory to this inquiry, which contends “ no concern is an island ” ( Hakansson and Snehota, 1989 ; 2006 ) . The relational position, presented by Dyer and Singh ( 1998 ) , high spots that “ the ( Dis ) advantages of an single house are frequently linked to the ( Dis ) advantages of the web of relationships in which the house is embedded ” ( P.
660 ) . This statement is in line with the acknowledgment within concern scheme research that the boundaries of the house are debatable to specify ( Foss, 2005 ) . Hakansson and Snehota ( 2006 ) explain the substance of this boundary job by reasoning that an organisation ‘s uninterrupted interaction with other histrions in its context adds to the organisation with a significance and function. Gadde et Al ( 2003 ) farther stress this proposition: “ The basic point of going for an industrial web attack is that houses operate in the context of interrelated concern relationships, organizing webs. ” ( p. 357 ) With these theoretical mentions as a staring point, it is apparent that relationships make sense, as they constitute a beginning of designation of the web histrion, the house, itself. In this facet, networking as an activity, conducted with an purpose to construct and pull off such relationships, makes sense every bit good.
3.3 The Roles of Networks and Networking
3.3.1 The Role of the Network as a Structure
The Actorsaˆ?Resourcesaˆ?Activities ( ARA ) theoretical account, ab initio presented by Hakansson and Johansson in 1992, nowadayss three variables that constitute a web: histrions, resources, and activities. In the theoretical account, histrions
can be any persons, groups of persons, houses, parts of houses or groups of houses ( Ibid ) . Resources include all sorts of assets that can be valuable to an histrion ( Ibid ) . Activities refer to histrions reassigning, interchanging, uniting, developing, or making resources by utilizing other resources ( Ibid ) . Hakansson and Johansson ( 1992 ) argue that histrions are involved in a web in order to, by executing activities, obtain resources that other histrions possess or have control over ; therefore the activities performed by histrions are based on a strive for control over resources. This is agreed upon by Heene and Sanches ( 1997 ) , who claim that the resources that a house can take advantage of can be found both within the house itself but besides within other organisations.
Easton and Lenney ( 2009 ) have taken this basic web theoretical account one measure farther by adding a 4th dimension, the function of committednesss, into the original ARAaˆ?model. By including committednesss, the construct of histrion purposiveness is incorporated into the theoretical account: “ Actors are end driven, ends lead to purposes and eventually to actions ” ( Easton and Lenney, 2009, p. 554 ) . Hence, committednesss “ provide a important nexus between the ends of histrions and their actions ” ( Easton and Lenney, 2009, p. 557 ) . Introducing committednesss can therefore heighten an apprehension of web interactions as it takes into consideration the fact that prosecuting in webs constitutes a committedness, therefore integrating outlooks of functions and people into the theoretical account. The function of committednesss in determining webs and, peculiarly, concern relationships is farther underlined by Araujo and Mouzas ( 1994 ) , claiming that each concern relationship is determined by three simple forces: sphere consensus, end mutual exclusiveness, and mutualist mutualism. The first of these three refers to the sphere in which histrions interact and is related to the definition of boundaries, function sets, and outlooks in the relationship ( Ford, 1978 ) , and the consensus among these histrions refer to the grade of understanding over prevalent maps and functions. Mouzas and Naude ( 2007 ) in a recent paper bring another critical dimension into the kineticss behind these types of function constructions as they argue that “ maps and functions change dynamically over clip ” ( p. 63 ) which can be seen as “ efforts to redefine roleaˆ?sets and to redraw the boundaries of the web ” ( Ibid ) in which the histrions are embedded.
Networks can supply histrions with legality ( Aldrich and Fiol, 1994 ) . Meyer and Rowan ( 1977 ) discussed the impact of organisations ‘ strive for legitimacy on the constructions and schemes chosen by organisations ; they identified legitimacy edifice as a drive force behind determination doing sing organisational constructions and schemes. This implies that a ground for an histrion to prosecute in webs is strive for legitimacy. Not merely does legitimacy constructing constitute a ground for fall ining a web ; legitimacy is besides important for histrions when inside a web. Weber ( 1968 ) argued for the importance of
legitimacy for histrions in societal constructions. Harmonizing to Human and Provan ( 2000 ) , “ legitimacy is critical to the development of all societal systems, whether the focal point is on the development of involvement groups, organisations, or webs ” ( p. 328 ) , and social credence of an administration is dependent on the support from relevant histrions in the administration ‘s milieus ( Ruef and Scott, 1998 ) ; this implies that administrations are dependent on the credence of histrions with whom they have some connexion. Zeitz and Zimmerman ( 2002 ) argue that “ legitimacy is an of import resource for deriving other resources ” ( P.
1 ) , connoting that legitimacy is required to be able to obtain other resources in a web.
3.3.2 The Role of Networking as an Activity
Networking refers to the activity of constructing relationships and linking with other histrions for assorted grounds. Gadde et Al ( 2003 ) highlight that resources in a web are positioned in a configuration ; the writers underline the importance for a house of utilizing this resource configuration in an efficient manner. By stating so, Gadde et Al ( 2003 ) aims to cast visible radiation on the fact that “ resources ever have ‘hidden ‘ and undeveloped dimensions that can be explored and developed in interaction with concern spouses ” ( P.
360 ) . Therefore, the writers think that uninterrupted interaction with others in the web can convey frontward new sorts of resources ( Ibid ) , and from this statement it can be understood that some resources do non be unless two parties really interact. Hakansson and Snehota ( 2006 ) argue that “ the effectivity of a concern house is non given by the ownership of the ‘right ‘ set of resources accessed by a ‘right ‘ set of relationships at each minute in clip ” ( p. 273 ) , as they foremost claimed back in 1989, but alternatively “ by the engagement in relevant alteration processes – the motion, in the context of the company ” ( Ibid ) . Hakansson and Snehota ( 2006 ) support this statement with prevalent empirical research corroborating “ the importance of the uninterrupted reaˆ?interpretation of images of the web context ” ( p. 273 ) . This brings forth an statement that uninterrupted interactions assist houses in understanding the context in which they act, which has major deductions for strategic alteration and concern development.
Networking as an activity can besides be seen from the position of societal capital, which can be described as relational resources embedded in personal relationships and ties between people ( Burt, 1992 ; Loury,
1977 ) . Lin ( 1999 ) agrees on this resourceaˆ?oriented position by mentioning to societal capital as “ assets in webs ” ( p. 1 ) . Lin ( 1999 ) furthermore nowadayss three accounts for why embedded resources in webs will add to the results of histrions ‘ activities in the web ; foremost, societal ties facilitate flow of information ; 2nd, societal ties have the power to influence histrions ; 3rd, societal ties can work as
enfranchisements of an histrion ‘s handiness to webs and relationships. A broader definition of societal
capital besides includes societal norms associated with relationships ( Coleman, 1990 ) . Granovetter ( 1992 ) elaborated on this subject by doing a differentiation between structural and relational embeddedness in webs ; the structural dimension refers to the location of an histrion in a web and how specific locations can be specifically advantageous for the histrion, whereas the relational dimension refers to how normative facets, such as trust, impact relationships. In an interview with Professor Bjorn Axelsson ( 2009 ) , he touched upon such this facet when he claimed that people in webs might execute certain undertakings as they feel that they are expected to make so by their opposite number in the web. This statement indicate that connexions to other histrions in a web may intend that histrions do non entirely act harmonizing to their ain greed and selfaˆ?interest, but instead in ways they are expected to, which is besides highlighted by Ghoshal and Tsai ( 1998 ) in a treatment on societal capital.
From the above theory reappraisal, it has been highlighted that houses chiefly engage in relationships with other histrions in a web in order to obtain, make, exchange and reassign resources by interaction, every bit good as to construct legitimacy. The reappraisal has besides shown that relationship committednesss and societal connexions can hold impact on the result of networking since such features of relationships can do histrions move non entirely by selfaˆ?interest. Now, this web treatment will turn to the enterpriser specifically.
3.4 The Role of Networking for an Entrepreneur
Harmonizing to Anderson et Al ( 2008 ) , “ webs are recognized to lend to entrepreneurial capacity
by widening the person ‘s plus base of human, societal, market, fiscal and proficient capacity ” ( P.
125 ) . This statement indicates that prosecuting in networking is a manner for an enterpriser to entree more assets than those he/she possesses. Besides, it has been claimed that the existent initiating of entrepreneurship, in footings of chance staining, may be a merchandise of moving in a web ( Hills et Al,
1997 ) . Not merely can the chance descrying be a consequence of networking, but Johannisson and Peterson ( 1984 ) argue that networking can besides take to the existent determination to establish an endeavor when you identify the resources possessed by others in the web.
Harmonizing to Dowling and Lechner ( 2003 ) , the little graduated table of an entrepreneurial endeavor after a startaˆ? up lead to that an enterpriser usage his/her societal webs in order to construct up his/her concern. One illustration is that networking is merely used to make gross revenues ( Ibid ) . Other cardinal motives for an enterpriser to prosecute in networking have been argued ; networking provides debuts to concern
associates ( Birley, 1985 ) ; networking generates selfaˆ?confidence ( Alexanderson et al 1994 ) ;
enterprisers can derive motive, support, and encouragement from networking ( Tjosvold and Weicker, 1993 ) . Because of this importance of networking for an enterpriser, much clip is dedicated by an enterpriser to keep his/her webs ( Greve and Salaff, 2003 ) .
It has been recognised that enterprisers are non independent histrions who act independently of their societal contexts, but are instead embedded in such contexts ( Granovetter 1985 ; Aldrich and Zimmer
1986 ) ; an enterpriser has been identified as an histrion which is a consequence of its societal environment ( Anderson and Miller, 2003 ) . Therefore, an enterpriser ‘s ability to descry chances is impacted by societal interaction ( Ibid ) . Johannisson ( 1988 ) has argued that societal contexts can hold two impacts on an enterpriser ; they can restrain entrepreneurship and at the same clip aid enterprisers to make beyond their original boundaries. Interestingly, sing societal contexts, Anderson et Al ( 2008 ) claim that “ exclusion from the mainstream due to societal group origins has besides long been argued to excite
‘outsider ‘ entrepreneurship and may besides bring forth specific networked entrepreneurial communities. ”
( p. 125 ) .
3.5 Social Entrepreneurship
Leadbeater ‘s ( 1997 ) part to the research country of societal entrepreneurship, The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, was among the first commissariats within the field and provides a cardinal theoretical position of the construct of societal entrepreneurship. Leadbeater ( 1997 ) refers to a societal enterpriser as a individual of two comparatively balanced dimensions ; a societal enterpriser carries specific features that can be derived from the looks “ societal ” on the one manus and “ enterpriser ” on the other manus. From the societal position, a societal enterpriser promotes wellaˆ?being, wellness, and public assistance with societal capital as its nucleus plus ( Ibid ) . From an entrepreneurial point of position, Leadbeater ( 1997 ) argues that a societal enterpriser is superior in “ descrying unmet demands and mobilising underutilized resources to run into these demands ” ( p. 11 ) . Furthermore, the writer claims that thrust and finding characterise a societal enterpriser, but underlines that “ societal enterprisers are driven by a mission, instead than by the chase of net income or stockholder value ” ( p. 11 ) . Leadbeater ( 1997 ) identifies a societal enterpriser ‘s sector of activity as the intersection countries between the private, the populace, and the voluntary sectors, as
shown by the shaded country in Figure 1.
The societal enterpriser ‘s country of activity: Shaded intersection countries
Figure 1: Beginnings of Social Entrepreneurship ( Leadbeater, 1997, p. 10 )
This position of a societal enterpriser as active in the intersection between sectors is shared by Dees ( 2001 ) , who argues that the comparatively new term societal entrepreneurship, that describes a non so new phenomenon, is “ of import in that it implies a blurring of sector boundaries ” ( p. 1 ) . In contrast to Leadbeater ( 1997 ) nevertheless, Dees ( 2001 ) specifically speaks of the intersection of the private and the societal sectors as the country of activity for a societal enterpriser. Along the lines of Leadbeater ‘s ( 1997 ) statement, Dees ( 2001 ) besides puts frontward that “ societal enterprisers look for the most effectual methods of functioning their societal missions ” ( p. 1 ) and “ missionaˆ?related impact becomes the cardinal standard, non wealth creative activity ” ( p. 2 ) which, the writer claims, “ affects how entrepreneurs perceive and assess chances ” ( Ibid ) .
A societal enterpriser ‘s focal point on a societal mission is farther confirmed by Mair and Marti ( 2006 ) , who claim that “ societal entrepreneurship differs from other signifiers of entrepreneurship in that it gives higher precedence to societal value creation-by catalysing societal alteration and/or providing to societal needs-than to value gaining control ” ( p. 43 ) . This focal point on societal mission is shared every bit good as farther specified by Thompson ( 2002 ) , who points to a mission that refers chiefly to assisting others ; a societal enterpriser is person “ with qualities and behaviours that we associate with the concern enterpriser but who operate in the community and /is/ more concerned with lovingness and assisting than with ‘making money ‘ ” ( p. 413 ) .
3.6 The Function of the Literature Review
The literature on the function of webs and networking to histrions in general and enterprisers in peculiar is dominated by sing a commercial histrion, chiefly constructing commercial concern
relationships for profitaˆ?related intents by endeavoring for resources in a commercial context.
The literature reappraisal has nevertheless presented a societal enterpriser as an histrion that carries some kind of societal mission and Acts of the Apostless across sector boundaries ; harmonizing to Leadbeater ( 1997 ) , the sectors representing a societal enterpriser ‘s playing field are the private, public, and voluntary sectors.
Because of a societal enterpriser ‘s motions across sectors, it is possible to expect that this type of histrion carries features differing from a commercial enterpriser and that networking dramas an of import function for that sort of histrion. In order to look into what function networking dramas for the societal enterprisers included in this survey, the map of the literature reappraisal is to represent a background, instead than an analysis foundation or templet, when look intoing the function of networking for this new group of histrions.
9.1 Printed Beginnings
Adamic, L.A. , Huberman, B.A. , Tyler, J.R. and Wu, F. , ( 2003 ) Information Flow in Social Groups ; Physics Department, Stanford University ; www.hpl.hp.com/ research/idl/papers/flow/flow.pdf ; Accessed December, 1, 2009.
Aldrich, H. E. , and Fiol, C. M. ( 1994 ) Fools haste in? The institutional context of industry creative activity ; Academy of Management Review ; 19 pp. 645aˆ?670.
Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. ( 1986 ) Entrepreneurship through societal webs, in Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. ( explosive detection systems ) The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship ; Cambridge, Ballinger.
Alexanderson, O. , Johannisson, B. , Nowicki, K. and Senneseth, K. ( 1994 ) Beyond lawlessness and organisation: enterprisers in contextual webs Entrepreneurship & A ; Regional Development ; 6, pp
Alvesson, M. & A ; Skoldberg, K. ( 1994 ) , Tolkning och reflektion ; Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Anderson, A.R. , Drakopoulou Dodd, S. , and Jack, S. ( 2008 ) Change and the development of entrepreneurial webs over clip: a processual position ; Entrepreneurship & A ; Regional Development ; 20, pp 125-159
Anderson, A. and Miller, C. ( 2003 ) Class affairs: homo and societal capital in the entrepreneurial procedure ; Journal of Socioaˆ?Economics ; 32, pp 17-36.
Antoncic, B. and Hoang, H. ( 2003 ) Networkaˆ?based research in entrepreneurship: A critical reappraisal ; Journal of Business Venturing ; 18, pp 165-187.
Araujo, L. and Mouzas, S. ( 1994 ) Key history
concern development, in Biemans, W. and Ghauri, P.
( Eds ) , Meeting the Challenges of New Frontiers, Proceedings of the tenth Annual IMP Conference, Groningen, Holland, pp. 59aˆ?80.
Austin, J. , Stevenson, H. , Wieaˆ?Skillern, J ( 2006 ) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Lapp, Different,
or Both? ; Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
30 ( 1 ) , pp 1-22.
Bamburg, J. ( 2006 ) Geting to Scale – Turning your Business Without Selling Out in Konsten att vaxa med varderingarna I behall ( explosive detection systems. ) ; Bookhouse Publishing 2008.
Bell, J. ( 2000 ) . Introduktion boulder clay forskningsmetodik.
3rd edition. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Birley, S. ( 1985 ) The function of webs in the entrepreneurial procedure, Journal of Business Venturing ; 1, pp 107-117.
Bloom, P.N. , and Chatterji, A.K. , ( 2009 ) Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact ; California Management Review ; 51 ; 3, p. 114aˆ?133.
Burt, R. S. ( 1992 ) Structural holes: The societal construction of competition ; Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Christie, M.J. , and Honig, B. , ( 2006 ) Social entrepreneurship: New research findings Journal of World Business ; Editorial ; 41, pp 1-5.
Coleman, J. S. ( 1990 ) Foundations of societal theory ;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Coombes, S.M. and Murphy, P.J. , ( 2008 ) A Model of Social Entrepreneurial Discovery ; Journal of Business Ethics ( 2009 ) ; 87, pp. 325-336.
DeCasas, C. , and von Schantz, H. ( 2008 ) Do good and make good – a survey of the concern clime for societal concerns in India ; Research available at: www2.fek.su.se/uppsats/uppsats/2008/Magister/02
53/Magisteruppsats_socialt_foretagande_HT08.pdf ; Accessed November 30, 2009.
Dees, G. ( 2001 ) . The significance of societal entrepreneurship ; www.caseatduke.org/documents/ dees_sedef.pdf Accessed on November 25, 2009. Dowling, M. and Lechner, C. ( 2003 ) Firm webs: external relationships as beginnings for the growing and fight of entrepreneurial houses ; Entrepreneurship & A ; Regional Development ; 15, pp
Drucker, P.F. , ( 1985 ) The Discipline
of Innovation ; Harvard Business Review ( Reprint in
August 2002 ) ; p. 5aˆ?10.
Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H. ( 1998 ) The Relational Position: Concerted Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage ; Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp
Easton, G. and Lenney, P. ( 2009 ) Actors, resources, activities and committednesss ; Industrial Marketing Management ; 38, pp. 553-561.
Eklund, L. , ( 2009 ) Vart Klimat ; Norstedts Akademiska
Foss, N. J. ( 2005 ) Strategy, economic organisation and the cognition economic system ; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ford, D. ( 1978 ) Stability factors in industrial selling channels ; Industrial Marketing Management ; Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 410aˆ?22.
Gadde, Laˆ?E. , Huemer, L. and Hakansson, H. ( 2003 ) Strategizing in industrial webs ; Industrial Marketing Management ; 32 pp. 357aˆ?364.
Ghosal, S. and Tsai, W. ( 1998 ) Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks ; The Academy of Management Journal ; Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.
Granovetter, M. ( 1985 ) Economic action and societal construction: the job of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology ; Vol. 91, No.3, pp. 481aˆ?510.
Granovetter, M. S. ( 1992 ) Problems of account in economic sociology. In Nohria, N. , and Eccles, R. , ( Eds. ) , Networks and organisations: Structure, signifier and action ; pp. 25-26. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Greve, A. and Salaff, J. ( 2003 ) Social webs and entrepreneurship ; Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice ; 28, pp 1-23.
Gulati, R. , Nohria, N. , and Zaheer, A. ( 2000 ) . Strategic webs ; Strategic Management Journal ; 21, pp
Heene, A. and Sanches, R. , ( 1997 ) Reinventing strategic direction: New theory and pattern for competenceaˆ?based competition. European Management Journal ; 15 ( 3 ) , pp 303- 317.
Hockerts, K. ( 2007 ) ; quoted in CSR Driven
Invention ; see Nordic Innovation Centre ( 2009 ) .
Hakansson, H. , and Johansson, J. ( 1992 ) . A theoretical account of industrial webs. In Axelson, B. and Easton, G. ( Eds. ) , Industrial webs: a new position of world London: Routledge.
Hakansson H. , and Snehota I. ( 1989 ) No Business is
an Island: The Network Concept of Business Strategy ; Norse Journal of Management ; Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 187aˆ?200.
Hakansson H. , and Snehota I. ( 2006 ) “ No Business is an Island ” 17 old ages subsequently ; Norse Journal of Management 22, pp. 271-274.
Hills, G. , Lumpkin, G. , and Singh, R. ( 1997 ) Opportunity acknowledgment: perceptual experiences and behaviors of enterprisers, in Reynolds, P. , Bygrave, W. ,
Carter, N. , Davidsson, P. , Gartner, W. , Mason, C. and McDougall, P. ( explosive detection systems ) , Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research ; Wellesley, Babson College.
Human, S.E. and Provan K. G. ( 2000 ) Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Smallaˆ?Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise ; Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University ; Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 327aˆ?365.
Isenberg, D. J. , ( 2008 ) The Global Entrepreneur
Harvard Business Review ; Dec, pp. 108aˆ?111.
Johannisson, B. and Peterson, R. ( 1984 ) The personal webs of enterprisers ; in Conference Proceedings, ICSB, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto.
Johannisson, B. ( 1988 ) Business formation: a web attack ; Norse Journal of Management ; 49, pp. 83-99.
KKaˆ?Stiftelsen ( Stiftelsen for kunskapsaˆ? och kompetensutveckling ) ( 2009 ) Samhallets entreprenorer aˆ? En forskarantologi om samhallsentreprenorskap ; A-stertalje Tryckeri AB.
Langemar, P. ( 2005 ) . Att lata en varld oppna sig – Introduktion boulder clay kvalitativ metod I psykologi. Stockholms Universitet: Psykologiska institutionen.
Leadbeater, C. ( 1997 ) The Rise of the Social
Entrepreneur ; Demos London.
Lin, N. ( 1999 ) Constructing a Network Theory of Social
Capital ; Connections, 22 ( 1 ) , 28aˆ?51.
Loury, G. ( 1977 ) A dynamic theory of racial income differences. in Wallace, P. A. and LaMonde, A. M. ( Eds. ) , Women, minorities, and employment favoritism ; pp. 153aˆ?186. Lexington, LexingtonBooks.
Lundahl, U. and Skarvad, Paˆ?H. , ( 1982 ) Utredningsmetodik for samhallsvetare och ekonomer ; Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Mair, J. and Seelos, C. ( 2007 ) Profitable Business
Models and Market Creation in
the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View ;
Academy of Management Perspectives ; Nov, pp. 49aˆ?
Mair J. , and Marti I. , ( 2006 ) Social entrepreneurship research: A beginning of account, anticipation, and delight ; Journal of World Business, 41: pp. 36-44.
Martin R.L. , and Osberg, S. ( 2007 ) Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition ; Stanford Social Innovation Review ; pp. 29aˆ?39.
Matten, D. , Palazzo, G. , A.G. Scherer ( 2009 ) Introduction to the Particular Issue: Globalization as a Challenge
for Business Responsibilities ; Business Ethical motives
Quarterly ; 19:3 ; July ; pp. 327aˆ?347.
McLean M. and Peredo, A. M. ( 2006 ) Social entrepreneurship: A critical reappraisal of the concept Journal of World Business ; 41, pp 56-65.
Merriam, S.B. , ( 1994 ) Fallstudie som forskningsmetod. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. ( 1977 ) Institutionalized organisations: Formal construction as myth and ceremonial ; American Journal of Sociology ; 83, pp.
Mouzas, S. , and Naude , P. , ( 2007 ) Network mobilize ;
Journal of Business & A ; Industrial Marketing ; 41, pp.
Murray, S. ( 2007 ) Social entrepreneurship: Dividing lines are going blurred in Financial Times July 5,
2007 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e985ef2aaˆ?294caˆ?
11dcaˆ?a530aˆ?000b5df10621.html ; Accessed November
Nordic Innovation Centre ( 2009 ) CSRaˆ?Driven Innovation -Towards the Social Purpose Business The Danish Commerce and Companies Agency ; Report available at www.csrinnovation.dk/web/wpaˆ? content/2009/07/csraˆ?diaˆ?report_final.pdf ; Accessed November, 30, 2009.
Ruef, M. , and Scott W. R. ( 1998 ) A multidimentional theoretical account of organisational legitimacy: Hospital endurance in altering institutional environments Administrative Science Quarterly ; 43, pp 877aˆ?904.
Shane, S. ( 2003 ) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: the Individualaˆ?Opportunity Nexus ; Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Thompson, J. L. ( 2002 ) The universe of the societal enterpriser ; International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15 ( 5 ) : pp 412-431.
Tjosvold, D. , and Weicker, D. ( 1993 ) , Cooperative and competitory networking by enterprisers: a critical incident survey, Journal of Small Business Management ; Vol. 31, No.1, pp. 11aˆ?21.
Tozzi, J. ( 2009 ) Social Entrepreneurship: Resources for ‘Patient ‘ Capital in Business Week April 3, 2009 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/m ar2009/sb20090330_647056.htm ; Accessed November 13, 2009.
Trost, J. ( 1997 ) . Kvalitativa intervjuer. 2nd edition. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Vabarova, L. ( 2009 ) ; Social Entreprenuership ; LabforCulture ; October 2009 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //live.labforculture.org/2009/10/socialentrepre neurship/files/Social_Entrepreneurship_EN.pdf ; Accessed at November 30, 2009.
Weber, M. ( 1968 ) Economy and Society: An Interpretative Sociology ( First published in 1922 ) GuentherRoth and Ciaus Wittich, eds. New York: Bedminister Press.
Yin, R. , ( 1994 ) Case study research: Design and methods ; 2nd edition. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.
Zeitz, G.J. and Zimmerman, M.A. ( 2002 ) Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 414aˆ?431.
9.2 Internet Beginnings
Biodynamiska Produkter www.biodynamiskaprodukter.se
Ekobanken www.ekobanken.se Ekologiska Lantbrukarna www.ekolantbruk.se Dem Collective www.demcollective.com Ekoladan www.ekoladan.se
Fair Unlimited www.fairunlimited.se
Grameen Bank www.grameenaˆ?info.org Kulturverkstan www.kulturverkstan.net Nordic Innovation Centre www.nordicinnovation.net Omvarlden www.omvarlden.nu
Rena Klader www.renaklader.org Rattvisemarkt www.rattvisemarkt.se Social Venture Network www.svnIndia.com Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship www.sses.se
Stiftelsen for Kunskap och Kompetensutv. www.kks.se
Svensk Handel www.svenskhandel.se Svenskt Naringsliv www.svensktnaringsliv.se Watabaran www.watabaran.se
9.3 Interviews with Research Objects
Ekoladan: Anette Dieng and Monica Haglund Taveres ; October 16, 2009
Dem Collective: Karin Stenmar ; November 2, 2009
Fair Unlimited: Daniel Mensch ; October 16, 2009
9.4 Interviews used in Analysis
Axelsson, Bjorn ; November 9, 2009 ; Professor, Department of Marketing and Strategy ; Stockholm School of
Zerne, Morgan ; November 19, 2009 ( by eaˆ?mail ) ; Managing Director ; Rattvisemarkt/Fair Trade India.
9.5 Inspirational Interviews
Hockerts, Kai ; October 16, 2009 ( by telephone ) ; Associate Professor, Center for Corporate Social Responsibility ; Copenhagen Business School.
Svensk, Diana ; November 17, 2009 ; CEO of Svensk Fashion.
Wetter, Erik ; October 30, 2009 ; Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Organization ; Stockholm
School of Economics.