Target’s founders institutionalized a pattern of social responsibility in 1946, but at the time, the Dayton family founders were social entrepreneurs in that they actively saw unmet needs in their community and developed a then-innovative way to meet those needs, more than a generation after they were entrepreneurs in founding the company. Lull of Seacoast Science Center also demonstrated entrepreneurial behavior as a subunit of a less entrepreneurial organization, in her case a not for profit.

Target, and perhaps Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, also illustrate that social entrepreneurship, like entrepreneurship, does not necessarily continue indefinitely. While the concept of “giving back” a portion of profits to the local community was unusual in 1946 when Dayton Company began its donations, we have included Target as an example of stewardship, rather than corporate social entrepreneurship, because the company has not continued to innovate in its social activity. One can question whether Ben and Jerry’s Homemade will be able to maintain its social innovations as a division of a multinational company.

Questions to be considered include whether social entrepreneurship can survive the shift from founder/entrepreneurs to professional management, the impact of organizational growth on the continuation of social mission, and the importance of investors and availability of resources in that growth process.

Conclusion

Qualitative, case based research is an important tool for both hypothesis testing and, more importantly in this situation, for theory building. Yin (1989) argues that case studies can be a stand-alone method of research. Stake (1995) emphasizes the usefulness of cases in explaining causal relationships. Naumes, Merenda and Naumes (2002) describe the case research process as one through which cases not only are part of a faculty member’s research agenda but also add enrichment to the classroom experience. Social entrepreneurship is a relatively new topic, in academic terms. More in-depth study of cases, such as those briefly summarized in this paper, will yield a better understanding of both the social impact and the individuals involved. Consistent with Yin and Stake, these case studies are helping to develop a clearer understanding of models of social entrepreneurship. We believe, based on our observations, that social entrepreneurship represents a continuum of organizations and individuals. It cannot be characterized adequately in terms of the for-profit/not-for-profit dichotomy discussed earlier in this paper, and in particular is not restricted to organizations in the not-for-profit sector.

In our opinion, business schools should be trying to train and teach social entrepreneurs. The more obvious path is to give people with vision in the social sector the managerial tools to be more effective. However, if we are truly developing the business leaders of tomorrow, is it not also important to give those future leaders an understanding of how to be agents of change? One option would be for business schools to forge partnerships with professionals with vision in the social sector to give them the managerial tools to be more effective. And for those business students who already have a vision, an entrepreneurial idea, should we not be helping them to create an organization that will provide social as well as economic value? As a recent Wall Street Journal article stated, “The events of Sept. 11 have helped remind us where moneymaking belongs among the greater riches of family, spirituality and country.” (Bailey, 2002). The real question, then, is how to incorporate this important concept of social entrepreneurship into traditional academic research and curricula.

Most professors of entrepreneurship will accept that they are not trying to make entrepreneurs. They are simply trying to present potential entrepreneurs with the tools and skills with which they can become more effective and efficient entrepreneurs. We would argue that we should be going beyond this model and try to make our students, at the very least, cognizant of their social responsibility, and, potentially, to help effect new social entrepreneurs.

References

Baily, J. (2002, March 27). “Growing Up,” Wall Street Journal, p. R6.

Bird, B. J. (1989). Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship: The Art of Mission-Based Venture Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Burch, J. G. (1986). Entrepreneurship. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb. 1998.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kammermeyer , J. A., & Naumes, M. Sustainable Harvest International. North American Case Research Association Case Research Journal, 22, #2, 53-76.

Lull, W., Kammermeyer, J. A., & Naumes, M. Stormy Seas: Developing a Strategy for the Seacoast Science Center. North American Case Research Association Case Research Journal, 20, # 4, 1-19

Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at Any Speed: the designed-in dangers of the American automobile. New York: Grossman.

Naumes, W., Merenda, M., & Naumes M. (2002). Case Writing, Case Teaching, and Case Research: The Unbroken Circle. Journal of Education Studies, Forthcoming.

Post, J.E., Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2002). Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics (Tenth ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Theobald, R. (1987). The Rapids of Change: Social Entrepreneurship in Turbulent Times. Indianapolis, IN: Knowledge Systems, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Designs and methods (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Authors’ Biographies

Margaret J. Naumes, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in Management at the University of New Hampshire. She has lectured and led workshops on case writing throughout the U.S. and in Europe and Asia. Her research interests include social entrepreneurship, particularly among female managers, and cross-cultural study of managerial values

Jill A. Kammermeyer, Ph.D., is Adjunct Associate Professor of Decision Sciences at University of New Hampshire. She has professional experience (Europe and North America) in academia and business; and has been active on non-profit boards. Her decade of participation in Financial Empowerment for Women earned her the Governor’s Recognition Award.

William Naumes, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Strategic Management at University of New Hampshire. He has written 10 books and numerous articles, cases and papers in strategy, entrepreneurship, and social responsibility. He is former editor of the Case Research Journal and past president of NACRA and Northeast Decision Sciences Institute.

Summary

Social entrepreneurship is frequently seen as primarily occurring in not-for-profit organizations. This paper discusses the origins and roots of the concept of entrepreneurship. Using short studies of corporations and not-for-profits, it defines social entrepreneurship as a continuum of behaviors. It raises questions concerning the appropriate role for business schools in developing social entrepreneurs.