Capturing social value: an empirical contribution to theory-making and practice in social entrepreneurship

As a society we have recently heard about the Buffet and Gates Foundation intentions. Coupled with this are the claims that poverty, hunger and treatable illness can be relieved, albeit on a grand scale. Conversely, the research community has been slow to capture social value in a comprehensible form. Volunteers have always created social value, but the elements which contribute to this have been unexplained. Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006) drew from extant ‘for-profit’ theory to build a bridgehead across to theory-making about Social Entrepreneurship. This paper offers empirical data which is necessary if Social Entrepreneurship theory-making is to proceed. INTRODUCTION The seminal article of Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006) is both timely and insightful. Stevenson (1983) gave to the field of Entrepreneurship his definition of ‘Opportunity’ ie that entrepreneurship consists of a relentless pursuit of opportunity—regardless of resources, together with five key elements for recognizing opportunity. Stevenson and Jarillo (1991) spoke of “pursuing opportunities without regard to the resources which are currently controlled. ” Now Stevenson, together with Austin and Wei-Skillern, has contributed with insight and a strong identification with the field of Social Entrepreneurship. These authors undertook to open up some avenues of exploration for Social Entrepreneurship theory-development and practice from a comparative analysis of a broad, for-profit stance across to Social Entrepreneurship. This paper presents empirical and complementary research to test their theory-making. The author/researcher is a former social enterprise practitioner in a notfor-profit organization. The unit of analysis for this research is based upon the centrality of social value creation: as being a core determinant underlying the impact of Social Entrepreneurship. Given that an entrepreneurial organization focuses firstly upon ‘opportunity,’ not resources (Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern, 2006), and that conceptually opportunities may seem similar across commercial and social spheres, a developing theory which recognizes the importance of opportunity for Social Entrepreneurship is of prime relevance. Of the PCDO model elements (the people, the context, the deal, and the opportunity) arising out of Sahlman (1996), Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006) assert “The opportunity dimension is perhaps the most distinct owing to fundamental differences in missions and responses to market failure. ” In reality, “Commercial Entrepreneurship tends to focus upon breakthroughs and new needs—Social Entrepreneurship most often focuses upon serving long-standing needs more effectively through innovative approaches” (Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern, 2006). Herein lies a subtle distinction at the motivational level which is embedded within social entrepreneurs themselves and their support teams. This is referred to by Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (p.14) as “The value transactions in Social Entrepreneurship which differ from Commercial Entrepreneurship in kind, consumers, timing, flexibility and measurability. ” 267 SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP