Search results

The subject areas are social entrepreneurship and marketing in social enterprises.

This study is applicable to undergraduate or MBA-level courses; possibly executive programs as well.

Farm Shop was established in 2012 as a not-for-profit trust, with an aim of developing a distribution platform for poor, rural communities across sub-Saharan Africa so that smallholder farmers could get the farm inputs and services needed to increase their productivity and income. Attempting to reach scale, this social enterprise is in the process of building a micro-franchise network. Unlike franchises in industrialized countries where the franchisor starts with a vetted and replicable turnkey business, Farm Shop was created from scratch. After prototyping the shop concept and validating the business model in Kiambu County of Kenya, Farm Shop has 10 fully operational shops and is keen to start its growth phase, aiming to have 120 shops in its network within the next 12-18 months. It is only at that point that break-even will be achieved. Recognizing the key role of marketing in Farm Shop’s growth efforts, the founders are now focused on finalizing their go-to-market (GTM) strategy. Having initiated and measured the results of a number of marketing activities over the past six months, it is now time to decide which of these activities should be incorporated into their micro-franchise system. The management team knows that to provide advice, training and quality products to farmers, they first needed to develop awareness, interest and desire for what Farm Shop has to offer, not to mention the need to gain the farmers’ trust. Fundamentally, farmers needed to be convinced that Farm Shop can help them improve their productivity and income.

The study enables to gain an overall understanding of the range of challenges and opportunities associated with establishing a micro-franchise in an emerging market context; to gain a better understanding of social marketing, including the four types of behavioral influence it attempts to achieve and the similarities and differences between social and commercial marketing; to introduce the “theory of change” concept, providing a framework for understanding how and why change will occur; to introduce the concept of business models and explore the differences between “traditional” and “social entrepreneurship” business models; to understand how a competitive advantage is created; to introduce basic marketing concepts and the GTM concept and its role and application in a business model for a new social enterprise and to understand how marketing contributes to the social enterprise’s strategic goals and sustainability, thereby gaining an understanding of how “social marketing” is differentiated from commercial marketing.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of how a social enterprise opportunity is brought to fruition in an emerging market.

This real-time longitudinal case study tracks the emergence of a micro-franchise start-up from conception to inception. Using a narrative perspective as a conceptual lens focuses attention on the relational, temporal and performative elements of the interactive process that occurs between social entrepreneur(s) and the environment(s). While interviewing provides the primary source of evidence, multiple data collection methods were utilized.

The analysis of the process elements centres on the narratives of the micro-franchise co-founders and other key informants that prompt action aimed at bringing the opportunity to fruition, showing how the social entrepreneurs bring the inside out and the outside in.

Despite challenges to the appropriateness of Western management theory within emerging markets, this study has shown that theory at a sufficiently high level of abstraction can be useful. It also demonstrates the need to study process over time and be inclusive of the range of stakeholders and contexts that influence it.

The findings indicate that social enterprise start-up is a co-creative process that evolves in unpredictable ways over time. Beyond start-up, only time and further study will determine whether social enterprise will prove to be the panacea for poverty and marginalization that governments expect.

This research gains real-time insight into social enterprise emergence. It underscores the multi-dimensional nature of context and provides evidence indicating that the relationship and influence between social entrepreneur(s) and their environment is not one way.

The purpose of this paper is to address the lack of conceptualisation within the emerging field of social enterprise, the aim is to contribute to a better understanding of process effectiveness and potential.

The literature is drawn upon in providing a rationale for focusing on process, for selecting an appropriate organising framework, and for developing the typology and its key dimensions.

In proposing two polar opposite “ideal types” – one based on traditional concepts of non‐profit organisations and one that employs entrepreneurship as a strategy for achieving social aims (such as poverty and marginalisation) – the process components (activities, people and organising) and their interrelationship are explained. The dimensions of each component that facilitate or constrain entrepreneurship are conceptualised along a continuum, whereby a predisposition toward either end of the continuum forms the basis of classification. Upon assessing each process component, an overall determination of type can be made. Effectiveness – innovation in dealing with the challenges of social exclusion and marginalisation; increased self‐sufficiency and sustainability – depends upon the extent to which the process components are congruently configured to foster entrepreneurship.

With conceptualisation in its infancy, the emphasis to date has been on the similarities between social and commercial enterprises. Here, it has been focused on the key differences in process among social enterprise initiatives, thereby contributing new insights into social enterprising and its capacity for effectiveness. In explaining the impact of differing types on outcomes, practitioners and policymakers can develop more realistic expectations of what can be achieved.

The chapter aims to enhance our understanding of “opportunity” in the context of social entrepreneurship through a paradigm interplay juxtaposing a functionalist thematic analysis and interpretivist sensemaking. This paradigmatic contrasting identifies differences and connections in the tensions of: linearity and simplicity/dynamism and complexity; forward/backward, generalizability/situated relationality, and value-laden/value-neutral. These contrasts deepen our understanding of “opportunity” so that the theoretical and practical implications can be seen.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of the Board of Directors in encouraging entrepreneurship as a strategy for goal achievement among newly formed social purpose organizations.

In the absence of empirical work on board behaviour, a qualitative case study approach is adopted whereby multiple data collection methods – including in‐depth interviews and non‐participant observation – are drawn upon in the investigation.

Organizations found to be most effective in achieving their goal(s) had a higher level of entrepreneurial intensity than less effective organizations. Three opposing themes emerged when comparing the social processes adopted by the Boards. In embracing social processes that fostered entrepreneurial behaviour. Boards assumed the role of change agent, with the leveraging of social capital being instrumental. Other social processes encouraged behaviour that was reactive and risk adverse in nature, serving to reinforce the fiduciary role those Board had assumed.

A review of the extant literature indicates that this is the first reported empirical investigation of board behaviour. In having access to Board meetings, unique insights into social processes were garnered that might otherwise have gone undetected if interview data were relied upon as the sole source of evidence. As such, this paper makes a key contribution in beginning to address the void in our understanding of social enterprise governance. In particular, it highlights the influence of governance on entrepreneurship and goal achievement among newly formed social purpose organizations. When viewed through a social constructionist lens, the results indicate that while organizations strive to achieve both legitimacy and identity, effectiveness was greater among organizations that emphasized the latter.