Search results

Social entrepreneurs want to help solve social and environmental issues by applying entrepreneurial solutions. However, social entrepreneurs usually find it more challenging to measure their success because of the metric that is being measured is not only for financial gain but also for social and environmental change. The analysis of how they manage and achieve their impact goals, which are restricted by limited knowledge and resources, is unfortunately not always the highest priority particularly in the early stage of their entrepreneurial journey.

Frequently, by generating social and economic value, business decisions and actions are in opposition (Dawan & Alter, 2009). This opposition translates into calculated trade-offs. At times decisions may be adequate that forsake social impact in order to gain market share or increase profit margins and increase social value creation in the long run. Conversely, the scope of social impact may be expanded at a financial cost (Braun, 2020).

What also often happens in our experience is that more social businesses claim their impact without clear justification based on measurement. And even worse is that many social entrepreneurs are not equipped with the right mindset and tools to understand how to measure, manage and maximise their impact.

Also, the situation with COVID-19 pandemic makes it even more pressing now that businesses must be held accountable for their actions; decisions solely relying on financial gain are even less relevant during this time. The pandemic will likely create even more inequality, with evidence emerging that those at the bottom of pyramid are being more severely affected. Casualties will be even more with the virus spreading faster on the bottom-of-the-pyramid communities, and we have seen that hospitals and proper medical care are being allocated improperly with several privilege for some people with more resources. The implication of these inequalities will have a profound impact on every level and aspect of communities.

Here in this chapter, we will discuss the challenges through our experiences in practicing impact management and why it's very important to be done at all levels of the entrepreneurial stage even from the upstart and what can be done better to help social and all entrepreneurs to strive.

Workplace mavericks are often labeled as non-conformists. They are perceived to be the employees who disregard organizational policies and procedures, and who invite huge risks in the pursuit of goals that sit outside what the organization dictates as the core business or practice. While this may be accurate to a degree, it is not the complete story. Guided by recent conceptualizations of non-conformity and positive deviance, this qualitative study interviewed 27 observers of mavericks (observer-types) in the workplace, and 28 interviews with mavericks (maverick-types). Results highlight that while maverick individuals do challenge organizational norms, they do so for the benefit of others, including the organization. Additionally, they are not wildcard non-conformists as they do in fact conform. However, they are conforming positively to higher level hyper-norms or organizational goals, and therefore operate in what could be termed as bounded non-conformity. Understanding the form that this bounded non-conformity takes is key for organizations to mitigate perceptions of the risk posed by maverick individuals, while maximizing the rewards that maverick employees can offer to organizations, especially for informing ideas and plans around more radical change and innovation. In this way, organizations can benefit from the numerous and unique contributions of mavericks in the workplace, such as innovative, unorthodox, and out-of-the-box thinking, while at the same time still ensuring the effective governance and risk management of the organization.

Our primary aim is to discuss the variability that exists in the operationalization of race/ethnicity in research on genetic and biological markers. We employ Stuart Hall’s “floating signifiers” of race approach to explain the ambiguous manner in which researchers discuss the links between race and genetics.

We examine articles that use race/ethnicity and genetic or biological markers between 2000 and 2013 within three prominent genetic journals. We focused on original, empirical articles only. We utilize various race/ethnic-related search terms to obtain our sample and to categorize how terms were used.

A total of 336 articles fit our search criteria. The number of articles mentioning race/ethnicity and genetic or biological information increased over the time. A significant percentage of publications base their research on whites only. When discussions of race are included in studies, scientists often use multiple categories of race/ethnicity without much explanation.

We omit non-research articles and commentary for each journal, which could contain important discussions regarding race and genetics. This work highlights how race/ethnicity can vary in application and interpretation.

Our discussion of race/ethnicity as “floating signifiers” adds a layer of complexity to the longstanding debate regarding the importance of race/ethnicity in genetic research. The “floating” nature of race/ethnicity underlines how subjective the characterizations of samples are and how possible interpretations of results for groups can impact health disparities research. Given the increased use of genetic data by social scientists, there is a need for more cross-disciplinary discussions on the race–gene relationship.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs can be risky for organizations on many fronts. They are not only resource intensive but they can be perceived by stakeholders as “greenwashing;” meaning the organization works to appear more ethical than they are in practice (Pompper, 2015). This chapter explores the complementary roles that human resources and public relations may play in creating a transparent and authentic CSR program that builds community relations and value for internal and external stakeholders in Sub-Saharan Africa. It proposes a CSR strategy based on the Open Social Innovation (OSI) model and Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) framework; both constructs that call for developing stakeholder partnerships that build capacity and empower communities. This chapter offers a case study of the CSR initiative of health-care provider, Johnson & Johnson, to illustrate how OSI-based CSR (1) contributes significantly to economic and social development in Sub-Saharan African communities, (2) facilitates the creation of synergies between human resources and public relations, ensuring that CSR initiatives are driven by a partnership of internal and external stakeholders; and (3) enables authentic corporate citizenship communication without sacrificing shareholder value.

Family events have unique significance on children as well as long-lasting impacts on them during their adulthood. A review of conceptual and theoretical literature on the subject was conducted to identify underlying trends and best practices in engaging children in the events industry. Societies are in transition from industrialised societies into risk societies and are increasingly becoming eco-socialised. Family events are integral towards developing inclusive and integrated societies and in realising Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16). Childhood is always eco-socialised, i.e. socially, economically and ecologically integrated with other forms of life. To the extent that childhood nostalgia forms the basis for future sustainable events and tourism choices. Family events are, therefore, increasingly becoming fundamental towards developing sustainability discourse. This viewpoint chapter provides conceptual and theoretical perspective on the roles and impacts of childhood research in sustainability discourse.

The definition of the term “family” around the Western world is more heterogeneous than ever before and so are its roles and the social expectations of it. However, prisoners’ families (specifically parents and siblings) are expected to support their incarcerated son/brother as they are perceived responsible for his choices and as having the closest relationship with him. Based on a study of parents and siblings of incarcerated men in Israel, this chapter’s goal is to shed light on families’ choice to support their incarcerated son or brother and the struggles this choice entails. A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 17 parents and 10 siblings of incarcerated men in Israel showed that nuclear family members may experience various struggles throughout the legal proceedings, including family hardships, negative social experiences, and negative experiences with formal institutions – all leading to social self-exclusion. Looking through the intersectionality lens, the findings show that when accumulating hardships that prisoners’ families experience encounter perceived harsh institutional systems of oppression, preordained marginalization can be deepened as families operate in opposition.