Glasgow School: Social Enterprise Concepts, Comparison and Analysis

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the differing concepts of social enterprise, drawing on the works of Dees (1998), Defourny and Nyssens (2010), and Rivera-Santos et al. (2015). The essay begins by defining social enterprise and differentiating it from traditional business models, highlighting the emphasis on social mission over profit maximization. It then explores the historical development and regional variations of social enterprise, focusing on Europe, the United States, and Africa. The analysis examines how the perception and practice of social entrepreneurship have evolved over time and across different geographical contexts, considering factors such as cultural influences, government roles, and the integration of social and economic goals. The essay concludes by summarizing the key differences and similarities in the understanding and application of social enterprise concepts, emphasizing the impact of these variations on social entrepreneurship's global landscape and practical implications for entrepreneurs and scholars.

Running Head: CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
The practice of social enterprise has become a pertinent aspect for the global business
establishment in order to bring a unique model of motives and perception regarding business
operations. There are critical reviews about the actual notion and paradigm of social enterprise
and the scholarly evaluations made it more complex to understand. The dynamics and
magnanimity of the social enterprise is also diversified in course of time by transforming the
very nature of social enterprise as it was in its inception. Therefore, it is highly important for the
current students and scholars to get adequate understanding of the social enterprises. The real
motive of the entrepreneurs and the ideal measure that the social enterprises should follow is also
incorporated into this discussion for having clear insights into the practices and activities of
social entrepreneurship. This essay aims to discuss about the theories and perception regarding
social enterprise and the systematic change that was happened over time and geographical
changes.
As far as the definition of social enterprise is concerned, it can be argued that the role of
this kind of enterprises is very much different from the popular perception of business
enterprises. Based on the argument of Dees (1998) it can be stated that business organisations are
very much market oriented. It means the business companies are always looking for the right
opportunity to exploit the market in order to encapsulate the market effectively and maximising
the expansion of business profoundly. A notion of wealth creation is resembled with the business
practice of the companies. Huda et al. (2019) opined that the business organisations are always
in pursuit of enhancing their profitability. It is the core purpose of the business organisation to
get more success in business by increasing the market capitalisation and range of customer. As a
result of that it will ensure the success of those business companies. In response to this,
Rawhouser, Cummings and Newbert (2019) pointed out that the success of the business

2CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
enterprises is measured by their profit earning. Apart from this, the practice of value creation is
also considered to be one of the important aspect for the business organisations to survive in the
competitive market. Therefore, Chell et al. (2016) pointed out threat of demise is always a
crucial concern for the business organisation. As a result of that the value of the organisation is
pertinent that enables the uniqueness of the organisation. The customers are intricately associated
with the practice and attracted to invest more money by purchasing product or service of the
organisation.
On the other hand, in case of the social enterprises, the situation is supposed to be change
as the agenda of the social entrepreneurs is clearly different from the business managers.
Fermented with the ethical organisational activities the social entrepreneurs are more interested
in making benevolent practices for the society. Based on the research of Phillips et al. (2015) it
can be derived that the social mission is central and explicit to the activities of the social
entrepreneurs that enriches their vision towards mission-centric vision rather than influenced by
the wealth creation. Absence of marketing discipline is also a significant facet for the social
enterprises as they do not care about the market trends nor influenced by the value creation.
Rather most of the focus is set on the noble cause of the society. Saebi, Foss and Linder (2019)
found out a strong ethical standpoint that the social enterprises are followed in order to create
good for the society. As per the article of Kickul and Lyons (2016) it can be seen that the social
entrepreneurs are valuing the social improvements, public goods and eradicate the harmful
elements that will surely damage the society. It clearly indicates the difference of perception that
the social enterprises are possessed in contrast with the business organisations.
As a matter of fact, there are subtle changes in vision about the scholars while discussing
the motives and agenda of social enterprises in a global context. In this regard, the origin of the

3CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
social enterprise concept is also relevant to understand the differences of opinion among the
scholars while discussing the social enterprise paradigm in the context of Europe or western
civilisation and the rest of the world. The notion of social enterprises was first coined in the
western world in 1990s which was closely linked with the co-operative movement in Italy
(Goffee and Scase 2015). In Europe, the third sector organisations were referred as the social
enterprises embodied with the non-profit organisations, co-operatives and the mutual societies.
The real motive behind the creation of social enterprises was to combat with the social and
economic issues like housing and poverty problem. Inspired by the practice of charitable
foundations and the sense of mutual aid principles those organisations were closely supported the
practice of addressing the social issues and willing to mitigate those problems in a short span of
time. Phillips et al. (2015) articulated that the quest for democracy and equality in every sphere
of life the civil society movements were blooming through advocacy and provision of services.
Problems such as unemployment in the western societies had a great deal of impact on the
practice social entrepreneurship in Europe.
On the other hand, in the US context, the perception of social entrepreneurship has both
similarities and differences. According to Defourny and Nyssens (2010) the behaviours of the
entrepreneurs in the 1990s US was highly moved by the paradigm of social innovation, non-
profit venture and he social purpose endeavour. All those elements directly or indirectly
associated with diversity. From the research of Huda et al. (2019) it can be found that the
mainstay of the social enterprise in US was diversity. A sheer impact of the commercial activities
by the non-profit organisations was there that was run by voluntary donations and selling
homemade goods. Hallucinated by the positive sides of capitalism, those non-profit organisations
started shifting from the original mission of diversity and equality and put more investment from

4CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
education, healthcare, community development and poverty programs to commercial activities in
1970s. As a result of that the social enterprises collaborated with the mainstream business
organisation and no longer identified as non-profit organisations. One of the major argument for
the development of social enterprises in US was based on the Bismarckian tradition where the
corporatist groups tried to initiate a second labour market program at the wake of financial
debacle of 1970s-80s. Therefore, there was always a business mentality among the social
entrepreneurs and that blended the business interests with the social entrepreneurship.
The paradigm of social enterprises in the African context is extensively different from the
context of Europe and Untied States. There are number of different elements resides within the
understanding of social enterprise in Africa. The article of Saebi, Foss and Linder (2019)
advocated that the social entrepreneurship in Africa was more influenced by the environmental
and social aspects. In corroboration with this fact, Rawhouser, Cummings and Newbert (2019)
advocated that the social needs could be erected by environment and it also resulted social
opportunities for entrepreneurs and their agents as well. The role of the government is also
attached with the concept and practice of social enterprises. Chell et al. (2016) opined that at the
basic level the legal recognition and forms of social enterprises varied region to region. The role
of the government cannot be overlooked in the development of social enterprises. Dees (1998)
pointed out that the role of the government to set the quality and standard of infrastructure and
regulation would create an effective environment for social entrepreneurs to perform (Rivera-
Santos et al. 2015). Culture, ethnicity and nationality are also contributed extensively to the
performance of the organisation. Huda et al. (2019) argued that the structure of the African
society was primarily imbued with ethnic and religious identity. As a result of that the social

5CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
entrepreneurs are not capable to think without considering the importance of ethnicity and
religion.
In addition to this, influence of the western thinking is clearly reflected in the practice of
the African social entrepreneurship. For an instance, through the research paper of Littlewood
and Holt (2018) it can be derived that the coexistence of social and profitable goals are
contributed enough into the practice of the social enterprise development in the developing
countries like Africa. Social and profitable goals makes the social enterprises to walk from a
non-profit organisation to a profitable organisation. This is referred as the core principle of social
entrepreneurship all across the world. Apart from that George et al. (2016) find out that diversity
also played a pivotal role in developing the social enterprises in developing world. As a result of
that a close affinity between the western practice and understanding of the social
entrepreneurship and the belief of social entrepreneurship in developing countries are also seen
in the mind of the social entrepreneurs of developing countries.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that there are both differences and
similarities in the practice and understanding of social entrepreneurship in different regions. It is
obvious that the notion of social entrepreneurship in developing countries has a close connection
with its origin in Western world. However, in course of time, shift and difference in opinion and
interests formulate new concepts within the practice of social entrepreneurship and it
differentiates the concepts with its regional variation.

6CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Reference
Chell, E., Spence, L.J., Perrini, F. and Harris, J.D., 2016. Social entrepreneurship and business
ethics: Does social equal ethical?. Journal of business ethics, 133(4), pp.619-625.
Dees, J.G., 1998. The meaning of social entrepreneurship.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M., 2010. Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship
in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of social
entrepreneurship, 1(1), pp.32-53.
George, G., Kotha, R., Parikh, P., Alnuaimi, T. and Bahaj, A.S., 2016. Social structure,
reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), pp.1118-
1131.
Goffee, R. and Scase, R., 2015. Entrepreneurship in Europe (Routledge Revivals): The Social
Processes. Routledge.
Huda, M., Qodriah, S.L., Rismayadi, B., Hananto, A., Kardiyati, E.N., Ruskam, A. and Nasir,
B.M., 2019. Towards Cooperative with Competitive Alliance: Insights into Performance Value
in Social Entrepreneurship. In Creating Business Value and Competitive Advantage with Social
Entrepreneurship (pp. 294-317). IGI Global.
Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S., 2016. Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit
of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.
Littlewood, D. and Holt, D., 2018. Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the
influence of environment. Business & Society, 57(3), pp.525-561.

7CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P., 2015. Social innovation and
social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3),
pp.428-461.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M. and Newbert, S.L., 2019. Social impact measurement: Current
approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 43(1), pp.82-115.
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D. and Kolk, A., 2015. Social entrepreneurship in sub-
Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), pp.72-91.
Saebi, T., Foss, N.J. and Linder, S., 2019. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements
and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), pp.70-95.