The role of personal values in corporate social entrepreneurship

The literature acknowledges a distinction between immoral, amoral and moral management (Carroll, 1987; Crane 2000). This paper makes a case for the manager as a moral agent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and is compromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to a discussion of the notion of managerial discretion and an examination of a separate, contrary body of literature which indicates that some managers in corporations may use their discretion to behave in a socially entrepreneurial manner. The underlying assumption of the study is that CSR isn’t solely driven by economics and that it may also be championed as a result of a personal morality, inspired by an individual’s own socially oriented personal values. A conceptual framework is put forward and it is suggested that individuals may be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate Social Entrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics: distinguished by individualistic or collectivist personal values. In a discussion of the nature of values, this paper highlights how values may act as drivers of our behavior and pays particular attention to the values of the entrepreneur, thereby linking the existing debate on moral agency with the field of corporate social responsibility.

Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship

The literature acknowledges a distinction between immoral, amoral and moral management. This paper makes a case for the employee (at any level) as a moral agent, even though the paper begins by highlighting a body of evidence which suggests that individual moral agency is sacrificed at work and is compromised in deference to other pressures. This leads to a discussion about the notion of discretion and an examination of a separate, contrary body of literature which indicates that some individuals in corporations may use their discretion to behave in a socially entrepreneurial manner. My underlying assumption is that CSR isn’t solely driven by economics and that it may also be championed as a result of a personal morality, inspired by employees’ own socially oriented personal values. A conceptual framework is put forward and it is suggested that individuals may be categorized as Active or Frustrated Corporate Social Entrepreneurs; Conformists or Apathetics, distinguished by their individualistic or collectivist personal values. In a discussion of the nature of values, this paper highlights how values may act as drivers of our behavior and pays particular attention to the values of the entrepreneur, thereby linking the existing debate on moral agency with the field of corporate social responsibility.

Structural differentiation and corporate venturing : the moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms

Research has suggested that corporate venturing is crucial to strategic renewal and firm performance, yet scholars still debate the appropriate organizational configurations to facilitate the creation of new businesses in existing organizations. Our study investigates the effectiveness of combining structural differentiation with formal and informal organizational as well as top management team integration mechanisms in establishing an appropriate context for venturing activities. Our findings suggest that structural differentiation has a positive effect on corporate venturing. In addition, our study indicates that a shared vision has a positive effect on venturing in a structurally differentiated context. Socially integrated senior teams and cross-functional interfaces, however, are ineffective integration mechanisms for establishing linkages across differentiated units and for successfully pursuing corporate venturing.

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship : management education and development for innovation

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship, have been recognized as important contributors to a firm’s innovation and to the nation’s economic growth. Creativity and design play important roles in the fuzzy front end of a firm’s innovation process and also in corporate venturing processes, but the relationship between creativity, design and entrepreneurship to a large extent has not explicitly been examined. This exploratory conceptual paper briefly reviews the separate bodies of research on creativity, design and entrepreneurship, identifying similarities and differences in constructs and applications and identifying implications for business and for management education.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : growth and survival

Family businesses dominate in a majority of economies (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma, 2005; Morck and Yeung, 2004). As entrepreneurial activities have been shown to be central to economic growth it is essential that family businesses, irrespective of ownership patterns, not only survive but also grow thus growing the economy overall. While a great deal is known about entrepreneurial activities and a body of knowledge is being developed in relation to entrepreneurial processes in family firms, more needs to be understood in relation to the dynamics of entrepreneurial activities at the individual family firm level. One area of particular interest is the dynamics within the business and the family and how these dynamics impact upon entrepreneurial activities. Specifically how relationships between and among family members engaged in the business can interact with professional non-family member senior executives. The senior executives can actively use their positions in such ways that initiatives suggested by family members are less successful than they might be. This paper addresses how ‘family’ aspects of a business can assist or impede the entrepreneurial activities of individuals. It takes into account some of the unique features of family businesses – such as the importance of ‘familiness’ as a competitive advantage; the direct links between ownership and control of a business and the recognition (often implicit) that individuals in families do make a difference to how the business functions (Habbershon and Williams, 1999, Sharma, 2004; and Tokarczyk, Hansen Green, and Down, 2007). This emphasis on individuals in families fits well with the idea of entrepreneur as individual, as expressed by Schumpeter (1934), Baumol et al (2007). The theoretical approach that adopted to explore the dynamics of processes occurring within family firms is structuration theory combined with a theory of embeddeness (Dacin, Ventresca and Beal, 1999; Giddens, 1979, 1984, Jack and Anderson, 2002; and Sarason, Dean and Dillard, 2006).

Small Business and entrepreneurship policy

There are two key approaches to entrepreneurship, each of which has different implications for small business policy (Danson 2002). The first conceives of entrepreneurship as an economic process and can be traced to the work of Joseph Schumpeter who developed the concept of creative destruction to describe the entrepreneurial process that led to the simultaneous elimination of old industries and activities and the creation of new activities through the commercial application of new ideas. While entrepreneurship as a process of creative destruction might include start up activity amongst small firms, it does not exclusively involve small firms as large firms may contribute to the entrepreneurial process through the generation of new knowledge and by assisting in financing the development of new ideas amongst small firms. Although innovation occurs in large as well as small firms, the literature on small enterprise innovation draws heavily on Schumpeter’s depiction of the central role of the entrepreneur in the process of creative destruction, whereby the economic system is transformed from within and new cycles in economic life emerge in which new industries and markets replace old industries and markets. Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs drove the process of innovation and that innovation was a stimulus to economic development and involved the development of new products, processes, methods of production or new forms of commercial or financial organisation (Schumpeter 1911). At a time when technological development and structuraleconomic change are occurring at a rapid pace, small firm innovation is seen to be critically important because empirical evidence, although not undisputed, indicates that SMEs make an important contribution to radical innovations in new industries (Nooteboom 1994). The second view of entrepreneurship focuses on the individual entrepreneur more than the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneur is depicted as an owner of small businesses, and is regarded as having particular personal characteristics such as self-reliance, individual initiative and self-motivation. Entrepreneurs are also considered to have a behavioural orientation towards the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities. They are the risk takers who are able to see an opportunity and pursue it commercially despite the uncertainty of rewards. The capacity to plan, manage and lead is also seen to be identifying characteristics of entrepreneurs. Different small business policy approaches arise from these different perspectives on entrepreneurship. Small business policy approaches that emphasise the process by which new ideas are generated and applied commercially arise from the first and broader view of entrepreneurship. Policies designed to generate a population of risk taking and self-motivated individuals with highly developed management and commercial skills are more in keeping with the second approach, which is focused on the individual entrepreneur rather than the entrepreneurial process.

Diffusion of corporate governance practices : the Dutch response to pressures for shareholder value

As part of a larger literature focused on identifying and relating the antecedents and consequences of diffusing organizational practices/ideas, recent research has debated the international adoption of a shareholder-value-orientation (SVO). The debate has financial economists characterizing the adoption of an SVO as performance-enhancing and thus inevitable, with behavioral scientists disputing both claims, invoking institutional differences. This study seeks to provide some resolution to the debate (and advance current understanding on the diffusion of practices/ideas) by developing a socio-political perspective that links the antecedents and consequences of an SVO. In particular, we introduce the notion of misaligned elites and misfitted practices in our analysis of how and why differences in the technical and cultural preferences of major owners will influence a firm’s adoption and (un)successful implementation of an SVO among the largest 100 corporations in the Netherlands from 1992-2006. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our perspective and our findings for future research on corporate governance and the diffusion of organizational practices/ideas.

From social foresight to social entrepreneurship: pathways to sustainability

This study asks the central question, ‘Are social entrepreneurs using foresight to create innovation based on triple bottom line sustainability measures?’ and ‘if so, how?’ Sustainability is the emergent criteria for evaluating many aspects of the social world, including corporate governance, health systems, economics, social welfare and the environment. All the while, innovation is one of the key factors in the constitution of our social worlds, be this legislative, organisational, social or technical change. Therefore, it appears that the drive toward sustainability should be coupled with an emphasis on innovation – in particular creating innovation toward sustainability. Yet unexamined assumptions exist behind such language. Sustainability is a concept within the context of ‘the future’, requiring one to question ‘what is the future’ – in essence a utilisation of the strategic capacity for foresight. Foresight, moreover, ranges from the tacit assumed personal foresight of the ordinary individual to the specialised foresight of the professional forecaster, scenario planner, or foresight practitioner.

It Takes Two to Tango: Entrepreneurship and Creativity in Troubled Times – Vietnam 2012

Strikingly, most literature suggests that market competition will push firms to take creativity/innovation seriously as matter of death or survival. Using the data, we examined creativity methods (Napier and Nilsson, 2008; Napier, 2010) in conjunction with three influential cultural values – namely risk tolerance, relationship, and dependence on resources – to assess how they influence decisions of entrepreneurs.The primary objective of this study focuses on perceived values of entrepreneurship and creativity in business conducted within a turbulent environment. Our initial hypothesis is that a typical entrepreneurial process carries with it “creativity-enabling elements.” In a normal situation, when businesses focus more on optimizing their resources for commercial gains, perceptions about values of entrepreneurial creativity are usually vague. However, in difficult times and harsh competition, the difference between survival and failure may be creativity. This paper also examines many previous findings on both entrepreneurship and creativity and suggests a highly possible “organic growth” of creativity in an entrepreneurial environment and reinforcing value of entrepreneurship when creativity power is present. In other words, we see each idea reinforcing the other. We use data from a survey of sample Vietnamese firms during the chaotic economic year 2012 to learn about the ‘entrepreneurshipcreativity nexus.’ A data set of 137 responses qualified for a statistical examination was obtained from an online survey, which started on February 16 and ended May 24, 2012, sent to local entrepreneurs and corporate managers using social networks. The authors employed categorical data analysis (Agresti, 2002; Azen & Walker, 2011). Statistical analyses confirm that for business operation, the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit could hardly be separate; and, this is not only correct with entrepreneurial firm, but also well established companies. The single most important factor before business startup and during early implementation in Vietnam is what we call “connection/relationship.” However, businesspeople are increasingly aware of the need of creativity/innovation. In fact, we suggest that creativity and entrepreneurial spirit cannot be separated in entrepreneurial firms as well as established companies.

Institutional framing of CSR and social entrepreneurship interactions in South Africa

Objectives. This paper considers the intersection of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and social entrepreneurship in South Africa through the lens of institutional theories and draws upon a number of illustrative case study examples. In particular it: (1) charts the historically evolving relationship between CSR and social entrepreneurship in South Africa, and how this relationship has been informed by institutional changes since the end of apartheid, particularly over the last few years; (2) identifies different interactional relationship forms between social enterprises and corporates engaging in CSR, with an emphasis on new innovative multi-stakeholder partnerships; and (3) considers internal engagements with social responsibility by SME social enterprises in South Africa. Prior Work. Reflecting South Africa’s history of division, the controversial role of business during apartheid, and the ongoing legacies of that period, the South African government has been particularly pro-active in encouraging companies to contribute to development and societal transformation through CSR and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). Accordingly a substantial body of work now exists examining and critically reflecting upon CSR and BEE across a range of sectors. In response to perceived problems with BEE, efforts have recently been made to foster broader-based economic empowerment. However the implications of these transitions for the relationship between CSR and social entrepreneurship in South Africa have received scant academic attention. Approach. Analysis is undertaken of legislative and policy changes in South Africa with a bearing on CSR and social entrepreneurship. Data collected during fieldwork in South Africa working with 6 social enterprise case studies is utilised including qualitative data from key informant interviews, focus groups with stakeholders and observational research. Results. The paper considers the historically evolving relationship between CSR and social entrepreneurship in South Africa informed by institutional change. Five different relationship forms are identified and illustrated with reference to case examples. Finally internal engagement with social responsibility concerns by small and medium social enterprises are critically discussed. Implications. This paper sheds light on some of the innovative partnerships emerging between corporates and social enterprises in South Africa. It reflects on some of the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa’s policy and legislative approaches. Value. The paper provides insights useful for academic and practitioner audiences. It also has policy relevance, in particularly for other African countries potentially looking to follow South Africa’s example, in the development of legislative and policy frameworks to promote corporate responsibility, empowerment and transformation.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship a systematic review

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature suggests CSR initiatives extend beyond meeting the immediate interests of stakeholders of for-profit enterprises, offering the potential to also enhance performance. Growing disillusionment of for-profit business models has drawn attention to social entrepreneurship and social innovation to ease social issues. Adopting a systematic review of relevant research, the article provides collective insights into research linking social innovation with social entrepreneurship, demonstrating growing interest in the area over the last decade. The past 5 years have seen a surge in attention with particular focus on the role of the entrepreneur, networks, systems, institutions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. Based on the findings of the review, the authors synthesize formerly dispersed fields of research into an analytical framework, signposting a “systems of innovation” approach for future studies of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.