Social entrepreneurship: Motivators and Challenges

Social entrepreneurship: Motivators and Challenges

Abstract

The study investigates the existing challenges and motivators for social entrepreneurship. To establish the factors over the years, the study applied a longitudinal view. This is an orientation that helps in determining how the elements and their influence has shifted over the years.

Further, to allow for the ease of longitudinal study development, the study adopted and sued secondary data. This is collected online from peer-review articles under the ABS approved list. The findings were analysed thematically.

In its analysis, the report establishes that challenges are mainly in the current regulatory and policy framework lack of enough support base. On the other hand, the motivators are categorised as both individuals based and market-based factors. Finally, the study concludes that in resolving the existing challenges, global governments have a role and responsibility to create sufficiently supportive policy systems.

Introduction

The global market base is gradually shifting (Busenitz, Sharfman, Townsend and Harkins, 2016). This has mainly been concerning the approach and perceptions by the market stakeholders on venture operations and their sustainability impact. As such, this has led to the emergence of social entrepreneurs who establish social ventures, which, although generating profits, add value, and resolve critical social issues. Nevertheless, as an emerging market aspect, it has remained unclear on the core motivators and challenges for this business category (Calic and Mosakowski, 2016). The study was developed with a strategic aim on establishing the exiting social entrepreneurship challenges and motivators. This is a study finding critical in shaping and guiding the creation of a favourable support system for such ventures. The study was developed after a preliminary evaluation of existing literature. Though demonstrating a wide coverage of issues and aspects in entrepreneurship, the focus on social entrepreneurship has been minimal. Thus, there was the strategic need to develop the study as a basis for bridging the existing literature gap.

Methodology

In developing the study analysis, the required data was longitudinal. The study focused on examining and evaluating the level and extent of existing challenges and motivator factors among social entrepreneurs. Thus, to arrive at a reliable finding, the study needed to examine the trends among social entrepreneurs and ventures over the years. This would help illustrate the practical challenges they face as well as the changing nature and landscape of motivators. The collection of such longitudinal primary data was not feasible. Thus, the study resulted in the adoption and use of secondary data. This was the data collected and sampled online. One of the core variables in using the secondary data source was ensuring (1) reliability and (2) accuracy (Chinomona and Maziriri, 2015).

On the one hand, to enhance reliability, the study sought to sue reliable and relevant findings. Thus, although focusing on an adapt longitudinal approach, the collected data in the conclusions were those limited to the last half a decade. Thus, findings included in the study ranged from 2015 to 2019. Prior studies to this period were only sued as classical studies and to demonstrate a background explanation of issues such as used theories and models, respectively. Secondly, in ensuring the accuracy and validity of the obtained findings, the study sought to use peer-reviewed journals. The study limited its scope only to peer reviewed journals as they are dependable on the quality and accuracy of the original findings obtained. In particular, its scope was limited to A.B.S. approved journals and articles only.

In collecting the required data, the study applied a keyword search criterion. As such, some of the critical words used as the parameters for collecting data included social entrepreneurship, challenges, and motivations, among others. The collected data and findings were both qualitative and quantitative. Finally, the conclusions obtained were analysed thematically and findings presented in two main sections, namely the motivators and the challenges sections, respectively.

Discussion

Social Entrepreneurship Motivators

Individual Motivator Factors

One of the core pillars and drivers of social entrepreneurship motivators is in their driver. Mottiar (2016) described these as personal factors that are within the entrepreneurs that set them apart from other society members. As such, it is pegged on these different factors that they are motivated and stimulated towards innovation and creativity in society. In this analysis, the Yitshaki and Kropp (2016) study applied the trait theory in its examination. The focus of the research was an investigation of the manner to which the trait theory would explain the rise in social entrepreneurship. Fundamentally, the theory is based on the assumption that individuals in society have unique traits that are seldom possessed in society. Such characteristics include risk-taking and care for society, among others. It is the possession of these traits that the individuals emerge as entrepreneurs in the long-run period. This is an aspect that was further explored in subsequent studies, as illustrated and developed by Liang, Wu, Law and Liu (2018) and Mottiar and Boluk (2017), respectively.

On the one hand, Liang, Wu, Law and Liu (2018) study was an exploration of the impact of risk-taking as a personal trait and individuals’ propensity to entrepreneurship. The focus of the research was to investigate if the possession of these skills had any significant impact on the success and starting up of entrepreneurship ventures. In its analysis, the study used a statistical analysis method. This was an analysis mainly through the use of correlation analysis. The correlation index was the average positive. This was an illustration that the possession of risk-taking traits among individuals had a direct and significant average impact on their entrepreneurship skills and endeavours. Thus, this led to the ultimate conclusion that risk-taking abilities were a pillar in enhancing entrepreneurship.

Secondly, Mottiar and Boluk (2017) study investigated the link between the individual’s decision-making power and capability to their potential for entrepreneurship ventures success. Although relating to secondary data, the review was a longitudinal study exploring and investigating the trends in business ventures and entities based on the owner’s decision-making traits and their decisiveness index. In its analysis, the study demonstrated that similar to the concept of risk-taking, the decisiveness trait and ability by the society members had a direct influence on their entrepreneurship entities. Thus, a critical examination of the above findings led to the assertion that, indeed, the entrepreneurship factors had a direct impact on entrepreneurship. However, as illustrated in the above discussion, the focus and has implications of the traits were generally on setting up entrepreneurship ventures and not on social investments. This was remedied through the Caringal-Go and Hechanova (2018) study. The analysis indicated that the possession of social concern and the high collectiveness index that was synonymous with creating for the society led and influenced the entrepreneurs. As such, the study demonstrated that there was a direct connection between the possession of social care for the community and the setting up of entrepreneurship entities in the market. This analysis was grounded on the fact that the emergence and the rise of social ventures are driven by the need to resolve and exiting society’s challenge. Thus, the drive and internal motivation to help the society meet and address its emerging issues and gaps led to the creation and emergence of social entrepreneurship ventures.

Market/ society pull factors

Besides the possession of the internal individual factors, there are other external factors. These are the push and pull factors in the market that allow for the emergence of entrepreneurship entities and ventures in the market. This is a factor and argument supported through a wide range of studies and reviews such as the Carraher, Welsh and Svilokos (2016), Nicholls and Ziegler (2017), and Huda et al. (2019) studies, respectively.

On the one hand, Carraher, Welsh and Svilokos (2016) study was an evaluation of the factors influencing the emergence of social entrepreneurship entities in the emerging markets. This was an exploration of the changing landscape and dynamics in the emerging markets. The study was developed against the backdrop on the understanding that there is a shifting trend in the emergence of such social ventures in the market. The background section of the study illustrated that there are a rising trend and a number of social entities in emerging markets. This is a phenomenon that had traditionally been in developed markets. As such, there was the need to evaluate and establish the derives and factors in these markets that have now created an ample and suitable environment for such social ventures’ creation and emergence. Overall, although recognising that there are different influencing factors, the analysis noted that (1) existing social challenges and social gaps, (2) supportive policy and regulatory systems, and (3) the society perceptive shifts in the market, respectively.

On the one hand, Huda et al. (2019) study was an evaluation of the shifting customer base index. In this case, the study focused on exploring how the markets have aligned their customer trends to the concept of sustainability. This was arrived at through applying the triple-bottom-line theory. The theory is an examination of the factors and drivers pushing the creation and the adoption of business operations. In its focus, the study indicated that there are a link and a connection between the three conflicting priorities in the market. They are the people, profit, and the planet, respectively. Traditionally, as indicated in the previous study by Nicholls and Ziegler (2017), the customers’ focus was mainly on using and purchasing products that offered a lower cost in the market. Thus, the ‘end justified the means. This was to mean that the customers were less concerned with the process of delivering the products and services, as long as they were affordable and of perceived functionality quality. This is a phenomenon perception and orientation that has significantly changed in the market. In this case, modern society focuses on social sustainability. Thus, besides the use of a shareholder’s view, customers are supportive of organizations that have a stakeholder’s approach. These are organisations that offer a social value to society through considering all the three conflicting priorities. As such, this is a preference and market orientation shift that has impacted and created a suitable environment for the emergence and the creation of alternative social entrepreneurship entities in the market. The trend is projected to rise and expand into the future. This, this analysis demonstrates that with the shifting market trends and dynamics

On the other hand, Sigala’s (2016) study was a demonstration of the link between exiting social gaps and needs in the make and the rise of social entrepreneurial ventures. In its focus, the review was an examination and an evaluation of the link and a connection between existing social needs and the rise of social entities. In its analysis, the study, through statistical data, demonstrated a relationship between the two variables. It argued that the existing social gaps and needs are a market driver and a pull factor that crates the suitability and the rationale for establishing market ventures. Finally, the Yitshaki and Kropp (2016) study was an investigation and an exploration of the connection between the emergence of such ventures and the existing social and legal frameworks in the market. In this case, the study demonstrated that the creation of supportive legal structures and systems allowed for the creation and emergence of social ventures and entities.

Social Entrepreneurship Challenges

Despite the existing motivational factors, there are similar challenges in setting up and establishing social ventures. In an overview examination, the 9) study was an exploration of some of the unique challenges facing social entrepreneurs in the market. In its focus, the study demonstrates that core among the challenges included (1) problems in accessing finances, (2) ack of supportive legal and social systems, and (3) conflicting business goals and challenges. These were study findings that were further supported by other studies, including Muñoz and Kibler (2016), Tracey and Stott (2017) and Pache (2016), respectively.

First, Muñoz and Kibler (2016) study was an examination of the issues facing the social venture establishment and their development and growth opportunities. In this case, the study illustrated that one of the core challenges in accessing financing. In this case, unlike other forms of entrepreneurship, this has traditionally been viewed as less profitable. Thus, in the concept of a high and rising profit orientation, the venture capitalists, and financial institutions that are at the core of offering financial support and assistance have neglected this entities category. Thus, based on the above findings, it was clear that although social venues present a wide range of opportunities and gains in the society, the lack of focusing purely on creating profits has significantly reduced the entities’ ability to access financing. , this has been a derailing factor in the realization of social entrepreneur goals in the long-run period. Secondly, Tracey and Stott (2017) study illustrated that the emergence and the adoption of social entrepreneurial ventures is the lack of explicit support systems. This was mainly in the emerging markets context. In its analysis, the study demonstrated that although there is the creation of a free and fair working environment, the governments, mainly in developing markets, have failed to support and aid in the production of successful social enterprise. This is through case studies such as those in Africa. The analysis demonstrated that social ventures are continuously facing challenges in establishing a market space and scope. This has mainly due to the failure of the existing frameworks to create a particular niche for the organisations. For instance, although recognising the need for specific funding for S.M.E.s, there lacks a similar and related framework for allowing support both financial and technical for the social entrepreneur. Besides, the analysis demonstrated that a rising and additional challenge in the market had been the lack of a clear and supportive policy in aiding and training social entrepreneurs. Although, to an extent, the entrepreneurs are born, they are, to no small degree, brand and developed through support and training programs. The lack of such training and support systems, as well as the lack of a clear framework for creating awareness, has not only reduced their potential for market success but also reduced the number of willing and capable social entrepreneurs in the society.

Finally, André and Pache’s (2016) study explored the challenges linked to profitability. Social enterprises, although serving the interests of the society, are aimed at meeting the social needs and expectations while delivering on the strategic value of the investment. As such, they also require a sustainable revenue model to ensure that their functions and operations remain viable in the long-run period. Unfortunately, there is insufficient society awareness. In this case, Urban and Kujinga (2017) argued that one of the challenges in society is the perception of social ventures as a tool for a non-profit generation. Thus, there is the perception that such organisations and entities should offer the availed services and products either at below the current rates or at times for free. This is a market concept that has created significant challenges in terms of realising the goals of such ventures in both addressing the current social needs in meeting the entrepreneurs’ social and economic value generation goals.

Conclusion

In summary, this study analysis has developed a critical examination of the existing challenges and motivator for social entrepreneurs Through a detailed secondary data examination, the study noted that the core challenges are in the lack of a transparent support framework. This denies the social ventures access to privileges, funding, and a misunderstanding among the public. Nevertheless, it indicated a wide range of rising opportunities and motivators, both internally and externally. The study concludes that respective governments globally should focus on creating supportive systems to aid and enhance the eventual success in social entrepreneurship.

References

André, K. and Pache, A.C., 2016. From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), pp.659-675.

Busenitz, L.W., Sharfman, M.P., Townsend, D.M. and Harkins, J.A., 2016. The emergence of dual-identity social entrepreneurship: Its boundaries and limitations. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(1), pp.25-48.

Calic, G. and Mosakowski, E., 2016. Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), pp.738-767.

Caringal-Go, J.F. and Hechanova, M.R.M., 2018. Motivational needs and intent to stay of social enterprise workers. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(3), pp.200-214.

Carraher, S.M., Welsh, D.H. and Svilokos, A., 2016. Validation of a measure of social entrepreneurship. European Journal of International Management, 10(4), pp.386-402.

Chinomona, E. and Maziriri, E.T., 2015. Women in action: Challenges facing women entrepreneurs in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 14(6), pp.835-850.

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). I.G.I. Global.

Ip, C.Y., Liang, C., Wu, S.C., Law, K.M.Y. and Liu, H.C., 2018. Enhancing social entrepreneurial intentions through entrepreneurial creativity: A comparative study between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Creativity research journal, 30(2), pp.132-142.

Mottiar, Z. and Boluk, K., 2017. Understanding how social entrepreneurs fit into the tourism discourse. In Social entrepreneurship and tourism (pp. 117-132). Springer, Cham.

Mottiar, Z., 2016. Exploring the motivations of tourism social entrepreneurs: The role of a national tourism policy as a motivator for social entrepreneurial activity in Ireland. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), pp.1137-1154.

Muñoz, P. and Kibler, E., 2016. Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of business research, 69(4), pp.1314-1318.

Nicholls, A. and Ziegler, R., 2017. An extended social grid model for the study of marginalization processes and social innovation.

Sigala, M., 2016. Learning with the market: A market approach and framework for developing social entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), pp.1245-1286.

Tracey, P. and Stott, N., 2017. Social innovation: a window on alternative ways of organizing and innovating. Innovation, 19(1), pp.51-60.

Urban, B. and Kujinga, L., 2017. The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(4), pp.638-655.

Yitshaki, R. and Kropp, F., 2016. Entrepreneurial passions and identities in different contexts: a comparison between high-tech and social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(3-4), pp.206-233.

Yitshaki, R. and Kropp, F., 2016. Motivations and opportunity recognition of social entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), pp.546-565