Social Entrepreneurship as a Norm?

• Date: 01 June 2016
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• Author: The Editors
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12204

Social Entrepreneurship as a Norm?

The Editors

Is the act of entrepreneurship itself a social good?

This simple and seemingly easy question goes to the heart of the debate of this issue’s

Point-Counter Point articles but the answer appears not to be so straightforward. The

recently released 2015/16 Global Report from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

(GEM) provides evidence of the breadth, power, and positives of entrepreneurship:

increasing participation rates across the globe by individuals of varied backgrounds

(Kelley et al., 2016). The GEM report shows that individuals are starting businesses,

creating jobs, and building entrepreneurship ecosystems with positive impacts on their

communities. On the other hand, some research contends that entrepreneurial activities

need to be more closely scrutinized for their negative externalities (Beaver and Jennings,

2005; Khan et al., 2007; Zahra and Wright, 2016). The argument here is that all entre-

preneurs have to go beyond providing an economic return and be responsible for a tri-

ple bottom line.

Suddenly, the simple answer to the opening question is not so simple.

I have often thought of the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ as redundant. Entrepre-

neurs take various forms, but generally speaking they invent or innovate and then exe-

cute in the market. They can be small and local, large and global, or somewhere in

between, but their function is to match their goods or services to a market segment and

provide that segment with value. As such, by their existence and actions they deliver

positive value to society. They treat their customers right, build a good business and do

no harm. On the other hand, research has noted that entrepreneurship may also have a

dark side, as illustrated by Baumol’s classic work highlighting unproductive and destruc-

tive entrepreneurship (1990). Written to advocate policy change, Baumol’s argument

illuminated the potential ills of entrepreneurial activity as typified by organized crime

and other illegal operators

As entrepreneurs focused on the environment and mission-driven causes have come

of age over the past two decades, the relationship between ‘social’ and ‘entrepreneur-

ship’ has become less clear. Classifying entrepreneurs as either job creating, innovators

(positive) or Ponzi schemers, scam artists, or organized criminals (negative) trivializes the

argument. These two poles anchor opposite side of the spectrum and while this simplifi-

cation may be clear and sufficient for practitioners, it is less so for scholars.

The contribution of entrepreneurship to society is and always will be a net positive

(Reagan, 1985) but what are the social obligations, if any, for entrepreneurs?

The answer to this and the opening question are more nuanced than one might see on

V

C2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies 53:4 June 2016

doi: 10.1111/joms.12204