case study on social entrepreneurs

• Program on Social Enterprise, Innovation, and Impact
• Case Studies

Social Enterprise Case Studies

Requests for teaching notes, as well as your comments, can be sent to  [email protected]

If any case is reproduced and used in a course please contact us before distribution. For a complete listing of case studies by the Yale School of Management, please visit the Yale SOM Case Studies Directory . 

Design and social innovation "raw" cases

Mayo Clinic: Design thinking in healthcare

If we can test new drugs in clinical trials, can we also test new kinds of doctor-patient interactions?

Teach for all

How can Teach for America expand its successful model of education beyond the United States?

SELCO 2009: Determining a path forward

Harish Hande founded SELCO to provide solar electricity for lighting and power to India's poor. Having attained a measure of success, he must determine the future of his enterprise.

Project Masiluleke

Texting and testing to fight HIV/AIDS in South Africa.

Free cases on nonprofit governance

Conflicting agendas for the future of a youth agency.

Having avoided self-scrutiny for most of its sixty year history, a youth agency is forced to take a hard look at its future when finances begin to decline. The executive director and the board president hold differing views on the appropriate course of action, and the reader is asked to decide which position is in the best interests of the organization.

Consulting to a nonprofit board: Peeling the onion

Outside consultants to governing boards are commonly asked to clarify the appropriate roles for the board, executive director, and staff--who does what and who should. The "problem," however, is rarely what it seems to be to participants. Understanding the complex environments in which boards do their work is key to effective consulting and to achieving successful outcomes for a board. In this case the reader is challenged to "see" the agency in its context with a variety of interpretive lenses. 

Board development and congregational sponsorship

The governing board of a shelter for homeless women and children is dominated by representatives of the founding congregations. As the condition for receiving a substantial grant, the board has been asked to curtail its involvement in operations and focus instead on planning, policy development, evaluation, and fundraising. The reader analyzes the influence of faith on member behavior and the board's developmental stage and assesses the impact of changing from sectarian to non-sectarian sponsorship.

Neighborhood agencies, businesses, and the city: Boston Against Drugs

Boston Against Drugs was a partnership among the city, business corporations, and neighborhood groups united in opposition to drug and alcohol abuse. In this case, the reader is asked to analyze BAD as a collaboration, paying particular attention to assessing the role of the corporate partners. Readers must make recommendations regarding future funding options necessary to keep BAD alive as well as administrative and governance changes necessary to strengthen BAD's operating effectiveness. 

Governing board oversight of donor dollars: Foundation for new era philanthropy

The exposure of the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy as a Ponzi scheme attracted wide press coverage in 1995. New Era promised nonprofit organizations that funds deposited with it would be matched in six months. In this case the reader is asked to evaluate the oversight of donor funds exercised by the governing board of Menno Haven, Inc., an operator of retirement communities that numbered among the Foundation's major beneficiaries. 

Hospital joint ventures and conflicts of interest

Although Mapletown's community hospital is operating in the black, it carries a substantial debt load and its future in the changing health care environment is uncertain. A physician's proposal to add an expensive high tech service brings to the surface conflicting perspectives about governing board strategies and actions that will best promote the community's welfare. 

A governing board considers closure: A dramatic narrative in three acts

In this case the reader must decide how the governing board of a floundering arts organization should respond to a motion for closure. The case illustrates the unique traits that founding executive directors often possess, the limitations of un-involved boards, the dangers of inert programs and policies, the need for transformational leadership in floundering organizations, and the factors that may influence a board to consider closure. The case is presented through a play-like narrative of three acts. 

To be or not to be? Or, is it nobler to care than to be a part of managed care?

Associated Youth Services (AYS) provides a variety of services to at-risk youth and their families. In recent years its management and board have responded to rapid cuts in state funding and to the introduction of "managed care" in the administration of state social service programs. Readers of this case critique a decision process of core strategic importance: whether to redesign the organization's mission and vision to reflect a basic paradigm change in the external environment. 

Authority dilemmas on a board in a multi-tiered governance structure

Nonprofit organizations often struggle with the never--ending discussion of board roles and responsibilities. Who does what, when, and who should? In the case of St. Aloysius Care Center, the problem of role responsibility was exacerbated by an organizational structure embracing three levels of authority. The distinctions and responsibility were never clear, not just structurally but politically. When the local board, consistent with its understanding of its authority, initiated actions to replace its president/CEO, it opened a Pandora's box. All three levels acted as if they were in charge. 

Hope Network: Where do we go from here?

A faith-based nonprofit organization is at a crossroads after learning that its founding CEO plans to retire. The board of directors must now determine what kind of leader to seek and what implications this process might have for the future of the organization. 

ABC Childcare "My hands are tied"

Elizabeth Green is the Executive Director of ABC Childcare, a financially burdened nonprofit childcare center loosely affiliated with a local YMCB in Central Massachusetts. The YMCB's efforts to centralize operations had been costlier than expected, resulting in a newly imposed salary freeze for all educators and administrators. Dissatisfaction among YMCB employees was smoldering, and teachers were increasingly tense. Elizabeth felt that without the ability to offer even the most modest of raises, she could not overcome her teachers' waning motivation. Furthermore, she became concerned about the longer-term implications. Could she and her associates develop a strategy to re-energize teachers?

Other case studies related to social entrepreneurship

Ibm corporate service corps.

Founded in 2007, IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (CSC) had become the largest pro bono consulting program in the world. The program promised a triple-benefit: leadership training to the brightest young IBMers, brand recognition for IBM in emerging markets, and community improvement in the areas served by IBM’s host organizations. As the program entered its second decade in 2016, IBM was looking for ways in which it could increase social impact while preserving the program’s other aspects.

Achievement First

On the edges of a warehouse district in New Haven, Connecticut, Amistad Academy, a charter school founded by two Yale Law School graduates, are challenging the conventional theory that poor educational performance is the result of low socioeconomic status (SES) by not only getting students on par with their grade levels in reading and math, but is pushing them to perform as well as the best suburban school districts too.

The Business of Art

In 2007 the Guggenheim began considering a proposal for a new branch in Guadalajara, Mexico. A spectacular site, a healthy tourist industry, and a cooperative local government all seemed to offer a solid foundation for a new museum. However, the Guggenheim's endowment was not growing at the same fast rate as it had during the 1990s. Was Guadalajara a good option for a Guggenheim in Latin America? Or should the Guggenheim wait and pursue offers from other cities?

CostumeRentals

This case was produced through the Yale SOM Goldman Sachs Foundation Partnership on Nonprofit Ventures. This case examines the challenges of a start-up for profit venture created by non-profit parent entities. CostumeRentals, LLC has many issues to resolve. As a new venture, it has the challenges of profitability, operational efficiency, staffing, and sustainability.

Environmental Defense - TXU

James D. Marston, director of Environmental Defense's Texas Office, has been asked by a group of private equity firms to bless their takeover of TXU in return for environmental concessions. What should his negotiation strategy be?

Govenors Island

Governors Island was a military base for 200 years. When the Coast Guard left in 1996, the island became a ghost town of landmark forts and houses as well as deteriorating outbuildings and playing fields. For some, this open land in the midst of New York Harbor represented an opportunity to build an extraordinary development. Others saw the potential liabilities. Will local, state, and federal governments make a deal?

Mercy Corps

Mercy Corps was known for its gutsy approach to disasters. While other relief and development organizations were scrambling to plan a response, Mercy Corps would already be on the ground with aid and skilled field workers. Although it was a relatively new player in the NGO world, by the late 1990s Mercy Corps had developed a reputation as a nimble, decentralized organization that was not afraid to take risks.

Profits and Principles: Benhaven's Learning Network

This case was produced through the Yale SOM Goldman Sachs Foundation Partnership on Nonprofit Ventures. In this case, Benhaven, an organization serving the needs of autistic children, struggles with the role of its consulting arm. This branch, called The Learning Network, seeks to provide revenue for the larger organization by selling its expertise to local school districts. But the organization quickly finds that there is sometimes a tension between providing quality services and profitability.

The Baltimore Fund

The Baltimore Fund LLC is a community development venture capital fund with 15 investors: foundations, individuals, a financial institution and a university. This case traces the development of the partnership from the perspective of the foundation that initiated the project. It looks at many of the decisions that had to be made to get the project underway.

Prodigy Finance

Having pioneered a successful financing model for student loans, Prodigy also was considering other financial services that could make use of the company’s risk model. What new products could Prodigy offer to support its student borrowers? What strategy should guide the company’s new product development? Or should the company stick to the educational loans it pioneered and knew best?

William Bratton and the NYPD

William Bratton, commissioner of the New York Police Department from 1994 to 1996, presided over a dramatic decline in the city’s crime rate. Hired by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as part of a new crime fighting initiative, Bratton embraced the “broken windows” theory that had made him so successful as chief of the city’s transit police.

DonorsChoose

In 2000, Charles Best (Yale College ’98), a social studies teacher at an alternative public high school in the South Bronx, found himself frustrated because his school did not have access to many of the resources available in other New York City public schools. Best and his colleagues were able to secure basic materials, but they were unable to bring many creative classroom projects to fruition, because they lacked financial support.

Seven Theaters

First book marketplace.

Based on the idea that many community programs have some small budgets with which to purchase books, the FBMP was dedicated to stretching those dollars as far as possible, allowing programs to buy quality books in larger quantities than ever before while still earning a profit that would be used to support the First Book mission.

New Hampshire Community Loan Fund

For Americans who cannot afford a standard home mortgage, one alternative to renting an apartment is to buy a mobile home. Also known as manufactured housing, mobile homes are built in a factory and then transported by tractor-trailer to the site where they will be occupied. They provide permanent housing at prices that are less than half the cost per square foot of regular “site-built” houses.

Compumentor and the DiscounTech.org Service

A nonprofit organization has established a for-profit venture to sell donated and discounted technology products. The venture is now profitable and ambitious goals have been set for the future. This case focuses on how the general manager of a nonprofit must develop a communications strategy to build sales through different channels.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

SocialEntrepreneurship →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Essentials of Social Innovation

Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition.

Social entrepreneurship is attracting growing amounts of talent, money, and attention, but along with its increasing popularity has come less certainty about what exactly a social entrepreneur is and does.

• download https://ssir.org/images/articles/2007SP_feature_martinosberg.pdf
• order reprints
• related stories

By Roger L. Martin & Sally Osberg Spring 2007

A starter kit for leaders of social change.

• Collective Impact

• Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition

• The Dawn of System Leadership

• Design Thinking for Social Innovation

• The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle

• Ten Nonprofit Funding Models

• The Science of What Makes People Care

• Stop Raising Awareness Already

• Rediscovering Social Innovation

• Innovation Is Not the Holy Grail

The latest social innovation essentials, delivered to your inbox .

The nascent field of social entrepreneurship is growing rapidly and attracting increased attention from many sectors. The term itself shows up frequently in the media , is referenced by public officials, has become common on university campuses, and informs the strategy of several prominent social sector organizations, including Ashoka and the Schwab and Skoll Foundation foundations.

The reasons behind the popularity of social entrepreneurship are many. On the most basic level, there’s something inherently interesting and appealing about entrepreneurs and the stories of why and how they do what they do. People are attracted to social entrepreneurs like last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus for many of the same reasons that they find business entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs so compelling – these extraordinary people come up with brilliant ideas and against all the odds succeed at creating new products and services that dramatically improve people’s lives.

But interest in social entrepreneurship transcends the phenomenon of popularity and fascination with people. Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and its practitioners apart.

Although the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are clear to many of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return is less clear. In fact, we would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything but clear. As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit.

In some respects this inclusiveness could be a good thing. If plenty of resources are pouring into the social sector, and if many causes that otherwise would not get sufficient funding now get support because they are regarded as social entrepreneurship, then it may be fine to have a loose definition. We are inclined to argue, however, that this is a flawed assumption and a precarious stance.

Social entrepreneurship is an appealing construct precisely because it holds such high promise. If that promise is not fulfilled because too many “nonentrepreneurial” efforts are included in the definition, then social entrepreneurship will fall into disrepute, and the kernel of true social entrepreneurship will be lost. Because of this danger, we believe that we need a much sharper definition of social entrepreneurship, one that enables us to determine the extent to which an activity is and is not “in the tent.” Our goal is not to make an invidious comparison between the contributions made by traditional social service organizations and the results of social entrepreneurship, but simply to highlight what differentiates them.

If we can achieve a rigorous definition, then those who support social entrepreneurship can focus their resources on building and strengthening a concrete and identifiable field. Absent that discipline, proponents of social entrepreneurship run the risk of giving the skeptics an ever-expanding target to shoot at, and the cynics even more reason to discount social innovation and those who drive it.

Starting With Entrepreneurship

Any definition of the term “social entrepreneurship” must start with the word “entrepreneurship.” The word “social” simply modifies entrepreneurship. If entrepreneurship doesn’t have a clear meaning, then modifying it with social won’t accomplish much, either.

The word entrepreneurship is a mixed blessing. On the positive side, it connotes a special, innate ability to sense and act on opportunity, combining out-of-the-box thinking with a unique brand of determination to create or bring about something new to the world. On the negative side, entrepreneurship is an ex post term, because entrepreneurial activities require a passage of time before their true impact is evident.

Interestingly, we don’t call someone who exhibits all of the personal characteristics of an entrepreneur – opportunity sensing, out-of-the-box thinking, and determination – yet who failed miserably in his or her venture an entrepreneur; we call him or her a business failure. Even someone like Bob Young, of Red Hat Software fame, is called a “serial entrepreneur” only after his first success; i.e., all of his prior failures are dubbed the work of a serial entrepreneur only after the occurrence of his first success. The problem with ex post definitions is that they tend to be ill defined. It’s simply harder to get your arms around what’s unproven. An entrepreneur can certainly claim to be one, but without at least one notch on the belt, the self-proclaimed will have a tough time persuading investors to place bets. Those investors, in turn, must be willing to assume greater risk as they assess the credibility of would-be entrepreneurs and the potential impact of formative ventures.

Even with these considerations, we believe that appropriating entrepreneurship for the term social entrepreneurship requires wrestling with what we actually mean by entrepreneurship. Is it simply alertness to opportunity? Creativity? Determination? Although these and other behavioral characteristics are part of the story and certainly provide important clues for prospective investors, they are not the whole story. Such descriptors are also used to describe inventors, artists, corporate executives, and other societal actors.

Like most students of entrepreneurship, we begin with French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, who in the early 19th century described the entrepreneur as one who “shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield,” thereby expanding the literal translation from the French, “one who undertakes,” to encompass the concept of value creation. 1

Writing a century later, Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter built upon this basic concept of value creation, contributing what is arguably the most influential idea about entrepreneurship. Schumpeter identified in the entrepreneur the force required to drive economic progress, absent which economies would become static, structurally immobilized, and subject to decay. Enter the Unternehmer , Schumpeter’s entrepreneurial spirit, who identifies a commercial opportunity – whether a material, product, service, or business – and organizes a venture to implement it. Successful entrepreneurship, he argues, sets off a chain reaction, encouraging other entrepreneurs to iterate upon and ultimately propagate the innovation to the point of “creative destruction,” a state at which the new venture and all its related ventures effectively render existing products, services, and business models obsolete. 2

Despite casting the dramatis personae in heroic terms, Schumpeter’s analysis grounds entrepreneurship within a system, ascribing to the entrepreneur’s role a paradoxical impact, both disruptive and generative. Schumpeter sees the entrepreneur as an agent of change within the larger economy. Peter Drucker, on the other hand, does not see entrepreneurs as necessarily agents of change themselves, but rather as canny and committed exploiters of change. According to Drucker, “the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity,” 3 a premise picked up by Israel Kirzner, who identifies “alertness” as the entrepreneur’s most critical ability. 4

Regardless of whether they cast the entrepreneur as a breakthrough innovator or an early exploiter, theorists universally associate entrepreneurship with opportunity. Entrepreneurs are believed to have an exceptional ability to see and seize upon new opportunities, the commitment and drive required to pursue them, and an unflinching willingness to bear the inherent risks.

Building from this theoretical base, we believe that entrepreneurship describes the combination of a context in which an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue this opportunity, and the creation of a particular outcome.

To explore and illustrate our definition of entrepreneurship, we will take a close look at a few contemporary American entrepreneurs (or pairs thereof ): Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple Computer, Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll of eBay, Ann and Mike Moore of Snugli, and Fred Smith of FedEx.

Entrepreneurial Context

The starting point for entrepreneurship is what we call an entrepreneurial context. For Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the entrepreneurial context was a computing system in which users were dependent on mainframe computers controlled by a central IT staff who guarded the mainframe like a shrine. Users got their computing tasks done, but only after waiting in line and using the software designed by the IT staff. If users wanted a software program to do something out of the ordinary, they were told to wait six months for the programming to be done.

From the users’ perspective, the experience was inefficient and unsatisfactory. But since the centralized computing model was the only one available, users put up with it and built the delays and inefficiencies into their workflow, resulting in an equilibrium, albeit an unsatisfactory one.

System dynamicists describe this kind of equilibrium as a “balanced feedback loop,” because there isn’t a strong force that has the likely effect of breaking the system out of its particular equilibrium. It is similar to a thermostat on an air conditioner: When the temperature rises, the air conditioner comes on and lowers the temperature, and the thermostat eventually turns the air conditioner off.

The centralized computing system that users had to endure was a particular kind of equilibrium: an unsatisfactory one. It is as if the thermostat were set five degrees too low so that everyone in the room was cold. Knowing they have a stable and predictable temperature, people simply wear extra sweaters, though of course they might wish that they didn’t have to.

Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll identified an unsatisfactory equilibrium in the inability of geographically based markets to optimize the interests of both buyers and sellers. Sellers typically didn’t know who the best buyer was and buyers typically didn’t know who the best (or any) seller was. As a result, the market was not optimal for buyers or sellers. People selling used household goods, for example, held garage sales that attracted physically proximate buyers, but probably not the optimal number or types of buyers. People trying to buy obscure goods had no recourse but to search through Yellow Page directories, phoning and phoning to try to track down what they really wanted, often settling for something less than perfect. Because buyers and sellers couldn’t conceive of a better answer, the stable, yet suboptimal, equilibrium prevailed.

Ann and Mike Moore took note of a subpar equilibrium in parents’ limited options for toting their infants. Parents wishing to keep their babies close while carrying on basic tasks had two options: They could learn to juggle offspring in one arm while managing chores with the other, or they could plop the child in a stroller, buggy, or other container and keep the child nearby. Either option was less than ideal. Everyone knows that newborns benefit from the bonding that takes place because of close physical contact with their mothers and fathers, but even the most attentive and devoted parents can’t hold their babies continuously. With no other options, parents limped along, learning to shift their child from one hip to the other and becoming adept at “one-armed paper hanging,” or attempting to get their tasks accomplished during naptime.

In the case of Fred Smith, the suboptimal equilibrium he saw was the long-distance courier service. Before FedEx came along, sending a package across country was anything but simple. Local courier services picked up the package and transported it to a common carrier, who flew the package to the remote destination city, at which point it was handed over to a third party for final delivery (or perhaps back to the local courier’s operation in that city if it was a national company). This system was logistically complex, it involved a number of handoffs, and the scheduling was dictated by the needs of the common carriers. Often something would go wrong, but no one would take responsibility for solving the problem. Users learned to live with a slow, unreliable, and unsatisfactory service – an unpleasant but stable situation because no user could change it.

Entrepreneurial Characteristics

The entrepreneur is attracted to this suboptimal equilibrium, seeing embedded in it an opportunity to provide a new solution, product, service, or process. The reason that the entrepreneur sees this condition as an opportunity to create something new, while so many others see it as an inconvenience to be tolerated, stems from the unique set of personal characteristics he or she brings to the situation – inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude. These characteristics are fundamental to the process of innovation.

The entrepreneur is inspired to alter the unpleasant equilibrium. Entrepreneurs might be motivated to do this because they are frustrated users or because they empathize with frustrated users. Sometimes entrepreneurs are so gripped by the opportunity to change things that they possess a burning desire to demolish the status quo. In the case of eBay, the frustrated user was Omidyar’s girlfriend, who collected Pez dispensers.

The entrepreneur thinks creatively and develops a new solution that dramatically breaks with the existing one. The entrepreneur doesn’t try to optimize the current system with minor adjustments, but instead finds a wholly new way of approaching the problem. Omidyar and Skoll didn’t develop a better way to promote garage sales. Jobs and Wozniak didn’t develop algorithms to speed custom software development. And Smith didn’t invent a way to make the handoffs between courier companies and common carriers more efficient and error-free. Each found a completely new and utterly creative solution to the problem at hand.

Once inspired by the opportunity and in possession of a creative solution, the entrepreneur takes direct action . Rather than waiting for someone else to intervene or trying to convince somebody else to solve the problem, the entrepreneur takes direct action by creating a new product or service and the venture to advance it. Jobs and Wozniak didn’t campaign against mainframes or encourage users to rise up and overthrow the IT department; they invented a personal computer that allowed users to free themselves from the mainframe. Moore didn’t publish a book telling mothers how to get more done in less time; she developed the Snugli, a frameless front- or backpack that enables parents to carry their babies and still have both hands free. Of course, entrepreneurs do have to influence others: first investors, even if just friends and family; then teammates and employees, to come work with them; and finally customers, to buy into their ideas and their innovations. The point is to differentiate the entrepreneur’s engagement in direct action from other indirect and supportive actions.

Entrepreneurs demonstrate courage throughout the process of innovation, bearing the burden of risk and staring failure squarely if not repeatedly in the face. This often requires entrepreneurs to take big risks and do things that others think are unwise, or even undoable. For example, Smith had to convince himself and the world that it made sense to acquire a fleet of jets and build a gigantic airport and sorting center in Memphis, in order to provide next-day delivery without the package ever leaving FedEx’s possession. He did this at a time when all of his entrenched competitors had only fleets of trucks for local pickup and delivery – they certainly didn’t run airports and maintain huge numbers of aircraft.

Finally, entrepreneurs possess the fortitude to drive their creative solutions through to fruition and market adoption. No entrepreneurial venture proceeds without setbacks or unexpected turns, and the entrepreneur needs to be able to find creative ways around the barriers and challenges that arise. Smith had to figure out how to keep investors confident that FedEx would eventually achieve the requisite scale to pay for the huge fixed infrastructure of trucks, planes, airport, and IT systems required for the new model he was creating. FedEx had to survive hundreds of millions of dollars of losses before it reached a cash-flow positive state, and without a committed entrepreneur at the helm, the company would have been liquidated well before that point.

Entrepreneurial Outcome

What happens when an entrepreneur successfully brings his or her personal characteristics to bear on a suboptimal equilibrium? He or she creates a new stable equilibrium, one that provides a meaningfully higher level of satisfaction for the participants in the system. To elaborate on Say’s original insight, the entrepreneur engineers a permanent shift from a lower-quality equilibrium to a higher-quality one. The new equilibrium is permanent because it first survives and then stabilizes, even though some aspects of the original equilibrium may persist (e.g., expensive and less-efficient courier systems, garage sales, and the like). Its survival and success ultimately move beyond the entrepreneur and the original entrepreneurial venture. It is through mass-market adoption, significant levels of imitation, and the creation of an ecosystem around and within the new equilibrium that it first stabilizes and then securely persists.

When Jobs and Wozniak created the personal computer they didn’t simply attenuate the users’ dependence on the mainframe – they shattered it, shifting control from the “glass house” to the desktop. Once the users saw the new equilibrium appearing before their eyes, they embraced not only Apple but also the many competitors who leaped into the fray. In relatively short order, the founders had created an entire ecosystem with numerous hardware, software, and peripheral suppliers; distribution channels and value-added resellers; PC magazines; trade shows; and so on.

Because of this new ecosystem, Apple could have exited from the market within a few years without destabilizing it. The new equilibrium, in other words, did not depend on the creation of a single venture, in this case Apple, but on the appropriation and replication of the model and the spawning of a host of other related businesses. In Schumpeterian terms, the combined effect firmly established a new computing order and rendered the old mainframe-based system obsolete.

In the case of Omidyar and Skoll, the creation of eBay provided a superior way for buyers and sellers to connect, creating a higher equilibrium. Entire new ways of doing business and new businesses sprang up to create a powerful ecosystem that simply couldn’t be disassembled. Similarly, Smith created a new world of package delivery that raised standards, changed business practices, spawned new competitors, and even created a new verb: “to FedEx.”

In each case, the delta between the quality of the old equilibrium and the new one was huge. The new equilibrium quickly became self-sustaining, and the initial entrepreneurial venture spawned numerous imitators. Together these outcomes ensured that everyone who benefited secured the higher ground.

Shift to Social Entrepreneurship

If these are the key components of entrepreneurship, what distinguishes social entrepreneurship from its for-profit cousin? First, we believe that the most useful and informative way to define social entrepreneurship is to establish its congruence with entrepreneurship, seeing social entrepreneurship as grounded in these same three elements. Anything else is confusing and unhelpful.

To understand what differentiates the two sets of entrepreneurs from one another, it is important to dispel the notion that the difference can be ascribed simply to motivation – with entrepreneurs spurred on by money and social entrepreneurs driven by altruism. The truth is that entrepreneurs are rarely motivated by the prospect of financial gain, because the odds of making lots of money are clearly stacked against them. Instead, both the entrepreneur and the social entrepreneur are strongly motivated by the opportunity they identify, pursuing that vision relentlessly, and deriving considerable psychic reward from the process of realizing their ideas. Regardless of whether they operate within a market or a not-for-profit context, most entrepreneurs are never fully compensated for the time, risk, effort, and capital that they pour into their venture.

We believe that the critical distinction between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship lies in the value proposition itself. For the entrepreneur, the value proposition anticipates and is organized to serve markets that can comfortably afford the new product or service, and is thus designed to create financial profit. From the outset, the expectation is that the entrepreneur and his or her investors will derive some personal financial gain. Profit is sine qua non, essential to any venture’s sustainability and the means to its ultimate end in the form of large-scale market adoption and ultimately a new equilibrium.

The social entrepreneur, however, neither anticipates nor organizes to create substantial financial profit for his or her investors – philanthropic and government organizations for the most part – or for himself or herself. Instead, the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale, transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large. Unlike the entrepreneurial value proposition that assumes a market that can pay for the innovation, and may even provide substantial upside for investors, the social entrepreneur’s value proposition targets an underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged population that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve the transformative benefit on its own. This does not mean that social entrepreneurs as a hard-and-fast rule shun profitmaking value propositions. Ventures created by social entrepreneurs can certainly generate income, and they can be organized as either not-for- profits or for-profits. What distinguishes social entrepreneurship is the primacy of social benefit, what Duke University professor Greg Dees in his seminal work on the field characterizes as the pursuit of “mission-related impact.” 5

We define social entrepreneurship as having the following three components: (1) identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own; (2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value proposition, and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude, thereby challenging the stable state’s hegemony; and (3) forging a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society at large.

Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and father of microcredit, provides a classic example of social entrepreneurship. The stable but unfortunate equilibrium he identified consisted of poor Bangladeshis’ limited options for securing even the tiniest amounts of credit. Unable to qualify for loans through the formal banking system, they could borrow only by accepting exorbitant interest rates from local moneylenders. More commonly, they simply succumbed to begging on the streets. Here was a stable equilibrium of the most unfortunate sort, one that perpetuated and even exacerbated Bangladesh’s endemic poverty and the misery arising from it.

Yunus confronted the system, proving that the poor were extremely good credit risks by lending the now famous sum of $27 from his own pocket to 42 women from the village of Jobra. The women repaid all of the loan. Yunus found that with even tiny amounts of capital, women invested in their own capacity for generating income. With a sewing machine, for example, women could tailor garments, earning enough to pay back the loan, buy food, educate their children, and lift themselves up from poverty. Grameen Bank sustained itself by charging interest on its loans and then recycling the capital to help other women. Yunus brought inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude to his venture, proved its viability, and over two decades spawned a global network of other organizations that replicated or adapted his model to other countries and cultures, firmly establishing microcredit as a worldwide industry.

The well-known actor, director, and producer Robert Redford offers a less familiar but also illustrative case of social entrepreneurship. In the early 1980s, Redford stepped back from his successful career to reclaim space in the film industry for artists. Redford was struck by a set of opposing forces in play. He identified an inherently oppressive but stable equilibrium in the way Hollywood worked, with its business model increasingly driven by financial interests, its productions gravitating to flashy, frequently violent blockbusters, and its studio-dominated system becoming more and more centralized in controlling the way films were financed, produced, and distributed. At the same time, he noted that new technology was emerging – less cumbersome and less expensive video and digital editing equipment – that gave filmmakers the tools they needed to exert more control over their work.

Seeing opportunity, Redford seized the chance to nurture this new breed of artist. First, he created the Sundance Institute to take “money out of the picture” and provide young filmmakers with space and support for developing their ideas. Next, he created the Sundance Film Festival to showcase independent filmmakers’ work. From the beginning, Redford’s value proposition focused on the emerging independent filmmaker whose talents were neither recognized nor served by the market stranglehold of the Hollywood studio system.

Redford structured Sundance Institute as a nonprofit corporation, tapping his network of directors, actors, writers, and others to contribute their experience as volunteer mentors to fledgling filmmakers. He priced the Sundance Film Festival so that it appealed and was accessible to a broad audience. Twenty-five years later, Sundance is credited with ushering in the independent film movement, which today ensures that “indie” filmmakers can get their work produced and distributed, and that filmgoers have access to a whole host of options – from thought-provoking documentaries to edgy international work and playful animations. A new equilibrium, which even a decade ago felt tenuous, is now firmly established.

Victoria Hale is an example of a social entrepreneur whose venture is still in its early stages and for whom our criteria apply ex ante . Hale is a pharmaceutical scientist who became increasingly frustrated by the market forces dominating her industry. Although big pharmaceutical companies held patents for drugs capable of curing any number of infectious diseases, the drugs went undeveloped for a simple reason: The populations most in need of the drugs were unable to afford them. Driven by the exigency of generating financial profits for its shareholders, the pharmaceutical industry was focusing on creating and marketing drugs for diseases afflicting the well-off, living mostly in developed world markets, who could pay for them.

Hale became determined to challenge this stable equilibrium, which she saw as unjust and intolerable. She created the Institute for OneWorld Health , the first nonprofit pharmaceutical company whose mission is to ensure that drugs targeting infectious diseases in the developing world get to the people who need them, regardless of their ability to pay for the drugs. Hale’s venture has now moved beyond the proof-of-concept stage. It successfully developed, tested, and secured Indian government regulatory approval for its first drug, paromomycin, which provides a cost-effective cure for visceral leishmaniasis, a disease that kills more than 200,000 people each year.

Although it is too early to tell whether Hale will succeed in creating a new equilibrium that assures more equitable treatment of diseases afflicting the poor, she clearly meets the criteria of a social entrepreneur. First, Hale has identified a stable but unjust equilibrium in the pharmaceutical industry; second, she has seen and seized the opportunity to intervene, applying inspiration, creativity, direct action, and courage in launching a new venture to provide options for a disadvantaged population; and third, she is demonstrating fortitude in proving the potential of her model with an early success.

Time will tell whether Hale’s innovation inspires others to replicate her efforts, or whether the Institute for OneWorld Health itself achieves the scale necessary to bring about that permanent equilibrium shift. But the signs are promising. Looking ahead a decade or more, her investors – the Skoll Foundation is one – can imagine the day when Hale’s Institute for OneWorld Health will have created a new pharmaceutical paradigm, one with the same enduring social benefits apparent in the now firmly established microcredit and independent film industries.

Boundaries of Social Entrepreneurship

In defining social entrepreneurship, it is also important to establish boundaries and provide examples of activities that may be highly meritorious but do not fit our definition. Failing to identify boundaries would leave the term social entrepreneurship so wide open as to be essentially meaningless.

There are two primary forms of socially valuable activity that we believe need to be distinguished from social entrepreneurship. The first type of social venture is social service provision. In this case, a courageous and committed individual identifies an unfortunate stable equilibrium – AIDS orphans in Africa, for example – and sets up a program to address it – for example, a school for the children to ensure that they are cared for and educated. The new school would certainly help the children it serves and may very well enable some of them to break free from poverty and transform their lives. But unless it is designed to achieve large scale or is so compelling as to launch legions of imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a new superior equilibrium.

These types of social service ventures never break out of their limited frame: Their impact remains constrained, their service area stays confined to a local population, and their scope is determined by whatever resources they are able to attract. These ventures are inherently vulnerable, which may mean disruption or loss of service to the populations they serve. Millions of such organizations exist around the world – well intended, noble in purpose, and frequently exemplary in execution – but they should not be confused with social entrepreneurship.

It would be possible to reformulate a school for AIDS orphans as social entrepreneurship. But that would require a plan by which the school itself would spawn an entire network of schools and secure the basis for its ongoing support. The outcome would be a stable new equilibrium whereby even if one school closed, there would be a robust system in place through which AIDS orphans would routinely receive an education.

The difference between the two types of ventures – one social entrepreneurship and the other social service – isn’t in the initial entrepreneurial contexts or in many of the personal characteristics of the founders, but rather in the outcomes. Imagine that Andrew Carnegie had built only one library rather than conceiving the public library system that today serves untold millions of American citizens. Carnegie’s single library would have clearly benefited the community it served. But it was his vision of an entire system of libraries creating a permanent new equilibrium – one ensuring access to information and knowledge for all the nation’s citizens – that anchors his reputation as a social entrepreneur.

A second class of social venture is social activism . In this case, the motivator of the activity is the same – an unfortunate and stable equilibrium. And several aspects of the actor’s characteristics are the same – inspiration, creativity, courage, and fortitude. What is different is the nature of the actor’s action orientation. Instead of taking direct action, as the social entrepreneur would, the social activist attempts to create change through indirect action, by influencing others – governments, NGOs, consumers, workers, etc. – to take action. Social activists may or may not create ventures or organizations to advance the changes they seek. Successful activism can yield substantial improvements to existing systems and even result in a new equilibrium, but the strategic nature of the action is distinct in its emphasis on influence rather than on direct action.

Why not call these people social entrepreneurs? It wouldn’t be a tragedy. But such people have long had a name and an exalted tradition: the tradition of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Vaclav Havel. They are social activists. Calling them something entirely new – i.e., social entrepreneurs – and thereby confusing the general public, who already know what a social activist is, would not be helpful to the cause of either social activists or social entrepreneurs.

Shades of Gray

Having created a definition of social entrepreneurship and distinguished it from social service provision and social activism, we should recognize that in practice, many social actors incorporate strategies associated with these pure forms or create hybrid models. The three definitions can be seen in their pure forms in the diagram to the right.

In the pure form, the successful social entrepreneur takes direct action and generates a new and sustained equilibrium; the social activist influences others to generate a new and sustained equilibrium; and the social service provider takes direct action to improve the outcomes of the current equilibrium.

It is important to distinguish between these types of social ventures in their pure forms, but in the real world there are probably more hybrid models than pure forms. It is arguable that Yunus, for example, used social activism to accelerate and amplify the impact of Grameen Bank, a classic example of social entrepreneurship. By using a sequential hybrid – social entrepreneurship followed by social activism – Yunus turned microcredit into a global force for change.

Other organizations are hybrids using both social entrepreneurship and social activism at the same time. Standards-setting or certification organizations are an example of this. Although the actions of the standards-setting organization itself do not create societal change – those who are encouraged or forced to abide by the standards take the actions that produce the actual societal change – the organization can demonstrate social entrepreneurship in creating a compelling approach to standards-setting and in marketing the standards to regulators and market participants. Fair-trade product certification and marketing is a familiar example of this, with organizations like Cafédirect in the United Kingdom and TransFair USA in the U.S. creating growing niche markets for coffee and other commodities sold at a premium price that guarantees more equitable remuneration for small-scale producers.

Kailash Satyarthi’s RugMark campaign provides a particularly striking example of a hybrid model. Recognizing the inherent limitations of his work to rescue children enslaved in India’s rug-weaving trade, Satyarthi set his sights on the carpet- weaving industry. By creating the RugMark certification program and a public relations campaign designed to educate consumers who unwittingly perpetuate an unjust equilibrium, Satyarthi leveraged his effectiveness as a service provider by embracing the indirect strategy of the activist. Purchasing a carpet that has the RugMark label assures buyers that their carpet has been created without child slavery and under fair labor conditions. Educate enough of those prospective buyers, he reasoned, and one has a shot at transforming the entire carpet-weaving industry.

Satyarthi’s action in creating RugMark lies at the crossroads of entrepreneurship and activism: In itself, the RugMark label represented a creative solution and required direct action, but it is a device meant to educate and influence others, with the ultimate goal of establishing and securing a new and far more satisfactory market-production equilibrium.

Social service provision combined with social activism at a more tactical level can also produce an outcome equivalent to that of social entrepreneurship. Take, for example, a social service provider running a single school for an underprivileged group that creates great outcomes for that small group of students. If the organization uses those outcomes to create a social activist movement that campaigns for broad government support for the wide adoption of similar programs, then the social service provider can produce an overall equilibrium change and have the same effect as a social entrepreneur.

Bill Strickland’s Manchester Bidwell Corporation , a nationally renowned inner-city arts education and job-training program, has launched the National Center for Arts & Technology to advance systematically the replication of his Pittsburgh-based model in other cities. Strickland is spearheading an advocacy campaign designed to leverage federal support to scale up his model. So far, four new centers are operating across the U.S. and several more are in the pipeline. With a sustainable system of centers in cities across the country, Strickland will have succeeded in establishing a new equilibrium. It is because of that campaign that the Skoll Foundation and others are investing in Strickland’s efforts.

Why bother to tease out these distinctions between various pure and hybrid models? Because with such definitions in hand we are all better equipped to assess distinctive types of social activity. Understanding the means by which an endeavor produces its social benefit and the nature of the social benefit it is targeting enables supporters – among whom we count the Skoll Foundation – to predict the sustainability and extent of those benefits, to anticipate how an organization may need to adapt over time, and to make a more reasoned projection of the potential for an entrepreneurial outcome.

Why Should We Care?

Long shunned by economists, whose interests have gravitated toward market-based, price-driven models that submit more readily to data-driven interpretation, entrepreneurship has experienced something of a renaissance of interest in recent years. Building on the foundation laid by Schumpeter, William Baumol and a handful of other scholars have sought to restore the entrepreneur’s rightful place in “production and distribution” theory, demonstrating in that process the seminal role of entrepreneurship. 6 According to Carl Schramm, CEO of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, entrepreneurs, “despite being overlooked or explicitly written out of our economic drama,” 7 are the free enterprise system’s essential ingredient and absolutely indispensable to market economies.

We are concerned that serious thinkers will also overlook social entrepreneurship, and we fear that the indiscriminate use of the term may undermine its significance and potential importance to those seeking to understand how societies change and progress. Social entrepreneurship, we believe, is as vital to the progress of societies as is entrepreneurship to the progress of economies, and it merits more rigorous, serious attention than it has attracted so far.

Clearly, there is much to be learned and understood about social entrepreneurship, including why its study may not be taken seriously. Our view is that a clearer definition of social entrepreneurship will aid the development of the field. The social entrepreneur should be understood as someone who targets an unfortunate but stable equilibrium that causes the neglect, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity; who brings to bear on this situation his or her inspiration, direct action, creativity, courage, and fortitude; and who aims for and ultimately affects the establishment of a new stable equilibrium that secures permanent benefit for the targeted group and society at large.

This definition helps distinguish social entrepreneurship from social service provision and social activism. That social service providers, social activists, and social entrepreneurs will often adapt one another’s strategies and develop hybrid models is, to our minds, less inherently confusing and more respectful than indiscriminate use of these terms. It’s our hope that our categorization will help clarify the distinctive value each approach brings to society and lead ultimately to a better understanding and more informed decision making among those committed to advancing positive social change.

The authors would like to thank their Skoll Foundation colleagues Richard Fahey, chief operating officer, and Ruth Norris, senior program officer, who read prior drafts of this essay and contributed important ideas to its evolution.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Roger L. Martin & Sally Osberg .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial enterprises with embedded social missions are highlighted in this section. Using the interactive tools of the case method, students will learn how to engage with various stakeholders as well as how to navigate between the competing interests of investors and government leaders.

Monetizing Regulations: TSA Generated Opportunities

Publication Date: September 28, 2020

TSA promulgated a regulatory process to ensure safety and security at the nation’s airports. That process also creates opportunities for entrepreneurs. This case describes the TSA process and engages the students to identify and vet...

Alexandre Mars and Epic

Publication Date: June 11, 2019

The case examines the strategy, impact, and sustainability of a boutique philanthropy with a big goal: change the way people donate to charities. Epic Foundation was founded to support a portfolio of children’s charities. Now, its...

Danone North America: The World’s Largest B Corporation

Publication Date: April 26, 2019

This case study examines the B Corp certification process of Paris-based food products company Danone’s North American business. With $6 billion in sales, in 2018 Danone NA became the largest Certified B Corp in the world by a factor of...

Paying to Improve Girls’ Education: India’s First Development Impact Bond

Publication Date: April 8, 2019

In 2013, Educate Girls (an Indian nonprofit working to increase the number of girls enrolled and learning in school), partnered with Instiglio, a startup specializing in financial instruments for social programs in developing countries to create...

Mothers of Rotterdam: Scaling a Social Services Program in the Netherlands

Publication Date: June 7, 2018

Board Chair Nanne Boonstra was about to learn the details of a scaling strategy proposal for Mothers of Rotterdam, a fledgling social service program that helped the city’s disadvantaged pregnant women.Boonstra’s employer, a venture...

Transforming Desert Land & Human Potential: Egypt’s ‘SEKEM’ Initiative Reaches a Crossroads

Publication Date: May 31, 2018

The SEKEM initiative, headquartered in Cairo, Egypt, was an unusual social enterprise by any standard. It produced organic products; provided health, education and arts programs to the local community; and—more broadly, sought to create a...

Growing Home: Creating Institutional Change in China

Publication Date: May 11, 2018

In 2008, Du and Lu, two experienced professional volunteers passionate about improving the state of mental health and well being among Chinese youth, founded Growing Home in Beijing, China. The nonprofit organization has since evolved from...

A Better Community (ABC): Developing the NGO Infrastructure in China

Publication Date: May 8, 2018

ABC (A Better Community) provided pro-bono and paid management consulting services to nongovernment organizations in mainland China. Founded in 2008, ABC had quickly expanded from a voluntary group in Beijing with 7 volunteers in to a...

First Respond: The Challenges of Marketing Social Mission in China (Chinese Version)

Publication Date: October 24, 2017

First Respond is a for-profit Chinese social enterprise focused on developing emergency services with the mission of making China a safer place. In China, there is a severe lack of first aid awareness and systems, and to fill this gap, First...

First Respond: The Challenges of Marketing Social Mission in China

Publication Date: August 28, 2017

Vox Capital: Pioneering Impact Investing in Brazil

Publication Date: January 25, 2017

Vox Capital was the first certified impact investing fund in Brazil. Founded in 2009, it provides early-stage capital for companies offering innovative and scalable solutions to enhance the lives of low-income Brazilians, while aiming to...

Akhuwat: Fighting Poverty with Interest-Free Microfinance

Publication Date: September 30, 2016

This case is about Akhuwat – one of the largest micro-finance organizations in Pakistan. The case presents Akhuwat's phenomenal growth from a small philanthropic experiment into one of the most prominent micro-finance organizations...

Module 6: Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

Case study: social entrepreneurship at tom’s shoes, learning outcomes.

• Give examples of corporate social responsibility

While there is no universally accepted definition of social entrepreneur , the term is typically applied to an individual who uses market-based ideas and practices to create “social value,” the enhanced well-being of individuals, communities, and the environment. Unlike ordinary business entrepreneurs who base their decisions solely on financial returns, social entrepreneurs incorporate the objective of creating social value into their founding business models.

Social entrepreneurship has become exceedingly popular in recent years, and a number of prestigious business schools have created specific academic programs in the field. It is often said that social entrepreneurs are changing the world. They are lauded for their ability to influence far-reaching social change through innovative solutions that disrupt existing patterns of production, distribution, and consumption. Prominent social entrepreneurs are celebrated on magazine covers, praised at the World Economic Forum in Davos, awarded millions of dollars in seed money from “angel” investors, and applauded as “harbingers of new ways of doing business.”

Social entrepreneurs are thus often hailed as heroes—but are they actually effecting positive social change?

Undeniably, social entrepreneurship can arouse a striking level of enthusiasm among consumers. Blake Mycoskie, social entrepreneur and founder of TOMS Shoes, tells the story of a young woman who accosted him in an airport, pointing at her pair of TOMS while yelling, “This is the most amazing company in the world!” Founded in 2006, TOMS Shoes immediately attracted a devoted following with its innovative use of the so-called One for One business model, in which each purchase of a pair of shoes by a consumer triggers the gift of a free pair of shoes to an impoverished child in a developing country.

The enthusiasm associated with social entrepreneurship is perhaps emblematic of increased global social awareness, which is evidenced by increased charitable giving worldwide. A 2012 study showed that 83 percent of Americans wish brands would support causes; 41 percent have bought a product because it was associated with a cause (a figure that has doubled since 1993); 94 percent said that, given the same price and quality, they were likely to switch brands to one that represented a cause; and more than 90 percent think companies should consider giving in the communities in which they do business.

Despite the eager reception from consumers, critics of social entrepreneurship have raised concerns about the creation of social value in a for-profit context. Thus, TOMS is sometimes mistaken for a charity because it donates shoes to children in developing countries, yet it is also in business to sell shoes. The company earns an estimated $300 million a year and has made Mr. Mycoskie a wealthy man. While companies are starting to look more like charities, nonprofits are also increasingly relying on business principles to survive an uncertain economy in which donors expect to see tangible results from their charitable contributions.

Our understanding of social entrepreneurship is complicated by the absence of any consensus on ways to measure social outcomes. As a result, there is little concrete statistical data available on the impact of social entrepreneurship. Indeed, there is not much agreement on a precise definition of social entrepreneurship, so it becomes difficult to say to what extent any given company is an example of social entrepreneurship. TOMS’ Chief Giving Officer, Sebastian Fries, recently told the New York Times that the company is “not in the business of poverty alleviation.”

Does this mean that increased social value is merely a happy byproduct of the business of selling shoes? If so, what makes Blake Mycoskie a social entrepreneur?

Some critics go so far as to suggest that social entrepreneurs are merely using public relations tactics to engage in social or environmental greenwashing—taking advantage of consumers’ desire to do good. In some cases, it has been argued, social entrepreneurs can even do more harm than good. Lacking a full understanding of the socioeconomic and cultural dynamic of the developing countries in which they intervene, social enterprises can undermine fragile local markets and foster dependence on foreign assista nce. But in the end, the individual impact of social entrepreneurial ventures may outweigh some of these concerns. 

Contribute!

Improve this page Learn More

• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Linda Williams and Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Good Corporation, Bad Corporation: Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Economy. Authored by : Guillermo C. Jimenez and Elizabeth Pulos. Provided by : Open SUNY Textbooks. Located at : http://pressbooks.opensuny.org/good-corporation-bad-corporation/chapter/5/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Toms. Authored by : Danielle Henry. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/waterandglass/5826939576/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• TOMS - Gives new shoes to children in need. One for One. Provided by : TOMS. Located at : https://youtu.be/7MV3HWQHl1s . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Thank You Notes From The Field. Provided by : TOMS. Located at : https://youtu.be/7b05syjxe2E . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Social entrepreneurship

• Entrepreneurship
• Business plans
• Entrepreneurial business strategy
• Entrepreneurial exit strategy
• Entrepreneurial finance

It's Time to Invest in Climate Adaptation

• Ravi Chidambaram
• Parag Khanna
• July 31, 2022

An Innovative Approach to Funding CSR Projects

• Theo Vermaelen
• From the June 2011 Issue

Deviating from the Business Plan

• Steven S. Rogers
• June 22, 2015

How Cities Are Using Analytics to Improve Public Health

• Bechara Choucair
• Raed Mansour
• From the November 2012 Issue

Getting Serious About Stakeholder Capitalism

• Hubert Joly
• Julie Battilana
• Tiziana Casciaro
• Mary Johnstone-Louis
• Charmian Love
• Ranjay Gulati
• Thomas Dudley
• Ethan Rouen
• Auden Schendler
• May 24, 2021

Multiplication Philanthropy

• Dan Pallotta
• February 17, 2012

Innovating for Shared Value

• Marc Pfitzer
• Valerie Bockstette
• From the September 2013 Issue

The 3-Stage Process That Makes Universities Prime Innovators

• Anne-Laure Fayard
• Martina Mendola
• April 19, 2024

Design an Organization that Makes a Difference

• Christian Busch
• January 12, 2013

The Reluctant Social Entrepreneur

• Steven Prokesch

Transformational Entrepreneurship: Where Technology Meets Societal Impact

• April 23, 2012

Should Your Nonprofit Charge Its Beneficiaries?

• Marco Bertini
• Jean Manuel Izaret
• Richard Hutchinson
• From the January–February 2024 Issue

Why Leaders Struggle Today

• Joseph L. Badaracco Jr.
• October 08, 2013

Nurturing Innovation

• Jess Majekodunmi
• Rachel Kenny
• From the March–April 2024 Issue

Accountants Will Save the World

• Peter Bakker
• March 05, 2013

Two Keys to Sustainable Social Enterprise

• Roger Martin
• Sally Osberg
• From the May 2015 Issue

How Low and Middle-Income Countries Are Innovating to Combat Covid

• Ben Ramalingam
• Benjamin Kumpf
• Rahul Malhotra
• Merrick Schaefer
• June 09, 2021

For Start-Ups Seeking Talent, a Lofty Purpose Can Backfire

The microwork solution.

• Francesca Gino
• Bradley R. Staats
• From the December 2012 Issue

Should Your Business Be Nonprofit or For-Profit?

• February 01, 2013

Iman Hadi and Friends of the Environment Station: Lighting up Homes in Yemen

• Hadiya Faheem
• Sanjib Dutta
• February 01, 2024

Janet Ames (D)

• Brian Trelstad
• October 04, 2021

Junko Yoda and Her Collaboration to Address Sex Trafficking in Asia

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter
• Juliane Calingo Schwetz
• Patricia Bissett Higgins
• September 23, 2013

Beneficial State Bank: Benefit to All, Harm to None

• Charles Ewald
• Heidi Krauel Patel
• Jaclyn C. Foroughi
• February 01, 2018

J Boats, Inc.

• Robert Simons
• August 01, 1996

Magic Bus: From Childhood to Livelihood

• V. Kasturi Rangan
• Vikram Gandhi
• Anjali Raina
• Rachna Chawla
• July 13, 2017

Donald Trump Calls Carrier Corporation

• Andy Zelleke
• Brian Tilley
• July 25, 2017
• Lindsay N. Hyde
• Thomas R. Eisenmann
• Kumba Sennaar
• Sarah Mehta
• February 23, 2023

Janet Ames (A)

• December 16, 2019

Pratham 2.0: Sustaining Innovation

• Samantha Webster
• March 17, 2023

Terra Nova: A Social Business Trying to Unlock Land Rights for the Urban Poor in Brazil

• Ruth Costas
• Marissa Kimsey
• Priscilla Zogbi
• January 19, 2020

Beyond the Lemonade Stand: Sustaining a New Social Venture

• Anthony Wilson-Prangley
• Gretchen Wilson-Prangley
• March 19, 2018

Vigeo and CSR-The Daughter of Globalization

• Andrew Wicks
• Gerry Yemen
• Ronald G. Kamin
• October 01, 2012

UK's Embassy Village: Collaborating Across Public, Private, and Nonprofit Sectors to Tackle Rough Sleeping

• Sara L. Beckman
• July 01, 2023
• Michael Chu
• Krishna G. Palepu
• Dilyana Karadzhova Botha
• September 08, 2020
• Jose B. Alvarez
• Natalie Kindred
• December 13, 2019

From "BIG" Ideas to Sustainable Impact at ICL Group (A)

• Linda A. Hill
• Lydia Begag
• March 15, 2024

PlayPumps: A Playful Solution to Africa's Water Problem? (B)

• Julie Perreault-Henry
• September 07, 2018

PayPal: The Next Chapter

• Michael E. Porter
• Mark R. Kramer
• Annelena Lobb
• August 19, 2020

Emerging Hope Lanka: Empowering Rural Women in Sri Lanka

• Tan Swee Liang
• Sin Mei Cheah
• July 23, 2020

Iman Hadi and Friends of the Environment Station: Lighting up Homes in Yemen, Teaching Note

Popular topics, partner center.

Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 29 January 2016
• Volume 6 , article number  4 , ( 2016 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ruben Burga 1 &
• Davar Rezania 1  

15k Accesses

12 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this paper, a descriptive case study of a social entrepreneurial firm is used to demonstrate stakeholder salience and stakeholder social issue management valence. The methodology is to use a semi structured interview with a social entrepreneur to identify and map the firm’s stakeholders’ salience and stakeholders’ social issue management valence. The resulting map uses spheres, sized proportionally to social issue management valence, to represent the various stakeholder groups. Each map shows the positioning of stakeholders according to their salience at critical points in the life of the social entrepreneurship. This paper contributes to stakeholder theory through its use of an innovative methodology to combine and view the stakeholders and their importance to the social entrepreneur on a single map. This map incorporates the elements of stakeholder salience with stakeholder social issue management valence. This mapping approach enables us to visualize how salience and valence positions change at critical times. Social entrepreneurs applying this mapping method can balance the allocation of their time and attention to stakeholders while simultaneously keeping with their social mission.

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset

Carroll’s pyramid of csr: taking another look.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In the current business environment, one of enhanced social and environmental awareness, firms are expected to be profitable while promoting social responsibility and rewarding their stakeholders (Cooper and Owen, 2007 ). When an enterprise is formed as a social entrepreneurial firm, a deliberate decision is made to integrate social consciousness into the business model (Dees, 2001 ). A social entrepreneurship is one that incorporates goals of revenue-generation, social awareness and environmental considerations. Furthermore, within these firms, “the social mission is explicit and central” (Dees, 2001 , p. 3).

Social entrepreneurship is an emerging business model (Austin et al., 2006 ). Murphy and Coombes ( 2009 ) suggest that the emergence of the social entrepreneurial model results from an increased public awareness of corporate and environmental social responsibility. Social entrepreneurship has been viewed as a business model exhibiting a continuum of objectives ranging from a purely social mission through combinations of social and profit motives (Bacq and Janssen, 2011 ; Battilana et al., 2012 ; Dees and Anderson, 2003 ; Kerlin, 2006 ; Lepoutre et al., 2013 ; Zahra et al., 2009 ). The common element among social entrepreneurial firms is their primary concern with social issues (Austin et al., 2006 ; Dees, 2001 ; Mair, 2010 ).

Social entrepreneurship is often studied through the lens of stakeholder theory. A stakeholder is defined as an entity “which either: is harmed by, or benefits from the corporation: or whose rights can be violated, or have to be respected by the corporation” (Crane and Matten, 2010 , p. 62). Freeman ( 1994 ) describes one of the principles of the stakeholder concept as “the principle of who or what really counts” (p. 411). Donaldson and Preston ( 1995 ) define stakeholder considerations as normative (describing why stakeholder interests impact the firm), descriptive (describing the “how” of taking the stakeholder’s interest into account), instrumental (judging the benefits impacting stakeholder interests) and managerial (relationship management and decision-making). Schlange ( 2009 ) suggests that stakeholders need not be limited to individuals or groups of individuals but that they may also be inanimate objects (such as the earth) or animate beings such as animals.

Stakeholder theory is “a theory of organizational management and ethics” (Phillips et al., 2003 , p.480). The theory involves the consideration of stakeholders and their relationships with the firm as a series of activities leading to end results that are implicitly value and moral-laden (Phillips et al., 2003 ). In a review of the literature on stakeholder theory, Mainardes and colleagues recognize that “over the years, some academics have criticized the vagueness and ambiguity of this theory” (Mainardes et al., 2011 , p. 227). Mainardes et al. ( 2011 ) also call for more studies of stakeholder theory as it relates to organizational performance. Parmar et al. ( 2010 ) have explained that stakeholder theory is important to firms because of their focus on “ethics and moral theory” (p. 410). Stakeholder theory forms the basis for the stakeholder salience models that will be demonstrated in this descriptive case study. The two stakeholder models that will be described as important to social entrepreneurship are those described by social issue management valences (Kusyk and Lozano, 2007 ) and stakeholder salience values (Mitchell et al., 1997 ).

The social issue management valence model

Stakeholder theory accounts for all individuals who are socially impacted or who have a social impact on the firm through social drivers and barriers (Kusyk and Lozano, 2007 ). Using grounded theory, Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) identify drivers and barriers to social issue management. They classify internal and external stakeholders according to their drivers and barriers to social responsibility practices and weigh these drivers and barriers in order to assign them to a category. The stakeholders are placed into categories by Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) and ranked with valences of low management of social issues to high involvement and high decision-making in managing social issues. The current study defines this weighing as the stakeholder social issue management valences (SIMVs). Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) conceptualize the social issue management valences exhibited by stakeholders in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) into a 2x2 matrix of internal and external drivers and barriers to social issue management.

The technique of using drivers and barriers to social issue management is also used within the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) of large and small businesses by Laudal ( 2011 ). Social issues are conceptually discussed by Bhattacharya et al. ( 2008 ) from the perspective of incorporating corporate social responsibility initiatives within the framework of stakeholder salience. Empirical research on social issue management and the relationship with stakeholders in overseeing corporate social performance initiatives is described by Roy ( 2009 ). Zyglidopoulos ( 2002 ) also uses stakeholder theory to discuss the social issue management challenges that a firm must face when dealing with critical societal conflicts such as how a multinational company copes with an environmental incident.

The stakeholder salience model

The stakeholder salience model as described by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) identifies salience values as a result of the combination of power, urgency and legitimacy claims that the stakeholder has on a firm. The element of power defines the degree of power that the stakeholder possesses over a firm. The element of urgency is the importance of time that the stakeholder claims over a firm. The element of legitimacy defines the claim that the stakeholder has on the attention of a firm (Mitchell et al., 1997 ). Agle et al. ( 1999 ) use this model to determine the stakeholder attributes of senior management in public firms. Parent and Deephouse ( 2007 ) determine the individual effects of each of the stakeholder salience attributes through a mixed-method study of a major sporting event. They describe the relative importance of each of the power, urgency and legitimacy attributes. Currie et al. ( 2008 ) use a descriptive case study of stakeholder salience to understand the relationship between stakeholders in the tourism industry and illustrate their relative importance. Elijido-Ten et al. ( 2010 ) use the model to empirically study a firm’s response to environmental concerns and its importance to stakeholders. This stakeholder salience model is used by Key et al. ( 2013 ) to describe the changing saliences of smokers versus non-smokers and as an explanation for institutional changes (Oates, 2013 ).

The social entrepreneurship context

Even though stakeholder theory is used extensively for explaining who or what is important for a business and for a social enterprise, few descriptive studies of the theory in social entrepreneurship were found. A literature search of peer-reviewed articles encompassing stakeholders, social entrepreneurship and case study methodology using ProQuest’s search of academic databases resulted in peer-reviewed articles by Faminow et al. ( 2009 ), Kumar ( 2013 ), Spitzeck et al. ( 2013 ) and Thompson ( 2012 ). None of these articles combined stakeholder attributes of salience with social issue management valences. A descriptive case study of stakeholders and their impact on the operation and social consciousness of any social entrepreneurship is important because it provides insight into how stakeholder theory works in practice.

The research objective of this paper is to use a single case study to develop a mapping methodology that can integrate important aspects of stakeholder theory; those of salience and social issue management.

Given that the objective is to use the results from a descriptive case study to develop a mapping methodology, the case study method described by Yin ( 2003 ) is adopted as the most appropriate research methodology. Yin ( 2003 ) describes three types of case studies; explanatory, exploratory and descriptive. A single descriptive case study was chosen as it is structured to help identify emerging patterns based on a solid theoretical framework (Tobin, 2010 ). Reliability of the data is enhanced by following Yin’s ( 2003 ) recommendation to design and follow a strict case study protocol. This protocol includes providing an overview of the case, detailing data collection procedures, detailing the interview format and questions, and formatting the resulting information (Yin, 2003 ). As with other qualitative research methods, validation of the data is critical (Berg and Lune, 2012 ). This will be achieved by triangulating the data in the case study with third party external sources.

The case of Fifth Town Artisan Cheese Company (FTACC) is described, which was formed and operated in Prince Edward County, a rural part of Ontario, Canada. This case characterizes a social entrepreneurial company which by definition has a central social mission (Dees and Anderson, 2003 ) and so needs to effectively manage its stakeholders. A social entrepreneurial firm provides a good empirical case for describing how stakeholder theory works. The context of this social entrepreneurship is used to analyze the entrepreneur’s perception of the salience values and social issue management valences of the stakeholders in the firm. A rich body of data on the operation of the firm was uncovered through third party reports and case studies (DesRoches et al., 2009 ; Donald, 2009 ). The richness and availability of information fulfills one of Yin’s requirements ( 2003 ) when discussing the validity of descriptive case study research.

One external data source consists of a working paper published by the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute (Donald, 2009 ) which describes FTACC as an innovative and environmentally conscious artisanal cheese factory, as well as its impact on the surrounding community. A second external data source is a case study developed by Queens University’s Monieson Centre (DesRoches et al., 2009 ) that reviewed FTACC’s operations from a business viewpoint, detailing critical points in the life of the firm and identifying some of the stakeholders. A peer-reviewed research paper was also reviewed that described the events surrounding one of the identified critical events, the Listeria crisis at FTACC (Charlebois, 2015 ), to validate the events at that critical time.

The protocol of this paper consists of a semi structured interview with FTACC’s founding entrepreneur. The opportunity to obtain rich data from a narrative supported by externally sourced information provides relevance to this descriptive case study (Yin, 2003 ).

The semi structured interview was conducted with the founder of FTACC in a single session. The protocol consisted of questions that were submitted to the founder prior to the interview. However, in keeping with the methodology of a semi structured interview (Berg and Lune, 2012 ) the authors began the interview with a pre-defined question and then adjusted the subsequent questions according to the flow of the interviewee’s narrative. Questions were improvised based on the protocol, helping to elaborate the questions or problems that the founder found important and how she resolved them, her description of the business challenges as a social entrepreneur and the involvement of stakeholders. Some of the questions in the formal protocol are listed in Table  1 . The two-hour interview was recorded, resulting in 45 pages of transcribed narrative.

The authors used their protocol questions to identify key decision points that were subsequently validated by the founding entrepreneur. Having a variety of alternatives and choosing one of them defines decision-making in a narrative (Schwenk, 1985 ). Three major decision points were identified by the founding entrepreneur; the epiphany of choosing to run an artisanal cheese company and the subsequent development of a social entrepreneurial firm, a Listeria outbreak at the firm and its resolution, and finally the decision to exit the company.

This study’s methodological approach integrates how the founding entrepreneur perceives her stakeholders based on two salience models and maps these two models as a single graphical representation. Mapping in the social sciences is a useful method to explore patterns and frameworks (Trochim, 1989 ). Stakeholder salience positions are mapped based on a modification of the Venn diagrams described by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) and the social issue management valences according to the typology described by Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ). Mapping of stakeholders according to their stakeholder salience has been performed previously in the management literature. Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) used Venn diagrams to illustrate possible stakeholder positions. Rowley ( 1997 ) used a different type of mapping technique based on principles of network theory to identify salient stakeholders. In her study of stakeholder influences, Bourne ( 2011 ) created an integrative mapping technique, “the Stakeholder Circle TM ” to determine the salience of stakeholders in the management of projects (Bourne and Walker, 2008 ; Bourne, 2011 ).

In the present case, two key stakeholder models are examined: stakeholder saliences based on power, urgency and legitimacy and a stakeholder model based on social issue management valences. Stakeholders based on those models are positioned on a single map that visualizes them at key points in time. Stakeholder salience is mapped using concentric circles identifying the integration of power, urgency and legitimacy (PUL) attributes from the stakeholder salience model (Mitchell et al., 1997 ). Stakeholders are then identified by spheres sized according to their coded values of social issue management valences (SIMVs) based on the work by Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ).

Stakeholder salience: methodology of a descriptive view

Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) illustrate the inter-relation of the power, legitimacy and urgency attributes through the use of Venn diagrams. In the present case, the idea of using Venn diagrams is extended by summing the presence or absence of the three PUL salience values, each either having a 0 or 1 value into a single cumulative value ranging from 0-3. This resulted in an orbiting diagram where stakeholders orbit in a space of stakeholder salience. The central clustering is at the nexus of salience where Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) defines the stakeholder salience as definitive (where all three factors have a value of 1 and cumulatively a value of 3), through the next orbit of expectant stakeholders (where two of the factors sum to cumulative values of 2), and the final orbit of salience (where only one of the factors is valued as 1). Where the stakeholder does not have power, legitimacy or urgency in the stakeholder salience model described by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ), then the stakeholder is not considered and falls out of the orbit. Table  2 lists the stakeholders according to the sum of their power, legitimacy and urgency values. Throughout the stages defined by key “decision points”, stakeholders are positioned by the entrepreneur in the concentric circles of influence.

It is acknowledged that through the coding technique employed in this study, the identification of key stakeholders assumes that each of the stakeholder power, urgency and legitimacy claims has equal importance and that they will each have a value of 0 or 1 only. This assumption has been disputed by Parent and Deephouse ( 2007 ) who claim that power has a more important value than urgency and legitimacy. Currie et al. ( 2008 ) in the context of the tourism industry, examining the legitimacy component of stakeholder salience, claim a definitional confusion over the term and measurement issues compared to the other stakeholder saliences defined by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ). Nevertheless, Key et al. ( 2013 ) and Agle et al. ( 1999 ) use the Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) stakeholder model with its assumptions to empirically describe stakeholder salience and identify key stakeholders based on the three attributes of power, urgency and legitimacy.

Social issue management valences: methodology of a descriptive view

In keeping with the intention to view the Venn diagram and the social issue management valences typology model in one graphical representation, spheres were created to identify the stakeholder and their social issue management valences. The size of the spheres that define the stakeholders is determined by the perception of the founding entrepreneur. This perception is categorized into one of the ordinal values on the four position grid in Fig.  1 . Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) use this grid categorization technique to record the social issue management valence (SIMV) of stakeholders. This report contributes to this type of stakeholder evaluation by assigning ordinal values to each quadrant of the typology as shown in Fig.  1 based on the social entrepreneur’s perception. On the orbiting diagrams, the size of the spheres corresponds to their SIMVs. Quadrants are ordered from 0 to 3. An ordinal value of 0 corresponds to a stakeholder non-participant status; a value of 1 corresponds to an observer status; a value of 2 corresponds to a moral dependence status; and a value of 3 corresponds to a moral leadership status. This categorization aligns with the typology suggested by Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ). In this way, changes in stakeholder SIMVs can be assessed from one critical decision point to another. Table  3 provides a complete description of the stakeholders and their weighting according to the Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) SIMVs at key decision points based on the founding entrepreneur’s perception.

Modified Kusyk and Lozano Typology (Kusyk and Lozano, 2007 )

Results and discussion

A descriptive case study requires focus and depth (Yin, 2003 ). This section details through a narrative the founding entrepreneur’s perception of stakeholder PUL salience values and SIMVs at each decision point of the firm’s life. Three critical decision points were identified by the founding entrepreneur of FTACC.

The creation of FTACC and its development as a social entrepreneurial firm.

The handling of a Listeria crisis.

The decision to exit the social entrepreneurship.

Narrative background

In 2003, the founding entrepreneur (P), was at a crossroads and was considering the transition from a corporate environment to an entrepreneurial environment. The entrepreneur believed that for family reasons she would relocate to the Prince Edward County region of Ontario, Canada. At this stage, the stakeholders in this narrative are limited to the immediate individuals who both affect and are affected by the decision. This includes a supportive family group already residing in the geographical area of Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada, where she believes she will relocate with her spouse (S) and her child (C).

After making the decision to become an entrepreneur and then deciding where to locate her business, the entrepreneur needed to decide on the type of business to establish. In this case, the choice was made after thorough research into the needs of the local market where they were physically moving in Ontario, Canada. The entrepreneur contacted information sources within the region to determine the needs of the region. Stakeholders in the local area such as the local councilman (CM) and the local economic development officer (ED) were influential in highlighting the needs of the region. The selection of the type of business to establish happened through what the entrepreneur described as an epiphany. This paradigm change was described by the entrepreneur as occurring in her car soon after moving, during a conversation with a key stakeholder, her spouse. The entrepreneurial ‘idea’ at this point was to establish an artisanal cheese-making farm in Prince Edward County, governed by principles of environmental sustainability. The entrepreneur described her own personal value system as a culmination of being a new parent and her personal belief that goods should be made by following environmentally sustainable practices and principles.

With supportive peers from a cheese-making class at a local university, the entrepreneur created the Ontario Cheese Society (OCS) to promote knowledge creation and transfer in the area of artisanal cheese-making. Through a process of lobbying government contacts at the Agricultural Adaptation Council (AA) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (O), she was able to spark an interest in her entrepreneurial idea. Furthermore, she was able to obtain financial backing to complete a feasibility study of the artisanal cheese market potential in Ontario. She also met with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) (the provincial milk marketing board) to investigate the logistics of her supply chain.

The narrative illustrates stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1994 ) in the life of the social entrepreneurial firm. Another lens which frames this narrative is that of contingency theory (Van de Ven and Drazin, 1985 ). The founding entrepreneur’s decisions about organizational structure were contingent on environmental conditions. She adjusted her decisions according to changing conditions to optimize her operations. However, the focus of this narrative is on the process of selecting and prioritizing the important stakeholders for the social entrepreneurial firm. Consequently, stakeholder theory is used in this research to frame the methodology of prioritizing stakeholders.

First decision point

What type of infrastructure should govern the creation of this artisanal cheese social entrepreneurship? The entrepreneur incorporated her new social entrepreneurship as the Fifth Town Artisan Cheese Company. She arrived at a critical decision point, realizing that existing stakeholder needs should be balanced with the identification and addition of new stakeholders. According to the founding entrepreneur’s narrative, existing stakeholders such as her child (C), the local councilman (CM), the economic development officer (ED), her local family (F), and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (AA) had low power and urgency claims but retained legitimacy. Other new stakeholders providing the knowledge and expertise required to create a sustainable firm were introduced; the architect and contractors (AC) who designed the geothermal caves, the solar panels, and the wind turbines; the Canada Green Building Council (L) who administered the certifications for environmental sustainability; the local farms (LF) who provided the goat milk; the local services (LS) who provided infrastructure support; the additional institutional investors (I) who provided the funding and interest in promoting sustainability; and the Ontario Cheese Society (OCS) who continued to provide knowledge transfer to enable the realization of artisanal cheese-making.

The stakeholders described here have varying degrees of interest in social issues. Using the valences identified through the Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) grid of social drivers and barriers, most of the stakeholders identified within the highest circle of salience for FTACC are also the most socially conscious stakeholders identified. The institutional stakeholders such as the DFO or focused organizations like the Canada Green Building Council (L) have stable social issue management valences while some of the emerging stakeholders such as the contractors, the local farms and the local services begin this stage with a level of social consciousness that they (the contractors) acquire from FTACC or that they (local farms) enhance by exposure to FTACC.

The situation is mapped according to the founding entrepreneur’s perception. In this case, the stakeholders with the highest PUL salience values have a high SIMV. This map illustrates an environment where a social entrepreneurship can function within the locus of social consciousness, environmental sustainability and economic convergence. The relationships described by the founding entrepreneur are dyadic between the stakeholders and herself but it is also understood that the relationships may also involve multiple linkages and networking among the stakeholders (Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2008 ; Rowley, 1997 ). Figure  2 describes each of the stakeholder’s salience and stakeholder’s social issue management valence at this decision point.

Stakeholder’s salience and social issue management valence at the first critical time

Second decision point

Another critical decision point occurred during a Listeria outbreak at FTACC. At this decision point, there was a shift in the salience values among stakeholders. A Listeria outbreak is not uncommon in the dairy food industry (Carpentier and Cerf, 2011 ) and the specific manner in which this particular outbreak at FTACC was handled has been documented (Charlebois, 2015 ). Nonetheless, the founding entrepreneur stated that “common opinion was that we would not survive this crisis” (founding entrepreneur, personal communication). Various stakeholders needed to be addressed and their concerns assuaged in order to return the company to profitability; “we didn’t lose any sales, in fact they increased…we never lost a customer because we were so tied in with the community that we could talk about it openly” (founding entrepreneur, personal communication). The satisfying of stakeholder claims and the SIMVs at this point was not perceived to be as important as satisfying the concerns of Health Canada (HC) and returning the company to operating and marketing capacity. Figure  3 shows the fluctuating positions of the stakeholders during this crisis.

Stakeholder’s salience and social issue management valence at the second critical time. (This time frame deals with a Listeria outbreak. Blue avatars are new stakeholders since the previous event)

Third decision point

The final decision point in this case study was the divestment of the firm by the founding entrepreneur. The decision to exit the social entrepreneurship developed due to differences of opinion between the key investors (I) and (S), and the entrepreneur. Although the social entrepreneurial firm was operating successfully, half of the investors were willing to continue funding and operating the firm while the other half desired an exit strategy and to “cash in their chips” (founding entrepreneur, personal communication). The stakeholder salience model (Mitchell et al., 1997 ) describes how a manager’s consideration of shifting saliences determines decision-making based on paying attention to definitive stakeholders. The investors (I), spouse (S), and the entrepreneur (P) remain as key stakeholders but only the founding entrepreneur retains her high level of social issue concern. An additional stakeholder, an investment bank (B) was brought in to run the business while the company looked for an acquiring firm. The bank became a key definitive stakeholder with high power, urgency and legitimacy salience but little concern about social issues. All suppliers (LF), (LS) and even customers (CU) lost their sense of urgency as priorities were shifted by the bank acting as the decision maker in lieu of the founding entrepreneur. The bank made certain decisions about other stakeholders along economic imperatives rather than considering the social principles of environmental sustainability, social impact, and economic impact upon which the founding entrepreneur had created the firm. When it came down to the exit strategies, the social entrepreneurship’s founding principles and social mission were put aside as these could not be legally enforced through the current legislative regulations. In Ontario, Canada there are no provisions for protecting social and environmental provisions described in an incorporated firm after the firm has been sold. Figure  4 describes each of the stakeholder’s PUL values and SIMV values at this critical time.

Stakeholder’s salience and social issue management valence at the third critical time. (The founding entrepreneur exits the firm. Black avatar is the new stakeholder since the last event)

In the end, the social entrepreneurship was successfully sold to a company that retained its name and operations in Prince Edward County and continues to leverage its brand but does not strictly function within the framework of social entrepreneurship discussed in this paper.

The objective of this study was to use a descriptive case study of stakeholder theory in the context of social entrepreneurship to demonstrate the application of the stakeholder salience model and the stakeholder social issue management model. A mapping methodology was designed to describe the application of this theory within a social entrepreneurial firm, FTACC. Key stakeholders were identified and positioned in the first circle of concentric orbits, characterized by their integrated power, urgency and legitimacy (PUL) values. As defined by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ), these were “definitive stakeholders” (p. 878). The integration of the Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) typology model identified the founding entrepreneur’s perception of the social issue management valences (SIMVs) towards these key stakeholders. Since the founding entrepreneur’s attention to her stakeholders influences her managing and planning of tasks, it is important and convenient for the entrepreneur to reflect on her positioning of stakeholder salience and social issue management valences on a map to see who is receiving more attention. Mapping and the management of stakeholders based on these factors can directly relate to the operation and performance of a social entrepreneurial firm.

The mapping and integration of these two stakeholder salience models into a single graphical representation is a methodological contribution to stakeholder theory. The map represents the perceptual location of stakeholders according to their PUL values and SIMVs and identifies key stakeholders (those with highest PUL values or highest SIMVs). Ideally stakeholders should occupy PUL positions and SIMVs based on their importance to both the social and commercial mission of the firm. Independently, each stakeholder model depicts the importance of a stakeholder, but mapping both models in one figure allows a richer depiction of salience derived from Mitchell et al.’s ( 1997 ) model of power, urgency and legitimacy attributes and the social issue management model described by Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ).

This mapping method also allows the integration of the founding entrepreneur’s perception of her stakeholders at various points in time described by her as critical decision points. It was shown that throughout three critical decision points in the life of FTACC that the founding entrepreneur’s perception of her stakeholders changed. This was demonstrated by depicting changes in the graphical representations of PUL values (their movement within the concentric circles) and SIMV (size of the spheres). Therefore, additional evidence was provided, indicating that stakeholder salience is dynamic (Mitchell et al., 1997 ; Windsor, 2010 ). The ability to view the shift in both stakeholder PUL values and SIMVs at different critical points in time is an important contribution to stakeholder theory.

Applied implications

The mapping methodology employed here enables the social entrepreneur to visualize their own current perception of stakeholder PUL values and SIMVs and compare it to an ideal map based on the social entrepreneurship’s mission. As an entrepreneur’s attention is a limited resource, the mapping exercise enables the social entrepreneur to visualize their stakeholders’ positioning from the viewpoint of stakeholder saliences and decide how to balance the attention that should be paid to them to attain the firm’s mission.

Viewing the deviation between stakeholder salience values against an ideal model can cause discomfort for the social entrepreneur. Viewing what should be with what actually is can be described as an example of self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 ). Aligning the positioning of stakeholders with the social entrepreneur’s perception of ideal values can help the social entrepreneurs manage this discrepancy (Clarke and Holt, 2010 ). If the primary goal of the social entrepreneurship is achievement of its social mission, then this map can be used to signal to social entrepreneurs the need to balance the attention they pay to their stakeholders. When misalignment occurs, social entrepreneurs can implement training, engagement or other necessary action to reach the social entrepreneur’s desired mission.

As a temporal mapping technique, this paper’s methodology illustrates the dynamic nature of a social entrepreneur’s perceptions during critical events. It also serves as a visual reflection of the importance of stakeholders at these times. Reflexive thinking by the entrepreneur is important for maintaining an alignment of social values (Clarke and Holt, 2010 ). The methodology allows social entrepreneurs to visually understand and acknowledge that shifting perceptions of stakeholder PUL values and SIMVs can impact the decision-making of the social entrepreneur and hence her efforts at managing the business.

Limitations and future research directions

This research showed that in this particular case, the methodology of mapping stakeholder salience as described by Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) combined with a modified typology of Kusyk and Lozano ( 2007 ) for categorizing social issue management valences, is a useful way to describe stakeholder theory in a social entrepreneurship. An innovative methodology is provided that integrates two stakeholder models and shows dynamic changes in those values as perceived by the founding social entrepreneur throughout critical decision points. The mapping of the two stakeholder models as a holistic view offers an innovative way of applying stakeholder theory to improve the management and planning activities in a social entrepreneurship. We highlight that social entrepreneurs can benefit from the use of this methodology to identify key stakeholders, why they matter to the firm and manage their social concerns within a commercial business model and still maintain their primary social mission.

Future research could explore other social entrepreneurial firms in different settings or markets and replicate the descriptive case study and the mapping exercise. For example, FTACC evolved in a rural setting and so it would be interesting to map the PUL values and SIMVs for any similar social entrepreneurship in an urban setting. FTACC was a for-profit social entrepreneurial firm. It would be interesting to compare the shifts in PUL values and SIMVs with a social entrepreneurial firm that was established as a non-profit venture.

The mapping methodology described in this paper illustrates a useful visualization technique to integrate stakeholder salience values with stakeholder social issue management valences.

Agle, BR, Mitchell, RK, & Sonnenfeld, JA. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5), 507–525.

Article   Google Scholar  

Austin, J, Stevenson, H, & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30 (1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x .

Google Scholar  

Bacq, S, & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23 (5-6), 373–403. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2011.577242 .

Battilana, J, Lee, M, Walker, J, & Dorsey, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: in search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10 (3), 51–55.

Berg, BL, & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Bhattacharya, CB, & Korschun, D. (2008). Stakeholder marketing: Beyond the four Ps and the customer. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27 (1), 113–116. doi: 10.1509/jppm.27.1.113 .

Bhattacharyya, SS, Sahay, A, Arora, AP, & Chaturvedi, A. (2008). A toolkit for designing firm level strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Social Responsibility Journal, 4 (3), 265–282. doi: 10.1108/17471110810892802 .

Bourne, L. (2011). Advising upwards: Managing the perceptions and expectations of senior management stakeholders. Management Decision, 49 (6), 1001–1023. doi: 10.1108/00251741111143658 .

Bourne, L, & Walker, DHT. (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (1), 125–130. doi: 10.1108/17538370810846450 .

Carpentier, B, & Cerf, O. (2011). Review — persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in food industry equipment and premises. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 145 (1), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.005 .

Charlebois, S. (2015). Market performance and food safety compliance for smallfood businesses: The case of Fifth Town Artisan Cheese. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition . doi: 10.1080/10408398.2013.848423 .

Clarke, J, & Holt, R. (2010). Reflective judgement: Understanding entrepreneurship as ethical practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (3), 317–331. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0265-z .

Cooper, SM, & Owen, DL. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32 (7-8), 649–667. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.001 .

Crane, A, & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (3rd ed.). New York: NY. Oxford University Press.

Currie, RR, Seaton, S, & Wesley, F. (2008). Determining stakeholders for feasibility analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (1), 41–63. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2008.10.002 .

Dees, JG. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Resource document . Duke Fuqua School of Business: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship. https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf . Accessed 29 Jan 2016.

Dees, JG, & Anderson, BB. (2003). For-profit social ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2 , 1–26.

DesRoches, R, Habkirk, J, Reid, A, Robinson, L, & Zhou, M. (2009). Community success stories: Fifth town artisan cheese. (Case Study) . Kingston: The Monieson Centre, Queen’s School of Business. http://www.buildanewlife.ca/site/images/stories/Fifth%20Town%20Artisan%20Cheese%20Case%20Study%20Rev%204.pdf . Accessed 29 Jan 2016.

Donald, B. (2009). From Kraft to Craft Innovation and Creativity in Ontario’s Food Economy . Toronto: Canada. Martin Prosperity Institute. http://martinprosperity.org/media/pdfs/From_Kraft_to_Craft-B_Donald.pdf . Accessed 29 Jan 2016.

Donaldson, T, & Preston, LE. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65–91.

Elijido-Ten, E, Kloot, L, & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23 (8), 1032–1059. doi: 10.1108/09513571011092547 .

Faminow, MD, Carter, SE, & Lundy, M. (2009). Social Entrepreneurship and Learning: The Case of the Central America Learning Alliance. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14 (4), 433–450.

Freeman, RE. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4 (4), 409–421.

Higgins, ET. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319–340.

Kerlin, JA. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17 (3), 246–262. doi: 10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2 .

Key, SK, Scripa, RN, & Juneau, R. (2013). How smokers became outlaws: An application of the stakeholder salience model to a social problem. Journal of Business and Economics Research (Online), 11 (12), 577–588.

Kumar, A. (2013). Women entrepreneurs in a masculine society: Inclusive strategy for sustainable outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21 (3), 373–384. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-01-2013-0636 .

Kusyk, SM, & Lozano, JM. (2007). SME social performance: A four-cell typology of key drivers and barriers on social issues and their implications for stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance, 7 (4), 502–515.

Laudal, T. (2011). Drivers and barriers of CSR and the size and internationalization of firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 7 (2), 234–256. doi: 10.1108/17471111111141512 .

Lepoutre, J, Justo, R, Terjesen, S, & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40 (3), 693–714. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9398-4 .

Mainardes, EW, Alves, H, & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49 (2), 226–252. doi: 10.1108/00251741111109133 .

Mair, J. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Taking stock and looking ahead. Working Paper No. WP-888 . Madrid: IESE Business School - University of Navarra. Retrieved from http://iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0888-E.pdf . Accessed October 26, 2014.

Mitchell, RK, Agle, BR, & Wood, DJ. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105 .

Murphy, P, & Coombes, S. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87 (3), 325–336. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9921-y .

Oates, G. (2013). Exploring the links between stakeholder type, and strategic response to stakeholder and institutional demands in the public sector context. International Journal of Business and Management, 8 (21), 50–62.

Parent, MM, & Deephouse, DL. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75 (1), 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y .

Parmar, BL, Freeman, RE, Harrison, JS, Wicks, AC, Purnell, L, & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1), 403–445. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2010.495581 .

Phillips, R, Freeman, RE, & Wicks, AC. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (4), 479–502.

Rowley, TJ. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 887–910. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107 .

Roy, M. (2009). Organising for corporate social performance: The role of board-level committees. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36 , 71–86.

Schlange, LE. (2009). Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship. Greener Management International, 55 , 13–32.

Schwenk, CR. (1985). The use of participant recollection in the modeling of organizational decision process. Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 496–503. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4278971 .

Spitzeck, H, Boechat, C, & Leão, SF. (2013). Sustainability as a driver for innovation - towards a model of corporate social entrepreneurship at Odebrecht in Brazil. Corporate Governance, 13 (5), 613–625. doi: 10.1108/CG-06-2013-0080 .

Thompson, J. (2012). Incredible edible - social and environmental entrepreneurship in the era of the “big society”. Social Enterprise Journal, 8 (3), 237–250. doi: 10.1108/17508611211280773 .

Tobin, R. (2010). Descriptive case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 289–290). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n108 .

Trochim, WMK. (1989). Concept mapping. Soft Science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning, 12 , 87–110. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(89)90027-X .

Van de Ven, AH, & Drazin, R. (1985). The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory. Organizational Behavior, 7 , 333–365.

Windsor, D. (2010). The role of dynamics in stakeholder thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 96 , 79–87. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0937-3 .

Yin, RK. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Zahra, SA, Gedajlovic, E, Neubaum, DO, & Shulman, JM. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5), 519–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007 .

Zyglidopoulos, SC. (2002). The social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Spar case. Journal of Business Ethics, 36 (1/2), 141–151.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

Ruben Burga & Davar Rezania

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruben Burga .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

RB is the first author and drafted the manuscript. Both authors carried out the research and analyzed the results. All correspondence should be directed to RB. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Burga, R., Rezania, D. Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study. J Glob Entrepr Res 6 , 4 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0049-8

Download citation

Published : 29 January 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0049-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social entrepreneurship
• Stakeholder theory
• Descriptive case study
• Stakeholder salience
• Social issue management valence
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Social Entrepreneurship: A Few Case Study

Social entrepreneurship provides a unique opportunity to challenge, question, and also rethink concepts from different prospects of business research and management. This paper shows its view on the concept of social entrepreneurship and its various definitions.Entrepreneurship has been seen as differ concept comparing itwith other forms of entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship bridges the gap between financial needs and actual needs of the society and. Also, illustrate and explain the present scenario of social entrepreneurship in India with the help of four case studies namely, EnAble India, Water Health

Related Papers

IAEME Publications

IAEME Publication

Social entrepreneurship is a topic of growing interest among academicians and practitioners. The potential of social problems in India is well known, but the degree of support and interest is hardly significant. An entrepreneurial mindset is re-emerging in India. Right from ancient times, India has been entrepreneurial. But the era of liberalization of late had released the genie from the bottle – the suppressed urge and natural instincts of our effervescent entrepreneurial class has once again been unleashed. Social entrepreneurship is not a newer concept but the positioning of the concept has risen to new heights in recent times. The paper attempts to shed light on the comment state of affairs on the theme of challenges and opportunities facing the social entrepreneurship scene in India.

Upasana Thakur

Social entrepreneurship is an emerging trend in business. Social entrepreneurship combines innovation, creativity and opportunity in order to address some crucial and critical social and environmental challenges. It is an altruistic form of entrepreneurship that aims at providing certain benefits to the society. The concept of social entrepreneurship may be applied to number of organizations with different sizes, beliefs, goals and targets. Gaining a better understanding of how an issue relates to a society helps social entrepreneurs in developing innovative solutions and mobilizing all the available resources to affect the society at large. Social entrepreneurship focuses on maximizing gains in social satisfaction and empowering deprived communities and individuals. This paper is an attempt to understand the concept of Social entrepreneurship and highlight its role and importance in convalescing the social and business scenario in India.

Rajeshwari Narendran

Roshan Patel

Social entrepreneurs can help get better various issues like nutrition, education and health care and many are still blighted by unemployment and illiteracy by helping those less fortunate towards a worthwhile life. Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, they can solve the problem by changing the system. Social entrepreneurship is expected to be the next big thing to influence India as the country juggles to achieve a balance between a growing GDP growth, ensuring inclusive growth and attempting to address issues ranging from education, energy efficiency to climate change. This paper attempts an analytical, critical and synthetic examination of social entrepreneurship in India.

International Journal of Innovation

Dr. Hemantkumar Bulsara

Social Entrepreneurship is an all-encompassing nomenclature, used for depicting the process of, bringing about social change on a major and impactful scale compared to a traditional Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). It is an increasingly important concept in the study of voluntary, non-profit and not-for -profit organizations. Earlier, organizations addressing key social issues were assumed to be idealistic, philanthropic with entrepreneurial skills. Social Entrepreneurship in India is emerging primarily because the government is very keen on its promotion, not necessarily by funding it or by advising on it but by enabling it. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of the private sector with clearly earmarked funds and full-fledged action teams have played an important role in sprucing up the image of Social Entrepreneurship. The focus of the paper is to study the growing trends of Social Entrepreneurship in India and the new initiatives taken by various Social Entrepreneurs. ...

Publisher ijmra.us UGC Approved

Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been associated with profit making individuals who aim high and achieve a lot for themselves in the world of tough competition. But, with the empowerment and responsiveness of the citizens of the developing world, a new resurgence has started in the field of entrepreneurship with innovation, particularly among the youth of the world. This resurgence is the growth of Social Entrepreneurship, where profits are not the end result, but just the means to achieve the end result of social enhancement and further empowerment. Social entrepreneurs, with their powerful ideas and thirst for revolution, create innovative solutions for progression in the lives of people in an extraordinary ways. This paper outlines India's social entrepreneurship scenario, and is intended to give the reader a succinct overview on resurgence and innovation of social entrepreneurship in several sectors.

ravimohan rajmohan

iaeme iaeme

Social entrepreneurship could be defined as a function of a social entrepreneur who is often an intrapreneur.”A social entrepreneur is one who organizes, create and manage a venture to achieve a social change and create a social capital in the form of work culture, harmonious work environment that improves productivity and team building”. This intangible asset promotes the organization’s efficiency and brand building and hence profitability.

Dr. Safoora Habeeb

The scale and magnitude of socioeconomic problems in India are huge and conspicuous. Social entrepreneurs address existing gaps in society, which are in need of pragmatic solutions. Their role in bridging the gap between social needs/demand and supply with optimum profit for sustenance is immense and it is high time to acknowledge the legitimate endeavor of socially minded individuals. This paper attempts at critical examination of social entrepreneurship need and challenges in India. Further, the relevance of social learning theory is presented in the context of social entrepreneurship. A primary research with a sample of 100 respondents is conducted and statistically analyzed using SPSS, to bring out the willingness, challenges and viewpoint of the mass on the subject.

Anand Choudhary

Social entrepreneurship in recent times has gained importance as a means to meet social and economic needs of the poor globally. However, in spite of it’s increasing popularity as a concept, there is no consensus among academics and practitioners when it comes to formulating one common definition on the topic which may be acceptable to all as it means different things to different people. The current article tries to analyse the literature available on the subject, exploring it’s theoretical and conceptual framework which helps to understand the phenomena of social entrepreneurship and its role, importance and applicability in the modern society.

RELATED PAPERS

nakurro charles

Elena Kuklina

Scientific Data

hayden mahony

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Jørgen Melau

Lala Andrianaivo

Palliative and Supportive Care

Joseph Arthur

Agronomía Mesoamericana

Juan Manuel Soto Parra

Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Gabriele Di Lorenzo

Nadia Zahra Rahmadhani

Revista chilena de cardiología

elena nieto

Geophysical Research Letters

Carlo De Michele

Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics -

Physical Review E

Volodymyr H Bodnar

Rocío Cupeiro

Journal of Military Medicine

Azita Chegini

Science Education

Stephen Farenga

Anuario de filosofía del derecho

Enoch Alberti

Anayasa Yargısı

Zelal Pelin Doğan

Journal of Research in Personality

Hector Vergara

Journal of Physical Organic Chemistry

Mitsuru Iwasaki

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics

Esin Sarıoglu

Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on GeoStreaming

Christophe Claramunt

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Social entrepreneurship and SDGs: case studies from northeast Nigeria

Case synopsis The use of entrepreneurship to deliver profound social impact is a much-needed but poorly understood concept. Although the authors can generally recognize social enterprises when they see them, they lack a common approach to understanding and measuring the different ways they create social value for them. The authors also lack an appropriate method for reducing the difficulties of starting and expanding them within the difficult conditions of developing countries. In the northeast of Nigeria, for example, the mammoth challenge of rebuilding communities in an unfavorable entrepreneurship environment makes the need for a solution even more urgent. This case study illustrates a model of promoting entrepreneurship that advances the conditions of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in local communities using a configuration of the key theories of social impact entrepreneurship (variants of entrepreneurship with blended value or mission orientation, including social entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship and institutional entrepreneurship). The extent to which ventures can adjust and improve the extent of their contributions to the SDGs are shown using examples of three entrepreneurs at different stages of growth. From this case study, students will be able to understand how entrepreneurs can identify and exploit social impact opportunities in the venture’s business model, within the network of primary stakeholders as well as in the wider institutional environment with the support of Impact+, a simple impact measurement praxis. Learning objectives The case study envisions training students how to hardwire social impact focus in the venture’s business model (social entrepreneurship), how to run ventures with minimal harm to the environment and greatest benefit to stakeholders (sustainable entrepreneurship) and how to contribute to improving the institutional environment for social purpose entrepreneurship (institutional entrepreneurship). At the end of learning this case study, students should be able to: 1. discover an effective model for a startup social venture; 2. explore options for managing a venture sustainably and helping stakeholders out of poverty; and 3. identify ways to contribute to improving the institutional environment for social impact entrepreneurs. Social implications For students, this case will help in educating them on a pragmatic approach to designing social impact ventures – one that calibrates where they are on well-differentiated scales. For business schools, entrepreneurial development institutions and policymakers, this case study can help them learn how to target entrepreneurial development for specific development outcomes. Complexity academic level The case study is preferably for early-stage postgraduate students (MSc or MBA). Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

• Related Documents

Helm: a social enterprise expanding opportunities for people with disabilities in Egypt

Case synopsis Drawing from individual experiences and shared passion, Amena and Ramez first founded Helm as a student club at the American University in Cairo in 2012. As a club, Helm worked extensively to identify the main challenges facing persons with disabilities (PwDs) in Egypt. During meetings with various stakeholders, Helm found that employment was a recurring theme. The employment rate for PwDs in Egypt was only 21.3% compared to 40.2% among the non-disabled. During its first year alone, Helm found jobs for 300 individuals with some sort of disability. Despite this initial success, Helm strived to increase its social impact by increasing the integration of PwDs in Egypt through changing employers’ mindset and building inclusive work atmospheres where PwDs could work and thrive. There were, however, major cultural barriers in Egypt standing in the way of this vision. Despite these challenges, Helm managed to play a pivotal role in creating social transformation around disability in Egypt. Helm became a key player in reshaping Egypt’s legislation on PwDs through participating in several policymaking discussions, parliamentary committee meetings and programs with governmental entities. In the hope of increasing Helm’s potential social impact, Amena and Ramez aimed to maintain their growth in Egypt and to expand to other markets in the region. Accordingly, they were faced with a set of compelling questions. Amena and Ramez further wanted to make sure that their current business model and contribution to social transformation for PwDs could help them to grow and serve other markets. Should they adapt their business model and services offerings to scale up their social impact accordingly? If so, how? Case learning objectives This case allows students to consider the nature of social enterprises in developing countries and how they create social transformation in supporting PwDs in local communities. This case also introduces students to social enterprises’ business models, scalability and the sustainability issues which such enterprises face in the context of developing countries. By the end of studying the case, students should be able to understand the following: Objective 1: Identify the characteristics of social entrepreneurship and apply it to a social enterprise using Robinson’s (2006) definition of social entrepreneurship; Objective 2: Analyze the business model of a social enterprise using the nine building blocks of the business model canvas of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010); Objective 3: Evaluate the social enterprise revenue model for sustainability using Yunus et al.’s (2010) building a social business model; and Objective 4: Suggest business model modification to improve a social enterprise’s scalability and service offerings in a new market. Complexity academic level This case study is aimed at students who are enrolled in entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, non-profit management, corporate social investment and sustainability courses. This case is written at an honor of graduate level so it can be used for master’s level, short graduate programs, MBA. The case is directed to students who have a business background and want to understand and explore social entrepreneurship. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Social entrepreneurs as institutional entrepreneurs: evidence from a comparative case study

Purpose This study aims to illuminate the field conditions under which social entrepreneurship can become institutionalized and transform the existing institutional fields. Design/methodology/approach A comparative case study was conducted among three social enterprises, within different regional institutional fields, following a most different systems design: OTELO, in Mühlviertel, ADC MOURA, in Baixo Alentejo and STEVIA HELLAS in Phthiotis. Findings The results indicate some of the field conditions under which an institutionalization of social entrepreneurship can thrive, namely, a high civil approval, a highly institutionalized and decentralized institutional field that allows the social enterprise to remain autonomous, as well the anchoring of the venture to a pre-existing counter-hegemonic narrative or/and to an embedded network that drives the dissemination a new institutional logic forward. Research limitations/implications The institutionalization of the voluntary collective action that social entrepreneurship embodies has significant limitations. The same is true for innovation, which tends to lose its innovative spirit as it becomes institutionalized. Future research has to explore if institutionalized social entrepreneurship can maintain a voluntary perspective and an innovative drift. Originality/value Most studies on institutional entrepreneurship deploy in-depth case studies while multi-case comparative research remains rare. The current comparative study adds significantly to the understanding of institutional entrepreneurship, as it compares different degrees of institutionalization and successful institutional entrepreneurs to non-successful ones.

Keggfarms Pvt. Ltd: a social enterprise and a way of life

Subject area Entrepreneurship, Design thinking and innovation, Strategy, Social entrepreneurship and rural markets, Business at the base of pyramid, Sustainability and leadership. Study level/applicability Undergraduate and Post Graduate Students Case overview Keggfarms Private Ltd was a private company started by Mr Vinod Kapur, a social entrepreneur who wanted to create a scalable social impact with his endeavor, which was the first of its kind outside the developed world. Keggfarms was established in 1967 with the aim of creating a business model which could benefit the rural sector by generating income and also enabling nutritional self-sufficiency. The case study aims to explore the sustainable model which had survived for 48 years without a push strategy and without a sole focus on profit. The business had spread to around 19 states in India, and the enterprise had decided to replicate a similar business model in the African continent. The social enterprise had aimed to touch the lives of millions of people in poverty by providing them with a low cost chicken – Kuroiler, which could survive the harsh weather and environmental conditions of rural India. Expected learning outcomes The study will help students to understand how social enterprises are born and built from the vision of the founder; how social capital is generated in the economy and how a blue ocean strategy was applied in this case to build a sustainable and financially viable social entrepreneurship model. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email [email protected] to request teaching notes. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship

Strategic marketing approaches impact on social enterprises

PurposeDue to social enterprises' (SEs) relevance to social value creation, marketing increases its attention to these hybrid organizations. However, there is no consensus on how strategic marketing can improve SE performance. Thus, this paper aims to discuss how commercial, social and societal strategic marketing approaches relate to compensatory and transformative social entrepreneurship scopes to improve SE performance.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is conceptual. We hold discussions and raise reflections to advance knowledge on both marketing and social entrepreneurship fields, more precisely by intertwining them.FindingsWe develop a conceptual model for adapting three strategic marketing approaches to compensatory and transformative SEs. We argue that SEs have three types of performances: commercial, social and societal. Social and commercial strategic marketing are essential for SEs acting in compensating local failures of capitalism. Societal and commercial strategic marketing are essential for SEs focused on transformative actions to changing global system. Such relations can leverage social impact, which we conceptualize as compensatory or transformative.Practical implicationsThe model contributes to improvements on strategic marketing decisions by marketers and entrepreneurs in social entrepreneurship.Originality/valueWe propose a decomposition of strategic marketing into three approaches: commercial, social and societal, which constitutes a novelty to the field. This can facilitate management of SEs with different actions and performances, whether at local or international levels.

Suboptimal food retail model in Czechia: social super discount stores

PurposeThe paper aims to identify retail models redistributing suboptimal food and their presence in Czechia. The author aims to give an overview of the status in comparison with other European Union countries and the form of such models in the Czech retail market concerning social super discount stores (SSDSs).Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is based on data obtained from an empirical study conducted by the study of secondary materials, author store-check observations and interviews with owners of SSDSs. The theoretical part consists of a literature review on social enterprises, food wasting and the definition of certain food distribution formats such as social supermarkets, food banks and SSDSs. The criteria for the selection of the research sample for observation were chosen based on the research conducted in Austria by researchers from the Vienna University of Economics and Business.FindingsThe research sample consists of 40 retail stores belonging to five retailers. The particular variables of the study are the number of stores, store size, range of categories and products, discount rates, location and the number of employees in the selected stores in Czechia.Originality/valueThis paper is a case study to identify and explore social retailing in Central Europe. This paper contributes to the emerging set of literature on social entrepreneurship, particularly in the field of retail for suboptimal food products.

Wecyclers roll out: Bilikiss Adebiyi-Abiola

Study level/applicability This case is appropriate for the following courses in undergraduate, graduate or executive programs. Subject area Sustainability, strategy, inclusive business, environmental sustainability and women in leadership. Upon completion of the case study discussion successful students will be able to: Case overview Bilikiss Adebiyi-Abiola brought to life Wecyclers, an urban waste management company in Nigeria that started as an idea during her MBA programme at MIT. Bilikiss served as its CEO from 2012 and mobilized efforts to sign up thousands of individuals, corporate bodies and agents who turn in waste to recycle. While waste management already had a lot of private sector participants (PSPs), there was no recycling company with a focus on community engagement as at the time Wecyclers came on board. The company went through several iterations to arrive at business model, develop its peculiar infrastructure, build partnerships and raise funds. The case study documents Wecyclers roll-out under the leadership of Bilikiss, whose work with Wecyclers has been shaped by her evolution as a professional woman with a background, education and network that has enabled her excel in the face of social norms which emphasize men as leaders. The case dilemma involves strategy cross-roads Bilikiss faced in mid-2017 as Wecyclers considered expanding its operation, pushed beyond waste collection, pushed by infrastructural weaknesses in the landscape which forced the company to consider vertical integration of its inclusive business model as a way forward to meaningfully serving its stakeholders – from communities, corporates to agents. Expected learning outcomes • Explore the strategic contexts of doing business in emerging markets;• understand the challenges and opportunities in inclusive business model for solving a social problem such as waste management; and • Examine the growth and evolution of women’s leadership, possibilities and hurdles, in a range of contexts. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Social implications In this way, the case study contributes to the limited body of knowledge about strategic and pragmatic facing social enterprises in emerging markets, including funding, community engagement, infrastructure, etc. It also gives us a view of inclusive business models and the evolution of women’s leadership. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Understanding social enterprise in The Netherlands

Purpose This paper aims to provide a qualitative country case study of The Netherlands, adopting the macro-institutional social enterprise (MISE) framework as developed by Kerlin (2009, 2013, 2017). The research question is twofold: How does the institutional context shape the social enterprise country model in The Netherlands, and To what extent can the MISE framework be a useful tool in explaining this dynamic between the institutional context and social enterprise country model? Design/methodology/approach This research applies the MISE framework developed by Kerlin (2017), which is founded upon the historical institutionalist approach. Findings The analysis of the institutional context in The Netherlands shows that the country context shares most traits with the autonomous diverse model. Its institutional environment should however be more enabling for the development of social enterprises. This discrepancy is explained through the notion of political will, resulting in the suggestion that the historical institutionalist approach of the MISE framework could be expanded by a greater focus on political will. Research limitations/implications To investigate the Dutch social enterprise country model, this paper principally relies on external sources, including surveys (McKinsey, 2016; PwC, 2016; Social Enterprise NL, 2015; 2016; 2018). This is problematic due to its subjective nature, small population size used and potential conceptual misfit with the definitions used in this research. Practical implications For academia, this paper enhances the understanding of the relations between the institutional environment and social enterprise by adding a case study of The Netherlands to the body of research around the MISE framework. Furthermore, the paper suggests to enhance the historical institutionalist approach of the MISE framework with a greater focus on political will. For advocates of social enterprises in The Netherlands, including policymakers, this paper may add to their understanding of the current developments around social enterprise in The Netherlands and possibly enhance their effectiveness of advocating for policies that are conducive to the development of social enterprises. Originality/value This research is the first in applying a universally applicable theoretical framework to the context of The Netherlands. For scholars of social enterprise in The Netherlands, it provides a comprehensive overview of developments of social enterprise in the country over recent years, as well as a thorough analysis of the current state of affairs. For international scholars of social enterprise, this research provides a case of comparison with other countries, taking into account all main institutions that shape a country and social enterprise in that country. For scholars of the MISE framework, this research offers an additional country case study that further helps improve the framework.

Transformative service research, service design, and social entrepreneurship

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an interdisciplinary framework bridging service design and social entrepreneurship with transformative service research (TSR) to create greater synergetic effects to advance wellbeing and drive social impact. Design/methodology/approach This research provides an interdisciplinary review and synthesis of literature to establish a basis for a conceptual framework advancing human wellbeing and driving social impact. Findings The overarching framework created incorporates various concepts, methods and tools across the three research domains. At the core of the framework is the ultimate goal of multilevel wellbeing and social impact. The core is subsequently supported by established social entrepreneurship concepts and strategies: prosocial motivation, hybrid identity, social bricolage, entrepreneurial thinking, community engagement, business model design and innovative delivery. The implementation of these concepts could benefit from the methods and tools used in service design, such as: design probes, service blueprints, appreciative inquiry, contextual interviews, actor maps, sustainable business model canvas and service prototyping. Practical implications The paper uses the refugee crisis as an illustrative example of how the proposed framework can be put into action by service organizations. Originality/value By bridging literature in TSR, service design and social entrepreneurship, this paper provides service managers with a framework to guide scalable systemic solutions for service organizations interested in advancing human wellbeing and driving social impact.

LOTS Charity Foundation – transitioning into a social enterprise

Subject area Social Entrepreneurship. Study level/applicability Entrepreneurship modules of undergraduate programs. The case was developed for undergraduate students taking courses or modules on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and social entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on how social enterprises evolve in emerging markets. It may also be used to teach MBA students taking similar courses. Case overview This case highlights the challenges NGOs face in emerging markets and provides motivation for transitioning into social entrepreneurship. The setting of the case is Nigeria where the World Bank estimates the poverty rate to be about 46 per cent. Innovative solutions, especially those originating from socially oriented organisations, are desperately needed to overcome the myriad social challenges facing Nigeria, all of which are direct or indirect consequences of poverty. Social entrepreneurship is gradually becoming a viable career option, especially as interested organisations absorb the teeming graduates from Nigerian universities, thereby themselves contributing to the mitigation of the undesirable consequences of unemployment. NGOs that primarily relied on donors are also beginning to look inwards because of the harsh economic climate in the country. With donors gradually reducing and, in some instances, withdrawing financial support, NGOs may have to look to other options for raising the needed capital to achieve set goals. Beginning in 2008, and driven primarily by spiritual and altruistic ideals, Tolulope Sangosanya (Tolu) walked the filthy streets of Ajegunle, a notorious ghetto in Lagos, where the inhabitants lived in shanties built on heaps of refuse. Shortly after that, she established an NGO – LOTS Charity Foundation – supported mainly by generous donors and her small-scale trading business. LOTS, an acronym for Love on The Streets, began to care for the physical and educational needs of the residents of this slum that she named Dustbin Estate. Though LOTS would go on to feed and educate hundreds of children, in December 2014, a major donor cancelled two weeks before a major charity event – Christmas For Every Family. This dealt a devastating blow to Tolu’s efforts, and she had to seriously consider how the organisation would continue to sustain itself in the future. Faced with mounting challenges, she began contemplating either giving up or transforming the Foundation into a full-fledged social enterprise capable of financing its activities. Expected learning outcomes The key learning points from the case study are as follows: to understand the dilemma NGOs in Nigeria (and perhaps some other emerging markets), face, and how transitioning into a social enterprise may become a viable option. To analyse the impact of social–cultural and economic context under which NGOs operate and how social enterprises evolve in emerging markets. To identify the key determinants of entrepreneurial behaviour and some of the business skills needed to resolve social problems successfully in developing countries. To explicate the key theories and concepts underlying the case study: the asset-based community development and social bricolage theories. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email [email protected] to request teaching notes. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

Sahaj Crafts: the challenge of alleviating poverty in Western Rajasthan

Learning outcomes The learning objectives of this case are as follows: identify and understand the major challenges/problems faced by a social enterprise in promoting handicraft business; examine the value chain architecture of handicraft products; assess the role of the protagonist (Sanjay) as a social change agent in shaping a successful social enterprise; assess Sahaj Crafts' initiatives and analyze whether the key intervention/s planned/executed were required for skilling up of rural artisans and upgradation of handicraft business; know the marketing strategies for handicraft products; and understand the “strategies” which need to be applied for uplifting people's lives at the bottom of pyramid in general and for enlivening of artisans’ clusters in particular. The outcomes are as follows: examining the value chain architecture of handicraft product; understanding the difficulties and challenges of structuring a viable social business model; examining the role of Sanjay as a social change agent in shaping a successful social enterprise; and examining the model of Craft Incubation Center and design education proposed by Sahaj Crafts for improving rural artisans’ livelihood and skills upgradation. Case overview/synopsis Sanjay Joshi – the promoter and CEO of “Sahaj Crafts” (a social enterprise established in Western Rajasthan, India), an initiative to strengthen indigenous skills and mainstream rural craft products and artworks – is faced with the question of how to scale up his organization’s operations. Doing so requires that he address these fundamental challenges in terms of – how to deal with unorganized craft communities; match up product orientation to market demands; integrate modern technology / processes in craft business; combat restricted mobility of women artisans; and make effective interventions so that the artisans learn and enjoy working in the current model and solve the financial issues faced by the social enterprise. Providing effective and implementable answers to those questions is vital to Sahaj Craft’s development in attaining its mission to alleviate poverty in the region. Failing to expand operations above a critical scale may leave Sahaj Crafts vulnerable in meeting sufficient demand for contemporary craft products in the mainstream markets. Complexity academic level This case study is primarily suitable for post-graduate level management students to teach the concepts of designing and operationalizing a “social” business model in a social entrepreneurship module. This case study can also be used for highlighting business model innovations in the social sector of emerging markets. The case could be taught in the following academic domains: social entrepreneurship; bottom of the pyramid; social inclusion; supply chain consolidation (vertical integration in a value chain); marketing strategies for handicraft products; branding; brand positioning; cost and management accounting. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email [email protected] to request teaching notes. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Entrepreneurship - Trends and Challenges

Social Entrepreneurship: Case Study in Unilever Food Solutions’ Trusted Hands Food Safety Online Training Program

Submitted: 06 April 2017 Reviewed: 12 September 2017 Published: 20 December 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70955

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Entrepreneurship - Trends and Challenges

Edited by Sílvio Manuel Brito

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

1,903 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

The social entrepreneurship is important in meso (organizational) and macro (policy-making) levels. This paper focuses on a case study in Turkey. “Trusted Hands Food Safety Online Training Program” by Unilever Food Solutions is examined as an example of social entrepreneurship. It is aimed to support food safety awareness in the industry to create and certificate the chefs. Unilever Food Solutions has received the Food Security Special Award, a project developed and implemented by the Food Safety Association. In the first year, 5000 chefs in Turkey intended to complete the education of this field and to have a certificate. It started with the support of professional associations. The sustainability and private sector involvement plays an essential role in this case, which is such an important issue such as health and hygiene.

• social entrepreneurship
• social value
• business models
• sustainability
• social impact
• bottom or base of the pyramid (BOP)
• growing inclusive markets (GIM)
• business opportunities

Author Information

Pınar başar *.

• Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul, Turkey

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Social entrepreneurship offers opportunities to improve society using practical, innovative, and sustainable ways. A social entrepreneur is an individual or organization who seeks out to find solutions surrounding social issues environment fair trade, education, health, and human rights. Social concerns are conducting more than financial or market opportunities. It has to be financially sustainable. Entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship also maintain employment opportunities. A social enterprise also facilitates employment for disadvantaged groups. There are niche opportunities for social entrepreneurs which are not suitable for entrepreneurs. Social initiatives represent a concept for the access to services for disadvantaged groups and protection for the environment.

Current fiscal regulations dissuade social enterprises. The tax regulations make it harder to operate social actions. On account of this, the maintenance of nonprofit economical enterprises is risky, while they are treated the same as commercial enterprises.

2. Differences between business and social entrepreneurs

The entrepreneurs emphasize innovation and creativity. They seek new ways to define existing needs. Social entrepreneurs are those who take responsibility and risk for civil society needs.

The authors Say, Schumpeter, Drucker, and Stevenson have important contributions to the issue of the entrepreneurship. Other researches also indicate the connection of the subjects’ entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship [ 8 ]. The social entrepreneurs challenge some unique problems [ 11 ].

Business entrepreneurs tend to focus on new needs, while social entrepreneurs tend to focus on existing environmental and social problems more effectively on long-term goals through new approaches. Social entrepreneurs are those who take responsibility for civil society needs. While traditional entrepreneurs take risks on behalf of shareholders, social entrepreneurs take risks on behalf of stakeholders. The objectives of social entrepreneurs differ from those of business entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs are motivated in different ways than commercial entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs face similar problems such as establishing and institutionalizing their enterprises. Social entrepreneurs can also experience problems such as defining opportunities and needs, planning, support, obtaining information and resources, creating marketing and demand, and creating organizational structure. Since social entrepreneurs have different motivation and aim from commercial entrepreneurs, they differentiate from commercial entrepreneurs in the way of leadership style also. The leader focuses on change and processes, is a part of the group, and controls group structure and processes. Social entrepreneurs are not a part of the group that is affected by the group or working in the group ( Table 1 ) [ 28 ].

Table 1.

The differences between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

Source: Özdevecioğlu and Cingöz [ 31 ].

Another proposal is that the two entrepreneurial types will have different requirements, especially in terms of access to financial markets and risk capital. Finally, in terms of performance management, it has been emphasized that commercial entrepreneurs can develop and use concrete and quantitative metrics more easily and that social entrepreneurship is a front line for nonmaterial elements (and therefore more difficult to measure). The social value opportunity in social entrepreneurship arises at the intersection of human resources and financial resources. Social entrepreneurs must have the ability to bring these internal resources together in an external context. The components of social entrepreneurship are to produce social value, being innovative, and creating resources and sustainability. The social organization mentioned at this point can be a new constitution, or it emerges in the form of joint projects of the existing social institutions in order to increase the scope of influence [ 7 ].

Social enterprises are separated from ethical or socially responsible companies precisely at this point. In contrast to companies, the measure of success in social enterprises is not the profits that are achieved, but the positive impact created on society. Another point that distinguishes social enterprises from these companies is that they should be accountable not to their shareholders but to the communities they serve [ 28 ].

It is suggested by Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship to establish a board for managing the social enterprises effectively. The corporate governance assures the credibility, complies with social values, and presents the enterprise responsibilities against stakeholders [ 2 ].

Another study presents scale of four dimensions about the measurement of social entrepreneurship orientation with a two-stage design with Delphi study. It indicates the combination of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship aspects together [ 24 ].

As a result of the case studies, it is understood that the predetermined dimensions of social entrepreneurship are examined extensively. The researches have focused on conceptualizing and not developing a mass-interaction measurement tool that SCALERS gave to name their social entrepreneurship. In traditional entrepreneurial countries, meaningful interventional activities tend to have more social entrepreneurial activities [ 3 ]. Social entrepreneurship is built and works for a social purpose. The profits are used for social purposes [ 10 ].

The difficulty of the performance measurement conducts the social investor to quest for the control and monitor. The research Rosenzweig [ 30 ] shows “impact value chain” first. The main antecedents of the measurement are figured as inputs, which are resources put directly into the venture (e.g., assets, volunteering, or money), outputs, which are consequences of the project managers’ measurement, and outcomes, which are the intended global changes. After the comparison of the desired outcomes with internal output, measures can show an accomplishment [ 30 ].

Garrigós, Lapiedra, and Narangajavana researched social entrepreneurship and social value measurement in the Colombian construction industry. The social value rise with the leakage reduction is assumed. The policy aims the effectiveness and economic multiplier [ 11 ].

3. Social entrepreneurship and social value

Most of the movements can be seen as small and extent worldwide, but they are interconnected and mutually strengthening each other. When all these things are taken together, it means more than the sum of their components. There is a synergy of these movements. Through social missions and entrepreneurial approaches, all social enterprises create and disseminate social, economic, and environmental values. Whatever the type or sector of the pioneering organization is, “creating value for all” is a precondition for the growth of more inclusive markets [ 7 ]. The concept of “sociality” includes adapting the principles of entrepreneurship to social problems instead of profit maximization. Thus, social enterprises are emerging as entrepreneurial or free market-based organizations in solving social problems.

There are many definitions of social entrepreneurship. Social enterprises aim social impact. Social entrepreneurship involves corporate initiatives that invest in individual, or in the form of the profit generated by a new entity, which is planned to be opened by the individual, within the framework of social objectives [ 7 ].

According to the definition of GEM, the economic expectations of social entrepreneurship projects are determined according to the costs of the strategies to be implemented. Corporate social project practices, which have become an important part of corporate strategies, have made it possible to achieve common achievements within this understanding. The difference of social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship mentions entrepreneurship as a context, actor (people/resources), deal, and opportunity together: as the PCO equilibrium. The first proposition here is that market failure creates different opportunities for social and business entrepreneurs. The second factor is that the understanding of economic success and social value creation differs between the two concepts.

Social entrepreneurs are individuals who realize social transformation in an innovative way. These individuals are making social enterprise “with the enthusiasm of entrepreneurship, the methods of business, the creation of innovation, and the courage to abandon general practices” [ 7 ].

The entrepreneurs create innovations in different ways like “product or process innovation, or a new product or a changed product, or a combination of any” according to the definition of OSLO MANUAL. Product innovations are made through “the use of new materials; use of new intermediate products; new functional parts; use of radically new technology; fundamental new functions (fundamental new products) and process” and the process innovations through “the new production techniques; new organizational features (introduction of new technologies); new professional software” [ 25 ]. The social and/or ecological value creation motivates the social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs also aim innovation in a new product, a new service, or a new method like entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs transform the society in economic and social ways.

They may be in the form of cooperative or hybrid models, legally organized as nonprofit-making institutions. Although social initiatives are not yet defined as separate entities in most countries, there are some steps taken in this direction [ 7 ]. In the United States, there is differentiation between the Community Interest Company and the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company because of the focus of profitability [ 1 , 24 ]. Benefit corporation (BC) is another definition according to United States law, which describes a new legal for-profit business entity. It contains the responsibility to return profits to shareholders [ 33 ].

The aims of projects that are realized by companies and social organizations are based on three themes. First, identifying the social, cultural, and environmental objectives that are deployed as the basis of the project, second prioritizing the social objectives identified during the project, and third going for profit for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of project implementation.

Social entrepreneur targets to find solutions for the environment, the youth, and various socioeconomic indexed social problem areas. It accentuates that providing employment and income-generating activities for religious, ethnic, economically marginalized groups emphasize the self-sufficiency of individuals. They aim to increase their visibility within the community they live in and to reduce their commitment to social safety nets in a rational way.

The access in long-term capital and the lack of strategic planning, especially in developing countries, constitute the biggest obstacle in front of entrepreneurs. The talent, money, and interest in social enterprises around the world are increasing recently. There are debates about what social initiatives are and what they do in various national and international platforms.

Systematic change is the most important objective. Social entrepreneurs aim to create systematic change, disseminate their solutions, and gain support from the community in the long run, eliminating the problem, while improving similar cases in the areas they deal with. To describe the difference between the social intervention approach and others is that social initiatives are not for to teach only fish or fishing, but instead aim to radically change the fish industry [ 9 ].

It is considered that there is a big difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship also in the implementation process. They are so connected like the parts of a whole system. The partnerships like universities and other stakeholders contribute to the efficiency and the innovation. Social entrepreneurs aim to reach two different goals under the roof of a single establishment: to provide social benefit and profit [ 8 ].

Social enterprises that function as a commercial enterprise by producing goods and services in free market conditions also direct the income they derive from these activities to social purposes. In this method, the business activity may be directly related to the social problem, but it is also possible that there is no direct connection between them. CSOs adopting such an approach perceive social enterprise activities as an alternative to reduce their dependence on donations and grants and to increase their fiscal sustainability.

Another way social enterprises pursue is the empowerment and capacity building of individuals and communities by creating employment and income-generating activities for disadvantaged groups (women, youth, people with disabilities, minorities, and so on).

Contrary to the first approach, commercial activity itself is seen as an effective tool for social change in this method.

Another approach that is observed in social enterprises is to act in a creative, bold, and entrepreneurial spirit in their commercial activities. Solution-focused, experiential transformations of barriers can be much more profitable than traditional methods of business ventures.

Another common point is that most social enterprises are initiated and maintained by social entrepreneurs. Like entrepreneurs who change the face of the business world, social entrepreneurs are also important tools of social change [ 10 ].

The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship offers “models of sustainable social innovation.” The global, regional, and industry transformation and the association with the other stakeholders of the World Economic Forum is in the focal point of The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship [ 18 ].

Social entrepreneurship is a concept, which needs awareness and development in Turkey. Social support of universities, associations, and foundations through awards, courses, and studies and governmental support through tax regulations are expected to raise the awareness and interest in social entrepreneurship. The attainment of consumer markets is easier through the internet access and popularity of social media. Additionally, entrepreneurship is the period for innovation development and application. Economic development and also social development are not only evolved through innovation [ 32 ].

Entrepreneurship is a combination of production resources and aims the profit. Social entrepreneurs do not focus on profits, mostly the social benefits. The development of social entrepreneurship must be accentuated in the society.

Increasing knowledge-based economies promote entrepreneurship. Social inclusion and economic development constitute synergy for social entrepreneurship. Social enterprise can be defined as “businesses that trade for social purposes.” They are nonprofit entities, which are implementing commercial methods to accomplish their social objectives. The concept is summarized as “mission-driven business approach” [ 23 ].

The researches execute the antecedents and the consequences of social entrepreneurship in social constructionist approach [ 23 ].

Social capital can be defined as the assets that have as a consequence of the relations of one with others and (in a correlated way) of the participation in organizations: these relations facilitate the access to other resources [ 5 ].

Social enterprise must be constructed as a social organizational identity [ 23 ]. The social capital is an important determinant for business support. The concept of social entrepreneurship technology is affected through rapid technological change. The changes are adapted for creating social value. New methods are internalized [ 14 ].

Social capital is the feature of commercial conglomerates, which have shared values, trust, and culture. So trust is an important dimension of social capital [ 6 ]. Entrepreneurs use their connections for funding or receiving credit from suppliers without any formal contract, which is very crucial for the sustainability. Social capital is crucial for equalization and continuance for human development. German and Japanese cooperative and long-term oriented cultures induce them for innovation and industrial development. So the social capital is remarkable in these countries ( Table 2 ) [ 32 ].

The Different Organizational Models of Social Enterprises are examined in Table 2 . The entrepreneurial approach and social focus are their common point.

There is a “traditional NGO” managed by volunteerism, income-based donations, and social services, while at the other end there is a commercial enterprise which is the main goal of profit. Social enterprises are in the midst of these two extremes as commercialized institutions at various levels in their functioning. For example, many social enterprises employ professional staff, receive consultancy services, and make income-generating investments. However, social enterprises also provide employment and social services to disadvantaged groups, advocate, and thus interfere with various social problems. No social initiative is the same as another (in terms of purpose, target mass, methods, and institutional structures). However, no matter how diverse the commercialization, the approaches, and the environments in which they function, it is possible to find some common interests between social enterprises in terms of purposes and methods [ 10 ].

“A leveraged nonprofit enterprise” is not working through an income-earning strategy. The sustainability is maintained through partnerships and funding of traditional donor-dependent model. Its sustainability strategy constitutes dependent independent resources [ 1 ]. Leveraged nonprofit ventures’ sustainability is influenced by the partners’ attention.

“Hybrid enterprise” conglomerates features of the for-profit and nonprofit legal models. The various legal structures are used in different countries. In the United States, the low-profit entities are structured as Limited Liability Company. In the United Kingdom, the sustainability of the social activities is afforded by a profit subsidiary in the form of “Community Interest Company.” The entrepreneur establishes numerous legal entities to sustain it financially. It is financed with grants, loans and/or own resources [ 24 ].

“Social entrepreneurs” aim to create social change in education, health, environment, and enterprise improvement. A social entrepreneur accomplishes major and sustainable social change through innovations [ 18 ]. The entrepreneur establishes a for-profit entity or business which is social or ecological driven. The social entrepreneurs’ main objectives are social and then profit [ 22 ].

Entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs are using the same tools and endeavor in market principles and forces for driving change. Social entrepreneurs provide opportunities for marginalized and poor. They find solutions for social issues like education, health, welfare reform, human rights, workers’ rights, environment, economic development, agriculture, and so on [ 18 ].

Social entrepreneurship is tried to be encouraged with educational programs and competitions. The financial returns are low, and it complicates the presence of these organizations [ 10 ].

A strong financial system is a requirement of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurs create jobs, and so they help to reduce the unemployment rate. Turkey’s economy is growing. The collaborations with international organizations promote economic progress through entrepreneurship. Table 1 summarizes the differences between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

There are many suggestions for the improvement of social entrepreneurship [ 23 ]. One of the problems they face is institutionalization which is difficult because the social initiatives are dependent on the social entrepreneurs and it is not easy to survive [ 3 , 4 ].

The institutionalization of social entrepreneurship education is impeded through limited presidential support, a clear and well-defined vision, and financial problem [ 27 ].

The strategies to simplify the increase of social enterprises are legal recognition and regulation; combination of the most innovative organizational solutions; replication process; protection of consumer’s rights; and avoidance of isomorphism. Quasi-market strategies require unusual mix of resources and conformance to local dimension. The network plays important role to accomplish this. It is recommended to change the implementation of employment subventions for long-term unemployed to reduce labor costs. It can be used to lower productivity [ 4 ].

3.1. The concepts of new business models

The competiveness forces the companies for a search of new business opportunities. Growing Inclusive Markets (GIM) and Base of the Pyramid (BOP) can be taken into account as important concepts when considering the size of the population.

3.1.1. Growing Inclusive Markets (GIM)

The macro-level approach is based on the creation of opportunities and innovation through defining the markets in another way. There are important aspects of social entrepreneurship. The concepts aim at taking “business for poor” and raise prosperity of the society. Social entrepreneurship operates in a global structure with many stakeholders. The growing inclusive markets (GIM) Initiative is a stakeholder of UNDP. The aim is to find solutions for the global development with inclusive business models. They try to create new chances for better lives of poor people. GIM endeavors for the millennium development goals (MDGs). This initiative creates a big network [ 19 ].

UNDP Private Sector Division is working toward the inclusive market policies and projects with sections The GIM Initiative and the Business call to action (Cat). The Inclusive Markets Development (IMD) program is for the advancement of new opportunities. The Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative has two purposes. The enhancement of the recognition includes business models and finds solutions for sustainable human development. The other purpose is structuring market environment improvements with taking actions with stakeholders and changing the policies [ 16 ].

As the empirical research conducted by the GIM Initiative reveals, these constraints include limited market information, problems about the infrastructure, reaching the knowledge and skills, difficulties by compensating the financial needs, and ineffective regulatory environments. In addition to the potentially unnecessary bureaucratic processes that can be undertaken in general by interventional efforts, many laws do not recognize social enterprises as separate legal structures. Conditions, laws and regulations may limit their capacity to seek financial and social returns, and force such organizations to merge into profit-oriented or non-profitable legal entities. Social entrepreneurs need to ensure financial stability [ 1 ].

Social entrepreneurship encompasses three main types of inclusive business models, as documented in the final report of the Social Entrepreneurship Information Network and shaped in many GIM case studies. First, they can get members to come together and get more value; for example, strong bargaining power, efficiency and volume develop, value chain, and product development increase [ 29 ]. The business model is based on the production of handcrafts that are low cost, require intensive labor, consume little energy, and perform with low technology. Table 3 summarizes the Socially Inclusive Business Model according to the social value and the economic value [ 5 ]. The initiatives analyzed found business opportunities in low-income sectors. Socially Inclusive Businesses produce economic and social values [ 26 ].

Table 2.

The Spectrum of social enterprises (arranged by legal form and revenue source).

Source: Abdou and Fahmy [ 1 ].

Table 3.

Profits and Social Impact in Socially Inclusive Business.

Source: Marquez [ 23 , 26 ].

3.1.2. Base of the Pyramid (BOP)

The base of the pyramid (BOP) approach can be explained as creating and distributing goods and services for poor people. There are not many companies using the opportunity to supply goods to this group. The international finance corporation reveals that purchasing power is annually $5000 billion of this 4 billion people. The transformation is aimed of this people to customers. The multinational companies have to look from a different window to find out the opportunities in the market of four billion people and assure the capital efficiency.

Prahalad and Hart [ 13 ] explained the BOP approach in their study “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” as “The aspiring poor present a prodigious opportunity for the world’s wealthiest companies. But it requires a radical new approach to business strategy” [ 13 ]. Prahalad (2004), Hart (2005) and London (2007) are the authors, which have mentioned the base (bottom) of the pyramid (BOP) theory first. The poor society, which is living on less than US$ 1.25 per day, is defined as “resilient and creative entrepreneurs” and “value-conscious consumers” (Prahalad 2004: 1). The concept suggests to create economic openings with collaboration of multinational corporations. It recommends the strategic association with persons at the base of the world’s income pyramid. It assumes to the radical change in the business model. The poor is presented as solution itself and as a resource. In that way can be a win-win position created. The demand of the over three billion poor people is attracting the entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. The financing and social value has to be balanced with low-cost consumer goods. It is contrasting to the mission-driven corporate social responsibility approach [ 26 ]. The BOP concept brings “mutually beneficial economic and social incentives” together. It is purposed to produce the own revenues. It is revealing that the partner’s involvement depends on the potential of venturing the needs of the poor people [ 26 ].

Based on the study of the famous Indian economist Amartya Sen (1999), which sees the rise of freedom as including the economic possibilities as “a fundamental solution to a basic solution and development” to provide sustainable human development, UNDP considers the markets to be more inclusive. This means that the poor people can buy his needs at affordable prices, meaning that venture capitalization is an opportunity rather than a necessity, access to decent business opportunities, and the ability to contribute to companies’ value chains as suppliers and distributors. Social enterprises contribute to the development of “containment markets” either by supporting development and can change the role of the disadvantaged groups. They are able to demand the products and services as customer and buyers or supply as employees, producers, and entrepreneurs. Such initiatives can be developed by all types of institutions (social enterprises, multinational corporations, large public entities, or SMEs), and these business models carry a number of common characteristics as outlined below [ 7 ].

Some firms like Nirma have implemented solutions with product innovation and new manufacturing process. Of course, in this business model, it is not possible to aim the traditional high margins. A different perspective is needed for the competitiveness [ 29 ]. It is expensive to research for the development of products and services sustainability and enter and continue in distribution channels and communication networks. MNCs have know-how to bring together a global knowledge rather to local entrepreneurs. Leaders can use the interpersonal and intercultural skills to customize the products and services to local BOP markets [ 29 ].

The economically sustainability and generation of social and environmental benefits are important to define the inclusive businesses [ 26 , 31 ]. Despite the significant benefits of the social enterprise model, such as increasing financial capacity and independence from donors, increasing scale of operations resulting from income strategies is achieved, and thus greater social impact, and social enterprises also faced some potential difficulties. First, while social enterprises are developing market models of pyramid-based coverage, they face market constraints that are similar to traditional markets. Social enterprises use solutions like organizations operating in low-income markets adopt according to formulate products and processes for BOP markets, which has different conditions, increasing the buying power and bringing the potential resources with other partners. The researchers indicate that the success of the business models is dependent on the organization’s main mission, capacities, and the segment it addresses and when it reaches a suitable scale.

4. Methodology

Methodology of the research is case study. Case study approach is an effective way to build solid ground to make positive argument on subject where it is rather easy to compare theoretical information and arguments with applied cases. It is also aimed to encourage other social entrepreneurship initiatives by mentioning good examples like Trusted Hands Food Safety Program Online. This case provides opportunity for awakening the social interest. This case is appropriate for the use of the subject matter covered which includes concepts that are globally discussed. However, various examples determine the value.

5. Unilever food solutions and trusted hands food safety online training program

The study researches “Food Safety” training of Unilever Food Solutions. An independent company conducted the Turkey Chief Survey, and 80% of the chiefs identified as the most important need Food Safety training. The “Trustworthy Hands” Food Safety Training Program is prepared online in order to reach all kitchen teams throughout Turkey. The project aims to complete 5000 chief trainings in the first year. It is planned to have a food safety certificate by participating in trainings of 30,000 chiefs in 3 years.

Trustworthy Hands Food Safety Training consists of five separate sections, cross contamination, physical and chemical hazards, cleaning, production safety, and HACCP applications. In order to meet the lack of knowledge and development needs of the chefs in the field of food safety, the Food Security Association organized an introductory meeting with the participation of sector representatives for the “Trustworthy Hands” Food Safety Training Program. Food Security Association, Food Industry Association, Tourism Restaurant Investors and Businesses Association (TURYİD), and the Union of the Cooks supported the project. Turkey emphasized that they have launched the first and only comprehensive food safety training program. It is to launch the online training modules in other countries too.

It is declared that 350,000 people are working in the catering sector. In 77,000 restaurants in Turkey, millions of meals are eaten every day. More than 30,000 of the restaurants are located in Istanbul. TURYİD serves 165 brands in 480 points. It creates an industry of two billion endorsements annually. It is 10% of the general food and beverage sector. The associations increase their strength in the direction of goals through cooperation with the sectorial knowledge, communication, and training issues [ 20 , 21 ].

It is stated that 325,000 are hospitalized and 5000 people died because of food poisoning every year in the world. In 2013, the number of people who lost their lives due to “external injuries and poisonings” in Turkey is 20,000,409, but this number has decreased to 16,000,018 in 2014. According to the World Health Organization, in 2010, a total of 582 million people were poisoned from 22 different food items in the world. Interestingly, 40% of the 582 million people are under 5 years old. The bacterial cause of food is found in raw poultry, unpasteurized milk, red meat, and untreated water which are the most common factors of poisoning with Campylobacter. Unpasteurized milk, eggs and raw egg products, raw meat, and poultry have to be controlled carefully because of the Salmonella. Listeria, nigella (traveler’s diarrhea), and clostridia are other dangerous factors for food poisoning [ 15 ].

It is stated that Unilever Food Solutions reached to one of the two businesses in the nonhouse food sector. Food Safety Association has indicated that 50% of the chefs have completed five videography trainings in the “Trustworthy Eller” food safety training. Unilever Food Solution has launched a training course for the kitchen teams [ 17 ].

The chefs are able to see the article “Get Your Food Safety Training and Certificate Now” on Knorr products and access training videos prepared with the passwords on the product packages by entering the Food Security section where it also can be reached via ufs.com . Training program consist of five short videos produced by the Food Safety Association as an education, and at the end of each training video, questions about that section must be answered in order chefs to be entitled to receive special certificates for the names of Food Safety Association certified ones. It is emphasized that there are plans to reach the chefs through not only digital channels but also product packages because of the presence of Unilever Food Solutions products at every one of them. They also note that they are taking care to be part of Unilever Food Solutions products.

The main objective is to ensure that food is healthy and maintains its nutritive properties and continues. Food safety involves the processing, preparation, transport, storage, and disposal of foodstuffs to prevent biological, physical, and chemical agents that cause food-borne illnesses. It is an approach that addresses the process of submitting to consumers. Safe food is defined as food that has been made suitable for consumption by eliminating all kinds of deterioration and contagious factors, and everything that is done to achieve this is the technical direction of the business. “He added that Food Safety Inspections in Turkey are done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Many countries, including Turkey, are developing and implementing standards and management systems related to food safety.” The latest method to ensure food safety is published as national standards in countries with the HACCP system. Many countries have accepted that “ISO 22000: Food Safety Management Systems Standard,” which was prepared by ISO in 2005, is included in Turkey in order to ensure the use of a common system of accreditation in international trade and a common system of food safety standards all over the world. In Turkey, TS EN ISO 22000, which was put into practice in 2006 by TS 13001-HACCP Standard, has been applied in food and food-related enterprises.“HACCP plan for the establishments identifies and monitors biological, chemical, and physical properties that are food-borne hazards. It is preventive, rather than reactive, and is an effective risk management tool [ 23 ].

Taking the risk factors into consideration, necessary precautions must be taken before delivering to the customer. “Trusted Hands” Trainings is a project that aims to raise awareness about food safety in the chiefs and close the information gap. The Turkish Food Safety Association prepares and sends the certificates to the chefs who have completed the training.

6. Conclusion

The social considerations in Turkey are rising in recent years. The society’s consciousness is increasing and also became aware of social, environmental, and health issues. The number of successful social entrepreneurs increases trends and behaviors through social actions.

Social entrepreneurs produce services and products. The disadvantaged groups can use the employment opportunities. Social entrepreneurship implements similar tools like entrepreneurs. They face the same problems and take the same risks also. The existence is dependent on the support mechanisms. In this case, the public and private support for social entrepreneurship plays an important role. The legal arrangements are needed for the financial continuance. Consultancy, knowledge sharing through awards, courses, and studies builds a net. The youth and children can be elaborated in education system. People in lower segments of society can also be informed about the social issues.

In this study is examined the project of Unilever Food Solution in the framework of the awakening consciousness in society and in the sector about food safety which is an important issue of health. It is also a good example of the collaboration of publıc and private sectors.

The suggestions made in the literature can be summarized in three points: first highlighting success stories and case studies; second accumulating the best practices; and third forming a High-Impact Entrepreneurship Index and planning exercise. These efforts will guide the new actions also [ 12 ].

There are many difficulties of continuance and establishment of social enterprises but also many advantages like the technological, financial, and human resources. Internet facilitates communication and cooperation. The definition of legal form and other problems are waiting solutions from governments [ 12 ].

The other problem is that the short-term approach will complicate the existence of the social enterprises. Tax exemptions are needed for the maintenance. The long-term focus can facilitate the partnerships. These resources can be used more effectively, and the social impact can be enhanced [ 10 ].

Private sector is an important project partner and also creates financial sources. The material contribution or sponsorship builds a synergy and a win-win position to public and private sector also. The public benefit can be taken in terms of its scope and coverage, because the society’s awareness and purchasing power will be enhanced. The wealth arises [ 10 ].

The improvements are promising for the future of social entrepreneurship. The society, the companies, and the government are more aware of the social, environmental, and health issues. It is expected to raise the interest about the research topic. This case intends to show key points in its successful implementations can be followed. The results of this research enlighten social entrepreneurial form that is likely to become much more extensive in new economy. Tables and definitions aim to present the understanding of business model and its importance. The most important contribution is intended to observe a good practice. The research enables to open the horizons in the business start-ups and explore a new way of thinking for win-win. The outlined phenomenon in an exploratory approach involves an in-depth analysis of a case for the guidance of new cases.

• 1. Abdou E, Fahmy A, Greenwald D, Nelson J. Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East: Toward Sustainable Development for the Next Generation. Wolfensohn Center for Development, The Middle East Youth Initiative Working Paper, 10; 2010
• 2. Achleitner A-K, Heinecke A, Mayer J, Noble A, Schöning M. The governance of social enterprises: Managing your organization for success. TUM School of Management, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, European Business School. Geneva; 2012. Retrieved from http://wef.ch/GovSE
• 3. Aslan G, Araza A, Bulut Ç. Sosyal Girişimciliğin Kavramsal Çerçevesi. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi. 2012; 7 (2):69-88
• 4. Bagnasco A. Trust and Social Capital. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. 2012; 33 :252. ISO 690
• 5. Bebbington A. Estrategias de vida y estrategias de intervención: el capital social y los programas de superación de la pobreza. En: Aprender de la experiencia: el capital social en la superación de la pobreza-LC/G. 2005. 2275-P-2005-p. 21-46
• 6. Buzinde C, Shockley G, Andereck K, Dee E, Frank P. Theorizing Social Entrepreneurship Within Tourism Studies. In Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism. 2017. Springer International Publishing. pp. 21-34
• 7. Çınar B. (Yay. Haz.)Büyüyen kapsayıcı piyasalar: Türkiye’de sosyal girişimcilik vakaları. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi; 2012. p. 2012
• 8. Dees JG. The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. 1998. [Online] Available: http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf
• 9. Denizalp H. Toplumsal Dönüşüm İçin Sosyal Girişimcilik RehberiA. Ankara common: Odak Ofset Matbaacılık analogy; 2007 used
• 10. Ersen TB, Kaya D, Meydanoğlu Z. Sosyal Girişimler ve Türkiye İhtiyaç Analizi Raporu. İstanbul: TÜSEV Yayınları; 2010
• 11. Garrigós Simón FJ, González-Cruz T, Contreras-Pacheco O. Policies to enhance social development through the promotion of SME and social entrepreneurship: A study in the Colombian construction industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 2017; 29 (1-2):51-70
• 12. Goldin I. Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World. In Excerpt from the Report of the Global Redesign Initiative, World Economic Forum; 2010
• 13. Hart S, Prahalad CK. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+ business. 2002; 26 (1):54-67
• 14. Helvacioğlu E. Sosyal Girişimcilik Boyutunda Kütüphaneler. Bilgi Dünyası. 2013; 14 (1):199-203
• 15. http://foodinlife.com.tr/haber/32240/function.file-get-contents “Güvenilir Eller” Gıda Güvenliği Eğitim Programı [Internet]. Available from: [Accessed: 27-07-2016]
• 16. http://www.growinginclusivemarkets.org / (Access date.14-06-2017)
• 17. http://www.hotelrestaurantmagazine.com /. Unilever, ‘Güvenilir Eller’ Gıda Güvenliği Eğitimi düzenledi [Internet]. http://www.hotelrestaurantmagazine.com/unilever-guvenilir-eller-gida-guvenligi-egitimi-duzenledi/ [Accessed: 27-07-2016]
• 18. http://www.schwabfound.org/entrepreneurs (Social Entrepreneurs, 31-05-2017), What Is a Social Entrepreneur?
• 19. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/funding/partners/private_sector/GIM.html (Access date.14-06-2017)
• 20. https://www.dunya.com/ehlikeyf/unilever039den-quotguvenilir-ellerquot-projesihaberi- 318868, (Access date 05-06-2017)
• 21. https://www.unileverfoodsolutionsarabia.com/en/chef-inspiration/food-safety/haccpprinciples. Html (Access date 31-05-2017)
• 22. Elkington J, Hartigan P. The power of unreasonable people: how social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press. 2008
• 23. Johnsen S. Revisiting the concept of Social Enterprise in a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) context: a social constructionist view (No. 1516). CIRIEC-Université de Liège. ISO 690. 2015
• 24. Kraus S, Niemand T, Halberstadt J, Shaw E, Syrjä P. Social Entrepreneurship Orientation: Development of a Measurement Scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 2017; 23 (5)
• 25. Manual O. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data; (2005)
• 26. Marquez P, Reficco E, Berger G. Socially Inclusive Business: Engaging the Poor Through Market Initiatives in Ibero‐America. Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press. 2010. [Google Scholar]
• 27. Ni H, Tian J. Sendra L. Enos: Service-Learning and Social Entrepreneurship in Higher Education; 2017
• 28. Özdevecioğlu M, Cingöz A. Sosyal girişimcilik ve sosyal girişimciler: Teorik çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009; 32 :81-95
• 29. Prahalad CK, Hart SL. Strategies for the bottom of the pyramid: creating sustainable development. Ann Arbor. 1999; 1001 :48109. ISO 690
• 30. Rosenzweig W. Double Bottom Line Project Report: Assessing Social Impact in Double Bottom Line Ventures. UC Berkeley: Center for Responsible Business; 2004 Center for Responsible Business. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/80n4f1mf
• 31. Sprague C. Vida Gás: Powering Health Clinics and Households in Mozambique with Liquefied Petroleum Gas. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2007
• 32. Tracy M. The State of Entrepreneurship in Turkey. Paper 11. ed. Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship; 2013. DOI: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/wilson/11
• 33. Hiller JS. The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013; 118 (2):287-301

© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Entrepreneurship.

Published: 04 April 2018

By Sílvio Manuel da Rocha Brito Brito

1554 downloads

By Francesca Rivetti and Mirella Migliaccio

2088 downloads

By Orlando Lima Rua, Alexandra França and Rubén Ferná...

2063 downloads

Apply to participate in a social entrepreneurship program next year

Applications are now open for the Fowler Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit ‘s ThinkImpact social entrepreneurship program.

The mission of the ThinkImpact program is to develop and promote businesses that create positive impact for communities, societies and the environment around the world. Participation in the ThinkImpact program gives students the opportunity to attend virtual and in person workshops together with other Case Western Reserve University students and with students from around the globe for international exposure and the cultural exchange of ideas. 

During the program, students will learn about how entrepreneurship can be used to solve social and environmental problems and build their own project. Through weeks of self-reflection, group discussion, and listening to experts in the entrepreneurship ecosystem, students begin to build their own sustainable business concept and nurture it throughout the program.

The ThinkImpact program will run from September 2024 through April 2025. Students will attend virtual bi-weekly sessions with our international participants as well as weekly coaching sessions with their CWRU cohort. Participants will be expected to present their solution and work in April.

Applications will be open through July 31 at 11:59 p.m. The first round of applicants will be notified of their status in the program on Aug. 16. Any remaining spots will be filled thereafter. 

Apply to participate.

Contact Megan Buchter [email protected] with any questions.

Purdue Libraries and School of Information Studies News

Midwest entrepreneurship case competition attracts teams across the midwest, recent posts.

• Featured Databases: Regional Business News
• Featured Databases: PrivCo
• Featured Databases: ABI/INFORM Collection
• Featured Databases: S&P Capital IQ

May 1st, 2024

Assistant Professors Zoeanna Mayhook and Annette Bochenek co-planned the inaugural Midwest Entrepreneurship Case Competition (MECC) in partnership with other Midwest Academic Libraries. With generous sponsorship from SimplyAnalytics, this competition attracted students from five institutions: Indiana University–Bloomington, Michigan State University, Purdue University–West Lafayette, St Louis University, and University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. Five teams, including 20 participants, advanced to the final round of presentations, which was held virtually on Saturday, February 24th. Winning teams received up to $1,000 in cash prizes.  

This year’s case centered around Bulk Sauce, LLC, a Purdue University startup specializing in protein-fortified BBQ sauces. To tackle this case, participants were granted complimentary access and training for SimplyAnalytics, a consumer data mapping and visualization tool. By conducting market research and keyword research, teams engaged in data-driven analysis and offered innovative market solutions, demonstrating their exceptional information literacy skills when solving real-world business problems.

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2024

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research

• James Shaw 1 , 13 ,
• Joseph Ali 2 , 3 ,
• Caesar A. Atuire 4 , 5 ,
• Phaik Yeong Cheah 6 ,
• Armando Guio Español 7 ,
• Judy Wawira Gichoya 8 ,
• Adrienne Hunt 9 ,
• Daudi Jjingo 10 ,
• Katherine Littler 9 ,
• Daniela Paolotti 11 &
• Effy Vayena 12  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  46 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1145 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022.

We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships.

Conclusions

The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Beyond the growing number of AI applications being implemented in health care, capabilities of AI models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) expand the potential reach and significance of AI technologies across health-related fields [ 4 , 5 ]. Discussion about effective, ethical governance of AI technologies has spanned a range of governance approaches, including government regulation, organizational decision-making, professional self-regulation, and research ethics review [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. In this paper, we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health research, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. Although applications of AI for research, health care, and public health are diverse and advancing rapidly, the insights generated at the forum remain highly relevant from a global health perspective. After summarizing important context for work in this domain, we highlight categories of ethical issues emphasized at the forum for attention from a research ethics perspective internationally. We then outline strategies proposed for research, innovation, and governance to support more ethical AI for global health.

In this paper, we adopt the definition of AI systems provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as our starting point. Their definition states that an AI system is “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy” [ 9 ]. The conceptualization of an algorithm as helping to constitute an AI system, along with hardware, other elements of software, and a particular context of use, illustrates the wide variety of ways in which AI can be applied. We have found it useful to differentiate applications of AI in research as those classified as “AI systems for discovery” and “AI systems for intervention”. An AI system for discovery is one that is intended to generate new knowledge, for example in drug discovery or public health research in which researchers are seeking potential targets for intervention, innovation, or further research. An AI system for intervention is one that directly contributes to enacting an intervention in a particular context, for example informing decision-making at the point of care or assisting with accuracy in a surgical procedure.

The mandate of the GFBR is to take a broad view of what constitutes research and its regulation in global health, with special attention to bioethics in Low- and Middle- Income Countries. AI as a group of technologies demands such a broad view. AI development for health occurs in a variety of environments, including universities and academic health sciences centers where research ethics review remains an important element of the governance of science and innovation internationally [ 10 , 11 ]. In these settings, research ethics committees (RECs; also known by different names such as Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) make decisions about the ethical appropriateness of projects proposed by researchers and other institutional members, ultimately determining whether a given project is allowed to proceed on ethical grounds [ 12 ].

However, research involving AI for health also takes place in large corporations and smaller scale start-ups, which in some jurisdictions fall outside the scope of research ethics regulation. In the domain of AI, the question of what constitutes research also becomes blurred. For example, is the development of an algorithm itself considered a part of the research process? Or only when that algorithm is tested under the formal constraints of a systematic research methodology? In this paper we take an inclusive view, in which AI development is included in the definition of research activity and within scope for our inquiry, regardless of the setting in which it takes place. This broad perspective characterizes the approach to “research ethics” we take in this paper, extending beyond the work of RECs to include the ethical analysis of the wide range of activities that constitute research as the generation of new knowledge and intervention in the world.

Ethical governance of AI in global health

The ethical governance of AI for global health has been widely discussed in recent years. The World Health Organization (WHO) released its guidelines on ethics and governance of AI for health in 2021, endorsing a set of six ethical principles and exploring the relevance of those principles through a variety of use cases. The WHO guidelines also provided an overview of AI governance, defining governance as covering “a range of steering and rule-making functions of governments and other decision-makers, including international health agencies, for the achievement of national health policy objectives conducive to universal health coverage.” (p. 81) The report usefully provided a series of recommendations related to governance of seven domains pertaining to AI for health: data, benefit sharing, the private sector, the public sector, regulation, policy observatories/model legislation, and global governance. The report acknowledges that much work is yet to be done to advance international cooperation on AI governance, especially related to prioritizing voices from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in global dialogue.

One important point emphasized in the WHO report that reinforces the broader literature on global governance of AI is the distribution of responsibility across a wide range of actors in the AI ecosystem. This is especially important to highlight when focused on research for global health, which is specifically about work that transcends national borders. Alami et al. (2020) discussed the unique risks raised by AI research in global health, ranging from the unavailability of data in many LMICs required to train locally relevant AI models to the capacity of health systems to absorb new AI technologies that demand the use of resources from elsewhere in the system. These observations illustrate the need to identify the unique issues posed by AI research for global health specifically, and the strategies that can be employed by all those implicated in AI governance to promote ethically responsible use of AI in global health research.

RECs and the regulation of research involving AI

RECs represent an important element of the governance of AI for global health research, and thus warrant further commentary as background to our paper. Despite the importance of RECs, foundational questions have been raised about their capabilities to accurately understand and address ethical issues raised by studies involving AI. Rahimzadeh et al. (2023) outlined how RECs in the United States are under-prepared to align with recent federal policy requiring that RECs review data sharing and management plans with attention to the unique ethical issues raised in AI research for health [ 13 ]. Similar research in South Africa identified variability in understanding of existing regulations and ethical issues associated with health-related big data sharing and management among research ethics committee members [ 14 , 15 ]. The effort to address harms accruing to groups or communities as opposed to individuals whose data are included in AI research has also been identified as a unique challenge for RECs [ 16 , 17 ]. Doerr and Meeder (2022) suggested that current regulatory frameworks for research ethics might actually prevent RECs from adequately addressing such issues, as they are deemed out of scope of REC review [ 16 ]. Furthermore, research in the United Kingdom and Canada has suggested that researchers using AI methods for health tend to distinguish between ethical issues and social impact of their research, adopting an overly narrow view of what constitutes ethical issues in their work [ 18 ].

The challenges for RECs in adequately addressing ethical issues in AI research for health care and public health exceed a straightforward survey of ethical considerations. As Ferretti et al. (2021) contend, some capabilities of RECs adequately cover certain issues in AI-based health research, such as the common occurrence of conflicts of interest where researchers who accept funds from commercial technology providers are implicitly incentivized to produce results that align with commercial interests [ 12 ]. However, some features of REC review require reform to adequately meet ethical needs. Ferretti et al. outlined weaknesses of RECs that are longstanding and those that are novel to AI-related projects, proposing a series of directions for development that are regulatory, procedural, and complementary to REC functionality. The work required on a global scale to update the REC function in response to the demands of research involving AI is substantial.

These issues take greater urgency in the context of global health [ 19 ]. Teixeira da Silva (2022) described the global practice of “ethics dumping”, where researchers from high income countries bring ethically contentious practices to RECs in low-income countries as a strategy to gain approval and move projects forward [ 20 ]. Although not yet systematically documented in AI research for health, risk of ethics dumping in AI research is high. Evidence is already emerging of practices of “health data colonialism”, in which AI researchers and developers from large organizations in high-income countries acquire data to build algorithms in LMICs to avoid stricter regulations [ 21 ]. This specific practice is part of a larger collection of practices that characterize health data colonialism, involving the broader exploitation of data and the populations they represent primarily for commercial gain [ 21 , 22 ]. As an additional complication, AI algorithms trained on data from high-income contexts are unlikely to apply in straightforward ways to LMIC settings [ 21 , 23 ]. In the context of global health, there is widespread acknowledgement about the need to not only enhance the knowledge base of REC members about AI-based methods internationally, but to acknowledge the broader shifts required to encourage their capabilities to more fully address these and other ethical issues associated with AI research for health [ 8 ].

Although RECs are an important part of the story of the ethical governance of AI for global health research, they are not the only part. The responsibilities of supra-national entities such as the World Health Organization, national governments, organizational leaders, commercial AI technology providers, health care professionals, and other groups continue to be worked out internationally. In this context of ongoing work, examining issues that demand attention and strategies to address them remains an urgent and valuable task.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, REC members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. Each year the GFBR meeting includes a series of case studies and keynotes presented in plenary format to an audience of approximately 100 people who have applied and been competitively selected to attend, along with small-group breakout discussions to advance thinking on related issues. The specific topic of the forum changes each year, with past topics including ethical issues in research with people living with mental health conditions (2021), genome editing (2019), and biobanking/data sharing (2018). The forum is intended to remain grounded in the practical challenges of engaging in research ethics, with special interest in low resource settings from a global health perspective. A post-meeting fellowship scheme is open to all LMIC participants, providing a unique opportunity to apply for funding to further explore and address the ethical challenges that are identified during the meeting.

In 2022, the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations (both short and long form) reporting on specific initiatives related to research ethics and AI for health, and 16 governance presentations (both short and long form) reporting on actual approaches to governing AI in different country settings. A keynote presentation from Professor Effy Vayena addressed the topic of the broader context for AI ethics in a rapidly evolving field. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. The 2-day forum addressed a wide range of themes. The conference report provides a detailed overview of each of the specific topics addressed while a policy paper outlines the cross-cutting themes (both documents are available at the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ ). As opposed to providing a detailed summary in this paper, we aim to briefly highlight central issues raised, solutions proposed, and the challenges facing the research ethics community in the years to come.

In this way, our primary aim in this paper is to present a synthesis of the challenges and opportunities raised at the GFBR meeting and in the planning process, followed by our reflections as a group of authors on their significance for governance leaders in the coming years. We acknowledge that the views represented at the meeting and in our results are a partial representation of the universe of views on this topic; however, the GFBR leadership invested a great deal of resources in convening a deeply diverse and thoughtful group of researchers and practitioners working on themes of bioethics related to AI for global health including those based in LMICs. We contend that it remains rare to convene such a strong group for an extended time and believe that many of the challenges and opportunities raised demand attention for more ethical futures of AI for health. Nonetheless, our results are primarily descriptive and are thus not explicitly grounded in a normative argument. We make effort in the Discussion section to contextualize our results by describing their significance and connecting them to broader efforts to reform global health research and practice.

Uniquely important ethical issues for AI in global health research

Presentations and group dialogue over the course of the forum raised several issues for consideration, and here we describe four overarching themes for the ethical governance of AI in global health research. Brief descriptions of each issue can be found in Table  1 . Reports referred to throughout the paper are available at the GFBR website provided above.

The first overarching thematic issue relates to the appropriateness of building AI technologies in response to health-related challenges in the first place. Case study presentations referred to initiatives where AI technologies were highly appropriate, such as in ear shape biometric identification to more accurately link electronic health care records to individual patients in Zambia (Alinani Simukanga). Although important ethical issues were raised with respect to privacy, trust, and community engagement in this initiative, the AI-based solution was appropriately matched to the challenge of accurately linking electronic records to specific patient identities. In contrast, forum participants raised questions about the appropriateness of an initiative using AI to improve the quality of handwashing practices in an acute care hospital in India (Niyoshi Shah), which led to gaming the algorithm. Overall, participants acknowledged the dangers of techno-solutionism, in which AI researchers and developers treat AI technologies as the most obvious solutions to problems that in actuality demand much more complex strategies to address [ 24 ]. However, forum participants agreed that RECs in different contexts have differing degrees of power to raise issues of the appropriateness of an AI-based intervention.

The second overarching thematic issue related to whether and how AI-based systems transfer from one national health context to another. One central issue raised by a number of case study presentations related to the challenges of validating an algorithm with data collected in a local environment. For example, one case study presentation described a project that would involve the collection of personally identifiable data for sensitive group identities, such as tribe, clan, or religion, in the jurisdictions involved (South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and the US; Gakii Masunga). Doing so would enable the team to ensure that those groups were adequately represented in the dataset to ensure the resulting algorithm was not biased against specific community groups when deployed in that context. However, some members of these communities might desire to be represented in the dataset, whereas others might not, illustrating the need to balance autonomy and inclusivity. It was also widely recognized that collecting these data is an immense challenge, particularly when historically oppressive practices have led to a low-trust environment for international organizations and the technologies they produce. It is important to note that in some countries such as South Africa and Rwanda, it is illegal to collect information such as race and tribal identities, re-emphasizing the importance for cultural awareness and avoiding “one size fits all” solutions.

The third overarching thematic issue is related to understanding accountabilities for both the impacts of AI technologies and governance decision-making regarding their use. Where global health research involving AI leads to longer-term harms that might fall outside the usual scope of issues considered by a REC, who is to be held accountable, and how? This question was raised as one that requires much further attention, with law being mixed internationally regarding the mechanisms available to hold researchers, innovators, and their institutions accountable over the longer term. However, it was recognized in breakout group discussion that many jurisdictions are developing strong data protection regimes related specifically to international collaboration for research involving health data. For example, Kenya’s Data Protection Act requires that any internationally funded projects have a local principal investigator who will hold accountability for how data are shared and used [ 25 ]. The issue of research partnerships with commercial entities was raised by many participants in the context of accountability, pointing toward the urgent need for clear principles related to strategies for engagement with commercial technology companies in global health research.

The fourth and final overarching thematic issue raised here is that of consent. The issue of consent was framed by the widely shared recognition that models of individual, explicit consent might not produce a supportive environment for AI innovation that relies on the secondary uses of health-related datasets to build AI algorithms. Given this recognition, approaches such as community oversight of health data uses were suggested as a potential solution. However, the details of implementing such community oversight mechanisms require much further attention, particularly given the unique perspectives on health data in different country settings in global health research. Furthermore, some uses of health data do continue to require consent. One case study of South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda suggested that when health data are shared across borders, individual consent remains necessary when data is transferred from certain countries (Nezerith Cengiz). Broader clarity is necessary to support the ethical governance of health data uses for AI in global health research.

Recommendations for ethical governance of AI in global health research

Dialogue at the forum led to a range of suggestions for promoting ethical conduct of AI research for global health, related to the various roles of actors involved in the governance of AI research broadly defined. The strategies are written for actors we refer to as “governance leaders”, those people distributed throughout the AI for global health research ecosystem who are responsible for ensuring the ethical and socially responsible conduct of global health research involving AI (including researchers themselves). These include RECs, government regulators, health care leaders, health professionals, corporate social accountability officers, and others. Enacting these strategies would bolster the ethical governance of AI for global health more generally, enabling multiple actors to fulfill their roles related to governing research and development activities carried out across multiple organizations, including universities, academic health sciences centers, start-ups, and technology corporations. Specific suggestions are summarized in Table  2 .

First, forum participants suggested that governance leaders including RECs, should remain up to date on recent advances in the regulation of AI for health. Regulation of AI for health advances rapidly and takes on different forms in jurisdictions around the world. RECs play an important role in governance, but only a partial role; it was deemed important for RECs to acknowledge how they fit within a broader governance ecosystem in order to more effectively address the issues within their scope. Not only RECs but organizational leaders responsible for procurement, researchers, and commercial actors should all commit to efforts to remain up to date about the relevant approaches to regulating AI for health care and public health in jurisdictions internationally. In this way, governance can more adequately remain up to date with advances in regulation.

Second, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should focus on ethical governance of health data as a basis for ethical global health AI research. Health data are considered the foundation of AI development, being used to train AI algorithms for various uses [ 26 ]. By focusing on ethical governance of health data generation, sharing, and use, multiple actors will help to build an ethical foundation for AI development among global health researchers.

Third, forum participants believed that governance processes should incorporate AI impact assessments where appropriate. An AI impact assessment is the process of evaluating the potential effects, both positive and negative, of implementing an AI algorithm on individuals, society, and various stakeholders, generally over time frames specified in advance of implementation [ 27 ]. Although not all types of AI research in global health would warrant an AI impact assessment, this is especially relevant for those studies aiming to implement an AI system for intervention into health care or public health. Organizations such as RECs can use AI impact assessments to boost understanding of potential harms at the outset of a research project, encouraging researchers to more deeply consider potential harms in the development of their study.

Fourth, forum participants suggested that governance decisions should incorporate the use of environmental impact assessments, or at least the incorporation of environment values when assessing the potential impact of an AI system. An environmental impact assessment involves evaluating and anticipating the potential environmental effects of a proposed project to inform ethical decision-making that supports sustainability [ 28 ]. Although a relatively new consideration in research ethics conversations [ 29 ], the environmental impact of building technologies is a crucial consideration for the public health commitment to environmental sustainability. Governance leaders can use environmental impact assessments to boost understanding of potential environmental harms linked to AI research projects in global health over both the shorter and longer terms.

Fifth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should require stronger transparency in the development of AI algorithms in global health research. Transparency was considered essential in the design and development of AI algorithms for global health to ensure ethical and accountable decision-making throughout the process. Furthermore, whether and how researchers have considered the unique contexts into which such algorithms may be deployed can be surfaced through stronger transparency, for example in describing what primary considerations were made at the outset of the project and which stakeholders were consulted along the way. Sharing information about data provenance and methods used in AI development will also enhance the trustworthiness of the AI-based research process.

Sixth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage or require community engagement at various points throughout an AI project. It was considered that engaging patients and communities is crucial in AI algorithm development to ensure that the technology aligns with community needs and values. However, participants acknowledged that this is not a straightforward process. Effective community engagement requires lengthy commitments to meeting with and hearing from diverse communities in a given setting, and demands a particular set of skills in communication and dialogue that are not possessed by all researchers. Encouraging AI researchers to begin this process early and build long-term partnerships with community members is a promising strategy to deepen community engagement in AI research for global health. One notable recommendation was that research funders have an opportunity to incentivize and enable community engagement with funds dedicated to these activities in AI research in global health.

Seventh, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage researchers to build strong, fair partnerships between institutions and individuals across country settings. In a context of longstanding imbalances in geopolitical and economic power, fair partnerships in global health demand a priori commitments to share benefits related to advances in medical technologies, knowledge, and financial gains. Although enforcement of this point might be beyond the remit of RECs, commentary will encourage researchers to consider stronger, fairer partnerships in global health in the longer term.

Eighth, it became evident that it is necessary to explore new forms of regulatory experimentation given the complexity of regulating a technology of this nature. In addition, the health sector has a series of particularities that make it especially complicated to generate rules that have not been previously tested. Several participants highlighted the desire to promote spaces for experimentation such as regulatory sandboxes or innovation hubs in health. These spaces can have several benefits for addressing issues surrounding the regulation of AI in the health sector, such as: (i) increasing the capacities and knowledge of health authorities about this technology; (ii) identifying the major problems surrounding AI regulation in the health sector; (iii) establishing possibilities for exchange and learning with other authorities; (iv) promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in AI in health; and (vi) identifying the need to regulate AI in this sector and update other existing regulations.

Ninth and finally, forum participants believed that the capabilities of governance leaders need to evolve to better incorporate expertise related to AI in ways that make sense within a given jurisdiction. With respect to RECs, for example, it might not make sense for every REC to recruit a member with expertise in AI methods. Rather, it will make more sense in some jurisdictions to consult with members of the scientific community with expertise in AI when research protocols are submitted that demand such expertise. Furthermore, RECs and other approaches to research governance in jurisdictions around the world will need to evolve in order to adopt the suggestions outlined above, developing processes that apply specifically to the ethical governance of research using AI methods in global health.

Research involving the development and implementation of AI technologies continues to grow in global health, posing important challenges for ethical governance of AI in global health research around the world. In this paper we have summarized insights from the 2022 GFBR, focused specifically on issues in research ethics related to AI for global health research. We summarized four thematic challenges for governance related to AI in global health research and nine suggestions arising from presentations and dialogue at the forum. In this brief discussion section, we present an overarching observation about power imbalances that frames efforts to evolve the role of governance in global health research, and then outline two important opportunity areas as the field develops to meet the challenges of AI in global health research.

Dialogue about power is not unfamiliar in global health, especially given recent contributions exploring what it would mean to de-colonize global health research, funding, and practice [ 30 , 31 ]. Discussions of research ethics applied to AI research in global health contexts are deeply infused with power imbalances. The existing context of global health is one in which high-income countries primarily located in the “Global North” charitably invest in projects taking place primarily in the “Global South” while recouping knowledge, financial, and reputational benefits [ 32 ]. With respect to AI development in particular, recent examples of digital colonialism frame dialogue about global partnerships, raising attention to the role of large commercial entities and global financial capitalism in global health research [ 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, the power of governance organizations such as RECs to intervene in the process of AI research in global health varies widely around the world, depending on the authorities assigned to them by domestic research governance policies. These observations frame the challenges outlined in our paper, highlighting the difficulties associated with making meaningful change in this field.

Despite these overarching challenges of the global health research context, there are clear strategies for progress in this domain. Firstly, AI innovation is rapidly evolving, which means approaches to the governance of AI for health are rapidly evolving too. Such rapid evolution presents an important opportunity for governance leaders to clarify their vision and influence over AI innovation in global health research, boosting the expertise, structure, and functionality required to meet the demands of research involving AI. Secondly, the research ethics community has strong international ties, linked to a global scholarly community that is committed to sharing insights and best practices around the world. This global community can be leveraged to coordinate efforts to produce advances in the capabilities and authorities of governance leaders to meaningfully govern AI research for global health given the challenges summarized in our paper.

Limitations

Our paper includes two specific limitations that we address explicitly here. First, it is still early in the lifetime of the development of applications of AI for use in global health, and as such, the global community has had limited opportunity to learn from experience. For example, there were many fewer case studies, which detail experiences with the actual implementation of an AI technology, submitted to GFBR 2022 for consideration than was expected. In contrast, there were many more governance reports submitted, which detail the processes and outputs of governance processes that anticipate the development and dissemination of AI technologies. This observation represents both a success and a challenge. It is a success that so many groups are engaging in anticipatory governance of AI technologies, exploring evidence of their likely impacts and governing technologies in novel and well-designed ways. It is a challenge that there is little experience to build upon of the successful implementation of AI technologies in ways that have limited harms while promoting innovation. Further experience with AI technologies in global health will contribute to revising and enhancing the challenges and recommendations we have outlined in our paper.

Second, global trends in the politics and economics of AI technologies are evolving rapidly. Although some nations are advancing detailed policy approaches to regulating AI more generally, including for uses in health care and public health, the impacts of corporate investments in AI and political responses related to governance remain to be seen. The excitement around large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) has drawn deeper attention to the challenges of regulating AI in any general sense, opening dialogue about health sector-specific regulations. The direction of this global dialogue, strongly linked to high-profile corporate actors and multi-national governance institutions, will strongly influence the development of boundaries around what is possible for the ethical governance of AI for global health. We have written this paper at a point when these developments are proceeding rapidly, and as such, we acknowledge that our recommendations will need updating as the broader field evolves.

Ultimately, coordination and collaboration between many stakeholders in the research ethics ecosystem will be necessary to strengthen the ethical governance of AI in global health research. The 2022 GFBR illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Data availability

All data and materials analyzed to produce this paper are available on the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ .

Clark P, Kim J, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Marketing, Food US. Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical devices: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2321792–2321792.

Article   Google Scholar  

Potnis KC, Ross JS, Aneja S, Gross CP, Richman IB. Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: evaluation of FDA device regulation and future recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(12):1306–12.

Siala H, Wang Y. SHIFTing artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114782.

Yang X, Chen A, PourNejatian N, Shin HC, Smith KE, Parisien C, et al. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):194.

Meskó B, Topol EJ. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):120.

Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(9):389–99.

Minssen T, Vayena E, Cohen IG. The challenges for Regulating Medical Use of ChatGPT and other large Language models. JAMA. 2023.

Ho CWL, Malpani R. Scaling up the research ethics framework for healthcare machine learning as global health ethics and governance. Am J Bioeth. 2022;22(5):36–8.

Yeung K. Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (OECD). Int Leg Mater. 2020;59(1):27–34.

Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PR. Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA. 2019;321(1):31–2.

Dzau VJ, Balatbat CA, Ellaissi WF. Revisiting academic health sciences systems a decade later: discovery to health to population to society. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):2300–4.

Ferretti A, Ienca M, Sheehan M, Blasimme A, Dove ES, Farsides B, et al. Ethics review of big data research: what should stay and what should be reformed? BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–13.

Rahimzadeh V, Serpico K, Gelinas L. Institutional review boards need new skills to review data sharing and management plans. Nat Med. 2023;1–3.

Kling S, Singh S, Burgess TL, Nair G. The role of an ethics advisory committee in data science research in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–3.

Google Scholar  

Cengiz N, Kabanda SM, Esterhuizen TM, Moodley K. Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–9.

Doerr M, Meeder S. Big health data research and group harm: the scope of IRB review. Ethics Hum Res. 2022;44(4):34–8.

Ballantyne A, Stewart C. Big data and public-private partnerships in healthcare and research: the application of an ethics framework for big data in health and research. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019;11(3):315–26.

Samuel G, Chubb J, Derrick G. Boundaries between research ethics and ethical research use in artificial intelligence health research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):325–37.

Murphy K, Di Ruggiero E, Upshur R, Willison DJ, Malhotra N, Cai JC, et al. Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–17.

Teixeira da Silva JA. Handling ethics dumping and neo-colonial research: from the laboratory to the academic literature. J Bioethical Inq. 2022;19(3):433–43.

Ferryman K. The dangers of data colonialism in precision public health. Glob Policy. 2021;12:90–2.

Couldry N, Mejias UA. Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev New Media. 2019;20(4):336–49.

Organization WH. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 2021.

Metcalf J, Moss E. Owning ethics: corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Soc Res Int Q. 2019;86(2):449–76.

Data Protection Act - OFFICE OF THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER KENYA [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Sep 30]. https://www.odpc.go.ke/dpa-act/ .

Sharon T, Lucivero F. Introduction to the special theme: the expansion of the health data ecosystem–rethinking data ethics and governance. Big Data & Society. Volume 6. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2019. p. 2053951719852969.

Reisman D, Schultz J, Crawford K, Whittaker M. Algorithmic impact assessments: a practical Framework for Public Agency. AI Now. 2018.

Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2012;30(1):5–14.

Samuel G, Richie C. Reimagining research ethics to include environmental sustainability: a principled approach, including a case study of data-driven health research. J Med Ethics. 2023;49(6):428–33.

Kwete X, Tang K, Chen L, Ren R, Chen Q, Wu Z, et al. Decolonizing global health: what should be the target of this movement and where does it lead us? Glob Health Res Policy. 2022;7(1):3.

Abimbola S, Asthana S, Montenegro C, Guinto RR, Jumbam DT, Louskieter L, et al. Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS Med. 2021;18(4):e1003604.

Benatar S. Politics, power, poverty and global health: systems and frames. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(10):599.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of the attendees of GFBR 2022 in Cape Town, South Africa. This paper is authored by members of the GFBR 2022 Planning Committee. We would like to acknowledge additional members Tamra Lysaght, National University of Singapore, and Niresh Bhagwandin, South African Medical Research Council, for their input during the planning stages and as reviewers of the applications to attend the Forum.

This work was supported by Wellcome [222525/Z/21/Z], the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation), and the South African Medical Research Council through funding to the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana

Caesar A. Atuire

Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Phaik Yeong Cheah

Berkman Klein Center, Harvard University, Bogotá, Colombia

Armando Guio Español

Department of Radiology and Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

Judy Wawira Gichoya

Health Ethics & Governance Unit, Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Adrienne Hunt & Katherine Littler

African Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Data Intensive Science, Infectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Daudi Jjingo

ISI Foundation, Turin, Italy

Daniela Paolotti

Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Effy Vayena

Joint Centre for Bioethics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JS led the writing, contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. CA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. PYC contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AE contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JWG contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AH contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DJ contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. KL contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DP contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. EV contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Shaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shaw, J., Ali, J., Atuire, C.A. et al. Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 46 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 01 April 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence
• Machine learning
• Research ethics
• Global health

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 2.5.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Using Large Language Models to Support Content Analysis: A Case Study of ChatGPT for Adverse Event Detection

Authors of this article:

Research Letter

• Eric C Leas 1, 2 , MPH, PhD   ; 
• John W Ayers 2, 3, 4 , MA, PhD   ; 
• Nimit Desai 2 , BS   ; 
• Mark Dredze 5 , PhD   ; 
• Michael Hogarth 4, 6 , MD   ; 
• Davey M Smith 3, 4 , MAS, MD  

1 Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

2 Qualcomm Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

3 Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

4 Altman Clinical Translational Research Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

5 Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States

6 Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States

Corresponding Author:

Eric C Leas, MPH, PhD

Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science

University of California San Diego

9500 Gilman Drive

Mail Code: 0725

La Jolla, CA, 92093

United States

Phone: 1 951 346 9131

Email: [email protected]

This study explores the potential of using large language models to assist content analysis by conducting a case study to identify adverse events (AEs) in social media posts. The case study compares ChatGPT’s performance with human annotators’ in detecting AEs associated with delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, a cannabis-derived product. Using the identical instructions given to human annotators, ChatGPT closely approximated human results, with a high degree of agreement noted: 94.4% (9436/10,000) for any AE detection (Fleiss κ=0.95) and 99.3% (9931/10,000) for serious AEs (κ=0.96). These findings suggest that ChatGPT has the potential to replicate human annotation accurately and efficiently. The study recognizes possible limitations, including concerns about the generalizability due to ChatGPT’s training data, and prompts further research with different models, data sources, and content analysis tasks. The study highlights the promise of large language models for enhancing the efficiency of biomedical research.

Introduction

Biomedical text analysis is commonly burdened by the need for manual data review and annotation, which is costly and time-consuming. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) [ 1 ], could reduce this burden by allowing scientists to leverage vast amounts of text data (including medical records and public data) with short written prompts as annotation instructions [ 2 ]. To explore the potential for AI-assisted annotation, we evaluated whether ChatGPT could replicate human identification of adverse events (AEs) about a cannabis-derived product (delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol) reported in social media posts [ 3 ]. AE detection requires reviewing a large amount of unstructured text data to flag a tiny fraction of AE reports, making it an ideal application for AI-assisted annotation [ 4 ].

To reduce selective reporting bias, we replicated a peer-reviewed publication, wherein human annotators identified AEs in 10,000 randomly sampled, publicly available posts from a delta-8-tetrahydrocannabiol social media forum (Reddit’s r/delta8) [ 3 ]. Human annotators identified potential AE reports (yes or no) and whether the AE was serious according to 6 Food and Drug Administration MedWatch categories (eg, hospitalization) [ 5 ].

ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0613) was set to the default settings ( Temperature =1, Top P =1, Max token limit =1700, Frequency Penalty =0, and Presence Penalty =0); given each Reddit post; and asked to reference annotation instructions identical to those given to human annotators, except for a minor modification for result formatting (ie, requested codes in a comma-delimited format; Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Since ChatGPT was treated as an additional annotator, we compared ChatGPT’s responses with human annotations using the traditional method for assessing interrater reliability rather than statistics for assessing classifiers (eg, F 1 -score). Thus, we calculated absolute agreement and prevalence- and bias-adjusted Fleiss κ statistics for any AEs, serious AEs, and each MedWatch category of serious AEs [ 6 ]. Analyses were computed with R statistical software (version 4.3.1; R Core Team).

Ethical Considerations

This study was exempted by the University of California San Diego’s human research protection program because the data were public and nonidentifiable (45 CFR §46).

ChatGPT returned misformatted responses (eg, including the text “adverse event” instead of the requested “0” or “1”) in 35 (0.35%) of 10,000 instances. All misformatted responses were interpretable and resolved through normal data-cleaning methods (eg, rule matching). Example posts along with their labels are shown in Table 1 . ChatGPT and human annotators agreed on 94.4% (9436/10,000) of labels for any AEs (κ=0.95) and 99.3% (9931/10,000) of labels for any serious AEs (κ=0.96; Table 2 ). For serious AEs, the lowest agreement was 99.4% (9939/10,000) for “other” serious (but undefined) outcomes (κ=0.98). All specifically defined outcomes (eg, hospitalization) achieved 99.9% (≥9986/10,000) agreement (κ=0.99).

a Serious adverse events were defined using the Food and Drug Administration MedWatch health outcome categories, which include life-threatening; hospitalization; disability or permanent damage; congenital anomaly or birth defect; required intervention to prevent permanent impairment; or other serious event.

a Prevalence- and bias-adjusted Fleiss κ.

b A composite of any of the 6 adverse event outcomes.

c N/A: not applicable (κ could not be calculated due to no events being found by human annotators).

ChatGPT demonstrated near-perfect replication of human-identified AEs in social media posts using the exact instructions that guided human annotators. Despite significant resource allocation, automating AE detection has seen limited success. Many studies (eg, social media studies) often omit performance metrics such as agreement with ground truth altogether [ 7 ]. The LLM and prompt used outperformed the best-performing specialized software for detecting AEs from text data (agreement=94.5%; κ=0.89), which relied on structured and human-curated electronic discharge summaries [ 8 ].

We note a few limitations. First, we did not have any measures from the replicated study to estimate time or cost savings attributable to using an LLM. However, these savings would be considerable. If a human annotated 1 post/min, the replicated study’s estimated completion time would be 166.6 hours (10,000 posts × 60 posts/h), or 20.8 workdays. Conversely, assuming ChatGPT annotated a post in 2 seconds [ 9 ], it would take 5.6 hours with no human effort. Second, the social media data analyzed may be included in ChatGPT’s underlying training data, potentially inflating the accuracy reported herein and reducing generalizability. Third, our goal was to replicate human annotation using the exact codebook that trained human annotators and default settings of ChatGPT-3.5-turbo. Although this alone showed promise, further improvements to the prompt, different models (GPT-4 or Llama-2), or alternative model parameter specifications may improve the accuracy. Finally, we only assessed 1 application of an LLM for biomedical text analysis; inaccuracy and label bias may exist in other settings. Further research is needed to capture process outcomes (eg, time savings), apply LLMs to traditional biomedical data (eg, health records), and address more complex methods of annotation (eg, open coding).

While acknowledging its limitations, this case study demonstrates the potential for AI to assist researchers in text analysis. Given the demand for annotations in biomedical research and the inherent time and cost constraints, adopting LLM-powered tools could expedite the research process and consequently scientific discovery.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by grant K01DA054303 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and the National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001442). The study sponsors took no part in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Availability

The corresponding data for the study are available on the first author’s website [ 10 ].

Conflicts of Interest

ECL has received consulting fees from Good Analytics. JWA owns equity in Health Watcher and Good Analytics. ND has received consulting fees from Pearl Health. MD owns equity in Good Analytics and receives consulting fees from Bloomberg LP. MH advised LifeLink, a company that developed a health care chatbot, between 2016 and 2020, and maintains an equity position in the company. DMS reports paid consulting for Bayer, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Evidera, FluxErgy, Model Medicines, and Linear Therapies.

Prompt used to train ChatGPT.

• ChatGPT. OpenAI. URL: https://chat.openai.com/ [accessed 2024-04-25]
• Lee P, Goldberg C, Kohane I. The AI Revolution in Medicine: GPT-4 and Beyond. London, UK. Pearson; 2023.
• Leas EC, Harati RM, Satybaldiyeva N, Morales NE, Huffaker SL, Mejorado T, et al. Self-reported adverse events associated with ∆8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC) use. J Cannabis Res. May 23, 2023;5(1):15. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sarker A, Ginn R, Nikfarjam A, O'Connor K, Smith K, Jayaraman S, et al. Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: a review. J Biomed Inform. Apr 2015;54:202-212. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• MedWatch: The FDA Safety InformationAdverse Event Reporting Program. US Food and Drug Administration. Sep 15, 2022. URL: https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program [accessed 2023-01-03]
• Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. May 1993;46(5):423-429. [ CrossRef ]
• Pierce CE, Bouri K, Pamer C, Proestel S, Rodriguez HW, van Le H, et al. Evaluation of Facebook and Twitter monitoring to detect safety signals for medical products: an analysis of recent FDA safety alerts. Drug Saf. Apr 2017;40(4):317-331. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Melton GB, Hripcsak G. Automated detection of adverse events using natural language processing of discharge summaries. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):448-457. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• OpenAI API and other LLM APIs response time tracker. GPT for Work by Talarian. URL: https://gptforwork.com/tools/openai-api-and-other-llm-apis-response-time-tracker [accessed 2024-03-13]
• Leas E. Publication data. Eric Leas. URL: https://www.ericleas.com/datasets [accessed 2024-04-29]

Abbreviations

Edited by Q Jin; submitted 06.09.23; peer-reviewed by Y Li, T Wang, L Zhu, A Khosla; comments to author 10.03.24; revised version received 14.03.24; accepted 28.03.24; published 02.05.24.

©Eric C Leas, John W Ayers, Nimit Desai, Mark Dredze, Michael Hogarth, Davey M Smith. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.