Social Entrepreneurs and the Actual Context - Research Paper Example

Public and Social Entrepreneurship Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 3 0Introduction 4 2.0Literature review 4 2.1Social Entrepreneurs 4 3.0Methodology 9 4.0Recommendations 10 5.0 ­­­­­­Conclusion 10 List of References 11 Abstract Social entrepreneurship has attracted more research within the field of entrepreneurship and in the non profit marketing literature. Although not much literature has been written on this subject, the little that is there portrays Social Enterprise as non-profitable organisations that are not after making profit but are after meeting people’s social needs. The available literature so far fails to consider the specific characteristics of social entrepreneurs and the actual context within which they operate. Although social entrepreneurship operates in a non profit context, it still can change individual’s life as well as a community’s social lifestyle. This paper addresses these issues and solidifies the theory that through social entrepreneurship even a small organisation can transform to a global organisation. This paper focuses on Mildmay Mission Hospital that has been transformed from a dysfunctional hospital to a globalised hospital. 1.0 Introduction In the past few years, there has been a growing interest in social entrepreneurship with the increasing competition in non-profit organisations. Both the government and the public bodies are depending on social enterprise to deliver sustainable services to contribute to the local economy. As much as social enterprise is not aimed at making profit, it still refers to primarily market-oriented economic activities that serve social goals. It entails a wide variety of organisations that include those of profit business engagement, but serving social beneficial activities to those of non-profitable organisations that are engaged in mission supporting activities, like in the case of Mildmay Mission Hospital. Social enterprise aims to build both social and financial capital through giving essential and cost effective services to the public sector. Since its main aim is not to make profit, the profit in most cases is reinvested back in the communal activities to enhance the social statuses of that particular community (Bachiega & Borzaga, pp.273–95). With the global innovation stretching to every economic aspect, social enterprise is now being looked at as a link to the social innovation that is aimed at improving the economic and social life of individuals and communities at length (Defourny, 2001, pp.16–28). 2.0 Literature review 2.1 Social Entrepreneurs Social enterprises can be defined as those organisations or businesses that operate mainly for a social or environmental purpose. Through business orientation, they handle social problems affecting people; they improve people’s life by giving them a sustainable standard of life through employment opportunities, health care or general social support (Lee, 2009, pp.2-24). Among the aims of social enterprise is to create communal wealth and help those that are disadvantaged in the community as well as share the benefits of the achievement at the communal level (Bachiega & Borzaga, pp.273–95). Mildmay Mission Hospital as a social enterprise is characterised by its ability to identify unmet needs like the care of Aids victims and mobilise the less utilised resources to meet those particular needs. The hospital is driven by mission rather than pursuit of profit or shareholder value (Junejo, 2008, PP.1469-1476). Entrepreneurship on the other hand relates to leadership qualities of public organisations or development of public policies that govern an organisation. It has been argued by researchers that social entrepreneur has leadership qualities that entail: credibility, integrity and ability to have followers and the ability to guide the project towards social values rather than economic value (Jamison, 2006, pp.7-9). Within a social context, there exists a controversy whether Social entrepreneurs belong to voluntary sector as a group or belong to the business sector. These organisations within social entrepreneurship are non-profit organisations and they generally rely on voluntary help and effort and donations for physical and financial support. Despite their non-profit approach, they have been distinguished to have a lot of professionalism and dynamism which is mostly associated with business enterprises and not the voluntary sector that is associated with slow growth but specialised to operate within the client’s needs (Junejo, 2008, PP.1469-1476).. Due to the growing need for innovation in the non-profit organisations sector, these organisational cultures are also changing and creating room for advanced private sector companies to also get involved in the social innovation. This is achieved through partnering with voluntary organisations to meet the growing responsibilities within societies. These private companies on their part need entrepreneurs to unite the economic and social needs and as much as they promote social welfare, they also grow and meet the innovation in the global market as well as social innovation (Alvord, et al., 2004, pp.260-282). Social entrepreneurship has proved to be in the race for the social innovation which is perceived as an important tool both in the social and economic sector. In the social sector, innovation is much needed with changing trend in the social problems. Most social problems that exist now within the societies were not anticipated and even if they did, not in the present magnitude. This has left many communities ill equipped to handle most growing cases of unemployment, poverty and sickness among others (Carree & Thurik, 2006, pp.68-79). Innovation is perceived as the only solution to these problems. On the other hand economic innovation is the much needed solution to boost the welfare quality of society. The efficient welfare system should contribute more to the economic growth of society. This is proving to be a reality if the current trend persists. The voluntary sector so far has a turnover of about 11.6 billion pounds a year, accounts for 10 percent of all service sector employment, provide most of preschool day care for the under five children, gives care for the elderly, gives primary education and secondary educations to some parts and even provide housing, health and social security to the society in general. In short, social entrepreneurs have five pillars that support its course (Davister, et al., 2004, pp.12-22). These include; problem solving, these scheme has proved to be of importance in solving some of the most pressing social problems that include Aids like in the case of Mildmay mission Hospital, mental health and unemployment (Caude, 2008, p.3). Through public policies, the social entrepreneurship has been able to put in place the mechanism that identifies, interpret and disseminate best practice in the social provision. The second pillar is supply side efficiency, here the social entrepreneurship projects are always more cost effective than the welfare state due to the fact that they are less bureaucratic and are more flexible. Thirdly there is active welfare that involves encouraging people and clients in general to take responsibilities for their lives. It mobilises people, organisations and companies to come up with solutions to the social existing problems (Lee, 2009, pp.2-24). Social entrepreneurship has created employment opportunities for many people and at the same time facilitated more economically nourishment activities (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001b, and pp.256-268). Lastly there is social capital creation that facilitates creation of community assets through formation of partnership and alliances based on shared culture of cooperation and united by shared value and trust (Borzaga & Santuari, 2001, pp.166–81). The Mildmay Mission Hospital as an organisation is a very good example of the changes that can be brought about by the social entrepreneurship within the society. This was a Victorian hospital that was categorised as a redundant and even closed but transformed itself later to be one of the world’s leading centres for Aids care. In 1982, it was decided by the district health authority in Tower Hamlets that the old general hospital be closed. However, this was not agreeable to all people and most particularly Helen Taylor-Thompson who had been involved in the hospital for almost 30 years. She strongly disagreed with the closure opinion and led a tenacious and imaginative campaign to revive the hospital. She gathered a group of five people to start a campaign to save it from closure although at the time, the hospital only had a future of providing beds for local GPs and providing care for chronically ill young people. It was then that it was considered to become a Christian community hospital. After a long battle of campaigns with the government, it was approved to be a community charity hospital on a 99 year peppercorn rent. Finally she did succeed because in 1985 one ward was reopened and in 1988 the hospital admitted its first patient with Aids (Biswas, 2000, pp.49-62). There was mobilisation of considerable amount of social capital as strategies for the survival of the hospital along with recruitment of specialised staffs like Dr. Veronica Moss. Also the hospital took the initiative to venture into Aids care where other hospitals had not ventured before and with alliance support of other organisations, it managed to get financial support to sustain it as it gained its momentum. These social entrepreneurship skills helped the hospital gain and grow within a short time (Dorado, 2006, pp.319-343). By 1997, Mildmay had already gained an international reputation as an excellence centre for Aids care. This was as a result of the social care the hospital gave its patient, it build suits that could accommodate both the parents and the children as they were under treatments. It opened up branches in twelve other countries and at the same time provided care for single people, parents, and children at its Shoreditch base (Caude, 2008, p.3). The Mildmay’s transformation from an abandoned hospital by the public sector several years back to the now flourishing and well reputed hospital is evidence enough on how social entrepreneurship skills can be drawn upon to create a modernised health care and in a faster way than even the government itself could have (Shaw, et al., 2002, pp.14-18). Social entrepreneurship as leadership quality is evidently seen through Helen Taylor-Thompson’s who was combative, charismatic and had a driven personality. It is through her persistence that the hospital was finally reopened as a social community based and hence attain its success. She joined governing council of the Mildmay the hospital had been set up by deaconesses from a church in Mildmay Park, Stoke Newington to care for people in Benthnal Green caught by an outbreak of cholera. The hospital was later in 1948 incorporated into the government as a district hospital. It was during that time that the hospital was in constant battles with government hospital bureaucracy and hence required a huge investment of voluntary effort from a close knit group of supporters (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001a, pp.23-27). Despite the growth of the hospital, it also faced several challenges that included closure on the care of the young chronically sick who were transferred to another hospital so as to concentrate on the Aids patients. Just like in any other organisation, growth is only possible if some sacrifices are made to pave way for new innovation ways. It faced financial challenges during its early days and constant harassment from the government (Light, 2005, pp.17-19). Despite these challenges it still thrived to attain the global recognition and is currently one of the best health centres for Aids patients. These are proves that social entrepreneurship can make something out of nothing through proper leadership, coordination, alliance and social capital. It is also evident that there are cases where charity organisations can succeed in innovation than even the non-charitable ones through the social entrepreneurship (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001b, pp.256-268). 3.0 Methodology This paper conducted a review of secondary sources to identify themes and patterns of social entrepreneurship information. Secondary sources included books, and other documents that related to the topic question as well as on the Mildmay Mission Hospital. Information was recorded down then thoroughly analysed for the specific themes that were being looked at in the paper. These themes included the fundamental basis of social entrepreneurship and its application to the current issues affecting the societies in general. A review of secondary sources is very important especially for the purposes of providing a background to the study and giving factual information to the sturdy (Bryman & Bell, 2007, pp.24-35). 4.0 Recommendations Individuals and societies need to appreciate the concept of social entrepreneurs by engaging in innovative practices, which are aimed at helping the community within which they live or operate. There is need to recognise that social enterprise as playing an important role in the economic improvement of not only individuals but also the other member of the society. If this is taken into consideration, aspects such as poverty and hunger will be unheard of. It is important that people and organisations engage in activities that will improve their levels of living. Through the support of other social entrepreneurs, the society can transform into a highly profitable place rather than a place of misery (Caude, 2008, p.3). 5.0 ­­­­­­Conclusion Social entrepreneurship is an important tool especially to the non-profitable organisations that have to initiate the social entrepreneurship strategies to attain the global markets and to sustain themselves in the much competitive non-profit organisations sector. To attain these objectives, social entrepreneurship requires good leadership, people, managers, visionary, opportunists and alliance builders. On top of that it should be noted that social entrepreneurship entails entrepreneurial, innovative and transforming (Light, 2005, pp.17-19). It should not be vied as an isolated phenomenon but rather as an integral part of a social system. Although social entrepreneurship does not priorities profit in its dealings, it still achieves the characteristics of business entrepreneurship hence still attracts both the social and economic organisations that wants to attain the much desired innovation. (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, pp.34-40) List of References Alvord, S.H., Brown L.D., & Letts C.W. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Assembly, U.N.G. 1987. Development and international economic co-operation: Environment. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Transformation. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science Vol. 40(3) pp. 260-282 Bachiega, A. & Borzaga, C. (2001) ‘Social Enterprises as Incentive Structures’, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (Eds) the Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge, 273–95. Biswas UN (2000). Impact of Entrepreneurs’ Personality Characteristics on Employee Perception of Organisational Climate in Small-Scale Enterprises. J. Entrep., 9(1): 49-62. Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). Conclusions: Social Enterprises in Europe: A Diversity of Initiatives and Prospects. C. Bozaga, J. Defourny, eds. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge, London, 256-268 Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London And New York: Routledge, 23-27 Borzaga, C. & Santuari, A. (2001) ‘Italy: from Traditional Co-operatives to Innovative Social Enterprises’, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (Eds) the Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge, 166–81. Bryman, A & Bell, E (2007), Business Research Methods, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24-35 Carree M, Thurik R (2006). Understanding the role of entrepreneurship for economic growth. Entrep. Econ. Growth, 134(2): 68-79 Caude R. (2008). The common good as an invisible hand: Machiavelli’s legacy to public. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 74: 3. Davister, C., Defourny, J. & Grégoire, O. (2004) ‘Work Integration Social Enterprises In the European Union: an Overview of Existing Models’, Working Papers Series, 04/04, Liège: EMES European Research Network, 12-22 Defourny, J. (2001) ‘From Third Sector to Social Enterprise’, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (Eds) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge, 16–28. Dorado, S. (2006). Social entrepreneurial ventures: different values so different process of creation, no? Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 11(4) 319-343 Jamison E (2006). Growth capital option for social enterprise, Paper presented at the Seventh Gathering of the Social Enterprise Alliance, Atlanta, GA, March pp. 7-9. Junejo MA, Rohra CL, & Panhwar IA (2008) Analysing entrepreneurship competencies, private investment and economic growth (a case study of Larkana industrial estate in Pakistan). Austral. J. Basic. Appl. Sci., 2(4): 1469-1476. Lee JCY (2009). Exploring alternatives for youth development: employment or social entrepreneurship. The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups, J. Youth Stud., 12: 2-24. Light P (2005) Searching for social entrepreneurs: who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research on Non-profit organisations and Voluntary Action. Washington, D. C., pp. 17-19. Osborne D. & Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Public Sector. AddisonWesley Publishing Company, 34-40 Shaw, E., Shaw, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Unsung entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship for social gain. Durham, UK: University of Durham Business School – The Barclays Centre for Entrepreneurship, 14-18 Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanem, I., & Butters, S. (2001). Researching Social enterprise: Final report to the small business service. Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research, Middlesex University Business School, Middlesex University, UK, 26-29 Read More