Below are 5 reasons why social entrepreneurship has become an employment alternative.

* Due to the recorded unemployment and employee dissatisfaction, social entrepreneurship has become a feasible employment alternative and at the same time solving some of our biggest social issues. Social entrepreneurs usually come up with new solutions to social problems and then carry them out in a large scale. They use inspiration, creativity, courage, fortitude and direct action to create a new reality that leads to sustaining social benefit and better future for everyone.
* Social entrepreneurship is a combination of business entrepreneurship and social change thus it offers people the opportunity to earn a living and living one’s passion. It is a field with distinct and shifting interpretations. It utilizes business principles to accomplish social purpose or execute some social change whether domestic or abroad. Social entrepreneurs are not afraid to challenge the world’s biggest problem. They recognize extraordinary potentials and are committed to help billions of poor people in the world to use their talents and skills to attain their potential.
* For people who only consider working for a nonprofit organization as they believe capitalism is bad, social entrepreneurship provides them an opportunity to make good money at the same time honor their nonprofit values. Some of the successful social entrepreneurs have also included the civic, governmental and business worlds supporting the mainstream public services ideas in welfare, schools and health care.
* No hassles for social entrepreneurship in terms of corporate legal structures and documentation as they can function as sole proprietorships and limited liability companies. A full business plan may be developed with market research, SWOT analysis and marketing plan.
* Since social entrepreneurship mostly involved non-profit activities, one has the option to file for exemption for income tax and sometimes property tax at the same time receives tax-deductible charitable contributions. It can generate operating support marked by government cutbacks.

Aspiring entrepreneurs who have the passion to develop social enterprises but lack the knowledge and financial capital to be successful may find this structure to be the best fit.

The Millionaire-Minded Single Entrepreneur, How to Start, Market and Grow your business on a single income. www.entrepreneurmillionairesecret.com download your free copy of How To Resolve Conflict Without Ruining Your Reputation

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sandra_S._Sea

Implementing innovative strategies to fuel positive social action is social entrepreneurship. There are different types of social entrepreneurial organizations, including for-profit and non-profit organizations. Certain professionals who have their own private practices provide their social services to communities in need on a spontaneous basis. As we analyze the way that these organizations work, the power and potential behind them becomes apparent. There are different models on which the ventures of social entrepreneurs are based on.

Models of Social Entrepreneurship

Social Sector Business
A “Social Sector Business” is a business run for profit which integrates a social mission with focus on maximizing profits. The service offered by such companies or the products marketed by them are geared towards addressing specific social needs. These businesses are also referred to as NJFP or Not Just For Profit. These organizations pay their way through their own earnings.

The Grameen Bank is one of the most successful examples of this particular social entrepreneurship model. It was founded in the year 1983 by Muhammad Yunus to help the poor in rural Bangladesh obtain microloans without collateral. The success of this model is evident with the 7 million borrowers as of December 2007 and the 95% repayment rate.  That repayment rate is phenomenal!  Earning huge profits was not the only benefit of this venture either, this bank was awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.

Earned Income Non-profit
Another model is the Earned Income Non-profit in which the organization is focussing on a social mission and makes profits by selling its own products and services to those who can afford it. They do not depend on donations and grants. These organizations are referred to as ’social enterprises’.

An example of this social entrepreneurship model is the Delancey Street Foundation. This foundation was initiated in the year 1971 by John Maher and Mimi Silbert to assist ex-convict, substance abusers and homeless in San Francisco. This organization does not rely on any government funding. Clients carry on businesses and the profits generated goes towards funding this foundation. In fact, 65% of their funding is from client businesses which include a print shop and a moving company. This business, which has had a positive impact on at least 14,000 people, teaches skills and provides marketable job ideas to clients to make a difference in their lives.

Pro Bono Practice
Pro Bono Practice is a model involving professional services groups of health practitioners, lawyers and consultants. They contribute towards a positive change in the society by helping clients who cannot afford to pay. The practice makes money and funds those who cannot afford paying by charging those who can. They also generate funds by selling products or services or even reaching out for sponsors.

Dr. Juan Campos, a chiropractor in San Francisco is an example of this model of social entrepreneurship. Since the year 1988, he has been offering chiropractic services once a year in El Salvador. He has a group of chiropractors travelling with him who pay for their own trip expenses from the income they earn through private practice.

All of these social entrepreneurship models focus on social issues and integrate business principles to make a significant difference. What they all have in common is the creativity, motivation, spirit and enthusiasm to make a difference in the world.

Kellen Chase is the author and an entrepreneur himself. He enjoys helping people achieve their business goals has a website dedicated to entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kellen_A._Chase

Perhaps, these young ones suited to youth social entrepreneurship. Why is that?

The youth have a lot of passion. Social entrepreneurship is not motivated by money or profit. It is actually driven by a desire to make the world a better place. Too often though, charitable institutions are not creative or ambitious enough to make big changes in the world. With the passion of youth social entrepreneurship, perhaps the world can be a better place.

Almost boundless energy. With youth come strength and energy. Although a lot of youth and young adults are devoting their energies to destructive causes such as gangs and self-destructive habits, some youth can be asked to make a difference in their world. With their almost boundless energy, the youth can certainly make an impact in any of their chosen advocacies or causes.

Technologically savvy. The youth are also savvy in using the internet, the Web and the latest technologies that come out in the market. While older people tend to use such gadgets extensively, youth tend to be more creative in using these tools and integrate them in their lives. The use of technology can enhance whatever cause that youths choose to support.

No big deal responsibilities. Most youth are carefree. This just means that they still do not have big deal responsibilities. Because of that, they have more free time to travel, to devote some part of their money to some cause and advocacy. They can also serve as volunteers in a non-profit organization. Or, given their youth, they can even start their own movements in changing the world.

Risks. Youth are generally risk-takers. They want to always push the limits and boundaries-whether in the home, in the school or in society. Imagine if the youth expended their energy on a world-changing activity and opportunity! The world will become an amazing place in no time.

Youth social entrepreneurship is nothing new. It is just gaining new attention because a lot of youth have engaged in destructive behavior that it is surprising and refreshing to see youth and young adults engage in social entrepreneurship that could help change the world for the better.

Transformational leadership is not rocket science! GET FREE LEADERSHIP COACHING from M Rasing’s Social Entrepreneurship Blog, http://www.mightyrasing.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=M_Rasing

Essentially, social entrepreneurs identify public problems and apply business acumen to resolve them. Instead of using a venture solely to make a profit, they aim at simultaneously impacting a society and regulating positive change. The success of such an endeavour is, therefore, measured not just on the basis of balance sheets, but on the effect it has had on a community.

Social entrepreneurship demands the same confidence, motivation and innovation as any other business, but in a manner that prioritises social development and the simultaneous creation of social and economic values. Hence, more than making a profit, it amounts to executing social change by means of unique solutions that help a community overcome established obstacles.

By definition, most social entrepreneurs take on problems that are ideally in the domain of government concern. Instead of waiting around for problems to be solved or brushing them under the carpet as many governments and societies are wont to do, they see them as opportunities to effect positive change. Social entrepreneurship is therefore all about combining a vision for a brighter future with the realization that, in order to achieve long-term goals, drastic effort and creative solutions are called for.

Like any other business venture, social entrepreneurship programmes cannot be isolated exercises. Most entrepreneurs, for instance, promote a non-profit organisation in the hope that other individuals and agencies will move in to support the cause and help multiply its benefits across larger sections of society. The extent of success of such endeavours is often based on the amount of collaboration and grassroots involvement they are able to generate.

Furthermore, and just like business ventures, social entrepreneurship projects depend on some degree of risk-taking. Only, in this case, the risk is not limited to financial security but involves social activism and passion. In this context, social entrepreneurship activities may appear to be incredibly perilous, but the risks pay off many times more in terms of their benefits to society.

The Impact on Society

Social entrepreneurship is as important for a growing society as business entrepreneurship is for a developing economy. They are both critical for sustainable development and accelerated inclusive growth.

The significance of their impact on societies can be gauged from the contributions of some eminent social entrepreneurs who are feted for positively and permanently impacting our world. In 19th Century United States, Susan B Anthony led the fight for women’s suffrage and helped establish equal rights for them. In 20th Century India, Vinoba Bhave founded the Land Gift Movement that caused the redistribution of more than 700,000 acres of land to the country’s poorest. Italian physician Maria Montessori (1870 – 1952) determined deficiencies in the early educational system and developed a new approach that continues to be relevant across the world today. Before her, compatriot Florence Nightingale helped establish the first school for nurses and fought to improve hospital conditions. Birth control activist Margaret Sanger encouraged family planning around the world with her Planned Parenthood Federation of America. These and other social entrepreneurs have made extraordinary contributions in shaping the modern world.

Examples of Nigerian Social Entrepreneurship

It is hardly surprising that social entrepreneurship has tremendous relevance for Nigeria, a country of paradoxical economic realities, with booming oil revenues on one hand and decrepit poverty on the other. Civil strife, political turmoil and religious upheavals have all contributed to turning this resource-rich nation of 148 million people into a landscape of economic malfunction and some of the worst human development indicators for the entire African continent. The return of democracy at the end of the last century and the installation of progressive policies have started the process of redirected growth through more sustainable means. Today, Nigeria is seen as having stepped back from the abyss of economic and social disaster and on the brink of a resurgence projected to take the second largest economy in Africa to the top twenty economies of the world by 2020.

A host of Nigerian social entrepreneurs are actively helping achieve this objective by alleviating social ills and driving positive change through innovative solutions.

Durojaiye Isaac instituted DMT Mobile Toilets in Lagos in 1999, an organization that strives to make a difference to the economic and environmental health of Nigeria. His social enterprise produces, hires out and maintains portable toilets, promoting sanitation and creating job opportunities for hundreds of local youths. For his innovative contributions, Isaac was awarded the prestigious Schwab Foundation’s Social Entrepreneur of the Year award for 2005.

Joachim Ezeji is the founder of Rural Africa Water Development Project (RAWDP), an ambitious programme dedicated to improving access to potable water in remote Nigerian communities. Founded in 2000, the project continues to train new members in an effort to develop community water infrastructure across the tropical country. Since its inception, RAWDP has given millions of Nigerians access to clean drinking water.

Ada Onyejike launched the Girl Child Art Foundation (GCAF) which promotes education and social change by empowering young women through performance arts and creative writing. This pioneering enterprise focuses on issues like child marriage, trafficking and polygamy through art, music and dance in and effort to engineer progressive change in Nigerian society. Beginning as a small volunteer operation in 2000, Onyejike’s foundation currently reaches thousands of women in the age group 8-25 in hundreds of communities across the country.

Cletus Olebune operates an outfit that tells the world about events occurring in Africa in an effort to boost tourism and open up the continent to the world. This passionate social entrepreneur uses the power of the written word to help Nigerians in diverse aspects of their lives, imparting knowledge and education to boost productive engagements and improve the country’s standing in world rankings.

Gbenga Uriel Ogunjimi, a social entrepreneurship pioneer, works to promote employment opportunities for Nigerian youths. He runs Landmark Internship International, which uses the Internet to connect with social enterprises around the world in need of local talent, as a means of meeting the nation’s social and economic challenges.

Rochas Okorocha is a rich entrepreneur. He established the Rochas Foundation which was borne out of a simple commitment to help the less privileged and poorest in the society. The foundation also focuses on breaking the cycle of poverty so that children can become self sufficient, contributing members of their societies.

These are just a few examples of social entrepreneurs and their impact on Nigeria’s holistic growth prospects. Besides generating employment, innovative goods and services and fostering equitable growth in society, they help generate the much needed social capital that is crucial for Nigeria’s emergence as a worthwhile economic powerhouse.

By Peter Osalor FCCA, CTA Partner – Peter Osalor and Co Chartered Certified Accountants and President Success in your business.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Peter_O_Osalor

In a world where ideas drive economies, it is no wonder that innovation and entrepreneurship are often seen as inseparable bedfellows. The governments around the world are starting to realize that in order to sustain progress and improve a country’s economy, the people have to be encouraged and trained to think out-of-the-box and be constantly developing innovative products and services. The once feasible ways of doing business are no longer guarantees for future economic success!

In response to this inevitable change, some governments are rethinking the way the young are educated by infusing creative thinking and innovation in their nation’s educational curriculum. In the same vein, they are putting much emphasis on the need to train future entrepreneurs through infusing entrepreneurship components within the educational system, especially at the tertiary level.

Some countries have taken this initiative to a higher level by introducing entrepreneurship education at elementary schools and encouraging them to be future entrepreneurs when they are of age. In a series of survey funded by Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, it was found that nearly seven out of 10 youths (aged 14-19) were interested in becoming entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is now the choice of the new generation as compared to the preferred career choices of yesteryears such as being a doctor, lawyer or a fighter pilot. In a recent visit to the bustling city of Shanghai in China, an informal survey was carried out among Chinese youths by the author. The results of the survey showed that being an entrepreneur, especially in the field of computer and e-commerce, is perceived as a ‘cool’ career and is an aspiration for many Chinese youths Prior to the ‘opening up’ of modern China, being an entrepreneur was perceived as the outcome of one’s inability to hold a good government job and those who dared to venture, were often scorned at by their peers. Times have indeed changed.

With this change in mindset and the relative knowledge that entrepreneurs bring forth increased job creations, the awareness and academic studies of entrepreneurship have also heightened. In many tertiary institutes, many courses of entrepreneurship and innovation are being developed and offered to cater to the increasing demand. The term “entrepreneurship” has also evolved with numerous variations. The proliferation of jargons such as netpreneur, biotechpreneur, technopreneur and multipreneur are coined to keep up with the ever-changing times and business conditions that surround us.

In view of these changes, it is important that the definition of entrepreneurship be refined or redefined to enable its application in this 21st century. To put it succinctly, “Good science has to begin with good definitions (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991, p13).” Without the proper definition, it will be laborious for policymakers to develop successful programs to inculcate entrepreneurial qualities in their people and organizations within their country.

The paper will provide a summary of the definitions of entrepreneurship provided by scholars in this subject area. The author will also expand on one of the definitions by Joseph Schumpeter to create a better understanding of the definition of the term “entrepreneurship” as applied in today’s business world.

Entrepreneurship through the Years:

It was discovered that the term ‘entrepreneurship’ could be found from the French verb ‘entreprende’ in the twelfth century though the meaning may not be that applicable today. This meaning of the word then was to do something without any link to economic profits, which is the antithesis of what entrepreneurship is all about today. It was only in the early 1700’s, when French economist, Richard Cantillon, described an entrepreneur as one who bears risks by buying at certain prices and selling at uncertain prices (Barreto, 1989, Casson 1982) which is probably closer to the term as applied today.

In the 1776 thought-provoking book ‘The Wealth of Nations’, Adam Smith explained clearly that it was not the benevolence of the baker but self-interest that motivated him to provide bread. From Smith’s standpoint, entrepreneurs were the economic agents who transformed demand into supply for profits.

In 1848, the famous economist John Stuart Mill described entrepreneurship as the founding of a private enterprise. This encompassed the risk takers, the decision makers, and the individuals who desire wealth by managing limited resources to create new business ventures.

One of the definitions that the author feels best exemplifies entrepreneurship was coined by Joseph Schumpeter (1934). He stated that the entrepreneur is one who applies “innovation” within the context of the business to satisfy unfulfilled market demand (Liebenstein, 1995). In elaboration, he saw an entrepreneur as an innovator who implements change within markets through the carrying out of new combinations. The carrying out of new combinations can take several forms:

The introduction of a new good or standard of quality;

* The introduction of a novel method of production;
* The opening of a new market;
* The acquisition of a new source of new materials supply; and
* The carrying out of the new organization in any industry.

Though the term ‘innovation’ has different meanings to different people, several writers tended to see “innovation” in the form of entrepreneurship as one not of incremental change but quantum change in the new business start-ups and the goods/services that they provide (egs, Bygrave, 1995; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991).

In the view of Drucker (1985), he perceived entrepreneurship as the creation of a new organization, regardless of its ability to sustain itself, let alone make a profit. The notion of an individual who starts a new business venture would be sufficient for him/her to be labeled as an entrepreneur. It is this characteristic that distinguishes entrepreneurship from the routine management tasks of allocating resources in an already established business organization. Though the definition tends to be somewhat simplistic in nature, it firmly attaches the nature of entrepreneurial action with risk-taking and the bearing of uncertainty by the individual (Swoboda, 1983)

In a Delphi study, Gartner (1990) found eight themes expressed by the participants that constitute the nature of entrepreneurship. They were the entrepreneur, innovation, organization creation, creating value, profit or non-profit, growth, uniqueness, and the owner-manager. The themes could be seen as a derivative and expansion of Schumpter’s earlier concept.

Expanding on Schumpeter’s Definition:

After digesting the numerous definitions of entrepreneurship, one would tend to see a strong link between these two terms: entrepreneurship and innovation. In retrospect, most of the definitions tended to be, to some extent, a re-work and expansion of Schumpeter’s definition of entrepreneurship (which is that of innovation being applied in a business context).

As defining the term of ‘innovation’ is highly debatable and would merit a paper on its own, the author has thus, for convenience, summarised the definition of innovation. Innovation can be perceived simply as the transformation of creative ideas into useful applications by combining resources in new or unusual ways to provide value to society for or improved products, technology, or services.

In the author’s opinion, the difficulties of defining “innovation” could be the reason for the quandary one finds in attempting to arrive at a clear-cut definition of the term “ Entrepreneurship”.

Take for example, if someone starts another run-of-the-mill hot dog stand in the streets of New York, will he termed as an entrepreneur? According to Drucker’s definition, he will be seen as one. However, if the above definition by Schumpeter was used as a guideline, the answer is probably ‘NO’.

Why? The core of the matter lies in what is so innovative about setting up another hot-dog stand which are in abundance in New York. On the contrary, if he is the first one to start a stand selling hot-dogs with Oriental Sweet and Sour sauce topping; he could be termed as an entrepreneur (even based on Schumpeter’s requirement) as he has done what others have not done before. In the context of entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation are key points in the whole scheme of things.

In this manner, by adding “innovative” features to a product or services and setting up a business based on these additional features to compete in the existing market, new entrants may be able to gain this competitive advantage over existing market players.

In the case of the hot-dog seller, it may be argued that his addition of Oriental Sweet and Sour sauce toppings may be seen as nondescript. This runs in contrary to some scholars’ definition of entrepreneurship as requiring quantum changes in the products/ services to be justified as being entrepreneurial (Bygrave, 1985; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991).

Consistent with creating new products for sale, someone who starts a business by providing a totally new way of serving his customers/ clients is considered to be entrepreneurial too. Though, it is often argued that there are no real new products or services in a case where one does not look to the past products and services for ideas for improvements. Thus, the notion of incremental improvements should be accepted as being innovative too.

Innovation in the business sense may not necessarily involve, in the physical sense, the introduction of a new product or service. It can be in the form of what is commonly known as creative imitations. For example, if an individual starts selling a product that is already common in his area or country, he will not be seen as being entrepreneurial. However, if he is the first to sell the same product in a virgin locale or to an untouched market segment, he will be seen as an entrepreneur in his own rights.

Take Muhammad Yunus, for example. Yunus became an entrepreneur when he started a micro-loan program for the poor villagers in a rural part of Bangladesh named Grameen, with only US$26. The loan was divided among 42 villagers to assist them to buy small items such as combs, scissors, needles and other necessities to start their own home businesses. In the past 22 years, Grameen Bank has grown with over $2 billion loans granted. It has now become a model for several micro-loan facilities.

>From the following example, Yunus created banking and lending facilities in Grameen specifically for the poor villagers. Banking and lending money activities are not new but Yunus was the first to provide such facilities in a rural part of Bangladesh and that is definitely innovation and risk-bearing on his part as a social entrepreneur. In short, innovation need not arise mainly from a new product or service but it could be an old product or service finding a new market for penetration.

An individual could be termed as an entrepreneur if he or she sells a product or service using new systems and/ or mediums of marketing, distribution or production methods as a basis for a new business venture. A good example will be Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, the successful Web-based bookstore. He was one of the first to sell books on a large scale using an online store and also patented the one-click system for online buying. Though selling books is not an innovation in itself, Jeff Bezos was innovative in the use of the Internet then as a viable marketing and sales channel for selling books.

Another example from the field of e-commerce is Stuart Skorman, the founder of Reel.com. Reel.com is essentially one of the first cyber movie store with a very large inventory of over a 100 000 videos. Though setting a movie store was revolutionary then, Reel.com main distinction was being known as the first online store to expand by opening an offline store. The founder felt that by doing so, the online store could be an advertisement for the offline store and vice versa, thus strengthening this click and mortar business venture- an example of creativity and innovation applied in a profitable business context.

Conclusion:

This paper has started as an attempt to redefine the term of entrepreneurship but ended up ‘updating’ the wheel, based on the definition as proposed by Schumpeter. The paper expanded on this influential work by giving examples to illustrate what innovation in entrepreneurship was and hope that along the way, new insights were unearthed in the study of defining entrepreneurship.

In summary, the author hopes that this paper would further encourage the infusion of creative thinking and innovation within the educational system to nurture future entrepreneurs with a competitive edge. In the author’s view, the characteristics and capabilities to set up a new business venture based on doing things that have not done before should be encouraged. Innovation needs to be the cornerstone of entrepreneurship as opposed to the mere setting up of another new enterprise without implementing changes or adding features of improvements to the products and services provided and/ or its business processes.

About The Author

Dr. Alvin Chan is a Senior Research Consultant at First Quatermain Centre of Collaborative Innovation (www.firstquatermain.com).

For reprints permission, please contact bizguru88@hotmail.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alvin_Chan

Social entrepreneurship initiatives are ventures that can serve as a method of increasing the social value of a community, organization or cause while enhancing the financial viability of a not-for-profit organization. With this being stated, social entrepreneurship has been defined in different ways by many different theorists. Gary McPherson, Executive Administrator of the Canada Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, states that social entrepreneurship involves various individuals working toward meeting social and economic goals simultaneously; while Bill Drayton, CEO of Ashoka, defines social entrepreneurship as a term coined to describe “individuals who combine the pragmatic and results oriented methods of a business entrepreneur with the goals of social reform.”

A more basic definition of social entrepreneurship states that it is “the process of using entrepreneurial and business skills to create innovative approaches to social problems.” Therefore, it is a methodology that is presently being used to resolve community and societal concerns globally. Social entrepreneurship as an area of specialized entrepreneurship is not defined by the same titling in every culture. For example, in Latin America countries social entrepreneurship initiatives are referred to as “Micro Enterprise.” In India the same program would be identified as a “Social Mission.” Though termed differently in various regions, social entrepreneurship initiatives are being implemented to solve specific societal and community concerns by focusing on the needs and resource availability within specific geographic regions.

Social Entrepreneurship in Education Throughout the United States, many top tertiary level academic institutions are enhancing their business programs by including a curriculum that caters to the study of social entrepreneurship. In 2003, the Center for Responsible Business was launched on the University of California Berkley Campus. This subsidiary of the Haas School of Business was implemented with the intent of training students to be more principled and socially responsible members of society through attending “the preeminent educational institution in area of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Stanford University also has established a Center for Social Innovation as a part of its graduate school of business. This center was founded with the mission to “build and strengthen the capacity of individuals and organizations to develop innovative solutions to social problems for a more just, sustainable and healthy world.”

In 1993, Harvard Business School started its social enterprise program with its mission of “generating and sharing knowledge to help individuals and organizations to create social value in the not-for-profit, private and public sectors,” and the University of Miami has refocused its business school curriculum to include coursework in the areas of ethical-decision making, social entrepreneurship and community engagement with the primary focus being to expose students to various areas of civic engagement while concurrently teaching them leadership and team building skills.

Tertiary level institutions, including Duke, which has established a Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship as part of its Fuqua School of Business, and Columbia University where the research initiative on social entrepreneurship is embedded in its school of business, have also made strides to enhance the study and education of those seeking to venture into areas of social entrepreneurship and social venture implementation. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International (AACSB – International) has identified over twenty-four tertiary level institutions that have included social entrepreneurship as a part of their business college and or business curriculums.

With social entrepreneurship being perceived by many as a new way of stimulating social change, Idee Winfield believes that the implementation of community-focused service learning projects is the first step in exposing youth to the various attributes associated with social entrepreneurship. Through community involvement, youth will begin to visualize and experience the various social issues within their community and envision ways to solve these problems. Winfield states that social entrepreneurship should be promoted in primary and secondary education, and coursework should be adjusted to allow students to “see how abstract socially focused concepts can have real world applicability.” Jeffrey Soderborg, a member of the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education, is also an ardent proponent of social venture education who believes that social entrepreneurship would be more readily accepted if youth were exposed to information expounding the laurels of these initiatives during their primary and secondary academic years.

As youth expand their horizons through the establishment of entrepreneurial efforts, knowledge and exposure to information about the process involved in the establishment of entrepreneurial business effectively plays a major role in the rate at which business entities are established. A study focusing on entrepreneurial interests among black youth ages 14 to 19 identified that 75% of the youth surveyed had interest in becoming entrepreneur. The study also found that these minority youth believed that more information about entrepreneurship should be presented through their schools. They also believed that entrepreneurs have a responsibility to reinvest in their community.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Personal values often serve as the justification for entrepreneurs to focus organizational efforts on socially focused ventures. The organizational decision to forgo pursuing financial gain with the intent of using the corporations’ profit resources to enhance a community is often referred to corporate social entrepreneurship. Corporate Social Entrepreneur (CSE) is a term used to describe corporate initiatives whose primary focus is to enhance a social concern and whose secondary focus is financial gain. The corporate social entrepreneur differs from the financial profit seeking entrepreneur in the area of decisions made that affect the community and environment in which their organization functions. Research identified that in corporate social entrepreneurship business acumen serves as a factor in the success or failure of social venture initiative implementation. Research identifies that success factors associated with the implementation of social responsibility initiatives were linked to whether the entrepreneur exhibits behavior that is moral, amoral or immoral.

The amoral entrepreneur would pursue initiatives only if they were deemed acceptable by the organization as a whole. The immoral entrepreneur implements initiatives based on what can be potentially gained for self as well as for the stakeholders, while the moral entrepreneur would pursue social responsibility initiatives based on what was in the best interest of the organization. Individuals identified as corporate social entrepreneurs are individuals who are more active in community activities and are actively involved in social responsibility efforts. Corporate social entrepreneurs also are more likely to implement social responsibility initiatives based on an organization’s long term objectives.

While many corporations are looking for ways to increase their social responsibility efforts, in some regions corporate responsibility efforts are not progressing. A policy paper, “Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America and the Caribbean,” documented that corporate social responsibility activity in this region has “stalled.” The reason for stagnation in this region is “minimal government involvement” and the lack of “private sector involvement.” It was also identified that initiatives to implement programs focusing on social responsibility are often initiated outside of the market, and then subsequently not embraced by stakeholders who reside within this geographic region.

Corporations are continually looking for ways to increase corporate advantage through their social responsibility efforts. While proponents of corporate social responsibility believe that corporations are obligated morally to engage in efforts to enhance social, community and environmental concerns, many stakeholders believe that social involvement should only be initiated if the efforts are going to strengthen the organization’s image, brand, moral or stock value. With this in mind, corporations have separated social issues into specific categories.

These categories are social concerns that are general, social concerns that are value chain based and concerns that focus on social dimensions of competitive contrast. Generic social issues are identified as social concerns that do not directly affect the company’s operation and do not have an effect on a company’s competitive advantage. Corporations are least likely to get involved or invest in projects that focus in these areas because they will not receive a high value of return on their involvement. Value Chain Social Impact issues can significantly affect a company’s operation and can have an impact on the way a company conducts business. Corporations are more likely to be involved in value chain concerns, but only after conducting due diligence studies to ensure that a return on investment will be achieved over time.

Social issues that affect a company’s financial profitability or serve to enhance or increase a company’s competitive edge are likely to be areas that a company will invest in because of the direct impact that these initiatives will have on the company’s overall viability and stability. An example of a social dimension projects is General Electric’s investment in under-performing high schools throughout the country. General Electric believes that through investing financial and professional resources in under-performing high schools in areas where they have substantial financial investment, they are investing in enhancing a community, as well as directly increasing their future employment prospects.

Whole Foods Market is an organization that has taken control of its social value position through purchasing products from local farmers. Also, Whole Foods maintains strict controls over all of the products produced and sold in all of its locations. They even have extended their social and ecological efforts through offsetting the use of in-store electricity with the installation of wind conversion generators, converting their trucks to operate on bio-fuel and trucking spoiled produce to regionally located compost sites. Though the investments in these technologies may be costly at the onset, the long term financial, civic and market exposure benefits far exceed any initial costs incurred.

In the area of corporate philanthropy many corporations are at a loss. They continue to be involved in the conflict between philanthropic giving and investor requests for increased profits. For this reason many corporations engage in context-giving programs. Context-giving programs are programs that are defined as allotting resources to specific projects that will enhance the community while simultaneously enhancing the corporation.

Examples of context-giving initiatives include the Cisco System Networking Academy, which trains computer network administrators and provides job opportunities to those who complete the program; the DreamWorks SKG film production program that trains low-income individuals in occupations that are needed in the film and entertainment industry; and American Express Travel and Tourism Academy which trains high school youth for careers in the hospitality and tourism industry. Corporations that invest in corporate-giving social venture programs are concurrently gaining positive return on their social investment, improving the economic climate of the communities where they are located and gaining positive exposure for their organizations.

At times social ventures do not have the intended impact on the community. A study focusing on the impact of community focused business ventures found that businesses started with the intent of enhancing a community often lose focus by becoming focused on profitability and competition. Competition and self-focused motivators were identified to be factors that played an additional role in the impact and economic role that entrepreneurial ventures have in community settings.

While many foundations, trusts and philanthropic organizations, accumulate and distribute resources with the intent of providing services to enhance specific community or social causes, many of these organizations are looking for ways to gain public exposure for their efforts. Organizations also attempt to leverage their gifting efforts through seeking not-for-profit organizations that are willing match the funding received. The success of funded programs is evaluated through performance outcomes and indicators, and through promoting the organization’s work through success stories provided by program clients. These methods are viable ways for funding agencies to acquire value and exposure through their philanthropic efforts and simultaneously continue their efforts to enhance the communities in which they invest.

With the social philanthropic efforts of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates gaining a high degree of attention, and many leaders engaging in activities to promote social advocacy, corporations are seeking ways to also gain exposure with social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship from the corporate perspective can be defined as corporate social initiatives used by a corporate entity as vehicle to show support for social causes. In recent years, many Fortune 500 companies have implemented social ventures with the intent of enhancing their corporate image through providing funding for various social causes.

McDonald’s is one such company that has funded social causes for many years. McDonald’s primary social venture is the Ronald McDonald House Charities. The Ronald McDonald House provides lodging for the families of adolescents, ranging in age from birth to 18, who are receiving critical care for illness in communities that are away from their community of residence. The Ronald McDonald House allows families to reside in these temporary living facilities throughout the child’s period of treatment at no charge.

The Federal Express Corporation also funds programs focused on the implementation of socially responsible programs. FedEx is a supporter of St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and has been acknowledged by Reader’s Digest as one of “Americas Best Charity Minded Corporation.” Federal Express has also been recognized for providing funding for numerous community and civic organizations, including March of Dimes, Heart to Heart organization, an organization that focuses on delivering food and health resources globally, the United Way and the National Civil Rights Museum. These are just a few of the charitable initiatives that allow Federal Express to present itself as a socially conscious organization.

Virgin Mobile has partnered with Youth Noise, a not-for-profit organization that brings youth together for networking and brainstorming opportunities, and Stand Up for Kids, the largest all volunteer not-for-profit organizations in the United States, to implement an initiative to expand its corporate social responsibility activities. The project involves recording artists donating ring tones to Virgin Mobile and through partnership agreements, 5% of the proceeds received through ring tone sales are donated to various “Virgin Mobile Charity Partners.” This initiative, established in June 2006, is being positioned to raise over $250,000 annually.

For social ventures to gain global acceptance, corporations need to become involved in ventures that allow employees and consumers to see the social, community and external benefit of these ventures. This process is identified in countries south of the United States, where the concept of social responsibility is one that has been embraced by many but implemented by few. Many government organizations expect non-government, or private organizations to take responsibility for ensuring the stability and longevity of the resources throughout this region while the private sector is looking toward government agencies for intervention.

Paul Van Putten, is an educator, entrepreneur and business consultant in the areas of social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial start-up, marketing, media management and leadership engagement. Dr. Van Putten has seamlessly transitioned between both academic and corporate environments having served as a College President and Corporate CEO. He has also served as a consultant with national and international organizations. http://www.nationaletc.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paul_Van_Putten