AN EXPLORATION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ESTONIA

Transcription

1 International Journal of Business and Management Studies, CD-ROM. ISSN: :: 2(2):19 29 (2013) Copyright c 2013 by UniversityPublications.net AN EXPLORATION OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ESTONIA Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg University of Tartu, Estonia The increasing interest and acknowledgement of social entrepreneurship in the EU countries, together with the broader discussion about non-conventional entrepreneurial activities addressing current challenges, is going towards to reformulating the definition of social entrepreneurship. However, in spite of a dozen of years the concept of social enterprise has been discussed in different countries, it s still quite new phenomena for societies in transformation, like Estonia. Our aim is to give overview of the definitions and find suitable meaning for social entrepreneurship in Estonian context. In the first part of the paper, we compare and discuss meanings of social entrepreneurship definitions from different countries and Estonia. In the second, empirical part, we analyze how social entrepreneurship is described and explained by Estonian entrepreneurs and students. For data collecting we have used questionnaire and thematical analyze for the analyzing the data. Keywords: Definitions of social entrepreneurship, Estonian support and umbrella organisations, Entrepreneurs and students. Introduction The concept of social entrepreneurship has been used in the scientific world since the 1980s. The Estonian cases of social entrepreneurship (SE) have their specific characteristics representing examples of a post-communist transition economy. 15 years ago, after the departure of communism, a traditional market economy had to be intensively introduced here both in terms of theory and learning-by-doing. Social entrepreneurship is rather symbiotic part of society, it shares interests with other institutions and its efficiency is measured by growth of social welfare and cohesion. Generation of money is just secondary and supportive objective. The purpose of SE is solving societal problems via entrepreneurship and cause positive change by its systematic implementation. Of course, SE is very novice way of making business in Estonia and not (yet) legally districted form of entrepreneurship. By the essence, it is dealing with direct trouble-shooting of societal problem or offering some value added aspects for society. There have been earlier attempts of mapping experiences and situation of Estonian social entrepreneurship but due to hardships of identifying SE, there have not been any data enabling general overview until now. Therefore this article will focus on following questions: 1) How SE is defined by researchers from different countries? 2) How SE is described and explained by Estonian support organisations for social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs and students? 3) What are the coincident keywords in SE definitions? 19

2 20 Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship The concept of SE has been used in sciences since the 1980s. Still, it is controversial whether or not it represents an independent field of research (Mair and Marti, 2006). Similarly the very definition of SE has been debated and its concept still means different things to different people and researchers (Dees, 1998). One group of researchers refers to SE as not-for-profit initiatives in search of alternative funding strategies, or management schemes to create social value (Austin et al., 2003; Boschee, 1998). A second group of researchers understands it as the socially responsible practice of commercial businesses engaged in cross sector partnerships (Sagawa and Segal, 2000; Waddock, 1988). And a third group views SE as a means to alleviate social problems and catalyze social transformation, pointing to the importance of entrepreneurial environment and its process of becoming social (Alvord et al., 2004). Additionally, there may be different views on circumstances when SE might occur. Some scholars believe that the personal characteristics of a particular entrepreneur are more important than environment and only the presence of the unique individual traits will make a social entrepreneur (Dees et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2000). Other scholars, on the contrary, are stressing the need to examine social entrepreneurship in the light of the social context, and the local environment. It is important to note the conceptual differences between definitions. Definitions of SE typically refer to a process or behaviour; definitions of social entrepreneurs focus instead on the founder of the initiative; and definitions of social enterprises refer to the tangible outcome of SE. Despite the large number of definitions, systematic attempts to map initiatives and definitions are rare (see Boschee, 1995; Waddock & Post, 1995, for two exceptions). As seen from paragraph above, the interpreting of SE as a notion is very complicated due to the large extent of various possibilities, counterparts, opinions and definitions. Various authors have expressed by scientific articles circumstance that there are significant differences in between features, defining SE (Dees, 2001; Young, 2012; Marshall, 2011; Kerlin, 2006; Mair & Noboa, 2003; Terjensen et al., 2012; Weerawardena, Mort 2006). Although the interest towards SE has growing trend, the definition of SE has remained unstandardized and therefore in different countries in the context of SE very different organizations are perceived. This fact makes complicated to compose and manage comparative international data about phenomenon s extent and impact. To have some clarity in the set of definitions, the following table will compare them (see Table 1). Table 1. Social Entrepreneurship (SE) definitions. Author (date) Dees (1998) Mort, Weerawardena & Carnegie (2003) Pomerantz (2003) Definitions of SE Play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: 1) Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), 2) Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, 3) Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, 4) Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and 5) Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created. SE has been seen in terms of the catalytic leadership provided in areas of social concern with the purpose of change, both in terms of the area of social concern and in public policy related to that area of social concern. SE can be defined as the development of innovative, mission-supporting, earned income, job creating

3 An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurship in Estonia 21 Roberts & Woods (2005) Seelos & Mair (2005) Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2006) Mair & Marti (2006) or licensing, ventures undertaken by individual social entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, or nonprofits in association with for profits. SE is a construct that bridges an important gap between business and benevolence; it is the application of entrepreneurship in the social sphere. SE creates new models for the provision of products and services that cater directly to basic human needs that remain unsatisfied by current economic or social institutions. SE is innovative, social value creating activity that can occur within or across the non-profit, business or government sectors. 1) view back to table of contents SE as a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways; 2) these resource combinations are intended primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting social needs; 3) when viewed as a process, SE involves the offering of services and products but can also refer to the creation of new organizations. Martin & Osberg (2007) SE is the: 1) identification a stable yet unjust equilibrium which the excludes, marginalizes or causes suffering to a group which lacks the means to transform the equilibrium; 2) identification of an opportunity and developing a new social value proposition to challenge the equilibrium, and 3) forging a new, stable equilibrium to alleviate the suffering of the targeted group through imitation and creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium to ensure a better future for the group and society. Nicholls (2008) Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum & Shulman (2009) Yunus (2010) Kirby & Ibrahim (2011) Bacq & Janssen (2011) Megre, Martins & Salvado (2012) SE is a set of innovative and effective activities that focus strategically on resolving social market failures and creating new opportunities to add social value systemically using a range of resources and organizational formats to maximize social impact and bring about change. Simply put, SE is defined by its two constituent elements: a prime strategic focus on social impact and an innovative approach to achieving its mission SE encompasses the activities and processes undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner. SE relates to a person. It describes an initiative of social consequences created by an entrepreneur with a social vision. SE is perceived to be about applying the expertise, talents and resources of entrepreneurs to the variety of problems developing countries face, such as education, health, personal safety and security, poverty alleviation, social advancement, environmental sustainability, and so forth. SE is the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources. SE initiatives have been defined as having: an innovative approach to solve societal problems, a clear social mission, sustainable, potential for replication and capacity to produce impact at large scale. Social entrepreneurship should not be thought of as existing in a domain of its own, exclusive from other forms or applications of entrepreneurship. The boundaries are far more blurred, particularly as commercial businesses become more socially responsible and develop triple bottom line reporting measures. In this sense social entrepreneurship could be seen as a mindset or a paradigm that has a place in any business, be it in the for profit sector or in the voluntary sector. Therefore we can describe SE both in terms of defines the process of creating new organizations (Gartner, 1988). While complementary definitions, each focusing on different aspects of the phenomenon, are not necessarily an impediment in the search for theory, we still do not have a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon and there is lacking the clear understanding of how SE should be studied. Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship used in Estonia If we skip (re)development of SE in Western societies from the 1980s-90s, the birth of SE as an individual phenomenon can be followed rather fruitfully in the transitional societies of the former socialist/communist countries. In these countries during the communist years the state intervention (and social responsibility) was developed to the most ultimate status. At the early phase of economic reforms, these countries had decisively dismantled the state intervention and

4 22 Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg participation in the business sector, thus stimulating the restoration of the private sector by liberalizing the economic environment to the utmost extent. These countries had to reinvent capitalism, and it happened very much in the style of early capitalist development of the 19th century (cowboy-capitalism). Business was not understood and conceived with social connotations that were increasingly happening in the West at the same time. Differences in handling SE are also notable in comparison of different countries where different understandings of SE both are in legal and common context. This is caused by different circumstances of social, economic and political reality of those countries, influencing formation of societal objectives and outputs of social enterprises. (Mair, 2010) Former socialist/communist countries, including Estonia have not remained untouched by this new approach to private business. But as noted before, due to historical background and specific understanding of private entrepreneurship, Estonian social entrepreneurs are most outstanding strong personalities. We can characterize them as visionaries, stepping ahead of their time. In Estonia there are created three umbrella or support organizations for SE an at this point the brief overview of their definitions is given. a) Good Deed Foundation (2013) is the only venture philanthropy organization in the Baltic s. They concentrate on supporting high-impact social initiatives (both social enterprises and non-profits). Their achievements include both achieving systemic change (state-level adoption support system for children without parental care) and starting off successful social enterprises (in the fields of: employment for people with disabilities; HIV-prevention; re-use). Their definition is: Social entrepreneurship is type of enterprise, acting on the purpose of some societal objective. b) The National Foundation of Civil Society (2013) is established as an independent legal entity a foundation. Its aim is to increase the capacity of Estonian NGOs in developing civil society and shaping an environment that fosters civic initiative. The contribution of the Foundation is most of all channelled to the advocacy organizations and networks with national scope, to finance the activities and projects of NGOs with similar public benefit, and the programs and projects of organizations and institutions developing civil society. They consider SE as launching actions and measures, ensuring stabile cash flow by non-governmental organizations, based on entrepreneurial principles and pursuing desirable social and environmental changes. c) Umbrella organization NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network (2013) was established by 19 social enterprises in April In order to gain the greatest benefit for the society, their aim is to increase the number, capability and impact of social enterprises in Estonia and improve awareness of SE as a valued and important sphere of activity in Estonian society. They haven t formulate the definition, but tried to describe with features. Social/societal purpose forms the centre of their definition while other important aspects include having a sustainable business model and the requirement to reinvest surpluses. According to their definition, there are many social enterprises in Estonia. The diversity of which is extremely wide. Services provided vary from telemarketing jobs through support to people with special needs to activation of local communities by renovating and finding new uses for old manor houses. As mentioned earlier, there is no common and agreed definition of SE. However, there are quite many similar features used in SE definitions (see Figure 1).

5 An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurship in Estonia 23 Entrepreneurial spirit Reinvest surpluses Social change, pattern breaking Social value creation Social activist role Ethical filter Entrepreneurial means Advocacy organizations and networks with national scope Passion SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP Cross sector partnership Charity Developing civil society and/or community Mobilization of resources Efficiency and improvements Entrepreneurial personality Sustainability and durableness System change idea Innovativeness Figure 1. Features of the definitions of SE (Harris, 2012; Dees, 1998; Trivedi, 2010; Hulgard, 2010; Massetti, 2008; Zahra et al., 2009; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Smith-Hunter, 2008; Alter, 2007; Bornstein, 2004; Good Deed Foundation, 2013; The National Foundation of Civil Society, 2013; NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network, 2013; compiled by authors). Note: regular font features of literature; italic font features of Estonia; bold font - coincide features (literature and Estonia). As we can see, SE is always linked to the value system and ideology of particular entrepreneurs (Dees et al., 2002) - resulting in good prospects for individual approaches of SE. Former socialist/communist countries, including Estonia, have not remained untouched by this new approach to private business. Methodology of Research The central objective of this article is to have empirical comparative synthesis of different approaches to entrepreneurial learning process. Currently there are significant resources allocated to this area by the EU, but different background of different groups. The researchers designed the questionnaire about entrepreneurship via review by colleagues and pilot testing in The questionnaire included direct questions about the need of support in various areas of entrepreneurship; the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship and SME s; attitudes towards starting enterprise and participants previous experiences. The questionnaire also included open questions about some definitions from the field of entrepreneurship and three social demographic questions (type of study, gender and birth year). The empirical part of this article is using qualitative methods to take into attention participants from authors survey meanings about social entrepreneurship, comparing them with those described at the chapter of SE definitions from different countries and from Estonian SE umbrella or support organisations. An empirical study was carried out among university students and entrepreneurs from different entrepreneurship courses during The questionnaire

6 24 Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg was sent by to the 54 participants and to 332 participants in person on lessons. The return rate by and in person together was 64% or 255 questionnaires. It is important to mention, that target group of (n=255) respondents had more women (167 of them). As from groups of birth, most numerous was grouped being born in between (128 person means 50% from 255 respondents). birth year, gender, type of study SE definitions from different states coincident keywords in SE definitions SE definitions from Estonia umbrella or support organisations for social entrepreneurship Figure 2. Comparing SE definitions by different authors. (Compiled by authors). Results and Discussion Researches have perceived the increase of the number of social enterprises in developing counties as well as in developed countries (Terjensen et al., 2012). Social entrepreneurship faces similar problems all over the world: insufficient systems of social welfare and education, environmental problems, diminishing trust towards political institutions; deepening poverty; crime wave, etc (Bornstein, 2004). One opened question of survey, committed by authors, asked respondents to describe what does definition of social entrepreneurship mean to them. The objective of this question was to investigate how well the essence of this definition is known. The definitions, provided by respondents, were divided into groups of keywords (see Table 2); originate from the data of Table 1 and Figure 1. Considering respondents opinion one can argue, that understanding of SE is common, but there are stressed different nuances. Table 2. Comparing SE definitions from Table 1, Figure 1 and survey respondents Authors Keywords Examples of SE definitions by survey respondents Peredo & McLean (2006); Social value creation Entrepreneurship for creating social value Smith-Hunter (2008); Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2003; 2006); Mair & Marti (2006); Boschee (1998); Good Deed Foundation (2013) Sagawa & Segal (2000); Waddock (1988) Cross sector partnerships Entrepreneurial networks, social connections and cooperation between enterprises Smith-Hunter (2008); Pomerantz (2003); Austin, System change idea, innovativeness, social change Entrepreneurship with new and creative solutions for the long term social problems Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2006); Nicholls (2008); Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum & Shulman (2009) The National Foundation of Development of Influencing the local life in the community, developing

7 An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurship in Estonia 25 Civil Society (2013); NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network (2013) Mort, Weerawardena & Carnegie (2003); Pomerantz (2003) Trivedi (2010); Megre, Martins & Salvado (2012) NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network (2013) Mair & Marti (2006); Pomerantz (2003); Good Deed Foundation (2013); NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network (2013) Yunus (2010); Kirby & Ibrahim (2011); Dees (1998); Thompson, Alvy & Lees (2000) entrepreneurship for the sake of the community Developing civil society Solve social/societal problems, ethical filter Transferring the revenue to target group, reinvest surpluses Mobilization of resources, ethical filter, creation of new organizations, job offer Improving organisation s image, charity Entrepreneurial personality, self-actualization, learning community entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship with organizing social activities or events. Through entrepreneurship improve citizens quality of life; set of recreational activities. Entrepreneurship with different aims besides earning profit (for example occupation and integration of certain target group) The main goal is not to earn profit but to create social welfare The type of entrepreneurship having the objective as not realizing interests of owners only but also interests of (handicapped) target groups, unable to defend its interests Entrepreneurship in cooperation with disable people The one goal is activity influencing major social groups Occupational integration of people who are handicapped or disadvantaged in the labour market Entrepreneurship, where social mission goes before financial goals The one goal is helpfulness, donating Entrepreneurship which helps to develop personality As many authors (Trivedi, 2010; Megre et al., 2012; Mair & Marti, 2006) are stressing, SE has important keywords as social goals and solve the social problems, ethical filter (see Figure 1; Table 1), turned out also in the study conducted by the authors ( Entrepreneurship with different aims besides earning profit (for example occupation and integration of certain target group) ) (see Table 2). There are several social enterprises in Estonia that have targeted their activities towards improvement of risk groups life, e.g. former prisoners or drug addicts. Social problems or objectives are often seen through too narrow lenses limited to social policy framework. Because of the history of social policy voluntary work and charity are often associated with social entrepreneurship. However today social entrepreneurship is more and more active in solving problems of communities (The National Foundation of Civil Society, 2013; Table 2) the concept is changing. SE is not an isolated phenomenon, some sort of special business practice for special people, but rather a catalyst moving all businesses in the direction of shared value. (Porter 2012, in Driver, 2012) Social entrepreneurship maximizes invested values like time, money etc. and is novice device for sustainable problem solving (The National Foundation of Civil Society, 2013; Austin et al., 2003; Boschee, 1998). These keywords occurred also from given survey (see Figure 1; Tables 1 and 2). SE is an extension of traditional entrepreneurship that applies the passion and the business practices of entrepreneurship to serve a social need. Harris (2012, in Plaskoff, 2012) The same keyword solve the social problems (Trivedi, 2010; Megre et al., 2012) was also mentioned by the respondents of the current study: SE the main goal is not to earn profit but to create social welfare (see Table 3). There are also more and more organizations in Estonia, which goal is to solve the social problems or create social value. The latter can be achieved by starting social enterprise and creating jobs for disabled ( Occupational integration of people who are handicapped or disadvantaged in the labour market ). Disabled people integration into job market is as important today as it was at the initial phase of social entrepreneurship. Also the

8 26 Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg issue of social enterprise sustainability is continuing to be an important topic of discussion. Besides these topics a new topic of social values has emerged. Peredo and McLean (2006) perceived SE as being exercised, where a person or group of persons shows a capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create value (Austin et al., 2003; Boschee, 1998) and employees innovation (Smith-Hunter 2008; Zahra et al., 2009; Nicholls, 2008 and et al.). It also means that SE may be community centred and act in the interest of community members. The community aspect was several times mentioned also by our respondents. Due to the SE is possible to reshape the common activities and improving organisation s image (Mort et al., 2003; Pomerantz, 2003), as well update public services (Mair & Marti, 2006; Bacq & Janssen, 2011) and vitality charity sector. As the result of survey, committed by authors, there are SE notable connections in between improving organisation s image ( Entrepreneurship, where social mission goes before financial goals ), notions of helpfulness and donating ( The one goal is helpfulness, donating ) (see Table 2). Cooperation in between different sectors creates fruitful conditions of mutual learning and enriching perspectives (Harris, 2012; Austin et al., 2006), which examples would be entrepreneurial networks, social connections and cooperation in between enterprises, this can also increase life quality of rural areas and communities and relieve some problems (Mort et al., 2003; Pomerantz, 2003; see for example Table 2): Influencing the local life in the community, developing community entrepreneurship ). As the results of authors survey, 57% of 255 respondents are not aware, what means definition social entrepreneurship. Following explanations were offered by respondents: - Initializing and managing different events; - Advertising, training; - Entrepreneurship dealing with social behaviour of people; - Family enterprises which providing income for a family; - Competition with a mission; - Non-productive entrepreneurship; - Social benefits and involved usage of human capital: - School, kindergarten of other similar institution dealing with people social needs. Proceeding from what was said above it can be concluded that social enterprise issues need more thoroughly explained in Estonia. Social enterprise is a multidimensional concept and its interpretations can be broad (see also Table 1). Finally, every study has limitations. First of all, the limited number of respondents (255) was not sufficient basis for further in-depth-analysis because of the possible margin of error. Secondly, the article doesn t take into account the impact of countries social policy models, traditions of civil society or economic policy. Definitions of entrepreneurial phenomena are hardly able to capture the whole picture. The definition offered in this paper aims to reflect some of authors basic assumptions: 1) SE is a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways; 2) these resource combinations are intended primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting social needs; 3) as a process, SE involves the offering of services and products, but can also refer to the creation of new organizations.

9 An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurship in Estonia 27 Conclusion There is no single interpretation to social enterprise definitions differ across cultures, planned social impact and individuals who detect problems and want to solve them. Financial profit is not conflicting with principles of social entrepreneurship but major goal is to develop social capital. Interpretations of social entrepreneurship place high importance on the idea and willingness to solve problems; have social impact or initiate change, not less important are also sustainable business model and active entrepreneur. As for defining the essence of social entrepreneurship, there can be contradicting approaches to the question what are specific features of the phenomenon. The academics may define the term from their point of view but as the very wide range of enterprises is usually involved and their different background and environmental issues, the result may be somewhat different and the universal definition is hard to be coined. Therefore it is very complicated to reach one universal classification. However, taking into consideration the social development issues, the question about social impact will have greater importance from other approaches. Future studies should focus on how models of social policy, traditions of civil society and economic policy influence the development of social entrepreneurship. Who is seen as client of social enterprise: is it state, local municipality, private company, or individual. What are the financing schemes and business models? There is no universal understanding of social enterprises characteristics or actions. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support offered by the Estonian Ministry of Education s project SF s08 and by European Social Foundation through the Research and Innovation Policy Monitoring Programme. References 1. Alter, K. (2007). Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, Retrieved 28/10/2012 from 2. Alvord, S. H., L. D. Brown, & C. W. Letts (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40 (3), Austin, J., H. Stevenson, & J. Wei-Skillern (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30 (1), January, Austin J, Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2003). Social Entrepreneurship: Same, Differ-ent or Both? Social Enterprise Series, 28. Harward Business School. 5. Bacq, S., & F. Janssen (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23 (5-6), June, Bornstein, D. (2004). Kuidas muuta maailma? Tallinn: Fontese Kirjastus. [in Estonian] 7. Boschee, J. (1998). Merging Mission and Money: A Board Member s Guide to Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved 30/10/2007 from 8. Boschee, J. (1995). Social Entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32 (3),

10 28 Mervi Raudsaar and Merike Kaseorg 9. Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76 (1), Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Center for the advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved 12/03/2012 from: Dees, G. J., P. Economy & J. Emerson. (2002). Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 12. Defourny, J., & M. Nyssens (eds.). (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. EMES Working Papers series, no. 08/01. Liege: EMES European Research Network. 13. Gartner, (1988). Who Is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (4), Good Deed Foundation (2013). Retrieved 10/02/2013 from Harris, S. (2012). Building the Heart and the Mind. An Interview. In: J. Plaskoff, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3), Hulgard, L. Discourses of social entrepreneurship - variations of the same theme? Working paper no. 10/01. s.l: EMES European Research Network. Hunter, C. (2010) pp Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17 (3), Kirby, D. A., & N. Ibrahim (2011). The case for (social) entrepreneurship education in Egyptian universities. Education + Training, 53 (5), Mair, J. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. Navarra: Working Paper IESE Business School, no. 888, Mair, J., & I. Martí (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41 (1), Elsevier 21. Marshall, R. (2011). Conceptualizing the International For-Profit Social Entrepreneur. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (2), Martin, R. J., & S. Osberg (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for a Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, spring, Massetti, B. L. (2008). The Social Entrepreneurship Matrix as Tipping Point for Economic Change. Conference paper the First International Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, Systems Thinking, & Complexity, Adelphi University, April Megre, R., M. A. Martins, & J. C. Salvado (2012). ES+ Methodology: Mapping Social Entrepreneurship. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1 (1), February, Mort, G. S., J. Weerawardena, & K. Carnegie (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8 (1), NGO Estonian Social Enterprise Network (2013). Retrieved 10/02/2013 from Nicholls, A. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 28. Peredo, A., & M. McLean (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41 (1), Pomerantz, M. (2003). The business of social entrepreneurship in a down economy. Business, 25 (3), Porter, M. (2012). Social Entrepreneurship and the Transformation of Capitalism. An Interview. In: M. Driver, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3), Roberts, D., & C. Woods (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of social entrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review, autumn, Sagawa, S., & E. Segal. (2000). Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value through Business and Social Sector Partnership. California Management Review, 42 (2),

11 An Exploration of Social Entrepreneurship in Estonia Seelos, C., & J. Mair (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48 (3), May June, Smith-Hunter, A. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional model of social entrepreneurship: definitions, clarifications, and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 6 (6), June, Terjesen, S., J. Lepoutre, R. Justo, & N. Bosma GEM (2012). Report on Social Entrepreneurship. 36. The National Foundation of Civil Society (2013). Retrieved 10/02/2013 from Thompson, J., G. Alvy, & A. Lees. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship a New Look at the People and the Potential. Management Decision, 38 (5), Trivedi, C. (2010) Towards a Social Ecological Framework for Social Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 19 (1), Waddock, S. A. (1988). Building Successful Partnerships. Sloan Management Review, 29 (4), Waddock, S. A., & J. E. Post. (1995). Catalytic Alliances for Social Problem Solving. Human Relations, 48 (8), Weerawardena, J., & Sullivan Mort, G. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A 42. multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41: Young, D. R. (2012). Are we going the right way? Centre for Philanthropy Studies Basel, September. Retrieved 13/02/2013 from PA_03_12_engl.pdf 44. Yunus, M. (2010). Building social business: The new kind of capitalism that serves humanity s most pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs. 45. Zahra, S. A., A. Gedajlovic, D. O. Neubaum, & J. M. Shulman (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5),