Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship (SE) is perceived as a legitimate and innovative solution to social problems. Yet, when one looks at the literature one finds that the social problems that the SE movement seeks to address and how these problems are identified and defined are not studied. This lack of attention to the defining of social problems in SE has implications for the domain for problems do not exist unless they are recognized and defined, and those that define problems have influence on how these will eventually be addressed. Our paper presents an analysis of framing activities in SE done by the actors involved in the development and promotion of the SE movement. Our analysis reveals that these actors are concerned with creating an ecosystem to support social entrepreneurs. Critical analysis of discourses of these actors reveals a powerful mobilization discourse, one that supports social entrepreneurs as the agents of change. We also find that as the SE movement emerged at the beginning of a cycle of protest against capitalist systems, their framing of SE as system changing of these very systems therefore finds strong resonance with a wide variety of actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur, L., Keenoy, T., Scott-Cato, M., & Smith, R. (2010). Where is the ‘social’ in social enterprise? In D. Fuller, A. E. G. Jonas, & R. Lee (Eds.), Interrogating alterity: Alternative economic and political spaces (pp. 207–222). Aldersho: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashoka. (2016). Ashoka: Innovators for the public. Accessed April 17, 2015. https://www.ashoka.org/.

  • Ayres, J. M. (2004). Framing collective action against neoliberalism: The case of the anti-globalization movement. Journal of World-Systems Research, 10(1), 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18, 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broek, T. A., Ehrenhard, M. L., Langley, D. J., & Groen, A. J. (2012). Dotcauses for sustainability: Combining activism and entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(3), 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutsch, A. (2016). Inspiring social entrepreneurship: Hilde Schwab—Recognizing the best. Accessed February 12, 2016, from http://www.swissstyle.com/social-entrepreneurship/.

  • Chen, S. (2012). Creating sustainable international social ventures. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(1), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdry, S. (2015). If a leader serves himself, there will be no trust: Klaus Schwab. Accessed February 12, 2016, from http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5TyjFO84HXWNfL02uSO8uM/If-a-leader-serves-himself-there-will-be-no-trust-Klaus-Sc.html.

  • Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Lehner, O. (2016). Registering ideology in the creation of social entrepreneurs: Intermediary organizations, ‘ideal subject’and the promise of enjoyment. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3112-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Critique and the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting ‘as if’in the everyday life of third sector organizations. Organization, 23(4), 485–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorado, S., & Ventresca, M. J. (2013). Crescive entrepreneurship in complex social problems: Institutional conditions for entrepreneurial engagement. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drayton, B. (2013). A team of teams world. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11(2), 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 285–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics (p. 272). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. (2008). The hub of leadership: lessons from the social sector. Leader to Leader, 2008(48), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hervieux, C., Gedajlovic, E., & Turcotte, M.-F. B. (2010). The legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4(1), 37–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanani, R. (2011). The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship on the evolution and future of social enterprise. Accessed June 16, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rahim-kanani/schwab-foundation-social-entrepreneurship-_b_858312.html.

  • Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement for declining government grants and private contributions? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandker, S. R., & Samad, H. A. (2014). Dynamic effects of microcredit in Bangladesh. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (6821), pp. 1–50.

  • Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansisons of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Monde. (2014). Bill Drayton: La création de valeur viendra de la contribution au changement. Accessed February 12, 2016, from http://www.lemonde.fr/emploi/article/2014/06/16/bill-drayton-la-creation-de-valeur-viendra-de-la-contribution-au-changement_4439287_1698637.html.

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinsky, E. (2012). Bill Drayton’s five trends for social entrepreneurs. Accessed February 12, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-malinsky/bill-draytons-five-trends_b_2287819.html.

  • Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2015). Getting beyond better: How social entrepreneurship works. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. (2012). Up for grabs: A critical discourse analysis of social entrepreneurship discourse in the United Kingdom. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present: Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailakis, D., & Schirmer, W. (2014). Social work and social problems: A contribution from systems theory and constructionism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(4), 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nee, E. (2012). Foundations: Jeff Skoll. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(2), 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(4), 611–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20(3), 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 770–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 171–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 299–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, C.-L., & Mills, A. (2016). Discursivity and media constructions of the intern: Implications for pedagogy and practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab Foundation. (2016). Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. Accessed February 17, 2016. http://www.schwabfound.org/.

  • Skoll Foundation. (2016). Skoll. Accessed April 14, 2015. http://skoll.org/.

  • Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B, Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1973). Social problems: A re-formulation. Social Problems, 21(2), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (1983a). Resource mobilization and cycles of protest: Theoretical reflections and comparative illustrations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Detroit, August 31–September 4.

  • Tarrow, S. (1983b). Struggling to reform: Social movements and policy change during cycles of protest. Western societies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touraine, A. (1988). Return of the actor: Social theory in postindustrial society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente, M. (2012). Theorizing firm adoption of sustaincentrism. Organization Studies, 33(4), 563–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2013). Breaking the binary: Policy guide to scaling social innovation. Accessed April 17, 2015, from http://reports.weforum.org/social-innovation-2013/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, 923 Robie St., Halifax, NS, B3H3C3, Canada

    Chantal Hervieux & Annika Voltan

Authors
  1. Chantal Hervieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Voltan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chantal Hervieux.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hervieux, C., Voltan, A. Framing Social Problems in Social Entrepreneurship. J Bus Ethics 151, 279–293 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3252-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3252-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation