Disentangling Gut Feeling: Assessing the Integrity of Social Entrepreneurs

  • Ann-Kristin Achleitner
  • Eva Lutz
  • Judith Mayer
  • Wolfgang Spiess-Knafl
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper analyzes how social venture capitalists evaluate the integrity of social entrepreneurs. Based on an experiment with 40 social venture capitalists and 40 students, we investigate how five attributes of the entrepreneur contribute to the assessment of integrity. These attributes are the entrepreneur’s personal experience, professional background, voluntary accountability efforts, reputation and awards/fellowships granted to the entrepreneur. Results indicate that social venture capitalists focus largely on voluntary accountability efforts of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur’s reputation when judging integrity. For an overall positive judgment of integrity, it seems to be sufficient if either voluntary accountability efforts or reputation of the entrepreneur are high. By comparing social venture capitalists with students, we show that experience leads to a simpler decision model focusing on key attributes.

Keywords

Social entrepreneur Social venture capital Venture philanthropy Integrity Conjoint analysis 

Résumé

Cet article analyse la manière dont les investisseurs en capital-risque social évaluent l’intégrité des entrepreneur sociaux. Sur la base d’une expérience associant 40 investisseurs en capital-risque social et 40 étudiants, nous recherchons comment cinq caractéristiques de l’entrepreneur contribuent à l’évaluation de l’intégrité. Ces éléments comptent l’expérience personnelle, les antécédents professionnels, les efforts volontaires de responsabilisation, la réputation de l’entrepreneur ainsi que les distinctions/titres qui lui sont décernés. Les résultats indiquent que les investisseurs en capital-risque social pour juger de l’intégrité, se concentrent essentiellement sur les efforts volontaires de responsabilisation de l’entrepreneur ainsi que sa réputation. Pour une appréciation positive globale de l’intégrité, il semble être suffisant que les efforts volontaires de responsabilisation ou la réputation de l’entrepreneur soient bien notés. En comparant les investisseurs en capital-risque social aux étudiants, nous démontrons que l’expérience résulte en un modèle de décision plus simple, axé sur des caractéristiques clés.

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag analysiert, wie Anleger von sozialem Risikokapital die Integrität von Sozialunternehmern einschätzen. Beruhend auf einem Experiment mit 40 Anlegern von sozialem Risikokapital und 40 Studenten untersuchen wir, wie sich fünf Merkmale eines Unternehmers auf die Bewertung seiner Integrität auswirken. Diese Merkmale sind die persönliche Erfahrung des Unternehmers, seine professionelle Erfahrung, seine freiwilligen Transparenzbestrebungen, seine Reputation und seine erhaltenen Auszeichnungen/Stipendien. Die Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass sich Anleger von sozialem Risikokapital bei ihrer Beurteilung der Integrität größtenteils auf die freiwilligen Transparenzbestrebungen sowie die Reputation konzentrieren. Für eine insgesamt positive Beurteilung der Integrität scheint es ausreichend zu sein, wenn der Unternehmer entweder hohe freiwillige Transparenzbestrebungen unternimmt oder er über eine hohe Reputation verfügt. Anhand eines Vergleichs zwischen Anlegern von sozialem Risikokapital und Studenten zeigen wir, dass Erfahrung zu einem einfacheren Entscheidungsmodell führt, das sich auf die wichtigsten Merkmale konzentriert.

Resumen

Este documento analiza cómo los capitalistas de las empresas sociales evalúan la integridad de los emprendedores sociales. Basándose en un experimento con 40 capitalistas de empresas sociales y 40 estudiantes, investigamos cómo contribuyen cinco atributos del emprendedor a la evaluación de la integridad. Estos atributos son la experiencia personal, la experiencia profesional, los esfuerzos en responsabilidad voluntarios, la reputación y los premios/becas del emprendedor otorgados al mismo. Los resultados indican que los capitalistas de empresas sociales se centran en gran medida en los esfuerzos en responsabilidad voluntarios del emprendedor y en la reputación del emprendedor cuando se juzga la integridad. Para un juicio global positivo de la integridad, parece que esto es suficiente si los esfuerzos en responsabilidad voluntarios o la reputación del emprendedor son elevados. Al comparar a los capitalistas de las empresas sociales con los estudiantes, mostramos que la experiencia lleva a un modelo de decisión más sencillo que se centra en atributos claves.

摘要

本文分析了社会风险投资家如何评估社会企业家的诚信度。通过选取 40 名社会风险资本家和 40 名学生组成实验样本,我们研究了企业家的五种属性对于诚信度评估的影响。这些属性包括企业家的个人经验、专业背景、社会义务担当水平、声誉以及其所获得的奖项。结果表明,在评估诚信度时,社会风险资本家主要考虑的是企业家的社会义务担当水平以及声誉。对于一次全面积极的诚信度评估,企业家的社会义务担当水平或声誉似乎已经足够。通过社会风险资本家和学生群体的比较,我们发现经验会导致个体依靠关键属性选择进行简单决策模型。

要約

本論では、社会的なベンチャー投資家がどのように社会企業家の保全を評価するかについて分析する。社会的なベンチャー投資家40名と学生40名の実験において、企業家の5つの特性がどのように保全の査定に貢献するかを調査する。特性とは、企業家の個人的な経験、職歴、自発的責任への努力、起業家に認められた評価と賞・特別研究員の地位である。保全を判断する際に、社会的なベンチャー投資家が主に企業家の自発的責任への努力と企業家の評価に焦点を合わせていることが結果から分かった。保全に対する総合的な積極的判断では、企業家の自発的責任への努力または評価が高ければ十分であるといえる。学生と社会的なベンチャー投資家との比較から、経験において主要な特性に焦点を合わせるよりも簡単な決定モデルが導かれることが示された。

ملخص

هذا البحث يحلل كيف يقوم أصحاب رؤوس أموال المشاريع الإجتماعية بتقييم نزاهة أصحاب الأعمال الإجتماعية. إستناداً على تجربة مع 40 رأسماليين لمشاريع إجتماعية و 40 طالب، نحن نحقق في مدى مساهمة خمس صفات لرجال الأعمال في تقييم النزاهة. هي تجربة رجل الأعمال الشخصية، الخلفية المهنية ، جهود المساءلة الإختياري ، السمعة والجوائز/الزمالات الدراسية الممنوحة للمستثمر. تشير النتائج إلى أن أصحاب رؤوس أموال المشاريع الإجتماعية يركزون بشكل كبير على جهود المساءلة الإختيارية لصاحب المشروع وسمعة صاحب المشروع عند الحكم على النزاهة. لحكم إيجابي شامل للنزاهة، فإنه يبدو أن يكون كافياً إذا كان جهود المساءلة الإختيارية أو سمعة صاحب المشروع مرتفعة. بمقارنة رأس مال المشاريع الإجتماعية مع الطلاب، نحن نبين أن التجربة تؤدي إلى أبسط نموذج قرار الذي يركز على صفات رئيسية.

References

  1. Achleitner, A.-K. (2007). Venture philanthropy und social venture capital. In T. Anderer (Ed.), Financial yearbook Germany 2007 (pp. 121–129). München: FYB-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Achleitner, A.-K., Heinecke, A., Noble, A., Schöning, M., & Spiess-Knafl, W. (2011). Unlocking the mystery—An introduction to social investment. Innovations, SOCAP11: Impact Investing Special Edition, 41–50.Google Scholar
  3. Achleitner, A.-K., & Heister, P. (2009). Deal flow, decision-making process and selection criteria of venture philanthropy funds. Paper presented at the 6th Annual NYU-Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Achleitner, A.-K., Heister, P., & Stahl, E. (2007). Social entrepreneurship—Ein Überblick. In A.-K. Achleitner, R. Pöllath, & E. Stahl (Eds.), Finanzierung von Sozialunternehmern (pp. 3–25). Stuttgart: Schäffer Poeschel.Google Scholar
  5. Achleitner, A.-K., Spiess-Knafl, W., & Volk, S. (2012). The financing structure of social enterprises: conflicts and implications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Alvord, S. H. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, N., & Shackleton, V. (1990). Decision making in the graduate selection interview: A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anheier, H. (1995). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. Abingdon: Routledge Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ashoka, (2011). Wissen was wirkt—Wirkungsanalysen 2011 der Ashoka Fellows. Frankfurt: Ashoka Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Austin, J. E., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baierl, R., & Grichnik, D. (2010). Metricised limit conjoint analysis as method to elicit corporate entrepreneurship decisions. Working Paper. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  12. Barendsen, L., & Gardner, H. (2004). Is the social entrepreneur a new type of leader? Leader to Leader, 34(Fall), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barman, E. (2007). What is the bottom line for nonprofit organizations? A history of measurement in the British voluntary sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(2), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baum, J., Locke, E., & Smith, K. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 154–161.Google Scholar
  16. Böhler, H., & Scigliano, D. (2009). Traditionelle Conjointanalyse. In D. Baier & M. Brusch (Eds.), Conjointanalyse: Methoden—Anwendungen—Praxisbeispiele (pp. 101–112). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Boschee, J. (1998). Merging mission and money: A board member’s guide to social entrepreneurship. Washington: The National Centre for Nonprofit Boards.Google Scholar
  20. Boschee, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The promise and the perils. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 356–390). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bridges Ventures & Parthenon Group. (2010). Investing for impact: Case studies across asset classes. London.Google Scholar
  22. Callen, J., & Falk, H. (1993). Agency and efficiency in nonprofit organizations: The case of “specific health focus” charities. Accounting Review, 68(1), 48–65.Google Scholar
  23. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family businesses: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 11(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dees, G. J. (1998). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. Working Paper. Duke University, Durham.Google Scholar
  25. Dees, G. J., & Anderson, B. B. (2002). Blurring sector boundaries: Serving social purposes through for-profit structures. Working Paper. Duke University, Durham.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond, D. (1989). Reputation acquisition in debt markets. The Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 828–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duffner, S. (2003). Principal-agent problems in venture capital finance. Working Paper No. 11/03. WWZ/Department of Finance, Basel.Google Scholar
  28. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ensminger, J. (2001). Reputations, trust, and the principal agent problem. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Erhard, W., Jensen, M., & Zaffron, S. (2010). Integrity: A positive model that incorporates the normative phenomena of morality, ethics, and legality-abridged. Working Paper. Harvard Business School, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer, L., & Wiswede, G. (2009). Grundlagen der Sozialpsychologie. Oldenburg, München: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  33. Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fourth Sector. (2011). For-benefit corporations. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from http://www.fourthsector.net/learn/for-benefit-corporations.
  35. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2006). What you are is what you like—Similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 802–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. (2008). Wundenlecken nach dem Unicef-Skandal. 2008-04-20. 66.Google Scholar
  37. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. (2001). Very public scandals: Nongovernmental organizations in trouble. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(1), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Glaeser, E. L., & Shleifer, A. (2001). Not-for-profit entrepreneurs. Journal of Public Economics, 81(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Green, P., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 676–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grenier, P. (2006). Venture philanthropy in Europe—Obstacles and opportunities. Brussels: European Venture Philanthropy Association.Google Scholar
  43. Gugerty, M. (2009). Signaling virtue: Voluntary accountability programs among nonprofit organizations. Policy Sciences, 42(3), 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guzmán, J., & Santos, F. J. (2001). The booster function and the entrepreneurial quality: An application to the province of Seville. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Handy, F. (1995). Reputation as collateral: An economic analysis of the role of trustees of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(4), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Heinecke, A., & Mayer, J. (2012). Startegies for scaling. In C. Volkmann, K. Tokarski, & K. Ernst (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  48. Heister, P. (2010). Finanzierung von Social Entrepreneurship durch Venture Philanthropy und Social Venture Capital. Wiesbaden: Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hibbert, S. A. (2002). Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoogendorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, R. (2010). What do we know about social entrepreneurship? An analysis of empirical research. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 1–42.Google Scholar
  51. Jankowicz, A., & Hisrich, R. (1987). Intuition in small business lending decisions. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(3), 45–52.Google Scholar
  52. Jansen, S., Richter, S., Hahnke, E., Achleitner, A.-K., Spiess-Knafl, W., Volk, S., Then, V., Mildenberger, G., Scheuerle, T., & Schmitz, B. (2010). Defining Social Entrepreneurship (Eine Definition von Social Entrepreneurship). Working Paper. Zeppelin Universität, Friedrichshafen, Heidelberg, München.Google Scholar
  53. John, R. (2006). Venture philanthropyThe evolution of high engagement philanthropy in Europe. Working Paper. Oxford Said Business School, Oxford.Google Scholar
  54. John, R. (2007). Beyond the cheque, how venture philanthropists add value. Working Paper. Oxford Said Business School, Oxford.Google Scholar
  55. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Koss, C. (2005). Prinzipal-Agent-Konflikte in Nonprofit-Organisationen. In K. J. Hopt, T. V. Hippel, & W. R. Walz (Eds.), Nonprofit-Organisationen in Recht, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 197–219). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  57. Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring innovation: Evaluation in the field of social entrepreneurship. Palo Alto: Skoll Foundation, Foundation Strategy Group.Google Scholar
  58. Kreutzer, K., & Jäger, U. (2008). Community-Value-Marketing—Was Unternehmen von NPO lernen können. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 25(5), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lichtenthal, J., & Tellefsen, T. (2001). Toward a theory of buyer seller similarity. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  63. Light, P. C. (2008). The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  64. Lurigio, A., & Carroll, J. (1985). Probation officers’ schemas of offenders: Content, development, and impact on treatment decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1112–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. MacMillan, I., Zemann, L., & Subbanarasimha, P. (1987). Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social enterprise get formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121–135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Martin, M., & John, R. (2006). Venture philanthropy in Europe. Landscape and driving principles. Working Paper. University of Oxford, Oxford.Google Scholar
  69. Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 27–39.Google Scholar
  70. Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.Google Scholar
  71. Meyerson, D., Weick, K., & Kramer, R. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In F. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller, T. L., & Wesley, C. L. I. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists’ decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 705–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Milligan, K., & Schöning, M. (2011). Taking a realistic approach to impact investing—Observations from the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on social innovation. Innovations, SOCAP11: Impact Investing Special Edition, 161–172.Google Scholar
  74. Nicholls, A. (2005). Measuring impact in social entrepreneurship: New accountability to stakeholders and investors? Working Paper. University of Oxford, Oxford.Google Scholar
  75. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion focused occupational personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ostas, D. T. (2007). When fraud pays: Executive self-dealing and the failure of self-restraint. American Business Law Journal, 44(4), 571–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ostrander, S. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Padanyi, P., & Gainer, B. (2003). Peer reputation in the nonprofit sector: Its role in nonprofit sector management. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Paton, R., & Foot, J. (2000). Nonprofit’s use of awards to improve and demonstrate performance: Valuable discipline or burdensome formalities? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(4), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change across theory and practice. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 57–85). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Petrick, J. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). The Enron scandal and the neglect of management integrity capacity. American Journal of Business, 18(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pollmann, A. (2005). Integrität—Aufnahme einer sozialphilosophischen Personalie. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  84. Prabhu, G. N. (1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development International, 4(3), 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  86. Rieke, M., & Guastello, S. (1995). Unresolved issues in honesty and integrity testing. American Psychologist, 50(6), 458–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Riquelme, H., & Rickards, T. (1992). Hybrid conjoint analysis: An estimation probe in new venture decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(6), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Robinson, J. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  89. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sabeti, H. (2009). The emerging fourth sector—Executive summary. Washington: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  91. Scarlata, M., & Alemany, L. (2009). How do philanthropic venture capitalists choose their portfolio companies? Working Paper. ESADE Business School, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  92. Scheuerle, T., & Schmitz, B. (2011). Investigating social entrprepreneurship in Germany—A broad empirical inventory. Paper presented at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Toronto.Google Scholar
  93. Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shepherd, D., & Zacharakis, A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 1(3), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shepherd, D., Zacharakis, A., & Baron, R. (2003). VCs’ decision processes: evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Social Enterprise, U. K. (2011). Fightback Britain—A report on the State of Social Enterprise Survey 2011. London: Social Enterprise UK.Google Scholar
  99. Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2007). For love and money: Governance and social enterprise. Governance Hub, London: Social Enterprise Coalition.Google Scholar
  100. Spiegel Online International. (2008). UNICEF Loses Vital Seal of Approval. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,536587,00.html.
  101. Stevenson, H. (1999). Entrepreneurship—what is it? In H. Stevenson, M. J. Roberts, A. Bhidé, & W. A. Sahlman (Eds.), The entrepreneurial venture (pp. 7–22). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  102. Teichert, T. (2001). Nutzenschätzung in Conjoint-Analysen: Theoretische Fundierung und empirische Aussagekraft. Scheßlitz: Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tyebjee, T., & Bruno, A. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30(9), 1051–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Voeth, M., & Hahn, C. (1998). Limit conjoint-analyse. Marketing ZfP, 20(2), 119–132.Google Scholar
  106. Witkamp, M. J., Royakkers, L. M. M., & Raven, R. P. J. M. (2011). From cowboys to diplomats: Challenges for social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Young, R. (2006). For what it is worth: Social value and the future of social entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship, new models of sustainable social change (pp. 56–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Kristin Achleitner
    • 1
  • Eva Lutz
    • 1
  • Judith Mayer
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Spiess-Knafl
    • 1
  1. 1.TUM School of ManagementTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations