Creating Values for the Beneficiaries: Interplay of Opportunity Recognition, Resource Mobilisation (Resourcefulness) and Capabilities of Social Entrepreneurs

  • Archana Singh
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


This chapter explores how using their capabilities, social entrepreneurs identified opportunities, mobilised resources to solve social problems and created value for the beneficiaries. Therefore, this chapter throws light on the interplay of the dimensions of opportunity recognition, resourcefulness and capabilities of social entrepreneur/s in this process. It also focuses on the issue of continuity (sustainability), enhancement or expansion of services (scalability and replicability), finding new opportunities in the process of social value creation, problems associated with these issues, strategies used to face such problems and the measurement of social impact. After identifying opportunities and mobilising resources, social entrepreneurs initiated operations for social value creation. In order to achieve their social mission, they performed a series of actions and exhibited different entrepreneurial behaviours. The chapter also focuses on the influence of various contextual factors at different stages in the process of social value creation. It concludes the process of social value creation and presents different states involved in it. Based on findings, several patterns have been observed and propositions developed. At the end, synthesising all the propositions, the theoretical framework of social entrepreneurship is presented.


  1. Alter SK (2006) Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships. In: Nicholls A (ed) Social entrepreneurship: new models of sustainable change. Oxford, New York, pp 205–232Google Scholar
  2. Austin JA, Stevenson H, Wei-Skillern J (2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrep Theor Pract 30(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A (1995) Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In: Bandura A (ed) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  4. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjerregaard T, Lauring J (2012) Entrepreneurship as institutional change: strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. Eur Manag Rev 9:31–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-4762.2012.01026.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blundel R, Lyon F, Spence LJ (2011) Analysing the growth process in social enterprises: an historical perspective. Paper presented at the 3rd EMES international research conference on social enterprise, Roskilde (Denmark), 4–7 July. Accessed 07 Feb 2013
  7. Chandra A, Zulkieflimansyah (2003) The dynamic of technological accumulation at the microeconomic level: lessons from Indonesia—a case study. Asia Pac Manag Rev 8(3):365–407Google Scholar
  8. Dart R (2004) The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh 14(4):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dees JG (1998) The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Accessed 20 Oct 2008
  10. DeTienne D, Chandler G (2004) Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test. Acad Manag Learn Educ 3(3):242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dew N, Sarasvathy SD (2007) Innovations, stakeholders & entrepreneurship. J Bus Ethics 74(3):267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domenico MD, Tracey P, Haugh H (2009) The dialectic of social exchange: theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organ Stud 30(08):887–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorado S (2006) Social entrepreneurial ventures: different values so different process of creation, no? J Dev Entrep 11(4):319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gartner WB (1985) A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):696–706Google Scholar
  15. Gartner WB (1988) “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. Entrep Theor Pract 13(4):47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herranz J, Council LR Jr, McKay B (2011) Tri-value organisation as a form of social enterprise: the case of Seattle’s FareStart. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 40(5):829–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Vaidyanath D (2002) Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. J Manag 28(3):413–446Google Scholar
  18. Jain TK (2009) Discovering social entrepreneurship. Asia-Pac. Bus Rev 5(1):21–34Google Scholar
  19. Jones MB (2007) The multiple sources of mission drift. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 36(2):299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalantaridi C, Fletche D (2012) Entrepreneurship and institutional change: a research agenda. Entrep Reg Dev 24(3–4):199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korosec RL, Berman EM (2006) Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Adm Rev 66(3):448–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Light PC (2006) Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship. Stanf Social Innov Rev 4(3):47–51. Accessed 02 Feb 2013
  23. Ly P (2012) The effect of ownership in NGO’s commercial ventures. Ann Public Coop Econ 83(2):159–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mair J, Marti I (2006) Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction and delight. J World Bus 41:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin M (2004) Surveying social entrepreneurship: toward an empirical analysis of the performance revolution in the social sector. Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  26. McDonald RE (2007) An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organisations: the role of organisational mission. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 36(2):256–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mort GS, Weerawardena J, Carnegie K (2003) Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 8(1):76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicholls A (ed) (2006) Social entrepreneurship: new models of sustainable change. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicholls J (2007) Why measuring and communicating social value can help social enterprise become more competitive. In: A social enterprise think piece for the Office of the Third Sector. Accessed 16 May 2013
  30. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD, Paris. Accessed 10 June 2012
  31. Ormiston J, Seymour R (2011) Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: the importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. J Soc Entrep 2(2):125–150Google Scholar
  32. Sarasvathy SD (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Acad Manag Rev 26(2):243–263Google Scholar
  33. Seelos C, Mair J (2005) Social entrepreneurship: creating new business models to serve the poor. Bus Horiz 48(3):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selsky JW, Parker B (2010) Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective sense making devices for social benefit. J Bus Ethics 94:21–37. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0776-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shockley GE, Frank PM (2011) The functions of government in social entrepreneurship: theory and preliminary evidence. Reg Sci Policy Pract 3(3):181–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-7802.2011.01036.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith BR, Stevens CE (2010) Different types of social entrepreneurship: the role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value. Entrep Reg Dev 22(6):575–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wei-Skillern J, Austin JE, Leonard H et al (2007) Entrepreneurship in the social sector. Sage, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  38. Yujuico E (2008) Connecting the dots in social entrepreneurship through the capabilities approach. Socio-Econ Rev 6:493–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, School of Management and Labour StudiesTata Institute of Social SciencesMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations