The Social Case as a Business Case: Making Sense of Social Entrepreneurship from an Ordonomic Perspective

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy book series (SEEP, volume 40)

Abstract

This chapter discusses how the theoretical perspective of ordonomics provides a framework for better understanding and advancing the practice of social entrepreneurship. From an ordonomic perspective, the concept of social entrepreneurship offers a semantic innovation (at the ideas level) whose potential for social innovation can be fully reaped only if it is used as a heuristics for social structural change (on the institutions level). Social entrepreneurs recognize relevant social problems, interpret them as an entrepreneurial challenge, and succeed in turning what was a social case into a business case in a broader sense. Using the real-life example of a successful eco-social entrepreneur, the chapter demonstrates that such win-win solutions can be reconstructed as the sophisticated management of social dilemmas. It sketches a strategy matrix for the practice of social entrepreneurship and distinguishes four paradigmatic strategies social entrepreneurs can employ to create win-win scenarios by changing the rules of the game to overcome undesirable social dilemmas. The chapter concludes by discussing social entrepreneurship in the context of new governance processes and highlights key similarities and differences to the concept of corporate citizenship.

Keywords

Social entrepreneurship Commitments Corporate citizenship Semantics Social structure Business ethics 

References

  1. Armendáriz, Beatriz, and Jonathan J. Morduch. 2007. The economics of microfinance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, Kenneth. 1985. The economics of agency. In Principals and agents: The structure of business, eds. John W. Pratt and Richard J. Zeckhauser, 37–51. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumol, William J. 2002. The free-market innovation machine. Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumol, William J. 2010. The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, Gary S. 1976. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, Gary S. 1993. Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy 101: 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckmann, Markus. 2010. Ordnungsverantwortung. Rational-Choice als ordonomisches Forschungsprogramm. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Bornstein, David. 2007. How to change the world: Social entrepreneurship and the power of new ideas. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bowles, Samuel. 2004. Microeconomics. Behavior, institutions, and evolution. New York, Oxford and Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, James M. 1987. Constitutional economics. In The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, Vol. 1, ed. John Eatwell, 585–588. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, James M. 1990. The domain of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy 1(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Certo, S. Trevis, and Toyah Miller. 2008. Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons 51(4): 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christie, Michael J., and Benson Honig. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New research findings. Journal of World Business 41(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Drayton, William. 2006. Everyone a changemaker: Social entrepreneurship’s ultimate goal. Innovations 1(1): 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Habisch, André. 2008. Handbuch corporate citizenship: Corporate social responsibility für manager. Berlin and Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  17. Hardin, Garret. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hielscher, Stefan, Ingo Pies, and Markus Beckmann. 2009. Wie können Corporate Citizens voneinander lernen? Anregungen für den Global Compact der Vereinten Nationen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 10(3): 41–65.Google Scholar
  19. Hirsch, Bernhard, and Matthias Meyer. 2009. Integrating soft factors into the assessment of cooperative relationships between firms: Accounting for reputation and ethical values. Business Ethics: A European Review 19(1): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Homann, Karl. 1990. Wettbewerb und Moral. Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 31: 34–56.Google Scholar
  21. Homann, Karl. 2002. Vorteile und Anreize, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  22. Homann, Karl. 2003. Anreize und Moral: GesellschaftstheorieEthikAnwendungen. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Homann, Karl, and Ingo Pies. 1994. Wirtschaftsethik in der Moderne: Zur ökonomischen Theorie der Moral. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften (EUS) 5(1): 3–12.Google Scholar
  24. Jensen, Michael C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein, Benjamin, Robert G. Crawford, and Armen A. Alchian. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics 21(2): 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kreps, David M. 1990. Corporate culture and economic theory. In Perspectives on positive political economy, eds. James. E. Alt and Kenneth A. Shepsle, 90–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lin-Hi, Nick. 2009. Eine Theorie der Unternehmensverantwortung. Die Verknüpfung von Gewinnerzielung und gesellschaftlichen Interessen. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
  28. Lütge, Christoph. 2005. Economic ethics, business ethics and the idea of mutual advantages. Business Ethics: A European Review 14(2): 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lütge, Christoph. 2007. Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  30. Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Marti. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business 41(1): 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, Roger L., and Sally Osberg. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring 2007: 28–39.Google Scholar
  32. Mises, Ludwig v. [1951] 2008. Profit and loss. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Neck, Heidi, and Elaine Allen. 2009. Business horizons. Business Horizons 52(1): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicholls, Alex. ed. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pies, Ingo. 2000. Ordnungspolitik in der Demokratie. Ein ökonomischer Ansatz diskursiver Politikberatung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  37. Pies, Ingo. 2009a. Normativität als Heuristik. Ordonomische Schriften zur Wirtschaftsethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Pies, Ingo. 2009b. Moral als Produktionsfaktor. Ordonomische Schriften zur Unternehmensethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. Pies, Ingo, Markus Beckmann, and Stefan Hielscher. 2009a. Sozialstruktur und Semantik—Ordonomik als Forschungsprogramm in der modernen (Welt-)Gesellschaft. In Moral als Heuristik. Ordonomische Schriften zur Wirtschaftsethik, ed. Ingo Pies, 282–312. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Pies, Ingo, Stefan Hielscher, and Markus Beckmann. 2009b. Moral commitments and the societal role of business: An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly 19(3): 375–401.Google Scholar
  41. Popper, Karl R. [1945] 1966. The open society and its enemies, Vol. 2. New York: Hegel and Marx, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Riess, Birgit, Carolin Welzel, and Arved Lüth. eds. 2008. Mit Verantwortung handeln. Ein CSR-Handbuch für Unternehmer. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  43. Schelling, Thomas C. 1960, 1980. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Scherer, Andreas G., Guido Palazzo, and Dorothée Baumann. 2006. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 16(4): 505–532.Google Scholar
  45. Schönwälder-Kuntze, Tatjana. 2008. “Corporate citizenship” from a (systems)-theoretical point of view. In Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory. On philosophical foundations of business ethics, eds. Jesus Conill, Christoph Lütge, and Tatjana Schönwälder-Kuntze, 49–65. Aldershot and London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Seelos, Christian, and Johanna Mair. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons 48(3): 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seelos, Christian, and Johanna Mair. 2007. Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management Perspectives 21(4): 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suchanek, Andreas. 2007. Ökonomische Ethik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  49. Suchanek, Andreas, and Nick Lin-Hi. 2007. Corporate responsibility in der forschenden Arzneimittelindustrie. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 227(5+6): 547–562.Google Scholar
  50. Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. 2001. Prolegomena for an economic theory of morals. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waldkirch, Rüdiger W., Matthias Meyer, and Karl Homann. 2009. Accounting for the benefits of social security and the role of business: four ideal types and their different heuristics. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson, Oliver. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  53. Winning, Alexandra von. 2009. Anreizkompatibles CSR-Management: Die Perspektive einer ordonomischen Organisationstheorie. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  54. Yunus, Muhammad. 2007. Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  55. Zahra, Shaker A., Eric Gedajiovic, Donald O. Neubaum, and Joel M. Shulman. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 24(5): 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University LueneburgLueneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations