Advertisement

Ownership, Mission and Environment: An Exploratory Analysis into the Evolution of a Technology Social Venture

Chapter

Abstract

Despite the recognition that technology is not a panacea for social ills (UNDP, 2001), some of the largest and most active philanthropic organizations in the US (for example, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Open Society Institute, and The MacArthur Foundation) are committed to technology-based solutions to social problems. Similarly, like-minded entrepreneurs are beginning to address social problems through technology.

Keywords

Venture Capital Social Enterprise Social Entrepre Optical Character Recognition Social Entrepreneur 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agarawal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M. and Sarkar, M. B. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 501–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C. M. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 521–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benetech. 2004. http://www.benetech.org.
  5. Bettis, R. A. and Hitt, M. A. 1995. The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(Special Summer Issue): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boschee, J. 1995. Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3): 20–4.Google Scholar
  7. Brinckerhoff, P. C. 2000. Social entrepreneurship: The art of mission-based venture development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, J. 2005. Interview with Janice Carter, Director of Benetech’s Literacy Program. 14 May 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Casas, C., Lajoie, W. and Prahalad, C. K. 2003. Voxiva. University of Michigan Business School. Available: http://www.bus.umich.edu/BottomOfThePyramid/xMAP2003.htm.
  10. Christensen, C. and Bower, J. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dees, J. G. 1998. Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1): 54–66.Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 6(3): 1120–71.Google Scholar
  14. Drayton, W. 2002. The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. California Management Review, 44(3): 120–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drucker, P. F. 1989. What business can learn from nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 67(4): 88–93.Google Scholar
  16. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–50.Google Scholar
  17. Fruchterman, J. 2001. President’s update. Available http://www.benetech.org/about/presup_jul2001.shtml. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  18. Fruchterman, J. 2002. President’s update. Available: http://www.benetech.org/about/presup_jan2002.shtml. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  19. Fruchterman, J. 2004a. President’s update. Available: http://www.benetech.org/about/presup_may2004.shtml. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  20. Fruchterman, J. 2004b. Technology benefiting humanity. Ubiquity, association for computing machinery 5(5). Available: http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v5i5_fruchterman.html. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  21. Fruchterman, J. 2005. Interview with authors, April.Google Scholar
  22. Hansmann, H. 1980. The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89: 835–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, R. and Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillberry, R. 2004. From Smart Bombs to Reading Machines. Caltech News, 36(3). Available: http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/archive.html.
  25. Hockerts, K. 2004. Bootstrapping social change — towards an evolutionary theory of social entrepreneurship. Working Paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau.Google Scholar
  26. Kanter, R. M. 1999. From spare change to real change: The social sector as a beta site for business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3): 123–32.Google Scholar
  27. Kotha, S. 1998. Competing on the internet: How Amazon.com is rewriting the rules of competition. Advances in Strategic Management, 15: 239–65.Google Scholar
  28. Leadbeater, C. 1997. The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, T. W. 1998. Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mair, J. and Martí, I. 2004. Social entrepreneurship: What are we talking about? A framework for future research. Working Paper 546. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  32. Mair, J. and Noboa, E. 2003a. The emergence of social enterprises and their place in the new organizational landscape. Working Paper 523. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  33. Mair, J. and Noboa, E. 2003b. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social enterprise get formed. Working Paper 521. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, G. 1991. Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  36. NCCS. 2005. National Center for Charitable Statistics. Information available: http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/NCCS. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  37. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. O’Regan, K. and Oster, S. M. 2000. Nonprofit and for-profit partnerships: Rationale and challenges of cross-sector contracting. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1): 120–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prahalad, C. K. 2005. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Rindova, V. and Kotha, S. 2001. Continuous morphing: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1263–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shane, S. and Stuart, T. 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48: 154–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217–27.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, E. and Carter, S. 2004. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Paper presented at 24th Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  47. Skloot, E. 2002. Evolution or extinction? A strategy for nonprofits in the marketplace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(2): 315–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsoukas, H. 1989. The epistemological status of idiographic research in the cornparative study of organizations: A realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 551–61.Google Scholar
  49. UNDP. 2001. United Nations Development Report 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Available: http://www.undp.org/hdr2001. Accessed 13 June 2005.
  51. Utterback, J. M. 1994. Radical innovation and corporate regeneration. Research Technology Management, 37(4): 10.Google Scholar
  52. Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (eds), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  53. WAC. 2004. Innovating information technologies to protect human rights. World Affairs Council of Northern California, February 2004, audio presentation. Available: http://wacsf.vportal.net/?fileid=3356.
  54. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Zuckerman, E. 2004. Jim Fruchterman’s talk at the Berkman Center, Harvard University. Blog. Available: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethan/2004/09/03#a320.

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Desa and Suresh Kotha 2006

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options