The business environment has undergone major challenges in the past hundred years. To replace financially driven organisation, that has been described by Milton Freeman as a motive “Business of Business is Business”, came new, socially focused, and environmentally concerned. This new type of entrepreneurs called as “social entrepreneurs”. In this particular essay, actions of social entrepreneurs will be analysed and passed through the filter of business ethics in order to determine how they can use business a force for good.

Who are the entrepreneurs, and what role do they play in society? The broad set of definitions of entrepreneurs is provided by Black (1998, 56) and refer to: crafters, who perceive a joy of running a business, innovation drivers, who learn from competitors, dynamic drivers, who willing to take risks and experiment and many others definitions, that classified by the extent to which they deploy their Enterprising behaviour (Black 1998, 59). Thus, entrepreneurs are that type of people, who proactively identify environmental signals and address them to build an innovative enterprise while dealing with high uncertainty and scarcity of resources (Black 1998, 59). There are many examples of contemporary entrepreneurs such as: Steve Jobs (Apple founder), Benjamin Franklin (creator of bifocals, lightening rod and special stove), John D. Rockefeller (founder of the Standard Oil Company) (Inc 2015).

In turn, the term social entrepreneur refers to a mission-driven person, financially independent who deploy his entrepreneurial activities in order to deliver a social value to needy, less privileged groups of society(Abu-Saifan 2012, 25). Thus, it can be observed a slight difference between entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. While commercial entrepreneurs aim to build a standard profitable business model, that primarily serve to be profitable, no matter whether or not it fixes the social problem. Social entrepreneurs primary aim to find and fix the social problem, leaving profitability in second place (HBR 2013).

It can be seen a specific trait of the solutions, provided by social entrepreneurs to disadvantaged groups of society. Lautermann (2013, 186 -187) determined this trait as a concept of “social value creation”. But what kind of value, social entrepreneurs aims to create? Ormiston and Seymour (2011, 127-128) have carefully laid out the components of this term. They have determined, that together with creating of social value, which serve to deliver goods or services to society, economic development or job creation, it also contributes to creating economic value under the influence of “invisible hand”.  Moreover, the other values can be determined as: personal relationships, natural value (value for ecosystem in order to protect it or repair), cultural value, creative value (Ormiston and Seymour 2011, 128). Overall, social value, that created and delivered to society by social entrepreneurs is a set of benefits for people who are reasonably need them.

In 1833 William Lloyd Garrison founded the Anti-Slavery Society, that marked the beginning of a new social entrepreneurship era (Barendsen and Gardner 2004, 43). In accordance with Encyclopedia Britannica (2018), The main activities of the Anti-Slavery Society were distributing propaganda, signing antislavery petitions, adopting resolutions and conducting lectures to Northern society. Garrison established a newspaper “The Liberator”, the first anti-slavery edition, the aim of which was “to save Man from his brother” (“The Liberator” 1831). The newspaper reached a large audience of more than 3000 copies with uncompromising advocate of ultimate emancipation of slavery bounded black Americans (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2018). Therefore, Garrison combined two seemingly incompatible fields of activity- entrepreneurship in the meaning of earning money and social volunteering.

It may seem that social entrepreneurs are the same as NGO’s (Non-Government Organisations). However, there is a significant difference between these two groups. Arenas, Lozano and Albareda (2009, 179) determined characteristics and goals of NGO’s as organisations with a social purpose regarding to the protection of human rights, the environment, fighting against poverty, developing healthcare, preservation of culture and others social changes (Arenas, Lozano and Albareda 2009, 180). Under the term of NGO’s, there can be business organisation, churches or various unions. However, these forms of organisations are non-profitable, which mean they do not aim to receive money from their operations, while social-entrepreneurs pursue earning money through their businesses.

As it has been figured out, entrepreneurial activities are embodied in the idea of finding the problem and further solving this problem. However, in order to enhance the understanding of the nature of social entrepreneurs, it is necessary to categorise them into groups. Chen, Chang and Pan (2018, 635); Zahra et al. (2009, 523) have identified three main types of social entrepreneurs, namely social bricoleur, social constructionist and social engineer through their motives, impact and scope of work.  

In accordance with TheFreeDictionary (2019), the term “Bricolage” has been defined as accomplishment of work, using available materials. Thus, the first group, social bricoleur, deploy their activities towards local social needs, utilising only available local resources (Zahra et al. 2009, 523). Despite of the small scope and scale of the work, Social Bricoleurs have a big importance to society, since they recognise many seemingly insignificant social needs, that later turn out to be serious social problems and try to solve them with a small amount of resources (Zahra et al. 2009, 524).  

One example of the Social Bricoleur is a Peru citizen, Oswaldo Tello, a bank officer, who identified two local problems regarding microcredit model, such as the inability of micro-entrepreneurs to correctly assess their potential and banks’ failure to properly examine applications and goals of the borrowers (Zahra et al. 2009, 524). As a result, Oswaldo founded a profit-focused firm and non-profit organisation in order to provide a local assistance for people and help them to overcome a poverty by microcredit their small businesses on improved terms. Therefore, even though Social Bricoleurs generally are failed to be appreciated by other organisations, they occupy an important place in the social functioning.

The second group, Social Constructionists, focuses their operational capabilities on building an alternative way to produce goods or services, differently from governments or business. Using the systematic approach, they pursue creation of social wealth, that is different from commercial entrepreneurs, who mainly aim to gain profits through the market opportunities (Zahra et al. 2009, 525). Social Constructionists develop their solutions for broader social issues, than Social Bricoleurs and expand their operations on the international arena in order to imply them to new social needs (Zahra et al. 2009 523, 525). It is noteworthy, that Social Constructionists do not face an aggressive competition in the market, but more intensively they strive for acquiring resources, considering NGO’s, governments and charitable organisations as a main sources of investments (Zahra et al. 2009, 525).

Utilising this perspective, there can be observed an example of the Social Constructionist, namely entrepreneur Jacqueline Novogratz who developed a systematic, scalable and effective solution, covers a broad social need and help to reduce global poverty (Zahra et al. 2009, 525).  Jacqueline Novogratz founded the located in US fund, that serve to provide money only for those entrepreneurs and business, who focus their activities on satisfying the basic human needs by providing them healthcare, water and housing (Zahra et al. 2009, 525).  

The last considerable group of social entrepreneurs defined as Social Engineers. They are significantly different from the other two groups because the focus of their operations is on identification of those social needs, that are located inside of social structure and require to imply a revolutionary change in order to solve these problems (Zahra et al. 2009, 526). Social Engineers are innovators, a powerful force that aspires to dramatically change the social system, modify or even destroy obsolete structures in order to replace them with more efficient ones.

The most vibrant example of this category, that provides a vivid impression of who are the Social Engineers is Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank. He realised insecurity of poor people, the unwillingness of banks and moneylenders to provide them credits, which was a main obstacle for society to overcome a poverty (Moore 2012, 1). Therefore, he started by giving $27 to 40 Indian people and established a speed decision-making process for lending to individuals, based on trust (Zahra et al. 2009, 526).  As a result, economically active, but poor society got access to the affordable financial resources, that helped them to find a way out of poverty (Bayulgen 2008, 526). Moreover, it helped to million of people to eliminate their social vulnerability and secure their children by investing in their future (Bayulgen 2008, 526-527).

It may seem that the case of Muhammad Yunus looks similar to characteristics of Social Bricoleur, since the entrepreneur has found a local problem and put efforts to solve it. However, it turned out to be significantly different scenario. Yunus intervened from outside a deep change of the existing and entrenched system (Zahra et al. 2009, 526).  He broke the established views and concepts, that poor people cannot be considered as borrowers of money.

All three categories of social entrepreneurs were presented with examples regarding financial instruments, such as microcredits, that directly helped people to overcome the poverty. In accordance with Bayuglen (2008, 531), there is a broad amount of social and economic effects of microcredits, that are impossible to underestimate. The studies revealed a positive correlation between poverty reduction and economic development, improvement of social protection. Additionally, it provides ways for using capital more efficiently, which in turn lead to great social impact by improving the quality of life, environmental sustainability, enhancing education. Moreover, in an indirect way of social impact it reduces costs of healthcare by consuming better quality of food, water and sanitation (Bayuglen 2008, 531).

Social entrepreneurs deploy their operations in a broad variety of industries, not only in the financial segment. Examples should be given of such social entrepreneurs in order to highlight more possible values, that they address to society and motives.

First, it is a Blake Mycoskie, founder of social brand TOMS. In 2006 he identified a social need in Argentina as a lack of shoes for children, that led to injuries and diseases. He created a specific business model where every customer, bought a pair of shoes receives an additional pair (OnlineCollege 2018). As a result, his company provided a million pairs of shoes and solve problem of injuries and diseases among children.

Another example, Xavier Helgesen, who decided to promote literacy and increase value of books around the world. Astonishingly, he also implemented idea eco-friendly materials for book creation, making them recycling. As a result, his business practically implied a triple bottom line model of sustainability, concerning on social, economic and environmental impact (OnlineCollege 2018).

Finally, it is noteworthy to mention Bunker Roy, founder of the Barefoot College. His initiatives and successful implementation of business model helped thousands of people to obtain important technical skills and develop affordable and endless sources of solar power for their households (OnlineCollege 2018).

Aforementioned examples may leave an impression, that Social Entrepreneurs utilise business as a force of good. However, for more accurate and sufficient answer, it is necessary to scrutinize the concept of “good”. Kraut (2007, 577) has considered this ethical concept through the two lenses, the focal points of which on “what is good for someone?” and “what kind of things are good for people?” His findings revealed, that being good for somebody is mean help him to develop social, physical or cognitive skills which in turn contribute to his flourishing. Additionally, he stated, that this flourishing process must be enjoyable.

The idea of “flourishing” raised by Aristotle in his aspiration to formulate a central concept of ethics (Solomon 2004, 1024). In the discourse, he associated the “flourishing” with unified and pervasive concept of “happiness”. Further, his central ethical concept revolves around the concept of the virtue in the social context, that is supposed to be a core ingredient for building a human network (Solomon 2004, 1025). The main characteristics of such community build on the foundation of virtue, presumably, would be: loyalty, cooperation, togetherness, trustworthiness and affinity (Solomon 2004, 1025).

Another approach to ethics, that can be useful to determine characteristics of “good” and therefore evaluate activities of social entrepreneurs from this perspective is Utilitarianism. Utilising findings of Eggleston (2012, 452); Kang et al. (2014, 567), Utilitarian approach is determined by aspirations to maximise well-being for the greatest amount of people. In other words, actions can be justified from the perspective of Utilitarianism, if they serve to provide a greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Controversially to utilitarian perspective, there is an egoistic view of ethics. Laurence (1980, 73); Debaljak and Krkac (2008, 217-218) revealed the essence of egoism in the statement “Person can be morally justified, is his actions serve to maximise his own interests in the long run.  It can be wrongly assumed, that person (egoist) can take advantage of other people to pursue his long-run interests. However, Laurence (1980, 73) notified, that taking advantage of other people increase risk to be exposed, that will not be his interest.

Applying the pure ethics to the business perspective, it can be found some controversial moments. Aasland (2004, 4) revealed so-called a paradox of business ethics, where ethics considered as an additional and non-required tool to the main functions of business, maximising a profit. Narrowing this idea, Aasland (2004, 5) pointed out on employing an ethical concept as a mask, that hides unpleasant underwater world of the company and serves to build a deceiving corporate image.

Thus, employing all of these ethical concepts and principles, such as Aristotle ethics of virtue, Utilitarianism and Egoism together with warning, that ethics could be used in deceiving way, it can be established a decision-making criteria in order to determine whether social entrepreneurs can utilise business as a force of good or not and how they can do it.

As can be seen almost all provided examples successfully fulfil requirements to be morally justified from the Utilitarian perspective. All of them serve to provide the greatest amount of goods for the greatest possible number of people, whether it is shoes, books, skills or affordable money by microcredit system. Utilising characteristic of social entrepreneurs as a financially driven individuals, albeit secondary, it can be seen their self-interest in order to reveal and justify them from the perspective of egoism. They are not taking advantage of vulnerable and needy group of society, particularly their target market. On the contrary, they do not hide their financial motives, though minimise them in order to maximise social value. Finally, all of them are considered as a force of virtue and help disadvantaged groups of society to flourish on the basis of cooperation, trustworthy and loyalty.

Therefore, in order to summarise, in this particular essay there has been identified a criteria, based on the concept of business ethics, in order to determine what is good and whether or not social entrepreneurs utilise business as a force of good. It has been proved, that social entrepreneurs are good and noble power, that helps vulnerable people to overcome their social needs by providing them social value through their business models. Key and defining characteristics of how they can utilise business as a force of good are fulfilment the following requirements. First, they must identify social needs, then they need to create a social value, which will fix the problem. Moreover, social entrepreneurs should deliver this value to the greatest possible amount of needy people through cooperative, trustworthy way. They do not need to hide their financial motives, although these motives should not be a primary priority.

References:

Aasland, Dag G. 2004. “On the Ethics Behind “Business Ethics” Journal of Business Ethics 53: 3-8. https://booksc.xyz/ireader/11277418.

Abu-Saifan, Samer. 2012. “Social Entrepreneurship: Definition and Boundaries.” Technology Innovation Management Review 2 (2): 22-27. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1614474197/CA2D0B18D0714FD3PQ/7?accountid=10382.

Arenas, Daniel, Josep M. Lozano and Laura Albareda. 2009. “The Role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual Perceptions Among Stakeholders.” Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1): 175-197. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/198117749/98CEBACCDB184677PQ/7?accountid=10382.

Bayulgen, Oksan. 2008. “Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank and the Nobel Peace Prize: What Political Science Can Contribute to and Learn From the Study of Microcredit.” International Studies Review 10 (2008): 525-547. https://booksc.xyz/book/15280623/1aec7f.

Berendsen, Lynn and Gardner Howard. 2004. “Is the Social Entrepreneur a New Type of Leader?” Leader to Leader 2004 (34): 43-50. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/218300452/DD32249FD634404APQ/14?accountid=10382.

Black, Janice A. 1998. “Entrepreneur or Entrepreneurs? Justification for a Range of Definitions.” Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 10 (1): 45-65. https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/214231577/fulltextPDF/CA2D0B18D0714FD3PQ/4?accountid=10382.

Chen, Ming-Huei, Yu-Yu Chang and Ju-Yun Pan. 2018. “Typology of Creative Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial Success.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 12 (5): 632-656. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2017-0041.

Debaljak, Jelena and Kristijan Krkac. 2008. “Me, Myself & I”: Practical Egoism, Selfishness, Self-Interest and Business Ethics.” Social Responsibility Journal 4 (1/2): 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471110810856974.

Eggleston, B. 2012. “Utilitarianism” Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics, Second Edition 4: 452-458. http://www.benegg.net/publications/Eggleston_Utilitarianism.pdf.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2019. American Anti-Slavery Society. Accessed January 6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-Anti-Slavery-Society.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2019. The Liberator. Accessed January 6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Liberator-American-newspaper.

HBR. 2013. What Makes Social Entrepreneurs Different. https://hbr.org/2013/01/what-makes-social-entrepreneur.

Inc. 2015. 11 Most Famous Entrepreneurs of All Time (and What Made Them Wildly Rich). https://www.inc.com/larry-kim/11-most-famous-entrepreneurs-of-all-time-and-what-made-them-wildly-rich.html.

Kang, Byung Gyoo, Francis Edum-Fotwe, Andrew Price and Tony Thorpe. 2014. “The Application of Causality to Construction Business Ethics.” Social Responsibility Journal 10 (3): 550-568. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2012-0008.

Kraut, R. 2007. “What is Good and Why: The ethics of Well-Being.” Analysis Reviews 69 (3): 576-578. https://booksc.xyz/ireader/44123873.

Laurence, Thomas. 1980. “Ethical Egoism and Psychological Dispositions.” American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (1): 73-78. http://www.laurencethomas.com/Egoism.pdf.Lautermann, Christian. 2013. “The Ambiguities of (Social) Value Creation: Towards an Extended Understanding of Entrepreneurial Value Creation for Society.” Social Enterprise Journal 9 (2): 184-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-01-2013-0009.

OnlineCollege. 2019. The 10 Greatest Social Entrepreneurs of Al Time. Accessed January 9, https://www.onlinecollege.org/2012/06/26/the-10-greatest-social-entrepreneurs-all-time/.

Ormiston, Jarrod and Richard Seymour. 2011. “Understanding Value Creation in Social Entrepreneurship: The Importance of Aligning Mission, Strategy and Impact Measurement” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 2 (2): 125-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2011.606331.

Solomon, Robert C. 2004. “Aristotle, Ethics and Business Organizations.” Organisation Studies 25 (6): 1021-1043. https://booksc.xyz/ireader/22924434.

TheFreeDictionary. 2019. Bricolage. Accessed January 8. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bricoleur.

Zahra, Shaker A., Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum and Joel M. Shulman. 2009. Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2009): 519-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007.

“The Liberator.” 1831. Merchants Hall, January 1. http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1831/01/01/the-liberator-01-01.pdf.