Content uploaded by Paul Tracey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Tracey
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Distinctive Challenge of
Educating Social Entrepreneurs:
A Postscript and Rejoinder to
the Special Issue on
Entrepreneurship Education
PAUL TRACEY
University of Warwick
NELSON PHILLIPS
Imperial College London
In September 2004, Academy of Management Learning and Education published a special
issue on the role of management education in the training and development of
entrepreneurs. Despite making a significant contribution to current thinking about
entrepreneurship education, we consider that the special issue contains an important
omission—there is no discussion of social entrepreneurs, individuals who develop
economically sustainable solutions to social problems. In this essay we seek to address
this omission and to outline the distinctive challenges and issues involved in teaching
and developing entrepreneurs that combine social and commercial objectives.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Reflecting the growing stature and prominence of
entrepreneurship and business venturing within
business schools, in September 2004 Academy of
Management Learning and Education published a
special issue on the role of management education
in the training and development of entrepreneurs.
It sought to “inform AMLE’s readers about the the-
ories, methods and best practices in entrepreneur-
ship education” (Greene, Katz, & Johannisson, 2004:
238). In so doing, it incorporated perspectives from
leading scholars in the field, experienced educa-
tors, and successful entrepreneurs.
The special issue represents a timely contribu-
tion: Through the constituent papers, many of the
specific challenges that the subject poses are ar-
ticulated, and some of the most established ideas
in the field are critiqued and questioned. For ex-
ample, Honig (2004) argues that while the develop-
ment of a business plan forms a central component
in most entrepreneurship curricula, there is little ev-
idence that it leads to the creation of successful new
ventures, and it may even inhibit new venture cre-
ation in some circumstances. Shepherd (2004) also
develops a provocative line of argument, suggesting
that learning from business failure requires that ed-
ucators move beyond the cognitive dimension of en-
trepreneurship (i.e., how or what entrepreneurs
“think”), and explore the emotional relationship that
exists between entrepreneurs and their businesses.
In another insightful paper, DeTienne and Chandler
(2004) show empirically that it is possible to teach
students to identify business opportunities, and more
generally, to exhibit higher levels of innovation, sug-
gesting both that entrepreneurship education can
have tangible outcomes and that “entrepreneurship
is not about who the entrepreneur is, but what the
entrepreneur does” (p. 254).
Taken together, the articles published in the spe-
cial issue show that there is no single “best” ap-
proach to entrepreneurship education—the key
point is that content should be based on solid con-
ceptual building blocks, allowing students to un-
We wish to thank the Monument Trust, the Esme´e Fairbairn
Foundation and the Isaac Newton Trust for the support they
have given to the Community Enterprise initiative at the Judge
Business School, University of Cambridge. The opinions ex-
pressed in this paper are solely those of the authors.
姝Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2007, Vol. 6, No. 2 264–271.
........................................................................................................................................................................
264
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.
derstand the complex, culturally embedded and
multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial activity.
Moreover, they make clear that entrepreneurship ed-
ucation requires a strong experiential component,
reflecting the fact that much entrepreneurial knowl-
edge is tacit and not easily amenable to codification,
which means that it is difficult to transfer within the
boundaries of the classroom or lecture theater (see
especially Aronsson, 2004; Wolfe, 2004).
Despite the significance of its contribution, we
consider that the special issue contains an impor-
tant omission—there is no discussion of social en-
trepreneurship, a form of enterprise that is becom-
ing increasingly prominent in the U.S., the U.K.,
and elsewhere (see, e.g., Borgaza & Defourny, 2001;
Dees 1998a; Paton, 2003). In this essay we address
this omission and outline the distinctive chal-
lenges and issues involved in teaching and devel-
oping entrepreneurs who build businesses in order
to achieve social as well as commercial objectives.
Our aim is to begin what we hope will be a broad
discussion to theorize social entrepreneurship and
to develop a preliminary framework that can be
used for pedagogical purposes.
We think that this is an important rejoinder to the
special issue, particularly in the light of the increas-
ing number of social entrepreneurs entering busi-
ness schools in order learn the skills and competen-
cies required to build sustainable businesses, as
well as the growing proportion of mainstream busi-
nesses incorporating a social dimension in their ac-
tivities. The interest in social entrepreneurship
among students is further evidenced both by the
growing number of social enterprise clubs, and by
the fact that social entrepreneurship business plan
competitions are now commonplace, particularly in
U.S. business schools (Olszak & Sidorick, 2003). More-
over, the 2005 Net Impact conference hosted by Stan-
ford University—an event for graduate students in
business and management studies interested in so-
cial entrepreneurship and corporate social responsi-
bility—attracted a record 1300 participants (www.
netimpact.org).
It is our view that business schools need to re-
spond to this trend and to cater to these students
within their entrepreneurship and MBA programs.
Indeed, some have already taken important steps
in this direction: For example, the Social Enterprise
Initiative at Harvard Business School, the Center
for Social Innovation at Stanford University, and
the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepre-
neurship at Duke University.
We consider the issue of social entrepreneurship
education in three steps. In the next section, we
position our conception of social entrepreneurship
within the existing literature and give examples of
the kinds of social enterprise that form the focus of
our analysis. Following on from this, we outline the
distinctive nature of social entrepreneurship. We
argue that in addition to the challenges faced by
all entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs encounter
another set of issues pertaining to their social ob-
jectives that add an extra layer of complexity to
their activities. This leads into a discussion of the
ways in which business schools can address the
growing interest in social entrepreneurship within
their entrepreneurship and MBA programs, based
on our own experiences. While the topics covered
in existing entrepreneurship curricula remain rel-
evant to social entrepreneurs, we suggest there is
also a need to incorporate new topics that reflect
the distinguishing characteristics of social enter-
prise as an organizational form.
DEFINING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Before discussing social entrepreneurship educa-
tion, it is important to explain what we mean by
social entrepreneurship, particularly given the rel-
ative novelty of the term and the lack of clarity
regarding its relationship to more traditional en-
trepreneurship. Moreover, an important first step
toward the inclusion of social entrepreneurship
within business schools is to raise awareness
among faculty, and this requires a clear sense of
its key characteristics.
Broadly speaking, two overlapping conceptions
of social entrepreneurship can be identified in the
literature. For some scholars, social entrepreneur-
ship refers to the creation of positive social
change, regardless of the structures or processes
through which it is achieved. Indeed, this under-
pins the influential work of Dees (1998b), whose
definition is perhaps the most commonly cited and
used. From this perspective, social entrepreneurs
are concerned with reconfiguring resources in or-
der to achieve specific social objectives, and their
success is measured by the extent to which they
achieve “social transformation” (Pearce, 2003; Al-
vord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Bornstein, 2004). While
they may develop business ventures in order to
fund their activities, they are as likely to rely on
philanthropy or government subsidy to achieve
their social missions.
A second strand in the literature focuses on gen-
erating “earned income” in the pursuit of social
outcomes (Boschee, 2001; Oster, Massarsky, & Bein-
hacker, 2004). From this perspective, social entre-
preneurship is concerned with enterprise for a so-
cial purpose and involves building organizations
that have the capacity to be both commercially
viable and socially constructive. It therefore re-
2007 265Tracey and Phillips
quires social entrepreneurs to identify and exploit
market opportunities in order to develop products
and services that achieve social ends, or to gener-
ate surpluses that can be reinvested in a social
project (Leadbeater, 1998; Amin, Hudson, & Cam-
eron, 2002). This is the form of social entrepreneur-
ship with which we are concerned here.
Some brief examples will help to illustrate the
kinds of social enterprise that form the focus of our
analysis. Our arguments relate in the first instance
to social entrepreneurs who build and manage
nonprofit organizations that rely upon earned in-
come rather than contributed income from govern-
ments, foundations, and other awarding bodies. A
well-known venture of this kind is Greyston Bak-
ery, an organization based in NewYork, which pro-
vides employment for people who have been mar-
ginalized from mainstream labor markets, many of
whom have been unemployed for long periods. The
profits from the bakery are used to subsidize a
range of community-focused services including
housing, childcare and healthcare in the Yonkers
district of New York (www.greystonbakery.com).
Another nonprofit social enterprise that is suc-
cessful in both commercial and social terms is
Greenworks, which earns income by recycling un-
wanted furniture from corporations and public sec-
tor organizations. Donors “benefit from a one stop,
hassle-free service enabling them to fulfil their
environmental and social responsibilities,” and
Greenworks sells the furniture to schools, chari-
ties, community groups, and start-up businesses at
discounted prices (www.green-works.co.uk).
But social entrepreneurs can also lead for-profit
businesses. For example, Cafe´direct is a limited
company selling “fair trade” tea and coffee to pro-
vide above-market prices and good employment
conditions for disadvantaged tea and coffee farm-
ers in developing countries. In addition to divi-
dends to shareholders, around 8% of annual profits
are invested in the training and support of farmers
in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Central and
South America (www.cafedirect.co.uk).
Moreover, for-profit businesses can play a key
role in supporting and facilitating social entrepre-
neurship by building links and engaging in part-
nerships with nonprofit organizations. This is illus-
trated, for example, by Ben & Jerry’s “PartnerShop”
initiative, where community-based organizations
have the opportunity to operate a Ben & Jerry’s
franchise. Ben & Jerry’s “waives the standard fran-
chise fees and provides additional support to help
nonprofits operate strong businesses.” This allows
nonprofits to generate surpluses that can be used
to pay for other social initiatives (www.benjerry.
com/scoop_shops/partnershops).
THE DISTINCTIVE CHALLENGE OF SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Social entrepreneurs are “like other entrepreneurs,
only they are in it for social improvement, not the
money” (James, 2001: 58). This does not imply that
profits are unimportant; the enterprise needs to
generate surpluses if it is to be viable in the long
term. Social entrepreneurs therefore encounter the
same challenges as more traditional entrepre-
neurs— opportunity recognition, the marshalling
of resources, and the creation of the new venture
(Kourilsky, 1995)—with the added complexity of de-
fining, building support for, and achieving social
outcomes. As a result, it is a particularly demand-
ing form of entrepreneurial activity. In our experi-
ence, there are three key challenges inherent in
social entrepreneurship, which grow out of the hy-
brid nature of social enterprises and their dual
objectives, and which need to be addressed in the
education of social entrepreneurs: managing ac-
countability, managing a double bottom line, and
managing identity. In this section, we consider
each in turn.
Managing Accountability
In private enterprises the lines of accountability
are reasonably clear. Put simply, firms operate in
the interests of their owners, and the actions and
decisions of organizational members are taken
broadly with a view to their interests (Charkham,
1994). By contrast, accountability is often a complex
issue for social enterprises. Specifically, by taking
on a social mission on behalf of a particular con-
stituency, social entrepreneurs create an addi-
tional key stakeholder, which they must take into
account and communicate with when building the
venture and developing its strategy (Emerson,
1999).
For example, Cafe´direct has developed strong
relationships across the developing world with the
coffee and tea growers that it supports, and has
sought to make their views and experiences cen-
tral to the company’s strategy rather than impos-
ing its own set of “solutions” on their behalf. Of
course, this is a difficult balance to strike, because
social entrepreneurs also need to build profitable
businesses based upon competitive products and
services, and the process of stakeholder consulta-
tion may impede competitiveness and slow down
decision making (Franks & Mayer, 1995).
We suggest that this is a crucial issue that needs
to be addressed in social entrepreneurship educa-
tion, as social entrepreneurs require a distinctive
set of competencies in order to create and manage
266 JuneAcademy of Management Learning & Education
these relationships. Most important, they need to
be skilled at building mechanisms to act as a
bridge connecting the social enterprise to key
stakeholders, and provide the organization with
much needed legitimacy (Zander, 1993; Cornforth,
2003).
Managing the Double Bottom Line
At the heart of social entrepreneurship is the chal-
lenge of balancing social and commercial objec-
tives (i.e., managing a double bottom line), which
can create a series of tensions across the business
(Pharaoh, Scott, & Fisher, 2004). The kinds of ten-
sion experienced depend on the nature of the en-
terprise and the “costs” imposed by the social mis-
sion (Boschee, 2001), but the apparent conflict
between social and commercial priorities is a cen-
tral characteristic of social entrepreneurship.
Most obviously, difficult decisions need to be
made with respect to organizational priorities and
investment strategies. For example, in social en-
terprises that engage in unrelated business activ-
ities (i.e., where the enterprise operates in markets
that are not connected to its social mission and
uses the surpluses to subsidize the component of
the enterprise that is responsible for social out-
comes), social entrepreneurs must consider the ap-
propriate balance between investment in the rev-
enue-generating part of the enterprise with a view
to building competitive advantage and investment
in the part of the enterprise responsible for achiev-
ing social outcomes (Hansmann, 1987).
For mission-driven social enterprises (i.e., enter-
prises that provide products or services with a
social objective, such as public transport, banking
facilities in rural areas, and the development of
renewable sources of energy), social entrepreneurs
often use income they generate from providing the
same service in profitable markets to cross-subsi-
dize the less profitable ones (Weisbrod, 1998). Thus
tensions arise about the appropriate balance be-
tween serving locations and markets with varying
prospects for generating earned income.
Regardless of the type of social enterprise being
studied, the challenge for entrepreneurship educa-
tors is to ensure that potential social entrepreneurs
understand the nature of the tensions and that they
are equipped with tools and frameworks to deal
strategically with them (See, e.g., the “organized
abandonment grid” developed by the Institute for
Social Entrepreneurs in the U.S., which encourages
social enterprises to “score” products and services
according to their social purpose and financial
impact, www.socialent.org).
Managing Identity
The hybrid nature of social enterprise leads to
complex and difficult identity issues. Social entre-
preneurs who have worked mainly in the nonprofit
sector may find it difficult to identify closely with
the commercial side of the business; for entrepre-
neurs with a for-profit background, the problem
may be a difficulty identifying with the goals and
approach of the social side of the venture, espe-
cially when they undermine the stability of the
business (Pharoah et al., 2004). In other words, the
tension between the for-profit and nonprofit di-
mensions of the enterprise has the potential to
create dissonance and interfere with the critical
processes of organizational identification on
which much positive behavior depends (Albert &
Whetton, 1985). Of course, these issues are not con-
fined to the entrepreneur— employees and volun-
teers may also be affected.
For example, staff at Aspire, a U.K. social enter-
prise established to employ and support the home-
less, became disillusioned as the social impera-
tives of the enterprise were watered down in
response to poor business performance. Specifi-
cally, the source of cohesion that bound organiza-
tional members together—a common dedication to
tackling homelessness and poverty— began to dis-
sipate. As a result, many organizational members
found it increasingly difficult to relate to the ven-
ture, with obvious consequences for morale and
organizational commitment (Tracey & Jarvis, 2006).
Complex identity issues such as these need to be
made explicit in the context of social entrepreneur-
ship education, which should also convey the com-
mercial realities of managing a social venture;
regardless of their commitment to their social vi-
sion, only by operating profitably can social entre-
preneurs engender sustainable social change.
Clearly, this raises particular leadership dilem-
mas for social enterprise (Martin, 2003).
Complex identity issues such as these
need to be made explicit in the context
of social entrepreneurship education,
which should also convey the
commercial realities of managing a
social venture; regardless of their
commitment to their social vision, only
by operating profitably can social
entrepreneurs engender sustainable
social change.
2007 267Tracey and Phillips
IMPLICATIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION
The distinctive nature of social entrepreneurship,
outlined in the previous section, and the presence
of budding social entrepreneurs in entrepreneur-
ship and management programs, means that a
new set of issues and concerns needs to be inte-
grated into existing material in order to ensure
that students are adequately prepared for the
complex challenges of social enterprise. This does
not imply that mainstream entrepreneurship topics
are no longer relevant (as noted, social entrepre-
neurs need all the same skills and expertise as
more traditional entrepreneurs when they build
their businesses), but it does require new topics
to be included in the curriculum. Based on our
experiences of teaching social entrepreneurs, we
believe that there are a number of ways to incor-
porate a social enterprise dimension within tradi-
tional entrepreneurship programs. We suggest
several here with the understanding that our list is
illustrative rather than exhaustive.
The first, and perhaps the most important, tech-
nique is simply to raise the topic of social entre-
preneurship at appropriate junctures in order to
highlight specific issues and to draw on the expe-
riences and interests of the class. Social entrepre-
neurship is too often thought of as a stand-alone
topic best taught in a specialized elective or even a
separate program. Our experience is that the op-
posite is true: Social entrepreneurship should be
woven through traditional courses and included in
lectures and discussions where relevant. Addi-
tional readings (e.g., Dees, Anderson, & Wei-skill-
ern, 2004; Foster & Bradach, 2005) and social entre-
preneurship cases (e.g., The Big Issue
1
and the
Latino Community Credit Union
2
, both of which we
have found to work well in class) can also be
added to the curriculum in order to provide a basis
for discussion in seminars.
Integrating social entrepreneurship throughout
entrepreneurship programs in this way has two
very positive consequences. Most important, it en-
sures that social enterprise is seen as a central
part of entrepreneurship and not as something that
is distinct or less legitimate. But it is also a useful
introduction to discussions regarding the social
implications of entrepreneurship more generally.
Given the current focus on CSR issues in entre-
preneurship and small business management
(Vyakarnam, Bailey, Myers, & Burnett, 1997), this
provides a welcome addition to more standard ap-
proaches to the topic.
Asecond strategy is to ensure that successful
social entrepreneurs are included in speaker se-
ries and as in-class presenters. Again, this change
is principally one of awareness on the part of fac-
ulty in organizing speakers. We have found that
many social entrepreneurs are very enthusiastic
about speaking to entrepreneurship classes, and
the inclusion of even a few of them provides valu-
able exposure for students interested in entre-
preneurship of all kinds. In this respect, it is crucial
to emphasise to students the links between tradi-
tional entrepreneurship and social entrepreneur-
ship, and what traditional entrepreneurs can learn
from the experiences of successful social entrepre-
neurs.
Also important in planning speakers is to ensure
a variety of types of social enterprise are repre-
sented. For example, speakers such as Muhammad
Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, which
provides credit without collateral to the very poor
in rural Bangladesh so that they can start micro-
businesses (www.grameen-info.org), could be bal-
anced by Mimi Silbert, the founder of the Delancey
Foundation, a social enterprise based in San Fran-
cisco, which aims to “turn around the lives of sub-
stance abusers, former felons, and others who
have hit bottom” by providing meaningful employ-
ment and educational opportunities, and which
has become one of the world’s most well-known
social enterprises (www.eisenhowerfoundation.
org/grassroots/delancey). Another excellent source
of speakers are the professional associations and
government departments involved in supporting
social enterprise. For example, Jerr Boschee, the
founder and executive director of the Institute for
Social Entrepreneurs, which provides education
and training for social entrepreneurs around the
world, was very well received by our students
(www.socialent.org). While these are obviously
high-profile speakers, there are many other suc-
cessful social entrepreneurs operating on a
smaller scale who can be asked to talk to entre-
preneurship students, and whose experiences can
provide valuable insights.
Third, we have found it very effective to ask the
students themselves to develop teaching cases
based on real social enterprises. In particular, it
can be useful to have groups of students pick a
social venture and write a teaching case based on
the issues encountered by the social entrepreneur.
The best ones can then be used for a case discus-
1
Case study prepared by Julian Lloyd under the supervision of
Stephanie Robertson, London Business School. Case number:
LBS-CS-03-019.
2
Case study prepared by Victor Abad and Adam Elboim under
the supervision of Beth Anderson, Duke University. Case num-
ber: CASE SE-02.
268 JuneAcademy of Management Learning & Education
sion led by the students. If this assignment is
broadened to allow students to choose either a
traditional venture or a social enterprise, it pro-
vides an opportunity for those students interested
in social entrepreneurship to explore the reality of
social enterprise, while at the same time exposing
social entrepreneurship to the other students.
While this is obviously a much more time-consum-
ing and demanding activity than using existing
case studies, the insights that this process gener-
ates for the students are considerable.
A very instructive case for this kind of exercise is
Emmaus, a multinational social enterprise with
“communities” in about 50 countries worldwide.
Each community operates as a social enterprise
and is organized as part of a loosely coupled
franchise system. Although there is variation be-
tween countries, all communities aim to help so-
cially excluded people through recycling busi-
nesses of various kinds. This case is especially
effective as a learning tool because it reveals the
issues surrounding the internationalisation of so-
cial ventures and the way that social enterprise
takes quite different forms in different places, par-
ticularly in developing countries (www.emmaus-
international.org).
Through researching the organization and writ-
ing the case, students learn some key issues and
challenges inherent in social enterprise. One im-
portant consideration, however, is that the stu-
dents need to be able to collect sufficient informa-
tion to write up an accurate and convincing case
study. The social enterprises they choose must
therefore be either prominent enough for sufficient
publicly available data to exist or local enough to
give the students direct access. The advantage of
using local social enterprises is that students have
the opportunity to interview the managers and
other key actors and to invite their feedback.
Fourth, many entrepreneurship programs re-
quire the development of a business plan as an
integral part of the course. A simple change that
can provide additional opportunities for students
interested in social entrepreneurship is to encour-
age them to develop a business plan for a social
enterprise. This gives a platform for the discussion
of the issues involved in founding and building a
social venture. In addition, it provides an opportu-
nity for “peer consulting” whereby groups of stu-
dents are assigned to provide feedback and ideas
to each other as they develop their projects. This
generates insights significantly beyond what can
be provided by faculty alone.
Fifth, as the special issue made clear, experien-
tial learning is a crucial component of entrepre-
neurship education. Indeed, this is widely ac-
cepted within the management learning literature
more broadly (see, e.g., Kolb & Kolb, 2005). One way
to incorporate an experiential component into so-
cial entrepreneurship education is to organize so-
cial enterprise consulting projects for groups of
interested students, where students are required to
act as consultants to a new social venture. This
kind of activity has a number of benefits, including
giving the students “hands-on” experience with a
social enterprise and providing them with experi-
ence of managing consulting relationships. More-
over, consulting projects provide an integrative
learning experience because they invite students
to draw upon what they have learned from across
the different courses they have taken.
Sixth, many entrepreneurship programs have an
internship component that gives students an op-
portunity to spend time working with an entrepre-
neur in a start-up firm. This type of activity can be
extended to include social enterprises, allowing
students to experience the reality of managing a
social venture, while also providing much needed
resources for the participating organizations. As
with consulting projects, internships expose stu-
dents to the tacit elements of social entrepreneur-
ship, and in particular the tensions inherent in
social enterprise as an organizational form, which
cannot be easily captured through more formal
educational experiences such as lectures and case
studies.
A summary of approaches for integrating social
entrepreneurship into entrepreneurship education
is shown in Table 1. This list of possible ap-
proaches is intended only as a starting point. As
noted, our main argument is that business schools
should respond to the growing interest in social
enterprise with effective curriculum changes to
their entrepreneurship programs in order to ensure
that the learning requirements of social entrepre-
neurs are included.
TABLE 1
Summary of Techniques for Educating Social
Entrepreneurs
Approaches to Social Entrepreneurship Education
1. Weave social entrepreneurship topics, cases, and reading
into traditional courses
2. Develop social entrepreneurship speaker series
3. Have students develop teaching cases based on real social
enterprises
4. Introduce social enterprise business plan assignment
5. Introduce social enterprise consulting projects
6. Provide opportunities for social enterprise internships
2007 269Tracey and Phillips
CONCLUSION
In developing our response to the special issue on
entrepreneurship education, we have not sought to
dispute the key arguments contained within it.
However, by failing to address the issues and chal-
lenges pertaining to social entrepreneurship edu-
cation, we think that an important opportunity was
missed. Social entrepreneurs are assuming an in-
creasingly prominent role in addressing a wide
range of social issues, and we believe that busi-
ness schools should play a part in supporting their
development.
The growth of social entrepreneurship also rep-
resents a significant opportunity for business
schools. Indeed, the number of social entrepre-
neurs attending mainstream entrepreneurship
courses has risen sharply in recent years as social
enterprise has assumed a stronger identity and
more clearly demonstrated its potential for ad-
dressing social issues (Tracey, Phillips, & Haugh,
2005). Of course, this raises questions about how
business schools can best contribute to their devel-
opment. These questions and challenges relate to
the character of social entrepreneurship—as we
have outlined, the hybrid nature of social enter-
prise makes social entrepreneurship a complex
and difficult endeavor.
Moreover, the challenges of social entrepreneur-
ship education are compounded by the consider-
able disagreement, both within the social enter-
prise movement and among scholars, about how to
balance social and commercial objectives. For
some (e.g., Pearce, 2003) social entrepreneurship is
fundamentally about social change and develop-
ing community capacity, and this must take prece-
dence over building competitive advantage. For
others (e.g., Boschee, 2001) business development
and profitability must be prioritized—the prospect
of rapidly dissipating public subsidy means that
social entrepreneurs have no choice but to accept
this kind of commercial logic. Ultimately, the role
of educators must be to draw on the growing body
of literature on social entrepreneurship and on the
experiences of successful social entrepreneurs to
create educational experiences that prepare social
entrepreneurs for the demanding and often ambig-
uous world of social enterprise. We hope that this
essay will form part of an on-going discussion of
how this goal can best be achieved.
REFERENCES
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, 7: 263–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, D. L., & Letts, C. W. 2004. Social entrepre-
neurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 40(3): 260 –282.
Amin, A., Hudson, R., & Cameron, A. 2002. Placing the social
economy. London: Routledge.
Aronsson, M. 2004. Education matters— but does entrepreneur-
ship education? An interview with David Birch. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(3): 289 –292.
Borgaza, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.) 2001. The emergence of social
enterprise. London: Routledge.
Bornstein, D. 2004. How to change the world: Social entrepre-
neurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Boschee, J. 2001. Eight basic principles for nonprofit entrepre-
neurs. Nonprofit World, July-August: 15–18.
Charkham, J. 1994. Keeping good company: A study of corporate
governance in five countries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cornforth, C. (Ed.). (2003). The governance of public and non-
profit organizations: What do boards do? London: Rout-
ledge.
Dees, J. G. 1998a. Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Re-
view, 76(1): 54 – 65.
Dees, J. G. 1998b. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauf-
man Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Graduate
School of Business, Stanford: Stanford University.
Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-skillern, J. 2004. Scaling social
impact: Strategies for scaling social innovations. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, Spring: 24 –32.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. 2004. Opportunity identifica-
tion and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A peda-
gogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Manage-
ment Learning and Education, 3(3): 242–257.
Emerson, J. 1999. Five challenges in social purpose enterprise
development. Paper published by the Roberts Enterprise
Development Fund, San Francisco.
Foster, W., & Bradach, J. 2005. Should non-profits seek profits?
Harvard Business Review, 83(2): 92–100.
Franks, J., & Mayer, C. 1995. Ownership and control. In H. Siebert
(Ed.), Trends in business organization: Do participation and
cooperation increase competitiveness? Tubingen: Mohr.
Greene, P. G., Katz, J. A. & Johannisson, B. 2004. Entrepreneur-
ship education. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-
cation, 3: 238 –241.
Hansmann, H. 1987. Economic theories of nonprofit organiza-
tion. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research
handbook: 27– 42. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Honig, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of
contingency-based business planning. Academy of Man-
agement Learning and Education, 3(3): 258 –273.
James, C. 2001. Social entrepreneurs. Management, October: 58.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2005. Learning styles and learning
spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher educa-
tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2):
193–212.
Kourilsky, M. L. 1995. Entrepreneurship education: Opportunity
in search of a curriculum. Business Education Forum, 50(1):
11–15.
270 JuneAcademy of Management Learning & Education
Leadbeater, C. 1998. The rise of the social entrepreneur. London:
Demos.
Martin, R. 2003. To the rescue: Beating the heroic leadership
trap. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter: 36 – 43.
Olszak, L. M., & Sidorick, M. S. 2003. A study of social enterprise
training and support models. Research Report published by
Olszak Management Consulting. (www.olszak.com/non-
profit/files/SETrainingAndSupport_F.pdf).
Oster, S. M., Massarsky, C. W., & Beinhacker, S. L. 2004. Gener-
ating and sustaining non-profit earned income. A guide to
successful enterprise strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Paton, R. 2003. Managing and measuring social enterprises.
London: Sage.
Pearce, J. 2003. Social enterprise in anytown. London: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation.
Pharoah, C., Scott, D., & Fisher, A. 2004. Social enterprise in the
balance. Glasgow: Charities Aid Foundation.
Shepherd, D. A. 2004. Educating entrepreneurship students
about emotion and learning from failure. Academy of Man-
agement Learning and Education, 3(3): 274 –287.
Tracey, P., & Jarvis, O. 2006. An enterprising failure: Why a
promising social enterprise collapsed. Stanford Social In-
novation Review, Spring: 66 –70.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Haugh, H. 2005. Beyond philanthropy:
Community enterprise as a basis for corporate citizenship.
Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4): 327–344.
Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A., & Burnett, D. 1997. Towards
an understanding of ethical behaviour in small firms. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 16(15): 1625–1636.
Weisbrod, B. A. 1998. Institutional form and organizational be-
havior. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private
action and the public good: 69 – 84. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Wolfe, J. 2004. Two computer-based entrepreneurship experi-
ences: An essay review. Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 3(3): 333–339.
Zander, A. 1993. Making boards effective: The dynamics of non-
profit governing boards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul Tracey was awarded his
PhD from the University of
Stirling, and is currently assis-
tant professor of enterprise at
Warwick Business School, Uni-
versity of Warwick. His re-
search interests include social
entrepreneurship, regional in-
novation, and institutional the-
ory.
Nelson Phillips was awarded
his PhD from the University of
Alberta, and is currently profes-
sor of strategy and organiza-
tional behavior at Tanaka Busi-
ness School, Imperial College
London. His research interests
include technology strategy, in-
stitutional theory, and entrepre-
neurship.
2007 271Tracey and Phillips
