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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In recent years, the debate about social entrepreneurial has in fact become a topic that is increasingly finding its way into prominent mainstream journals. See, for example, Seelos and Mair (2007), Christie and Benson (2006), Mair and Marti (2006), Certo and Miller (2008), Neck and Allen (2009) or Zahra et al. (2009).
- 2.
See http://www.schwabfound.org/ and http://www.skollfoundation.org/ respectively.
- 3.
For an introduction to the “ordonomic” approach and a broad overview of applications of the ordonomic perspective to the domains of business and economic ethics see Pies (2009a, b). For a more general discussion of the ordonomic approach, see Pies et al. (2009a, b) as well as Beckmann (2010). The “ordonomic” approach builds upon the German tradition of an “economic theory of morality” (Homann and Pies 1994) that was originally restricted in a more narrow sense to discussing matters of business and economic ethics. This ordo-theoretical approach to economic ethics argues that the incentive properties of social institutions play an important role in implementing moral concerns and was originated by Karl Homann. Cf. Homann (1990, 2002, 2003). Meanwhile, there are numerous publications available that specifically refer to this intellectual tradition. Cf. Habisch (2008), Hirsch and Meyer (2009), Lin-Hi (2009), Lütge (2005, 2007), Schönwälder-Kuntze (2008), Suchanek (2007), Suchanek and Lin-Hi (2007), Waldkirch (2001) as well as Waldkirch et al. (2009).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
For an informative analysis of this case of social entrepreneurship, see Mair and Marti (2006).
- 11.
For an overview of the diverse models and organizational forms of social entrepreneurship see, for example, Nicholls (2006).
- 12.
- 13.
The following analysis of the case of Neumarkter Lammsbräu draws on the material as published on the brewery website at http://www.lammsbraeu.de as well as on the publication by Riess et al. (2008, pp. 105–114). For a similar analysis, see also the publication by von Winning (2009).
- 14.
- 15.
For a previous discussion of a similar ordonomic strategy matrix see also Hielscher et al. (2009, pp. 57–61).
- 16.
See also http://www.aoel.org.
- 17.
- 18.
See http://www.dialogue-in-the-dark.com/about/history-founder/ as of October 15th, 2009.
- 19.
Note again that this assertion does not mean that a successful social enterprise necessarily needs to earn a profit. Take, for example, the case of social entrepreneur Peter Eigen, who founded the not-for-profit civil-society organization Transparency International (TI). The starting point for Eigen was the social problem of corruption. He reacted to the fact that in the economic, political, and bureaucratic basic game, corruption is a highly undesirable outcome with devastating consequences for society. In the meta-meta game of discourse, Transparency International not only creates awareness of this problem, it also points out that there is potential for a win-win solution for governments, bureaucracies, and, above all, companies who take up the fight against corrupt practices. Most importantly, Transparency International works to change the rules of the game by playing a constructive role in rule-setting meta-games. TI’s instrument, the “Integrity Pact,” for example, a tool aimed at preventing corruption in public contracting, helps other actors play a better game. Ordonomically speaking, by way of the Integrity Pact, TI offers a service for collective self-commitment to players who otherwise have difficulties binding themselves. The point is that this commitment service creates value for those stakeholders—including the companies—whose cooperation is imperative for achieving TI’s mission. Without this ability to create social value for the relevant stakeholders, TI’s anti-corruption activities would not have had the success and social impact that they actually have.
References
Armendáriz, Beatriz, and Jonathan J. Morduch. 2007. The economics of microfinance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Baumol, William J. 2002. The free-market innovation machine. Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Baumol, William J. 2010. The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Becker, Gary S. 1976. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Gary S. 1993. Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy 101: 385–409.
Beckmann, Markus. 2010. Ordnungsverantwortung. Rational-Choice als ordonomisches Forschungsprogramm. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.
Bornstein, David. 2007. How to change the world: Social entrepreneurship and the power of new ideas. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowles, Samuel. 2004. Microeconomics. Behavior, institutions, and evolution. New York, Oxford and Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Buchanan, James M. 1987. Constitutional economics. In The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, Vol. 1, ed. John Eatwell, 585–588. London: Macmillan.
Buchanan, James M. 1990. The domain of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy 1(1): 1–18.
Certo, S. Trevis, and Toyah Miller. 2008. Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons 51(4): 267–271.
Christie, Michael J., and Benson Honig. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New research findings. Journal of World Business 41(1): 1–5.
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Drayton, William. 2006. Everyone a changemaker: Social entrepreneurship’s ultimate goal. Innovations 1(1): 80–96.
Habisch, André. 2008. Handbuch corporate citizenship: Corporate social responsibility für manager. Berlin and Heidelberg.
Hardin, Garret. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.
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.
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.
Homann, Karl. 1990. Wettbewerb und Moral. Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 31: 34–56.
Homann, Karl. 2002. Vorteile und Anreize, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Homann, Karl. 2003. Anreize und Moral: Gesellschaftstheorie—Ethik—Anwendungen. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Homann, Karl, and Ingo Pies. 1994. Wirtschaftsethik in der Moderne: Zur ökonomischen Theorie der Moral. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften (EUS) 5(1): 3–12.
Jensen, Michael C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235–256.
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.
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.
Lin-Hi, Nick. 2009. Eine Theorie der Unternehmensverantwortung. Die Verknüpfung von Gewinnerzielung und gesellschaftlichen Interessen. Berlin: Schmidt.
Lütge, Christoph. 2005. Economic ethics, business ethics and the idea of mutual advantages. Business Ethics: A European Review 14(2): 108–118.
Lütge, Christoph. 2007. Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Marti. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business 41(1): 36–44.
Martin, Roger L., and Sally Osberg. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring 2007: 28–39.
Mises, Ludwig v. [1951] 2008. Profit and loss. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Neck, Heidi, and Elaine Allen. 2009. Business horizons. Business Horizons 52(1): 13–19.
Nicholls, Alex. ed. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pies, Ingo. 2000. Ordnungspolitik in der Demokratie. Ein ökonomischer Ansatz diskursiver Politikberatung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Pies, Ingo. 2009a. Normativität als Heuristik. Ordonomische Schriften zur Wirtschaftsethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.
Pies, Ingo. 2009b. Moral als Produktionsfaktor. Ordonomische Schriften zur Unternehmensethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.
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.
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.
Popper, Karl R. [1945] 1966. The open society and its enemies, Vol. 2. New York: Hegel and Marx, Princeton University Press.
Riess, Birgit, Carolin Welzel, and Arved Lüth. eds. 2008. Mit Verantwortung handeln. Ein CSR-Handbuch für Unternehmer. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960, 1980. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
Seelos, Christian, and Johanna Mair. 2005. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons 48(3): 241–246.
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.
Suchanek, Andreas. 2007. Ökonomische Ethik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Suchanek, Andreas, and Nick Lin-Hi. 2007. Corporate responsibility in der forschenden Arzneimittelindustrie. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 227(5+6): 547–562.
Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. 2001. Prolegomena for an economic theory of morals. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1): 61–70.
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.
Williamson, Oliver. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Winning, Alexandra von. 2009. Anreizkompatibles CSR-Management: Die Perspektive einer ordonomischen Organisationstheorie. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.
Yunus, Muhammad. 2007. Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beckmann, M. (2011). The Social Case as a Business Case: Making Sense of Social Entrepreneurship from an Ordonomic Perspective. In: Pies, I., Koslowski, P. (eds) Corporate Citizenship and New Governance. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1661-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1661-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1660-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1661-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)