Ghimire Rudra Prasad, Ph.D. Scholar, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, Honorary Research Fellow, Fil. Dr. Jan-U. Sandal Institute, Finstadjordet, Norway

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2908-1006
e-mail: provost@janusandal.no

Practical Applications of Social Entrepreneurship in Business Community Innovation

Introduction. Practically social entrepreneurship is an innovation for the business community to find welfare. The main purpose of the study is to investigate its applied fields. Society may be diverse in different countries. Unity in society is a type of innovation, but how society treats all the issues in order to deliver the welfare of the society needs innovation. Research through development take place and lead growth. Innovative planning gears the business community policy towards costumer welfare and customer satisfaction. Social innovation shapes social entrepreneurship in business communities. The dynamics of innovation keeps the society more specific in responsibility. Social entrepreneurship is more practical in business community innovation. This research has taken analytical research design to identify the applications of social entrepreneurship. The major concern of social entrepreneurship of different business community connections with development of new and innovative models are taken in the analysis. Some literature on the applications of social entrepreneurship is reviewed. Social entrepreneurship is an innovation for the business community to find welfare. Social entrepreneurship ventures success and resource mobility to derive welfare. The main purpose of this study is to investigate its applied fields. Society may be diverse in different countries. Unity in the society is a type of innovation, but how society treats all the issues in order to deliver the welfare of the society needs innovation. Research through development take place and lead growth. Innovative planning gears the business community policy towards costumer welfare and customer satisfaction. Social innovation shapes social entrepreneurship in business community. The dynamics of innovation keeps the society more specific in responsibility. Social entrepreneurship is more practical in business community innovation. This research has taken analytical research design to identify the applications of social entrepreneurship. The major concern of social entrepreneurship of different business community connections with development of new and innovative models are taken in the analysis. Some of literatures on applications of social entrepreneurship are reviewed. Social entrepreneurship applies worldwide. It has been taken as a main source to materialize value and create welfare. Value can be materialized in development of welfare. Its application has broadened on the planet. All stakeholders can include welfare to their lifeline.

Purpose. The main aim of this study is to investigate its applications in various fields.

Result. Social entrepreneurship gain momentum of growth, development and innovations. The impact has been a success to realize quest of effort by the venture of social entrepreneurship. All perspective can be used to mobilize available resources. The human need is a way of triggering social entrepreneurship. Every resource combination gives birth of social entrepreneurship. Human life provides social entrepreneurship. The practicalities of social entrepreneurship benefit all stakeholders in every effort. Secretion of contribution in social entrepreneurship can be accumulated.

Conclusions. Applying all the past literature review and the qualitative information, from this scientific inquiry, it is found that it is an innovative process, by which real solution of complex phenomena comes from the social entrepreneurship approach of applications. All bids of social entrepreneurship are viable and feasible. Schooling of social entrepreneurship could be the fundamental for the idea generation to drive the lifeline and timeline.

Keywords: Social Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Application; Entrepreneurial Approach and Welfare.

References:

1. Alter, K. (2000). Managing the Double Bottom Line: A Business Planning Reference Guide for Social Enterprises. Washington, DC: PACT Publications.
2. Alter, K. (2002). Case Studies in Social Entrepreneurship. Washington, DC: Counterpart International. Anthropology, 23, 175-92.
3. Elkington, J. (2001). The Triple Bottom Line for 21st Century Business, in R. Strakely and R. Welford (eds.), Business and Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan, 20-43.
4. Schumpeter, A. (1980). Theory of Economic Development. London: Transaction Publishing.
5. Baumol, W. (2003). The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth of Miracle Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Mulgan, G. (2003). Creating Public Value. London: The Government Strategy Unit. Retrieved from: www.strategy.gov.uk.
7. Leat, D. (1993). Replicating Successful Voluntary Sector Projects. London: Association of Charitable Foundations.
8. Ashoka (2005b). Alternative Financial Services. Retrieved from: www.ashoka.org.
9. Dart, R. (2004). The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.
10. Davis, L., Etchart, N., Jara, M., & Milder, B. (2003). Risky Business: The Impacts of Merging Mission and Market. NESsT, Santiago, Chile.
11. Etzioni, A. (1973). The Third Sector and Domestic Missions. Public Administration Review, 33, 314–323. Firm Emergence, and Growth, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 119–138.
12. Chamberlain, N. (1977). Remaking American Values. New York: Basic Books.
13. DTI Department for Trade and Industry (2004). Community Interest Companies. An Introduction to Community Interest Companies. London: DTI.
14. Bornstein, D. (2004). How To Change The World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Nicholls, A. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship: The Emerging Landscape. in Financial Times Handbook of Management, 3rd edn. London: Financial Times/Prentice-Hall pp. 636–643.
16. Nicholls, J. (2004). Social Return on Investment: Valuing What Matters. London: New Economics Foundation.
17. Emerson, J. (2003). The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.
18. Chapman, J. (2002). System Failure. London: Demos.
19. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
20. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3). 571–610.
21. Nicholls, A., Jepson, P. & Jacobs, A. (2006). Improving the Performance of Social Organizations: Legitimacy as a Tool for Analysis and Strategic Management, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship Working Paper of Small Business, 12, 11–32.
22. Lister, S. (2003). NGO Legitimacy—Technical Issue or Social Construct? Critique of Anthropology, 23, 175–92.
23. Martin, M. (2004). Surveying Social Entrepreneurship: Toward an Empirical Analysis of the Performance Revolution in the Social Sector. Arbeitspapiere Band 2. University of St Gallen.
24. Taylor, N., Hobbs, R., Nilsonn, F., O’Halloran, K. & Preisser, C. (2000). The Rise of the Term Social Entrepreneur in Print Publications. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College. Retrieved from: http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/XXXVI/XXXVIB/ XXXVIB.htm.
25. Schwab, K. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship. Address delivered by Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of the World Economic Forum and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, at the American International Club, Geneva.
26. Hartigan, P. (2002). Social Entrepreneurship: What Is It? Available at: http://www.schwabfound.org/ news.htm?articleid¼30&sid¼10.social.
27. Glasius, M. (2003). Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an International Criminal Court, in M. Glasius, M. Kaldor, and H. Anheier (eds.), Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 35–53.
28. Boshee, J. & McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinctions. Minnesota, MN: Institute for Social Entrepreneurs.
29. Young, D. (ed.) (2004). Effective Economic Decision-Making by Nonprofit Organizations. The Foundation Center.
30. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31. Giddens, A. (2000). The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
32. Hanlon, G. (1998). Professionalism as Enterprise. Sociology, 32(1), 43–63.
33. Gill, R. & Burke, D. (1996). Strategic Church Leadership. London: SPCK.
34. Taylor-Gooby, P. (1999). Markets and Motives: Trust and Egoism in Welfare Markets. Journal of Social Policy, 28(1), 97–114.
35. Drayton, W. (2002). The Citizen Sector: Becoming as Competitive and Entrepreneurial as Business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120–32.
36. Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 54–67.
37. Reis, T. (1999). Unleashing New Resources and Entrepreneurship for the Common Good: A Scan, Synthesis, and Scenario for Action. W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
38. Raymond, E. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
39. Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Boston, MA: MIT.
41. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Harper-Business. Editor’s Perspective’, in J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship.
42. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. London: Demos.
43. Johnson, H. & Kaplan, R. (1991). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
44. Cunningham, K. & Ricks, M. (2004). Why Measure: Nonprofits Use Metrics to Show That They Are Efficient. But What If Donors Don’t Care? Stanford Social Innovation Review,44–51.
45. Cunningham, K. & Ricks, M. (Summer 2004). Why Measure: Nonprofits Use Metrics to Show That They Are Efficient. But What If Donors Don’t Care? Stanford Social Innovation Review, 44–51.
46. Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship. Koll Foundation and Foundation Strategy Group.
47. Robinson, J. A. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: how social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. A. & Hockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave, London, 145-60.
48. Roundy, P. T. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems: complementary or disjointed phenomena? International Journal of Social Economics, 44(9), 1-18.
49. Sandal, J. U. (2017). Innovation in education – dynamic innovative learning methods as approach to independent science. Chernihiv: Ukraine–EU. Modern technology, business and law.