Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is not just an objective description of a phenomenon; it also carries a positive normative connotation. However, the academic discourse barely reflects social entrepreneurship’s inherent normativity and often grounds it implicitly on the mission of a social enterprise. In this paper, we argue critically that it is insufficient to ground social entrepreneurship’s inherent normativity on a social mission. Instead, we will show how such a mission-centric conception of social entrepreneurship, when put into practice, is prone to enhance rather than diminish societal grievances. In order to give social entrepreneurship an explicit and sound ethical grounding, we draw on integrative economic ethics as a frame of reference. From this perspective, social entrepreneurship necessitates adherence to the discourse-ethically reasoned moral principle in order to live up to its inherent normative validity claim of good entrepreneurship. The consideration of social entrepreneurship practices is crucial to make this approach less vulnerable to ethical critique. The addition of a practice dimension overcomes the mission-centric view of social entrepreneurship and opens up a typology of enterprise forms, thereby enabling a more fine-grained distinction between social enterprises and other forms of organization.

Highlights

  • Even though social entrepreneurship research is viewed as pre-paradigmatic (Lehner and Kansikas 2013; Nicholls 2010), the notion of social entrepreneurship, as opposed to ‘regular’ business entrepreneurship, is rather uncontested and currently referred to mainly as good entrepreneurship (Dey and Steyaert 2012), which implies ethical soundness and a positive impact on society

  • It is a discourse about the adequate grounding of social entrepreneurship’s inherent normative validity claim of being good entrepreneurship. The outcome of such a discourse should be a conception of social entrepreneurship that scholars find normatively sound and beneficial for society. It is an open question whether the social entrepreneurship conceptions proposed in the scientific discourse can live up to the inherent normative validity claim carried by the term ‘social’

  • We conduct the critical examination from the perspective of ‘integrative economic ethics’ (: integrative ethics), which is a discourse-ethical approach based on the elaboration and justification of the moral point of view (Ulrich 2008a)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Even though social entrepreneurship research is viewed as pre-paradigmatic (Lehner and Kansikas 2013; Nicholls 2010), the notion of social entrepreneurship, as opposed to ‘regular’ business entrepreneurship, is rather uncontested and currently referred to mainly as good entrepreneurship (Dey and Steyaert 2012), which implies ethical soundness and a positive impact on society. Bruder legitimacy of social entrepreneurship could be questioned if research and practice continuously celebrate entrepreneurial conduct as ‘social’ despite the fact that it might encompass harmful actions and outcomes It is the aim of this paper to examine the normative foundations of social entrepreneurship critically, and to give social entrepreneurship an explicit and sound ethical grounding. We conduct the critical examination from the perspective of ‘integrative economic ethics’ (: integrative ethics), which is a discourse-ethical approach based on the elaboration and justification of the moral point of view (Ulrich 2008a) This approach stands out, in that it undertakes no “abandonment of reflection in the face of empirically given circumstances” Despite the myriads of social entrepreneurship conceptions

A Social Mission is Not Enough
A Business Ethics Built on the Critique of Economism
Discussion and Concluding

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.