IX

PREFACE Maria Cristina Longo and Eleonora Cardillo

This volume analyses social entrepreneurship and managerial tools to support the process of economic and social value creation and its dissemina-tion from local to global. Particular attention is given to the interaction among social entrepreneur and stakeholders who participate in the process. Among these, the study highlights the interplay between for-profit social en-trepreneur and public administrations, which are typically non-profit organi-zations and underlines the managerial implications deriving from public or-ganizations’ engagement.

Chapter 1 “Social entrepreneurship: meaning and boundaries” defines social entrepreneurship and its boundaries. The focus is on for-profit social entrepreneurship for going from local to global markets. From a local per-spective, social entrepreneur acts as change-makers whose mission is to cre-ate economic and social value that enhances firm’s performance and make local context more attractive. From a global perspective, social entrepre-neurs extend their economic and social mission in foreign countries, con-tributing in this way to develop the identity of the local area abroad.

Chapter 2 “Social Entrepreneurship: the interplay between firm and local stakeholders” examines the process of social entrepreneurship and how it can become a social strategy through the involvement of local stakeholders (citizens, firms; trade unions, environmental organizations; educational insti-tutions; private-public partnership, financial system; infrastructure system, public administrations) and local communities. Public organizations are es-sential to implement actions that make territory and its services attractive for investments. Reducing bureaucracy, promoting transparency in communica-tion and digitalization of procedures can foster the diffusion of social entre-preneurship.

Chapter 3 “Social Entrepreneurship: from Local to Global” analyses so-cial entrepreneurs as catalysts of the territory in international markets. They develop cutting-edge production, buy raw materials from international sup-

X

pliers to sell to local or global groups of consumers, integrate knowledge around the world.

Chapter 4 “The Culture of Social Accountability” highlights the im-portance of the institutional role of public administrations in attributing im-portance to social aspects and to expansion of traditional and restricted communication channels between public bodies and the social actors. The social responsibility is related to the task of the accountability that qualifies the interaction and reporting system, internal and external, giving full trans-parency in managerial activity. Accountability explains the responsibility towards community which has a moral rights to be informed.

Chapter 5 “Measuring Social Value” defines the social accounting con-cerning the ability to provide an account for the actions for which the organ-ization is responsible. The social accounting is related to the concept of sus-tainability that involves a level of interaction between the most complex human system and the direct implications on environment. The chapter de-scribes the process of social accounting to identify and measure social val-ues, influencing the perception of the organization activities and results.

Chapter 6 “Evaluating Stakeholders’ Perception on Social Activities” ex-plains the role of stakeholder and their involvement. The organization ac-tives the engagement of citizens and its interlocutors, creating social value in the perspective of the development and the growth of well-being of the community. Social responsibility implies the identification of stakeholders in order to supporting the expectations and managing the conflicting nature of different interests.

Chapter 7 “Transparency as a Public Value for Supporting Social Entre-preneurship” offers some insights on the transparency process of public ad-ministrations. Transparency creates the basis for social control, consensus forming, knowledge sharing and trust. Through the direct involvement of firms, local associations, citizens and other stakeholders, transparency fa-vours discussion forums, communication of social initiatives and reporting of results. In order to identify the different dimensions of transparency, we adopt the Meijer model (2013). It considers transparency of public organiza-tions according to the strategic, cognitive and institutional perspective and the way in which transparency is developed through the interactions be-tween organization and stakeholders.

Chapter 8 “Ethics for Social Entrepreneurship” proposes ethics as a prin-ciple that permeates the process of social entrepreneurship. To be socially responsible for a for-profit social entrepreneur means going beyond legal obligations and regulations; it is necessary to respect and voluntarily pro-mote the correctness of agreements, to invest in human capital, social pro-

XI

gress and respect for the environment so to contributing to a better quality of life.

The volume joints and integrates the results of research programs carried out by the authors over time. Among these, we mention Entrepreneurial Ter-ritories (2010), Social and Environmental Accounting. Research Advances and new perspectives (2012), The internationalization of Social Entrepre-neurship between local and global markets (2013).

Starting from the strategic, managerial and social accountability perspec-tives, interesting issues emerge on measuring social value, applying trans-parency for social and local development, and on the importance of ethics for the success of the social entrepreneurial initiatives.

XII

1

CHAPTER 1

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: MEANING AND BOUNDARIES

Maria Cristina Longo *

SUMMARY: 1. Defining social entrepreneurship. – 2. Current literature on social entrepre-neurship. – 3. For-profit social entrepreneurship and principles. – 4. Internationalizing for-profit social entrepreneurship. – 5. References.

1. DEFINING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The term of “social entrepreneurship” is introduced in the academic de-bate in 1990 and refers to entrepreneurial initiatives undertaken by individu-als or groups of them who simultaneously pursue economic and social goals, through the creation of value for the communities in which they operate (Cho 2006; Perrini 2007; Thomson Alvy & Lees, 2000).

The boundaries of social entrepreneurship is often unclear because of the variety of manifestations of the phenomenon, moving from private, public, and social sectors (Dees & Elias 1998; Dart 2004) to the range of business models for generating social value, such as for-profit, not-for-profit and hy-brid organizational forms. The organizational alternatives differ by the num-ber of self-financed activities, from those that are fully grant financed to those partially self-sufficient, versus those enterprises that have internal sources of incomes such as to be fully self-sufficient.

We focus on for-profit social firms, which present an overlapping of so-cial and commercial activity and operate in an international context. They can be small and medium-sized enterprises, corporations, multinationals,

* Associate Professor of Business Economics and Management – Department of Eco-nomics and Management, University of Catania (Italy) email: mclongo@unict.it.

2

family businesses. Being profitable (or at least financially sustainable) is not their main goal but a means to achieve the social purpose. Although they are less common than not-for profit organizations, for-profit social enterprises are expanding across the world at a high rate of growth. They combine both social impact and economic value creation by adopting an entrepreneurial approach to pursuit a social mission.

We believe some features characterized the social value of this kind of ventures. Their mission is given by the subset of social missions pursued in each country and that, taken together, make up the social value system. The social value is subjective because it is context-dependent; it is related to the unmet social needs or new opportunities for each country, to the real life ex-periences and to the process of consumption and co-creation of value. It is negotiated among stakeholders and contingent since supplier and consumer at a certain point of time define the process of economic exchange. Thus, the social value changes over time and from one country to another (Young 2006).

The question of what to measure and how to measure the social value created by international for-profit social ventures requires attention, as it cannot easily be disaggregated into its economic, social and cultural compo-nents. A second related question is whether differences in value are influ-enced exclusively by the level of economic development of the country or to a combination of geographic, social and institutional backgrounds. A third central question is to what extent social entrepreneurs contribute to the eco-nomic development of the areas where they are established, making them more attractive to investors and to local citizens. The SEship contribution can be observed from the double perspective: towards the local community in the country of origin and towards the foreign countries in which the en-trepreneurs expand their activities.

We focus our analysis on the contribution of social entrepreneurship in enhancing the competitiveness of the territory where the company is head-quartered, making it more attractive for foreign investors and local business-es. In particular, the study examines how the process of internationalization of for-profit social enterprises could affect the economic growth of an area, promote or inhibit the opportunity seeking, what are the stages of its devel-opment and in which way the initiative of individual entrepreneurs or teams could turn into systemic changes.

3

2. CURRENT LITERATURE ON SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The concept of “social entrepreneurship”, as a catalyst for social changes, is introduced in the strategic and managerial debate in the 1990s. The studies are mainly oriented to investigate the enterprise side of SE, the entrepreneur-ial activities and abilities of individuals while less emphasis is given to the social aspects.

The phenomenon refers to business ventures that pursuit the aim to gen-erate simultaneously economical rents and social value in the community (Cho 2006; Perrini 2007; Thomson Alvy, & Lees 2000; Mulloth B., Kickul J.R., Gundry K.L. 2016).

Social entrepreneurship differs from the business entrepreneurship be-cause the process of value creation is finalized to stimulate social change or meeting social need rather than market expansion or profit seeking. For Martin and Osberg (2007: 2), social entrepreneurship is a form of entrepre-neurship that has a great deal in common with “business entrepreneurship”, with some adjustment in mission, approach and orientation. It is character-ized by three components:

(1) an ability to identify a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity;

(2) an ability to identify an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium and de-velop a social value proposition;

(3) the willingness to take action in order to forge a new, stable equilibri-um that releases rapped potential or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group.

A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010 (Granados, Hlupic, Coakes & Mohamed 2011) shows a significant increase in the investigation of the phe-nomenon; however, there is an on-going debate among academics and prac-titioners about the definitions of social entrepreneurship and social entrepre-neur. Even less explored is the issue of the internationalization of social en-trepreneurship, its nature and its incidence across the world and its contribu-tion to the growth of the country of origin.

The definition of social entrepreneurship varies widely as a consequence of the several streams of researches, which focus mainly on the research domain and conceptual boundaries, methodology, semantic meanings, re-sources and environment, governance regulation, performance metrics, and manifestation of the phenomenon in the organizations, which marry philan-thropy with business models to organizations that overlap non-profit with commercial activity.

4

In the last years social entrepreneurship has emerged as a global phenom-enon (Harding 2004; Ferreira, Fernandes, Peres-Ortiz, Alves 2017), wide-spread mainly in USA and in Europe, especially in UK. The Global Entre-preneurship Monitor (GEM) report 2009 on social entrepreneurship shows a growth of social entrepreneurial activity at a faster rate than commercial ventures and suggests non-profit social enterprises are the most common form of social organizations, especially in the following sectors: Business and Professional Associations, Culture and Recreation, Development and Housing, Education and Research, Environment, Health, Law and Politics, Philanthropic Intermediaries and Voluntarism Promotion, Religion, Social and Services, Unions and International.

Cho (2006) argues social entrepreneurs play a central role in fighting against social problems. Other authors (Nicholls 2006; Sculyer 1998) de-scribe them as individuals with a vision for social change and with the fi-nancial resources to support their ideas.

Ashoka (2010:1) describes social entrepreneurs as individuals with inno-vative solutions to social problems, interested in finding what is not working and in solving the problem by changing the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps. Social entrepreneurs play the role of changing agents, which combine the idea of value creation with the opportunities seeking and inventiveness as a state of mind.

According to some authors, the coexistence of social and economic goals in the same organization produces a tension between them. For others (Dees, Emerson, & Economy 2001; Horsnell 2010; Mair, Robinson, & Hockerts 2006; Perrini &Vurro 2006; Prahalad 2004; Prahalad & Hammond 2002), economic goals are just a mean to an end and not only a way of measuring value creation.

The growing interest on conceptualizing and measuring of the social val-ue creation highlights that for-profit social entrepreneurs are both highly ef-fective and efficient at delivering social and economic contributions to the context where they have established themselves. They play an important role in attempting to solve challenging social issues (e.g.. contributing in job cre-ation and improving quality of life); they also look for sustaining cultural changes by connecting communities across the world and raising awareness among consumers and producers to use resources and the environment in a sustainable way.

However, there are currently no or very limited data available to assess the nature of social entrepreneurship in a international perspective, to what extent it differs across countries or to what extent the social, cultural, and political international context influences the degree of social value creation.

5

Particularly, less known is the contribution of social entrepreneurs oper-ating in global markets, either through the geographic expansion of their ac-tivity or the selling of products beyond the country of origin or the applica-tion of their business model in other countries. Since internationalized social entrepreneurs act simultaneously globally and locally, they may use the profits to support sustainability-related issue both in the home country and in foreign countries (Grenier 2006). More insights are needed to understand the variables behind the success of a social entrepreneurial initiative, especially when it is distributed in a broader scale of countries.

3. FOR-PROFIT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PRINCIPLES

To determine whether or not a for-profit organization is socially entre-preneurial, it is appropriate to consider, in addition to its social mission, the prerequisites on which it is based.

We argue that social entrepreneurs contribute to social and economic de-velopment of a territory if they manage the value chain system, locally and globally, according to ethics and social responsibility.

The social responsibility term focuses on two words: the “responsibility” and the “social dimension”. The first one involves the empowerment of in-dividuals and institutions in local governance. The second one qualifies the first, in the sense that entrepreneurial ventures should be oriented towards the protection and respect of civil and moral norms of the present and future communities. Being socially responsible means investing in human capital, environment and relationships with stakeholders for a fair and sustainable development based on human dignity, respect, trust, solidarity, public spirit (Friedman 1970; Gallino 2010; Ringov & Zollo 2007).

The activity of the for-profit social enterprises follows the principle of social responsibility if it takes account of the cultural differences and the ge-ographical areas in which international social enterprises are established. The degree of social responsibility changes over time and space, also in connection with investments, emerging business opportunities, unmet needs and learning processes carried out by local communities. In accordance with the triple bottom line, we believe this activity aims at achieving three objec-tives: the economic one, as the profit-making is necessary to ensure the de-velopment of the territory and enhancing its attractiveness; the social one, towards the citizens, workers, associations and other local players; and the environmental one, based on a perspective of sustainable development.

At the center of social responsibility is an ethical approach to markets.

6

The decomposition of the value chain, the choice on the multi-localization of activities, the management of supply chain and the lines to be followed in international contexts require an ethical action, i.d. the responsibility for what is produced and how it is produced (Freeman 1984; Dees & Elias 1998; Goodpaster 2007) towards the company, the context of origin and in-digenous communities. An ethical behavior is based on deep values, repre-sented by the sense of belonging to the own territory, but also adaptation to the cultures and traditions of foreign countries, respect for human rights, sol-idarity towards the most marginalized areas, the use of local resources effec-tively and efficiently, cooperation, trust, fair trade.

We analyse the factors underlying the process of social value creation that starts locally and then spreading to other areas, creating a virtuous cycle of contamination, imitation and persuasion where ethics and social responsi-bility are the foundations. The theoretical framework is based on the follow-ing variables:

– Actors. The Actors play a critical role in the growth of the area if they are catalysts of social entrepreneurship and adopt ethical behaviour towards the stakeholders.

– Dominant theme. It describes the idea around which the entrepreneurial activity develops.

– Compatibility. It concern the opportunity of matching product/service with the social goal of the company.

– Connections. It creates the right empathy for building the social issue. – Communication. It aims at convincing stakeholders on the social value

of the entrepreneurial initiative. – Commitment for social issue. – Serendipity. The ability of discovering a social opportunity.

All together, these key dimensions represent the basis of the growth of the territory as they transform the entrepreneurial ventures into a composite social strategy (Perrini & Vurro 2006) where business and non-profit cul-tures are put together.

7

4. INTERNATIONALIZING FOR-PROFIT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The literature on local development does not explain how the process of social entrepreneurship can become a social strategy widely shared in the community of an area. And even less explored is the relationship between social entrepreneurship and growth of a territory where local products com-pete in global markets.

From a local perspective, social entrepreneurs act as catalysts for devel-opment (Drayton 2006); they are economic agents who also provide public services and social programs in addition with those offered by local agencies and institutions. Their mission is to create social value through innovations that have a positive impact not only on the venture’s performance, but also on the territory in terms of job creation, improving of the quality of life, envi-ronmental protection, investment attraction, reputation, trust and credibility.

From a global point of view, social entrepreneurs extend their social mis-sion even in foreign countries and contribute to developing the identity of their country of origin abroad. Their products are directed to global niches and derive by the integration of the value chain, whose activities are located in multiple countries. The social venture connects international suppliers with costumers from different nationalities, integrates cultures and tradi-tions, and promotes knowledge transfer mixed with contextualized practices (O’ Connor 2006).

However, less known is the contribution of social entrepreneurs operating in global markets, either through the geographic expansion of their activity or the selling of products beyond the country of origin or the application of their business model in other countries. Since internationalized social entre-preneurs act simultaneously globally and locally, they may use the profits to support sustainability-related issue both in the home country and in foreign countries (Grenier 2006). More insights are needed to understand the varia-bles behind the success of a social entrepreneurial initiative, especially when it is distributed in a broader scale of countries.

Starting from the Tim Morral (2010)’s model of the 4 Cs, we develop the key dimensions of the circle of economic and social changes triggered by for-profit social enterprises. The model highlights social responsibility and ethics for the success of the social initiative; it identifies some key variables in defining the identity of a territory and its growth, both locally and global-ly. We believe that the process of social entrepreneurship, initiated by indi-vidual entrepreneurs, produces social value if it turns into a composite social strategy, by involving other local players. It is built on social intelligence mechanisms (Goleman, 2006), and it is made up of a sequence of opportuni-

8

ties recognition where serendipity is a strategic variable (Reynolds, 2005) in addition with commitment and communication.

5. REFERENCES

Ashoka (2010). What is a Social Sntrepreneurship? Tetrivied from http://www. ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur.

Cho, A.H. (2006). Politics, Values and Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Apprais-al. In J. Mair, J. Robinson & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan, 34-56.

Dart, R. (2004). The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Non Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411- 424.

Dees J.G., & Elias J. (1998). The Challenges of Combining Social and Commercial Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 165-178.

Dees J.G., Emerson J., & Economy P. (2001). Enterprising Non Profits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Drayton, W. (2006). Everyone a Changemaker, Innovation Journal.net, winter, 80-95.

Ferreira J.J., Fernandes C.I., Peres-Ortiz M., Alves H. (2017). Conceptualizing so-cial entrepreneurship: perspectives from the literature, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 14, 1, 73.

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Business Ethic. The State of the Art, Oxford, England: Ox-ford University.

Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Prof-its. New York Times Magazine, 13, September, 32-33.

Gallino, L. (2010). L’Impresa Irresponsabile. Torino, Italy: Giulio Einaudi Edi-tore.

Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. The New Science of Human Relationships. New York, NY: Bantam Dell, Random House Inc.

Goodpaster, K.E. (2007). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Granados, M., Hlupic V., Coakes E., & Mohamed S. (2011). Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship Research and Theory. A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(3), 198-218.

Grenier P. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: Agency in a Globalizing World. In A. Nicholls (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 119-143.

Grenier P. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: Agency in a Globalizing World. In A.

9

Nicholls (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 119-143.

Harding, R. (2004). Social Enterprise: The New Economic Engine? Business Strat-egy Review (Winter), 40- 43.

Horsnell, A. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: Ten Questions with David Bornstein. Retrivied from http://Managementhelp.Org/soc_entr/soc.entr.htm.

Mair J., Robinson J., & Hockerts K. (Eds.) (2006). Social Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan.

Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, spring. Retrivied from http://www.ssire view.org/articles/entry/Social_entrepreneurship_the case_for_definition.

Morral, T. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship and Business Growth. Retrivied from http://www.gaebler.com/Social-Entrepreneurship-and-Business-Growth.htm.

Mulloth B., Kickul J.R., Gundry K.L. (2016). Driving technology innovation through social entrepreneurship at Prezi, Journal of Small Business and Enter-prise Development, 23, 3, 753.

Nicholls, A. (Eds.). (2006). Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

O’ Connor, E.S. (2006). Location and Relocation, Visions and Revisions: Opportu-nities For Social Entrepreneurship. In C. Steyaert, & D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepre-neurship as Social Change. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 78-96.

Perrini, F. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship. Milano, Italy: Egea. Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: Innovation and Social

Change across Theory and Practice. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan, 57-85.

Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Eradicating Pov-erty through Profit. New York, USA, Wharton School Publishing.

Prahalad, C.K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48-57.

Reynolds, P.D. (2005). Understanding Business Creation: Serendipity and Scope in Two Decades of Business Creation Studies. Small Business Economics, 24, 359-364.

Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). Corporate Responsability from a Socio-insti-tutional Perspective. The Impact of National Culture on Corporate Social Per-formance. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 476-485.

Schuyler G., (1998). Social entrepreneurship: profit as a means, not an end in Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepre-neurial Education (CELCEE) website (www.celcee.edu/products/digest/Dig98-7html) 3p.

10

Thomson, J., Alvy G., & Lees A. (2000). Social Entrepreneurship: a New Look at the People and the Potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328-338.

Young, R. (2006). For What It Is Worth: Social Value and the Future of Social En-trepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship. New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, chapter 3.

11

CHAPTER 2

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN FIRM AND

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS Maria Cristina Longo *

SUMMARY: 1. The process of social value creation. – 2. The importance of stakeholders for promoting social entrepreneurship. – 3. Value sharing among for-profit social venture and public organizations. – 4. The fallouts of social entrepreneurship on the local devel-opment. – 5. Successful social entrepreneurship histories in brief – 6. References.

1. THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL VALUE CREATION

The process of social value creation starts locally and then spreads to other areas, through a virtuous cycle of contamination, imitation and persua-sion where ethics and social responsibility are the foundations. Starting from the model of the 4 Cs proposed by Tim Morral (2010), the theoretical framework is based on the following variables: actors, dominant theme, compatibility, connections, communication, commitment, and serendipity.

The Actors can be considered as catalysts of social entrepreneurship. The distinctive feature is the ability to build social networks interested in the philanthropic goals of the company. They may be family businesses to big players. The first combine business skills with the typical features of the family, as a community of values and a strong system of interrelations with the territory. Among the elements that characterize their commitment to so-cial responsibility, there are the value of the ties, mutual accountability, trust, craftsmanship combined with the rediscovery of local practices, the in-

* Associate Professor of Business Economics and Management – Department of Economics and Management, University of Catania (Italy) email: mclongo@unict.it.

12

terpretation of traditions in an innovative way, the involvement in social and cultural activities. The latter are multinational companies that enjoy recogni-tion and visibility in the area. Their presence can be a source of technology and knowledge transfer and can encourage local companies to adopt imita-tive behaviour towards the new products (Lazerson, & Lorenzoni 2008).

The Dominant theme describes the idea, which can be considered as a so-cial opportunity. It should start as a successful business idea to become a de-sirable social mission, widely shared by the local community. The dominant theme might become a more favourable entrepreneurial context for attract-ing new business ventures, engaged in the same or related business and in-terested in exploiting the potential endowment of resources that comes in the territory. The dominant theme is the element on which to build the competi-tiveness of a territory, its reputation and credibility, in accordance with the Manifesto of Ethics, especially in the efficient use of resources, quality and techniques, social transparency and procedural fairness. It expresses the his-tory, the traditions, and the culture of an area, in other words, its identity. Social innovation might modify local norms, roles and expectations as to transform the cultural context for the better, or provide tools and resources to enhance productivity or increase the influence of marginalized communi-ties (Alvord, Brown, & Letts 2004).

Compatibility means a good match between product/service and the so-cial goal of the company. The environment represents the natural habitat where social entrepreneurs discover opportunities. They reveal a deep inter-est in tangible and intangible assets and in the potential of knowledge con-textualized in local areas. By sensing, mobilizing, and operationalizing the potential of knowledge contextualized in the area, social entrepreneurs offer on the market an innovation that fit with the area’s identity.

Connections are to generating empathy for the social issue, involving the various stakeholders in the process. Network building is one of the abilities entrepreneurs need to have. They start their ventures on the basis of a vision or an identified opportunity, and organize it to have a personality and a life of its own. If they stand alone, nobody appreciates their actions; there is no reward for the entrepreneurs. Network building helps to encourage, enable, and value what the entrepreneur starts. It is an important tool not only to leverage resources but also to create shared social value and to develop forms of responsible competitiveness. The network of relations makes legit-imate the social entrepreneurial initiative and starts a virtuous circle between the change-makers around the world and along the value chain system. Per-sonal networks are also important in mobilizing contextualized knowledge from individual to collectivity. In the early stage, the networks are prevalent-

13

ly of family and friendship, while in the next stage social entrepreneurs try to establish external relations with all the stakeholders. The external stake-holders, by whom social entrepreneurships depend, and to whom they should give special attention, include: resource providers, financial inves-tors, institutions, customers, and community at a large. They also look for alliances with philanthropic organizations, banks, commercial market, and suppliers in order to carry out programs in the country of origin and broad. Empathy is the key to involve them, while the willingness of local actors to take part in the process is the condition essential for turning a social innova-tion into an entrepreneurial opportunity that marks the territory and its growth.

Communication is the ability to convince the stakeholders on the social value of the entrepreneurial initiative and on the capability of the venture to deliver what its promises. Successful social entrepreneurs use their business for educating others about the social issue. In-store displays, advertising, packaging are all good places to display information about the issue entre-preneur is passionate and what her/his venture is doing to make the world a better place. Attracting imitators is a part of the entrepreneurial success story because, at that point, the new way of doing things will become the common and normal way. This process of creativity and change can, therefore, be seen as a cycle in which entrepreneurs lead the way from one state of equi-librium to a new and superior one, by reconfiguring the existing social value system (Martin & Osberg 2007; Hlady-Rispal, Servantie 2018). We believe that the process of social entrepreneurship, initiated by individual entrepre-neurs, can spread spontaneously as the number of entrepreneurs and local players, attracted by the social value creation, multiplies up to engage the next generation of social entrepreneurs and change-makers.

Commitment consists of making the social issue an integral part of the venture’s ethos and mission, overcoming barriers and resource limitation. Commitment to the internationalization of SEship is influenced by a number of factors, including: the success of social innovation in the local context, the level of financial, emotional and cognitive investments, the economic sustainability of the project abroad, the degree of interest of foreign commu-nities to the social issue, accessibility to global markets and the presence of favourable context conditions (as the infrastructure, tax incentives, govern-ment policies, financial capital, skilled labor forces, suppliers, security).

Serendipity is a tool to leading up to discovery of a social opportunity in-to a local context and to transform contextualized knowledge into a strategic source for building local capabilities. Specifically, the SEship process is complex, multidimensional and also “context-dependent”. It is spontaneous

14

and contagious, bottom-up, emergent, made-up of a sequence of opportunity recognition (Lorenzoni & Schillaci 2007; Schillaci & Longo 2010).

We argue the social process is built on social intelligence mechanisms (Goleman 2006), and it is made up of a sequence of opportunities recognition where serendipity is a strategic variable (Reynolds 2005; Hoogendoorn 2016). The process of opportunity recognition is serendipitous; in other words, the opportunity is an unintended outcome of activities having other purpose. However, it is likely that intentionality entered into the process at some point in time. Each of these historical accidents is composed of micro-stories that alter the pattern of strategic opportunities. Historical accidents require identi-fying the value of unexplored resources, changing resources allocation and in-volving different actors. The discovery of a valuable social opportunity is a result of an effort, initially directed to a specific result, the fortune to meet a potentially favorable condition, the alertness to recognize the potentiality hid-den in that opportunity and the flexibility to redirect efforts towards new busi-ness objectives (Denrell, Fang, & Winter 2003: 985-987; Graebner 2004).

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL ENTRE-

PRENEURSHIP

The process of value creation realized by social entrepreneurship is based on the involvement of the various stakeholders and local communities. Each actor assumes a responsibility towards the other actors, individually or col-lectively, operating within fair, transparent and ethical contexts. The rela-tionship between social entrepreneur and multi-stakeholder requires the abil-ity to meet the expectations of the various stakeholders by protecting their rights and meeting their perceptions, but also to create forms of social and economic aggregation and value sharing.

The system of stakeholders includes various categories of subjects direct-ly or indirectly involved. They can be considered as rings of an ethical value chain, as they are both users and beneficiaries of the value created by the for-profit social venture. The value creation and sharing grows and feeds it-self through the quality and commitment of mutual relationships and shared meanings. For example, the policies of local governments on the environ-mental protection influence and are influenced by the choices and activities of the actors belonged in the infrastructure system. Each subject is therefore a user and a producer of value for the local community.

Therefore, the social entrepreneurship sets up a sort of supply chain of the ethical value. Schillaci, Longo (2010: 60-61) identify the main catego-

15

ries of users and benefices, that are: active citizens; the firms; trade unions and trade associations; environmental organizations; educational institu-tions; private-public partnership and networks; financial system; the health system; the infrastructure system; future generations, public administra-tion.

Active citizens contribute indirectly to the achievement of social enter-prise goals, taking care of common goods, such as territory, environment, water, air, security, legality, civil rights, education, cultural heritage, public services, infrastructure. In the relationship between public administration and citizens, the latter have traditionally been framed solely in their role as passive beneficiaries. On the contrary, citizens become actors in the social entrepreneurship process, contributing to the local development. This makes the local area more attractive both in terms of public-private investments, new ventures and local development and in terms of quality of life.

Firms in the same or in complementary business are key actors for inter-preting the innovative social idea and developing the dominant theme. Col-laboration and coopetition allow overcoming rational/selfish corporate be-havior. For producers and other firms, the collaboration for reaching social values and economic objectives is effectively. The three factors of entrepre-neurial success, that are the competitive, economic and social dimension, are functionally linked to each other with a strong “tension” towards sociality. This is directed in the medium and long term to produce better levels of sat-isfaction for all the social actors that are involved. Among the initiatives of the firms engaged in the social process, there are, for example, conformity to eco-compatible standards, participation in fair trade projects, donations to the local community, cultural sponsorship and recovery of degraded areas, corporate volunteering, purchase of raw materials an products from local cooperatives or from subjects carried out in activities of social interest.

Trade unions and trade associations are also key actors of the process of value creation for social entrepreneurship if they try to reconcile the protec-tion of the interests of their representatives by carrying out functions useful for the economic development of the local community. In a social entrepre-neurial vision, trade unions and trade associations take a constructive ap-proach, aimed at protecting the needs posed by workers, but also by busi-nesses and citizens. A value sharing approach is able to combine the defense of the represented base, with the needs of economic growth of the firms.

Among the stakeholders, an increasingly important role is played by en-vironmental organizations. A social entrepreneurship approach implies a commitment to responsible management of natural resources and the use of low environmental impact technologies.

16

Future generations represent the subjects to which the social entrepreneur undertakes to ensure the conservation and delivery of the future of this activ-ity to the new generations. Being socially responsible means guaranteeing future generations the wealth of resources and nature reserves, maintaining economic development compatible with social equity and ecosystems.

Educational institutions connect research and talents with the local entre-preneurial structure. Schools, universities and research centers should act as a reference point for social enterprise by carrying out design and operational functions.

The financial system and the banks exercise the role of institutional de-velopment agents and contribute significantly to the process of innovation and territorial integration. The infrastructure system implies the definition of efficient and usable services. The role of technological innovation in this field becomes fundamental especially for intangible and digital infrastruc-tures. Among the interlocutors of social entrepreneurship are also external users, i.e. companies potentially interested in settling in the area, investors, possible new residents, tourist flows.

3. VALUE SHARING AMONG FOR-PROFIT SOCIAL VENTURE AND PUBLIC OR-

GANIZATIONS

The public administration represented by public bodies, structures, offi-cials, public administrators, employees, is directed to operate within the laws and regulations in force. Their institutional activity focuses mainly on de-veloping the set of relationships with both internal and external interlocu-tors, necessary to seek, consent and social legitimacy around activities and procedures.

The stakeholder concept is not a totally new concept for local authorities, in fact it is linked to the duty to pursue the general interest of the communi-ty, in the respect of the interests of the groups and the subjects that constitute it, placing the citizen as the only general point of reference for public action.

The consideration of public organizations in the perspective of the stake-holders requires reflecting on the coexistence within the community of deep-ly diverse interests in relation to the different social, economic, juridical and territorial conditions of the subjects, which make the achievement of the in-stitutional goals of community complex.

The theory of stakeholders applied to public administrations is interpreted as a “return to the origins”, the “rediscovery of one’s own nature” and the “elimination of incrustations of an inadequate exercise of political functions

17

and public administration” (Borgonovi 2005). This dimension extends pub-lic social responsibility to a broad concept, oriented towards the “local community”, dynamic expression of interactions in a specific historical, nat-ural, social and economic environment that sees the administration as a re-sponsible organizational unit, also by the normative dictate, to represent the community in which it operates, to take care of its interests and to promote its development.

But if within the local body almost all the subjects influenced by the ac-tivity are stakeholders and are therefore attracted by the behaviour of the public structure, it is necessary, to make any social reporting process valid, to define its weight and relevance. The complexity and the large number of stakeholders present in the public context leads to the definition of instru-ments aimed at highlighting the subjects that represent interests for which there is a widespread social sensitivity and towards which efforts must be directed towards the activation of dialogue processes and communication.

Public organizations are essential to plan actions and solutions that make the territory and its services attractive for setting up of new production and commercial sites, and favoring tourist flows with a high content of perma-nence. Reducing bureaucracy, promoting transparency in communication and digitalization of procedures can foster open dialogue with companies and attract new investments from abroad.

For the purpose of attracting exogenous investments, it is necessary to re-flect on the type and nature of the sectors and business activities for which the settlement is to be encouraged. This is also done in consideration of the entrepreneurial structure, extent and articulation of the sectors and produc-tive activities present in the area, of the competitive analysis and of the dif-ferential positioning to which the public organizations want to aim, of the system of resources and skills available, of the address political and admin-istrative choice. By attracting exogenous investments with a high impact on the models of creation and diffusion of know-how, public organizations put into action processes of acceleration and accumulation of knowledge, which represent the wheels of innovation and responsibility.

In an economy of relationships, knowledge becomes the value to be de-fended, the new central resource capable of attracting other stakeholders and uniting the investments made by each of them.

18

4. THE FALLOUTS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON THE LOCAL DEVEL-

OPMENT

We can use the GRI Guidelines to report some of the outcomes of the so-cial entrepreneurship. The results concern the for-profit social enterprise’s added value, the contribution to the growth of the territory locally and abroad, the engagement towards the indigenous communities.

Regarding the for-profit social enterprise, one of the challenges pursued by the social entrepreneurs, is to improve the quality of life for sets of peo-ple that live locally and abroad, taking into account two conditions:

– the ability to develop economic and social value in the country of origin;

– and the ability to transfer this mission abroad and, in particular, in the cocoa producing countries of South America.

Another goal is to enhance the competitiveness of the business around the innovative social idea, according to the following directions:

– selling local products in foreign markets through commercial agents; – promoting the organization in buying groups in order to reduce costs

and ensure the price transparency; – entering into agreements with farmers as to reduce the supply chain.

Regarding the social added value for the geographical areas where the social entrepreneur is based, it is worth noting the growth of companies in the business and in the related fields; the increasing of complementary busi-nesses from local and foreign companies. It is also notes the efforts of social entrepreneurs to invest part of their profits in organizing cultural, literary and artistic events to attract press and authorities in addition to visitors and locals people. Moreover, social entrepreneurs make the area commercially more attractive for foreign capital by supporting the cross-fertilization among different business and the emergence of new around a dominant theme.

To achieving the geographical expansion both domestically and abroad, the social entrepreneurs redefine the value chain system, basing it on ethics and social responsibility, especially towards suppliers and customers. These two principles enhanced reputation, credibility and trust towards the area, local community and companies. So, they maybe engaged in adopting faire trade policies, they may ensure the highest quality products, certifying the geographical area, the origin of the raw materials and the procedures with the IGP trademarks; they also maybe involved in promoting a culture of

19

craftsmanship around the world, recovering the role of traditions, legend, cultural diversity and local practices, integrating them and re-interpreting in a modern style. They can be engaged in promoting sustainability in margin-alized areas, by building school for children, respecting human dignity and environment. The social entrepreneurship process is successful when the fallouts affect the all area, which registers an increase in imports of raw ma-terial, an expansion in the sales locally and nationally, an increase in exports through a network of commercial agents, foreign buyers, wholesalers, retail-ers, and e-commerce.

5. SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP HISTORIES IN BRIEF

The Ferrero Group’s Corporate Social Responsibility Report

Ferrero’s sustainability strategy is supported by the corporate social re-sponsibility’s strong vision based on “Sharing values to create value” (www.ferrero.com). This means that its way of creating value is not just based on leveraging strong unchanged values, it also implies the responsibil-ity to share them with all stakeholders: inside the company, towards con-sumers and families, for the communities where we operate and other organ-izations with whom we are affiliated.

This is closely linked to Ferrero’s mission, which is to satisfy consumers’ expectations everywhere through shared Ferrero values: passion for excel-lence, loyalty, respect, responsibility and integrity.

Strong values for a shared responsibility at global and at local level. The Ferrero Group is “Glocal”.

Global because it serves markets all over the world, and because the firm has principles, plans and goals that apply everywhere in the same way. Local be-cause Ferrero is passionate about its roots, and because it is proud of investing in local communities, empowering people wherever it operates. In this way, the company also assume local responsibilities through global commitments.

With this approach, Ferrero Group has built three CSR pillars:

– Enhancing Local Communities – In more mature markets, the company develops social and cultural activities mainly through the Ferrero Founda-tion. In emerging countries, it operates through Ferrero Social Enterprises, now established in India, South Africa and Cameroon. Their goal is to en-hance development directly in the field, at the local level.

– Healthy Lifestyle – Ferrero’s strategy for nutrition is based on three pil-lars: a balanced diet, small portions and regular physical activity.

20

– Sustainable Agricultural Practices – Ferrero is committed to reaching 100% certified as traceable and sustainable cocoa, coffee, palm oil and ha-zelnuts before 2020 and to improving the living conditions of farmers in some of the poorest countries of the world. This will allow, in the long term, increased productivity from the same harvesting sources and enhanced farmers’ skills, also to address climate change challenges. A cross cutting issue is how to ensure sustainability all along the value chain. This is exactly the purpose of the ABCDE (A Business Code Dialogue Engagement) Plan completed in 2013, which allows sharing the Code of Business Conduct with internal and external stakeholders.

From Bonajuto Antoca Dolceria to Modica’s Chocolate

The Modica’s experience seems to be very useful for understanding the contribution of SEship to the economic development of this area.

Modica is a little community in Sicily (Italy) that has a tradition in choco-late dates back at least to the 16th century, after the Spanish domination. In recent years, the territory of Modica has registered an economic and social growth connected to social entrepreneurship process.

The initiative, started by the “B. Antica Dolceria” in 1990s, has become over the years a successful social innovation so as to attract an increasing number of firms engaged in the same business or through the Consortium for the Protection of Modican Chocolate. It also attracts firms in comple-mentary activities (like tourism, travels, restaurants, real estates agencies, and IT technologies), the interest of press and communication media, events, and exhibitions internationally and nationally. Finally, it also promoted the internationalization of these companies, especially in some European coun-tries, Japan and USA, and collaborations with the cocoa plantations of South America.

The Modica’s chocolate contains all the original cocoa beans that make the end product so rich and intense, and that is largely lacking in industrially manufactured chocolate. The process of social value creation starts with an innovative idea. It consists in selling of singular little craft-made bars of chocolate to consumer for the local market, by respecting the traditional process of producing vanilla and cinnamon chocolate. It is prepared follow-ing the ancient Aztec recipe, mixed Arab and Spanish tradition using verbal and gestural craft-made rituals. . In a couple of years, the “B. Antica Dol-ceria” chocolate starts to be known also in a wider national dimension.

The “Antica Dolceria Bonajuto” becomes a model for others and its suc-cess has increased the number of local players engaged in the same business

21

(Antica Dolceria Rizza, Caffè dell’Arte, Chantilly, CioMod, Donna Elvira, Pasticceria Bonomo, Pasticceria Di Lorenzo, Spinello ... Dolci pensieri). In addition, closer relationships arise between local institutions and interna-tional cocoa organizations; the press writes about Modican chocolate, sever-al public events are organized around the theme of chocolate. In 2005 the IMCO – the World Chocolate Producers Meeting takes place for the first time in Modica, contributing to establish Modican chocolate position in the worldwide competitiveness. Then, Chocobarocco and Eurochocolate events reinforce the presence of local and regional authorities, institutional invest-ments in addition to visitors and locals alike. Finally, participation in inter-national fairs such as ChoccoVenezuela, ChocoLatino in Ecuador, Choandi-no in Colombia supports the geographic expansion and sales abroad as well as allows pursuing market transparency, economic, environmental and social sustainability in cocoa producing countries. The “Antica Dolceria Bonajuto” idea becomes a social innovation, which describes the identity of Modica. Today, an increasing number of firms operating in tourism, travels, real es-tates investments, wine and foods, and IT technologies try to improve the competitiveness of Modica’s chocolate in the global markets and to attract more investment in the town.

Key dimensions of the expansion of the SEship from Modica to abroad are the following.

The change-maker (actor) is Franco Ruta, from the Antica Dolceria Bonajuto. He is a fifth-generation entrepreneur with a great passion for the press. His social mission is to contributing to the development of the place where he lives by transforming it from a marginalized area into a well-known context known for its ancient traditions.

Other stakeholders are the local maître chocolatiers (as Bonomo and Di Lorenzo), and pastry shops as Antica Dolceria Rizza, Caffè dell’Arte, Spi-nello ... Dolci pensieri followed the Franco Ruta’s entrepreneurial initiative.

The business idea consists of little craft-made bars of chocolate with cin-namon (or vanilla) and sugar prepared following the ancient Aztec recipe based on the “crude” chocolate. The reinterpretation of chocolate in a mod-ern way allow repositioning on the market a product whose consumption was traditionally related to the festivities and the seasonality of raw materi-als.

The dominant theme is based on the multi-sensorial experience to live through the chocolate. There is a legendary atmosphere that evokes the Az-tecs from Mexico, the Spanish domination, the castles, the Baroque architec-ture, and the island of Sicily.

The compatibility of the craft-made bars of chocolate is obtained through

22

the respect of the tradition of the place, characterized by ancient practices and rituals. The product has been renovated in packaging and new flavors (chocolate spiced with cane sugar, cardamom, coffee, chili, marjoram, nut-meg, orange, pistachio, white pepper, and the dark chocolate (70%, 80%, and 90%).

Connections involve a network with a committee for controlling the pro-cess of chocolate production (the “Comitato Nazionale Promotore STG”), the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO), the cocoa farmers from Do-minican Republic, Ecuador, Ivory Coast and Venezuela; the institutions and national associations of chocolatiers as the Fine Chocolate Organization, the districts of Piemonte and Toscana; the community of the “Association of the Chocolate Lovers”; the organizers of local, national and international exhibi-tions like Chocobarocco, EuroChocolate, ChocoVenezuela; The Medical School of Boston – Harvard University, and so on. Networking activities in-cludes also interactions with artistic and social opinion leaders.

Communication started in 1992 at the meeting with a well-known eco-nomic journalist, Davide Paolini. He is specialized in discovering gastro-nomic local field. The, the participation of “Antica Dolceria Bonajuto” in the International Tourism Exchange in the 1994 in London, the participation in some Italian TV programs, and the cultural exhibition in New York in 2004 represent important events for increasing Modica’s chocolate notorie-ty. From 2005 to now an increasing number of newspapers (Berliner Mor-genpost, Chicago Tribune, Financial Times, Il Tempo, International Herald Tribune, La Repubblica, Milano Finanza, Sole24Ore, Sydney Morning Her-ald, The Post and Courier-South Carolina), and magazines specialized in food (Der Feinschmecker, Elle à Table, Gambero Rosso, Monsier, Vinum – Europas Weinmagazine), fashion (Donna Moderna, Grazia,Vogue), tourism (National Geographic Adventure, Hotel Domani, Diaries – Japan) and busi-ness (Gentlemen, L’Espresso, Panorama) dedicates several pages to the “Antica Dolceria Bonajuto”, its founder, and Sicilian community.

Commitment is related to Franco Ruta personality. He combines his en-trepreneurial mind-set with his passion and strong need for achievement to overcome barriers and resource limitation. Initially, his efforts are directed to build the identity and recognizability of the chocolate of Modica. Later, he is engaged in reinforcing the product notoriety not only locally but also nationally and internationally through participation in several events and ex-hibitions, and selling his products, mainly in Europe, USA and recently in Japan. The Modican social entrepreneur is dedicated to build trust and net-work relationships with local operators, press, TV hosts, associations and organizations interested in the chocolate business. As the chocolate business