traditional knowledge conference 2008 te tatau pounamu

Martin and Osberg go further. They point to the growing interest in social entrepreneurship, aboutwhich they write:The interest in social entrepreneurship transcends the phenomenon of popularity and fascinationwith people. Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is thatpotential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and itspractitioners apart. (2007, p. 30)They further develop thinking about social entrepreneurs as a specific genus with the drive toinnovate, seek out opportunities and pursue a mission, when they state:Building from this theoretical base, we believe that entrepreneurship describes the combinationof the context in which an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required toidentify and pursue this opportunity, and the creation of a particular outcome. (2007, p. 31)The personal characteristics of the entrepreneur that Martin and Osberg highlight are:inspiration: the entrepreneur is inspired to change things and identify opportunities to do so;creativity: the entrepreneur thinks creatively and develops solutions that break withtradition;direct action: “Once inspired by opportunity and in possession of a creative solution, theentrepreneur takes direct action” (2007, p. 33);courage: entrepreneurs display their courage when they take the risks associated withexploiting the opportunity; andfortitude: it is fortitude that gives entrepreneurs the drive to see their ideas through tofruition.Once their ideas have come to fruition, the entrepreneur should have achieved their desiredoutcome.Martin and Osberg go on to differentiate between entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs byhighlighting first their similarities; that is, they are driven by similar imperatives but the outcomes theyseek may be different in terms of the profit-benefits and the types of beneficiary (who may be a widercommunity rather than just shareholders or investors). They conclude their paper by offering acomprehensive definition of the social entrepreneur:We define social entrepreneurship as having the following three components:Identifying a stable but inherently unjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion,marginalisation, or suffering of a segment of humanity that lack the financial means orpolitical clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;Identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing a social value proposition,and bringing to bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage and fortitude, therebychallenging the stable state’s hegemony; andForging a new, stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for thetargeted group and even society at large. (2007, p. 35)Further, Martin and Osberg describe the differences between social entrepreneurship and otherphenomena. One such phenomenon is “social service”. This involves setting up an entity that delivers asocial good. However, if the service is shut down, that is the end of the initiative. An example of socialentrepreneurship would be to see a service being created that would have the capacity to multiply itself,or to change the equilibrium, so that if one service centre is closed down the initiative would stillcontinue. They state: “The difference between the two types of ventures―one ‘social entrepreneurship’and the other ‘social service’―isn’t in the initial entrepreneurial contexts or in many of the personalcharacteristics of the founders, but rather in the outcomes”. They go on to discuss “social activism”,whose proponents attempt to change the unjust equilibrium by influencing others, such as governments,consumers, workers, etc. They conclude that: “Successful activism can yield substantial improvements188