RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

216 RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Conclusions
Although being part of a network is beneficial and positively perceived by social enterprises,
the Romanian organizations of such type are more oriented towards overcoming operative
challenges than actively developing relationships with other organizations. The networks
of which they are part of would be mainly informal in nature and would not benefit from a
development strategy. In this way, these networks could hardly offer a competitive advantage.
The study suggests that, especially at the beginning of their existence, social enterprises
related with other (similar) organizations in an inertial way. If previous successful cooperation
had been registered, those organizations would stay in touch, mainly to share information
and maybe for sharing experiences. Therefore, the main benefit associated with these
networks is a somewhat increased cognitive social capital.
These informal networks would generally be small, comprising only a few organizations.
The social enterprises established in the context of European-funded projects would tend to
cooperate with other organizations part of the same project.
All the respondents agree that the cooperation inside the social entrepreneurial sector is
poor. They would all be eager to establish partnerships. Other social enterprises are points
of reference, but contacts with them are scarce. They join the same events and make some
exchange of information, but each organization tends to be more focused on their own activities
and on ensuring the necessary funding to operate.
References
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2003). The Emergence of Social Enterprise. New York: Routledge.
Boso, N., Story, V.M., Cadogan, J.W., Micevski, M., & Kadic-Maglajlic, S. (2013). Firm innovativeness and
export performance: Environmental, networking, and structural contingencies. Journal of International
Marketing. 21(4), 62-87.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Choi, N., & Majundar, S. (2014.) Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: opening a new
avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing. 29, 363-376.
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cornelius, N., & Wallace, J. (2013). Capabilities, urban unrest and social enterprise. The International Journal
of Public Sector Management. 26(3), 232-249.
Dicþionar al termenilor de bazã din antreprenoriat. Networking (2013). http://caravanacarierei.bns.ro/wp-cont
ent/uploads/sites/2/2013/01/Clustere-Clusters-si-Networks-Retele-de-firme.pdf.
Final report (HPSE-CT-1999-00016). (2003). The Contribution of Social Capital in the Social Economy to Local
Economic Development in Western Europe. EU research on social sciences and humanities. CONSCISE.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men
and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior. 25(3), 419-437.
Frank, M., & Thompson, M. (2010). Social enterprise. Developing Sustainable businesses. UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Freeman, S., Edwards, R., & Schroder, B. (2006). How smaller born-global firms use networks and alliances
to overcome constraints to rapid internationalization. Journal of International Marketing. 14(3), 33-63.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.