RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

228 RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
and in that sense could actually provide a competitive advantage for entrant businesses, as
proposed by Eftekhari and Bogers (2015).
Practical implications
The case presented here has practical implications by illustrating the possible routes for
supporting business ventures stemming from user communities and/or third-sector organisation
or civil society. The case and particularly user entrepreneur framework could also offer
practical method for start-up venture quality improvements, for example in those hundreds
of living lab settings around the globe.
Limitations and further research
This study obviously bears some limitations but in the other hand, offers several interesting
avenues for further research. First, the methodology of this study places limitations to
generalizations of this study. In other countries, the definitions and roles of social enterprises,
for example, are different and findings as such are not easily transferred. Also the rigid working
life may stem from the national circumstances and in that sense be nation-specific problem.
However, this study could be continued by for example developing hypothesis and testing,
whether this model applies to process of social enterprise creation in third sector in general.
The need for studying processes instead of actors is still highly relevant (Phillips et al., 2015).
Second, this study leaves cost and financial related questions outside the scope. It is
acknowledged that in this case, the rehabilitees participated in voluntary bases. The terms of
financial social security might cause some obstacles and therefore cause a major personal
risk for participation in entrepreneurial ventures. Moreover, the social and economic value
that is generated along the social entrepreneurship process needs to be studied in detail. We
think that more research should be undertaken to uncover the potential, role and impact of
open innovation approaches, especially living lab-approach to the social entrepreneurship.
Reference
Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2012). Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management. 23(1), 87-102.
Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship Capital and Economic Performance. Regional Studies.
38(8), 949-959.
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information Exposure, Opportunity Evaluation, And
Entrepreneurial Action: An Investigation Of An Online User Community. Academy of Management Journal.
56(5), 1348-1371.
Battisti, S. (2014). Social innovation in living labs: the micro-level process model of public-private partnerships.
International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 5(4-5), 328-348.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Living lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation.
International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development. 4(1), 356-370.
Brabham, D.C. (2010). Moving The Crowd at Threadless: Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing
application. Information, Communication & Society. 13(8), 1122-1145.
Chell, E., Nicolopoulou, K., & Karatas-Özkan, M. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship and enterprise: International
and innovation perspectives. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An international journal.
22(6), 485-493.