See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331722725

Social Enterprise and the Capability Approach: Exploring How Social

Enterprises Are Humanizing Business

Article  in  Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · March 2019

DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2019.1589630

CITATIONS READS

0 167

1 author:

Rasheda L. Weaver
Iona College
8 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rasheda L. Weaver on 21 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing

ISSN: 1049-5142 (Print) 1540-6997 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

Social Enterprise and the Capability Approach:

Exploring How Social Enterprises Are Humanizing
Business

Rasheda L. Weaver

To cite this article: Rasheda L. Weaver (2019): Social Enterprise and the Capability Approach:
Exploring How Social Enterprises Are Humanizing Business, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2019.1589630

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2019.1589630

Published online: 13 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wnon20
JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2019.1589630

Social Enterprise and the Capability Approach: Exploring

How Social Enterprises Are Humanizing Business
Rasheda L. Weaver
Hynes Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This mixed-method empirical study applies the capability Social enterprise; capability
approach; social value;
approach, a multidimensional framework for evaluating human humanize business
development, to survey 115 social enterprises on their social
activities. Findings reveal that social enterprises create services
and programs that seek to meet an average of three types of
human needs and are more likely to target some human needs
more than others. Research implications include the creation of
a model and a tool for applying the capability approach to
examine social value creation in social businesses. Findings con-
tribute to practice by introducing a tool that leaders of social
organizations, consultants, or training institutions may use to
design the social activities of social enterprises and other social
businesses and organizations.

The world is experiencing a growing movement toward the humanization of

business, which involves businesses making intentionally humane and ethical
decisions that have a positive impact on society (Lurie, 2004). Within the last
40 years, terms like social entrepreneurship, conscious capitalism, inclusive
capitalism, caring capitalism, and corporate social responsibility are increas-
ingly being used to highlight how organizations, particularly businesses, can
make a conscious effort to foster positive social change in society (Stephan,
Patterson, Kelly, & Mair, 2016). Social enterprises are one of the most
popular examples of the humanization of business in that they intentionally
strive to address social problems (Mair & Marti, 2009; Seelos & Mair, 2005;
Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum, & Hayton, 2008). The number of social
enterprises is increasing throughout the world (Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, &
Bosma, 2013), making the need to examine activities regarding their social
mission of paramount importance to understanding their work and value.
However, little empirical research on the techniques that social enterprises
use to create social value exists. This issue stems from disagreement con-
cerning the definition of social value (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern,
2006), disagreement about how it should be measured (Kroeger & Weber,

CONTACT Rasheda L. Weaver rlweaverphd@gmail.com

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wnon.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 R. L. WEAVER

2014), and a general lack of empirical research on social enterprise activities

overall (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009).
A growing number of scholars suggest that the capability approach may be
applied to alleviate these concerns regarding how to define and explore social
value creation (Ansari, Munir, & Gregg, 2012; Scarlato, 2013). The capability
approach is generally used in evaluations of poverty (Lechman, 2013; Wagle,
2014) and for identifying core human needs in different contexts (Azevedo &
Robles, 2013; Clark & Qizilbash, 2008), but it is increasingly applied to assess
the impact of social programs (DeJaeghere & Baxter, 2014; Grunfeld, Hak, &
Pin, 2011). Studies that apply the capability approach to assess the impact of
social programs purport that the approach is valuable for revealing unexpected
implications of social programs and for understanding its multidimensional
impacts (Schischka, Dalziel, & Saunders, 2008). While some scholars suggest
that the capability approach may be used to assess the opportunities that social
organizations create for their beneficiaries (Scarlato, 2013), little empirical
research has been conducted to demonstrate this process.
This research article is one of few studies to explicitly and empirically apply
the capability approach to examine social value creation in a social organiza-
tion or business, especially in regards to social enterprises. As organizations
geared toward addressing social problems, social enterprises are an appropriate
institutional form for understanding how the capability approach may be used
to examine whether and how social organizations may advance the opportu-
nities people have to meet their basic human needs. It is important to note,
however, that not all social enterprises aim to meet basic human needs. Some
social enterprises take a surface-level approach to social change (Stephan et al.,
2016) that involves creating social value in a more general sense.
The following section of this article explains the conceptual framework of
this study. The next section describes the method used to answer the ques-
tions driving this research. After that, the results revealed from this research
are outlined. The next section of this article unpacks the contributions of this
research to theory and practice on social enterprises and social value crea-
tion. The final section outlines the conclusion of this research.

Conceptual framework
Social enterprises, on the whole, aim to advance multidimensional human
development (Weaver, 2017), but few empirical studies explore how their
activities enable them to create opportunities that address human needs. This
study applies the capability approach to analyze the social services of 115 social
enterprises in the United States to reveal information about how social enter-
prises address human needs, which illustrates how they are humanizing busi-
ness. The following sections provide an overview of the capability approach
and introduces a new perspective on social value called social capabilities.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 3

The capability approach: a brief overview

This research argues that social value should be explored using the capability
approach because of its multidimensional focus on poverty in terms of human
needs. The capability approach is a theoretical framework that views poverty in
terms of the opportunities that people have to meet their needs (referred to as
human capabilities) and the actual fulfillment of their needs that arises from
that opportunity (referred to as functionings) (Sen, 1992). It is used to develop
policies and programs that advance human well-being (Sen, 1992), to assess
the experiences of beneficiaries of social programs (DeJaeghere & Baxter,
2014), and to examine the magnitude of poverty throughout the world
(Batana, 2013; Lechman, 2013). The capability approach is the guiding frame-
work behind notable human well-being measures such as the United Nations
Development Programme’s Human Development Index (Stanton, 2007) and
the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009).
A number of research studies have suggested that the capability approach
should be applied to measure social value. Scarlato (2013) proposes that
social enterprises are a medium through which human capabilities disperse
and illustrates how they can be used as an instrument for expanding human
capabilities in Ecuador’s Buen Vivir national economic development plan.
Furthermore, Ansari et al. (2012) assert that the capability approach would
be useful for capturing the benefits of social programs that influence people
beyond their actual beneficiaries (e.g., their children, friends, communities).
Lastly, in an effort to advance practical understanding about how the cap-
ability approach may be applied to measure social value, Kato, Ashley, and
Weaver (2017) introduce a guide for social business managers and scholars
that summarizes how empirical research studies have employed the capability
approach. The guide outlines three key reasons why the capability approach
would be an insightful tool for measuring social value including 1) its inclusion
of social and institutional context; 2) its measurement from the beneficiary’s
perspective, and 3) its ability to take a holistic view of a beneficiary’s life (Kato
et al., 2017). Building on this body of conceptual research, the current article
empirically applies the capability approach to explore social value creation
among social enterprises. The next section of this article introduces a new
framework for assessing social value creation by social enterprises through the
lens of the capability approach.

The social capability intervention model: a new perspective on social value

This research presents a new perspective on social value that is mainly rooted
in the capability approach in an effort to standardize the way it is viewed and
measured. The model is called the Social Capability Intervention Model and
it has five major components, which are 1) its strategy for positive social
4 R. L. WEAVER

change; 2) its types of social capabilities, 3) the social activities that social
enterprises engage in to advance social capabilities, 4) its target beneficiaries,
and the 5) the number of beneficiaries served. The sections below describe
each component of the model in detail.

Strategy for positive social change

As institutions that strive to address social problems, social enterprises seek
to create positive changes within the lives of their beneficiaries.
As such, social enterprises are essentially social business interventions,
making them a means to an end. As shown in Table 1, social enterprises sell
or offer social services, programs, and/or products that fulfill diverse human
needs (by addressing the social problems that humans face). Literature on
social entrepreneurship suggests this is how social enterprises create social
value, but there is no consensus on the definition of social value or how it
should be measured. Some scholars have used case study research to examine
the strategies that social enterprises use to create social value (Alvord, Brown,
& Letts, 2004; Teasdale, 2010). Other scholars use focus groups or interviews
(Ferguson & Islam, 2008) or questionnaires (Walk, Greenspan, Crossley, &
Handy, 2015) to assess their impact or to estimate the scale of their social
impact as defined by the social entrepreneur (Bacq & Eddleston, 2016). While
these studies can offer some insight into social value creation, they all have
a different conceptual understanding of social value, resulting in little informa-
tion about the types of social issues that social enterprises address.
The current study argues that as social business interventions, social
enterprises have one or more overarching strategies for creating positive
social change and engage in specific activities to carry out the strategy.

Social capabilities and core areas of human need

The terms social capability and social functioning are introduced to emphasize
that social enterprises aim to foster human capabilities (and ultimately func-
tionings). A social capability is an opportunity pertaining to the advancement
of human well-being. The opportunity may come in the form of a service,
product, or program offered by a social enterprise. A social functioning is the
actual outcome of the social capability (opportunity) on a beneficiary’s life. For
example, a social enterprise may offer employment opportunities (social cap-
ability) for people who have difficulty finding employment that results in an
increase in their economic self-sufficiency (social functionings).
The terms social capability and social functioning relate to how the terms
human capabilities and functionings are used in literature on the capability
approach (Nussbaum & Sen, 1993; Sen, 1992). Human capabilities are the
opportunities people have to do things in life that have meaning to them
Table 1. Theory of Positive Social Change: How Social Enterprises Seek to Address Human Needs.
Theory of Positive Social Change
Problem Assumptions Intervention Short-Term Positive Social Change Goal Long-Term Positive Social Change Goal
A diversity of There are a variety of human and Social enterprises are Social enterprises foster social Through fostering social capabilities, social
social community development strategies, a social intervention, in the capabilities, opportunities to meet diverse enterprises seek to reduce or eradicate the
problems but they are unsustainable and form of business, that aim human needs through the social services human needs of their target beneficiaries,
hinder human ineffective at eradicating social to advance human or products that they sell, develop, or which ultimately results in positive social
development problems. development. support. change.
and potential.
JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
5
6 R. L. WEAVER

and/or allow them to fully participate in society (e.g. available job opportu-
nities). Functionings are the achievements people make in life regarding their
well-being (e.g., securing a job).
The dimensions of capabilities and functionings are debated among pioneers
of the capability approach. In the past, Amartya Sen argued that there should not
be a standard list of capabilities because dimensions should be democratically
chosen by community members where the capability approach is applied (Sen,
1992). However, over the years, Sen changed his perspective on this somewhat
and has created different lists of basic capabilities that aim to highlight universal,
basic human needs (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Martha C. Nussbaum, another pioneer
of the capability approach, argues that a central list of human capabilities is
needed to guide public policies, businesses, and interventions. The philosopher
created a list of central human capabilities that outline basic human needs that
should be met for people to function in society (Nussbaum, 1997).
Dimensions of Nussbaum (2004)’s list (in Appendix 1) include: life; bodily
health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical
reason; affiliation (including friendship and respect), other species (e.g. ani-
mals, nature); play; and control over one’s political and material environment.
Each dimension relates to different aspects of human well-being. Nussbaum
(2004) asserts that human capabilities should be allocated through institutions,
mainly because they are appropriate for organizing and disseminating
resources to large numbers of people. As institutions providing services that
seek to advance human development, social enterprises are an appropriate
medium for exploring how institutions may foster human capabilities.

Developing a list of social capabilities

In this study, I use Nussbaum’s (2004) list as a starting point for developing a list
of central social capabilities (outlined in the Appendix 2). Figure 1 illustrates the
13 central social capabilities featured on the list, which relate to Nussbaum’s
(2004) list, but that are spoken in terms that reflect the services or programs that
businesses would create. The social capabilities on the list are organized by
themes in regard to four core areas of human need. Figure 2 outlines core
human need areas and the social capabilities that they constitute those areas.
Health and human security involves creating opportunities that aim to advance
or secure the physical and mental health or lifestyles of individuals or commu-
nities. Social mobility focuses on developing the skills and abilities of individuals,
social groups, or communities in an effort to elevate their socioeconomic status
over time. Social, political, and environmental engagement consists of creating
opportunities for people to engage in social systems or social causes that relate to
their political, social, and environmental well-being. Lastly, self-expression and
social relationships involves creating opportunities that foster individual crea-
tivity, and entertainment and that nurture the relationships individuals have
with others.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 7

General
Health
Mental/
Recreation Emotional
Health

Creative Safety/
Expression Abuse

Political
Education
Participation
Central
Social
Capabilities

Interaction
Life-Planning
with Nature

Discriminatio Property
n Issues Ownership

Social
Employment
Organization
Training
and Inclusion

Figure 1. Central social capabilities.

Social activities
The social activities that social enterprises engage in to foster different types of
social capabilities is important for understanding how social enterprises aim to
create positive social change. Previous research by Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas
(2012) has offered some insight into this area by identifying activities that social
enterprises engage in to leverage different forms of capital (e.g., human capital,
financial capital). The current study differs, however, in that it explores activities
they engage in to meet core areas of human need.

Target beneficiaries
Examining the target beneficiaries of social enterprise services is essential to
understanding the role the social capabilities they offer will play in their
beneficiaries’ lives. Literature has associated social enterprises with having
positive influences on particular social groups within society (Akingbola,
2015; Maxwell, Rotz, & Dunn, 2015) and society in general (Alvord et al.,
2004), so it is important to deepen knowledge about whom social enterprises
8 R. L. WEAVER

• General Health • Education

• Mental/emotional health • Life-planning/decision-
• Safety or abuse making
• Property ownership
• Employment training

Health and
Social Mobility
Human Security

Social, Political,
Self-Expression
and
and Social
Environmental
Relationships
Engagement
• Independent/creative • Social issues and inclusion
expression • Discrimination issues
• Recreation or • Political participation
entertainment • Interaction with animals,
plants, or nature

Figure 2. Core human-need areas.

target and to understand how their activities are influenced by their target
beneficiaries.

Number of beneficiaries served annually

The number of beneficiaries that social enterprises serve is difficult to assess due
to the diversity of social activities they engage in. For instance, while it may be
relatively easy for social enterprises with specific social programs to measure the
number of participants they serve, it may be difficult for social enterprises that
sell a product that is a social benefit to assess the number of people the product
reaches. The social enterprise CK Café in Camden, New Jersey, for example,
offers a culinary training program that trains people with low income, people
who are homeless, and people with a criminal history to work as restaurant
cooks (Cathedral Kitchen, 2017). After graduating, some participants work in
the café or are referred to work in local restaurants. It is easy to track the number
of graduates from CK Café’s culinary training programs, however social enter-
prises like Newman’s Own that donate their profits to various charities would
have a difficult time assessing the number of people their donations influence.
In summary, the social capability intervention model aims to highlight 1) the
strategy for positive social change, 2) the types of social capabilities, 3) the social
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 9

activities that social enterprises engage in to advance social capabilities, 4) the

target beneficiaries, and 5) the types and number of target beneficiaries served.

Data, method, and measures

Research questions and hypotheses
This empirical research study is driven by the following five research
questions :

(1) What are the overarching strategies for positive social change that
social enterprises have?
(2) What types of social capabilities do they seek to foster?
(3) What activities do they engage in to foster these social capabilities?
(4) Who are their target beneficiaries?
(5) How many beneficiaries do they serve annually?

Data
This study is part of a larger study on the characteristics of social enterprises
in the United States. In the large study, the contact information for social
enterprises throughout the nation was collected using the three following
social enterprise directories: B Lab, Social Enterprise Alliance, and Intersector
Partners, L3C. These social enterprises were emailed an online survey and
provided a $25 Amazon online gift card as an incentive for participation. The
social enterprises in the current study are those that describe activities related
to their social mission in the larger study.
Participants were 115 executives, people in executive leadership positions,
in social enterprises throughout the United States. These social enterprises
consist of both for-profit (89%) and nonprofit (14%) organizations, of which
some are a combination of both nonprofit and for-profit organizations.

Measures
Social enterprise model questionnaire
The Social Enterprise Model Questionnaire (Weaver, 2017) was created to
obtain information about social enterprises regarding their main industry,
organizational structure, legal form, and financial structure and the number
and types of employees working for them. Though the questionnaire has
a total of 42 questions, the data in this study pertains only to the open-ended
question: Considering your mission, what is the main social problem your
social enterprise aims to address?
10 R. L. WEAVER

Social capability measure

The Social Capability Measure (Weaver, 2017) pertains to Question 27 on the
questionnaire used in Weaver (2017). It acquires information about: 1) the
types of services that social enterprises offer, 2) the actual service (activity)
offered, 3) target beneficiaries for each service, and 4) the total number of
beneficiaries that social enterprises serve annually. Though listed as one
question on the questionnaire, the Social Capability Measure essentially has
56 items because it asks about 14 types of services (including “other”
services) for the four categories outlined above.
This study introduces a list of 13 central social capabilities that reflect the
diverse types of services that social enterprises may create or offer in an effort
to advance different aspects of human development.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics are used to provide an overview of the variables in the
study and to indicate the frequency of categorical variables that are assessed
using grounded theory. Grounded theory is an iterative, inductive process of
reviewing data continuously to identify patterns or themes that can be
developed into codes (Walker & Myrick, 2006; Trochim & Donnelly, 2008).
Codes are then grouped into categories or concepts that are used to create
the foundation for a new theory.
In the case of his research, text from relevant open-ended questions in The
Social Enterprise Model Questionnaire and the Social Capability Measure are
analyzed and coded using grounded theory. Social enterprise research has
previously used grounded theory to uncover information regarding common
practices, values (Shaw & Carter, 2007; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006), and
impact (Ferguson & Islam, 2008). In this study specifically, grounded theory
is used to develop categories for data regarding the strategies social enter-
prises employ for positive social change, activities that social enterprises use
to address social issues, and their target beneficiaries.

Results
Strategy for positive social change
Using grounded theory, responses regarding the main social problem that
social enterprises combat are analyzed in terms of the overall positive social
change theory guiding social entrepreneurs in their pursuit to address their
target social problem. A total of 103 (90%) social enterprises in this study
outline a social problem that was central to the mission of their organization,
illustrating their role as a social intervention.
As shown in Figure 3, results reveal four strategies for positive social
change including capacity building (55%), advancing a social movement
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 11

60%

Percentage of social enterprises

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Capacity Building Social Movement Resource Provision Systemic Change
Technique for positive social change (N=103)

Figure 3. Strategy for creating positive social change.

(23%), resource provision (13%), and systemic change (9%). Capacity build-
ing involves giving impoverished people, communities, or organizations tools
and skills that enable them to help themselves. Respondents that use this
technique emphasize creating opportunities for their beneficiaries that
involve “self-help,” which essentially refers to giving them the tools to help
themselves (e.g., employment opportunities, specialized educational train-
ing). Developing a social movement consists of group action that aims to
advance social change regarding one or more social issues by changing
people’s habits, thinking, or lifestyle. Resource provision is the provision of
goods, services, or resources that may help beneficiaries combat social issues
or meet their needs. Social enterprises may provide resources (e.g., medical
supplies) for free or at an affordable cost to their beneficiaries. Lastly,
systemic change involves advocating or working with governing institutions
or elites in an effort to change the social systems that govern society.
Systemic change can also apply to developing new organizations or commu-
nities that foster community-wide changes.
Social enterprises may utilize one or more positive social change techniques
within one organization but primarily emphasize one technique. For instance,
a social enterprise that strives for systemic change may also develop a capacity
building strategy that involves organizing community members around
a particular issue. Social enterprises may also start with one positive social change
technique (e.g., capacity building) and develop others over time (e.g., start a social
movement regarding capacity building).

Social capabilities and core areas of human need

Types of social capabilities
The social enterprises in this study seek to create an average of three types of
social capabilities, and they advance some social capabilities more than
12 R. L. WEAVER

Types of Social Capabilities

No social capabilities

Political Participation

Recreation
types of social capabilities

Property Ownership

Safety

Creative Expression

Social Organization

Mental/Emotional Health

Discrimination Issues

Life-Planning

Interaction with Nature

General Health

Employment Training

Education

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Percentage of social enterprises (N= 100)

Figure 4. Types of social capabilities that social enterprises create.

others. As shown in Figure 4, the most common types of social capabilities

that social enterprises create are education (41%), employment training
(30%), general health (25%), interaction with nature (24%), and life-
planning/decision-making (22%). They rarely create social capabilities that
pertain to recreation (12%) and political participation (6%).

Different types of social capabilities created

While there is a maximum of 13 types of social capabilities that social
enterprises may target in this study, social enterprises target approximately
3 different types of social capabilities on average, as shown in Table 2. The
highest number of the types of social capabilities created by any organization
in this sample is 11. Ten social enterprises report that they do not create any
types of social capabilities.

Core human-need area

Figure 5 illustrates the types of social capabilities that social enterprises create
by core areas of human need, such as social mobility (57%) and social, political,

Table 2. Average Number of the Types of Social Capabilities Targeted.

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Target Number of Social Capabilities 100 0 11 2.78 2.64
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 13

Core Human Need Areas Social Enterprises

Percentage of social enterprises Seek to Address
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Social Mobility (N=65) Social, Political, and Health and Human Security Self-Expression and
Environmental Engagement (N=41) Recreation (N=24)
(N=54)
Core human need area

Figure 5. Core human-need areas.

Note. Social enterprises may seek to address more than one core human-need area.

and environmental engagement (47%). However, as shown in Table 5, the

average and total number of beneficiaries for core human-need areas such as
social, political, and environmental engagement and health and human security
are substantially greater than for other areas. Thus, although social enterprises
tend to create more services and programs that relate to social mobility, those
with social programs that relate to social, political, and environmental engage-
ment and health and human security serve more beneficiaries annually.

Socially conscious activities

Using grounded theory, categories for social capability activities were devel-
oped and are shown in Table 3. Codes for the activities are similar to those in
Mair et al. (2012), which focuses on different social enterprise models that
relate to leveraging different forms of capital (e.g., human capital, social
capital) for their beneficiaries. However, additional different activities are
uncovered in this study.

Target beneficiaries
Social enterprises serve a diversity of target beneficiaries, from specific social
groups such as farmers to particular geographic communities (Table 4). Social
enterprises that address human needs that relate to health and human security
may have a local or global focus. Social enterprises that seek to increase social
mobility tend to focus on capacity building within particular communities or
social groups. For the area of social, political, and environmental engagement,
social enterprises have a greater number and diversity of activities. Lastly, social
enterprises aiming to address human needs regarding self-expression and social
 14
R. L. WEAVER

Table 3. Social Activities by Core Human-Need Area.

Core Human-Need Area
Social, Political, and Environmental Self-Expression and Social
Health and Human Security Social Mobility Engagement Relationships
Social Convening Convening Convening Convening
Activities
Educating Educating Educating Educating
Counseling Training Training Training
Coaching Financing Gardening Marketing
Financing Coaching Farming Providing employment
Training Housing Consulting Facility provision
Providing Supplying services or products Financing Event
services or products Counseling Reducing pollution coordinating
Facility management Brokering (e.g., real estate) Providing services or products Providing services or products
Reducing pollution Providing employment Providing employment Manufacturing products
Medical treatment Property management and Developing organizations
development
Advocating for public policy Advocating for public policy Developing planned communities
development development Advocating for public policy development
Table 4. Target Beneficiaries by Core Human-Need Area.
Core Human-Need Area
Social, Political, and Environmental Self-Expression and Social
Health and Human Security Social Mobility Engagement Relationships
Beneficiaries The general public The general public The general public Youth
Youth Youth Voters Artists
Businesses Farmers Youth Professionals
Homeowners Schools Artists Disadvantaged groups and
communities
Professionals Businesses Farmers Specific geographic
Disadvantaged groups and Professionals Specific geographic communities communities
communities
The developing world Homeowners and tenants Businesses Social organizations
Social organizations Professionals
Developers and architects Disadvantaged groups
Disadvantaged groups and
communities
Policy organizations
JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
15
16 R. L. WEAVER

Table 5. Average Beneficiaries Served Annually.

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Total
All Target Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries Served Annually 51 0 500,000 20, 537 73,492.26 1,047,409
Target Beneficiaries by Core Human-Need Area
Social Mobility 34 5 20,000 1,215 3,560 41,325
Social, Political, and Environmental 26 0 500,000 22,189 97,722 576,917
Engagement
Health and Human Security 22 12 100,150 17,950 36,513 394,912
Self-Expression and Relationships 11 5 30,000 3,114 8,938 34,255

relationships mainly focus on particular geographic communities or social

groups as opposed to the general public.

Number of beneficiaries served annually

Social enterprises in this study serve a total of 1,047,409 beneficiaries
annually (see Table 5). However, only 51 respondents report the total
number of beneficiaries they serve. This may be because many social enter-
prises do not measure their output or impact. Nevertheless, the average
number of beneficiaries that social enterprises serve annually is 20,537.
However, the high standard deviation, shown in Table 4, conveys that
there is much variation in the number of beneficiaries an organization serves.

Social capability intervention model

Based on the results, this research introduces the Social Capability
Intervention Model (shown in Table 6), which outlines the activities social
enterprises engage in to foster social capabilities. The model organizes the
activities based on core human-need area and strategy for positive social
change. The Social Capability Intervention Model focuses on the activities
social enterprises, as social interventions, create to meet human needs.

Discussion
This empirical study explores how social enterprises seek to address human
needs by surveying 115 social entrepreneurs on their social activities. This
differs from previous research that uses in-depth case studies (Alvord et al.,
2004; Mair & Marti, 2009) or public documents (Mair et al., 2012) to obtain
this information. As a result, this research highlights the diversity among
social enterprises as organizations in regard to their overall strategy for
positive social change, the types of services they offer, their social activities,
their target beneficiaries, and the number of beneficiaries they serve annually.
Table 6. Social Capability Intervention Model.
Social, Political, and Self-Expression and Social
Core Human-Need Area Health and Human Security Social Mobility Environmental Engagement Relationships
Type of Social Capability General health Education Social issues and inclusion Independent/creative
Mental/emotional health Life-planning/decision- Discrimination issues expression
Safety or abuse making Political participation Recreation or
Property ownership Interaction with animals, plants, entertainment
Employment training or nature
Activities by Strategy for Positive Capacity Educating Educating Educating Educating
Social Change Building Training Training Training Training
Counseling Counseling Counseling Marketing
Coaching Coaching Coaching
Financing Brokering and property Gardening
Facility management management Farming
Preserving nature
Social Convening Convening Convening Convening
Movement Reducing pollution (land and Crowd sourcing Reducing pollution (land and Crowd sourcing
water) water)
Crowd sourcing Crowd sourcing
Resource Medical treatment Providing services or Providing services or products Manufacturing goods
Provision Providing services or products Donations Event hosting
products Transitional Housing Facility provision
Donations Donations Providing services or
products
Donations
Systemic Advocating for public policy Advocating for public policy Advocating for public policy Providing employment
Change development development development
Providing or referring Developing a planned community
employment Developing organizations
JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING

(Continued )
17
 18
R. L. WEAVER

Table 6. (Continued).
Social, Political, and Self-Expression and Social
Core Human-Need Area Health and Human Security Social Mobility Environmental Engagement Relationships
Target Beneficiaries The general public The general public The general public Youth
Youth Youth Voters Artists
Businesses Farmers Youth Professionals
Homeowners Schools Artists Disadvantaged groups and
Professionals Businesses Farmers communities
Disadvantaged groups and Professionals Specific geographic communities Specific geographic
communities Homeowners and tenants Businesses Communities
The developing world Social organizations Professionals Social organizations
Developers and architects Disadvantaged groups
Disadvantaged groups and
communities
Policy organizations
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 19

Despite the diversity of their work, social enterprises share a common desire
to create positive social change by addressing social problems faced by
diverse groups in society, which corroborates conceptual research that sug-
gests social enterprise is a tool for addressing social problems and poverty
(Alvord et al., 2004; Mair & Marti, 2009).
On average, social enterprises seek to foster three different types of social
capabilities but target some more than others. However, when their social
activities are examined by core area of human need, social enterprises target
a greater number of beneficiaries from core human needs such as social,
political, and environmental engagement and health and human security,
which they are less likely to target than social mobility. One explanation for
this may relate to deep-level and surface-level positive social change techni-
ques. Stephan et al. (2016) suggest that some organizations, particularly those
that have a “deep-level positive social change strategy” seek to address the
diversity of issues their beneficiaries face. Such organizations create numer-
ous social programs for a particular group of beneficiaries (as opposed to
increasing the number of their beneficiaries) because doing so provides
a more holistic approach to human development. Those that target
a greater number of beneficiaries may have what Stephan et al. (2016) refer
to as a surface-level approach, which involves addressing some social needs
but not in a holistic, developmental manner that may eradicate them.

Contributions
One contribution of this study is its new perspective on social value creation
in that it uses the capability approach to examine how social enterprise
activities relate to human needs. Several scholars suggest that the capability
approach should play a role in measuring social value creation of social
enterprises and other organizations (Ansari et al., 2012; Kato et al., 2017;
Scarlato, 2013). As the first empirical study to apply the capability approach
to explore social value creation, this study is an illustration of how it can be
applied to examine the social activities of organizations. Furthermore, intro-
ducing the list of central social capabilities, the Social Capability Measure,
and the Social Capability Intervention Model provides tools that future
studies may use for understanding and assessing social value creation using
the capability approach.
Another contribution of this research is that it offers rich insight into
social enterprises in the United States that was not captured by previous
research. The United States has the highest rate of social enterprises in the
world (Lepoutre et al., 2013), yet little is known about how they address
human needs. This research corroborates the theory that social enterprises in
the United States address a diversity of social issues (Kerlin, 2012) while also
20 R. L. WEAVER

deepening knowledge about the types of social issues these social enterprises
address, the social activities the engage in, and the beneficiaries they target.

Limitations
While this research study explores social capabilities, it does not empirically
examine social functionings because the aim of this study is simply to set the
stage for that work in future research. Previous studies have used the cap-
ability approach to measure the impact of NGOs and nonprofit organizations
(Grunfeld et al., 2011; Schischka et al., 2008). However, the current study sets
the foundation for more research on the impact of social enterprises in
particular by identifying what their activities are on a large scale, as few
studies have provided such knowledge.

Conclusion
This empirical research study aims to highlight the growing movement
toward the humanization of business by advancing knowledge about how
social enterprises seek to combat social problems. By exploring how the
capability approach may be used to examine social value creation, this
research illustrates the diversity of socially beneficial activities that social
enterprises may engage in to meet human needs. As such, it highlights one
example of how businesses may be used as a tool for social good. However,
more research is needed to analyze the efficacy of the social work that social
enterprises and similar types of organizations are doing at a growing rate.

Implications for research

The central list of social capabilities is a guide that researchers may use for
understanding and measuring the diversity of social capabilities that social
enterprises and other organizations may create. Furthermore, the Social
Capability Measure may be used in future research studies to assess how
social enterprises and other social organizations create social capabilities and
social functionings. Specifically, scholars can use the Social Capability
Measure in other surveys of social enterprises for case study research, inter-
views, or focus group research. Applying this instrument to assess social
capabilities using different methodological techniques may foster deeper or
different insights on how social enterprises seek to meet human needs.

Implications for practice

Practitioners such as social entrepreneurs, educators, accelerator programs,
and impact investors funders may utilize the Social Capability Intervention
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 21

Model to guide their understanding of how social enterprises may be

designed, as there is a need for such models to guide their work
(Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). For example, social entrepreneurs may use
the tool to develop social programs and services in relation to one or more
levels of positive social change related to different types of social capabilities
or within specific core areas of human need. Educators and accelerators may
also use the tool to illustrate how businesses can strive to combat social
problems on macro and micro levels. Lastly, impact investors may use the
guide as a reference when making decisions about the businesses they want
to invest in.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Rutgers University-Camden Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for funding this
research by granting me a dissertation fellowship. Thank you to Dr. Lorraine Minnite, Dr. Adam
Okuylicz-Kozaryn, and Dr. Robyne Stevenson for serving on my dissertation committee.

Disclosure statement
This manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for
publication anywhere else.

Funding
This work was supported by the Rutgers University-Camden Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences' Dissertation Fellowship.

References
Akingbola, K. (2014). When the business is people: The impact of a-way express courier. In
J. Quarter, S. Ryan, & A. Chan (Eds.), 2014. Social purpose enterprises: Case studies for
social change (pp. 52-74). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation an exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3),
260–282. doi:10.1177/0021886304266847
Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’: The role of
social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of
Management Studies, 49(4), 813–842. doi:10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-4
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 1–22. doi:10.1111/
etap.2006.30.issue-1
Azevedo, V., & Robles, M. (2013). Multidimensional targeting: Identifying beneficiaries of
conditional cash transfer programs. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 447–475.
doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0255-5
Bacq, S., & Eddleston, K. A. (2016). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How
stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 1–23.
22 R. L. WEAVER

Batana, Y. M. (2013). Multidimensional measurement of poverty among women in

sub-saharan africa. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 337–362. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-
0251-9
Cathedral Kitchen. (2017, November 21). About us. Retrieved from http://www.cathedralk
itchen.org/about-us/
Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core poverty, vagueness and adaptation: A new
methodology and some results for south africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 44
(4), 519–544. doi:10.1080/00220380801980855
DeJaeghere, J., & Baxter, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education for youth in sub-saharan
africa: A capabilities approach as an alternative framework to neoliberalism’s individualiz-
ing risks. Progress in Development Studies, 14(1), 61–76. doi:10.1177/1464993413504353
Ferguson, K. M., & Islam, N. (2008). Conceptualizing outcomes with street-living young
adults grounded theory approach to evaluating the social enterprise intervention.
Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 217–237. doi:10.1177/1473325008089631
Grunfeld, H., Hak, S., & Pin, T. (2011). Understanding benefits realisation of ireach from
a capability approach perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 151–172.
doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9268-4
Kato, S., Ashley, S. R., & Weaver, R. L. (2017). Insights for measuring social value:
Classification of measures related to the capabilities approach. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 1–24.
Kerlin, J. A. (2012). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual frame-
work based on institutional factors. In Gidron B., Hasenfeld Y. (eds) Social Enterprises. (pp.
91–117). London, UK, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social
value creation. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 513–540. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0344
Lechman, E. 2013. Human poverty–Measuring relative deprivation from basic achievements:
A comparative study for 144 world countries in the time span 1990–2010. GUT Faculty of
Management and Economics Working Paper Series A (Economics, Management, Statistics)
No 11/2013 (11)
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized
methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship
monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693–714.
doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9398-4
Lurie, Y. (2004). Humanizing business through emotions: On the role of emotions in ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 1–11. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013851.16825.51
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social
entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353–373. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1414-3
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study
from bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2008.04.006
Maxwell, N., Rotz, D., & Dunn, A. (2015). Social enterprises, economic self-sufficiency, and
life stability (In Focus Brief). Mathematica Policy Research Reports. (pp. 1–2).
Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. New York, NY, United States: Oxford
University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and global justice. Oxford
Development Studies, 32(1), 3–18.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 23

Scarlato, M. (2013). Social enterprise, capabilities and development paradigms: Lessons from
ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1270–1283. doi:10.1080/
00220388.2013.790962
Schischka, J., Dalziel, P., & Saunders, C. (2008). Applying sen’s capability approach to poverty
alleviation programs: Two case studies. Journal of Human Development, 9(2), 229–246.
doi:10.1080/14649880802078777
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve
the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–434. doi:10.1108/14626000710773529
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194.
doi:10.1002/sej.v3:2
Stanton, E. A. (2007). The human development index: A history. Political Economy Research
Institute, 127, 1–36.
Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations driving positive social
change: A review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of
Management, 42(5), 1250–1281. doi:10.1177/0149206316633268
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. 2009. Report by the commission on the measurement of
economic performance and social progress. Retrieved from http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.
fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
Teasdale, S. (2010). How can social enterprise address disadvantage? evidence from an
inner-city community. Journal of Nonprofit and Public-Sector Marketing, 22, 89–107.
doi:10.1080/10495141003601278
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research methods knowledge base. Mason, OH: Atomic
Dog.
Wagle, U. R. (2014). The counting-based measurement of multidimensional poverty: The
focus on economic resources, inner capabilities, and relational resources in the united
states. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 223–240. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0216-4
Walk, M., Greenspan, I., Crossley, H., & Handy, F. (2015). Mind the gap: Expectations and
experiences of clients utilizing job-training services in a social enterprise. Annals of Public
and Cooperative Economics, 86(2), 221–244. doi:10.1111/apce.2015.86.issue-2
Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure.
Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547–559. doi:10.1177/1049732305285972
Weaver, R. L. (2017). Social enterprise and the capability approach: examining the quest to
humanize business Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Camden Graduate School.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional
model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001
Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. C. (2008).
Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 2(2), 117–131. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1932-443X
24 R. L. WEAVER

Appendix 1
The Central Human Capabilities (Nussbaum, 2004)
1. Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely
or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; being
adequately nourished; having adequate shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; being secure against violent
assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual
satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and
reason—and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and cultivated by an
adequate education including but by no means limited to literacy and basic mathematical and
scientific training; being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing
and producing works and events of one’s own choice (religious, literary, musical, and so
forth); being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression
with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise; being able
to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid nonbeneficial pain.
5. Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love
those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to
experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger; not having one’s emotional development
blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human
association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
6. Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical
reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the liberty of con-
science and religious observance.)
7. Affiliation. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other
human beings, and to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the
situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and
nourish such forms of affiliation and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political
speech.) Having the social bases of self-respect and nonhumiliation; being able to be treated as
a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. (This entails provisions of nondiscrimi-
nation on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, and national origin.)
8. Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and
the world of nature.
9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play, and to enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control Over One’s Environment.

A. Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life;
having the right of political participation and protections of free speech and association.
B. Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods) and having property
rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis
with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure; in work, being able
to work as a human being, exercising practical reason, and entering into meaningful
relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.
 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 25

Appendix 2
List of Central Social Capabilities
A social capability is an opportunity pertaining to the advancement of human well-being. The
opportunity may come in the form of a service or program offered by a social enterprise.
There are 13 central social capabilities. The list below outlines each based on the theme
regarding four core areas of human need that they align with.
Health and Human Security
Social capabilities aim to develop or improve the mental and physical health, life expectancy,
and security of human beings.

(1) Health. Providing opportunities that benefit health (including reproductive), nourish-
ment, and life expectancy.
(2) Mental/Emotional Health. Offering opportunities that foster mental health and that
advance an individual’s ability to connect with others on an emotional level.
(3) Safety or Abuse. Providing opportunities that enable individuals to protect themselves
from violent assault or cope after directly or indirectly surviving violent assault.

Social Mobility
Social capabilities related to social mobility aim to advance the socioeconomic status of
individuals, social groups, or communities. They involve developing the skills and abilities
that enable people to increase their human capital, wealth, and life goals.

(1) Education. Providing services or products that advance educational development, includ-
ing opportunities that foster critical thinking, imagination, and reasoning.
(2) Life-Planning/Decision-Making. Providing opportunities that enable individuals to
make plans toward reaching their life goals as well as to critically reflect on them.
(3) Property Ownership. Providing opportunities that help people obtain and own property
including houses, cars, and other material goods.
(4) Employment Training. Providing opportunities that enable people to prepare and/or
obtain employment. (This is especially important for those who have difficulty obtaining
employment due to lack of skills or systemic discrimination.

Social, Political, and Environmental Engagement

Social capabilities related to social, political, and environmental engagement involve creating
opportunities for people to actively participate in society and the social systems that influence
their social, political, and environmental well-being.

(1) Social Issues and Inclusion. Providing opportunities that enable people to organize
around social issues and/or providing spaces of inclusion.
(2) Discrimination Issues. Providing opportunities that enable individuals to deal with
issues related to discrimination and/or to mobilize against such issues.
(3) Interaction With Nature. Providing opportunities that foster human interaction with
things of nature such as plants, animals, and the overall environment.
(4) Political Participation. Providing opportunities that help people to engage in their
political system, informing them of their rights and/or striving to protect their rights
 26 R. L. WEAVER

Self-Expression and Social Relationships

These social capabilities focus on fostering human creativity, recreation, and their relation-
ships with other human beings.

(1) Independent/Creative Expression. Providing opportunities that enable people to express

themselves in a diversity of ways including through art, religion, and politics.
(2) Recreation or Entertainment. Providing opportunities that foster social interaction and
participation in recreational activities that make them laugh or play.

View publication stats