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

net/publication/317697658

What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures? An exploratory

study in the context of a developing economy

Article  in  Social Enterprise Journal · June 2017

DOI: 10.1108/SEJ-05-2016-0014

CITATIONS READS

34 3,595

3 authors:

Seham Ghalwash Ahmed Tolba

The American University in Cairo Mansoura University
7 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   202 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ayman Ismail
The American University in Cairo
26 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Egypt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seham Ghalwash on 23 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-8614.htm

SEJ
13,3 What motivates social
entrepreneurs to start social
ventures?
268 An exploratory study in the context of a
Received 11 May 2016
developing economy
Revised 13 August 2016
14 November 2016 Seham Ghalwash, Ahmed Tolba and Ayman Ismail
25 February 2017
Accepted 8 May 2017
School of Business, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore the characteristics and backgrounds of social entrepreneurs,
particularly in relation to what motivates them to start new social ventures, through an empirical
examination of the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship in the specific context of Egypt.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopts a qualitative methodological approach based
on a triangulation of data sources, including extensive interviews from five social entrepreneurs,
interviews with senior executives in their organisations and industry experts, as well as secondary
data.
Findings – The paper proposes a model that integrates common characteristics and motivations
among individuals who start social ventures. Findings confirm the characteristics of social
entrepreneurs as compassionate risk-takers with entrepreneurial mindsets who seek to address
social issues in innovative ways. They also have the perseverance to face the inefficient
institutional frameworks prevalent in developing economies. Social entrepreneurs are motivated by
social problems and challenges, inspiration, and previous personal experiences, as well as their
social networks.
Research limitations/implications – There are limitations pertaining to the limited sample size and
single country focus.
Practical implications – This research offers useful and practical insights for current and future
social entrepreneurs, particularly in developing economies. Moreover, the study contributes to
expanding future research on social entrepreneurship in similar contexts.
Originality/value – This study makes several contributions to the literature on social
entrepreneurship. First, by presenting an integrated model for the characteristics/traits and
motivations of social entrepreneur. Second, it provides deeper understanding of social
entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Third, it highlights the importance of personal inspiration
and informal social networks as two sources of motivation for social entrepreneurs, in emerging
countries.
Keywords Egypt, Motivations, Developing countries, Social entrepreneurship,
Social entrepreneurs’ characteristics
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Social Enterprise Journal
The classic literature on social entrepreneurship suggests that achieving long-standing
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2017
pp. 268-298
social gains is one of the sole purposes for social entrepreneurship, which underlines
© Emerald Publishing Limited various factors, process, and outcomes (Lumpkin et al., 2013; Omorede, 2014). As
1750-8614
DOI 10.1108/SEJ-05-2016-0014 societies search for more innovative, cost-effective and sustainable ways to address
social problems, “social ventures” – typically led by inspired individuals known as Social ventures
“social entrepreneurs” – have attracted increasing attention (Mair and Schoen, 2007).
Such individuals combine social goals with a business mindset to address largely
unsatisfied needs in their communities (Seelos and Mair, 2005).
Research on social entrepreneurship has expanded over the past decade and has
been acknowledged as an important field of inquiry (Thompson et al., 2000; Mair and
Schoen, 2007; Zahra et al., 2009; Austin et al., 2006). Despite being a relatively new
subject of study, some aspects of social entrepreneurship have been widely researched, 269
including opportunity identification (Corner and Ho, 2010; Shaw and Carter, 2007;
Weerawardena and Mort, 2006), social value creation (Zahra et al., 2009; MacMillan,
2003) and creating new business models (Mair and Noboa, 2003; Mair and Schoen, 2007;
Seelos and Mair, 2005).
Nevertheless, existing research has touched little on the questions of social
entrepreneurs’ identities and motivations (Aileen Boluk and Mottiar, 2014; Germak and
Robinson, 2014; Omorede, 2014), particularly in developing countries. While empirical
research on social entrepreneurship in general is on the rise, how social entrepreneurs are
motivated has received little attention. This is despite the fact that substantial theoretical
and empirical research exists on the motivation of commercial entrepreneurs (Germak and
Robinson, 2014). Seeking to fill a gap in this literature, this study explores the characteristics
and motivations of social entrepreneurs in Egypt. It presents qualitative findings from in-
person, in-depth interviews with self-identified social entrepreneurs, managerial members,
executives and field experts. This paper aims to identify features and common patterns of
social entrepreneurs across different social ventures in Egypt.
Through this exploratory qualitative study, we seek to understand who are the
inspired individuals and what drives them to engage in social entrepreneurship, a
relatively recent phenomenon for both practitioners and academics. Developing such an
understanding will provide a foundation for further empirical research of social
entrepreneurs and their motivations in developing countries. This research addresses
the gap in literature by proposing a conceptual framework derived from empirical
findings of five social entrepreneurs from Egypt. In addition to the contributions we
seek to make to social entrepreneurship motivation theory, with this study, we begin to
build a profile of social entrepreneurs, which, consistent with Collins et al. (2004) and
Germak and Robinson (2014), should have practical implications for investors seeking
talent for social enterprises development and for individuals contemplating becoming
social entrepreneurs.
The article is structured as follows. We first review the state of the field in social
entrepreneurship literature, focusing particularly on definitional debates and work engaging
with social entrepreneurs’ features, characteristics and motivation. Here, we also seek to
locate our study and its contributions in relation to this literature. We then present the
research methodology. Discussion of the characteristics of social entrepreneurs comes
thereafter, which is concluded with a proposed conceptual framework. We conclude with
detailed discussion of article’s contribution to knowledge and theory, and reflect on potential
areas for future research.

Literature review
Social entrepreneurship
Despite its origins in the early 2000s as a field of research, social entrepreneurship has a
longer history as a social phenomenon. Bill Drayton, the founder of the social
entrepreneurship organisation Ashoka and the often-cited founder of the social
SEJ entrepreneurship concept, is said to have popularised the term in the 1990s (Light, 2006).
13,3 Perrini and Vurro (2006) trace the concept even earlier, mentioning that companies have had
social missions since as early as the nineteenth century. In recent years, academic research
in this field has risen significantly, including from notable authors’ (Shaw and Carter, 2007;
Mair and Schoen, 2007; Christie and Honig, 2006; Short et al., 2009) Omorede (2014)
mentions, however, that the research field is still nascent.
270 Social entrepreneurship is at an exciting stage of infancy, short on theory and definition,
but high in motivation and passion. There have been many attempts to define social
entrepreneurship in the literature (Germak and Singh, 2010; Germak and Robinson, 2014;
Kickul and Lyons, 2012). Because of the relative novelty of this field of study, social
entrepreneurship has developed varied and contested definitions, ranging from
comprehensive to narrow. Many of these focus on social change and creativity or innovation
in solving social problems rather than profit-seeking models (Schumpeter, 1951; Drucker,
1985; Kong, 2010; Dees and Anderson, 2003). Sievers (1997) explains that a key element
which makes entrepreneurs social is the promotion of sustainable projects that empower
communities (Emerson and Twersky, 1996; Leadbetter, 1997; NYU Stern, 2005). Dees (1998)
and Germak and Robinson (2014) suggest privileging social goals above individual profit
accumulation is common in social entrepreneurship (Mort et al., 2002; Mair and Marti, 2006;
Peredo and McLean, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007). Overall, common themes focus on
innovation, community development and sustainability or, in other words, prioritizing social
goals over profitability.
The above definitions view social entrepreneurship as a process. An alternative
perspective of social entrepreneurship is defined in relation to the individual social
entrepreneur. For instance, Dees (1998), Drayton (2002) and Alvord et al. (2004) explain that
social entrepreneurs are agents of social change, who, through entrepreneurial behaviour,
create solutions to social problems. A combination of entrepreneurial talent and business
skills are important constituents of the personality of the social entrepreneur (NYU Stern,
2005), as well as a high degree of compassion (Dees, 2007; Grimes et al., 2013) that enables
the social entrepreneur to have the insight to identify the causes of social disadvantage and
the creativity to envision a solution (Martin and Osberg, 2007).
Considering the broad literature, the perspective of this study chooses to view social
entrepreneurship as the process by which issues of social disadvantage are solved by social
entrepreneurs who are active agents using business techniques to find innovative solutions
to social problems, motivated by altruism rather than profit.

The social entrepreneur: character and motivation

Aileen Boluk and Mottiar (2014) and Seelos and Mair (2005) characterize social
entrepreneurs as social heroes who utilize entrepreneurial talents and skills. Similarly,
Drayton (2002, p. 123) describes social entrepreneurs as creative individuals with a
“powerful new, system changing idea”. He considers social entrepreneurship as the result of
very special traits shared by only a small percentage of the population, traits that go beyond
altruistic motivation and which affect positive change in the world (Seelos and Mair, 2005).
Multiple authors have attempted to dive deeper into the characteristics of the social
entrepreneur. Phills et al. (2008) suggest boldness, accountability, resourcefulness, ambition,
persistence and unreasonableness as common traits of effective social entrepreneurs.
Thompson et al. (2000), meanwhile, identify vision and fortitude as important qualities.
Other traits identified in the literature include passion, clarity of purpose, commitment,
courage and flexibility and abilities include thinking strategically, taking risks, focusing on
customers, thinking like a businessman and having an entrepreneurial mindset (Boschee,
1998; Litzky et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2014). Ernst (2012) suggested that social entrepreneurs Social ventures
possess the same entrepreneurial personality traits/entrepreneurial mindset as their
traditional counterparts (i.e. risk-taking, innovativeness, need for achievement, need for
independence and pro-activeness), along with an aspiration to solve issues of social nature.
While mapping the broad spectrum of social entrepreneurial characteristics has been
relatively straightforward, isolating the underlying motivations seems to be trickier. Efforts
by scholars working on social movements suggest that understanding the motivation 271
behind the desire to bring about social change is highly relevant to the study of social
entrepreneurship (Mair and Marti, 2006). To begin, we first look at efforts to describe the
motivations of the traditional entrepreneur. Schumpeter (1934) identifies the motive of
personal profit as a central engine that empowers private enterprises and social wealth.
Entrepreneurship is a productive form of social welfare (Jiao, 2011; Pirson, 2012) because
entrepreneurs enhance social wealth by creating new markets, industries, technologies,
institutional forms, jobs, as well as net increases in real productivity. In addition to the profit
motive, there are other motives for entrepreneurs, such as the need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961), desire for independence (Hisrich and Brush, 1986) and risk propensity
(Brockhaus, 1980). These elements demonstrate that entrepreneurship is not just based on
motives to increase personal wealth.
What, then, is the distinctive social domain for social entrepreneurship motivation?
Social and conventional entrepreneurs are often similar (Smith et al., 2014) in talents and
attributes. Both are innovative and possess high amounts of energy, tenacity and resilience
and are driven by a vision to which they remain passionately committed. They differ,
however, in their motivation and purpose (Roberts and Woods, 2005). Aileen Boluk and
Mottiar (2014), Martin and Osberg (2007) and Ostrander (2007) suggest that the key
difference between traditional entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs is that the former are
motivated by “money” and the latter by “altruism” or philanthropy. Mair and Noboa (2003)
and Prabhu (1999) argue that social entrepreneurs’ primary motivation is social value
creation. Santos (2012), meanwhile, argues that the motivation to create value for society,
rather than gain value, is the central difference between social and commercial
entrepreneurs. He finds that different behavioural motivations may lead to distinct
organisational emphasis within value creation and capture trade-off.
Thus, the distinctiveness of social entrepreneurs is that they are economic agents
who, due to their motivation, create value without concern for profits. Zahra et al. (2009)
note that helping others is often a motivation for behaviour of social entrepreneurs and
an outcome of their activities. Alternatively, Hwee and Shamuganathan (2010) suggest
that deep personal values allow social entrepreneurs not only to feel sympathy for the
disadvantaged in society but also to go further and create novel solutions benefitting
these people by capitalizing on their business skills and personal networks. Austin et al.
(2006) have argued that the main driver for social entrepreneurship is the social
problems being addressed. Others go on to further aggregate social entrepreneurs’
reasons for creating social welfare by highlighting:

how they discover and recognize opportunities (Corner and Ho, 2010);

their knowledge and/or experience that have branded them (Murphy and Coombes,
2009);

the collective action of several people who share a vision (Murphy and Coombes,
2009); and

and the social goals they hope to achieve (Austin et al., 2006; Zahra et al., 2009).
SEJ Social entrepreneurship in developing economies
13,3 There appears to be a discrepancy between understanding social entrepreneurship in the
developed and developing world. Research on social entrepreneurship is fragmentary and
focuses mainly on developed economies, especially empirical studies (Haski-Leventhal and
Mehra, 2016; Karanda and Toledano, 2012; Littlewood and Holt, 2015; Rivera-Santos et al.,
2015). While this research is valuable, it has rendered incomplete the overall understanding
272 of the phenomenon.
Bacq and Janssen (2011) and Diochon and Ghore (2016) suggest that understanding the
influence of local context is highly important in the field of social entrepreneurship.
Developing country contexts can differ greatly from developed, facing issues such as large-
scale poverty, illiteracy, low education, lack of political will and corruption. As such, studies
that draw results within the developed country context on how to grow the social
entrepreneurial landscape – especially along the lines of policy implementation – may be
inappropriate and thus ineffective in the developing country context. Recent work by
Rivera-Santos et al. (2015), for example, in an African context, highlights the importance of
African contextual dimensions for understanding social entrepreneurship, and underlines
the added value of incorporating insights from African data into management research more
broadly. While there have been a few exceptions of studies that have explored the
developing country context (Aileen Boluk and Mottiar, 2014; Gupta et al., 2015; Katzenstein
and Chrispin, 2011; Nega and Schneider, 2014; Omorede, 2014; Littlewood and Holt, 2015;
Rivera-Santos et al., 2015), the gap in social entrepreneurship research in developing
countries remains wide. Arguably, addressing this gap, especially regarding the scarce
literature within the African context (Kolk and Rivera-Santos, 2015; Doherty et al., 2014;
Gupta et al., 2015), can help draw new and distinctive findings to more roundly shape the
social entrepreneurship discourse.
Within the case of Egypt, our research found only two academic studies and one report
on social entrepreneurship that included Egypt. El Ebrashi (2013), focusing on behavioural
theory for social entrepreneurship, introduces new organisational typologies that create,
measure and sustain social change. Chahine and Mowafi (2015), meanwhile, illustrate
examples of the practice of social entrepreneurship in Egypt and Lebanon, discussing the
challenges and opportunities facing citizens engaged in social entrepreneurship.
The authors aptly conclude that while supporting entrepreneurial ventures can stimulate
economic development in Egypt, support for social enterprises could have an even broader
positive social impact. Considering the lack of empirical research on social entrepreneurship
in Egypt and the salient questions around its efficacy, there appears to be a need for more
evidence regarding who operate these organisations and what are the key drivers behind
their social activities. This study addresses the broad gaps in the literature of social
entrepreneurship in developing economies by using Egypt as a new research context to
better understand the social entrepreneurship phenomenon.

Research questions and theory

Responding to the need for better understanding of social entrepreneurial characteristic and
motivations (Ghalwash et al., 2016), especially within emerging market and African
contexts, this study focuses on social entrepreneurs as individuals and their motivational
reasons behind running social enterprises. Following Seelos and Mair (2005), Harding (2006),
Zahra et al. (2009) and Kiss et al. (2012), our work contributes towards conceptual
frameworks to guide future research in the field of social entrepreneurship in developing
countries. Attempting to look at social entrepreneurship from a new perspective,
particularly by exploring the phenomenon within the Egyptian context, we seek to
contribute to both theory and policy development for the social entrepreneurship landscape Social ventures
and ecosystem.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to expand on existing literature on social
entrepreneurship by examining the following two research questions:
RQ1. What are the characteristics of social entrepreneurs?

RQ2. What are their motivations to start a social venture? 273

The above research questions are not only suitable for exploratory purposes but also used to
identify important categories and meanings in a specific research particularly in areas
where there is limited knowledge (Marshall and Rossman, 2010; Omorede, 2014).

An initial conceptual framework: social entrepreneurial characteristics and motivations

Our research focuses on social entrepreneurs as active agents in social innovation processes.
We argue that social entrepreneurs add value to society by using business processes and
models to address intractable social problems. Social entrepreneurs marshal resources and
apply business techniques to generate innovative (market or non-market) solutions. Finally,
social entrepreneurs create goods and/or services at prices above cost that result in social
value and a sustainable legacy in empowered communities.
The personality of social entrepreneurs and the motivation that forms the backdrop of
initiating and creating a social venture are proposed here as important conditions for
understanding social entrepreneurship as a whole. Zahra et al. (2009) suggest that
examining the motivations and personalities of social entrepreneurs presents a variety of
ways for us to understand the role of different organisational forms in the success of social
entrepreneurship. In sum, social entrepreneurs view the resolution of intractable social
problems as a challenge. They then make use of business techniques to address such
problems with novel solutions. Using personal networks to legitimize innovative solutions,
entrepreneurs try to ensure these solutions engender social value.
Using the variables and concepts derived through social entrepreneurship literature
review, we present a framework that we will use to structure interviews protocol, data
gathering and analysis in our study. This initial framework integrates three concepts: the
entrepreneurial personality and mindset, motivation to start a social venture and social
outcomes. This framework suggests an initial understanding of social entrepreneurs and
their driving motives for social value creation through highlighting these concepts as
important ingredients for social venture creation. Although, it is clearly illustrated in the
model and literature review that the three concepts are individually significant, it is not
presently known how they interact with each other and impact the social entrepreneurship
process. Three important aspects, namely, input depicted on the left of the diagram; the
social transformation in the middle, suggesting that the inputs are combined and
transformed; and the output towards the right-hand side. Input 2 is fuelled by set of Inputs 1.
For example, Input 1 (socialisation, background and education of the social entrepreneur)
shapes Input 2 (entrepreneurial personality, characteristics and mindset). These aspects are
gleaned from the literature; however, as is shown as a gap in literature, it is not known how
these various inputs combine together and interact with each other. Also, there is a lack of
understanding and knowledge of the role of the entrepreneur’s personal traits and
motivational drivers behind social ventures. This study aims at bridging the gap in social
entrepreneurship literature by offering an emergent conceptual model that introduces
specific empirically social entrepreneurs as individuals as well as grounded reasons towards
individuals’ motives for starting and persisting in social entrepreneurship (Figure 1).
SEJ
13,3

274

Figure 1.
Initial conceptual
framework of social
entrepreneurship and
their motives

Methodology
To answer the above research questions and develop a theory that would explain
individuals and their motives towards social entrepreneurship, an inductive, exploratory
and qualitative methodology was utilised in examining five social entrepreneurs in Egypt
using data from in-depth interviews, document analysis and observation. This method was
consistent with that used by Haski-Leventhal and Mehra (2016) and Omorede (2014) in their
qualitative studies of social entrepreneurs in Australia, India and Nigeria. Given the limited
thrust of knowledge on social entrepreneurship, we purposely opted for an inductive,
explorative and qualitative research approach (Yin, 1999). The focus of this study lies in
gathering propositions rather than testing hypotheses. The research is essentially
qualitative because we aim to understand social entrepreneurs and their motivations
following other related work by Aileen Boluk and Mottiar (2014) and Omorede (2014). This
design helps to capture the complexity and richness of the underlying phenomenon and to
detect patterns across sample. As Saunders et al. (2003) note, properly conducted qualitative
methods can be scientifically rigorous and capable of generating theory – which we do in the
form of a new conceptual framework, using a deductive-inductive logic. We deduced
concepts from literature to guide data gathering, and we then induced conclusions from data
to theorise their meaning.
To overcome the limitations of the smaller sample necessitated by qualitative methods,
we seek typicality by carefully using purposive sampling and data triangulation with social
entrepreneurship experts and managerial members from each social enterprise. We
triangulate across data sets and reintegrate with previous research in a thematic analysis
(Aronson, 1994; Attride-Stirling, 2001). Adopting Jack et al.’s (2008) approach and guided by
the thematic within-case analysis, this study presents its findings in the form of narrative
themes.

Sampling and data collection

We began by identifying 20 social entrepreneurs (based on descriptions from Austin et al.
(2006) and Alvord et al. (2004) as not-for-profit initiatives that seek alternative strategies to
alleviate social problems and catalyse social transformations) through websites and public
directories in Egypt. We performed an initial screening of the available background
information of the founding individuals and chose individuals who fulfilled the following Social ventures
criteria:

Their organisations are innovative, as they tackled social problems that have not
been met in the Egyptian community. The founding entrepreneurs are creative in
their ideas, approaches and organisational structures as presented in discussion and
findings sections. The selected social enterprises have achieved social and economic
impact. 275

The social entrepreneur(s) have a demonstrated background of leadership and
creativity in their field, as outlined by Omorede (2014).

The social entrepreneur(s) recognised an opportunity and took action to start a new
social venture, as suggested by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Omorede
(2014).

The social entrepreneur(s) chose to address particularly challenging and highly
entrenched social problems, as suggested by Omorede (2014), for example, high
poverty rate, high income inequality, societal shunning of persons with disabilities.

The researchers had access to social entrepreneurs and were able to achieve the
required trust and relationships with gatekeepers and research participants (Strauss
and Corbin, 1994).

From the narrowed down list, we chose five social entrepreneurs representing a variety of
sectors (health care, education, general development, disabilities and human rights) and thus
offering a diverse sample and comparison, as recommended by Creswell (2007). To provide
an in-depth account of the subjects, we conducted 13 interviews, which we found to be
sufficient to decipher our main themes, address the research problem and generate a new
theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The number of cases used was also found to be similar to other
studies on social entrepreneurship that were undertaken in Africa (Gupta et al., 2015;
Omerede, 2014). All of them are non-governmental/not-for-profit organisations. Table I
presents the social and economic profile of the five social entrepreneurs and their
organisations, as well as interviewees.
The data were collected using semi-structured interviews and were presented using
themes derived from social entrepreneurship literature, our initial framework illustrated
above and empirical findings. Key themes were then identified from the data (for example,
characteristics of social entrepreneurs and motivational drivers), which were then further
unpacked. This approach helped identify similarities and differences between various social
foundations, providing a holistic picture of the underlying phenomenon. After identifying a
wider group (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991) to select from, the sample was narrowed down to
provide deep data (Creswell, 2007) on successful social entrepreneurship projects.
To assist with triangulating the data, three expert interviewees were also performed. The
experts were chosen for their knowledge of social enterprises in Egypt. We discussed with
them general principles and our interim conclusions following the interviews. Table II
displays the background of the three key experts interviewed.
The study adopts the method of face-to-face interviews instead of, for example, self-
completed questionnaires. As Sekaran and Bougie (2013) note, face-to-face interviews offer
authenticity, data saturation and the opportunity to gather secondary data for triangulation.
Alvord et al. (2004) further state that semi-structured interviews allow researchers to probe
topics and reach saturation, forming a plausible narrative. In our study, this is particularly
important considering the unique cultural and contextual characteristics of the Egyptian
social entrepreneurship landscape, as well as the fact that it is under-researched. For our
 SEJ
13,3

276

Table I.

and backgrounds
Case studies profiles
No. of employees
Social No. of Year of Uniqueness of supporting and volunteerism
enterprise Interviewee interviews foundation organisation network Intended social impact

Organisation A Incubator Manager 1 1 2003 Incubator of innovative 28 employees Incubation of over 40 social
Incubator Manager 2 1 social enterprises in 200 volunteers enterprises in different fields,
Egypt and the region reaching and impacting thousands
of individuals in Egypt annually
Organisation B Executive manager 2 2009 Cardiovascular diseases 300 Delivered thousands of open heart
Executive manager 1 treatments, surgeries and surgeries, cardiac patient visits,
assistant research catheterization, and radiology
scans, free of charge for more than
1,000 patients annually
Organisation C Social Entrepreneur 1 2 2012 Training and employment 4 employees Employed 300 persons with
Social Entrepreneur 2 1 of people with disabilities 150 volunteers disabilities. Launched successful
campaign that resulted in
including 8 bands for disabled
people, the first in Egyptian
history
Organisation D Social Entrepreneur 3 1 2006 Charity, healthcare, 10 employees Renovated and rebuilt 40 houses in
Social enterprise 1 shelter, food, education 400 volunteers rural areas in Egypt
representative and poor villages Provided 50 newly wed orphans
renovation with electrical appliances
Paid debts for 100 imprisoned
women
Cooked over 30,000 meals and
distributed over 20,000 packages of
dried food in Ramadan
Organisation E Social Entrepreneur 4 1 1988 Development studies, civil 23 employees Inspired more than 100 groups to
Social Entrepreneur 5 1 society, political 3,000þ volunteers work in civil society. Provided a
awareness and activate comprehensive database for
the role of women development studies about Middle
East
Created a network of 40 NGOs that
consists of more than 3,000
volunteers around Egypt
Key No. of Knowledge and
Social ventures
informant interviews Educational qualifications experience Job tittle Organisation

Expert 1 1 Degree in commerce from Academic Experience in Economic World Bank

Egypt several American Expert The Arab Fund
Master in economics from universities Economic and
the university of California Expert in Economics Social
PhD in economics from the and development Development 277
university of California projects in Emerging
Markets
Expert 2 1 Doctorate in social Research on health and President and NEGMA Egypt
epidemiology from development in Egypt co-founder of Rise Egypt
Harvard Civil society NGO
Social Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem
Expert 3 1 BSC, MBA from Egypt Entrepreneurship Assistant The American Table II.
PhD in international Social entrepreneurship Professor University in Summary of
economic development Economic Development Cairo characteristics of key
from MIT informants

study, we held 60-90 min semi-structured in-depth interviews with 13 respondents,

including the 5 social entrepreneurs, 5 senior managers in their organisations and 3 industry
experts. The interviews were conducted in June 2014 and July and August 2016 by the
authors. The interviews of three key experts helped triangulate data to ensure its validity
and reliability (Guion, 2011). A similar approach was taken by Mauksch (2012) in
researching social entrepreneurship in Germany.
As suggested by Yin (1994), all interviews were guided by the initial conceptual
framework. The interviews primarily covered interviewees’ life stories and experiences
starting and running the social enterprise. Interviews were conducted and recorded in
Arabic and later translated and transcribed, taking care to capture meaning rather than
rendering a literal translation.
In addition to receiving background information through interviews, we also collected
archival materials and documents regarding the cases studied, such as articles, newsletters
and organisational websites.

Data coding, analysis and presentation

The analysis started by tracing elements that led us to answer the research questions. Data
are presented by using the themes that emerged after coding and categorizing the data in
patterns with the help of terminology from the literature review. Following Miles and
Huberman (1994), we used social entrepreneurship literature and guidelines for coding and
analysing qualitative data. The transcribed interviews were analysed through an open
coding process, iterated to overarching categories and compared between social
entrepreneurs. Preliminary codes were organised into two main propositions, through a
process of constant comparison, which allowed for the creation of categories/constructs
under each proposition; the categories were analysed using axial coding (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990) to identify the relationships between categories. This process revealed striking
similarities between social entrepreneurs’ traits and motivations in regards to the
approaches taken by them, leading to the creation of a preliminary model.
Excerpts and quotes from the interviews were used as parts of the analysis. To discern
deeper meaning and patterns in our data, we did a line-by-line content analysis for the data
SEJ set and coded transcripts of the interviews (Miles and Huberman, 1994). We deliberately
13,3 focused on the common features of social entrepreneur characteristics and motivations
detected in their life stories and experiences. During this process, statements and quotations
related to categories such as personal attributes, perseverance, mindset and passion were
identified to enable us to generate the first-order concept. We processed to create several
lists and statements from our quotations as they emerged, then transferred all similar
278 statements to a set for easy access. The analysis of data was a highly iterative process as we
went back and forth between transcripts, data reduction and coding and the final themes of
discussion (Strauss, 1987). This allowed us to identify our emergent themes without
premature analysis biases, thereby enhancing our interpretations and increasing our
confidence in the analytical process (Suddaby, 2006). Assembling of the findings and
analysis consisted of four simultaneous phases: gathering and presenting findings, within-
case analysis, comparative analysis across case and existing theory and discussion.
The research approach used was to review what the literature says for each theme, then
triangulate these findings with the data to identify:

areas of agreements with the literature;

areas of dispute or variance with the literature; and

new ideas that do not exist in the current literature.

Each proposition concluded with an interpretation of the meaning of data, in light of

previous empirical work and theory. While iterating our categories with existing literature
in social entrepreneurship, we finalised our analysis by placing our categories into a general
dimension, which provided clarity on our conceptual framework and insights (Eisenhardt,
1989). Elements of the framework were retained, revised, removed or added, as field data
provided empirical evidence (Yin, 2009). Eliminating data not relevant to the analysis at
hand and extracting data that are relevant was the simplest form of data reduction, as
explained by Miles and Huberman (1994). As illustrated in Table III, the within thematic
case analysis was executed in keeping with the conceptual framework and the interview
topic guide.

Findings and discussion

Because this study focuses on gathering schemes rather than testing hypotheses, the data
analysis and discussion are presented in themes and categories to explore new propositions
of the underlying phenomenon. As suggested by Pratt (2008, 2009), we present data from 13
interviewees including five social entrepreneurs, introduced in Tables I and II, to show in a
structured manner how we reached the aggregate themes. The analysis of the empirical
findings suggests two main themes/propositions that answer our two proposed research

The sources and methods of data Main contribution of Further contributions

collection within the case study each source to final of each source to final
strategy understanding understanding
Table III.
Documents (archival data) Contextual Theoretical
Data sources and In-depth interviews Theoretical Contextual :
contribution to Participant observation Contextual Theoretical Triangulation
understanding of the Interviews with industry experts Confirmation of specific Theoretical ;
phenomena contextual factors
questions. Two themes related to social entrepreneurs’ characteristics and their motivations Social ventures
emerged from the data. These themes are then individually divided into subcategories as per
data obtained as follows:
P1. Social entrepreneurial characteristics.
P2. Social entrepreneurial motivations.
279
Proposition one: characteristics of social entrepreneurs
Our analysis revealed that social entrepreneurs share commonalities in their personalities.
Based on qualitative data, which was inductively analysed, five key concepts emerged to
describe social entrepreneurial characteristics: entrepreneurial mindset, compassion and
humanitarian aspects, innovation, risk-taking and perseverance. Social entrepreneurs share
characteristics with business entrepreneurs, such as entrepreneurial processes, risk-taking
and innovation.
Entrepreneurial mindset. Our findings reveal that social entrepreneurs share the mindset
of the traditional business entrepreneur. They use their entrepreneurial skills and experience
to discover social problems and create innovative solutions to address them. The
entrepreneurial mindset helps social entrepreneurs and their founding team to identify new
ideas and exploit opportunities that serve social purposes (Doherty and Thompson, 2006).
Additionally, social entrepreneurs use their entrepreneurial skills and previous
entrepreneurial experiences to provide new business techniques and models to create social
value. Discovering social opportunities can be triggered from knowledge and/or experiences
or even a reaction to solving certain social errors and deficiencies. These five social
entrepreneurs interviewed quickly noticed these social issues and where they occurred
because they all faced personal setbacks arising from social issues their enterprises
addressed. Additionally, these individuals use their business skills and techniques to solve
social aims. For example:
Social Entrepreneur 2 showed his entrepreneurial mindset by identifying and exploiting
new social opportunity that serves persons with disabilities in Egypt, saying:
[. . .] So we realized the opportunity that training and development for persons with disabilities is
the most applicable idea and we can do it well. Our work for a training company was a
benchmark for us regarding how to provide training programs for persons with disabilities. Also,
we had the experiences and knowledge about what we need to start our social venture.
The founding social entrepreneur of Organisation B utilised his success, knowledge and
previous experience in cardiovascular treatment globally to start up a new social venture
that provide free medical treatment to heart diseases in Egypt, as explained by his
Executive Manager:
[. . .], The Social Entrepreneur founded the Chain of Hope Charity, which sponsors children in
developing countries who suffer from heart problems. Other works of this charity include training
promising doctors from Mozambique, and improving other countries’ health care service and
ability to conduct research themselves. He identified the opportunity to start up Case B as a centre
of excellence that can help him to achieve his dream and train a new generation of Egyptian
doctors to continue his path.
As Social Entrepreneur 4 said, being entrepreneurial is not confined to a fortuitous context;
indeed, it is in adversity that the entrepreneur is most challenged:
[. . .] I used my entrepreneurial skills to create new ventures even when I was in prison. We
collected money and opened a seafood cafeteria inside prison. Moreover, I used my business
SEJ contacts to help those people in the prison to continue their education degrees and one of them is a
famous lawyer in Alexandria now. This is due to my entrepreneurial work experience that pushed
13,3 me to help other disadvantaged people live a better life.
The founder of Organisation D elaborated how her entrepreneurial mindset and experience
as an owner of one of the biggest educational institution in Egypt helped her creating new
organisational structure that involve students and faculty members to serve social aims:
280 The founding of Organisation D is very supportive for social projects especially she is a
successful entrepreneur who is running one of the top private universities in Egypt. The
opportunity was exploited based on social entrepreneur’s moral and financial support also we
have the place which is the university so it became easy for us to start the project with
collaborations with the vice deans of all faculties to encourage students through meetings,
workshops and regular visits to the targeted areas.
It is evident from these quotations that social entrepreneurs possess entrepreneurial
mindset, and they utilize these knowledge and skills to fulfil social needs by starting social
enterprises. As suggested by Smith et al. (2014), social and business entrepreneurs are often
similar in talents and attributes. Their personal experiences were fundamental to the
development of their entrepreneurial mindset, which, in turn, affects their ability to identify
and exploit opportunities.
Compassion and humanitarian aspects. It is interesting to note that alongside the
entrepreneurial mindset attribute, the importance of compassion is an important feature that
defines social entrepreneurs drive towards social change rather than simple profit. Social
entrepreneurs create sustainability by working with and empowering their target
communities. Social entrepreneurial opportunities are often defined and located by people
when they become aware of particular social problems, usually in their line of work in
charitable/humanitarian organisations. Social entrepreneurs are empathetic, compassionate
and understanding, and they gain reward from benefiting others. Emotions and empathy
play a significant role in the entrepreneurial process, especially in maintaining the
momentum of an enterprise (Austin et al., 2006).
For example, the executive manager of Organisation B explained that the founding social
entrepreneur was most satisfied when he saw adults and children recover from illness and
regain health. She noted:
[. . .] Being a heart surgeon, Social Entrepreneur’s work is about giving people the chance to have
healthier, longer and more satisfying lives. According to him, “seeing people who are not well
getting so much better,” is the most fulfilling part of his job.
Social Entrepreneurs 1 and 2 phrased similar points emphasising their social responsibility
and passion while founding Organisation C, stressing that:
[. . .] We are passionate about social work and changing people’s lives [. . .] because we have
passion towards the social work since we were college students, and we performed numerous
social activities. We wanted to train people with disabilities and make them qualified to work and
produce because simply this is their right.
Social Entrepreneur 3 was similarly passionate about social work and changing people’s
lives, saying:
[. . .] It all started as a dream; a dream of making a change to people’s lives, through our inner
belief that everything is possible by Gods will. Thrilled by our ability to make a difference,
however small, in the lives of other Egyptians, we set out to expand our operations [. . .] We can
contribute to our community through various ways. Here is just the initial list of projects:
 education, medical treatment, shelter, sponsor a facility, supplying clean water, improving houses, Social ventures
upgrading schools and hospitals, sponsor a needy child, woman or elder.
The Incubation Manager 1 of Organisation A showed social sensibility and compassion of
the founding social entrepreneurs to contribute to his community and social value creation,
saying:
Social entrepreneur brings his passion for youth development, social innovation and
entrepreneurship to a regional level. He currently leads the social entrepreneurship agenda, which 281
aims to better understand and strengthen the potential of social entrepreneurship and innovation
to contribute to the Arab region’s development challenges.
Expert 1 suggested that perhaps this social intelligence among social entrepreneurs is
deeply embedded:
Some entrepreneurs were born with the particular talents for social sensibility, and they allow
these talents to grow with them through different stages of their lives. These people just want to
be part of the social good.
Our study highlighted how the escalated engagement the social entrepreneurs put into the
social pursuit established their dedication to the progress and success of the enterprise.
Their heavy emotional investment in the enterprise contributed to its success which, in turn,
contributed to further emotional investment and increased commitment. Mair and Noboa
(2003) corroborate this finding by seeing compassion inextricably mixed with social
entrepreneurship, and this topic in general has received considerable attention from social
entrepreneurship researchers (Dees, 2007), including the importance of founder motivations,
especially compassion (Grimes et al., 2013; Mair and Marti, 2006; Shaw and Carter, 2007). We
found in the analysis of the interviews that the humanitarian aspects and compassion
towards community to be common personal character among all founding entrepreneurs.
Innovation. In this study, we also found social entrepreneurs to be innovators. Egyptian
social entrepreneurs create new products/services, delivery processes and business models,
with the aim of addressing intractable social issues. For example, all of the interviewed
social entrepreneurs showed that they have initiated new ideas in the Egyptian context.
These new ideas were not existing in the Egyptian context before they started their social
ventures.
One interviewee, Incubation Manager 1, attributed such characteristics in particular to a
founder of the incubated social project of Organisation A, noting that this founder looked at
problems differently and innovatively:
[. . .] The founder believed that young Egyptians needed to be at the forefront of this movement.
Youth, especially young professionals, were often disregarded as being too “inexperienced” to
become leaders in society. The founders saw matters differently, however they saw youth as
thinkers and drivers for progressive social change.
Similarly, Social Entrepreneur 5, elaborated on the creative approach initiated by her and
her partner/social founder who focused on developing skills of Egyptian youth, particularly
women:
I realised the important role of woman that has been neglected specially in the political elections.
We created social networks to those women to increase their awareness about the importance of
political life and participation in elections, civil community, decision making and leadership.
Social Entrepreneurs 1, 2 and 3 attempted to find creative solutions for social and economic
problems in Egypt. They addressed issues such as advancement of scientific research
through establishment of centre of excellence to combat heart disease, training and
SEJ development for the disabled and incubation of social enterprises in Egypt. The
13,3 organisations hoped to foster an understanding of social responsibility for future
generations.
The founder of Organisation D created a new approach and organisational structure in
her social enterprise that aims to cultivate students’ skills and talents for social value
creation, saying:
282 Recently, social entrepreneur announced that no students will be graduated from the schools
without having social project as a part of graduation. Moreover, we use the youth’s creativity and
new ideas of our University’s students to benefit our social aims. For example, students started
new projects in different areas such as architecture students did designs for the houses and
Dentistry students have clinic in ‘Fayoum’ governorate and they go regularly to check and treat
people for free.
Expert 2 typifies the innovative solutions of the five cases:
[. . .] I see that the five cases of social entrepreneurs you mentioned have something in common,
which is creating new ideas. They were able to find space for something that didn’t exist before.
For example, the founding Social Entrepreneur of Organisation A was the first to introduce social
incubation for innovative social enterprises.

Innovation is an important criterion for social entrepreneurs in selecting the kind of product or
service that they are going to sell. It has to involve both entrepreneurial talent and social
objectives. This is the key point.
These findings align with Drayton’s (2002, p. 123) description of social entrepreneurs as
creative individuals with a “powerful new, system-changing idea” as per the tradition of
Schumpeter (1951) and Drucker (1985). In these cases, however, social entrepreneurs use
their new ideas to achieve social benefit. The common themes highlighted in most social
entrepreneurs’ definitions in the existing social entrepreneurship literature include
innovation and creativity as key personality characteristics.
Risk-taking. The Egyptian social entrepreneurs in this study were also identified to be
risk-takers. We argue that there are greater and more varied risks in developing countries,
especially in the social sector compared to for-profit enterprises in developed economies
where high risk is primarily at the start-up phase. Findings revealed that social enterprises,
which challenge embedded family and cultural norms, face additional uncertainties and
risks, especially in face of political instability and economic difficulties. Social Entrepreneur
4 was aware of the high risks from the beginning of his venture, saying:
I had a dream to start an independent centre for social and civil studies without the Egyptian
government’s supervision[. . . .]However, the Egyptian government closed the centre in year 2000.
The government threw me and 27 other staff members in an Egyptian prison for a few years, but
the centre was re-opened in 2003.
Social entrepreneurs in this study seemed to be particularly unique in that they take risks
without the incentive of a profit reward (replacing that with reward of social value). As
Founder 2 of Organisation C reveals, simply trying to apply an innovative idea in a society
like Egypt may itself incur additional risks:
[. . .] We believe that the main problems or challenges in Egypt lie in introducing new ideas and in
creativity, as no one accepts new ideas until they see your actual success. As you might already
know, the power of the youth, and their ability to create new ideas are systematically
underestimated in Egypt, especially when it comes to big projects that aim to change the
community, social life, and traditional perceptions.
Social Entrepreneur 1 added that in addition to the introduction of new ideas there are other Social ventures
challenges and risks facing them, saying:
[. . .] Also our age and my gender (female) is challenge. We were 23 years old when we started. As
you know, there is underestimation of youth’s power and the creation of new ideas in Egypt. We
know that achievements are not related to age also youth can be more innovative and energetic.
In addition, social entrepreneurs seem to go against the tide, taking risks that may even be
shunned by their families or communities. Expert 3 states, for instance: 283
Most [Social entrepreneurs] are well-educated and are inspired. They are usually well supported;
however, mostly of their support does not come from family as most Egyptian families are risk
averse. I can define these Egyptian social entrepreneurs as risk-takers who challenge the social
norms, and go against family restrictions. Eventually, [when they succeed], their families are
proud of them.
These findings agree with those of Mort et al. (2002), Tan et al. (2005) and Litzky et al. (2010),
who describe social entrepreneurship as pro-activeness and risk-taking. The founding social
entrepreneurs of the five cases interviewed are risk-takers, as they alertly noticed associated
risks because they all faced personal setbacks arising from the social issues their social
enterprises addressed. They took the risk to solve their problems without assistance from
the government or close counterparts.
Perseverance. Our research shows that Egyptian social entrepreneurs demonstrate
characteristics of perseverance and the ability to overcome adversity such as bureaucracy,
corruption and the absence of government support. The analysis of findings revealed that
social entrepreneurs persist despite the difficulties they face. Considering that the nature of
operating a social enterprise in the country studied can be high-risk, it can be assumed that
it would be difficult to sustain such an enterprise without the persistence of the founders to
overcome challenges and barriers.
Social Entrepreneur 3, for example, spoke of government obduracy and culture which
could only be overcome by perseverance, saying:
[. . .] We faced a lot of challenges such as the government corruption as it took us almost 8 months
to get the official approval of starting our Development Foundation. I have an awful experience
with the Ministry of Social Affairs to finish the official papers. After a lot of work, tremendous
time and effort, governmental obstacles which never let us down. Our dream came true. [. . .]
Another challenge was to motivate young people to volunteer and participate in social work is not
easy especially we don’t have this culture.
Social Entrepreneur 4, described the same process, as did the founders of Organisation C.
Social Entrepreneur 1 confirmed the same point:
We had to register with the Ministry of Social Solidarity and they would not issue us the official
operation approval until we had a property. So, we faced lots of challenges and frustrations. We
also tried hard to connect to international social enterprises for disabilities, but to no avail.
The founder of Organisation B faced difficulties importing equipment and getting
appropriate facilities, as explained by the Executive Manager Assistant:
[. . .] We were working on the building facilities, buying equipment and raising funds, and at the
same time trying to build trust and a public image, and this was a challenge for us. We worked
non-stop with no sleep until we the second building was completed. We had nothing, and we
created everything from scratch with teamwork [. . .] A year later, we were smiling; we could not
believe that we had done it.
SEJ Expert 2, who established two NGOs and is knowledgeable about social entrepreneurship in
13,3 Egypt, emphasizes the importance of persistence, saying:
Generally, I look at the field and I can see that none of these [enterprises] can exist without
passion, persistence, commitment and teamwork [. . .] Social entrepreneurs don’t take NO for an
answer, and I myself am one of them.
Phills et al. (2008) supports this evidence, suggesting that persistence is a common trait of
284 effective social entrepreneurs (although lack of empirical data makes it difficult to assess
whether this personal characteristic stands in the way of achieving scale of action).
Persistence gives social entrepreneurs enough energy to continue with social entrepreneurial
activities while remaining positive (Omorede, 2014) (Figure 2).

Proposition two: motivations of social entrepreneurs

Proposition 2 addresses the research question: What are the motivations driving social
venture start-up in Egypt? We observed four patterns: addressing social problems, passion,
inspiration and personal experiences.
Current social problems and challenges. The presence of social challenges in the
Egyptian community pushed social entrepreneurs to attempt to solve these problems
through their projects. All entrepreneurs interviewed were driven to respond to problems in
Egypt and had a desire to change society, leading them to identify opportunities and find
innovative solutions. In other words, current social problems were flagged as motives for
Egyptian social entrepreneurs who in turn created and implemented their visions. Incubator
Manager 1, elaborated as much when he said:
The main motive was to solve common social problems in Egyptian society by utilizing the skills,
experience, and knowledge of a group of Egyptian youth in different sectors such as health,
education, R&D, and social enterprise development.
This was also emphasised by the Representative of Organisation D, who was motivated to
provide basic needs for people who live below the poverty line in Egypt. He said:

Social Entrepreneurs Characteristics

Taking the initiative to start Having the persistence to continue

Entrepreneurial Mind-set Perseverance

- Previous work experience
- Knowledge, skills, and know-how
Innovation
- Create new products/services, delivery
processes, and business models
- The ability to overcome adversity such as
bureaucracy, corruption, and absence of
government support
- Overcome the absence of legal structure,
financial support, culture, innovation, and
other external challenges and barriers

Compassionate and Humanitarian Aspects

- Driven by compassion and social
responsibility
- Empathetic and understanding of gain rewards
from benefiting others
Risk-Taking
- Challenges embedded in cultural norms
- Face additional uncertainties and risks
Figure 2. - Face political instability and economic
Data analysis difficulties

summary of
Proposition 1
 [. . .] We have many people who live under the poverty line; people without food, homes, medical Social ventures
treatment or education. Our aim is to reach a state where all Egyptians have access to basic needs
[. . .] The real source of motivation for me is witnessing how people’s lives change and seeing
them smile. This is what motivates and pushes me towards more and more social achievement.
Similar motives lay behind the establishment of Organisation B. The founding social
entrepreneur was moved to save the lives of children who die due to lack of medical
treatment. The executive manager said: 285
The main motive was to save children’s lives as Social Entrepreneur did a lot of heart surgeries
that registered under his name finding that there is a high percentage of people die because of this
disease in Egypt. He decided to start this venture in Aswan as it’s his home town and also he
wanted to move outside of Cairo and big cities to Aswan city which is a remote area that is
definitely deprived from health services.
Further in-depth analysis illustrates that every interviewee felt determined to provide an
innovative solution to a specific social problem. For example, the founders of Organisation
A, interested in innovation and development projects, chose to incubate small innovative
projects through social incubation services. Alternatively, Social Entrepreneur 4 who
founded Case E was motivated by a concern for human rights and an interest in civil society.
Expert 1 emphasised that the importance of social entrepreneurship lies in responding to
the different needs of the community. He says:
[. . .] Social entrepreneurship is the production of a service that others need in order to help them
improve their lives. Social entrepreneurship helps people who are perfectly able to act, but who
need guidance and direction to understand how to implement what they have. You can think of
the Bank for the Poor as an example which provides initial capital to help people implement micro
projects.
The philanthropic aspect plays an important role in Egypt and can be directly linked to
religious teachings. Giving and helping others is strongly related to locally held, and
deeply embedded, Islamic and Christian beliefs. These beliefs play an important role in
motivating and inspiring Egyptians to give and help others and in perceiving these
charitable actions as a religious duty. Social Entrepreneur 3, discussed the religious
side of the issue by saying:
[. . .] I decided to cook meals to feed children in Ramadan (Holy Month). We called our friends and
actually cooked the meals and went to a very poor area in Cairo to distribute the meals [. . .] We
found 200 families awaiting the food. It was then that I realized God’s wisdom. If I hadn’t gone,
these families wouldn’t have eaten that day. We have to pay attention to other people who live
with us. We know nothing about their lives.
Not surprisingly, people interested in pursuing social ventures possess a strong desire to
help the society as a motivating force for engaging in social entrepreneurship. In fact, much
of the motivation literature discusses this issue as a key motivating factor of such work.
Aileen Boluk and Mottiar (2014), Martin and Osberg (2007) and Ostrander (2007) suggest
that the key difference between traditional entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs is that the
former is motivated by “money” and the later by “altruism” or philanthropy. They are
triggered by current unmet social issues to create social values in their respective
communities. This finding is in agreement with Mair and Noboa (2003) and Prabhu (1999)
who argue that social entrepreneurs are motivated to create social value as a result of their
desire to change society, their embarrassment with present circumstances and their
philanthropic and humanitarian sentiments. Austin et al. (2006) noted that the main driver
for social entrepreneurship is the social problems being addressed.
SEJ Personal inspiration. Personal inspiration is another motive in the process of social
13,3 entrepreneurship in Egypt. Findings of empirical data suggest that social
entrepreneurs might be exposed to different situations and experiences that inspire
them with new ideas by which to address social problems within their local
communities. These sources of inspiration can be a motive towards solving social
issues, a trip abroad or inherited religious beliefs.
286 Social Entrepreneur 1 said that she “was inspired by the psychology course [she] did as an
undergraduate”. Furthermore, she was inspired to start her social venture after visiting a
museum for blind people in Germany. This experience was an inspirational source for
replicating a similar idea in Egypt that serves persons with disabilities. Social Entrepreneur 3
discussed the religious side of the issue as inspirational source to solve social problem in the
community by saying:
[. . .] I decided to cook meals to feed children during the Holy Month of Ramadan. We called our
friends and actually cooked the meals and went to a very poor area in Cairo to distribute the
meals [. . .] We found 200 families awaiting the food. It was then that I realized God’s wisdom. If I
hadn’t gone, these families wouldn’t have eaten that day. We have to pay attention to other people
who live with us.
Social Entrepreneur 4 was inspired through his writings about human rights and civil
society. Above all, travel and international work experience seem to be a great source of
inspiration for new social ideas, particularly in developing countries like Egypt. The
international exposure of social entrepreneurs is an important source of inspiration that
motivate social entrepreneurs to start up their social ventures and create innovative
outcomes. Most of the interviewees here lived abroad for some time, whether for education
or work, and their frequent travels inspired and pushed them to be creative and make their
decisions to run their social enterprises.
Expert 3 emphasised that that these founders were influenced by international exposure:
Social entrepreneurs work at the grassroots level but are more exposed to what is happening in
the world through conferences, social media, travel and networks, etc.
Expert 2 confirmed this, saying: “I think having global exposure definitely inspires
entrepreneurs with new ideas and thoughts. So, it’s a very important factor for innovation”.
While previous research argues that social entrepreneurs inspire others to act Martin and
Osberg (2007), there is little focus on the sources of inspiration for the social entrepreneurs
themselves and how this provides them with personal motivation. This research study
proposes inspiration to be a significant motive for many social entrepreneurs.
Personal experience. Personal experience of social entrepreneurs is another motivational
drive that emerged from that data related to experience gained from previous activities and
projects in the lives of social entrepreneurs. These activities seem to have driven them to
start social projects and has shaped their careers. These different experiences incite their
ambitions to seek welfare and happiness for others. The social entrepreneurs we interviewed
seemed to also have financial power and professional success.
As the executive manager of Organisation B puts it:
Social Entrepreneur decided to specialize in heart surgery after an aunt of his died of heart disease in her
early 20s [. . .] She was very young [. . .] and he was left with the impression that she needn’t have died.
Social Entrepreneur 4 had a similar experience, which drove him to establish an independent
centre. He elaborates:
 [. . .] I was working in a centre at a certain time when I discovered that [the staff] was dishonest Social ventures
and gave out confidential information about my cases to the government. At that point, I was
motivated to start up my independent centre for development studies and human rights.
Another personal experience has been illustrated by Social Entrepreneur 1 who said:
I remember when I was at the primary school I had a dear friend who has disability and couldn’t
communicate well as other students [. . .] once I got the opportunity I decided to help this segment
in my country. 287
The analysis of the empirical findings suggests that personal experiences are
considered to be a strong motive for social entrepreneurs. This emergent theme is an
important aspect that explains the motive behind social enterprises in Egypt. This is
also an important consideration because many Egyptian families are typically risk
averse and do not support their children’s desire towards social work, suggesting that
starting up a social enterprise must be motivated be other strong forces from the social
entrepreneur’s life.
Social networks. Finally, social networks of social entrepreneurs and their founding
teams are found to motivate them to engage in social entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurs
interviewed received encouragement, support and drive strength from their friends,
personal networks, colleagues and work mates.
In particular, we find informal networks to be especially important motive in the
Egyptian social enterprises. For instance, the executive manager of Organisation B has
strong social network in Egypt and globally. Despite the lack of financial capital, the
founder and his manager were so excited and motived because they have strong social
networks everywhere. Thus, when they started Organisation B they used their networks to
get financial support. Additionally, they built partnerships and collaborations with some
public governmental universities, as well as the Heart Centre, and the Library of Alexandria
for scientific research purposes. The executive manager said that the founder and his
connections with internationally renowned heart surgeons enabled him to transfer
knowledge to young Egyptian doctors. These young doctors made use of his international
networks, importing the latest research findings and techniques.
Similar processes occurred with Social Entrepreneurs 1 and 2, as they state:
[. . .] We are collaborating with the National Organisation of Disability in New York [. . .] We are
starting partnerships with universities in the US to get scholarships and send students with
disabilities to study abroad, though these have not yet been confirmed [. . .] All our collaborations
and partnerships are based on our personal relations and networks.
Social Entrepreneur 2 of Organisation C adds:
[. . .] We believe in social networks power so we are keen on getting the most well educated and
experienced people to work with us. We basically depend on our networks and personal relations
with high educated and well employed people in international companies. [. . .] social capital is
always the main motivational driver as we have a very limited finance, but we never stop our
social work and even achieve great success because of our experience and social networks.
The social entrepreneurs who founded Organisations A, D and E have extensive networks
in Egypt, the Middle East and internationally, which they use to pool resources and
collaborative knowledge building. Our research confirms this: intangible resources are
critical and key motivational drivers to the success of innovative social enterprise. They
give legitimacy and therefore help assemble other capital resources such as finance. Expert
1 demonstrates the symbiotic relationship between capital assembly and human resources:
SEJ [. . .] Egypt may be a poor country economically speaking, but it’s very rich in terms of human
and social capital. These are the two most important elements/drivers for any venture for social
13,3 entrepreneurship, as it can start by entrepreneurs utilizing their knowledge and different
experiences, as well as their networks and relationships in order to cooperate and attain social
value.
Social capital resources are essential to the five social enterprises. The key motivation to
288 start the venture, acquire legitimacy and community trust and access finance is to assemble
and utilize social networks strategically. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that global
exposure and international networks and relations play a prominent role in creating
innovative solutions.
Relationships and networks are essential for providing reinforcement in guiding human
behaviour, especially in the face of stressful transitions (Omorede, 2014). Similarly, networks
found to be a motivation for social entrepreneurs in South Africa. It is suggested that the
practicality of many social entrepreneurs revealed that the physical and emotional support
they receive from their partners and community has encouraged and inspired them to try
and achieve more (Omorede, 2014). Social networks are also very important for social
entrepreneurs at different stages of the process (Omorede, 2014). As Baron and Markman
(2003) note, social capital benefits venture creation, particularly in the field of human capital
(Coleman 1988; 1990; Hitt et al., 2002) – thereby bridging together all varieties of capital. As
suggested by Sharir and Lerner (2006) and Omorede (2014), social networks are significant
for social entrepreneurship, as they enable social entrepreneurs to run successful ventures.
Entrepreneurs are experienced, financially self-sustained and possess strong networks in
the eco-system, which motivates them to overcome challenges and succeed socially. Hitt
et al. (2011) suggest that social entrepreneurship is the sum of internal social capital
(relationships) and external social capital (relationships with external organisations and
individuals), a conclusion supported by our research in Egypt. After considering our
categorisation of social entrepreneurial activities, it becomes clear that even with the
contextual and personal motives for starting social ventures, the motivation of social capital
towards action in social issues is highly important (Figure 3).

Social Entrepreneurship Motivations

Taking the initiative to start Having the persistence to continue

Current Social Problems and Challenges Social Networks

- Desire to solve unmet social needs
- Desire to change society, leading them to
identify opportunities and find innovative
solutions
Inspiration
- Exposure to different situations and
experiences that inspire new ideas and vision
- Trip abroad or inherited religious beliefs can
be a source of inspirations
- Social networks provide reinforcement in
guiding human behavior
- Social entrepreneurs receive encouragement,
support and drive strength
- Social networks provide emotional, rational
and physical support to social entrepreneurs
- Social networks help entrepreneurs to get
access to finance
- Social networks give skills and know-how
for organisations to thrive

Previous Personal Experience

- Personal experiences of social entrepreneurs
Figure 3. drive them to start social projects
Data analysis - Different experiences incite entrepreneurs’
ambitions to seek welfare and happiness for
summary of others.
Proposition 2
Towards a theory of social entrepreneurship motivation Social ventures
Findings indicate that there exists a unique blend of motivational components in social
entrepreneurship, which could explain why they engage in such social work. The analysis
and discussion of the five social entrepreneurs adhering to the conceptual framework of this
research suggested a number of new emergent themes that may result in generation of
explanations that extends the literature of social entrepreneurship from developing
economies. These themes are summarised and discussed in the subsequent sections as
follows: entrepreneurial characteristics, for example, persistence and compassion, and 289
motives, for example, personal experience, inspiration and social networks.
To conclude, a summation of Propositions 1 and 2 and their constructs discussed in this
research are presented in a final conceptual model. Figure 4 presents the final conceptual
model of social entrepreneurs and their motivations from developing markets by using the
Egyptian context. It builds on the conceptual model developed in the research theory and
questions section, which involved merging the concepts from social entrepreneurship
literature streams and new constructs gained from the analysis of the empirical findings.
The final model presented below adds the emergent themes to the integration of social
entrepreneurship motivation literature.
Most studies in the literature either focused on identifying the traits required for
successful social entrepreneurs (Choi and Majumdar, 2014; Smith et al., 2014) or the
motivations required to establish a successful social enterprise (Aileen Boluk and Mottiar,
2014; Germak and Robinson, 2014; Omorede, 2014). This study integrates both
entrepreneurial traits and motivations in one framework. It is proposed that both factors
affect the success of social enterprises.
This study identified five entrepreneurial traits, including entrepreneurial mindset, risk-
takers, innovators, compassionate and humanitarian aspects and perseverance. The finding
of the empirical data identified four entrepreneurial motivations, including current social
challenges, personal experiences, personal inspiration and social networks in the context of
Egypt. While there were common traits with previous literature, such as risk-taking and
innovation (Germak and Robinson, 2014), a new and interesting trait emerged in the
Egyptian context: perseverance (Omorede, 2014). Similarly, motivations were common
within the literature – such as solving social problems and personal achievements – but a
new motivation emerged in the Egyptian context: “social networks” (Aileen Boluk and
Mottiar, 2014) (Figure 4).
Figure 4 presents the proposed integrative model. This conceptual framework portrays
the social entrepreneurs’ characteristics and their motivational drivers. It depicts empathy
towards social challenges displayed by the entrepreneur. It then shows how the
entrepreneur combines this perception with his/her personal attributes, risk-taking,
compassion and perseverance to create social value with their entrepreneurial motivations
to bring about change through creation of social ventures. It can be said that without
perseverance and social networks, it would be extremely difficult for anyone, let alone social
entrepreneurs, to create any valuable outcome.

Conclusions
With few exceptions, research on the factors that motivate social entrepreneurs to embark
on and persevere in social ventures (Corner and Ho, 2010; Murphy and Coombes, 2009;
Omorede, 2014; Aileen Boluk and Mottiar, 2014) has been uncommon, particularly in
developing nations. The aim of this study is to empirically investigate other traits and
motives of social entrepreneurs besides their social concern, which has been often noted in
existing literature. This paper contributes to a more specific understanding of social
SEJ
13,3

290

Figure 4.
Conceptual model for
social entrepreneurs
and their motivations

entrepreneurship that moves beyond the existing definitions which refer to individuals as
being virtuous, heroic and motivated solely by the desire to make social change (Aileen
Boluk and Mottiar, 2014).
Specifically, we explored the characteristics and backgrounds of social entrepreneurs,
particularly in relation to what motivates them to start new social ventures. We relied on an
empirical examination of the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship in the specific context
of a developing economy. To do this, we proposed two research questions, the first focusing
on social entrepreneurial characteristics, the second on motivations. By investigating the
five social entrepreneurs, the research identified common features and patterns. The
analysis revealed that the social entrepreneurs share similar patterns, including risk-taking,
innovation, compassion for social change, persistence and entrepreneurial mindsets. In
addition, previous entrepreneurial experiences, the existence of social challenges, personal
experiences, aspiration and social networks were found to be the key motivational drivers
for social entrepreneurs to pursue such social work. In particular, our findings suggest that
entrepreneurial perseverance and compassion contribute strongly to the efficacious pursuit
of social entrepreneurship. We identified both personal experience of entrepreneurs and the
existence of unsatisfied social needs as drivers for starting social ventures.
This study builds on the existing knowledge established by many traits theorists such as
Mair and Noboa (2003), Smith et al. (2014), Porter and Kramer (2011) and Phills et al. (2008)
by testing empirically for social entrepreneurs’ characteristics. It has been established that,
on the whole, all social entrepreneurs exhibit a similar cluster of characteristics. Despite this,
there could be additional character traits of social entrepreneurs who serve social needs in
countries with institutional and resource constrains (Gupta et al., 2015). Africa and other
emerging markets are characterised by poor transportation and financial infrastructure,
bureaucracy, a weak regulatory environment and an encompassing the rational, temporal
and performative efforts of entrepreneurs (Garud et al., 2014; Diochon and Ghore (2016)).
Such complex external environments impact social entrepreneurs differently in comparison
to other social entrepreneurs located in developed countries. Existing studies (Omorede,
2014; Phills et al., 2008) suggest that persistence is a common trait of effective social
entrepreneurs although lack of empirical data makes it difficult to assess whether this Social ventures
personal characteristic stands in the way of achieving scale of action. The findings of this
study suggest that perseverance is a key fundamental trait of social entrepreneurs. The
study also indicates that social entrepreneurs’ social struggles and experiences from the
complexity and characteristics of the local environment around them were the sources of
support they received from their social networks. With the presence of social networks
support, the model suggests that the roles network and ties play in the lives of these social
entrepreneurs are important. Networks drive entrepreneurs to initiate social values, as they 291
provide resources by either giving physical emotional or rational support, skills and know-
how for their organisations to thrive.
The questions explored in this study are under-researched in the literature on social
entrepreneurship, particularly in relation to developing countries (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015;
Zahra et al., 2009). To date, there has been very little empirical work on the topic of social
entrepreneurs and motivation (Germak and Robinson, 2014). As the literature review
showed, the prevalent understanding of the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship is
biased towards developed regions. This is mainly due to the fact that research to date has
focused on developed Western economies. This research instead stresses that any
understanding of the phenomenon is incomplete without understanding that other regions
with their socio-cultural and economic contexts and their individuals who start new social
ventures within them, may be very different.
The findings of this research coincide with that of the existing literature, which
encourages the focus on developing social entrepreneurs and their characteristics. While
building on previous literature focused on the phenomena at the firm level and the
identification of opportunities to create social value (Thompson et al., 2000; Weerawardena
and Mort, 2006), this research addresses the role of individuals in creating social
transformation and economic outcomes. This study identified new entrepreneurial traits
and motivations, such as perseverance and social networking, which were found critical to
entrepreneurial success. The findings also highlight the motivations of social
entrepreneurship in developing countries, which differ from those in developed countries,
such as looking beyond individual altruistic motives and including individuals’ religious or
cultural beliefs in the research (Mair and Noboa, 2003; Omorede, 2014). Based on these
findings, social entrepreneurs may be motivated to start a social enterprise, and
governments may be encouraged to study the characteristics of entrepreneurs and to train
individuals with social goals. The study also offers interesting insight into the different
motives that drive social entrepreneurs to contribute positively to their communities (Mair
and Noboa, 2003; Zahra, et al., 2009), making a significant contribution to the current
literature of social entrepreneurship and offering a pioneering step to studying this
phenomenon from a new perspective. It offers a new model that integrates entrepreneurial
traits and motivations affecting the success of social enterprises.
Still, this study is not without limitations: a small sample size and a single study location
are but a few noteworthy limitations. The research findings highlight the significance of
social entrepreneurship in only developing country.

Implications and future research

This study offers various practical and social implications for social entrepreneurs as well
as policymakers. First, social entrepreneurs should realize the environmental challenges
they would face prior to establishing their aspirational social enterprises. Understanding the
legal and bureaucratic environment is critical to building and sustaining their enterprise.
They also need to carefully recruit their partners and management team, ensuring that they
SEJ possess critical traits based on the local context. They should combine compassion, risk-
13,3 taking and innovation with the perseverance necessary to survive the challenging
institutional environment. Also, they should ensure that they are motivated enough to solve
social problems and build the essential social networks. Based on the in-depth interviews, a
major challenge facing social entrepreneurs is weak institutional support, including
bureaucracy and lack of funding, as indicated by the World Bank’s ranking of Egypt as 131
292 out of 189 in 2015 (Kelley et al., 2015). Accordingly, it is proposed for future research to
include “institutional support” as a moderator in the model, capturing the contextual and
environmental effects on the effects of traits and motivations on the success of social
enterprises. The institutional support is critical in the developing economies including
Egypt, and we encourage future research to carefully examine it is effect on social
entrepreneurial process in developing economies. Within the field of social entrepreneurship,
the need to better understand the influence of context especially within emerging markets
has been noted in the literature (Littlewood and Holt, 2015; Rivera-Santos et al., 2015).
Arguably, addressing this need is especially important considering that investigations of
African contexts have been shown to be less visible in the broader literature (Kolk and
Rivera-Santos, 2015; Diochon and Ghore (2016)).
Policymakers should encourage motivated social entrepreneurs with potential to
succeed to tackle “top-priority” social causes in the country. Donors, investors and
governmental leaders should consider investing resources on highly motivated social
entrepreneurs, who possess the critical traits, such as compassion, risk-taking,
innovation and perseverance. The traits and motivations of the individuals, not just the
idea of the enterprise, are critical factors to the success and sustainability of the social
enterprise.
This research can serve as a foundation for future research, such as exploration of
the utilisation of entrepreneurial skills to achieve social values and investigation of
innovative business models in social entrepreneurship in developing countries. The
model sets the stage for future studies to empirically test the factors affecting the
success of social enterprises in various contexts. It opens the door for future cross-
country studies to support the contextual differences between developed and
developing countries. It also encourages further studies to identify more environmental
factors that support or hinder the success if social enterprises. Future social
entrepreneurship research can embrace themes from strategic entrepreneurship theory
to enrich the examination of social entrepreneurial activities. For example, it can
interpret why and how social entrepreneurs use their entrepreneurial talent to identify
opportunities, manage risk, utilize different resources strategically and apply
innovation and creativity to provide social values.

References
Aileen Boluk, K. and Mottiar, Z. (2014), “Motivations of social entrepreneurs: blurring the social
contribution and profits dichotomy”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D. and Letts, C.W. (2004), “Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation”,
The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 260-282.
Aronson, J. (1994), “A pragmatic view of thematic analysis”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001), “Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research”, Qualitative
Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 385-405.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and commerical entreprenurship: same,
different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. (2011), “The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional Social ventures
issues based on geographical and thematic criteria”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 373-403.
Baron, R.A. and Markman, G.D. (2003), “Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’ social
competence in their financial success”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Boschee, J. (1998), “Merging mission and money: a board member’s guide to social entrepreneurship”,
available at: www.socialent.org/pdfs/MergingMission.pdf (accessed 21 July 2016).
293
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-520.
Chahine, T. and Mowafi, M. (2015), “Bridging the gap between commerce and charity: challenges and
opportunities in Lebanon and Egypt”, Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East, Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 15-36.
Choi, N. and Majumdar, S. (2014), “Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: opening
a new avenue for systematic future research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 363-376.
Christie, M.J. and Honig, B. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: new research findings”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J. and Locke, E.A. (2004), “The relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behavior: a meta-analysis”, Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
Corner, P.D. and Ho, M. (2010), “How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 635-659.
Creswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dees, J.G. (1998), “Enterprising nonprofits: what do you do when traditional sources of funding fall
short?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Dees, J.G. (2007), “Taking social entrepreneurship seriously”, Society, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 24-31.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2003), “For-profit social ventures”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education (Special Issue on Social Entrepreneurship), Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Diochon, M. and Ghore, Y. (2016), “Contextualizing a social enterprise opportunity process in an
emerging market”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-130.
Doherty, B. and Thompson, J.L. (2006), “The diverse world of social enterprise: a collection of
eight social enterprise stories”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6,
pp. 361-375.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014), “Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and
research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 417-436.
Drayton, B. (2002), “The citizen sector: becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business”,
California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 120-132.
Drucker, P. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, P. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research - An Introduction, Sage
Publications, London.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
El Ebrashi, R. (2013), “Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 188-209.
Emerson, J. and Twersky, F. (1996), New Social Entrepreneurs: the Success, Challenge and Lessons of
Non-Profit Enterprise Creation, Roberts Foundation, Homeless Economic Development Fund,
San Francisco, CA.
SEJ Ernst, K. (2012), “Social entrepreneurs and their personality”, in Volkmann, C.K., Tokarski, K.O. and
Ernst, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business, An Introduction and Discussion
13,3 with Case Studies, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 51-64.
Garud, R., Gehrman, J. and Giuliani, A.P. (2014), “Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: a
narrative perspective”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 77-88.
Germak, A.J. and Singh, K.K. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship: changing the way social workers do
294 business”, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
Germak, A.J. and Robinson, J.A. (2014), “Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Ghalwash, S., Tolba, A. and Ismail, A. (2016), “Social entrepreneurs and their motivations behind
starting social ventures in the context of developing economies: an explorative study”, The
Business and Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 40.
Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S., Vogus, T.J. and Miller, T.L. (2013), “Studying the origins of social
entrepreneurship: compassion and the role of embedded agency”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 460-463.
Guion, R.M. (2011), Assessment, Measurement, and Prediction for Personnel Decisions, Taylor and
Francis, Abingdon.
Gupta, S., Beninger, S. and Ganesh, J. (2015), “A hybrid approach to innovation by social enterprises:
lessons from Africa”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-112.
Harding, R. (2006), Social Entrepreneurship Monitor, London Business School, London.
Haski-Leventhal, D. and Mehra, A. (2016), “Impact measurement in social enterprises: Australia and
india”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 78-103.
Hitt, M.A., Lee, H. and Yucel, E. (2002), “The importance of social capital to the management of
multinational enterprises: relational networks among Asian and western firms”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 353-372.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, D.R., Sirmon, D.G. and Trahms, C.A. (2011), “Strategic entrepreneurship: creating
value for individuals, organizations, and society”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 57-75.
Hwee, N.J. and Shamuganathan, G. (2010), “The influence of personality traits and demographic
factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95
No. 2, pp. 259-289.
Jack, S., Drakopoulou, S. and Anderson, A. (2008), “Change and the development of entrepreneurial
networks over time: a processual perspective”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 125-159.
Jiao, H. (2011), “A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on
society”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 130-149.
Karanda, C. and Toledano, N. (2012), “Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: a different narrative for
a different context”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 201-215.
Katzenstein, J. and Chrispin, B.R. (2011), “Social entrepreneurship and a new model for international
development in the 21st century”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 87-102.
Kelley, D.J., Singer, S. and Herrington, M. (2015), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 Global Report,
Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School, London.
Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S. (2012), Understanding Social Entrepreneurship: The Relentless Pursuit of
Mission in an Ever Changing World, Routledge, New York, NY.
Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2012), “International entrepreneurship research in emerging
economies: a critical review and research agenda”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 266-299.
Kolk, A. and Rivera-Santos, M. (2015), “The state of research on Africa in business and management: Social ventures
insights from a systematic review of key international journals”, Business and Society, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 338-377.
Kong, E. (2010), “Innovation processes in social enterprises: an IC perspective”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 158-178.
Leadbetter, C. (1997), The Rise of Social Entrepreneurship, Demos, London.
Light, P.C. (2006), “Reshaping social entrepreneurship”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, 295
pp. 46-51.
Littlewood, D. and Holt, D. (2015), “Social entrepreneurship in South Africa exploring the influence of
environment”, Business and Society, pp. 27-47, doi: 10.1177/0007650315613293.
Litzky, B., Godshalk, V. and Walton-Bongers, C. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship and community
leadership: a service-learning model for management education”, Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 142-162.
Lumpkin, G.T., Moss, T.W., Gras, D.M., Kato, S. and Amezcua, A.S. (2013), “Entrepreneurial processes
in social contexts: how are they different, if at all?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 761-783.
McClelland, D.C. (2003), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
MacMillan, I. (2003), Social Entrepreneurs: Playing the Role of Change Agents in Society, available at:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/social-entrepreneurs-playing-the-role-of-change-
agents-insociety/ (accessed 21 July 2016).
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and
delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Mair, J. and Noboa, E. (2003), “The emergence of social enterprises and their place in the new
organizational landscape”, Working Paper 523, IESE Business School, University of Navarra,
Barcelona.
Mair, J. and Schoen, O. (2007), “Successful social entrepreneurship business models in the context of
developing economies”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-68.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2010), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Martin, L.R. and Osberg, S. (2007), “Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition”, Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 28-39.
Mauksch, S. (2012), “Beyond managerial rationality: exploring social enterprise in Germany”, Social
Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 156-170.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills.
Mort, G., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2002), “Social entrepreneurship: towards
conceptualization and measurement”, American Marketing Association Conference.
Murphy, P.J. and Coombes, S.M. (2009), “A model of social entrepreneurial discovery”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 325-336.
Nega, B. and Schneider, G. (2014), “Social entrepreneurship, microfinance, and economic development
in Africa”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 367-376.
NYU Stern (2005), “In a business world of non-stop change, there’s only one way to win the game:
Transform it entirely”, available at: http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/berkley/social.cfm (accessed 27 July
2016).
Omorede, A. (2014), “Exploration of motivation drivers towards social entrepreneurship”, Social
Enterprise Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 239-267.
Ostrander, S.A. (2007), “The growth of donor control: revisiting the social relations of philanthropy”,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 356-372.
SEJ Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept”, Journal
of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
13,3
Perrini, F. and Vurro, C. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: innovation and social change across theory
and practice”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. (Eds), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave
Macmillan, Hampshire, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 34-43.
Phills, J.A., Jr, Deiglmeier, K. and Dale, M.T. (2008), “Rediscovering social innovation”, Stanford Social
296 Innovation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 34-43.
Pirson, M. (2012), “Social entrepreneurs as the paragons of shared value creation? A critical
perspective”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89
Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.
Prabhu, G.N. (1999), “Social entrepreneurial leadership”, Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 140-145.
Pratt, M.G. (2008), “Fitting oval pegs into round holes. Tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier north American journals”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 481-509.
Pratt, M.G. (2009), “For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative
research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 856-862.
Rivera-Santos, M., Holt, D., Littlewood, D. and Kolk, A. (2015), “Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan
Africa”, The Academy of Management Perspective, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 72-91.
Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005), “Changing the world on a shoestring: the concept of social
entrepreneurship”, University of Auckland Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Santos, F.M. (2012), “A positive theory of social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111
No. 3, pp. 335-351.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd ed.
Prentice Hall, London.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1951), Essays: On Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of
Capitalism, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2005), “Entrepreneurs in service of the poor: models for business contributions to
sustainable development”, Business Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 241-246.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013), Research Methods for Business, 6th ed., John Wiley and Sons, West
Sussex.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Sharir, M. and Lerner, M. (2006), “Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social
entrepreneurs”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2007), “Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis
of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 418-434.
Short, J.C., Moss, T.W. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2009), “Research in social entrepreneurship: past
contributions and future opportunities”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 161-194.
Sievers, B. (1997), “If pigs had wings”, Foundation News and Commentary.
Smith, R., Bell, R. and Watts, H. (2014), “Personality trait differences between traditional and social
entrepreneurs”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 200-221.
Strauss, J. (1987), “The impact of improved nutrition on labor productivity and human resources Social ventures
development: an economic perspective”, The Political Economy of Food and Nutrition Policies,
Mimeo, New York, NY.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics in Qualitative Research Theory Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills,
CA.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), Grounded Theory Methodology: Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Suddaby, R. (2006), “What grounded theory is not”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4,
297
pp. 633-642.
Tan, W.L., Williams, J. and Tan, M.T. (2005), “Defining the ‘social’ in ‘social entrepreneurship’:
altruism and entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 353-365.
Thompson, J., Avly, G. and Lees, A. (2000), “Social entrepreneurship – a new look at the people and the
potential”, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 328-338.
Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G.S. (2006), “Investigating social entrepreneurship: a multidimensional
model”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
Yin, K.R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yin, R. (1999), “Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research”, Health Services
Research, Vol. 34 No. 5, p. 1209.
Yin, R. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods), 4th ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zahra, S.A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D.O. and Shulman, J.M. (2009), “A typology of social
entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 519-532.

Further reading
Abdou, E., Fahmy, A., Greenwald, D. and Nelson, J. (2010), Social Entrepreneurship in The Middle East:
Toward Sustainable Development for the next Generations, Brookings, Wolfensohn Center for
Development, Washington, DC.
Barraket, J. and Archer, V. (2010), “Social inclusion through community enterprise? Examining the
available evidence”, Third Sector Review, Vol. 16 No. 13.
Crosby, B.C. and Bryson, J.M. (2005), “A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 177-201.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 25-32.
El Abd, I. (2012), “Understanding the social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Egypt”, available at: http://
a4se.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Understanding-the-Social-Entrepreneurship-4.4.2012-IE-HR-
JW-IE.pdf (accessed 1 August 2016).
Fisac, R. and Moreno-Romero, A. (2015), “Understanding social enterprise country models: Spain”,
Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-177.
Harris, A. (2009), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Springer Science and Business Media,
Berlin.
Hisrich, R.D. and Brush, C.G. (1984), “The woman entrepreneur: management skills and business
problems”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Jamali, D. and Lanteri, A. (Eds) (2015), Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East, Springer, Berlin, Vol. 2.
Kinder, T. (2010), “Social innovation in services: technologically assisted new care models for people
with dementia and their usability”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 106-120.
SEJ Ryou, Y.J., Lee, D.E. and Choi, J.W. and, (2011), “A Comparative study on Chinese social enterprises”,
Paper Presented At The 2011 Proceeding of Annual Summit On Business And Entrepreneurial
13,3 Studies, Kuching, Sarawak, pp. 347-363.
Sarantakos, S. (2005), Social Research, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, New York, NY.
Teasdale, S. (2010), “How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city
community”, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-107.
298 Yin, R. (1984), Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Corresponding author
Seham Ghalwash can be contacted at: sghalwash@aucegypt.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats