11.

Social innovation, entrepreneurship

and enterprise: what nonprofit
students need to know
Stuart C. Mendel

INTRODUCTION

This chapter exposes students of nonprofit management, philanthropy and

leadership studies to social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise as
drivers for nonprofit action toward a healthy civil society (Mendel, 2010,
p. 727). The outcomes of social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise
are achieved in all parts of the US economy. Among the mutual benefits to
society of these theories and practices are the amplified or leveraged financial
and nonfinancial resources they bring together from all the sectors. Other
benefits include the ways nonprofit, private and public actors borrow concepts
from one another to advance the common good (Dufays and Huybrechts, 2014;
Sullivan Mort et al., 2003).
It is no coincidence that the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council
Undergraduate Curricular Guidelines include these topics in their knowl-
edge subject-matter for students of nonprofit management and philanthropic
studies. Specifically, the undergraduate subsection 7.5 addresses social enter-
prise and other entrepreneurial forms of nonprofit organization while subsec-
tion 7.6 considers the role of social entrepreneurs in nonprofit leadership and
management as pertinent topics for learning. Graduate curricular guidelines
offer additional subject themed material in subsection 12.8 concerning models
and new frameworks for both social entrepreneurship and social enterprise
(Nonprofit Academic Centers Council, 2015).
Therefore, upon completing this chapter, students should be able to accom-
plish the following tasks:

• Explain and differentiate the concepts of social innovation, social entre-

preneurism and social enterprise in the scholarly literature and the field of
practice;

181

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
182 Teaching nonprofit management

• Identify and characterize socially entrepreneurial initiatives in terms of

definitions, drivers, size and key challenges;
• Develop outcome assessments and impact measures for social innovation,
entrepreneurship and enterprise endeavors.

Graduate program and advanced students will be able to:

• Apply the principles of social innovation, entrepreneurship and enter-

prise to leadership and management settings requiring case statements,
knowledge of traditional fund development, alternative funding methods
for organization sustainability and strategic decision-making in nonprofit
organizations.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Interest in concepts that cross the boundaries of nonprofit, business, and

government institution forms has been associated with the nonprofit leader-
ship and management literature since the 1980s and early 1990s (Weisbrod,
1997; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). From the standpoint of nonprofit sector
processes, the earliest scholarly writing recognized what we now call social
innovation as contributing to conditions for social change and issues advo-
cacy (Zeyen et al., 2013, p. 88–107). A prominent and classic example of
social entrepreneurship in nonprofit sector coursework involved the New
York University Law School purchasing the Mueller Pasta Company in 1947
(Rose-Ackerman, 1982, p. 1017). Subsequently, social entrepreneurship dis-
course led to the relationship that revenue-producing earned income activities
had with the resulting income obligations for unrelated business income tax or
UBIT (Worth, 2018, chapter 12; Bielefeld, 2009, pp. 69–70). A third concept
similarly rooted in the early thinking was social enterprise associated with the
nonprofit perspective of cause-related marketing and the mutual benefit rela-
tionships between nonprofits and businesses (Eikenberry, 2009, pp. 582–3).
In the nearly two decades of the 2000s, nonprofit scholars and leaders have
come to understand that social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise
are concepts assignable to study for all three institutional sectors (Jones and
Donmoyer, 2015). In the more recent literature social innovation has come to
be viewed as small- or large-scale breaks from practice that lead to observable
or measurable social impact (Sen, 2007, p. 534; Sahni et al., 2017). Discussion
also now considers that social entrepreneurship exists in all three sectors of
the North American economy with the promise that its adherents can achieve:
competitive advantage for market share; creative nonprofit mission fulfill-
ment; and the creation of public value (Young, 2018; Bryson and Crosby,
2006). Scholars also now posit that in its many forms, social enterprise offers

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 183

innovative pathways to draw on all the sectors of the economy to create social
and environmental impact through sustainable funding models for nonprofit
organizations (Mirabella and Young, 2012, p. 43; Dees and Anderson, 2003).

Theory of the Commons

The conceptual roots of social innovation, entrepreneurship, and enterprise

across the sectors in the United States are traceable to the responsibility of
individuals and institutions to the commons (McCambridge, 2004). The
commons are associated with principled actions that generate trust and reci-
procity among individuals while also contributing to direct and indirect ben-
efits to the larger society and environment (Frumkin, 2009; Lohmann, 1992).
While responsibility by individuals to the commons is central to the function
of American democracy (Berger and Neuhaus, 1977), the obligation to care
about and contribute to the common good is woven into the ethos of nonprofit
organizations’ institutional forms, whose legitimacy arises from volunteers
who govern them (Powell and Steinberg, 2006).

Nonprofits and the commons

The methods for achieving social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise
in American society take many forms and arise in all the institutional sectors.
While public, private and nonprofit institutions offer differing advantage,
a social entrepreneur may prefer a nonprofit framework for several reasons: to
take advantage of start-up subsidy from public and private donor sources; to
accommodate a heavy reliance on volunteers (Dees et al., 2002); to prioritize
a desire to place mission fulfillment ahead of generating profits as the outcome
measure and priority (Alvord et al., 2004); to value social mission outcomes
that align with the principle of the greater good; and to support the previously
described theory of the commons (Sheehan, 2010; Clemens, 1998).
Unlike social enterprise housed within a for-profit business, nonprofit
organizations create mission-driven programs governed by volunteers devoted
to that purpose (Young, 2018). In a nonprofit organization setting, social
mission-related outcomes may be proposed and tested in contract work with
public managers or as in collaborations funded by philanthropic institutions
(Moulton and Eckerd, 2012). As part of this transaction, nonprofit social
entrepreneurs are encouraged to form partnerships with others. Social entre-
preneurship occurs with businesses in partnership with a nonprofit actor when
a socially responsible business serves as a civic leader, contributes profits to
sustain a nonprofit partner organization, or adopts a deliberate business prac-
tice such as minimizing its carbon footprint in the manufacture of its goods and
services (Dees, 2017; Austin et al., 2006). In the best of circumstances, posi-

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
184 Teaching nonprofit management

tive performance provides persuasive evidence to policy and grant makers that
their investment produced a desired social outcome (Plantz et al., 1997, p. 23).
Some have argued that the reason to favor nonprofit institutional forms in
the United States over those of the public and private sectors is because non-
profits perform essential mediating functions between the public and private
institutions of polity and individuals in American society (Mendel, 2010,
2003). These principles are readily observable through the social innovation
and advocacy outcomes practiced by nonprofits as they fulfill their missions to
the benefit of their stakeholders (Dees et al., 2002).
In casting the nonprofit model as the preferred institutional form for driving
social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise, some argue that the public
sector is less well-suited as an institutional form for these purposes because
the primary tools at their disposal do not offer public managers the institu-
tional flex to make adjustments to circumstance (Bekkers et al., 2013). For
example, to improve quality of life for vulnerable populations such as people
with criminal records re-entering society, the public sector cannot work around
the restrictions or other practical barriers facing this population. A third-party
service delivery agent or intermediary is necessary (Borins, 2000). Typically,
the intermediary agents are the nonprofit employers who can create the condi-
tions for employment for the populations identified in public policy (Farkas,
2017).

Business and the Commons: the Triple Bottom Line

For-profit businesses leaders can claim a role in social enterprise along a wide
range of social benefits actions and outcomes (Roper and Cheney, 2005).
Typically, social mission-related outcomes engage businesses to advance com-
petitive advantage, lower operating costs of production, and/or attract a labor
force with distinctive skills and characteristics (Bagnoli and Megali, 2011,
p. 156). Promoters of these practices point to the responsibility of business
actors from the earliest times of the European settlement in North America to
care about the greater good of local communities. Today these functions align
civic responsibility with social enterprise (Shane, 2008) to enhance market
share. For example, business may fulfill their civic duty as employers of pro-
tected and nontraditional populations; through contributions to the tax base of
a community; through environmentally sensitive practices providing land-use
reclamation, clean energy, reduced carbon footprint or other amelioration of
negative environmental impact pathologies to appeal to consumers who share
these values.
But there is more. Because creating a business that does not achieve profits
is unsustainable over time and is counter to business theory, using the business
entity to achieve a social mission means that market forces and a for-profit

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 185

return on investment must drive the outcomes (Paredo and McLean, 2006;
Pomerantz, 2003). Also, the financial risk the business entrepreneur assumes
in social enterprise is intertwined with social mission outcome measures they
devise. Consequently, the original intention of the business entrepreneur sets
the benchmark for measuring progress toward social mission goals. These
factors have come to define the “triple bottom line,” a concept which came
into use in the mid-1990s to describe businesses that are profitable, support
community and are environmentally friendly (Savitz and Weber, 2006).

Government and the commons: social innovation, enterprise and public–

private partnership
Government actors in the United States are also engaged in social innova-
tion, enterprise and change through legislative process, implementing public
sector-derived priorities and principal agent practices. Principal agency is
a tool used by public managers for a contract-for-hire engagement with a third
party. The third-party contract is usually extended to a nonprofit, business or
individual not part of the government. The principal agent performs the work
of the contract by which the system of action is created, producing public
goods and services that align with the legislative intent and public sector insti-
tutional priorities. Through the contract, government regulates the actions of
business and nonprofits in the larger community with the intent of advancing
the commons and the public good (Savas, 2000). Because the government
pays for the principal agent work with tax dollars, the work must adhere to
the accountability public sector performance practices (Moulton and Eckerd,
2012). Using the performance outcome levers available to them through prin-
cipal agency, public managers claim to stimulate social innovation through
contract performance (Defourny and Nyssens, 2010; Bacchiega and Borzaga,
2001).
Government has also contributed to the generation of social enterprise
through the creation of public value. Public value is a concept that has been
cast as an end product of the deliberate actions of public managers to create
greater good outcomes using the economic resources of government to
change behaviors of people and institutions that interact with the public sector
(Benington and Moore, 2011). The Obama administration urged policy makers
to develop a “Social Innovation Fund” for example, to nurture social enterprise
(Nash, 2010, p. 263). Another example is public sector support for social
impact bonds, an invention of the bond marketplace that offers the promise
to use private investment dollars for traditionally publicly funded social
innovation endeavors (Liebman, 2011). Government actors also strive to craft
public–private partnerships that produce both direct and indirect outcomes that
contribute to public value (Mendel and Brudney, 2014).

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
186 Teaching nonprofit management

From theory to measuring impact and value

It may come as no surprise that both scholars and practitioners have over-
come considerable skepticism regarding the efficacy of social innovation and
enterprise (Santos, 2012; Dacin et al., 2010). Although space in this chapter is
not sufficient to parse the counterpoint views of social mission outcomes and
their various institutional forms, it is necessary to mention to readers that the
validity of social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise can be found in
the performance assessments and benchmark measures that entrepreneurs use
to determine whether or not they have accomplished their goals and impact.
Practically speaking, each of the sectors benefit from measuring impact
and value returned for social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise. For
nonprofits, impact and value measures are the fulfillment of their missions.
For businesses, performance measurement toward social goals justifies the
trade-offs they have made at the expense or promotion of profit. For govern-
ment, performance is essential as a justification to taxpayers for the risks of
using public funds. Three concepts offer a starting point for evaluating social
mission-related outcomes (Sawhill and Williamson, 2001a, 2001b) and by
which decision-making logic models need to measure social mission outcomes
can be understood:

• The importance of profit or break-even income/expense performance as

a determinant of achieving successful outcomes;
• How and in what ways transactional and transformational measures were
utilized by the case organizations to evaluate goal or mission fulfillment;
• The reliance on mixed methods of assessment that incorporate both numer-
acy measures and anecdotal qualitative measures with societal context as
a backdrop for outcomes.

TEACHING APPLICATION

Case studies are an important part of the nonprofit academic and practitioner
worlds. The balance between knowledge and skills, the degree to which theory
informs practice, the use of empirical findings about practice, and the nature
of learning strategies that include problem-centered approaches all support the
use of case studies in instruction, research, and practice (Mendel, 2018). For
our purpose in this chapter, case studies offer a great advantage for students
becoming familiar with the way classroom theory translates to workplace
practice. Using case studies, students will apply theory to complete the work-
sheets provided in the closing pages of this chapter. Table 11.1 draws upon the
information discussed to this point. The table offers an at-a-glance comparison
of the characteristics of social innovation, social entrepreneurship and social
enterprise with a further contrast across nonprofit, business and public sector

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 Table 11.1 One-stop shop: social innovation, social enterprise and social entrepreneurship across the sectors
Social Innovation
Nonprofit New and better ways to address
social problems and ways to measure
outcomes to judge impact within the
context of mission fulfillment of the
organization.
Business A wide range of societal
problem-solving outcomes using
for-profit business models that lessen
the carbon footprint of operations, have
a value-added social benefit, contribute
to the common good using new but also
recycled assets.
Government
Policy and management practices that
produce public value and the common
good outcomes.
Source: Dees and Anderson (2006); Austin et al. (2006); Light (2006).
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675
Social Entrepreneurship
Individuals or nonprofit and philanthropic institutions who
engage in the risk of creating a new venture or collaboration
that supports new models for funding sustainability,
including willingness to embrace unrelated business income
into their operations model. Organizing premise may also
include a desire to effectively mobilize the resources needed
to address a problem across all the sector institutions of the
economy.
A person or institution that engages in the process of
designing, launching and running a business to create social
value outcomes and is willing to accept a modified profit
attainment that is measured in a bottom line profitability
and social impact outcomes which they select as evidence
of community and value efficacy.
Public management and policy-making legislators
who create the conditions for hybrid business entities
such as low profit limited liability companies, or social
impact bonds and investments as tools that encourage
entrepreneurs to engage in social enterprise.
Social Enterprise
Generation of earned income to achieve
a social purpose that shifts the resources for
social change from application leading to low
productivity funding and break-even budgets to
higher productivity budget surplus.
Profit activity with an embedded social and
other greater goods purpose. Outcomes may
include an articulated degree of direct profit
set in a balance accepted by the business
stakeholders to indirect profits.
Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise
Collaborations, partnerships and public–private
partnerships that leverage investment by
government, reduce costs to government
and remove the risks to government in the
performance of work products outside their
primary purposes.
187
188 Teaching nonprofit management

settings. The purpose of the Table 11.1 matrix is to offer students a convenient
way to understand and apply the sometimes-subtle but important differences
the three concepts are perceived to exhibit in theory by professional actors of
the three sectors.

Discussion and application in and out of the classroom

Students are asked to use the tables to think about the principles that underpin
social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise to answer a series of ques-
tions which follow the cases. The analysis can take place in class discussion,
as small group work assignments or independent work in a distance education
format to be completed for formal submission. The final table constitutes
work to be completed in class using student break-out work groups or inde-
pendently or as homework to be assigned at the discretion of the instructor.
At the instructor’s discretion, graduate and advanced students may use these
materials and framing questions as the basis of assigned independent work for
a larger project such as a social enterprise plan or assessment for a nonprofit
organization considering the viability of an entrepreneurship as a stand-alone
initiative or in partnership with other institutions. Graduate and advanced
students can develop case examples drawing on supplemental research or
practical experience they may have as nonprofit leaders, decision-makers and
community stakeholders.

Case 1
A century-old nonprofit community hospital was purchased by a global
for-profit healthcare corporation during industry-wide consolidation in the
1990s (Duke, 1996). The sale proceeds resulted in a sizable after-expenses
transaction surplus. Rather than commit to a spend down business model, the
hospital board of directors elected to shift the long-term obligations and surplus
from the sale of the hospital to an existing philanthropic entity originally
created to receive philanthropy for the hospital. The board of directors revised
the mission of the “Foundation” from one of institutional advancement of the
legacy hospital, to that of an operating, community grant-making institution.
Under the stewardship of the former hospital CEO, the Foundation launched
a comprehensive community initiative (CCI) whose goal was to promote
positive improvements in the urban neighborhood previously served by the
hospital. The CCI was complex, operating across all economic sectors of
society for the purpose of achieving significant and observable social changes
at the individual, family, organizational, community and service system of the
target community (Danna and Portia, 2006).

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 189

Questions for discussion

1. Using the matrix comprising Table 11.1, in what ways is the hospital
conversion reflective of social innovation? Social entrepreneurship? Social
enterprise?
2. What measurable innovation outcomes might we attribute to the case as
having an impact on the target population or condition the CCI is intended
to address?

Case 2
Two entrepreneurial brothers started a micro-brewery business for their restau-
rant in an historic neighborhood (Conway, 2013). The business was conceived
to fill a niche left by the shifting market economies of the global brewing
industry. The mission statement of the Brewing Company asserted that it
be a principle-centered, environmentally respectful and socially conscious
company committed to crafting fresh, flavorful, high-quality beer and food for
the enjoyment of its customers. In pursuit of profitability, the owners sought
ways to turn waste materials from their production processes and business
operations into viable products.
In their vision for multi-faceted sustainability, the entrepreneurs marketed
their business as profitably socially conscious. Embracing the theme of a busi-
ness devoted to the triple bottom line, pointing to in-kind and monetary dona-
tions to community organizations, to green building and energy efficiency, to
utilizing house-made biofuels, the brothers are deeply invested in the sustaina-
bility of their business and community (Elkington, 2013).

Questions for discussion

1. In what ways is the triple bottom line theoretical concept aligned or counter
to the principles of for-profit business?
2. How does the business model for the Brewing Company fit among the
concepts of social innovation, enterprise and entrepreneurialism found in
Table 11.1?
3. In what ways does the nature of social enterprise differ between the two
cases?
4. What innovation outcomes might we attribute to the Brewing Company
in terms of the social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise business
plan scorecard variables listed in Table 11.2?

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Table 11.2 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise business plan scorecard
Indicator Innovation
Fulfillment measures
The triple bottom line Advancement toward improved
conditions of society using the market,
but also philanthropy and government
practices and resources.
Customer or client satisfaction Societal need is met through a new
method or re-ordering existing resources.
Human capital Endeavor makes use of existing or new
work force to achieve greater benefits or
reduces societal negatives.
Source: Savitz and Weber (2006); Dees et al. (2002).
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675
Entrepreneurship
Fulfillment measures
At conception the intent of the business owner,
nonprofit or philanthropic leadership, elected
legislator or other public manager establishes the
goals as driving greater good outcomes.
Profit, operations surplus or leveraged/amplified
public funds and the endeavor moves from
concept to practice.
Planned outcomes that address a social or
common good such as employment for the
otherwise unemployable.
190
Enterprise
Fulfillment measures
Operations of a successful profit generating
program that validates the social mission
endeavor as a viable profit-making concept.
Customer or stakeholders validate the
endeavor through operational profits and
some social benefits.
Collaboration actors come together to
Teaching nonprofit management
achieve mutual benefits and fulfill missions,
while achieving social outcomes.
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 191

Case 3
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) and social outcomes are large-scale
endeavors focusing resources and institutional forms across all economic
sectors (Mendel and Brudney, 2012). Among the desired outcomes for PPPs
are unanticipated benefits which contribute to the common good and public
value. The rationale for PPPs that focus on economic development outcomes
such as the creation of a business district and center for employment, for
example, will also create social outcomes such as enhanced quality of life for
families, education opportunities and healthy communities (Drayton, 2011).
The Alliance has been organized to create the conditions for an airport city
or “aerotropolis” business district. One way in which the Alliance achieves its
mission is by convening and coordinating local, regional and national stake-
holders. The Alliance organizing membership is comprised of five municipal-
ities: county, state and federal stakeholders; a publicly owned airport; private
developers; emerging and established aerospace businesses; and others. The
Alliance operates in a large office building located adjacent to the airport.
The nonprofit Alliance institution casts itself as a public–private partnership
(Mendel and Brudney, 2012) because its governing board includes public
sector, business and nonprofit actors. The public sector actors credit their work
as entrepreneurial because the outcomes are justifiable to the common good
of all their stakeholders. For example, the outcome sought by the Alliance
is to establish an employment center of 50 000 high paying technology jobs
clustered in the region and communities surrounding a regional airport. These
jobs and the accompanying benefits of economic development and small busi-
ness attraction activity arise from federal policy and funding concerning the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) “mission to Mars.”
Table 11.3 offers a way to assess social mission outcomes by applying the
concepts of the commons, public value and public–private partnership.

Questions for discussion

1. In what ways is the Alliance reflective of social innovation, social enter-

prise and social entrepreneurism presented in Tables 11.1 and 11.2?
2. Does the institutional nature of the PPP described in Case 3 detract from its
role to set the conditions for social entrepreneurism?
3. What aspects of social innovation can students draw from Case 3 in terms
of the scorecard variables listed in Table 11.3?

Assignments for Advanced Study

Evaluating social mission-related outcomes is an important aspect of the

theory and practices of social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise.

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 192

Table 11.3 Tracking social change in public–private partnerships

Social Change Outcome Methods Innovation Entrepreneurship Enterprise

Contributions to the Commons
Creation of Public Value
Use of Public–Private Partnerships
How will the engagement of public,
private or nonprofit actors lead to
Mutual benefits for all stakeholders?
Conditions for change generating
societal change?
Efficient use of cross-sector resources?
How will the engagement of public,
private or nonprofit actors lead to
Mutual benefits for all stakeholders?
Conditions for change generating
societal change?
Efficient use of cross-sector resources?
How will the engagement of public,
private or nonprofit actors lead to
Mutual benefits for all stakeholders?
Conditions for change generating
societal change?
Efficient use of cross-sector resources?
Teaching nonprofit management

Source: Bryson and Crosby (2006); Dees and Anderson (2003); Clemens (1998); Lohmann (1992).

via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 193

Table 11.4 offers a framework for devising and organizing assessment catego-
ries for social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise cases. Students and
advanced learners may use the table to begin a process they may apply in the
field of nonprofit practice and leadership.

Exercise
Advanced assignment for independent, small group discussion or collaborative
work outside of class time instruction. Using one of the three illustrative cases
mentioned in this chapter, complete the dashboard shown in Table 11.4. For
more advanced students, apply a case presented through another source iden-
tified through independent research, employment or volunteer experience to
complete the table and draft a written briefing.

Tips for Teaching and Learning

The material of this chapter will prepare students in traditional or online

format through lecture, discussion and independent study to apply the ideas of
social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise into the broadest possible
applications for effective nonprofit operations and finance; mission fulfillment
assessment toward organization impact; and strategic thinking.
Table 11.4 is provided to aid students as a performance matrix tool
which should further their interest and competence in the chapter subject as
a practical approach to application of theory that assures them that the social
innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise concepts truly matter for nonprofit
performance. Instructors may assign the work of completing Table 11.4 to
in-class student work groups or independently or as homework to be assigned
at the discretion of the instructor. At the instructor’s discretion, graduate and
advanced students may use these materials and framing questions as the basis
of assigned independent work. For example, graduate and advanced students
can develop case examples drawing on supplemental research or practical
experience they may have as nonprofit leaders, decision-makers and commu-
nity stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

A central view for understanding the performance, efficacy and financing

for a nonprofit organization is its engagement of social innovation, entrepre-
neurism and enterprise. Recognized in sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the undergrad-
uate and section 12.8 of the graduate NACC Curricular Guidelines as core
knowledge in nonprofit education, students aspiring to executive leadership
are wise to distinguish these concepts as essential for setting the conditions

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 194

Table 11.4 Creating social outcomes performance and impact measures dashboard

Indicator and measures Innovation Entrepreneurship Enterprise

The importance of profit or break-even income/expense performance as a determinant - - -
of achieving successful outcomes.
How and in what ways transactional and transformational measures were utilized by - - -
the case organizations to evaluate goal or mission fulfillment.
The reliance on mixed methods of assessment that incorporate both numeracy - - -
measures and anecdotal qualitative measures as a way to include societal context as
a backdrop for outcomes.
Teaching nonprofit management

via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 195

for meaningful institution performance, demonstrable impact and mission

fulfillment.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What do nonprofit students need to know about social innovation,

entrepreneurship and enterprise?
2. What are tangible and intangible examples of the benefits that non-
profit decision-makers may point to as reason to apply the principles of
social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise?
3. Since thought-leaders agree with the idea that social innovation, entre-
preneurship and enterprise exist in all three economic sectors, what
are the potential benefits and pitfalls of using a nonprofit first frame
understanding the big picture?
4. How can a business reconcile the challenges of the triple bottom line
as viewed as a tension between return on investment, the creation of
public value and the way businesses measure impact?
5. What examples illustrate principal agency as a driver for social
enterprise, the creation of public value and the benefits derived to the
common good?

REFERENCES
Alvord, S., Brown, L. and Letts, C. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal trans-
formation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3),
260–82.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, Y. (2006). Social and commercial enter-
prise: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Bacchiega, A. and Borzaga, C. (2001). Social enterprises as incentive structures. In C.
Borgaza and J. Defourny (eds), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 273–95).
London: Routledge in association with GSE Research.
Bagnoli, L. and Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–65.
Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Tummers, L.G. and Voorberg, W.H. (2013). From public innova-
tion to social innovation in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers
and barriers. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Benington, J. and Moore, M. (2011). Public value in complex and changing times. In
J. Benington and M. Moore (eds), Public value: Theory and practice (pp. 1–30),
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Berger, P.L. and Neuhaus, R.J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating
structures in public policy (Vol. 1). American Enterprise Institute Press.
Bielefeld, W. (2009). Issues in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of
Public Affairs Education, 15(1), 69–86.

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
196 Teaching nonprofit management

Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some
evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6),
498–507.
Bryson, J.M. and Crosby, B.C. (2006). Leadership for the common good. In S.
Schuman (ed.), Creating a culture of collaboration (pp. 367–96). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clemens, E.S. (1998). Private action and the public good. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Conway, P. (2013). Sustainability rationale. Accessed September 2013 at www​
.greatlakesbrewing​.com/​sustainability/​other​-sustainability​-projects.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. and Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why
we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
Danna, D. and Portia, D. (2006). Establishing a nonprofit organization: A venture of
social entrepreneurship. Journal of Nurse Practitioners, 4(10), 751–2.
Dees, J.G. (2017). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. In J. Hamschmidt and M.
Pirson (eds), Case studies in social entrepreneurship and sustainability (pp. 34–42).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between non-
profit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneur-
ship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. Research on Social
Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field, 1(3),
39–66.
Dees, J., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (eds) (2002). Strategic tools for social entrepre-
neurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social
entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147–60.
Drayton, W. (2011). Collaborative entrepreneurship: How social entrepreneurs can
tip the world by working in global teams. Innovations: Technology, Governance,
Globalization, 6(2), 35–38.
Dufays, F. and Huybrechts, B. (2014). Connecting the dots for social value: A review
on social networks and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,
5(2), 214–37.
Duke, K.S. (1996). Hospitals in a changing health care system. Health Affairs, 15(2),
49–61.
Eikenberry, A.M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary
and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4),
582–96.
Elkington, J. (2013). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques and J. Richardson
(eds), The triple bottom line (pp. 23–38). London: Routledge.
Farkas, K. (2017). Cuyahoga County to subsidize internships for former inmates, 24
April. Accessed at Cleveland.com.
Frumkin, P. (2009). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
 Social innovation, entrepreneurship and enterprise 197

Jones, J. and Donmoyer, R. (2015). Multiple meanings of social entrepreneurship

and social enterprise and their implications for the nonprofit field. The Journal of
Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(1), 12–29.
Liebman, J.B. (2011). Social impact bonds: A promising new financing model to accel-
erate social innovation and improve government performance. Washington, DC:
Center for American Progress.
Light, P.C. (2006). Reshaping social entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 4(3), 47–51.
Lohmann, R.A. (1992). The commons: New perspectives on nonprofit organizations
and voluntary action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCambridge, R. (2004). Underestimating the power of nonprofit governance.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 346–54.
Mendel, S.C. (2003). The ecology of games between public policy and private
action: Nonprofit community organizations as bridging and mediating institutions.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(3), 229–36.
Mendel, S.C. (2010). Are private government, the nonprofit sector, and civil society the
same thing? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 717–33.
Mendel, S.C. (2018). Writing nonprofit first cases for research and instruction. Journal
of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 8(4), 342–57.
Mendel, S.C. and Brudney, J.L. (2012). Putting the NP in PPP: The role of nonprofit
organizations in public–private partnerships. Public Performance & Management
Review, 35(4), 617–42.
Mendel, S.C. and Brudney, J.L. (2014). Doing good, public good, and public value.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(1), 23–40.
Mirabella, R. and Young, D.R. (2012). The development of education for social entre-
preneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging paths? Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 23(1), 43–57.
Moulton, S. and Eckerd, A. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector:
Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
41(4), 656–85.
Nash, M.T. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. In David O. Renz and
Associates (eds), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and manage-
ment, 3rd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 262–98.
Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (2015). Curricular guidelines. Accessed at http://​
www​.nonprofit​-academic​-centers​-council​.org/​.
Paredo, A. and McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the
concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.
Plantz, M., Greenway, M. and Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome measurement: Showing
results in the nonprofit sector. New Directions for Evaluation, 75(Fall), 15–30.
Pomerantz, M. (2003). The business of social entrepreneurship in a “down economy.”
Business, 25(3), 25–30.
Powell, W. and Steinberg, R. (eds) (2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005). The meanings of social entrepreneurship today.
Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3),
95–104.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1982). Unfair competition and corporate income taxation. Stanford
Law Review, 34(5), 1017–39.
Sahni, N., Lanzerotti, L., Bliss, A. and Pike, D. (2017). Is your nonprofit built for sus-
tained innovation? Stanford Social Innovation Review, online 1 August.

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
198 Teaching nonprofit management

Santos, F.M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business

Ethics, 111(3), 335–51.
Savas, E.S. (2000). Privatization and public–private partnerships. New York, NY:
Chatham House.
Savitz, A. and Weber, K. (2006), The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run compa-
nies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—and how you can
too. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sawhill, J. and Williamson, D. (2001a). Measuring what really matters in nonprofits.
McKinsey Quarterly, May, 371–86.
Sawhill, J. and Williamson, D. (2001b). Mission impossible? Measuring success in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3).
Sen, P. (2007). Ashoka’s big idea: Transforming the world through social entrepreneur-
ship. Futures, 39(5), 534–53.
Shane, S. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that entrepre-
neurs, investors and policy makers live by. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sheehan, R. (2010). Mission impact: Breakthrough strategies for nonprofits. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:
Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.
Weisbrod, B.A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private
enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4),
541–55.
Worth, M.J. (2018). Nonprofit management: Principles and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Young, D. (2018). Financing nonprofits and other social enterprises: A benefits
approach. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., Mueller, S., Dees, J.G., Khanin, D., Krueger, N., Murphy,
P.J. et al. (2013). Social entrepreneurship and broader theories: Shedding new light
on the “bigger picture”. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 88–107.

Stuart C. Mendel - 9781788118675

Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 04/10/2024 03:26:51PM
via Nanyang Technological University, Singapore