Growing the next generation : how do Dutch social entrepreneurs balance their green and social values on one hand, while retaining organizational profit on the other hand?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Introduction

Today, we are living in an evolving organizational landscape, where firms are the fundamental blocks of our society. This organizational landscape is prevailed by three primary models of most developed economies: the private, public and non-profit sector. Due to the organizational design of these building blocks, our society is facing a great number of complex, systematic challenges which are ultimately by-products and unintended consequences (Sabeti, 2009, p. 1). We are facing a threat of climate change, social capital has declined as environmental change and a great number of our world population suffers from poverty, unemployment and corruption within our economic system and institutions.

Research recognized these intractable long-term social, economic and environmental challenges and suggest these wicked problems are rooted in the organizational designs of the building blocks of our society (Santos, 2012; Kaplan, 2013; Gast, Gundolf & Cesinger, 2017) In addition, society has confirmed the need to incorporate sustainability and environmental concerns and the economy’s potentially negative impact on the environment has triggered concerns among practitioners and scholars of sustainability, sustainable development and the environment (Gast et al., 2017, p. 45).

However, the concept of sustainability is not that ‘hot’ as research suggest. For instance, the Netherlands may have a ‘green image’ internationally, its green activities are very low related to other countries (MVO Nederland, 2017). In addition, the report of Kaleidos Research (2016) shows there is no growth of green lifestyles of Dutch people either. Research state sectorial boundaries are blurring in the quest for better, faster and cheaper solutions and missions and methods of organizations in private, governmental and non-profit firms are becoming similar (Sabeti, 2009). Although these boundaries are inelastic, Bulloch & James (2014) suggest there is an evolutionary progression going on: “As new roles, responsibilities and structures emerge, could a true marketplace for social outcomes, blending the best aspects of private, public and civil society into a single ecosystem, be the outcome?” (Bulloch & James, 2014).

In other words: we are living in a new era where the rise of this new sector is likely to reshape the future of capitalism (Sabeti, 2011, p. 3). This emerging Fourth Sector constitutes of organizations that aim for social purposes while engaging in business activities (Sabeti, 2009). Social entrepreneurship is an organizational structure which is emerging in this Fourth

(8)

Sector. The hybrid models of these social ventures exist of business, social and green values (Sabeti, 2009; Bulloch & James, 2014).

The fact there is no common definition for this the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship shows there is a lack of research of social entrepreneurship (Dixon & Clifford, 2007, p. 327). Research is mainly focused on the motivation and roles of social entrepreneurs within society. For instance, Kirkwood & Walton (2010) offer an indication of social entrepreneur’s intention to start a business. Santos (2012) explains social entrepreneurs identify implications in the economic system whereby they create new industries, validating new business models and re-directing resources to neglected societal problems (Santos, 2012, p. 335). Moreover, Santos (2012) refers to Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand that turns self-interested individual behaviour toward socially optimal outcomes: “the process of social entrepreneurship enables the second invisible hand of the economic system, this one based on other-regarding rather than self-interest” (Santos, 2012, p. 350). In conclusion, social entrepreneurs are acting more effective in this role than a benevolent central actor such as the government. Therefore, Linnanen (2002) state social entrepreneurs should move fast, motivate others and take risks as well as anticipate and supply what large numbers of people want (Linnanen, 2002, p. 72).

Within the Dutch social enterprise sector, Keizer, Stikkers, Heijmans, Carsouw & Van Aanholt (2016) aim social ventures in the Netherlands increased with 70 percent and representing 1 percent of the total amount of all ventures since 2010. However, approximately 20 percent of the social ventures that existed five years ago, only 700 have since ceased operations due to their business models were unsustainable (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 6). Thus, the average stages of growth of Dutch social start-ups is low. Many research refers to the access to finance in early state and conclude that the growth of social ventures is low due to social entrepreneurs’ access to donations and concessionary funds (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Bergset, 2015; Gast et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the report of Keizer et al. (2016) suggests: this explanation could also be found in the extraordinary drive to create impact that keeps social entrepreneurs engaged even when business is not going well (Keizer et al., p. 5). In addition, research has found a trend within the social entrepreneurial field and identified some challenges caused by their deep rooted ‘triple bottom line’ (Kirkwood & Walton 2010; Santos, 2012).

However, the research of Kirkwood & Walton (2014) exclusively used a survey and thus, these data do not provide how social entrepreneurs balance their profit at one hand and environmental values on the other hand. Therefore, this research responds to calls of Kirkwood & Walton (2014) for more in-depth qualitative research.

(9)

Up to now, far too little attention has been paid to the dual goals of social entrepreneurs. Given a social venture’s hybrid model and its primary purpose to serve a ‘triple bottom line’ – concerning profit at one hand and environmental and social values on the other hand - it may be possible social entrepreneurs experience difficulties in finding a balance between the dual goals of social entrepreneurship (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014). Since social entrepreneurs function as innovation consultants, important change agents (Witkamp, Royakkers & Raven, 2011) and the initial stage of the Fourth Sector (Sabeti, 2009), it is important to gain a deeper understanding of the social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands.

This research has the aim to sheds new light on social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands, as well as how they manage their businesses concerning the triple bottom line entrepreneurs may experience. The research question is:

How do Dutch social entrepreneurs balance their green and social values on one hand, while retaining organizational profit on the other hand?

In order to answer this question, five sub questions are formulated:

RQ 1: How do social entrepreneurs define themselves? RQ 2: What kind of hybrid models do social ventures have? RQ 3: What motivates people to become a social entrepreneur?

RQ 4: What are the key challenges social entrepreneurs face when their business is established?

RQ 5: How do social entrepreneurs engage with potential stakeholders?

This paper has been divided in five parts. Chapter two begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research, focusing on five key themes which are based on the formulated sub questions. These themes are: (1) the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship; (2) the Fourth Sector and its hybrid models; (3) the motivations to start a social venture; (4) the challenges social entrepreneurs may face when their business is established and (5) the engagement activities with potential stakeholders. The third chapter is concerned with the qualitative methodology used for this research. Chapter four presents the results of the interviews. These findings are divided in the five themes that are mentioned within the literature review. The final chapter contains a conclusion, discussion and recommendations for future research.

(10)

2. Literature research

2.1 The concept of social entrepreneurship

Before describing social entrepreneurs within the Dutch social enterprise sector and the challenges they may face, it is necessary here to clarify exactly what is meant by social entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is first important to understand the concept of entrepreneurship. Santos’ (2012) explanation of the architecture of the economic system refers to Schumpeter’s (1934) definition of entrepreneurship, whereby entrepreneurship is defined as a dynamic and distributed mechanism that keeps economies evolving toward a state in which resources are allocated and organized in the best way possible to benefit society (Schumpeter, 1934; Santos, 2012). Organizations may miss new opportunities due to these businesses often invest in resources and skills to become more efficient in certain areas (Santos, 2012, p. 342). As a result, entrepreneurs exploit new opportunities for capturing value while often creating a new market or creating an improved service or process which decreases costs of organizational activities, which is considered as creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1934).

The concept of creative destruction can be illustrated as follows. In regard of sustainability, a great number of organizations are integrating sustainable strategies. Bonini & Gorner (2011) identified a trend whereby organizations integrate green strategies by pursuing goals that go far beyond earlier concern of reputation management. However, the majority of organizations are implementing a fragmented, reactive approach. Bonini & Gorner (2011) concluded integrating such green strategies is not enough. Besides, global sustainability requires creative destruction whereby Schumpeter (1934) wondered if large organizations would absorb the challenges and opportunities presented by such creative destruction. This highlights the importance and the need of social entrepreneurship.

The main differences between profit-oriented entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship is that social entrepreneurs are driven by a motivation to create value for society, not to capture value. Linnanen (2002) identified their strong ethical reasoning as a key distinguishing features of social entrepreneurs (Linnanen, 2002). As Kirkwood & Walton (2010) explain, social entrepreneurs are motivated for making a difference and the role they play in doing so through displacing unsustainable means suggests that they have an important transitional role in sustainability (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 209). This strong ethical reasoning can be considered as raison d'être, that exceeds their desire for profits and often this

(11)

is associated with making the world a better place to live (Linnanen, 2002, as cited in Kirkwood & Walton, 2014, p. 40).

Moreover, Santos (2012) explains what differentiates social entrepreneurs is their function as an economic agent, who - as a result of their motivation - create value without concern for the amount they capture while entering areas of activity where the more severe market and government failure occur. In overall, these areas are often neglected positive externalities affecting disadvantaged populations (Santos, 2012, p. 344). Besides the differences in organizational activities and their green values, social entrepreneurs aim to achieve a sustainable solution to the problems they address, as opposed to achieving a sustainable advantage for their social venture. For instance, their concern with correcting perceived market and government failures. Santos (2012) clarifies: “Social entrepreneurship is not specifically about creating market mechanisms or securing government subsidies or creating a social enterprise, it is about crafting effective and sustainable solutions using whatever combination of institutional means is deemed effective” (Santos, 2012, pp. 345-346). Allen & Malin (2008) aim that social entrepreneurs are necessary to identify current environmental challenges. Social entrepreneurs can be seen as a vehicle for social change because they can give environmental substance (Anderson, 1995).

Nevertheless, as mentioned in previous chapter, a lot of research has been done on what makes an entrepreneur a social entrepreneur. In this regard, research on social entrepreneurship has grown almost twice as fast as research over the last five years (Elsevier, 2015). Despite its common usage, social entrepreneurship embodies a multitude of concepts, for instance environmental entrepreneurship, green entrepreneurship or sustainable entrepreneurship (Gast et al., 2017). Up to now, no consensus has been reached of what constitutes a social entrepreneur. Kirkwood & Walton (2010) considers a social entrepreneur as an entrepreneur who starts a sustainable business and may has the intention to operate with social and green values. In addition, Sabeti (2009) states social ventures have a social purpose integrated in their structure and are characterized with a business method which is consistent with its social purpose. While a variety of definitions of the term social entrepreneurship have been suggested, this research will use the definition suggested by Kirkwood & Walton (2010), who consider sustainability and entrepreneurship as social entrepreneurship, which both are about values, attitudes and commitment related to the environment (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 207).

Although extensive research has been carried out on what constitutes a social entrepreneur, no single study exist which is focusing on how social entrepreneurs define themselves. The number of social entrepreneurs is growing, and is predicted to grow further

(12)

with individuals who are exploiting opportunities in new niche markets that emerge (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014). As the report of Keizer et al. (2016) shows, the number of social ventures in the Dutch social enterprise sector is increased with more than 70 percent over the last five years. According to previous research, Nicolás & Rubio (2016) identified there might be a gender gap between women and men who start a profit-oriented business, but the gender gap decreases in the case of social entrepreneurs. Within this context, it is interesting to investigate how social entrepreneurship in terms of gender is divided in the Netherlands. In addition, exploring how social entrepreneurs see themselves provides new insights and fills a gap in the literature in the social entrepreneurial field. Having defined what is meant by social entrepreneurship, the following section will address on what kind of hybrid models social ventures are based.

2.2 The green economy

Over the years, environmental and social issues received an increased attention from society whereby research describe today’s society is more conscious of the advantages of social ventures and their social impact (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 6). In addition, sustainability is a well-known definition and appears in the news more than ever. However, the concept of sustainability is not that ‘hot’ as research and news suggest. The Netherlands may have a ‘green image’ internationally, its green activities are very low related to other countries (MVO Nederland, 2017). This section describes the current situation of our society, which can be divided in four stakeholders: consumers; the public sector, the non-profit sector and the private sector (Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999).

The majority of the consumers are more aware about their behaviour had a direct impact on many ecological problems (Verhoef & Van Doorn, 2016). For instance, consumers adapted this new situation by considering environmental issues when buying a product (Laroche et al., 2001). However, there might be a gap between being conscious about sustainability issues and the implementation of sustainability activities. More recently, literature has emerged that offers contradictory findings about consumer awareness. Bonini & Gorner (2011) conclude the consumers are willing to pay an additional 5 percent above premium price, but when the premium increases, the willingness to pay decreases. Within this context, Kaleidos Research (2016) shows there is no growth of green lifestyle of Dutch people. These numbers might suggest social ventures did not have received sufficient attention from consumers. Therefore,

(13)

further explanation about the organizational landscape is required to illustrate the hybrid models of social enterprises.

Regarding the organizational landscape of developed economies, research identified there is an increased consciousness of the advantages of social ventures and their social impact (Keizer et al., 2016). In the public sector and non-profit sector, social entrepreneurs are receiving an increased attention from the government and NGO’s. For instance, Amsterdam and Utrecht have introduced action plans ranging from facilitating work spaces to investigating opportunities for services (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 7). Nevertheless, Keizer et al. (2016) illustrate there is an increased focus on the education of social enterprises. For example, early 2014 a minor program on social entrepreneurship at Leiden & Utrecht University is created (Keizer et al., 2016). At the same time, public and non-governmental organizations are shifting to a more corporate model and applying profit-oriented strategies, for instance Mission Related Investments, Municipal Enterprises and Privatization (Sabeti, 2009; Sabeti, 2011).

In addition, private organizations have been dedicating more resources to green benefits and serving a great number of stakeholders beyond their shareholders and implementing green strategies such as social marketing and Corporate Social Responsibility. Over the past decades, many research investigated the corporate strategies to create a ‘green image’ for other stakeholders, also considered as ‘green-washing’ (Laufer, 2003; Ramus & Montiel, 2005). However, recent research suggest the private sector has improved their sustainability strategies a lot (Seele & Gatti, 2017). The majority of the corporate organizations integrated Corporate Social as a core business value and are more transparent while fulfilling new legal requirements (Keizer, 2016, p. 6). Moreover, corporate accelerator activities seem go get more attention over the past 5 years (Keizer et al., 2016).

In regard of the three the public, private and non-governmental sectors, Sabeti (2009) identified the boundaries of these sectors are blurring due to their green activities. Within this context, social enterprises are creating new business models for copying with societal and environmental challenges (Sabeti, 2009, p. 2). According to Sabeti (2009): “They are creating hybrid organizations that transcend the usual sector boundaries and that resist easy classification within the traditional three sectors.” However, these hybrid models often do not suit the existing organizational and legal structures. Sabeti (2011) explains:

“Many more such enterprises would exist, except that most entrepreneurs haven’t been able to choose ‘for-benefit’ as a legally recognized organizational structure. Most countries’ legal and economic systems allow either for-profit or non-profit activity, not

(14)

a blending of the two. Many socially minded entrepreneurs end up shoehorning their vision into one structure or the other and accepting burdensome trade-offs in the process.” (Sabeti, 2011, p.2)

The organizational landscape is evolving towards a Fourth Sector which combines social and environmental goals with business models. Regarding Witkamp, Raven, Royakkers (2011), social entrepreneurship is a new way of doing business and could be considered as a potentially radical innovation: “It is a new way of doing business, or a new way of pursuing social goals and in that sense, is certainly an innovation with the promise for a more sustainable future” (Witkamp et al. 2011, pp. 286-287).

Within this context, it not about to control and ensure value capture, but the empowerment of actors outside the firm, such as users or partners. As a result of this low capture potential and the lack of societal awareness, the problem is that social entrepreneurs experience resource constraints while they are targeting potentially large-scale problems for which they seek sustainable solutions rather than sustainable advantage (Santos, 2012, p, 346).

As Keizer et al. (2016) conclude approximately 20 percent of Dutch social ventures which existed five years ago, only 700 increased their operations due to their unsustainable business model (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 6). Nevertheless, since social entrepreneurs have the aim to make an impact on society and to achieve success, an increased awareness among organizations, government, non-profit organizations and consumers is necessary for social ventures to function (Bulloch & James (2014). In line with the high overall growth in the number of enterprises since 2011, it is important to analyse the hybrid models of the social entrepreneurs. Before analysing these hybrid models, it is necessary to explain the motivation to start a social venture. Therefore, the next section outlines the motivations for social entrepreneurs to start a social enterprise.

2.3 The motivation to start a social venture

As described in the previous section, social entrepreneurs differ from profit-oriented entrepreneurs and have a pivotal role of society. They function as a role model, innovation consultant and play an important role in addressing the issue of sustainability (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Witkamp et al. 2011; Santos, 2012). Having defined the roles of social entrepreneurs within society and their hybrid models in the previous sections, it is important to discuss the motivations to start a social venture. Briefly mentioned in the first section, Keizer

(15)

et al. (2016) identified a trend there is an increased societal awareness and attention for social enterprises. In addition, over the last five years there is a growth of 60 percent in the Dutch social entrepreneurial sector (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). Therefore, it is interesting to gain a deeper insight what drives Dutch social entrepreneurs to start a social venture.

Before describing the main drivers of starting a social enterprise, it is necessary to explain the motivators of profit-oriented entrepreneurs. An individual’s motivation to start a business and become an entrepreneur is often complex and multi-faced (York & Venkataraman, 2010). Motivation for entrepreneurship has been the focus of studies over time. Research identified four main drivers of motivations for starting a business: a desire for independence, monetary motivations, factors related to family and factors related to work (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 208).

Research carried out by Kirkwood & Walton (2010) suggest some consistent patterns are shown when comparing the motivation of social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs. For instance, recognizing opportunities for starting a business as consumer demand grows for products and services seems to be a driver as well for social entrepreneurs. In contrast, the social entrepreneurs only focus on the eco-friendlier products and services (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 205). The results of another research conducted by Kirkwood & Walton (2014) illustrate that independence-related motivators are an important motivator for social entrepreneurs to start a business as well (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014, p. 46). In contrast with profit-oriented entrepreneurs, Kirkwood & Walton (2014) conclude satisfaction is a main driver to start a social venture. In addition, monetary motivations tended to have a lower priority within the social entrepreneurial field (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Kirkwood & Walton, 2014). Nevertheless, an increased amount of people, especially millennials, are willing to accept a lower income to establish social impact and Keizer et al. (2016) suggest this might be the result due to the increased focus on the education of social enterprises (Keizer et al., 2016, 2016, p. 6).

Kirkwood & Walton (2010) state social start-ups are a different scenario to companies which go green, because when someone founds a new business they have the ability to shape their company from the outset (Schaltegger, 2002, cited in Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 201). Thus, with social entrepreneurs, green values are built into the change is first required (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 207). In this regard, Santos (2012) suggests the greatest success for a social entrepreneur would be to tackle a problem with positive externalities in such a way that the externality is internalized for the benefit of society and the work of the social entrepreneur is no longer necessary (Santos, 2012, p. 346).

(16)

In conclusion, social entrepreneurs have the purpose to make an impact on the society. Social entrepreneurs distinguish from profit-oriented because of their strong ethical reasoning and have a strong drive for making an impact on society. As mentioned, a report of Keizer et al. (2016) shows the overall growth rate of the Dutch enterprises is relatively low. Only 20 percent of the social ventures that started in 2011 increased their operations (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). Therefore, the next section describes what kind of challenges social entrepreneurs may have to deal with once they are established.

2.4 Managing the business

As illustrated in the previous sections, a lot of research has been done to identify the social entrepreneurs’ role and their motivation to start a social venture. In regard of the Dutch social enterprise sector, Keizer et al. (2016) conclude that the employment and revenues nearly doubled along with the number of social start-ups (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). This is interesting because the 25.000 new jobs that were created during that time, came in a period when the Netherlands lost nearly 75.000 jobs in other sectors. However, the average stages of growth of Dutch social ventures are low: “approximately 20 percent of the social ventures that existed five years ago, only 700 have since ceased operations, mostly because their business models were unsustainable” (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). One of the clarifications of the decline of growth is the access to donations that help them survive and their extraordinary drive to create the impact that keeps social entrepreneurs engaged even when business is not going well. Thus, research suggest social entrepreneurs face the most challenges when their social venture is established (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014, p. 40). Therefore, this section examines the different challenges social entrepreneurs face while managing their business. In this regard, three broad categories can be identified that could be considered as barriers for social entrepreneurship: market creation, financial challenges and the dual goals of a social venture.

2.4.1 Market creation

The first barrier social entrepreneurs face is the challenge of market creation. Linnanen (2002) state the diffusion of environmental awareness and a change in consumer behaviour have proved to be slow (Linnanen, 2002, p. 74). However, the diffusion of environmental awareness is an important factor in supporting market creating and one problem in communicating environmental problems is the difficulty in providing clear cause-and-effect relations (Linnanen, 2002, pp. 74-75). Linnanen (2002) suggests a social entrepreneur needs to has

(17)

credibility and believe in its social venture: “A newly established company always faces a major challenge, the good business idea needs to be realized in practice. Market creation requires strong belief in the entrepreneur’s own vision and capabilities” (Linnanen, 2002, pp. 74-75). For instance, to establish market creation, efficient marketing strategies are necessary. The marketing strategy should persuade and motivate consumers that the protection of the environment is not only the responsibility of the business, but it also depends on the consumers purchasing behaviour (Laroche, Bereron & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). In other words, each individual can make a difference when buying an eco-friendly product or using a green service. Thus, it is also of primary importance for social entrepreneurs to inform consumers on their environmental improving efforts by providing positive feedback to them on a regular basis (Laroche et al., 2001). Therefore, from a marketing perspective, it is of primary importance to educate the consumer on why it is convenient to purchase green products and to remove barriers that make consumers perceive purchasing green products as inconvenient (Laroche et al., 2001).

As described earlier, research suggests there is an increased societal awareness regarding environmental issues. Verhoef & Van Doorn (2016) identified an increased consciousness in consumers purchasing behaviour. However, there is no growth of Dutch green lifestyles (Kaleidos Research, 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to analyse if social entrepreneurs believe in their own vision and how the execute their sustainable marketing strategies to make an impact on potential stakeholders.

2.4.2 Financial barriers

Second, social entrepreneurs experience financial challenges. While Santos (2012) states social entrepreneurs should seek for potential stakeholders and integrate them as part of their solution, Linnanen (2002) aims social entrepreneurs experience difficulties to find investors who share their green values. On the other hand, people who are willing to invest in social enterprises experience difficulties in finding green businesses they can believe in and support (Linnanen, 2002, p. 38). In addition, Bergset (2015) notes investors often do not understand or accept the legal and organizational structures of social ventures (Bergset, 2015, p. 268). Therefore, Bergset (2015) conclude there is an asymmetrical information between social enterprises and investors:

(18)

“Potential investors and public funding institutions are not equipped to asses and evaluate certain types of sustainable start-ups and their business models, due to the fact they are not trained in these new fields of business activity and to a lack of established benchmarks in these early types of such green market activity.” (Bergset, 2015, p. 268).

Research suggest good cooperation between investors and social entrepreneurs is necessary is necessary to create a common vision and understanding. This cooperation may result in specialized knowledge about certain issues (Bergset, 2015). While this is not the case, it is interesting for future research to investigate in which degree investors believe that social entrepreneurs have not enough knowledge and experience according to financial markets and failing to attract the interest of investors. Consequently, start-up financing for green sustainable ventures consists primarily of the following forms: private funding includes the financial assistance from family and friends, bootstrapping, angel investors or government funding (Berset, 2015). Within this context, Gast et al., (2017) suggest:

“Relying only on government sources has proven highly risky because a change in national or local government can alter funding activities and lead to the loss of core funding (…) As a result, green start-ups may not be able to grow as much as ventures with sufficient financing. This resources in pursuing an entrepreneurial growth path.” (Gast et al., 2017, p. 51)

Many research is done about the access to finance in early state and conclude that the growth of social ventures is low due to social entrepreneurs’ access to donations and concessionary funds (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Bergset, 2015; Gast et al., 2017). Since the hybrid models of social ventures, it is interesting to further investigate whether Dutch social entrepreneurs experience difficulties to find an investor with the same vision and how they manage potential financial challenges.

2.4.3 Dual goals

Nevertheless, financial and market considerations are crucial to all entrepreneurs (Linnanen, 2002). As research describes in previous chapter, social entrepreneurs start their business because they have the aim to act as a social change agent and have a desire to make the world a better place (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Witkamp et al., 2011; Gast et al., 2017). These

(19)

motivations distinguish social entrepreneurs from profit oriented entrepreneurs because social entrepreneurs are driven to create value for society, not to capture value (Santos, 2012, p. 344).

Research often defines the drive to change society as a ‘raison d'être’ which means a strong ethical reasoning (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Santos, 2012). This explicitly expressed ethical reasoning has positive and negative effects on green ventures and this ethical dimension is a challenging issue to take into account when mainstreaming environmental businesses and innovation (Linnanen, 2002, p. 76). This third barrier is the result of the dual goal of social entrepreneurs and their green businesses: balancing green values at one hand, while maintaining organizational goals and profit at the other hand. This barrier of strong ethical reasoning causes positive advantage due to the fact social entrepreneurs are willing to make the world a better place and this personal commitment increases their credibility and trustworthiness to consumers and stakeholders (Linnanen, 2002, p.77). This strong ethical reason may also be negative. For instance, social entrepreneurs often get emotionally attached to their business and may focus on sustaining the organization more than solving the problem for society (Santos, 2012, p. 346). As a result, Kirkwood & Walton (2014) aim: “it is often difficult to maintain this delicate balance of running a for-profit business with strong sustainability goals: (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014, p. 40). In addition, Linnanen (2002) notes:

“The link between financial values and green values deserves special mention. It is sometimes unclear whether the entry of venture capitalists into green businesses is a positive phenomenon. Too often, blind money-making intentions overrule the ethical orientation that is one of the positive features of social entrepreneurs.” (Linnanen, 2002, p. 38)

Thus, there is a strong tension between the viability of the business and maintaining the ideals of the social entrepreneur (Kirkwood & Walton, 2014, p. 40). Previous research investigated if there should be a balance between green and social values on one hand while making profit on the other hand. Witkamp et al. (2010) note: “there have been many debates over how prominent the social goal should be in relation to the financial one for a green start-up to qualify as social entrepreneurial” (Witkamp et al., 2010, p. 287). Peredo & McLean (2006) claim it is impossible to draw a distinct line between social entrepreneurs whereas their goal is rather social than financial. In addition, Witkamp et al. (2010) conclude: “social entrepreneurs can operate in a continuum from non-profits on one hand to a profit-oriented firm that has a certain social goal” (Witkamp et al., 2011, p. 287).

(20)

This section described the challenges social entrepreneurs may face when the business is established. These key challenges that were identified are market creation, financial barriers and the dual goals of a social venture. However, a little work has been done on how social entrepreneurs are dealing with this dilemma. Kirkwood & Walton (2014) aim to investigate how social entrepreneurs balancing environmental concerns and business goals by using a survey. These results of their survey conducted throughout New Zealand, however, are rather inclusive and does not give a strong lead about how social entrepreneurs balance their dual goals in the Netherlands. Furthermore, Kirkwood & Walton (2014) call for more in-depth qualitative research due to the fact they exclusively used hypotheses. Chapter 3 will give an overview how this research response to this.

2.5 A supportive ecosystem

Research suggest the implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility strategies within private organizations has become a natural organizational activity (Sabeti, 2009; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Nevertheless, within the public sector, social ventures received an increased intention from government and NGO’s (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 7). However, briefly mentioned in the first section, the Netherlands may have a ‘green image’ internationally, its green activities are very low related to other countries (MVO Nederland, 2017). Research suggest the best way to establish outcomes is to empower potential stakeholders and convince them to become an integrated part of their solution (Santos, 2012; Kirkwood & Walton, 2014). Start-ups should engage in sustainable initiatives seeking to minimize their impact on the environment, contribute to improvements for society as a whole and for local communities, provide purposeful employment and find solutions to balance business goals with sustainability and environmental management (Choi & Gray, 2008; Hockerts & Wustenhagen, 2010).

However, according Sabeti (2009), our current economic model does not support social enterprises which can balance economic, social and environmental performance. In fact, a supportive ecosystem is not established yet. Since the government and NGO’s are considered as the key players to increase societal it is necessary, it is important to analyse the current engagement activities of Dutch social enterprises within the current ecosystem.

With a cooperation between govern ant and social ventures, the Netherlands is able to fulfil a key role within the VN-sustainability goals (Hummels, 2016). The government may be conscious of the environmental issues the social entrepreneurs address, but does not put enough effort in integrating societal activities neither has the aim to support the impact-oriented

(21)

activities of social ventures (Hummels, 2016). For instance, the domain of (social) entrepreneurship is not included in the policy programs of the political parties SP and GroenLinks whereas VVD & SPG only focusing on social responsibility. In addition, D66, CDA and Christen Unie only focusing on social entrepreneurship in national context. However, Hummels (2016) state the Dutch government recently created the Dutch Good Growth Fund. This is a funding system which is created to finance social ventures. Although this is a step in the right direction, this fund is still in its early phase. Therefore, government and markets must recognize and support the social enterprises as an equally legitimate model, to bring new attention to the Fourth Sector (Sabeti, 2009, p. 6).

Witkamp et al. (2011) conclude social entrepreneurs can be considered as important change agents:

“The civil society regime should be more troubled by the rise of the social entrepreneur, because it has the power to jeopardise the regime’s legitimacy to attract funds. When people observe that social entrepreneurs can contribute to solving social issues while being (more) financially independent, they will be less inclined to support the traditional civil society organisations.” (Witkamp et al., 2011, p. 306)

Build on Schumpeter (1934), Hart & Milstein (1999) predicted that social entrepreneurs will consider sustainable development as ‘one of the biggest business opportunities in the history of commerce’.

This section has reviewed the emerge of the Fourth sector and the importance of the support of potential stakeholders, which include governmental, non-governmental, organizational and customers. As illustrated, the social enterprises sector does not have a supportive ecosystem which might explain the low average growth of the Dutch social enterprises (Keizer et al., 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to gain a deeper insight how social entrepreneurs engage with their potential stakeholders. Before proceeding to the analysis of the dual goals and the engagement activities of social entrepreneurs, the next chapter describes how the data of this research is conducted.

(22)

3. Methods

3.1 Methods

Drawing on empirical material from thirteen interviews with social entrepreneurs in Amsterdam this paper has the aim to gain more in-depth information about social entrepreneurship in Amsterdam. Social entrepreneurs in the city of Amsterdam is chosen, given the fact it ranks 19th globally and fifth in Europe in terms of innovation and entrepreneurship (Startup Genome, 2017). Using a qualitative method, this research aims to have a better understanding of how the Dutch social entrepreneurs makes a sense of the world and its behaviour (Bryman, 2015). A case study is the most appropriate method because it contains explanatory questions such as how and why questions by using probing questions to gain deeper insights (Yin, 2013).

The data is collected by using a semi-structured interview. Based on the literature review, questions were formulated which are used as guidelines during the interview. An overview of the questions of the semi-structured interview can be found in Appendix A (p. 65). There is chosen for a face-to-face interview, because this method allows for full expression of the respondents (Stevenson, 1990, p. 442). Therefore, while asking questions about motivation, challenges and strong ethical reasoning it might be interesting to analyse the social entrepreneurs’ emotions and expressions.

The sample is conducted from social ventures the researcher has heard of in Amsterdam and from searching on websites such as Social Enterprise Amsterdam (www.social-enterprise.nl). The researcher purposefully selected the social ventures in a wide range, because of the chance of a low response rate. Therefore, no difference has been made between a start-up phase and a later-stage growth (Keizer et al., p. 6). Surprisingly, approximately seven of a total of forty social enterprises that where contacted by e-mail or telephone were interested. Eighteen social entrepreneurs had no interest or thought a face-to-face interview would take too much time, whereas eight social entrepreneurs have had several other interviews from other students. Last, eight social entrepreneurs did not respond anymore. This low-response rate was very surprising, given the majority of the theory indicate social entrepreneurs have the aim to make an impact on society and have often the purpose to fulfil an educational role to address societal issues. Therefore, the researcher assumed social entrepreneurs were willing to be interviewed to spread their word. Since seven interviews is not a sufficient number for

(23)

generalization of the results, the researcher interviewed six social entrepreneurs via telephone. In total, thirteen respondents were interviewed.

The interviews ranged from thirty minutes to one hour and were tape recorded and transcribed. In total, eleven hours of recorded interviews are transcribed. To analyse the data, NVivo software is used. NVivo allows coding to be undertaken in a very efficient way. The thirteen transcript are coded by first dividing it to themes, specifically related to respondents’ quotes and answers. The themes contain four concepts: the business model of the social entrepreneurs, the definition of social entrepreneurs; the motivation to start a business and the balance of green and profit values. The narrative scheme is outlined in Appendix B (pp. 66-90) to give an overview of the responses to explicit questions. This scheme is created to get an overview of all the citations of the respondents, given the fact not all the similar themes emerged orderly and coherent. Subsequently, the data is coded by paragraph and sentence that are proposed by Miles & Huberman (1984). Last, the code notes were initial thoughts about themes, and possible relationships and issues that appeared to be more important to the participants (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010, p. 211). The collective quotes and citations that are emerged from the interview data are still depended from the interviewer interpretation (Miles & Huberman, 1984). However, the purpose of this research is to describe the emerging field of social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is important to use a semi-structured interview rather than a survey, to gain a deeper insight concerning the respondents’ feelings and emotions. This will be outlined in the discussion part of this research.

3.2 The case companies

Before presenting the findings, it is relevant to explain some demographics of the sample. As illustrated in Table I, eight of the respondents have the average age of thirty and could be considered as a millennial (Keizer et al., 206). Furthermore, the other five respondents are between 40 and 55 years old. Except two social entrepreneurs, eleven social entrepreneurs are men. As mentioned in the literature review, women are more likely to start social ventures (Nicolás & Rubio, 2016). Since the social ventures were selected in a wide range, it might indicate there is a gender gap within the social enterprise sector in the Netherlands. Although this is not the case, it may be interesting for future research to investigate women’s social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, which will be further explained in the last chapter. Given this research contains of thirteen companies, it is crucial to understand each of the ventures lifecycle. A significant remark, is that the social enterprises differ in stages of growth as well. Therefore, the enterprises may differ in financial capital, talent, growth capital and reputation

(24)

(Keizer et al., 2016). The availability of these resources may influence the engagement activities with potential stakeholders. This managerial implication will be outlined in the final chapter of this research. A short summery is given in Table 1, whereby every founder gave permission to use the venture’s identity.

Company Product/service Employees (including founders) Age of founder(s) Gender Date founded Location

Waste Boards Skateboards 3 30 M 2016 Amsterdam

Join the Pipe Fair water 5 54 M 2009 Amsterdam

Closing the Loop

Recycled mobile phones

4 31 M 2012 Amsterdam

Dick Moby Sustainable

sunglasses

Mud Jeans Jeans 5 55 M 2012 Amsterdam

Moyee Coffee Fairtrade coffee 6 48 M 2012 Amsterdam

Gerrard Street Recycled

headphones

A Beautiful Story

Fair trade jewellery 3 41 V 2009 Amsterdam

Precious Plastic Recycle machine 2 29 M 2016 Amsterdam

Doe mee, verlos de zee

Cleaning ocean and beaches

Fairmail Fairtrade pictures 2 45 V 2012 Amsterdam

Bamboo Brush Society

Sustainable toothbrush

Plastic Road Designing modular

roads

Table 1: The case companies

1. Wasteboards is a start-up which makes high quality hand crafted skateboards made out of plastic waste from festivals, founded in 2016. The shareholders have different roles. One person designs and produces the boards, the other two are focusing on the marketing and financial areas. They have the aim to build a mobile bakery to visit the locations where plastic soup is a major issue, whereby they can create local economic value of valueless raw material. To build such a mobile board bakery, they need to sell 200 boards. Currently they are running their business from a hired garage and are planning to employ other staff for the board production.

(25)

2. Join the Pipe started in 2009 when the founder – while owning an advertisement company - had the dream to distribute water in a fair way. Thus, he created the first social community of tap water drinker and produced bottles in durable plastic. The founder first asked his relatives, but later museums, schools, commercial companies, actors and football clubs all started to joined from all over the world. With the money raised, Join the Pipe financed the installation of pumps, wells and other projects in Africa and Southern-East Asia. In 2014, they opened a website, a kind a Google under Earth, whereby everyone can check where the money donated ended up. Today, over 10.000 people who did not had water, have water to drink. Today, Join the Pipe has the aim to transfer their knowledge and expertise to other NGO’s with the purpose to distribute and produce tap water in a more efficient, but still a fair way.

3. Closing the Loop offers commercial services that lead to increased sustainability for mobile phones. It started in 2012 when the founder found out that e-waste is a well-known problem in the mobile industry world and to NGO’s, but nobody acted. He discovered that the informal sector does not have any recycling programs and are not aware about the need of recycling, neither they have an infrastructure to collect nor a NGO which could act locally to function on this recycling area. Closing the Loop started 5 pilots in 5 countries and worked together with the informal sector, by paying for end of life phones. Up till now, 250.000 phones are collected. Closing the Loop has the ambition to scale up to become a formal part of the mobile industry to make the mobile industry a more sustainable sector.

4. Dick Moby was started by two friends who were on a surf trip and saw all the plastic pollution with their own eyes. The start-up of sustainable sunglasses was successfully funded by crowdfunding in 2014. The two shareholders have both different roles, whereby one is the designer and the other is focusing on the marketing. They hired a partner in 2015 who acted as business controller and launched their optical line in the same year. Currently, sales are disappointing and therefore the shareholders are thinking about changing their communication strategy and focusing on high quality rather than aesthetics and sustainability. The shareholders want to cooperate with surf-foundations because of their expertise and wide-ranged users.

5. Mud Jeans is a denim brand where you can lease recycled clothing. After thirty years of experience in the fashion industry, the founder started to design clothing that is easy to recycle in 2012. Mud Jeans is working together with Fair Wear Foundation and the cotton and factories are certified and approved by the Global Organic Textile Standard and Max Havelaar. The

(26)

founder has the purpose to make the fashion industry more circular while combining growth and jobs with fewer resources.

6. Moyee Coffee was founded in 2012 with the aim to restore the inequality of the global coffee chain that creates more economic value in coffee producing countries. Moyee invests in Western standard roasting and packaging equipment, and brings this equipment right to the source of the best picked Arabic beans in the world. Together with their international team of coffee experts they will turn these beans into the finest coffee, at lower prices consumers would expect for premium coffee. As their fair chain movement grows over the years, Moyee has the aim to help more farmers for more coffee countries to invest in roasting equipment. However, to reduce the need of development aid, Moyee experienced from their start-up till now many barriers and difficulties within the fair chain coffee industry.

7. Gerrard Street was founded in 2015 by two graduates of industrial design. In their successful crowdfunding campaign, they illustrated we globally waste 15 million headphones a year. In corporation with Scheek Loudspeakers, they produce headphones that are fully modular and each element is circular and reusable. For a small fee each month consumers can lease a headphone. The founders are focusing on the ‘new generation’ and have the ambition to expand their product line as notebooks, telephones and other electronics.

8. A Beautiful Story was founded in 2009, after the founder quit her job as a successful marketing manager from a corporate organization because she wanted to help women in Nepal. The jewellery is handmade by local women in Nepal and consumers can buy these products in more than 500 jewellery stores in the Netherlands. Because of an earthquake last year, the production stopped for six months and some Dutch retailers had to wait several months for their ordered products. However, the business still exists but went through difficult times.

9. Precious Plastic is a project from a founder who design a machine who is easy to create. After this project was founded in 2016, he shared an instruction video through social media so every individual all over the world is able to create their own with the aim to reduce plastic pollution. He has won several awards for his innovative project.

(27)

10. Doe Mee, Verlos de Zee is an idea founded in 2010. The aim of this social venture is to create consciousness and educate everyone about our human behaviour. The founder produces huge sustainable containers which can be placed at the beach. While reducing plastic pollution, these containers calls for collaborations among hikers at the beach to collect plastic waste. Currently, the social entrepreneur collaborates with more than 70 Dutch municipals.

11. Fairmail is founded in 2012 which creates fair trade photos. The founder started this idea because she thinks it is unfair Western professional photographers earn a lot of money by making pictures of the poor circumstances in developing countries. All the photos are taken by teenagers from India, Morocco and Peru. Fairmail offers these teenagers photography courses, a health insurance and support by making plans for their future. In addition, the teenagers will receive fifty percent of the total sales of the pictures so they can pay their housing and education. Today, fifty-five teenagers have earned more than 160.000 euros by selling more than three million photos.

12. Bamboo Brush Society was born in 2016, when the founder found out that every consumer throws his toothbrush away after three months. The social entrepreneur has the aim to offer alternatives for plastic products and thus, creates toothbrushes which are made from bamboo. Founded in 2016, the social enterprise is grown due to the support of the social entrepreneur’s friends. The products of Bamboo Brush Society are sold in several hotels, concept stores and surf shops. While paying a small fee every month, the consumer gets a sustainable toothbrush every three months.

13. Plastic Road is founded in 2017 by two social entrepreneurs who have the aim to create prefab and modular roads, made from recycled plastic. They have had the aim to collaborate with VolkerWessels and KWS Infra to make this idea real. Together with these two stakeholders, they are creating the first Plastic Road in the Netherlands in the end of 2017.

3.3 Country background

Over the last five years, the social enterprise sector in the Netherlands about 70 percent and representing 1 percent of the total amount of all ventures since 2010. The 25.000 new jobs that were created during that time, came in a period when the Netherlands lost nearly 75.000 jobs in other sectors (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). Nevertheless, according to the report of Keizer et al.

(28)

(2016): “approximately 20 percent of the social ventures that existed five years ago, only 700 have since ceased operations, mostly because their business models were unsustainable” (Keizer et al., 2016, p. 5). In conclusion, the average stages of growth of Dutch social start-ups is low.

The Netherlands, and in particularly Amsterdam, ranks relatively high in number of lists regarding innovation and entrepreneurship. For instance, Amsterdam ranks 19th globally and fifth in Europe in the Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking (Startup Genome, 2017). However, a recent study conclude that the Netherlands may have ‘green image’, but ranks very low in terms of green activities (MVO Nederland, 2017). Existing research recognizes the critical role played by social entrepreneurs may act as important change agents and role models (Kirkwood & Walton, 2010; Gast et al., 2017). Since Sabeti (2009) concludes a supportive ecosystem is not established yet, further research is required. Thus, this trend highlights the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands and the initial stage of the Fourth Sector.

(29)

4. Results

4.1 The ‘true’ social entrepreneur

As was mentioned in the previous chapter, an extensive research has been carried out on what constitutes a social entrepreneur, but no single study exist which is focusing on how social entrepreneurs define themselves. The section below describes the findings how social entrepreneurs see themselves, which provide new insights and fills a gap in the literature in the social entrepreneurial field.

All of the social entrepreneurs define themselves as entrepreneurs. In addition, all the respondents have in common they want to change the environment and have an ‘entrepreneurial way of thinking.’ For instance:

“Yes, I am an entrepreneur and I am showing this to the world. I want to be an example for the world.” (Respondent 5)

“But hey, we stand out: we are the only ones who are thinking about the design and recycling.” (Respondent 7)

“I connect hikers while making the ocean cleaner. I think it is not a matter of being a social entrepreneur I guess. It is more thinking in new opportunities.” (Respondent 10)

“I wanted to create something which was never done before. Given the fact we use a toothbrush every day, why not making it more sustainable? It was quite easy, actually.” (Respondent 12)

“Today, I think it is normal to integrate sustainable solutions if you start a business (…) At TU Delft, it is integrated in your course as well.” (Respondent 13)

These examples illustrate the majority of the social entrepreneurs think sustainability is not a matter of a choice, but should be incorporated in every start-up. According to Keizer et al. (2016), respondents 10, 12 and 13 could be considered as millennial, which may indicate the increased focus of educational institutions in terms of sustainability.

(30)

In addition, the respondents experience difficulties when looking at the meaning of ‘social’. Two of the social entrepreneurs confirmed they are a social entrepreneur, but not because they see themselves in such way. One example illustrates the definition of social entrepreneurship and sustainability might be ‘overrated’:

“Well, maybe. I do not harm the environment anyway (…) I don’t like the definition or what it should mean. What does it mean? Last month I went to sustainability fair about the circular economy. And it felt like every entrepreneur over there knows best according to sustainability and green activities. But here’s my opinion: nobody does it excellent, nobody does it in a bad way. If you contribute to the environment in a beneficial way, you are on the right track. Definitions such as social, sustainability or circular economy? I can’t stand these words anymore. Now you asking me if I see myself as a social entrepreneur… I keep the answer for myself I guess. Maybe I am a bit reserved. Do you think I am a social entrepreneur? I think it’s difficult to say.” (Respondent 1)

Respondent 3 uses the definition because it is easy to use and everyone knows the concept, but not because it’s a self-expression:

“I use the definition, yes. But it is not because I see myself like that. It is easy to use because it has a broad definition, everyone knows what it means, some or less.” (Respondent 3)

In this regard, another insight is gained concerning of what other people think a social entrepreneur should be. Two examples illustrate this:

“I always think the other way around, they call me ‘enfant terrible of the public and NGO sector’ (…) Although I present true facts and findings, people say ‘you are crazy, you are not a worker of a NGO organization, you are just an advertisement guy. You don’t know anything about it. But here is the thing: because I am new in this industry, I am not stuck in my vision like NGO’s.” (Respondent 2)

(31)

“The Magazine Vrij Nederland wrote an article about me, listen up: ‘the founder is an everything but not a social entrepreneur. He is a businessman with a corporate career. He is educated as an economist at the Chicago University, which is the fundamental school of neoliberalism.’ Unbelievable.” (Respondent 6)

Running a business is not a new activity for every respondent. Four of seven respondents have owned one or more ventures before. All of these ventures were profit oriented. Four examples illustrate this:

“I have owned a big advertisement company, which is one of the biggest advertisings of the Benelux. We create commercials for Heineken, Nestle, Unilever… You name it. I stepped out when I started this, but I am still a shareholder of the company.” (Respondent 2)

“I have had a clothing label and designed everything. That was not a success though, but I’ve learned a lot about, especially about myself. Now I am still a designer, but with a social goal.” (Respondent 4)

“I have had my own clothing company and I earned a lot of money because I outsourced everything. At one day I went to the manufactory I collaborated with and I saw the materials, the working conditions in manufactures and the child labour. That changed my mind.” (Respondent 5)

“First I started a business which was a kind of an incubator, where I helped other start-ups. Subsequently I started to import new cars via the internet (…) I was rebuilding my house by workers who were born in Slovakia. I started thinking, manufactures and labour are very cheap over there, so I bought a manufacturer for window-frames.” (Respondent 6)

The four respondents illustrate they exploited new opportunities for capturing value with their previous ventures, and thus these enterprises can be considered as profit oriented ventures. These four examples illustrate the switch from capturing value towards ‘creating value’ by starting a social venture (Santos, 2012). In addition, all of the respondents confirm they are an entrepreneur. However, there is an ambiguity regarding the meaning of social entrepreneurship.

(32)

Similar with Keizer et al. (2016), the majority of the millennials think integrating sustainable activities and ideas should be natural when you start a venture and thus, social entrepreneurship should not be seen as an artefact. Therefore, these results might indicate it is not a matter of choice whether you are being social entrepreneur or not. In addition, some respondents experience critical comments from others about the fact they have a venture which focusses on social impact while making profit. Before proceeding to the dual goals of these social ventures, it is necessary to gain a deeper insight on what kind of business models the ventures consist of. Therefore, the next section will outline what kind of doing business the social entrepreneurs have.

4.2 A new way of doing business

As was explained in the first section of the literature review, social ventures are creating new hybrid models for copying with societal and environmental challenges. Although this research is not focusing the types of business models social ventures create, it is interesting to highlight the most relevant findings to illustrate the hybrid models of social ventures. Therefore, this section describes how social entrepreneurs transform their idea to a hybrid business model.

A significant insight is that every respondent created a different type of business model. Obviously, they all sell different types of products of services which explains the different types of business models with focus on circular economy. Nevertheless, all the social entrepreneurs are doing business in a different way.

Two respondents are making new products out of plastic waste. Both social enterprises are selling internationally through their web shop. One of the respondents buys recycled plastic from a stakeholder, while the other respondent collects the plastic by himself:

“I make skateboards from plastic which is found in the canals of Amsterdam or I collect out old caps and coins after festivals.” (Respondent 1)

They don’t only sell to customers, but they also have a business-to-business strategy. In the past, they both had a collaboration with two big ventures:

“I just sold ten products to Tony Chocolonely, that was really awesome.” (Respondent 1)

(33)

“We made products for BMW and Mini Cooper. We are also planning to do business with Mercedes.” (Respondent 4)

Similar with respondent 1, respondent 9 has the aim to create jobs in Africa with plastic recycling. They both create local mini-manufacturers so local people are able to recycle plastic themselves:

“Imagine: a local plastic bakery in Rio, Bali, Bangkok, you name it. People bring their plastic to this plastic bakery and create their own skateboard. Our pilot worked, it really did!” (Respondent 1)

“With this local recycling machine, local people are able to recycle their own products and sell them. This is amazing: organizations don’t have to ship plastic waste to the recycling manufacturers in the Netherlands and jobs are created in Africa.” (Respondent 9)

A fifth respondent creates a machine which processes plastic waste into new raw material, designs the other respondent modular roads which are made from plastic waste and collaborates with foundations which recognized the innovative ideas and were willing to support him:

“We had the aim to work with VolkerWessels and KWS Infra, which was a success. Currently, the concept of our idea is recognized internationally, so we expect this demand will grow in the future. (…) Why it is such a success? Because we have unique selling points, yes of course, but it is more than just that. We sell a unique product which solves several societal problems: plastic pollution, climate change, road constructions and circular building.” (Respondent 13)

These four examples illustrate that even both social ventures are use the same type of material, their engagement activities with potential stakeholders are different. This will be further explained in the final section of this chapter, which focusses on engagement.

The hybrid models of the social ventures show social entrepreneurs are driven to create value for society, not to capture value. More of these drivers will be outlined in section three and four of this chapter. Four social entrepreneurs have the aim to solve environmental and social issues in Africa. One of these social entrepreneurs sells products from recycled plastic

(34)

as well, however this is not his main activity. This social entrepreneur sells recycled plastic bottles to collect money, with the aim to install water pumps in Africa. Another social entrepreneur collects out of life mobile phones and recycles them in Belgium, to reduce e-waste in Africa. By executing their social activities, they are creating jobs as well. The third social entrepreneur wants to change the value chain of the coffee industry. Last, one social entrepreneurs think it is important to create jobs in Africa. Both social entrepreneurs have the aim to work with government and NGO’s rather than focusing on customers. In addition, they all have in common they think social entrepreneurs should learn the local people to produce or create something by themselves rather than solve their problems. Within this context, these respondents think NGO’s are making the problems worse:

“Just sending them money does not mean the problem is solved. Once the NGO’s fly back to the Netherlands or somewhere else, the problem will still be there. We should educate the locals how to care for themselves, rather than just install some pumps and then say: adios amigos. That simply doesn’t work.” (Respondent 2)

“I can’t imagine why professional photographers or NGO’s make their real job to take photo’s from poverty. I mean, it is good to face the reality and share these photo’s, but I think it is wrong some people earn money with it. So that’s basically how it works: we learn the local teenagers how to make professional photo’s and we buy the photo’s they made. As a result, they can pay their housing and insurance, while creating jobs for them.” (Respondent 11)

In addition, one respondent creates jobs for women in Nepal. These women are skilled in making jewellery, however, the respondent gave them the opportunity to create a demand for the jewellery the women are making.

“I saw these beautiful jewelleries and came up with an idea: I just have to connect the women with the consumer in the Netherlands. I used to work as a marketing manager, so it was not difficult for me to make a marketing plan.” (Respondent 8)

Being a mediator is also an activity of another respondent, he connects hikers with each other while collecting plastic waste in the ocean and beaches:

Growing the next generation : how do Dutch social entrepreneurs balance their green and social values on one hand, while retaining organizational profit on the other hand?

Table of contents

Introduction

2. Literature research

3. Methods

4. Results