The social enterprice : a clear concept or an empty term : on the feasibility of having a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship : a glance through the eyes of the entrepeneur

(1)

(2)

2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Bas van den Bergh, who declares

to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I

declare that the text and the work presented in this document

is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in

the text and its references have been used in creating it. The

Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the

supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is a field of research that has gained significant traction over the past decade. Still no one paradigm for the concept has been identified and scholars continue to disagree about the defining factor of the term. This paper addresses the questions if a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship is actually feasible. Through means of an extensive literature review, you will be guided to understand to full scope of the research. The paper addresses concerns on the various aspects of social entrepreneurship, put forward by leading scholars in the field. The main findings of the research are that an inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship is not (yet) feasible. Suggestion for future research are made on the basis of the findings of this study.

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Social entrepreneurs are believed to try and make the world a better place. This form of (often called) impact before profit entrepreneurship has become eminent over the past decade. Scholars have tried to define social entrepreneurship but consensus on the exact terminology is lacking. In the data analysis of this paper, you will read through the eyes of the entrepreneur. In five interviews with different kinds of (what are deemed to be) social entrepreneurs, active in various sectors, it will be shown what it means (or does not mean) to be a social entrepreneur, how theory and practice collide, and why it seems so hard to find various defining factors for this form of business. This is especially interesting since social entrepreneurs seem to be around for a while already. In a report by Social Enterprise UK (2013), it was shown that over 75% of all social enterprises exist for more than 10 years. The acknowledgement of this kind of entrepreneurship seems to lack behind on the practical implementation of the concept. The lack of a clear definition of the concept has commonly been blamed on the recent development of the field. However, as social entrepreneurs seem to exist for some time already, this paper tries to look for the cause of the lack of a definition in the entrepreneurs themselves, instead of assuming a lack of research as a cause for ambiguity on the concept. By trying to find a common ground between social entrepreneurs form different sectors this paper explores what it truly means to be a social entrepreneur. The aim of this paper is to provide a basis for further research in the field of social entrepreneurship by exploring the perception of the very people that are deemed to define the field itself. A combination of an extensive literature review and a throughout data analysis will guide you to the answer to the central question in this thesis.: If it is feasible to aim for a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship.

(6)

6

2. Literature review

2.1 Social entrepreneurship: The relevance of this field of research

Around the earth, individuals with a high social consciousness have introduced creative and innovative business models to solve societal problems that were for long overlooked by conventional business, as well as by governments and even NGOs. Those so called social entrepreneurs have been essential in ameliorating unwanted social standards and conditions. These social entrepreneurs have become publicly known agents of change as they apply cost-effective ways to tackle social problems (Zahra et al., 2009; Cox and Healey, 1998). In recent decades, many developed nations have set course to marketize the social service sector (Salamon,1999). The desire for increased efficiency was ought to be delivered by competitive markets in order to increase social performance of the markets (Zahra & Dess, 2001). In addition, many western governments have severely cut spending on services like infrastructure repair and education (Lasprogata & Cotton, 2003; Zahra et al., 2009). This gave rise to a new need for entrepreneurial activities to serve social needs.

Logically, there has been growing academic interest in this field of study (Hemingway, 2005). Nevertheless, a clear definition of the domain is lacking. According to Zahra et al. (2009), it is complicated due to the breadth of social entrepreneurship and its numerous manifestations of this field of study. Mair & Marti, (2004) add the complexity of the term as an issue in stating that the two words of which social entrepreneurship is composed are both ambiguous, connoting different people to different things. While it is obvious that ‘social’ is a rather big, all-encompassing term, according to Shane & Venkataraman, (2000) and Zahra and Dees, (2001), disagreement in the domain of entrepreneurship still persist as well.

Social entrepreneurs typically aim for economic as well as social goals in pursuing an opportunity and choose the societal goal to be more important as profitability (Thompson &

(7)

7 Doherty, 2006). Conventional, so to say commercial entrepreneurs in contrast, mostly define their success it terms of monetary profits. (Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934). This is still the most prominent way in which the difference between social and conventional entrepreneurship is conceived (Dees, 1998; Borzaga & Galera, 2014; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2015). However, this traditional distinction made between conventional and social entrepreneurship, being Impact first vs. profit first, driven businesses, seems to be insufficient in modern society. Corporate Social Responsibility programs (CSR), have shown efforts of conventional companies to become socially responsible. Showing the world they do not intent to cut ethical or moral considerations from their business’s policy making but instead try to take environmental and social problems into consideration while running their company (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Council & Toze, 2012). The intentions of those activities are often unclear and alleged to be necessary for profit maximization and risk management, as customers become more aware of environmental and social problems that are created by companies (Hopkins, 2012; Peloza & Shang, 2011). This does not undermine the possible positive effects of CSR on society and environment and therewith still contests the traditional view as social entrepreneurs being different from conventional entrepreneurs in not making profit if it does not serve the societal cause. The motive behind societal value creation might be irrelevant if the outcome can be the same (Garay & Font, 2012). Below, you will find a review of several prominent scholars in the field of social entrepreneurship, whom did research on what exactly encompasses the social entrepreneur and therewith, the social enterprise.

2.2 The early onset of social entrepreneurial research

Throughout the years, there have risen many different definitions of the term ‘social entrepreneurship’. The definition entails two different sub-questions, which are: what defines

(8)

8 a social entrepreneur? And what defines a social enterprise? In this paper we will address both sub-questions interchangeably, as we try to give shape to the broader context in which the social entrepreneurial debate is taking place. For this paper it is essential to gain a deeper understanding of the field of study. Therefore, a comparison of various early definitions is given below. The aim is to give the reader a deeper understanding of the subtle differences of definitions that still shape the contemporary social entrepreneurial debate.

For an accurate understanding of the development of social entrepreneurship, it is important to see how it evolved in the past twenty years. As many definitions of social entrepreneurship exist it is impossible and unnecessary to list them all. Beneath a representation of social entrepreneurship definitions has been given. It are some of the most used definitions in academics to describe the term.

Note that contemporary capitalist, conventional organizations argue that their enterprise is also beneficial for society as a whole. Therewith, the definition is at risk of creating a definitional loop between conventional entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. Another definition is “Creating or elaborating a public organization so as to alter greatly the

existing pattern of allocation of scarce public resources” (Waddock and Post, 1991). Or

alternatively, “Identification of under-utilized resources which are put to use to satisfy unmet

social needs” (Leadbeater, 1997). Thirdly, “The process of adding something new and

something different for the purpose of building social capital” (Thompson et al., 2000).

So far, the term is described vaguely and broadly. This is a somewhat accurate depiction of the social entrepreneurship debate before the millennium change. The term was new, and no one really knew what it truly entailed. As the field grew, more accurate definitions of social entrepreneurship started to emerge. Like, “The use of entrepreneurial behavior for social ends

(9)

9 rather than for profit objectives; or an enterprise that generates profits that benefit a specific disadvantaged group (Hibbert et al., 2001). This definition entails the characteristic of social entrepreneurship that it is not aimed at making as much profit as possible. Furthermore, it emphasized that social entrepreneurs preferably try to benefit disadvantaged groups in society.

As in the 90’s the debate focused on social enterprises as public organizations, in the 2000’s, the debate began to entail the private sector in the definition given. As seen here, “Innovative dual bottom line initiatives emerging from the private, public and voluntary sectors. The ‘dual bottom line’ refers to the emphasis placed on ensuring that investment generates both economic and social rates of return” (Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, 2001). In the next section of this paper, it will be shown that from 2005 onwards, definitions began to get shaped as we know them today. It turned out, most scholars began to refer to Dees (1998) as the leading definition for pre-2000’s social entrepreneurship. Then, definitions were specified in terms that are debated nowadays. As the field of research began to grow, definitions of social entrepreneurship were rapidly popping up in research papers. Many of which, are still adhered to today. Below, you will find descriptions of much used definitions, which shaped the context in which the questions for the research done in this study were derived. Reading and understanding these definitions will help and put the findings of this study into context.

2.3 The debate taking shape

Dees (1998) is one of the first scholars to accurately describe social entrepreneurship as a separate kind of entrepreneurship that should be treated differently. He described the meaning of the term as being focused on value creation rather than profit making. The paper

(10)

10 is rather old but cited in most contemporary papers as a leading source. In order to understand the importance of social entrepreneurship, it is important to be able to refer to an accepted definition of the term. Many of the research done today is based upon this study and takes its core elements in adjusted definitions of social entrepreneurship. Key elements as described by Dees (1998) are valuable in analyzing the contemporary development of social entrepreneurship.

Seelos & Mair (2005) have a theory that depicts social entrepreneurship as a branch of entrepreneurship that could come into existence to serve the poor. Since it is, according to them, not directed at making profit, costs can be kept low and the poor are the ones who can easily profit from this charity like business models. The theory is very controversial but established as one of the leading paradigms in the depiction of social entrepreneurship is contemporary business. It serves to identify the distribution of market segments that the social enterprises, interviewed in this study, seem to serve.

Mair & Marte (2006) wrote a very valuable (in terms of information) paper on the role of social entrepreneurship in contemporary society. Although it was written before the onset of the global economic crisis, it got traction in the years after the crisis, as social entrepreneurship seemed to become more prominent by then. The paper is valuable because it analyzes the explanatory value of social entrepreneurship with regards to the normal entrepreneurial practices. It sees social entrepreneurship as a newly arising field that addresses societal needs that are not covered by conventional business. This makes for interesting research as it indicates a unique characteristic of social entrepreneurship that could ensure its survival in the future of business. Which in turn, is very relevant for the analysis of this paper.

(11)

11 Furthermore it makes valuable suggestions towards the role of social entrepreneurship in the future of business and is a renounced academic source in many social entrepreneurial courses. The paper by Weerawardena & Mort (2006) a well-known paper on the defining factors of social entrepreneurship. The research done in this paper allows for use of a multidimensional model of social entrepreneurship to describe the differences between different kinds of social enterprises but also addresses a research gap that was eminent in social entrepreneurial research. This paper closes a gap by creating a model to address the importance of social entrepreneurship in different fields of business & society. Below, a depiction of the model is shown.

(Weerawardena & Mort, 2006)

The model as shown above is deemed to be an important source of literature, as it would provide the opportunity to scrutinize the findings of the research done in this study by comparing three defining factors (environment, social mission and sustainability). It is important to notice that Weerawardena & Mort (2006) show social entrepreneurship as a constraint optimization problem. The most important difference with for-profit organizations

(12)

12 are the three main constraints that are posed by the social entrepreneur. Respectively, social mission, sustainability and environment. A social enterprise has to act proactive, be innovative and have proper risk management, just like most for-profit enterprises. However, social entrepreneurs will only do so if the actions taken serve the social mission of the enterprise, are sustainable and non-harmful to the environment. The research done by Weerawardena & Mort (2006) is very comparable to the research done in this study. However, one big difference is the definition of social entrepreneurship posed by Weerawardena & Mort to begin with. They see social enterprises as non-for-profit businesses. The research they conducted was therewith also considering not-for-profit businesses. In the past decade the term social entrepreneurship has developed tremendously. Something most leading scholars in the field nowadays agree upon is that a social enterprise certainly has to be for-profit, and is significantly different from not-for-profit enterprises. More on this will be read in the next section of this literature review. Later in the paper, you will see how the findings are also inconsistent with those of Weerawardena & Mort (2006). Not strange, considering that a very different kind of businesses (for-profit, but social) has been interviewed by them.

Peredo & McLean (2006) critically analyze the concept of social entrepreneurship, to see how it is different from other kinds of entrepreneurship and if it should be a separate term at all. In order to have a clear and relatively unbiased analysis it is very important to understand arguments from other perspectives and incorporate them into the research. The critical analysis of Pedero & McLean is a perfect starting point for a broad a skeptical view of the concept and is important for analyzing if the concept of social entrepreneurship is a legitimate kind of business. It advocates that social entrepreneurship is essentially the same as other kinds of entrepreneurship as entrepreneurs eventually all create societal value, one way or

(13)

13 the other. Therefore, social entrepreneurship would be an ideal, based upon wrongfully depicted, conventional, for-profit business.

Roger, Martin & Osberg (2007) describe a social entrepreneur the following way: ”The social

entrepreneur should be understood as someone who targets an unfortunate but stable

equilibrium that causes the neglect, marginalization, or suffering of a segment of humanity;

who brings to bear on this situation his or her inspiration, direct action, creativity, courage,

and fortitude; and who aims for and ultimately affects the establishment of a new stable

equilibrium that secures permanent benefit for the targeted group and society at large.” This

definition focusses mainly on the personal actions of the social entrepreneur, as the authors find that the social entrepreneur defines what social entrepreneurship is about. It is noteworthy that this definition does leave room for an interpretation of the term that includes the targeted group to be the elites in society. That is, as long as one can argue that targeting the product or service at the elites of society will help society as a whole to come to a new equilibrium, it is justified.

Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010) conducted research in which they concluded that social entrepreneurship should not be established as a specific kind of entrepreneurship but rather as a useful tool for further research and development of the field. However, they did not highlight the importance of the ideological perspective on social entrepreneurship and merely analyzed the entrepreneurial practices themselves. Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010) therewith have a critical stance towards the survival of social entrepreneurship as a separate field of study. Their paper forms the basis of the critical stance towards the defining factors of social entrepreneurship in this paper.

(14)

14 Since there seems to be no universal definition of a social enterprise, a choice had to be made on what definition to choose for deciding upon which companies to interview for this research. It was chosen to apply a universal definition used by most of the European Union and Social Enterprise NL, an acknowledged organization in the Netherlands to map and identify social enterprises to create a common database. The definition used to identify companies to interview entails four distinct pillars which will be outlined in chapter 3.2 of this paper. It is important to notice that the definition of social entrepreneurship that is used for this paper is different from the definitions posed by the papers in the literature review above. In order to assume the objectivity of the measurement of what is a social enterprise, a baseline had to be found in an outside source, independent of this paper. This source had to clearly identify social enterprises to fit the used definition. The literature review therefore does not function to derive a definition of social entrepreneurship for the companies used in this thesis but rather for a reference point for the analysis of this thesis, for what questions to ask and what conclusions to be drawn.

The questions are asked to social entrepreneurs. As shown above, academics do not seem to get in agreement about a definition of social entrepreneurship. The very people whom eventually define the field are the social entrepreneurs themselves. By observing those people and the actions of those people, it is repeatedly tried to get to a definition of the term. However, it is not researched if the term might mean something different at all to so-called social entrepreneurs in different sectors. The defining problem might therefore not be in the research but in the fact that no one clear definition of social entrepreneurship can be derived due to the nature of the differences in various sectors. In the following chapter, you will read how various concepts and questions are derived from contemporary social entrepreneurial research in order to establish the right questions to ask our interviewees and answer the

(15)

15 question: Is it feasible to have a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship?

2.4 Deriving the shape of the research

This paper does not just encompass the definition of social entrepreneurship. It exists of qualitatively conducted research for which specific themes had to be identified in order to reach meaningful conclusions. In the definitions of social entrepreneurship, the craftsmanship that defines the social entrepreneur is missing. The themes for investigation of the concept are to be identified by digging to the core questions, defining the entrepreneur’s state of mind, regarding his or her social categorization. This means one has to investigate which themes function best to grasp the entrepreneur’s ideas on the nature of their profession. In order to get to those themes, an extensive literature review has been done on the concepts that could serve best to get to the core of the main questions addressed in this paper: is it feasible to have an inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship?

(Zahra et al., 2009) take total wealth maximization as a measure of social entrepreneurial activity. Meaning both social and economic wealth. Furthermore, they identify three types of social entrepreneurs. The social Bricoleur, the Social Constructionists and the Social Engineer. They respectively focus on addressing small scale and local social needs, exploiting opportunities by filling market gaps to provide innovation and reformation to the broader social system and lastly Social Engineers try to tackle lasting social problems by introducing revolutionary change. Zahra et al. (2009) therewith pose the following definition of social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurship encompasses the activities and processes

undertaken to discover, define, and exploit opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner.”

(16)

16 The problem with the definition is that it does not encompass total wealth, nor economic wealth. In addition, social wealth has been proven hard to quantify. It often relates to intangible services to society that are hard to monetize (Zahra et al., 2009), (i.e. establishing gender equality, safe access to water in remote areas, reducing deforestation, creating jobs for physically or mentally disabled people). Therewith social wealth is hard to measure and at risk of being reduced to a concept every company could claim to adhere to and try to maximize. Furthermore, leading business schools like the Wharton Center and the Fuqua School adhere to too principle that to maximize doing good to society, one should maximize his or her profits. (Zahra et al., 2009). The nature of this distinction between social and economic wealth to establish an all-encompassing total wealth, will be contested by this paper through investigation of the interviews. Nevertheless, the concept of total wealth creation proves to be a good measure of investigation, as the profitability as well as the social nature of the company can be addressed in this form of measurement. As soon as a quantifiable measure of social wealth creation can be established, the concept might enjoy a lot of traction and support.

Austin et al., (2006) said that the values of the founders of social ventures deeply reflect the goals of the venture and that the missions and vision of the entrepreneur defines the nature of the company and that those are the reason for setting up the company. The deep connection between the CEO and the nature of the company has therewith sparked elaborate discussions and debate. In recent years, many scholars have tried to redefine and delineate Social Entrepreneurship as a distinct domain. An important question became the sustainability of social ventures to compete with conventional firms. Critics were afraid the social nature of the company would limit its profitability. (Dees et al., 2004; Austin et al., 2006). Others saw profitability and social value creation to go hand in hand (Bornstein, 2004; MacMillan, 2005).

(17)

17 Dees et al. (2004) and Austin et al. (2006) think the impact first mentality to have a great potential to be a tradeoff with the profitability of the company. Contrary, Bornstein (2004) and MacMillan (2005) think the social aspect is no limitation on the profitability of a social company. It is commonly perceived to be of importance for the survival of social entrepreneurship to not have to choose between profitability and social impact. When profits from trade in goods or services is no longer the main source of income, the company is at risk of being comparable to a not-for-profit organization (as defined by Weerawardena & Mort (2006)), a NGO or other social service organizations (Zahra et al., 2009). As it is deemed important to identify the apparent dilemma between social impact and profitability in order to identify to social enterprise, the dilemma of the relative importance of profits vs. impact, will be addressed in the interviews done for this research.

Others focus more on the proposed ability of social entrepreneurs to offer innovative solutions to complex and persistent societal problems by applying existing business and market oriented models (Dorado,2006; Pearce and Doh, 2005; Spear, 2006). Although this definition might be very fitting, it is also extremely broad and easy to be interpreted and retrofitted in a way it fits conventional kinds of business as well. In addition, social entrepreneurship is seen as an alternative to a society and culture of selfishness and greed (Hemingway,2005). Bhide & Stevenson (1990) show honest entrepreneurial activity to be less fruitful for the entrepreneur as conventional, non-ethics bound entrepreneurship. As no increased profit can be shown for social entrepreneurship, it will not be a good alternative for conventional forms of enterprises.

Again others see social entrepreneurship as a still vaguely and very poorly understood definition and concept (Fowler, 2000; Martin & Osberg, 2007). This is reflected in the research

(18)

18 by (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Council & Toze, 2012), as they show the thin line (if any line at all) between well-practiced, well-organized CSR activities of conventional companies and social entrepreneurial activity. Regardless of the intentions for initiation of the activity, the outcome can supposedly be the same. As mentioned earlier, the impact first vs. profit first distinction does not seem to be a sufficient distinction between social and conventional entrepreneurship. The interviewees for this paper have been asked to state the relative importance of profit vs. impact on society for their company, in order to analyze the importance of the distinction for the social entrepreneurs themselves.

Another important notion for this research was mentioned earlier already. Austin et al. (2006) showed that the mission and vision of the social entrepreneur are reflected in the company and defines its social nature. Afterwards, the notion has been used by many scholars to identify the nature of the social entrepreneur (Marshall, 2011; Bhutiani et al., 2012; Ruebottom, 2013; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2015). They propose that the vision and mission are prior and essential to the initiation of the company itself. Therefore, the issue is addressed as well in the interviews conducted for this paper. It is thought to give insight into many traits, associated with social or conventional entrepreneurship. In addition, the interviews address what the entrepreneurs perceive to be the difference between social and conventional entrepreneurship. This is considered to be one of the core insights for conducting the interviews, gathered from (Marshall, 2011; Bhutiani et al., 2012; Ruebottom, 2013; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2015; Austin et.al., 2006). When asked to social entrepreneurs, active in various sectors, it addresses the issue at hand very clearly; whether it is feasible to have a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship. It does so directly through the perspective of the social entrepreneur him / herself. The difference given by the entrepreneur

(19)

19 is thought to be reflected in the entrepreneur’s motives for his or her entrepreneurial activities (Austin et al. (2006); Ruebottom (2013); Yitshaki & Kropp (2015)).

Additionally, entrepreneurial activity is traditionally depicted as needing to close one’s eyes for ethical concerns (Barendsen & Gardner, 2004; Kuratko & Goldsby, 2004). It is proposed that the depiction of total wealth maximization as proposed by Zahra et al., (2009) would be a tradeoff between social wealth creation and maintaining economic activities as well as making profits (Kuratko & Goldsby, 2004). The proposition that lack of ethical concerns and entrepreneurial activity go hand in hand has been around for decades. It is contested by social entrepreneurship and will implicitly be addressed in the research done for this study.

In 1973, Kirzner identified competition to be a defining attribute in entrepreneurial activity. He argued that in order to achieve a competitive advantage, ethical concerns, among other things, had to be left aside. The very existence of competition would drive entrepreneurs to search for ways to increase profits without thinking about ethical concerns. Additionally, Kirzner (1973) argued the perception of competition to define an entrepreneur and his activities. The concept of competition is found in various papers debating the field of social entrepreneurship and often lead back to Kirzner (1973). Recently, Huysentruyt, Stephan and Vujic (2015) showed social enterprises to overall not be motivated by competition. Furthermore, it seemed to have no significant influence on the policy making in the firm, therewith partially disputing Kirzner’s research (1973). Whereas, for conventional firms, competition was a significant factor in the undertaking of policy changes. Furthermore, a CEO’s perception and response to competition is proposed to reflect her or his personal values (Hotelling, 1990; Austin et al.,2006; Hemingway, 2005). According to them, conventional entrepreneurs see competition mostly as hostile to the existence of the company, whereas

(20)

20 social entrepreneurs perceive competition as non-threatening but important to consider. It is supposed to be of value to take the entrepreneurs perception of competition into consideration when conducting interviews for this paper. It is expected to add to the understanding of the entrepreneur’s perception of her or his place in the market and the company policy making, which are both important to fruitfully conduct this research.

The research presented in this paper shows how diverse motives for (social) entrepreneurial activity can build businesses, operate them and furthermore inspire individuals to take after their personal beliefs of what should be done for and in their societies. Social entrepreneurs belief to make the world a better place. Cyert & March (1963) observed entrepreneurs to have a strong determination to accomplish personal motives, reflecting economic as well as non-economic goals. It follows that organizations that pursue just non-non-economic goals (not-for-profit organizations) are no entrepreneurs. An organization just pursuing economic goals could also not be called an entrepreneurial firm. Of course, non-economic goals can still be widely defined, as done by (Cyert & March, 1963). It is often argued that the non-economic goals follow from the economic goals as well, making the direct implication of social entrepreneurship irrelevant in this line of reasoning (Martin & Osberg, 2007). By conducting the research for this paper, we hope to bring some more clarity to why no consensus has yet been derived from the research done up until now. In the upcoming section on methodology, you will be shown how our research has been conducted.

3. Method & Design

3.1 The methodology and design

The research is largely exploratory but has as well an inductive and deductive aspect to it. It is known that there has already been done some research in the field. This research is taken into consideration for this paper, as can be seen in the literature review. It acts as a guiding

(21)

21 principle in the questions to be asked in the interview. This is deemed essential in order perform a throughout analysis of the interviews and contrast this to the existing theoretical framework on the field of social entrepreneurship. This largely deductive approach at the start of this research is later combined with an inductive approach to the analysis of the interviews, as the data gathered will be used to derive concepts and generalizations.

By interviewing entrepreneurs from very different sectors, this research tries to identify if there is a common ground for the concept of social entrepreneurship and answer the leading question:

Is it feasible to have a meaningful inter-sectorial definition of social entrepreneurship? The research consists of a multiple case study design, which is embedded. A case study can surface evidence in a context where manipulation of relevant behaviors is not an option (Shane,2000; Yin, 2009). Case-studies are used to understand real-life phenomena as well as personal perceptions of individuals in-depth that simultaneously encompass contextual conditions that might be important (Yin,2009). Furthermore, using a case study allows for multiple sources of evidence (Yin,2009). The choice for a multiple case study became obvious, as it can add to the generalizability of the results ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ) and was needed in order to compare different sectors of the market. Furthermore, a multiple case study makes the research more compelling and adds to its robustness (Yin,2009).

The cases are studied parallel and have an exploratory purpose. Literal replication is used to analyze the research and, as was mentioned above already, interviews are conducted as a method of investigation. The number of cases is five. Triangulation of data has not been conducted as it would be of no addition to further increase the credibility of the research, as the perception of the entrepreneur is the main aspect of importance.

(22)

22 Themes and concepts in the data are identified by categorization of the data. Since the multiple case study is embedded, categories from the cases are linked to each other in order to figure out relationships between the cases. The categories are prioritized to create a hierarchical system that helped focus on the most important themes. Those analysis techniques help derive meaningful results.

The sampling rationale is critical case sampling. In order to analyze the interviews, the data is put in a more analyzable form (text). Therefore the interviews are transcribed. Afterwards, the data was segmented, to divide it in a meaningful way. The number of interviews is limited but enough to derive meaningful conclusions for the purpose of this research. The interviewees are the CEOs of the company that was chosen to interview.

3.2 The defining problem

The interviewees have been selected for being ratified as a social enterprise by Social Enterprise NL. They have a controlled selection procedure with strict criteria, which, as described before, are the following:

- The company has a primary societal goal (impact first).

- The enterprise realizes this goal as an independent business that delivers services or goods.

- The organization is a financially self-sufficient business based on trade or other forms of value transaction. Therewith, only limited or not at all reliant upon donations or subsidies.

- The business’s policy making has a social nature. This means profits are allowed but also serve the mission; creating societal impact. Profit-taking from shareholders is reasonable. Furthermore policy making is based upon the interests of all stakeholders.

(23)

23 The business is fair to everybody. It is conscious of their own ecological footprint and is transparent (Social Enterprise NL, 2015).

There are significant risks involved with handling this definition of social entrepreneurship for the interviews. The definition is clearly not in line with a lot of the literature reviewed for this paper. The problem with social entrepreneurship is that there is not one definition that is commonly accepted in the field of research. The decision is made to take a broad definition that is widely accepted in the EU for being the best alternative to the defining problem of social entrepreneurship. This implies it might not be a perfect definition and could be changed in the future. Therefore, by acknowledging this definition for identifying companies for this research, the research is at risk of not being accepted by a portion of the researchers in this field. Nevertheless, this is a risk that had to be taken in order to conduct the research in the first place and furthermore emphasizes the exploratory nature of this research.

It would be an example of circular reasoning not to conduct this research because of a lack of a clear definition. That would imply this research, could never be usefully conducted, as it either lacks a definition or the definition is already there. The risk of choosing a working definition is necessary to conduct the research and is minimized by choosing a definition that is already broadly used in practice. It is deemed appropriate to use this definition of social entrepreneurship as it is the most commonly used practical definition in The Netherlands, the country in which the interviews take place and the companies are from (Social Enterprise NL, 2015).

(24)

24 3.3 The Interviewees

As shown in the literature review (Austin et al., 2006), the CEO of a social company is thought to represent and embody the essence of the company itself. Therefore, it was deemed important to interview the CEO of each company and not an employee or manager.

As the nature of the research asked for inquiry about potentially sensitive information, the interviewees and their respective companies will be threated anonymously. Their names have been replaced with fictive ones to ensure that the privacy of the interviewees is guaranteed. Over 250 social enterprises were contacted of which five CEOs agreed to be interviewed. The companies were established social enterprises, active in very different sectors, with a revenue of at least 100.000 euros and up to 10 million euros a year and were active in different sectors with no direct link to each other.

3.4 Use of the data

The research focused on the perspective of the entrepreneur. Therewith, personal quotes and thoughts are deemed very important and will naturally be used in the analysis of the data. The (fake) names to be used in the analysis will be:

- John, CEO of Roomforyou - Harry, CEO of Sharethechair - Victor, CEO of Yourmedia - Maddy, CEO of Bionatural - Anny, CEO of Work&Learn

(25)

25 3.5 Theoretically derived questions as a starting point

As mentioned in chapter 3.1, this research has a deductive and inductive aspect to it. This chapter will clearly show how the deductive aspect of the research was critical to this paper for deriving the questions needed to initiate the research in the first place. It would be ignorant and unwise to ignore the work that has already been done in the field of social entrepreneurship. As already mentioned in the literature review, various concepts seem to make up characterizing traits of a social entrepreneur. Various scholars have proposed to identify the essence of social entrepreneurship. The scholarly interest in the matter has drastically increased over the past few years, as did the practical use of the term ‘social entrepreneur’. Four defining factors, used by various prominent scholars, have been used as leading principles in the set-up of the interviews. Those deductively derived questions have been the basis for the set-up of this research. They will help identify what it means in practice to be a social entrepreneur and if a potentially inter-sectorial defining factor can be proposed for investigation in further research.

Furthermore, the use of deductively arrived leading questions for the interviews allowed for a clear focus. Entrepreneurship as a field of study is relatively young and social entrepreneurship even younger. As the literature review presented, it does not yet have one clear theory, defining for a paradigm.

The data which was transcribed from the interviews was focused and where needed simplified, as advised by Miles and Huberman (1994). The selection process of the data, the relative frequency of raised issues as well as the intensity of the expression was taken into account during the exploration phase (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In addition, the selections from the cases were contrasted to concepts of the leading questions in the interviews to

(26)

26 determine their similarity, and pattern matching was used to put the data in context of the theoretical realm (Yin, 2009).

In the table below, the leading questions for the interviews are outlined and the main sources of inspiration for the questions are stated.

Leading concept(s) / question(s) Proposition Main paper(s) of inspiration

What is the mission and vision of the entrepreneur?

Why did she / he become an entrepreneur?

The mission and vision of the social entrepreneur drive the entrepreneurial activity.

Austin et al., 2006; Marshall, 2011; Bhutiana et al., 2012; Ruebottem, 2013; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2015)

What is the perceived difference between social and conventional entrepreneurship?

Definition by Social Enterprise NL:

Impact first vs. Profit first as the most important difference.

Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Council & Toze, 2012; Garay & Font, 2012; Austin et al., 2006; Zahra et al., 2009.

What is the entrepreneur’s Perception of competition? Competition is viewed as non-threatening but important to consider. Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934; Hotelling, 1990; Austin et al.,2006; Hemingway, 2005; Huysentruyt, Stephan and Vujic, 2015.

According to the entrepreneur, can the social aspect be limiting

For the social entrepreneur, being

Bornstein, 2004; MacMillan, 2005; Dees et al., 2004;

(27)

27 to the profitability of the

company?

socially responsible can be a tradeoff with profitability.

Austin et al., 2006; Garay & Font, 2012; Council & Toze, 2012; Bhide & Stevenson, 1990.

Table 1: Overview of questions and propositions derived from literature.

4. Data Analysis

In this data analysis the findings from the interviews are shown in relation to the leading questions, as mentioned in the previous chapter. Therefore, the research relies on the theoretical framework of existing explanations of the meaning of social entrepreneurship, as mentioned in the literature review. Those are essential for the general strategy of the analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Nevertheless, the research has an exploratory nature. Since there is not one overarching paradigm for the field of social entrepreneurship, the research will be contrasted to leading theories and papers in order to put the findings into context. Suggestions for future research will be made for findings that do not sufficiently fit with current theories and are outside the scope of this thesis. Those will be found in the discussion section. The findings for the four leading questions will be discussed separately from each other in the analysis below.

4.2 Sample

All five social entrepreneurs can be considered successful entrepreneurs in a way that they managed to set up their company and make it thrive. The companies all have a minimum revenue of 100.000 euro a year. The age differed from 25 to 60 years old. The entrepreneurs were picked to fit a leading definition of social entrepreneurship, as put forward by Social Enterprise NL. All businesses of which the CEO is interviewed were verified by Social Enterprise NL as being a social enterprise. Through the interviews with the CEOs, this paper aims to give

(28)

28 insight in the perception of the social entrepreneur her or himself and show how this perception fits or does not fit into the theoretical framework. Then the perceptions of the different entrepreneurs will be contrasted to each other in order to be able to answer the main research question of the paper.

As the participants in the interview is promised to be unidentifiable in the research, not much information about the companies and persons can be given.

- John, CEO of Roomforyou, has a company of 100+ employees and is active in the sector of renting out office and event space.

- Harry, CEO of Sharethechair, has a company of 30+ employees and is active in the sector for renovation of furniture.

- Victor, CEO of Yourmedia has a company of over 10 employees and is active in sector for media and journalism.

- Maddy is CEO of Bionatural and has a company of 3 employees, active in the sector for biological / natural / organic food.

- Anny is CEO of Work&Learn, has a company of over 1100 employees and is active in various sectors regarding (re)integration of people on the job market.

4.3 What are the mission and vision of the entrepreneur?

Proposition 1: The mission and vision of the social entrepreneur drive the entrepreneurial activity.

Naturally, the mission and vision of an entrepreneur are dependent on the sector in which she or he is active. Nevertheless, according the Austin et al. (2006) and Ruebottom (2013), the nature of the vision, being internal or external to the company, being value driven or profit

(29)

29 driven, local or international, and so on, says a lot about the motives of the entrepreneur. The first person to be interviewed was John, CEO of RoomforYou. He shows how their mission is not bound to monetary values but to strong beliefs of what should happen to facilitate change. He said:

“We build places where people can connect. We do that in a way everyone can join.

That way, we attract a big mash of people. A group of people that loosely connect to

each other, whom we connect in an easy way. That ‘motor’ makes room for new

projects and new groups of people.”

Later he added,

“We foresee a new world, without sounding to revolutionary, that is foreseen from a

new economy that’s on its way. A new playing field in which everyone can play. A new

society that functions in a completely different way that our current society. We try to

build places to facilitate this new society.”

His mission and vision are clearly intertwined. They resemble an intangible mission, of facilitating societal change and are not linked to the well-being of the company. The mission and vision are external to the company itself. The company is merely seen as a tool to accomplish something else. Which fits with something he said later on:

“I hope that in the future, we will not have a right to exist anymore, because the rest of

the world came up with EVEN better solutions, so we don’t have to exist anymore.”

John also said his drive for becoming an entrepreneur was value creation, relating to bringing people together he said:

(30)

30

“I always had a strong interest in what moves people, what drives people and social

groups. Social interaction works and I always loved to be an entrepreneur because I

think entrepreneurs can create value in the fastest way you can imagine. I become very

happy from creating value. Developing new things.”

The second exemplar finding came from Harry, CEO of Sharethechair. Harry was ambiguous about his vision, being both commercial and social. The vision had little to do with the sector in which his company was active and focused more on the people he employed. He said:

“Well, once there was a journalist that said.. eehhm… Harry and Sharethechair give

furniture and people a second chance. That is exactly what I want to accomplish with my company (…) We consciously hire people with an allowance, re-integration or

whatever. I could have gone to Randstad to hire someone but I want to help people

that already are disadvantaged.”

When asked once more what truly was his long-term vision he answered:

“That’s in the essence of fellow people, so to say. Those crave stability and have a very

instable social life and have a handicap or psychological background. (…) It is also

essential for being commercial enough to get orders of customers. Because.. eehhmm…

when I help today but cannot help tomorrow, I don’t want to. That does not add

anything for me.”

For Harry, as for John, his mission and vision seem intertwined. Harry’s mission is tangible in a sense he wants to help people whom have a disadvantage in society, reflecting research done by Seelos & Mair (2005). It has very little to do with the sector in which his company is active and could in theory be realized with various different kinds of companies as well. This

(31)

31 indicates he started the company with this vision in mind. However the vision of his company came after he started it.

“I started especially because my employer (…) hired others to tell me how I should do

my work. After 8 years in the sector, being successful. When there was a new director I

thought to myself, well, what to do now. Then I said I would quit and rather start for myself.”

His vision therewith was not leading for the start of the company but came later on. The third data exemplar came from Victor, CEO of Yourmedia. Victor showed a clear link between his mission, vision and the sector in which he was active. The external mission of bringing back researchjournalism was internalized through the vision. Victor:

“The vision is that we want to do as much researchjournalism as we can, for and by the

crowd. The mission is that we… I believe that researchjournalism is the lifeline of a

healthy democracy. Without good searching work of journalists, people don’t know

they don’t know things. The more people don’t know things, the harder it gets to

understand how our society functions and base decisions on this knowledge.(…) I

believe that journalism is absolutely essential for a healthy society. The fact that old

business models, advertising models, subscription revenues for newspapers still make

this old kind of journalism shows that pure researchjournalism is not made anymore.

We try to bring that back.”

To the question of why he became an entrepreneur he answered:

“Before Yourmedia I was involved in another business, a startup in elderly care. What I

find fascinating form becoming an entrepreneur is that nothing is set in stone. (…) What

(32)

32

people. You’re busy with ‘how can I make something awesome’ instead of ‘how should

I work according to my boss’. That freedom is something I like.”

Victor shows a clear link between his company and his mission & vision but that was not is main motivation for starting the company. The goal is tangible and different from Harry’s and John’s goal in that is can only be realized through the sector in which he is active. Again, his vision and mission do not show indicators of a profit driven business but refer to the societal need for researchjournalism. Note that this does not mean the company is not profit driven, as we will see later on in this chapter. The fourth data exemplar was Maddy, CEO of Bionatural. On the question to what her mission and vision were for the company she stated:

“Yes… mission… we have a slogan saying… Love Life, Go Organic. So Biological I mean.

That is especially because I think it is good for you but also is healthier for the planet,

the earth. It has a good impact. It is healthier and for sure has more flavor! (…) I find it

to be important how you treat other people and other things. I want to show that in

my company. Help people, open doors for people that are disadvantaged (…) I had a

chance, it is on me what I do with that chance. But there are people who didn’t have

my chances, are sick or anything alike, and therefore cannot work. I find it to be

important to give those people a chance. (…) That works out pretty good. I like it a lot

to guide those people.”

Maddy’s vision is unclear but intertwined in her mission, which exists of making people and the earth healthier on the one hand and helping people whom are disadvantaged in society to participate. Like Harry, part of her mission has no direct link to her company’s sector but

(33)

33 comes forth through a set of personal values and beliefs. However, also for Maddy, the mission and vision were not why she started the company. She stated:

“Well… I don’t know if fit was a conscious choice. (…) So yes… I did not think a lot, like

hé I am an entrepreneur now… I saw how people liked my products and I like to be an

entrepreneur. Selling the product, putting it on the market, being busy with

development, making something new, but also development the casing, etc. It is a very creative process and I like that.”

The last data exemplar came from Anny, CEO of Work&Learn. Anny’s vision and mission are clear. They stand for human development and accomplish that by creating the right environment for people to ‘climb the ladder’. They do so by organizing their company in a way everyone has responsibility and everyone is valuable. She stated:

“We say… our mission stands for human development.

When you really want to develop people, you have to create the right environment for

them. The organization has to pass certain requirements in order to be able to let this

concept flourish. I belief that human development will find a way when you create the

right atmosphere. (…) When you look at human development, we are more busy with…

well… which tools and other opportunities can we as an organization give to people in

order to ‘level up’ as soon as possible. We partly do that ourselves but mostly with our

new vision. By not trying to do everything yourself but instead have professionals,

A-brands, big companies, so companies from outside work together with us! I don’t have

to do everything on my own. But when we do it ourselves, we also have to get expertise

(34)

34 Later she added:

“So I am not a hierarchical leader that constantly says: this is your role, that is your role

and I have this one. But I look how I can divide responsibilities in a way everyone knows

intuitively what to do in order to contribute to the common vision. That means you have

to accept failures, and give people the opportunity to participate in the formation and development of the company.”

Anny matches the vision and mission of the company with the sectors in which the company is active. However, they do not have a particular link with the sectors in which they are active, and could be realized in any other sector of the market. Anny realizes that the mission of the company was not bound to the sectors in which they operated. The company therewith is a means to an end. The reason she started her entrepreneurial activity with this firm is complicated. She was asked to do so by two outside parties and agreed to do it as is reflected her personal beliefs. We will see further in the analysis that Anny thinks societal value creation is not more important than profitability. Table 2 shows an overview of the findings. As seen, the findings are not all consistent with the propositions derived from the literature. In the discussion section there will be elaborated on the implications of the findings.

Interviewee: Proposition: ‘The mission and vision

of the social entrepreneur drive the entrepreneurial activity.’

Key Points:

John True  Always interested in

(35)

35  Fast value creation

Harry False  Wanted something

different from old job

Victor False  Likes the freedom and that

nothing is set in stone

Maddy False  Likes being creative

 Likes the entrepreneurial process

Anny True  Started out of convinced

match with personal beliefs.

Table 2: Overview of research findings on proposition 1.

4.4 What is the perceived difference between social and conventional entrepreneurship?

Proposition 2: Impact first vs. Profit first as the most important difference between conventional and social entrepreneurship.

The question asked here is purposely a very open-ended question on which various answers are to be expected. However, as the companies are identified as ‘impact first’ companies by Social Enterprise NL, the answers were expected to be somewhat similar. However, the literature review about the topic showed an inconclusive answer. The original definition of Impact first ( for social entrepreneurs ) and profit first ( for conventional entrepreneurs ) did not seem to hold for many academics including Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Council & Toze, 2012; Garay & Font, 2012; Austin et al., 2006 and Zahra et al., 2009. Whether the practical implication of the question is as ambiguous will be shown below. John argued the following:

(36)

36

“I think the most important difference is that our entrepreneurial activities are vision

oriented. We don’t just see a gap in the market and step into it.

(…) We try to build places to facilitate this new society. I think that makes us different.

Many companies are missing that. Those are busy doing what they are doing. For us it

is not to important what we do. It is important to keep the ecosystem alive but it is

more about what we really want to accomplish. That we can realize our vision. I think

that is a big difference.”

You read that for John the biggest difference is not Impact vs. profits but vision oriented entrepreneurial activity. He argues conventional enterprises do not act from a vision but just do something. Later in the interview the question was asked what he thought about CSR activities of conventional companies. He replied:

“(…) at some point, CSR is hardcoded in a company. Unilever has 1 person on CSR… in

the future that will not be the case, then every person at Unilever has CSR hardcoded

in them. In the whole social system. So then you are going to differentiate on other

things. The social aspect will just be ‘part’ of every company.”

He implies that CSR is a good phenomenon that will naturally lead to a more responsible company. Therewith, his view reflects that of Lindgreen & Swaen (2010) and Council & Toze (2012). He does not talk at all about the difference between profit and impact first oriented companies. Harry had a slightly different opinion from John. Next to the vision of the board of directors of a company, Harry saw a big difference to be if a company I quote: “just acts social”. Harry said:

(37)

37

“Well, that is eehhmm…. The vision and the mentality of the board of directors or owner

of the company. How he or she wants to be social. That’s where you should start. Not

with the employees of the company, how those can be social… but I think that as a

company you just have to show that: we are a social enterprise, and that is how you

should act so to say.”

It is clear that Harry does not have a very dominant opinion on the difference between the two kinds of enterprises. However he does address the importance of the owners vision again, which is in accordance with John. Harry does not specifically mention the difference to be the making of societal impact. It is not clear if he does think it to be a difference or not. Victor also did not see impact first vs. profit making first, to be a difference between social and conventional enterprises. He also didn’t seek it to be the vision of the entrepreneur. Victor said:

“Well… the line between then gets thinner and thinner. More conventional businesses

gain a greater societal consciousness. I think the most important difference is that this

kind of companies (he means social enterprises), are consciously busy with this

principle. People that start a socially involved company you can make a divide between

people that are very idealistic but do not know how to found a company and people

that are very commercially minded but find it more exciting to be socially involved. I

think the difference between those is very small if the latter kind of people is very small.

I think there is almost no difference between a good group of people in a social

(38)

38 Victor has a very different opinion as John and Harry. As you read, he thinks there is almost no practical difference between a social and a conventional enterprise as long as there is a good group of people involved. Therewith, his view is much in line with that of Lindgreen & Swaen, (2010) and Council & Toze, (2012). Maddy had again a different view on the matter, saying:

“A social enterprise is in my eyes a business that contributes to the prosperity…

prosperity of people, whom, like I see it… stimulate others to get the best out of themselves and improve their lives. And also, not only cares about profits.”

Maddy does not talk about the importance of the vision for a social enterprise. She thinks the main difference is in the way a company contributes to the prosperity of people. Therewith, she takes a broad definition of a social enterprise that could still be coherent with the broad view of social entrepreneurship as described by Fowler (2000) and Martin & Osberg (2007). Especially since she shows that profits are also important for a social enterprise, not necessarily less important than social values. The last interviewee, Anny, looks at social firms as being to ‘hippie’. They should bring more rational thought into their business. The main difference with conventional companies is that they are too rational. They should listen more to their feelings. She said:

“You have career makers and lawyers. Those go for money and the hard world. The

‘rational’ people, whom say, alright, this is our live. They do not feel. They have kind of

eliminated that feeling. Those are professional, conventional companies. When those

are dying, they say, oohh… I wish I hadn’t worked so hard and did something more with

(39)

39

And you have hippies, whom do not come to a scalable, practical form of a business,

they act completely on a feeling. Those are businesses you cannot get functional, you

cannot get concrete. Well… if you combine the two worlds, then whom is going to be

the new man? The one whom is going to combine the rational aspect and the feelings.

Maybe I shout compare it like that… Old school social firms have to transform in

something more business-like. Something everybody can say of, oh, alright… that is

quick-witted and it works and has a good format. And the conventional enterprise should bring more feeling into business. They have to trust their intuition more.”

Anny also explained she does not think social enterprises are necessarily better than conventional businesses. She thinks there is a golden middle path, one she tries to walk on. This ‘meet me halfway’ mentality is comparable to John’s and in agreement with views by Garay & Font (2012), whom say the intention is irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Anny thinks impact first vs. profit first has little to do with the distinction. The center of the problem, according to her, is in the mindset of the companies. When conventional companies bring more feeling, more intuition, into business, she thinks they will naturally get more socially responsible. Contrary, she thinks that traditional social firms should become more business oriented. Neither vision nor impact were of her concern in defining the difference between conventional and social firms. In table 3 you will find a summary of the results accompanying this proposition.

(40)

40

Interviewee: Proposition:

Impact first vs. Profit first as the most important difference between social and conventional businesses.

Key points:

John FALSE  Vision of the

entrepreneur

Harry FALSE  Vision

 It is unclear about

the exact

difference.

Victor FALSE  There is almost no

difference

Maddy FALSE  Bringing Prosperity

to people

 Not only caring about profits.

Anny FALSE  Feelings vs.

Rational thought

Table 3: Overview of the research findings on proposition 2.

4.5 What is the entrepreneur’s perception of competition?

(41)

41 The latest research by Huysentruyt, Stephan and Vujic (2015) showed social entrepreneurs to not be motivated by competition. This question in itself is therefore not exploratory, but rather confirming or the research done by Huysentruyt, Stephan and Vujic. Nevertheless, it serves the exploratory nature of this thesis to ask the question, as the reason why social entrepreneurs are not motivated by competition is not explained by Huysentruyt, Stephan and Vujic. This is deemed important to gain a deeper insight into what it means to be a social entrepreneur in different sectors of the market, looking through the eyes of the entrepreneur her or himself. Also Hotelling, (1990); Austin et al., (2006) and Hemingway, (2005) implied social entrepreneurs to view competition as important to consider but non-threatening. This section aims to give a deeper insight into the perception of the entrepreneur. John was very clear in his perception. He reckoned there was competition but did not perceive it, as he felt he was actually doing something completely different. In a rather long but interesting quote he said:

“We experience competition simple through our business model. Many companies offer

office and event space. There are many companies that do it but the market is also

really big.

With our marketing model and our vision that is shown in that model, we don’t feel too

much competition. In the end… it never feels like competition because we are doing

something very different. The office space is something we simply do... We have to sell

them in order to keep revenue streams going, in order to keep everything alive.

I understand the instrument of competition. It is important to keep everybody sharp.

Without competition you get lazy. But on the other hand, I would rather keep working