Heading Toward a More Social Future? Scenarios for Social Enterprises in Germany

Abstract

In recent years, the public sector in many countries has had difficulty keeping abreast of social problems due to restricted financial resources and limited organizational capacities. As a consequence, entrepreneurs have started to address social welfare issues that the public sector has been unable to tackle with an innovative approach called social enterprise. The authors present research on the future prospects of social enterprise as a sustainable business model for industrialized countries. As there is a lack of historical and current data, the authors aim to contribute to and structure the debate about the potential of the concept. Therefore, the authors provide initial data from a Delphi survey on the future development of social enterprise in a multistakeholder environment. Experts from academia, business, nongovernmental and governmental organizations, social enterprise investors, and social entrepreneurs evaluated 16 projections for the year 2030. Based on these results, the authors present comprehensive scenarios of four different possible developments of the future of social enterprise in Germany.

Keywords

social enterprise social entrepreneurship Delphi survey futures studies scenarios

Over the past years, industrialized economies have had to cope with a range of social issues, such as those associated with changing demographics, high unemployment rates, or deficient education systems. Entrepreneurship has started to support issues and offer innovative and sustainable solutions to social problems that were previously in the purview of the public sector (Thompson, 2002; Wood, 2000). Even many traditional corporations now engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Researchers have investigated the effect of corporate social endeavors on stock returns (Brammer, Brooks, & Pavelin, 2006) and have found that CSR is not only beneficial for the public but also for the financial performance of the corporation itself (van Beurden & Gössling, 2008). This research reveals a growing awareness for social problem solving through entrepreneurial means.

Today, using entrepreneurial strategies to tackle social issues has evolved as a distinct organizational form: social enterprise.¹ Numerous academic contributions have focused on social enterprise as a new and innovative form of business, for example, by introducing conceptions of social enterprise, applying existing constructs to it, or comparing social enterprise concepts across different countries (see Mair & Marti, 2006, for a review).

Although several contributions examine the phenomenon in Germany (Achleitner, Pöllath, & Stahl, 2007; Fueglistaller, Müller, & Volery, 2004), most of those contributions present exemplary case studies and do not offer firsthand empirical data. While several authors praise social enterprise as an innovative concept with great potential (Nicholls, 2006; Yunus, 2010), they do not use an established methodology to examine the future development of social enterprise as a business concept more intensely. This article addresses this research gap by presenting initial data from a survey of experts, conducted in Germany, on the future development of social enterprise. The analytical evaluation of empirical data for the German case is therefore one of the contributions of this article. Based on this information, the authors develop futures scenarios for social enterprise for the year 2030.

The institutional environment plays an important role in establishing social enterprise as a concept (Klein, Mahoney, McGahan, & Pitelis, 2010). The scenario approach appears to be most advantageous to analyze possible legal, social, and institutional developments as it includes a wide range of environmental conditions (Swart, Raskin, & Robinson, 2004). As the development of scenarios requires an iterative and sequential process to determine perceptions of social change, the authors conducted a Delphi survey beforehand. The Delphi methodology is a structured survey process applied to foresight and long-term analysis, such as scenario analysis (Landeta, 2006; Linstone & Turoff, 2011). We consulted a panel of experts from different backgrounds to capture a broad and differentiated perspective of the future of social enterprise in Germany.

Our results show a lively discussion among experts about how the future of social enterprise might evolve. As (almost) no consensus was achieved about “one” possible future, we developed four different “futures scenarios” and identified minimum requirements for a broad-scale development of social enterprise in Germany. The results demonstrate that the first scenario, State Capitalism, is not a conducive environment for social enterprise. In the second and third scenarios, Laissez Faire Consumerism and Sustainable State Governance, social enterprise is possible; however, these environments present various challenges in achieving it. Sustainable Laissez Faire, the fourth scenario, is the most supportive context for social enterprise.

By presenting scenarios, the article sheds light on the paths that could lead to the emergence of social enterprise in Germany, and thus the enactment of positive social change. Before presenting these results in more detail, we provide a short review of the literature and present our methodological procedure.

Social Enterprise in the German Context

Since the first usage of the terms “social entrepreneur,” “social entrepreneurship,” and “social enterprise” in the 1990s, these terms have been used almost interchangeably (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). However, over the past few years, the literature has started to define more detailed notions of the concepts, based on North American or West European understandings and definitions (see Defourny & Nyssens, 2008; Kerlin, 2010, for an overview). The U.S.-based understanding refers to individual accomplishments of highly innovative social activists operating in the market economy (Kerlin, 2010). In contrast, in Europe social enterprise is viewed as an organizational form that belongs to the “social economy” where social benefit is the main driving force (Kerlin, 2006). For the purpose of our research, the authors define social enterprises as “businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners” (Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], 2002, p. 1). This definition by the U.K. government is largely adopted by European scholars and denotes an institutionalized form of business with social aims (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008).

Social enterprise policies have resulted in a plethora of organizational forms that now characterize the nonprofit sector in European member states (Lindsay & Hems, 2004). The role, function, and design of social enterprise depend on the national context in which it is implemented. However, the social enterprise literature largely lacks explanations on the kinds of regional differences and how the socioeconomic context plays a role in social enterprise variations (Kerlin, 2010).

Initial European academic contributions regarding social enterprise studied national contexts in which the concept already existed as a distinct legal form, namely, the “impresa sociale” in Italy (Borzaga & Fazzi, 2010), the “Community Interest Company” in the United Kingdom (Nicholls, 2010), and the “Sociétés Coopératives d’Intérét Collectif” in France (Lindsay & Hems, 2004). Portugal, Belgium, Spain, and Greece created new legal innovations to support and organize social entrepreneurial projects (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). In all of these European countries, including Germany, social enterprise emerged as a reaction to weak governmental social programs or low social program funding, due either to other priorities or poor organizational structures and functioning of the government (Kerlin, 2010; Spear, Cornforth, & Aiken, 2009).

However, Germany is one of the few European countries where the social enterprise phenomenon, although it exists in practice, is not part of the political agenda or academic discourse outside a very small circle of experts (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). The absence of a political movement for social enterprise in Germany has hindered the establishment of the concept, in contrast to, for example, former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “New Labor” policies in the United Kingdom that actively supported social enterprise (Butterwegge, 2006). Defourny and Nyssens (2008) assumed that this situation is connected to the German socioeconomic model, which is based on “a social partnership agreement of the concept ‘social market economy,’ understood as a specific articulation between the market and the state to foster socio-economic development” (p. 207). Likewise, Germany’s governmental social policies and the cultural awareness of its citizens differ from other European countries: the country has a “large government character” (Christopher, 1995). A broad consensus prevails that primarily the government is responsible for protecting citizens from social downfall and providing those in need with social welfare support (Butterwegge, 2006).

Consequently, the German social sector can be characterized by a relatively closed market structure, corporatist routines, as well as close interconnection between administrative departments and established, contracted providers (Heinze, Schneiders, & Grohs, 2011). Social enterprises in Europe, therefore, face a more competitive environment and often encounter regulatory obstacles (Oldenburg, 2011) compared with their counterparts in developing countries. Frequently, lobbying activities of established public agencies discriminate against new competitors in the social service sector (Heinze et al., 2011). Germany also lacks specific incorporation forms conducive to social enterprises. Founders often adopt standard cooperative forms and combine these with nonprofit legal forms (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008). As socially oriented organizations today often rely on quasi-public resources as part of their financing concept (Bode, Evers, & Schulz, 2006), the absence of broad-scale government support for social enterprise has been a considerable challenge.

Notwithstanding these practical challenges, social enterprises have the potential to contribute considerably to Germany’s social well-being. Mancino and Thomas (2005) argued that the concept is of increasing relevance because social enterprises could provide higher levels of social efficiency, not only to customers or beneficiaries but also to society as a whole. The composition and implementation of social enterprise models is expected to exert a positive influence on prospective societal conditions (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Nicholls, 2006).

The new roles and forms assumed by organizations in the welfare sectors of Western countries are increasingly of an entrepreneurial nature and are geared toward the provision of services (Borzaga & Fazzi, 2010). This tendency is also prevalent in Germany where government has been playing a more active role in supporting civil engagement and individual responsibility (Bode et al., 2006; Butterwegge, 2006) for over two decades. This development has mainly been driven by Germany’s increasing government expenditure and stagnating tax revenues that, in combination with demographic trends, led to increasing demand for novel solutions (Christensen, Doblhammer, Rau, & Vaupel, 2009; Farnsworth & Irving, 2011). In addition, social enterprise can help to empower people who are marginalized by government or charity institutions’ distributive logic, which frequently leads to dependence rather than empowerment of people in need (Mulgan, 2006).

However, whether and to what degree social enterprise will be legitimized and established in Germany depends considerably on how markets, civil society, and the government will interact in the future (Kerlin, 2010). This tripartite view is also reflected by Bagnoli and Megali (2011), who considered economic-financial performance, social effectiveness, and institutional legitimacy as the main reference fields of social enterprise. Given the potential positive contributions of social enterprise, it is relevant to examine how the concept may become an important part of German social policy. As Borzaga and Fazzi (2010) indicated, more research is necessary to avoid the risk of not benefiting from social (and other) policies, which could occur if the potential of social enterprise is underestimated. In this article, the authors therefore address the following research question:

Research Question 1: Under which economic, political, and societal conditions will social enterprise evolve in Germany as a distinct approach for addressing social challenges?

Although an analytical or statistical examination of the potential future role of social enterprise has not yet been carried out, some literary contributions have developed perspectives from reviews and other observations. In his books, Yunus addressed the future role of social enterprise in diverse countries (Yunus, 2010; Yunus & Weber, 2007). Leadbeater (2007) approached the topic of futures scenarios for social enterprises in the United Kingdom on a conceptual basis. He proposed four scenarios in a white paper for the British government. Furthermore, Nicholls’ (2007) “think piece” discussed the future of social enterprise in ethical markets and applied a social chain model as an analytical device to explore a range of new opportunities for social enterprise in the United Kingdom. These ideas of imaginable futures scenarios provide an important initial step in developing a theory-based foundation for the design of empirical studies.

As this study strived for an understanding of the concept in the German national context, the authors considered the scenario approach to be most appropriate to investigate industrial, legal, economic, and institutional environments (Swart et al., 2004). The construction of scenarios is one acknowledged technique to deepen the understanding and reduce the uncertainty of far-future events (van der Heijden, 2005). Rikkonen, Kaivo-oja, and Aakkula (2006) and Nowack, Endrikat, and Guenther (2011) demonstrated how Delphi panel data and scenario planning can be used in strategic decision making to broaden the knowledge base. Those authors discussed the feasibility of scenario construction and explicitly suggested the utilization of Delphi panel results for the development of policy programs and visions.

In conducting the Delphi study at hand, we targeted at identifying the potential range of opportunities for social enterprise in Germany by evaluating a set of future projections. Even though these projections also contained social and political issues, we mainly focused them on business aspects. This focus is of particular importance because social enterprises are generally associated with communities characterized by limited access to resources (Di Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010). Before presenting the projections, we introduce our methodological approach, including the Delphi procedure, sampling rationale, and the scenario-axes technique, which provide the basis for scenario development.

Method

The Delphi method attempts systematically to develop aggregated expert opinion about future developments which are formulated as projections. Delphi is a judgmental forecasting procedure in the form of an anonymous, written, multistage survey process (Rowe & Wright, 2001). As emphasized by leading scholars in the field of strategic foresight, Delphi has proven to be a reliable instrument especially for foresight research, or tackling highly complex issues, and situations with high uncertainty (Rowe & Wright, 1999). Delphi is most frequently applied in the field of social policy (McKenna, 1994). Furthermore, as a futures-oriented method, Delphi appears to be an appropriate tool to research economic, political, and societal conditions in a field that is still evolving, such as social enterprise.

Delphi Survey

The authors conducted an online Delphi survey (Gordon & Pease, 2006) in Germany with 68 social enterprise experts from different backgrounds. They were asked to assess 16 projections about potential developments in the social enterprise sector until 2030. This planning horizon of nearly 20 years was chosen to distance participants from planned and fixed decisions.

Initially, the authors conducted desk research and three creative workshops with academics from business and futures research, as well as professionals from business practice, to identify influencing factors regarding the concept of social enterprise in Germany.² In the course of the third workshop, academics evaluated and categorized the gathered data to develop a set of projections. Out of the initial list of 42 projections, a set of 16 mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive projections were finally chosen (see Table 1). These projections were checked for specificity and preciseness and their formulation was further refined for clarity to ensure that conditional statements were avoided (Salancik, Wenger, & Helfer, 1971).

Table 1.

Delphi Projections.

Delphi projections for the future of social enterprise 2030
Projection number and title	Short title
01. Social enterprises are intense competitors of traditional for-profit enterprises.	Competitiveness
02. Social enterprise investors solely invest in projects with the highest social impact.	Investors’ investment behavior
03. Many firms actively pursue social enterprise activities to encourage employee identification with their own enterprise and products.	Employee identification
04. The discipline of social enterprise has become a core element of training offerings.	Education and training
05. Social enterprise activities have only occurred countercyclical to economic growth.	Countercyclical tendency
06. Through their buying behavior, consumers express their expectations of enterprises concerning their social enterprise endeavors.	Consumers’ buying behavior
07. Continuous difficulties in implementing principles of financial sustainability have caused social enterprises to be at risk.	Profitability/survival
08. Social enterprise could only be established in certain industries (i.e., health care, social services).	Industry sectors
09. Numerous consumers are now willing to pay more for products and services from social enterprises.	Consumers’ willingness to pay
10. Special standards (i.e., audits, governance codes, and legal forms) have been established in social enterprise.	Establishment of standards
11. With the increasing life expectancy of social enterprises, classical profit orientation has priority over social return-on-investment.	Shifts in motivation
12. Social enterprise has contributed considerably to stabilizing the global economy.	Economic stabilization
13. The importance of material aspects of welfare has decreased in society due to social enterprise.	Change in values
14. Social enterprise has led to a stronger regional orientation of the economy.	Regionalization of the economy
15. Social enterprise has made a fundamental contribution to achieving climate targets (reduction of CO₂ emissions).	Reduction of CO₂ emission
16. Social problems have been greatly reduced through social enterprise.	Social problem-solving potential

Subsequently, the authors composed a panel of social enterprise experts for participation in the Delphi survey. To capture the opinions of all stakeholders in Germany’s social enterprise community, we defined five different groups with designated valuable knowledge about social enterprise in Germany: academia, nongovernmental and governmental agencies, social enterprise investors, social enterprise entrepreneurs, and traditional for-profit companies. We integrated these diverse experts to include critical voices and to reduce potential positive biases in the results (Hill & Fowles, 1975). Moreover, we wanted to achieve a multifaceted view of the future. All of the participants were directly or indirectly involved in the field and, therefore, share an interest in its future development. Comparative studies have not found a consistent relationship between panel size and effectiveness criteria (see Rowe & Wright, 1999). However, as a rule of thumb, the authors aimed to reach 10 to 15 participants for each of the above-mentioned stakeholder groups, leading to a total panel size of 50 to 75 participants.

Earlier literature considers a deficient selection of experts to be the most severe threat to the validity of Delphi research (Creswell, 2009; Hill & Fowles, 1975). To ensure the participants’ expertise, the authors followed three steps in our identification procedure: identifying potential experts, evaluating these experts, and finally recruiting appropriate experts. More precisely, we contacted nine German universities that engage in social enterprise education or research, and gathered information about Ashoka Social Entrepreneurs and affiliated entrepreneurs of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the authors identified social sector specialists within the four large German political parties and screened foundations whose strategy incorporates social enterprise as well as the CSR departments of the 30 DAX (German stock index) companies. We then reviewed the work and activities of potential participants and finally selected and invited 149 experts to take part in the survey.

The Delphi survey was conducted online over a 3-month time period. Each participant assessed the projections quantitatively in terms of probability of occurrence (0%-100%), the potential impact on the German economy (5-point Likert-type scale), and the desirability of occurrence (5-point Likert-type scale), as well as qualitatively with statements about his or her estimation. After each projection, experts were able to observe the estimations and arguments of other experts who had already evaluated the projections. Based on the cumulated group assessment, experts had the opportunity to continuously review and change their answers.

After closing the Delphi survey, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the Delphi results by examining the mean values of experts’ assessments for the projections’ probability of occurrence, their impact on the German economy, and their desirability to occur.

Importantly, the Delphi process was designed to allow for experts to discuss and respond to each others’ opinions. However, they do not need to come to a final agreement. Whereas the approximation of two or more diverging opinions (convergence) is an explicit aim of a Delphi study, it is neither necessary nor specifically desirable to reach a general agreement (consensus) among the experts—an often mistaken impression of many Delphi studies (Linstone & Turoff, 2011). Rather, analyses of convergence and consensus between the participants provide a means of interpretation to understand how certain or uncertain experts are with respect to the surveyed projections. The authors therefore analyzed standard deviations to examine if experts’ assessments tended to converge over the multiple rounds. To check for consensus, we calculated interquartile ranges (IQRs) of experts’ assessments and defined consensus as a state in which the IQR of experts’ assessments is smaller than or equal to 25.³ Accordingly, dissent was defined by an IQR greater than 25.

Foresight activities are generally faced with a high degree of uncertainty because they rely on human judgment, which is subject to various cognitive biases. The Delphi method is regarded as an appropriate approach to mitigate these biases and to improve judgmental accuracy (Goodwin & Wright, 2010). However, as Rowe and Wright (2001) indicated, the method may not necessarily eliminate the so-called “desirability bias,” which occurs when the desirability of a projection affects the perception of its probability (see Scott, 2001, for a review). Accordingly, a person may consider a future event to be more probable if he or she desires it to occur, and vice versa. The bias is stronger for larger time spans (Windschitl, Smith, Rose, & Krizan, 2010) and for topics that involve high emotional attachment (Ecken, Gnatzy, & von der Gracht, 2011). Assuming that experts who evaluate projections about the social future of Germany might be influenced by desirability, we used the post hoc procedure, as suggested by Ecken et al. (2011), to determine whether desirability could have biased the reported results. In cases of significant correlations between experts’ desirability and probability, we adjusted the (average) probability of occurrence of the respective projections (see Ecken et al., 2011, for details).

Scenario Development Procedure

Finally, the authors included a qualitative analysis of the arguments collected during the Delphi survey. This procedure has constantly gained importance as it aims at identifying the underlying assumptions and rationales of the experts’ ratings (Rikkonen & Tapio, 2009). Qualitative analysis was crucial because the authors aimed at developing scenarios which require a broad range of contextual and argumentative information.

The qualitative analysis consisted of two steps: First, the authors analyzed the arguments by adapting the coding procedure suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990) to the context of futures research. For the purpose of this analysis, we defined “projection codes” as labels for the central messages of each argument and applied up to three of these for each posted argument. Rather than using a predefined set of codes, two of the authors coded the data to ensure an “open inquiry” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and then compared the results. In cases of disagreement, the researchers discussed their diverging reasoning until they reached an agreement. Second, the first set of codes was grouped into “categories of projections” which were then used for the final scenario development. By way of an example, Figure 1 demonstrates how the analysis was performed.

Figure 1.

Coding procedure.

After the categorizing procedure, the authors counted how often each projection category appeared in the data and extracted the most frequently stated categories. We eliminated those that were used excessively for one single projection rather than being distributed along a range of projections. Thereby, we aimed to reduce possible distortions, which result from very specific projection categories and overweigh their subject matter.⁴ In total, the authors eliminated 10 of these specific categories (marked in italics in Table 4).

The remaining categories were used to derive futures scenarios. To construct scenarios as systematically as possible, we used the scenario-axes technique—an approach first propagated in the context of Shell’s foresight activities (van der Heijden, 2005). Other prominent examples include the “Energy Policy Scenarios to 2050” by the World Energy Council (Schiffer, 2008) and the World Economic Forum’s (WEF; 2009) study “The Future of the Global Financial System.” Scenario axes have proven to be a successful approach for structured thinking, as they support the coherent construction of scenarios fields and the achievement of high validity (van’t Klooster & van Asselt, 2006). The basic principle of the technique is to identify the two most important driving forces that strongly impact the future of a region, subject, company, or other entity. These driving forces are plotted on two axes, creating four scenario quadrants that represent four different perspectives of the future (van’t Klooster & van Asselt, 2006). We considered the scenarios to be plausible, meaning that even extreme events in each scenario remain within the realm of possibility. The authors assigned the remaining 30 most common projection categories to one or two appropriate quadrants of the matrix to further substantiate the scenarios.

Research Results

To recruit the panel for this Delphi survey, the authors approached 149 social enterprise experts, of whom 68 agreed to participate.⁵ The participants continuously reevaluated their responses in the Delphi survey by considering the aggregated panel opinion and the posted arguments. On average, experts reentered the online survey 2.6 times. In the course of the survey, participants posted 1,125 qualitative arguments in addition to quantitative estimations, which amounted to an average of 16.5 posted arguments per expert. Thus, participants used the opportunity to explain and support their assessments of the projections regarding the expected probability, impact on the German economy, and desirability of occurrence. The even distribution of arguments across all projections indicates that experts did not become fatigued while assessing the projections, which could have biased the results.

Delphi Statistics

The survey results indicate a remarkable degree of uncertainty and disagreement among experts regarding the future establishment of social enterprise in Germany (see Table 2). However, the participants reached consensus on 2 of the 16 projections. First, there is mutual understanding between the experts that certain standards for social enterprise will be established within the next two decades (Projection 10, IQR = 20.0). Furthermore, experts view social enterprise as merely a regional rather than a national phenomenon (Projection 14, IQR = 20.5). For the remaining 14 projections, the results demonstrate weak or even strong dissent.

Table 2.

Delphi Statistics.

	Final Delphi result (n = 68)
Projection number and short title	IQR	EP	SD	EP change	SD change in %	I	D
01. Competitiveness	30.00	38.47	24.31	−2.79	−3.89	2.74	3.69
02. Investors’ investment behavior	41.25	51.49	25.54	0.69	−2.25	2.79	3.15
03. Employee identification	27.50	69.51	21.16	1.07	−1.33	3.49	4.12
04. Education and training	30.75	64.72	22.62	5.39	−9.80	3.72	4.63
05. Countercyclical tendency	31.25	27.63	19.00	−10.48	−16.65	2.81	2.16
06. Consumers’ buying behavior	40.00	58.76	24.87	0.38	−1.28	3.65	4.34
07. Profitability/survival	30.00	37.79	23.20	−0.58	−8.79	2.72	1.37
08. Industry sectors	36.25	53.21	23.07	8.00	−8.21	3.15	2.09
09. Consumers’ willingness to pay	41.25	51.46	25.97	−0.28	−1.38	3.37	4.19
10. Establishment of standards	20.00	74.21	20.11	2.60	−3.73	3.59	4.32
11. Shifts in motivation	30.00	35.15	21.82	−9.64	−9.26	2.81	1.65
12. Economic stabilization	41.25	37.63	25.38	1.39	2.35	2.93	4.37
13. Change in values	31.25	41.54	24.10	−1.05	−4.21	3.18	4.07
14. Regionalization of the economy	20.50	40.71	19.91	−2.81	−7.74	3.03	3.51
15. Reduction of CO₂ emission	30.00	33.29	21.06	−7.89	−7.84	2.93	4.51
16. Social problem-solving potential	31.25	55.72	22.72	0.53	−5.72	3.24	4.84

Note. Italic EP numbers indicate that consensus among experts was achieved, that is, an IQR of maximum 25. IQR = interquartile range; EP = probability of occurrence (0%-100%); SD = standard deviation; I = impact (5-point Likert-type scale; 5 = very high); D = desirability (5-point Likert-type scale; 5 = very high).

Disagreement (dissent) among experts in Delphi studies is a common phenomenon. According to Scheibe, Skutsch, and Schofer (1975), many issues are too multifaceted to achieve true consensus among experts within a Delphi survey. A critical study even completely abandons the rationale of consensus (Tapio, 2003). Other researchers like van de Linde and van der Duin (2011) found the Delphi approach particularly suited for differences in opinions (dissent). This finding is in line with that of Turoff (1975), who stated with regard to Policy Delphi studies that researchers must seek to expose and elaborate on dissent whenever it arises. The authors of this study would also like to point out that we do not claim (nor do other Delphi studies) that our group of experts is representative for the German population. Instead, the validity of Delphi studies is ensured by an elaborate and reasonable selection of experts (Creswell, 2009; Hill & Fowles, 1975). Supporting expert-based approaches, Rowe and Wright (1999) found that selected Delphi groups are somewhat more accurate than statistical groups in forecasting.

Table 2 summarizes the relevant Delphi statistics. The projections which present the highest expected probability of occurrence include the following: Projection 10 “establishment of standards” (74.2%), Projection 3 “employee identification” (69.5%), and Projection 4 “education and training” (64.7%). In other words, experts expect that in 2030, social enterprise will be standardized, strongly socially expected by employees, and implemented in education schemes. By reaching impact values of 3.7 and 3.6, the projections concerning employee identification and education are also considered to be highly influential. In addition, experts consider Projection 6 “consumers’ buying behavior” (3.7) to have high impact. Thus, it will be crucial whether consumers create a supportive environment for social enterprises by buying their products and services.

As described above, convergence is an indicator for a functioning interactive discussion among the Delphi panelists (Landeta & Barrutia, 2011; Turoff, 1975). For 15 of the 16 projections, the expected probabilities present a decrease of the standard deviation between the first and the final round of the assessment, and therefore indicate a convergence in experts’ opinions.⁶ Participants strongly adapted their initially diverse assessments to the group opinion in the course of the Delphi study.

As expected, experts show strong support for the establishment of social enterprise in Germany. The results demonstrate that all projections which are formulated toward a general establishment of social enterprise in Germany to be highly desirable. Experts are particularly hopeful of achieving a more stable world economy and better solutions to social problems through the establishment social enterprise. Projection 12 “economic stabilization” (D = 4.4) and Projection 16 “social problem-solving potential” (D = 4.8) are therefore considered to be highly desirable.

Desirability Bias Investigation

Using a 99% confidence level (p < .01), we identified a significant effect of desirability on probability for 6 of the 16 projections. The results in Table 3 demonstrate that the assigned probabilities for these 6 projections would have been significantly lower if experts were not affected by their desire for these projections to occur.⁷

Table 3.

Desirability Bias.

Number	Projection	Probability of occurrence	Adjusted probability	Change
01.	Competitiveness	.38	.32	−0.06
03.	Employee identification	.70	.59	−0.11
09.	Consumers’ willingness to pay	.51	.40	−0.11
10.	Establishment of standards	.70	.59	−0.11
12.	Economic stabilization	.38	.26	−0.12
13.	Change in values	.42	.31	−0.11
14.	Regionalization of the economy	.41	.36	−0.05

Several projections generally seem to face considerable distortions due to the desirability bias. Importantly, the adjusted results cannot be interpreted as being more or less accurate than the actual Delphi study results, as the accuracy of probability estimates naturally cannot be assessed for naturalistic events in the far future (Ecken et al., 2011). Instead, identifying and quantifying the desirability bias is an approach that brings attention to any systematic bias that may be inherent in the survey data. The approach complements the results and yields additional insights from the data, but should merely be used as a rule of thumb concerning whether experts’ responses could be potentially biased. In conclusion, the authors are aware that there is a high degree of emotional response associated with the topic of social enterprise and consciously interpret certain parts of the survey data more carefully.

Qualitative Results: Key Tensions

The qualitative in-depth analysis of arguments which were posted by experts to justify their estimations reveals valuable insights and statement patterns. Table 4 summarizes the top 40 projection categories which were derived from the experts’ arguments.

Table 4.

Frequently Stated Categories.

Number	Category	Frequency
01.	Sustainability will become a core value of society	126
02.	Social enterprise will be a marginal phenomenon	101
03.	Social enterprises need to generate a profit	93
04.	Consumers will act more and more responsibly	91
05.	Social enterprise complements the traditional economic system	86
06.	Social enterprise will be established in specific industries only	59
07.	In 2030, social enterprise will still not be fully established	54
08.	Social enterprise is necessary in solving social problems	48
09.	Companies should fulfill their responsibility to society	46
10.	Social enterprises need to be anchored in the legal system	45
11.	Social enterprises need to develop a system of own standards	43
12.	Social enterprise intensifies the competition for qualified employees	43
13.	Social enterprises need to be competitive with regard to pricing	42
14.	Profit maximization will continue to be the dominant target of entrepreneurial actions	41
15.	It is necessary to measure social impact	39
16.	Traditional companies are the major drivers of social enterprise	37
17.	The motivations for investing in social enterprise vary	33
18.	Social enterprise will have the greatest effect on a regional level	33
19.	Social enterprise is a universal business approach	28
20.	Entrepreneurial action is a precondition for the success of a social enterprise	28
21.	Education is a success factor for social enterprise	26
22.	Social enterprises make traditional companies act with a stronger sense of responsibility	26
23.	Social enterprise produces knowledge	26
24.	Responsible consumption depends on income level	25
25.	To a large extent, social enterprise is just a marketing tool	23
26.	Establishment of social enterprise at universities	21
27.	Social enterprise will mainly be established in the social sector	21
28.	Social enterprise activities are usually of low scale	21
29.	Crises accelerate the establishment of social enterprise	19
30.	In Germany, social enterprise competes with the welfare state	19
31.	There will be hybrids of traditional companies and social enterprises	18
32.	Excessive standardization entails inherent dangers (bureaucratization)	17
33.	The failure of the welfare state necessitates social enterprise	16
34.	Society suffers from fear of structural change	16
35.	Individual social enterprises serve as best practice examples for the establishment of many others	16
36.	Flexibility is a success criterion of social enterprises	15
37.	Social enterprise is structurally decoupled from global economics	14
38.	Social enterprises compete with traditional companies	14
39.	Social enterprise protects societal stability	14
40.	Solving social problems is a governmental task	13

By analyzing the arguments and the derived projection categories, the authors identified four argumentation patterns, which were then extended to develop futures scenarios. Whereas the first two patterns, consumerism and sustainability, refer to the shape of society and its consumption culture in general, the third and fourth patterns indicate different kinds of government policy (interventionism vs. laissez faire). In the following debate, the authors demonstrate how these two dichotomies were derived from the data.

Consumerism versus sustainability

The fundamental question of whether social enterprise will continue to develop or not did not emerge as an issue—Experts were convinced it will become more important in the future. Rather, the Delphi discussions demonstrate how experts predominantly argue about the degree and structure of social enterprise establishment.

Underlying tensions in experts’ opinions implicitly refer to the broader debate of whether consumerism or sustainability will be the dominant principle of buying and selling behavior in the future. Accordingly, the most frequently stated projection category was “sustainability will become a core value of society” which is contrasted to the second most often stated category “social enterprise will be a marginal phenomenon.” The categories ranked third and fourth “social enterprises need to generate a profit” and “consumers will act more and more responsibly” also imply different tendencies of the debate. This dissension is aptly illustrated by one expert’s argument: “Literature partly overestimates the influence of consumers’ expectations towards companies. The decision factor price still has a high significance in Germany.”

In consequence, if on one hand consumerism dominates, social enterprise will tend to evolve as a marginal phenomenon (second category) and profitability (fourth category) will or must be its guiding principle. This view is supported by the following dominant categories: “In 2030, social enterprise will not be completely established” and “social enterprise will be established in specific industries only” and “profit maximization will continue to be the dominant target of entrepreneurial actions.” If, on the other hand, sustainability gains prominence, social enterprise might benefit from shifting values (first category) and from consumers acting more responsibly (third category). In line with this view, one expert posted, “The current trend from a normal towards an ethical consumer has already brought many companies to invest in Corporate Social Responsibility and certification processes, thereby reacting to customer needs.” However, the panel also raised the concern that the evolvement of social enterprise will largely depend on the national context. For example, one expert sees the preference for more sustainable consumption in relation to a country’s stage of development: “It will depend on the disposable income of the consumer—it is more probable in richer than in poorer countries.” Again, other categories support the tendency toward more sustainability, such as “social enterprise will complement the traditional economic system,” “social enterprise intensifies competition for qualified employees,” and “social enterprise is a necessity for solving social problems.”

The described dichotomy is also reflected in current academic debates. Consumerism, which has been recently addressed in the literature, is understood as a defining feature of the modern Western world (Wong & Bridges, 2008). The term itself is closely related to the work of Veblen (1899/2007) and is characterized by the belief that the meaning of life depends on the material things people possess. People tend to see themselves and others as consumers rather than citizens (Ritzer, 2007; Veblen, 1899/2007). From a critical perspective, the phenomenon of consumerism has been discussed with respect to its damaging effect on the environment and to the loss of interest in public life (Cahill, 2001).

The discourse concerning sustainability strongly contrasts with the consumerism principle, as it fundamentally aims to combat the throwaway culture of consumption in modern societies. Several research contributions discuss ways in which current cultures of consumerism should be transformed into future cultures of sustainability (Assadourian, 2010; Ehrenfeld, 2008; Maniates, 2009). The spread of CSR as a basic principle of corporations and the emergence of Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS), a new orientation in buying behavior, are just two examples of this development.

State interventionism versus laissez faire

Another major discussion evolved concerning the role of social enterprise in relation to the welfare state. This debate deserves particular attention because none of the projections directly examined the role of governmental structures in developing social enterprise. Nonetheless, governmental structures were addressed in many ways, for instance by the categories “social enterprise competes with the welfare state in Germany” and “the failure of the German welfare state demands social enterprise.” These statements demonstrate the importance of clarifying the role of the welfare state and social enterprise within society. Experts addressed the welfare state in various ways, for example, by pointing out that social problems are often fundamental national matters. Reflecting this opinion, one expert does not see available alternatives to solve social problems because he considers social enterprise to be “a necessity due to changing demographics.”

In line with this discussion, Projection 8 “industry sectors” revealed extremely divided opinions among the expert panel. Experts assigned a 53.9% probability that social enterprise will be established in specific industries only, such as health care or social services, which today are largely regulated by the German state. This result demonstrates the insecurity regarding the following question: Will social enterprise only be relevant in the social sector under the umbrella of or even replacing state regulation, or will it emerge as a more general phenomenon permeating all societal layers? The answers are diverse. For example, an expert stated that traditional companies will continue to dominate profitable branches and that their ability to raise capital will continue to exceed that of social enterprise. Experts expressed other market-oriented arguments by stating that “social enterprises need to be competitive with regard to pricing” or that “entrepreneurial action is a precondition for the success of a social enterprise.” Here, the pursuit of individual, socially oriented but economically sustainable business interests is emphasized. Others, in contrast, claimed that social enterprise is a universal business model (stated 33 times) applicable to all sectors.

An examination of the corresponding literature sheds some light on the experts’ disagreement. As Defourny and Nyssens’ (2010) and Kerlin’s (2006) findings suggest, social enterprise as a concept needs to be examined in relation to public policies and within the institutional and legal environments of different countries. It is significant that while new legal forms designed specifically for social enterprises have already been created in many European countries and the United States (Achleitner et al., 2007), Germany is lagging behind with such measures. These insights indicate that social enterprise is thinkable not only as a new form in the context of free markets but also as a concept that is largely driven by government action. Government interventionism (or economic interventionism, respectively), was advocated by John Maynard Keynes, who argued that private sector decisions may lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes, therefore promoting active policy responses by the public sector (Beaud & Dostaler, 1997).

The policy of “laissez faire,” by contrast, dictates a minimum amount of governmental interference in economic affairs. The policy was promoted by the French physiocrats—a group of economists who believed that land and productive work was the ultimate source of wealth—and strongly supported by Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill (Balaam & Veseth, 2001). The approach assumes that those individuals who primarily pursue their own desires are likely to contribute most successfully to society, whereas the government should limit itself to maintaining order and avoid interfering with these individual interests.

The establishment of social enterprise therefore depends to a considerable degree on whether laissez faire (as an environment in which private institutions, such as companies, are free of state intervention) or state interventionism (as an environment in which the government is the dominant actor in a market economy) will characterize German government policy in the future.

Futures Scenarios for Social Enterprise in Germany

To construct the scenarios, the authors chose the two previously mentioned dichotomies of societal environments (sustainability vs. consumerism) and government policy (state interventionism vs. laissez faire policy) to represent the scenario axes—the first dichotomy for the vertical and the second dichotomy for the horizontal axes. From the resulting matrix (see figure 2), the authors derived the following four scenarios: State Capitalism, Laissez Faire Consumerism, Sustainable State Governance, and Sustainable Laissez Faire. We then applied the derived projection categories (Table 4) to one or two of the scenarios with regard to their content.

Figure 2.

Futures scenarios for SEs.

To ensure the reasonability of each scenario, the authors elaborated on the scenario contents by further reviewing academic literature which explores nations or regions that already portray key features of the particular scenario.

State Capitalism

The State Capitalism scenario appears to be most challenging for the evolvement of social enterprises because social welfare is considered to be an exclusively governmental task in the absence of a distinct sustainability-driven society. Private efforts to solve social problems could even cause the current system to deteriorate. State Capitalism is usually (and often critically) described as a society in which productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, as in China, Malaysia, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (Bremmer, 2010). We argue that although state capitalism and consumerism are not necessarily dependent on each other, it is worthwhile considering their combined effect on the potential of social entrepreneurial activities.

Bremmer (2010) defined state capitalism as a system in which governments drive local economies through ownership of market-dominant companies and large pools of excess capital, using them for political gain. Increasingly, the governments of these State Capitalist countries focus on enforcement of consumption. Although Chinese communism used to vigorously oppose consumerism (Stearns, 2009), the country recently announced a US$585 billion stimulus plan after the economic crisis to stimulate capital circulation and expand consumption (Barboza, 2008; Cha & Fan, 2008).

Laissez Faire Consumerism

This scenario is constituted by the combination of laissez faire and consumerism. In consequence, the German welfare state no longer plays an important role in solving social problems. Laissez Faire Consumerism describes an environment, where the products and services of social enterprises compete in all respects with products of primarily profit-seeking companies. In this scenario, profit maximization is the dominant target of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial success is perceived as a natural precondition for the success of a social enterprise. In an environment that is mainly driven by material interests, it might be a challenge to sustain not-for-profit businesses.

A country that currently partly resembles this scenario of Laissez Faire Consumerism is the United States of America. Contemporary American society is committed to laissez faire capitalism, which became dominant in official governmental policy in the last part of the 20th century (Piety, 2004). Esping-Andersen (1990) addressed both tendencies by classifying the welfare system of the United States as an Anglo-Saxon model or a liberalist-individualistic model. Market mechanisms and private social solutions dominate while social welfare is less developed than in other types of welfare states. However, the United States also show tendencies of the Sustainable Laissez Faire scenario as there are several examples of competition between for-profit and not-for-profit companies such as in the health care sector (Watt et al., 1986).

Sustainable State Governance

In this scenario, state interventionism is performed in a sustainability-oriented economy. The consequences of such a scenario for social enterprises are twofold. On one hand, social problems are considered important issues in government and economic policies. Social enterprise therefore tackles issues in line with broad societal interests. Here, social enterprise will work best in close collaboration with public authorities who might also provide financial support. In Germany, this is, to some extent, already the case for some social enterprises, such as in the field of job placement for unemployed people. On the other hand, the solution of social problems in this scenario is generally perceived as government’s duty. Governmental structures might hamper or even preclude private business approaches in the social sector. Social enterprises will, therefore, remain social niche solutions with rather low-scale operations.

The scenario of Sustainable State Governance is close to the current situation in Scandinavian countries. As highly developed welfare states, their comprehensive institutional policy does not recognize fixed boundaries for public welfare commitments (Esping-Andersen & Korpi, 1986; Schmid, 2002). In Scandinavian countries, governments tend to limit and replace private industry as a distributor of welfare. At the same time, these countries rank first in the world in environmental sustainability, according to the latest Environmental Sustainability Index (Easterly & Miesing, 2009). Furthermore, not only researchers but also German politicians regularly refer to these countries as best practice examples in social policy.

Sustainable Laissez Faire

This scenario combines laissez faire market policies (or market liberalism) with a responsible society that is aware of and strongly supports social sustainability. Although no country sufficiently resembles this scenario at present, experts still expressed their support for such an ideal situation in their supportive arguments. The Sustainable Laissez Faire scenario demonstrates the most adequate foundation for broad, cross-sector evolvement of social enterprise, because it reflects both market orientation and sustainability. In this scenario, the German welfare state withdraws from the social sector. Instead, social enterprises become suppliers of social services. Generally, the supply of affordable social services shifts from the public to the private sector. However, social enterprises are also increasingly found in other industries. Traditional companies focus on the needs of responsible consumers and, at the same time, increasingly compete with social enterprises for qualified employees. Furthermore, hybrids of traditional companies and social enterprises are established and citizens put pressure on companies to act responsibly.

The combination of the laissez faire economic approach with a sustainability-oriented society is reflected in CSR research, which views sustainability as a dominant topic of future economic and social debates (Carroll, 1999; Habisch, 2005; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

Discussion

As highlighted above, the development of social enterprise depends on the specific societal, political, and economic conditions of a country. The implications of Germany’s aforementioned “large government character” on the development of social enterprise are reflected in the results of our study. Indeed, some experts argued that solving social problems is often considered to be a governmental task and that there is a societal fear of diminishing state responsibility for the social welfare of citizens. In other words, there are a range of political barriers for entrepreneurship to become socially productive in the Third Sector. This specific situation is the reason why Germany lags behind, while other countries have already created new legal forms for social enterprises (Teasdale, 2010). Likewise, the resulting lack of long-term financing is a fundamental problem for the development of social enterprises and an important issue for the experts (e.g., “entrepreneurial action is a precondition for the success of a social enterprise”). These barriers offer explanations for some experts’ skepticism, as expressed in the high degree of dissent and broad range of counterarguments against large-scale development of social enterprise. Thus, the development of social enterprise in Germany considerably depends on political legitimization, the implementation of a legal form, and a supportive political and societal dialogue. In this way, public policy could promote a greater prevalence of socially beneficial entrepreneurship.

Nevertheless, the panel was generally positive about the growing importance of entrepreneurial approaches to social problem solving. The authors identify several reasons for the experts’ optimistic attitude. Germany has also been developing new public management policies since the 1980s and business processes are becoming increasingly important in the public sector (Christopher, 1995). The scenario Sustainable Laissez Faire reflects this trend of more competitive solutions to social problems. However, our experts not only imagine social enterprise to be most successful in a liberal market environment, they also consider social enterprise to be easier to achieve on a regional rather than a national basis. Implicitly, they view a trend toward a stronger civil society, which challenges the classic patriarchal paradigm in the social sector. As civil society is often the birthplace of social enterprise activities, the encouragement of civic engagement is an important driver.

Related to this increase of individual responsibility, the question can be raised how to guarantee persistence in ethical and social orientation of social enterprises. The experts took this question into consideration by arguing for an implementation of social enterprise standards, such as audits, governance codes, and certain legal forms. These aspects are important because social enterprise always faces the danger of being bastardized in a similar way as the microcredit approach of Yunus’ Grameen Bank (Burke, 2011). Experts therefore suggest a strong anchoring of the concept to the welfare state indicating that social enterprise is a new organizational form that contributes to, but does not necessarily replace, existing structures. Here, a regulative framework, reporting and disclosure schemes, and a critical dialogue can be crucial to ensure transparency and an appropriate use of the concept. Such standards are a natural consequence for the experts, albeit it is a challenging task to introduce them. Experts agree that formalization can also lead to a static and bureaucratic environment that discourages free competition, creativity, and innovation.

Furthermore, a large number of our experts expected consumption to become more sustainable in the future. In fact, the dichotomy of consumerism and sustainability applied in our analysis might not be sustainable in the future if consumers are both consumption-oriented and also attentive to the social and ecological conditions of production. In this case, consumerism and sustainability become indistinct, dissolving the former dichotomy. However, the Delphi results provide seemingly contradictory evidence for this new orientation. As presented earlier, the desirability bias positively influenced the evaluation of the projection on sustainable consumption behavior (Projection 9) to a comparatively strong degree. The correction of the bias shows an adjustment from an indifferent to a rather negative opinion. This result suggests that tendencies toward a sustainability-driven society might be distorted to a considerable degree by wishful thinking. Experts desire an increased awareness of consumers toward socially and environmentally responsible products but are not convinced that such a development is likely to happen.

In the literature review, we presented social enterprise as being restricted due to the absence of top-down political support. However, given the experts’ perspectives, the development of social enterprise is also considerably influenced by the social attitude of society. The principles of democracy, participation, and emancipation enforced by the experts suggest an alternative bottom-up roadmap to the evolvement of social enterprise, starting with the explicit desire of citizens to implement such forms.

Based on their insights, we identified the Sustainable Laissez Faire scenario as the best breeding ground for social enterprises. The scenario relies on both free markets, as a basic condition for innovative entrepreneurship, and socially oriented consumers. Whereas the former is already supported by tendencies in current German social sector policies, the latter is much harder to achieve as it involves considerable changes in individual consumption patterns. In addition, social enterprise is often initiated by civic engagement in local campaigns or projects. Both developments are determined by individual people becoming either founders of their own social enterprise or socially responsible consumers.

Due to its flexibility, the concept of social enterprise is imaginable in two other scenarios. Under the regime of public service providers in the scenario Sustainable State Governance, the focus could be on social niche solutions. In a society with strong notions of Laissez Faire Consumerism, however, it could evolve as an alternative business form if it manages to successfully operate on a financial as well as commercial level. However, both scenarios are politically and economically very challenging environments for social enterprise.

Conclusion

Not surprisingly, this article fails to provide a definite answer to the question of whether Germany is heading toward a moral social future. The authors hope that this contribution will enrich the debate on the social value of entrepreneurship by asking how entrepreneurship may stimulate change in the social sector in the future and, more precisely, under which circumstances social enterprise can lead to a more efficient provision of social services. The answer is as follows: If supported by both top-down policies and bottom-up consumption patterns—as in a Sustainable Laissez Faire scenario—social enterprise can offer innovative improvements of social services and products. To summarize, the minimum requirements are as follows: (a) an increased level of market freedom in the social sector (top-down); (b) formal institutional changes (top-down): development of legal forms, standards, and measurement and monitoring systems; (c) greater orientation toward sustainability in consumption behavior (bottom-up); and (d) mechanisms that strengthen local social entrepreneurial initiatives (top-down/bottom-up).

Rather than being limited to the German context, these patterns are more general in nature. For example, the aforementioned countries in which social enterprise is manifest to a stronger degree than in Germany can also be described as being at a later stage of social enterprise development.

This article contains certain limitations. As stated earlier, the social enterprise professionals who pretested the projections were also part of the expert panel of the Delphi survey. Therefore, their judgments might have been influenced by previous discussions during the projection development phase. Although we support the results with statistical data, the research and especially the scenario development mainly rely on qualitative data. The lack of quantitative data can be observed for the vast majority of research on social enterprise and might partially be due to the still rather small number of observable and comparable social enterprise examples. Therefore, the collection of further statistical data would be a promising field for future research. Furthermore, the authors excluded continuative analysis, such as possible varying estimations among stakeholder groups, because we focused on data collection for scenario development. A comparison of the perceptions of social enterprise stakeholders might be an interesting subject for future research.

In addition, there are methodological issues which need to be addressed. As indicated in the methodology section, there is a controversial understanding of the term consensus and, accordingly, great variety in measurement (Mitchell, 1991). However, our approach to calculate the IQRs of experts’ assessments is supported by leading scholars in the field (De Vet, Brug, De Nooijer, Dijkstra, & De Vries, 2005; Spinelli, 1983). Furthermore, the Delphi survey is a multistage survey process; therefore, fatigue and time pressure of participants are issues to be considered (Geist, 2010; Mitchell, 1991). Survey responses might become less accurate after more than two rounds and results may be biased by experts simply moving toward the group opinion to speed up the process. This bias would then lead to an “artificial consensus” (Bardecki, 1984).

Future contributions in this field can be used to elaborate upon the identified environmental aspects and used to develop an action agenda to achieve more sustainable social sector policy. The scenario implicitly preferred by the experts, Sustainable Laissez Faire, could be the ambitious target which sets out how governments, investors, and businesses can best support new market pioneers in achieving large-scale social effects. In this respect, future research could examine how social enterprise may contribute to the paradigm shift aspired to by the proponents of the Phoenix Economy (Elkington, 2010). Furthermore, scenarios are not the only way to elaborate the future development of social enterprise. “Ideal Types” (Weber, 1947/1997) may serve as a conceptual basis for future research, as they outline the essential aspects of a social reality by providing a normatively ideal course.

Given that the authors observed a positive attitude toward social enterprise in Germany, it may be fruitful to undertake an in-depth study into how the legal and institutional standardization process or governmental incentives for social enterprise impact the development of the concept. Importantly, researchers should scrutinize more critical perspectives on the topic and study the negative effects of social sector marketization. Existing theory in other fields could be transferred to social enterprise to transcend the normative and individualistic approaches which dominate the scientific approaches to the topic to date (see Special Issue “Critical perspectives on social enterprise” in the Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2012).

It is our hope that this article will stimulate further research on social enterprise as a promising business approach to improve the social and economic life situations of people. In the long run, social enterprise may contribute to establish business-oriented behavior as means to generate not only financial but also social wealth.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants of the Delphi surveys, without whose thoughts and ideas this research would not have been possible. Furthermore, we would like to express our gratitude to the researchers from the International Association for Business and Society (IABS) Conference in Bath, June 2011, in particular Mark Casson and Stephen Pavelin, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable thoughts and comments. We are also highly appreciative of the input from Janice Magel and Philipp Ecken (EBS Business School, Oestrich-Winkel).

Authors’ Note

The authors were all members of the Institute for Futures Studies and Knowledge Management (IFK) at the EBS Business School in Wiesbaden, Germany, at the time of this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to acknowledge Danone GmbH Germany for their support and funding of this research initiative.

Notes

Author Biographies

Henning Engelke is a research assistant at the Danone Endowed Chair of Social Business at EBS Business School in Wiesbaden, Germany. He received his degree in Economics from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. His research is focused on the development of the social enterprise concept in Germany, namely, the societal, political, and economic conditions. He is specialized in the Delphi technique as well as qualitative research methods. Recently, he published his first peer-reviewed article in Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Stefanie Mauksch is a research assistant at the Institute of Anthropology, Leipzig University, who does interdisciplinary work in the fields of organization studies, social entrepreneurship, and business anthropology. In her PhD thesis at EBS Business School in Wiesbaden, Germany, she researched the meaning of social entrepreneurship from various analytical and methodological angles. Her current research combines ethnographic methods with critical theory to investigate social entrepreneurial practices and processes of identity formation. Her first peer-reviewed articles have been published in Social Enterprise Journal and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Inga-Lena Darkow is an external postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Business Studies and Economics, University of Bremen, and Senior Expert of Supply Chain Strategy at BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany. She held various academic positions in research and university education, including Academic Director of International MBA Programs and board member of international research institutes. Her research interests include corporate foresight and futures studies, particularly in logistics and supply chain management. Her works have been published in several books and peer-reviewed journals, such as Futures, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Business Logistics, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Heiko von der Gracht is an external postdoctoral Researcher at EBS Business School in Wiesbaden, Germany, and Head of the Think Tank for Futures Management at the Institute of Corporate Education e. V. (incore), which is supported and sponsored by KPMG in Germany. His research interests include corporate foresight, Delphi and scenario techniques, decision support, and foresight support systems. His works have been published in several books and in peer-reviewed journals.

References

Achleitner

A. K.

Pöllath

Stahl

(2007). Finanzierung von Sozialunternehmern: Konzepte zur finanziellen Unterstützung von Social Entrepreneurs [Financing of social entrepreneurs: Concepts of financial assistance for social entrepreneurs]. Stuttgart, Germany. Schäffer-Poeschel.

Alvord

S. H.

Brown

L. D.

Letts

C. W.

(2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 260-282.

Assadourian

(2010). Transforming cultures: From consumerism to sustainability. Journal of Macromarketing, 30, 186-191.

Bagnoli

Megali

(2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 149-165.

Balaam

D. N.

Veseth

(2001). Introduction to international political economy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barboza

(2008, November 9). China unveils sweeping plan for economy. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/world/asia/10iht-10china.17673270.html

Bardecki

M. J.

(1984). Participants’ response to the Delphi method: An attitudinal perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 25, 281-292.

Beaud

Dostaler

(1997). Economic thought since Keynes: A history and dictionary of major economists. London, England: Psychology Press.

Bode

Evers

Schulz

(2006). Where do we go from here? The unfinished story of work integration social enterprises in Germany. In Nyssens

(Ed.), Social enterprise (pp. 296-310). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Borzaga

Fazzi

(2010). Processes of institutionalization and differentiation in the Italian third sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 409-427.

11.

Brammer

Brooks

Pavelin

(2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97-116.

12.

Bremmer

(2010). The end of the free market: Who wins the war between states and corporations? London, England: Portfolio.

13.

Burke

(2011, January). Impoverished Indian families caught in deadly spiral of microfinance debt. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/31/india-microfinance-debt-struggle-suicide

14.

Butterwegge

(2006). Krise und Zukunft des Sozialstaates [Crisis and the future of the welfare state]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

15.

Cahill

(2001). The implications of consumerism for the transition to a sustainable society. Social Policy & Administration, 35, 627-639.

16.

Carroll

A. B.

(1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38, 268-295.

17.

Cha

A. E.

Fan

(2008, November 9). China unveils $586 billion stimulus plan. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110900701.html

18.

Christensen

Doblhammer

Rau

Vaupel

J. W.

(2009). Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet, 374, 1196-1208.

19.

Christopher

(1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93-109.

20.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Defourny

Nyssens

(2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4, 202-228.

22.

Defourny

Nyssens

(2010). Social enterprise in Europe: At the crossroads of market, public policies and third sector. Policy and Society, 29, 231-242.

23.

Department of Trade and Industry. (2002). Social enterprise barometer. Author. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/enterprise/docs/s/10-1076-social-enterprise-barometer-feb-2010.pdf

24.

De Vet

Brug

De Nooijer

Dijkstra

De Vries

N. K.

(2005). Determinants of forward stage transitions: A Delphi study. Health Education Research, 20, 195-205.

25.

Di Domenico

Haugh

Tracey

(2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34, 681-703.

26.

Easterly

Miesing

(2009). NGOs, social venturing, and community citizenship behavior. Business & Society, 48, 538-564.

27.

Ecken

Gnatzy

von der Gracht

H. A.

(2011). Desirability bias in foresight: Consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1654-1670.

28.

Ehrenfeld

(2008). Sustainability by design: A subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

29.

Elkington

(2010). The phoenix economy. The sustainable enterprise economy is taking root in the best of times, the worst of times. In McIntosh

Waddock

(Eds.), The UN Compact (pp. 27-29). Brisbane, Australia: Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise.

30.

Esping-Andersen

(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

31.

Esping-Andersen

Korpi

(1986). From poor relief to institutional welfare states: The development of Scandinavian social policy. International Journal of Sociology, 16(3-4), 39-74.

32.

Farnsworth

Irving

(2011). Social policy in challenging times: Economic crises and welfare systems. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

33.

Frewer

L. J.

Fischer

A. R. H.

Wentholt

M. T. A.

Marvin

H. J. P.

Ooms

B. W.

Coles

Rowe

(2011). The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: Some lessons learned. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1514-1525.

34.

Fueglistaller

Müller

Volery

(2004). Entrepreneurship: Modelle-Umsetzung-Perspektiven Mit Fallbeispielen aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [Entrepreneurship: Models—Implementation—Prospects with case studies from Germany, Austria and Switzerland]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.

35.

Geist

(2010). Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 147-154.

36.

Goodwin

Wright

(2010). The limits of forecasting methods in anticipating rare events. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 355-368.

37.

Gordon

Pease

(2006). RT Delphi: An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 321-333.

38.

Habisch

(2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.

39.

Heinze

R. G.

Schneiders

Grohs

(2011). Social Entrepreneurship im deutschen Wohlfahrtsstaat—Hybride Organisationen zwischen Markt, Staat und Gemeinschaft [Social entrepreneurship in the German welfare state—Hybrid organizations between market, state and community]. In Hackenberg

Empter

(Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship—Social Business: Für die Gesellschaft unternehmen [Social entrepreneurship—Social business: To do for society] pp. 86-102). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

40.

Hill

K. Q.

Fowles

(1975). The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 7, 179-192.

41.

Kerlin

(2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 246-262.

42.

Kerlin

(2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 162-179.

43.

Kiron

Palmer

Phillips

A. N.

Kruschwitz

(2012). Social business: What are companies really doing? (MIT Sloan Review, in collaboration with Deloitte). Retrieved from http://deloitte.wsj.com/cfo/files/2012/07/MITSloan_Deloitte-report.pdf

44.

Klein

P. G.

Mahoney

J. T.

McGahan

A. M.

Pitelis

C. N.

(2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7, 1-15.

45.

Landeta

(2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 467-482.

46.

Landeta

Barrutia

(2011). People consultation to construct the future: A Delphi application. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 134-151.

47.

Leadbeater

(2007). What are the future scenarios for social enterprise? Retrieved from http://www.caledonia.org.uk/papers/Future-scenarios-for-social-enterprise.doc

48.

Lindsay

Hems

(2004). Sociétés Coopératives d’Intérêt Collectif: The arrival of social enterprise within the French social economy. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15, 265-286.

49.

Linstone

H. A.

Turoff

(2011). Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1712-1719.

50.

Mair

Marti

(2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44.

51.

Mancino

Thomas

(2005). An Italian pattern of social enterprise: The social cooperative. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15, 357-369.

52.

Maniates

(2009). Editing out unsustainable behavior. In The Worldwatch Institute & E. Assadourian (Eds.), State of the world 2010: Transforming cultures, from consumerism to sustainability (pp. 119-126). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

53.

McKenna

H. P.

(1994). The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221-1225.

54.

McWilliams

Siegel

(2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.

55.

Mitchell

(1991). The Delphi technique: An exposition and application. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 3, 333-358.

56.

Møldrup

Morgall

J. M.

(2001). Risks of future drugs: A Danish expert Delphi. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 67, 273-289.

57.

Mulgan

(2006). Cultivating the other invisible hand of social entrepreneurship: Comparative advantage, public policy, and future research priorities. In Nicholls

(Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 74-96). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

58.

Nicholls

(2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

59.

Nicholls

(2007). What is the future of social enterprise in ethical markets? Office of the third sector. London, England. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/future_social_enterprise_ethical_markets.pdf

60.

Nicholls

(2010). Institutionalizing social entrepreneurship in regulatory space: Reporting and disclosure by community interest companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 394-415.

61.

Nowack

Endrikat

Guenther

(2011). Review of Delphi-based scenario studies: Quality and design considerations. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1603-1615.

62.

Oldenburg

(2011). Wie Social Entrepreneurs wirken - Beobachtungen zum Sozialunternehmertum in Deutschland [How social entrepreneurs act—Observations on social entrepreneurship in Germany]. In Hackenberg

Empter

(Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship—Social Business: Für die Gesellschaft unternehmen [Social entrepreneurship—Social business: To do for society] (pp. 119-132). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

63.

Piety

M. G.

(2004). The long term: Capitalism and culture in the new millennium. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 103-118.

64.

Rikkonen

Kaivo-oja

Aakkula

(2006). Delphi expert panels in the scenario-based strategic planning of agriculture. Foresight, 8(1), 66-81.

65.

Rikkonen

Tapio

(2009). Future prospects of alternative agro-based bioenergy use in Finland—Constructing scenarios with quantitative and qualitative Delphi data. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76, 978-990.

66.

Ritzer

(2007). The Blackwell companion to globalization. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

67.

Rowe

Wright

(1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375.

68.

Rowe

Wright

(2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. In Armstrong

J. S.

(Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 125-144). New York, NY: Springer.

69.

Salancik

G. R.

Wenger

Helfer

(1971). The construction of Delphi event statements. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 3(5), 65-73.

70.

Scheibe

Skutsch

Schofer

(1975). Experiments in Delphi methodology. In Linstone

H. A.

Turoff

(Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 262-287). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

71.

Schiffer

H. W.

(2008). WEC energy policy scenarios to 2050. Energy Policy, 36, 2464-2470.

72.

Schmid

(2002). Wohlfahrtsstaaten im Vergleich [Welfare states compared]. Stuttgart, Germany: Leske + Budrich.

73.

Scott

C. R.

(2001). Establishing and maintaining customer loyalty and employee identification in the new economy: A communicative response. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 629-636.

74.

Spear

Cornforth

Aiken

(2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 80, 247-273.

75.

Spinelli

(1983). The Delphi decision-making process. Journal of Psychology, 113, 73-80.

76.

Stearns

P. N.

(2009). Consumerism. In Peil

Van Staveren

(Eds.), Handbook of economics and ethics (pp. 62-68). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

77.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

78.

Swart

R. J.

Raskin

Robinson

(2004). The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137-146.

79.

Tapio

(2003). Disaggregative policy Delphi: Using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 83-101.

80.

Teasdale

(2010). How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22, 89-107.

81.

Thompson

J. L.

(2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5), 412-430.

82.

Turoff

(1975). The policy Delphi. In Linstone

H. A.

Turoff

(Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 84-101). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

83.

van Beurden

Gössling

(2008). The worth of values—A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 407-424.

84.

van de Linde

van der Duin

(2011). The Delphi method as early warning: Linking global societal trends to future radicalization and terrorism in The Netherlands. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1557-1564.

85.

van der Heijden

(2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

86.

van’t Klooster

S. A.

van Asselt

M. B. A.

(2006). Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures, 38, 15-30.

87.

Veblen

(2007). The theory of the leisure class ( Banta

, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1899)

88.

Watt

J. M.

Derzon

R. A.

Renn

S. C.

Schramm

C. J.

Hahn

J. S.

Pillari

G. D.

(1986). The comparative economic performance of investor-owned chain and not-for-profit hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 89-96.

89.

Weber

(1997). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1947)

90.

Windschitl

P. D.

Smith

A. R.

Rose

J. P.

Krizan

(2010). The desirability bias in predictions: Going optimistic without leaving realism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 33-47.

91.

Wong

Bridges

J. F. P.

(2008). Consumerism: Overview. In Kris

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of public health (pp. 1-7). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

92.

Wood

D. J.

(2000). Theory and integrity in business and society. Business & Society, 39, 359-378.

93.

World Economic Forum. (2009). The future of the global financial system: A near-term outlook and long-term scenarios. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

94.

Yunus

(2010). Building social business. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

95.

Yunus

Weber

(2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.