Abstract
Social entrepreneurship is a nascent concept within academia that is increasing in scholarly attention and practice, especially within the study of sport. A recent article has reviewed the concept of social entrepreneurship (SE) and sport and offered suggestions for future studies. Building on this article, I suggest that there is a need for critical, sociological explorations of sport and SE, most especially for scholars within the field of sport for development and peace (SDP). In this article, a review of SE and sport is briefly provided, as well as a presentation of recent critical perspectives on SE. Drawing attention to the connections between SDP and critical studies of SE, I suggest that there is an opportunity for sociologists of SDP to further understand the complex relations and neoliberal power structures involved in SDP social change, sustainability, innovation, and donor-recipient relations that would contribute significant insights for the future of the field.
Keywords
Introduction
Within the context of sport, various traits of neoliberalism have been identified, including in a variety of sport industries such as mega-events accentuated by capitalist ideologies (Gruneau and Horne, 2015), political ideologies framed by individualism and market-oriented approaches reflected in sport (Coakley, 2011; Silk and Andrews, 2012), and, most importantly for the purposes of this paper, neoliberal undertones in the field of sport-for-development and peace (SDP) (Darnell and Hayhurst, 2012; Wilson and Hayhurst, 2009), defined here broadly as ‘a social movement that seeks to improve lives through the use of sport and physical activity, and to advance sport and broader social development in disadvantaged communities’ (Kidd, 2008: 370). As neoliberalism continues to permeate sport, questions for sociologists of sport and practitioners interested in SDP remain about the ways in which sport organisations and initiatives seek to respond to contemporary social issues within an increasingly donor-driven and growing field (Levermore, 2008; Nicholls, 2009).
Critiques of how SDP is driven by donors, especially corporate funders from the global North operating at far proximity from implementation of SDP projects in the global South, have been linked with neoliberal ideals and traits of colonialism (Banda and Gultresa, 2015; Darnell, 2012). Many of these corporations (whether sport-based or not) located in the global North commonly attach themselves to sport initiatives and ‘development’ programmes by engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR), evident when companies show accountability for their effects on social, ethical, legal, and environmental issues (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000) and engage in philanthropic activity beyond their primary ‘profit-motive’ (Carroll, 1999). Recently, sociologists of sport have become increasingly interested in understanding the nuances and neoliberal traits underlying CSR and sport initiatives (Giulianotti, 2015; Hayhurst and Szto, 2016; McSweeney et al., 2018), and how CSR is a product of and works within the confines of neoliberal ideologies and discourses.
It is interesting then that although CSR and SDP have received increased scholarly attention by sociologists of sport, especially in relation to neoliberalism, the concept of social entrepreneurship (SE) 1 has received relatively limited study. Although the concept remains contested and there is no singular, universal understanding of SE, it is generally defined as an individual or organisational enterprise aimed at achieving social change using business-like practices while reinvesting some or all profits back into the organisation (Weerawardena and Mort, 2006). It is a nascent concept that is growing in scholarly attention across disciplines such as organisational and management studies (Certo and Miller, 2008; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), political science (Short et al., 2009), and, most importantly for this article, sport studies (Bjärsholm, 2017). In broader society, various organisations, such as Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation, have defined and are said to represent social enterprise activities and social entrepreneurs globally. Ashoka founder, Bill Drayton, has claimed that ‘social entrepreneurs are the essential collective force. They are system-changing entrepreneurs. And from deep within they, and therefore their work, are committed to the good of all’ (Ashoka, 2018).
Recently, a comprehensive literature review by Bjärsholm (2017) on SE and sport has been offered. This growth in attention is needed – especially as SE is a contemporary concept that has built optimism for organisational survival and sustainability in a neoliberal, capitalist society that sees increasingly blurred lines between for-profit, not-for-profit, and public sectors (Rivera-Santos et al., 2015). For sport organisations, blurring sector lines is not uncommon (Kenyon et al., 2018; Misener and Misener, 2017), yet still the concept of SE remains limited in scholarly attention within studies of sport – and even more so sociological studies of sport and SDP – despite calls for further research (Bjärsholm, 2017; Hayhurst, 2014; Ratten, 2011).
This is a significant oversight within the sociology of sport, most especially for scholars interested in the field of SDP. Numerous SDP organisations employ the concept of SE in their policies and practices. For example, DIVERTcity, an organisation with a focus on action sports such as surfing and streetboarding, has developed a programme focused on providing SE opportunities and workshops to youth, teaching about ‘idea creation, marketing, leadership’ and seeking to make a change via youth entrepreneurial ideas and SE models (DIVERTcity, 2018). Various SDP organisations listed on the International Platform on Sport and Development, such as Bikes For All, Social Initiative for Development, One World Play Project, Senda, Janji, Love Futbol, Alive and Kicking, and streetfootballworld, identify or are involved in SE programmes and projects in communities around the world. Larger SDP organisations and their leaders have been recognised as social entrepreneurs, for example Johann Koss, founder of Right to Play, and Jürgen Griesbeck, CEO of streetfootballworld, who was named Social Entrepreneur of the Year in 2011 by the World Economic Forum on Europe and Central Asia. Other organisations, such as Mathare Youth Sports Association, have partnerships and networks with global social enterprise nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) like Ashoka (Mathare Youth Sports Association, 2018). As seen by these organisations and programmes, SE currently holds importance within SDP practice.
SE has gained some traction in SDP research (Cohen and Peachey, 2015; Hayhurst, 2014), but, considering most organisations, individuals and scholars involved in SDP seek to contribute to or understand what constitutes social change in regards to ‘development’, the literature currently available on SDP and SE is surprising. Even more so, in the broader context of SE studies, critical and sociological analyses have only recently become popular, and is an area of study worthy of investigation, especially as ‘positive descriptions of social entrepreneurs as “change agents” deflects from their position within neoliberal governance regimes which sees responsibility for social problems shift from the state to “the power within”’ (Reid, 2017: 598). Thus, many investigations of SE have positively identified individuals, groups or organisations as addressing and responding to numerous social issues; however, deeper structural constraints, and how the practice of SE influences and is influenced by such systemic structures of neoliberalism, remain limited in scope.
For SDP researchers, studying in a field where the issue of power relations has been a rising concern and appears to be a reflection of the broader issue of sport and its historical underpinnings of colonisation (Darnell, 2012), SE may assist SDP researchers in furthering understandings of, and responding to: issues of partnerships between funding organisations in the global North and SFD programmes in the global South that potentially reproduce notions of neoliberalism and neocolonialism (Hayhurst, 2011, 2014); SDP programming that, although changing (Black, 2017), commonly uses top-down approaches (Levermore, 2011); and/or SDP practice and partnerships that exhibits traits of domination and whiteness (Darnell, 2007). Additionally, as arguments by scholars continue to place SDP within the broader literature on international development (Darnell and Dao, 2017), SE is one way of marrying SDP with its parent-discipline international development.
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, I briefly review the contemporary literature on SE and sport and present critical perspectives of SE. Based on this review, I suggest that there is a current lacuna in the body of research on SE and sport that it would be apt for sociologists of sport to turn to – most especially those studying in the field of SDP. It is important to insert a caveat here that, although my arguments are framed from a sociological lens, literature on SE and sport has been discussed much more in-depth in the related discipline of sport management, and therefore I turn to such studies and arguments from the management literature in order to contextualise and frame the need for sociological examinations of SE and SDP. Second, I discuss how critical studies of SE and sport offer prospective ways to mainstream SDP and international development, and furthermore, present an opportunity to contribute significant insights for scholars and practitioners in SDP about neoliberalism, innovation, sustainability, and donor-recipient relations. In the following section, I provide a brief review of literature to frame SE, with its hallmarks, debates and tensions.
Social entrepreneurship
Although SE is not a new phenomenon, as evidenced by the creation in the 1980s of Ashoka, the most well-known SE organisation, it was not until the 1990s that scholars began to explore and examine the concept. The concept has evolved from its parent term ‘commercial entrepreneurship’, which is focused on generating financial value, rather than social value as is the case for SE (Austin et al., 2006), and has been described as falling within a ‘third sector’ of society that aims to incorporate public and private characteristics in order to achieve its broad goal of contributing to social change while remaining sustainable financially (Choi and Majumdar, 2014).
SE is highly contested and subjective due to the numerous organisations involved in its conceptualisation, such as NGOs, governments, individuals, not-for profit (NFP) organisations and private businesses (Hossain et al., 2017). For example, in Bacq and Janssen’s (2011) review of the concept and definition of SE, they listed 46 different definitions provided by a variety of organisations and academic articles. Broadly speaking, most definitions signify that social entrepreneurs or enterprises must be concerned with the goal of performing ‘not only financially but also socially’ (Phillips et al., 2015: 430). The array of meanings attached to SE, including the dynamic and confluent understandings across different states, countries and even continents (Bacq and Janssen, 2011), have been influenced by different schools of thought. This is the case most notably within the school of social innovation, the social enterprise school of thought, and the emergence-of-social-enterprises-in-Europe school of thought (for a full review of the different schools of thought in regard to SE, see Bjärsholm, 2017 or Defourny and Nyssens, 2010). The school of social innovation sees the individual as the primary element of SE, and ‘views social entrepreneurship as the use of social innovations to solve social problems and to bring about social change, irrespective of whether commercial activities are involved or not’ (Choi and Majumdar, 2014: 365; Martin and Osberg, 2007). In contrast, the social enterprise school of thought sees governments and not-for-profit organisations being the main catalyst of SE, with the individual or individuals involved in the initiative’s social mission being ancillary to that of the organisation (Bacq and Janssen, 2011; Bjärsholm, 2017). Private businesses or for-profit organisations are not considered social enterprises. Finally, the emergence-of-social-enterprises-in-Europe school of thought, which was developed by European scholars, conceptualises SE as ‘stimulated by collective, autonomous and democratic actions, for example through cooperative enterprises’ (Bjärsholm, 2017: 8). The organisation is the most important facet of SE in this sense, and can be financed either through the organisation itself or through external funding, and must be focused on collective action to ensure and promote social development (Huybrechts and Nicholls, 2012).
There are two other elements of SE that scholars have highlighted in connection with the concept. First, SE as a process is expressed by a commitment to an organisation’s social mission and its relevant success, such as fulfilling one’s mission statement through social change, social transformation, social value creation, or social impact and the related activities and goals to achieve the mission (Austin et al., 2006; Mair and Marti, 2004). The activities of an organisation and an individual must relate to the social mission of the social enterprise or venture, and the individual or organisation must ensure the objective(s) of their venture is focused on their social mission, whatever mission that may be. What is clear here is that the social mission is an inherent part of SE as a process that, when examining social enterprises or entrepreneurs, must be examined in conjunction with the activities and goals of an individual or social entrepreneur.
Second, another element of SE that remains crucial to scholarly work and that has been relatively limited in empirical analysis is that of the environmental context. This includes the ‘role played by the surrounding social, economic, cultural, or institutional environment in conceptualising social entrepreneurship’ (Bacq and Janssen, 2011: 387). The difference in how SE is understood, defined, conceptualised and approached is contingent on the relevant environment and context in which it takes place – as seen by the above understandings of SE based on geographical location. Further research on the environment of SE and its connection to the social enterprise or entrepreneur is an area worthy of investigation, especially for those interested in the social and cultural relations that influence and are influenced by SE – a salient point, especially in the field of SDP, where environment and context play crucial roles.
The above presents a very brief overview of the contemporary literature on SE, displaying how SE is a contested and unstable concept that has yet to be fully developed within academia. This displays how SE is still in its infancy and will continue to proliferate, as seen by the increasing body of literature applying critical perspectives to SE, which is discussed in the following section.
Critical perspectives on SE: Drawing attention to the social
Questions about the functionalist and individualistic nature of SE (Tapsell and Woods, 2010), as well as questions of a social entrepreneur’s links to economic profit-motives closely resembling a traditional commercial entrepreneur (Mueller et al., 2011) have been posed. Austin et al. (2006), in a foundational piece comparing commercial entrepreneurship with SE, suggest that the primary aim of an SE organisation or individual is the social issue, such as gender rights, which should drive the organisation, programme or individual, and decision-making should be based on how best to accumulate and efficiently utilise resources to respond to that issue. Within their article, they demonstrate the similarities and differences between traditional entrepreneurship and SE, and how SE pulls on market practices while at the same time operating differently than entrepreneurial businesses that do not have a social mission. Overall, it is notable that Austin et al. (2006: 18–19) list a number of areas requiring further exploration in SE, such as ‘What are the effects of market forces on the formation and behavior of social enterprises?’ and ‘What are the motivational constructs of social entrepreneurs, and how do they compare with commercial entrepreneurs?’
Thus, it is important to bring attention to the evolution of SE as a result of broader societal and economic structures. Dey and Steyaert (2016) illuminate how social entrepreneurs and traditional business entrepreneurs cannot be easily detached. Focusing on how both social entrepreneurs and traditional commercial entrepreneurs frame macro-views of system change and emancipation, and based on interviews with social entrepreneurs, they state that (Dey and Steyaert, 2016: 638): Our excursus on neoliberal governmentality helped us advance our understanding of the political aspect of the limit experience, notably by illuminating how social entrepreneurs in many advanced liberal societies are increasingly called on to become more “responsible”; by emulating the values and behaviours of entrepreneurs from the private sector…Our inquiry into SE policies and programs offered a case in point of how social problems are transformed into a matter of entrepreneurial self-care, and how this transformation in turn renders practitioners in social enterprises governable.
Social entrepreneurs claiming to fall within a ‘third-sector’ are intertwined within traditional structures that are influenced and directed by commercial entrepreneurs – most notably, neoliberalism and capitalism that propose ‘individual entrepreneurial freedoms’ (Harvey, 2007: 2) underlined by individualistic and economically focused notions of the self, a free-market approach in nation-states and, on a global level, encourages the international freedom to move goods and services transnationally. These questions and studies highlight the complexity of SE and how it is both similar to, and different from, traditional entrepreneurship and the roots of neoliberalism – can it do both? Does it provide an opportunity to escape the confines of neoliberalism, or is it always interlaced with traditional capitalist ideologies? This is a question that is discussed further in a following section.
Increasingly, adopting a critical lens to explore SE has been advocated for by various scholars in order to ‘question the assumption of equal opportunities available to all would-be-entrepreneurs, the predominant view of a masculine and heroic entrepreneur, the influence of the dominant language, and the criteria for defining success and failure’ (Mueller et al., 2011: 114; Ogbor, 2000). In particular, feminist scholars have emphasised and articulated the importance of bringing a critical eye to not only SE, but ‘entrepreneurship’ generally, which may upend the contemporary dominant view of social entrepreneurs as individuals, and look to understand how collectives and groups act as social entrepreneurs and operate social enterprises for the purposes of building community and creating social change (Calas et al., 2009).
One significant aspect of SE and entrepreneurs is a claim to produce social change and value creation. For critical researchers, questions of social change must be considered to examine the relational micro-, meso- and macro-complexities of societal structures and systems. Newey (2018) critically explores how two very different types of SE, compensatory
2
(i.e. merely utilising SE to work within the current systems of hegemonic capitalism and neoliberalism to better society) and transformatory (i.e. working towards disrupting and transforming the current systems of hegemonic capitalism), present an alternative to the global capital system. Newey notes that SE can be seen as either a mere slideshow to the mainstream economic act of society and/or something radically transformative of that very system. These different viewpoints can range from asking how do we make existing society better to a more fundamental asking of what sort of society do we want (Newey, 2018: 15).
Critically exploring how SE may challenge the current dominant economic model within society may lend insight into the transformational potential of SE and also create self-reflection to ensure the concept of SE does not become reified (Mueller et al., 2011) – much like as ‘sport’ has become reified as a universal concept that is inherently good (Coalter, 2013). 3 In the following, I briefly identify studies of SE and sport, especially SDP.
Social entrepreneurship and sport
Recently, a review of the concept of SE and sport has been offered by Bjärsholm (2017), who notes that the first article published on SE and sport was as late as 2004, displaying the nascent nature of the concept and that SE is ‘an empirical example of a marked shift towards new organisational forms which blur sector lines’ (Bjärsholm, 2017: 13). In his review, Bjärsholm (2017) illustrates how studies of SE and sport have been conducted at the individual level (Cohen and Peachey, 2015; Griffiths and Armour, 2014; Thompson and Doherty, 2006) and at the organisational level, such as how organisations may improve through business-like strategies that promote SE activity (Chew, 2010; Ratten and Babiak, 2010). In regard to the processes and environment of SE, how enterprise’s goals and activities are financed was highlighted, as well as how social networks of organisations may be enhanced to alleviate various social issues (Bjärsholm, 2017). In particular, Gallagher et al. (2012) display how SE may be utilised to contribute to the economic survival and sustainability of organisations through innovative practices that reinvest money into organisations – a notable point about the potential SE may offer for SDP organisations seeking to be sustainable in an increasingly competitive and donor-driven field in times of austerity (Lindsey, 2017; Rossi and Jeanes, 2018) – and a point I return to later in this paper.
As seen in the above, much of the literature has been produced by management and organisational studies that see the individual or organisation as a driver of social change within the contemporary structures of inequality, rather than acknowledging broader structures that have constituted the need for SE in the first place (compare to Hayhurst, 2014). As such, similar to the broader SE literature, ‘a “business case” narrative and discourse is being privileged in the practice of social enterprise research to the detriment of providing conceptual and theoretical recognition of the social’ (Arthur et al., 2010: 2). Some studies, such as Hayhurst (2014) and Kennedy and Kennedy (2015), offer unique critical insights into SE and sport. Hayhurst (2014), exploring sport, gender and development (SGD) programming in Uganda, displays how many SGD SEs focus on ‘girls in order to help them to survive (and eventually “thrive”) in the current neoliberal order’ (Hayhurst 2014: 298). Similarly, utilising a political economy perspective, Kennedy and Kennedy (2015) explore grass-roots, NFP football organisations that seek to remain sustainable during times of austerity, defined here as ‘a form of voluntary deflation in which the economy adjusts through the reduction of wages, prices and public spending in order to restore competitiveness which is (supposedly) best achieved by auditing state budgets, debts and deficits’ (Parnell et al., 2018: 1). Examining how social enterprises and networks operate outside of a ‘market-driven’ discourse, Kennedy and Kennedy (2015) explore relations of capitalism and counterculturalism, arguing that differences in SE and social transformationalist approaches by NFP football clubs act as forms of resistance in varying ways to neoliberal ideologies. In this case, social transformationalist approaches (an extension of SE approaches) are better suited to disrupt capitalist categories such as price and profit and refrain from (re)producing neoliberal notions within organised football, such as commodification of the game and individualist elitist aspirations (Kennedy and Kennedy, 2015). Although others have conducted studies of SE within the discipline of the sociology of sport (see Kiernan and Porter, 2014; Sanders et al., 2014; Sherry and Strybosch, 2012), like Hayhurst (2014), the focus of the studies is not explicitly on SE – rather, the concept is briefly mentioned or explored.
Overall, and based on Bjärsholm’s (2017) suggestions that empirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative, must be carried out in areas such as the attitudes of social entrepreneurs, the different organisational forms of enterprises and, importantly, the role of the environment and societal factors of SE, the need for critical perspectives that contextualise, politicise, and illuminate the inherent power relations within SE and sport are crucial. In the following section, I discuss how SE is an area worthy of further investigation and what critical examinations of SE and SDP may contribute to the broader field of SDP.
SDP and social entrepreneurship: The possibilities of further exploration
There is not enough space here nor is it my intent to provide a full review of the increasingly popular and nascent field of SDP (for a full review, see Schulenkorf et al., 2016). What is important to recognise from the above critical sociological studies on SE and sport is that SE has been produced and intertwined within neoliberalism (like SDP); however, also, in some ways, it may enable transformation of the societal status-quo or disrupt neoliberal ideologies of individualism and self-sufficiency through collective activity that acts outside of market-oriented norms. Thus, as Hayhurst (2014: 310–311) has suggested in regard to SDP and SE, there is ‘a dire need to understand the socioeconomic, sociocultural and sociopolitical implications and consequences of social entrepreneurship’. Other scholars, such as Cohen and Peachy (2015), have also identified the need for further studies on SE and SDP.
This presents an opportunity for sociologists of SDP to contribute to a growing field of study, SE, while remaining interested in social change and how sport may offer a way to respond to social issues in order to transform the societal status-quo. Rather than view social enterprises as a ‘temporary patch’ to institutional voids of the market and state, which emphasises ‘the dominance of the business discourse and drive for social enterprises to be the quick fix for societies’ ills’ (Bull, 2008: 271), sociologists of sport bringing a critical lens to the concept of SE and sport may draw attention to the foundations of these organisations – the social. Furthermore, applying a critical lens to SE and SDP may further mainstream sport into international development research while remaining aware of the potential consequences that sport as a tool for development may have on broader societal structures such as neoliberalism and neocolonialism. In the next section, I discuss how SE has been featured in development studies and provide examples of how the study of SE may further contribute to bridging SDP and international development.
Mainstreaming SDP and international development
The field of SDP has grown tremendously in recent years (Schulenkorf et al., 2016) and there is no question that sociological studies of sport and international development have contributed a great deal to the field (e.g. Darnell, 2012; Hayhurst, 2014; Spaaij, 2009). In many of these studies, the broader field of international development is used to explore and frame understandings of SDP (Darnell, 2012; Levermore, 2009). In addition to articles that frame SDP within theories of international development, there has also been an explicit call by sport and international development scholars to ‘mainstream’ sport into international development studies (Darnell and Black, 2011; Levermore, 2008, 2009; Lindsey, 2017). Recently, Darnell and Dao (2017) suggested that the use of the capabilities approach (an international development approach) would be well-suited to bridge development theory with SDP, and has also been suggested to assist in exploring how SDP programmes and organisations may reduce funding reliance in times of austerity (Rossi and Jeanes, 2018). Yet, despite such calls and empirical research that has been conducted on SDP utilising international development frameworks and exploring various thematic areas, there remains a limited focus on SE within SDP. This not only leaves a lacuna of research within the sport sociology and SDP field, but also hinders the possibility of mainstreaming sport and international development studies by turning attention to the growing literature on SE in international development.
Literature on SE within Africa in particular has received increased attention (George et al., 2016; Urban and Teise, 2015) especially as African social entrepreneurs have self-identified as serving the ‘public good’ and, as seen by Rivera-Santos et al. (2015: 368), ‘institutional development and residual ideologies of colonialism made it difficult for Africans to navigate their environments’. This speaks to how social and cultural influences such as remnants of (neo)colonialism affect social entrepreneurs, and how institutions influence the choices and activities of social entrepreneurs (Littlewood and Holt, 2015). Although such power relations inherently underlie SE, ‘market-oriented approaches are being embraced as an integral element in creating lasting social change’ (Dees, 2008: 12) and SE may play an influential role in alleviating poverty through micro-finance programmes and other sustainable social programmes within marginalised communities.
Such studies display the steps that international development scholars are taking to address and further understand SE, especially in contexts where unequal power relations remain for groups and individuals, and explicate how SE is intertwined with (post)colonial histories and common pitfalls of development, such as neocolonialism. However, although caution (as with any development ‘intervention’) must be taken when exploring SE, as highlighted by Seelos and Mair (2005, 2007a, 2007b), SE may respond to global development goals in a variety of ways.
Specifically, Seelos and Mair (2005) examined how SE may contribute to human, social and economic development and potentially provide commodities to ‘the poor’, by linking entrepreneurial and innovative ideas to the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. Importantly, the authors draw attention to the need to look at the ‘social’ of social entrepreneur, rather than economic value creation that is the secondary focus of social entrepreneurs, and say that ‘the greatest challenge in understanding SE … lies in defining the boundaries of what we mean by “social”’ (Seelos and Mair, 2005: 243). In this sense, Seelos and Mair (2005) call for scholars to consider the way social entrepreneurs actually ‘change the system’, a phrase common within the SE literature that suggests disruption of the status-quo and resistance to the hegemonic capitalist, neoliberal contemporary society. Seelos and Mair’s (2005) study connects well with Lindsey and Darby’s (2019) recent examination of sport and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Drawing on the concept of policy coherence, the authors stress the need for critical analysis of sport, SDP and the SDGs that explore and illuminate the potential contributions or limits sport has when applied to the SDGs (Lindsey and Darby, 2019), and that require further ‘analysis that recognises how any such impacts may be enabled or constrained by interconnections across different development agendas, sectors and contexts’ (Lindsey and Darby, 2019: 808). SE, which is characterised as a third sector interacting with a number of different sectors and social contexts that relate to global development goals as seen by Seelos and Mair’s (2005) study, is an area worthy of further investigation to bridge SDP and international development studies. What is more, many social entrepreneurs and enterprises, especially in ‘development’ contexts, partner or engage with micro-finance programmes, which, in addition to studies of SE, are increasingly being turned to for sustainable development ‘interventions’ (Littlefield et al., 2003; Mori et al., 2015).
As partnerships have been explored in-depth and scholars have accentuated the accompanying challenges and benefits of interorganisational relationships and global connections in SDP (Hayhurst and Frisby, 2010; Nicholls et al., 2011; Peachey et al., 2018), examining how SE may offer new ways of partnering and how these partnerships differ from traditional organisational relationships is a relevant area of study for sociologists of SDP. For example, how may organisations such as the Young African Refugees for Integral Development use their SE women’s centre (which produces clothing, bags and more, to be sold and profits reinvested in the centre) in conjunction with SDP to engage with new partners? Or, how may this social enterprise allow their organisation and SDP programmes to run sustainably without the need for external funding or creating partnerships with global corporations or NGOs?
Thus, although SE must be questioned critically, the potential it offers to the growing and competitive field of SDP – as seen by literature on organisational hybridity and innovation (Svensson and Hambrick, 2016), the thousands of organisations globally becoming involved in SDP, as well as calls by journals for special issues focused on organisational innovation within SDP (see Managing Sport and Leisure) – SE is a concept that is timely and has potential to inform innovative approaches in SDP. In the next section, I discuss SE and SDP in relation to innovation, sustainability and social change.
Social entrepreneurship and SDP: Innovation, sustainability and social change
Recently, literature on SDP has pointed to the need to consider the sustainability and longevity of the field of SDP in times of austerity. In particular, Rossi and Jeanes (2018) discuss how SDP organisations may navigate donor-recipient relations and reduce reliance on international and global funders during an era of austerity within contemporary trends of neoliberalism. Briefly, the authors highlight SE, and how it differs from philanthrocapitalism; however, they do not expand on how social enterprise SDP organisations may offer an interesting concept to explore to respond to the implications of the SDP field due to austerity. The authors do say that ‘despite various foundations and smaller entrepreneurship groups providing philanthropic aid, and donor governments continuing to contribute significant levels of support, the likelihood is that aid/support will probably not increase’ (Rossi and Jeanes, 2018: 191). I add to their commentary and suggest that SE and SDP should be examined in response to austerity and the neoliberal constraints of societies, and that such examinations may provide understanding about how aid/support from donors and corporate funders may be resisted and, ideally, not needed.
In relation to SDP, austerity and innovation are also questions of the sustainability of the field due to the aforementioned funding reliance and unequal global-relations within many contexts (Coalter, 2010; Schulenkorf, 2012). Such critiques have led to considerations of how to better align the field for sustainability and future survival. In particular, Lindsey (2017) has recently highlighted the need for governance of SDP and how sector-wide approaches, rather than project-based approaches, may increase longevity of the field as well as foster connections between international development and sport. Considering SE within SDP may also respond to critiques of unequal donor-recipient relations and potentially provide sustainable options for local ‘development’ organisations to be autonomous, free from reliance on funders, and self-sufficient. Hayhurst (2014) argues that NGOs operating at the grass-roots and local level engage in social entrepreneurial activities to be sustainable and reduce reliance on external funders for survival, while, at the same time, framing and encouraging women to be ‘entrepreneurial, innovative and self-reliant through corporatised SGD programs’ (Hayhurst, 2014: 302) that renders young women and girls as governable entrepreneurs responsible for their own self-conduct and creating social change in patriarchal norms. However, Hayhurst (2014) offers optimism about the potential SE may hold for SDP – specifically, how organisations may utilise SE for sustainability purposes and reduce unequal donor-recipient relationships, and also how – possibly – SE may offer resistance to neoliberal tendencies of SDP.
Lastly, the ideal of SDP programmes to contribute to social change is complex, ambiguous, and difficult to claim (Coalter, 2013). Scholars in SDP, such as Spaaij and Jeanes (2013), Schulenkorf (2012), and Hartmann and Kwauk (2011), have discussed the importance of understanding the structural systems in which SDP operates and how programmes (and their associated benefits or objectives) may disrupt and/or maintain institutionalised social norms (e.g. the limited participation of young women in physical activity in some contexts). At the same time, other scholars have highlighted the importance of understanding individual ‘development’ and the micro (as well as meso) impacts of SDP at the local and community level (Lindsey et al., 2017). SE, as has been discussed, is inherently underlined by a social mission that seeks to respond to a social issue and, ultimately, upon addressing that issue, ‘should result in the end of social entrepreneurship’ (Mueller et al., 2011: 112). That is, SE should no longer be needed once the social issue has been responded to and overcome. Thus, sociological and critical explorations of SE and SDP may add to the contemporary discussions on social change within SDP by highlighting the practices, decision making, innovativeness and ways that social enterprises and social entrepreneurs attempt to achieve social change at individual, organisational, community and structural levels.
Of course, as highlighted earlier, this does not mean that social enterprises or entrepreneurs operate outside of neoliberal discourses or ideologies – rather, they are influenced by and influence market-based approaches that, although they have a secondary profit-motive as an objective, seek first to promote and initiate social change. Understanding further how SDP organisations are inherently innovative – especially through SE approaches and models, and how such approaches take place within the broader power relations and structures of the field of international development that SDP is a part of (Lindsey, 2017) – may offer a way of ‘connecting SDP to broader issues and contexts of sport, politics and international development’ (Darnell et al., 2018: 147). In the following section, I conclude by offering suggestions for future research and a potential way forward in how SE may be explored critically by sociologists of sport.
Discussion and conclusion
One of the significant contributions that studying SE and SDP from a critical lens may offer is understanding the processes and nuances of how SE moves beyond compensatory approaches to development that merely work within the confines of neoliberalism. As seen by Hayhurst’s (2014) study, resistance to norms and societal inequalities is possible (in this case through SE activities that resist patriarchal norms), while, at the same time, structural and systemic unequal power relations remain in favour of the dominant status-quo (that is, the systemic structures of gender inequality and individual responsibility are not disrupted long-term). Thus, although SE claims social change, explorations such as Hayhurst’s (2014) may serve as examples for critical examinations of SE’s compensatory and transformational (and everything in between and beyond) potential within SDP.
In order to provide an example of how scholars may potentially critically examine SE and SDP and what this would look like, I draw on postcolonial management theory (Frenkel and Shenhav, 2006) and participatory action research, which have been advocated for in the field of SDP and is similar to the approach Hayhurst (2014) utilised within her study. In bridging SE, SDP, and a postcolonial management lens that highlights the ongoing cultural significance of colonialism (Westwood, 2006), researchers may be able to shed insights into the historical and political environment inherent within SE – especially within contexts that have histories of (post)colonialism. As many SDP studies take place in the global South by global North researchers (Schulenkorf et al., 2016), adopting a postcolonial lens also places an emphasis on the decolonisation of the research process and attempts to disentangle the complex relations of race, class, and gender, within institutionalised settings of organisational management and business (Banerjee and Prasad, 2008), such as SE. Finally, a postcolonial management lens also signifies an approach to research that seeks collaboration and participation from those involved in the research study. I suggest here that methodological approaches to the study of SE and SDP guided by critical participatory action research approaches would be well-suited to align with the premise of SE as a concept, which is to address social issues and produce social change. For example, using a participatory approach to research would require involvement from those in SE SDP programmes to voice their experiences and challenges of SE, as well as to provide insight into the potential opportunities it holds for individual empowerment and community development. Furthermore, participants would be involved in developing questions and the direction of research in order to address those issues that are most important to them, which are most likely aligned or the exact same as the SE programme, initiative or organisation. Approaching research collaboratively with a participatory action research approach would be able to identify, highlight, and negotiate in what ways SE offers a means for social change, while at the same time working toward understanding local perspectives that may differ from the perspectives of those involved in the global movement of SDP (i.e. SE programme funders or partners working internationally with community-based SE programmes or initiatives).
Exploring SE and SDP guided by a postcolonial lens and a participatory action research approach would be able to pose and explore significant questions at both the individual level and organisational level, as well as inquire into the nuances of the environment and processes of SE. What characterises an individual social entrepreneur in SDP and how do they elicit and promote social change? In what ways do social enterprises employ innovative strategies while ensuring sustainable solutions to social issues such as gender equality and other social movements globally? How are social enterprises constructed and in what way do they navigate the ‘business’ discourse of the private sector and neoliberal ideologies while operating toward social change? Or, how do they disrupt neoliberal ideals of SDP and move toward emancipatory, community social change? How do they reach their desired social mission, and, in what ways, especially in SDP, do they manage donor-recipient relations in an increasingly funder-reliant and competitive field? These are only some of the questions that may be posed when considering SE and SDP from a critical, postcolonial lens.
I have argued throughout this article that SE and sport is thus far a significant oversight by scholars interested in SDP, especially due to the potential contributions, such as further understanding the complex claims and processes of social change, innovation, and sustainability inherent in SE, that critically examining the concept offers. Furthermore, it is clear that SE models and approaches are growing within the SDP field, and more generally, sport (Ratten and Ferreira, 2017). As SE has been dominated by management and business studies, critical explorations of SE and sport are needed, and may ‘represent a counterbalance to mainstream sport management perspectives by demystifying neoliberal ideologies’ (Hovden, 2015: 475) that are taken-for-granted in studies of SE.
As critical researchers, we should be interested in how social change may take place, and, when claimed to occur, critically question the processes and (un)intended consequences of such claims. As SDP researchers, we should be interested in understanding organisational innovation and sustainability, and how this may respond to neoliberal undertones, in particular, unequal donor-recipient relations. Are SDP social entrepreneurs and enterprises only acting as forms of compensatory SE, merely working within the constraints of capitalism and neoliberalism – or, instead, are they transforming social structures and contributing to social change?
As Malcolm (2018: 7) argues within his editorial introduction paper as the editor of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, ‘in addition to being critical, sociology is remarkably pliable, parasitic almost (Urry, 1981) in its ability to capitalise on new areas of study’. As a ‘dynamic and receptive’ (Malcolm, 2018: 7) field, the sociology of sport should be open and interested in further empirical analysis and critical considerations of SE – not only because of its increasing role in society and sport, but also because of the potential it may offer to respond to challenges within the SDP field.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their guidance and support in the development of this paper. I am also thankful to Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst and Dr. Lisa Kikulis for their thought-provoking insights and continuous support.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
