205475-AMP Rivera 201502

Social Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa
Miguel Rivera-Santos, Diane Holt, David Littlewood, Ans Kolk
To cite this version:

Miguel Rivera-Santos, Diane Holt, David Littlewood, Ans Kolk. Social Entrepreneurship in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2015, 29 (1), 72-91 p. �hal-02276715�
HAL Id: hal-02276715

https://hal.science/hal-02276715
Submitted on 3 Sep 2019
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
娀 The Academy of Management Perspectives
2015, Vol. 29, No. 1, 72–91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0128
S Y M P O S I U M
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
MIGUEL RIVERA-SANTOS
Babson College
DIANE HOLT
Essex Business School
DAVID LITTLEWOOD
Henley Business School
ANS KOLK
University of Amsterdam Business School
Responding to calls for a better understanding of the relationship between social

enterprises and their environments, this article focuses on contextual influences on
social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. We identify four predominantly Afri-
can contextual dimensions (acute poverty, informality, colonial history, and ethnic
group identity) and explore their influence on the way social ventures perceive them-
selves and on their choice of activities. Our empirical study of 384 social enterprises
from 19 sub-Saharan African countries suggests that ethnic group identity and acute
poverty levels influence both self-perception and activity choices, the country’s colo-
nial history influences only self-perception, and informality has no significant influ-
ence on either. These findings point to the need to consider both self-perception and the
choice of activities in defining social entrepreneurship. Our study also highlights the
importance of African contextual dimensions for understanding social entrepreneur-
ship, and underlines the added value of incorporating insights from African data into
management research more broadly.
While most scholars agree that what differenti- tails is still the subject of heated debate. In partic-
ates social enterprises from their commercial coun- ular, there remains disagreement among scholars
terparts is the fact that they combine profitability regarding definitional boundaries and the dimen-
and social/environmental goals (Dacin, Dacin, & sions along which these enterprises should be iden-
Tracey, 2011; Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014; Pless, tified and analyzed (Dacin et al., 2011; Mair &
2012), what social entrepreneurship actually en- Martí, 2006; Santos, 2012; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neu-
baum, & Shulman, 2009). These debates are not
purely academic, as they also have significant impli-
The authors contributed equally to the paper. cations for policy (Leadbeater, 2007). Different schol-
The authors would like to thank the editor and the ars have used varied approaches to tackle this ques-
anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. tion, ranging from calls for theory-based rather than
The authors would also like to thank Aldas Kriauciunas practice-based definitions (Mair & Martí, 2006) to ar-
and Anne Parmigiani for their comments on earlier ver-
guments that some definitional differences may come
sions of the paper. The financial support of the Economic
and Social Research Council (RES-061-25-0473 awarded from the coexistence of competing schools of thought
to principal investigator Diane Holt) is gratefully ac- in the literature (Bacq & Janssen, 2011).
knowledged. Further information on the Trickle Out Af- In this debate, scholars have highlighted several
rica Project can be found at www.trickleout.net. dimensions as particularly relevant, with impor-
72
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2015 Rivera-Santos, Holt, Littlewood, and Kolk 73
tant implications for the definition of social entre- In this paper, we take a first step in addressing
preneurship. Self-perception as a social enterprise, this gap with a study of sub-Saharan African social
for instance, is commonly used in empirical studies enterprises. We seek to answer this research ques-
to identify social enterprises or social entrepre- tion: How do contextual dimensions influence so-
neurs (Lyon, Teasdale, & Baldock, 2010; Mair, Bat- cial entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa? The
tilana, & Cardenas, 2012; Meyskens, Robb-Post, African continent provides a particularly apt illus-
Stamp, Carsrud, & Reynolds, 2010), suggesting that tration of how an environment can influence social
the fact that individuals consider their venture to entrepreneurial ventures. Despite variation across
be a social enterprise is key to understanding its and within them, countries in sub-Saharan Africa
mission and activities. Similarly, some scholars are typically characterized by high levels of pov-
have analyzed the choice of activities as well as the erty, with 26 countries ranked among the 30 poor-
patterns of profit distribution as a way to assess the est countries in the world (International Monetary
coexistence of social and profitability goals and Fund, 2013); government failures, with 14 coun-
thus determine the social entrepreneurial nature of tries ranked among the 30 most corrupt countries in
a venture (Doherty et al., 2014; Santos, 2012; Zahra the world (Transparency International, 2012); and
poor infrastructure, market failures, and a large in-
et al., 2009). Other scholars stress the diversity that
formal economy, with 23 countries ranked among
exists across social enterprises, leading to the de-
the 30 worst countries to do business in (World
velopment of typologies based on a variety of di-
Bank, 2012). Furthermore, the African institutional
mensions (e.g., Mair et al., 2012; Zahra et al., 2009).
environment is characterized by lingering colonial
Reviewing this literature, however, Bacq and
influences (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2000)
Janssen (2011) found that, among the different rel-
and by particularly strong ethnic group identities
evant dimensions that could affect social enter-
(Michalopoulos & Papaioannou, 2015; Nyambe-
prises, the characteristics of the environment (i.e.,
gera, 2002), setting it apart from other developing
the context in which the venture operates) have
country contexts. The sub-Saharan African envi-
received very limited attention, despite early ac-
ronment is thus likely to create many opportunities
knowledgments of their importance for social en-
for social enterprises to emerge in new and creative
trepreneurs (e.g., Mair & Martí, 2006). At a basic forms that reflect this institutional variability and
level, the environment creates the social needs and these constraints.
thereby the social opportunities that entrepreneurs Grounding our reasoning in institutional theory,
or their agents can pursue (Santos, 2012). It also we identify four predominantly African contextual
determines the legal recognition and forms of social dimensions—(1) acute poverty, (2) informality, (3)
enterprises, with important variations found across colonial history, and (4) ethnic group identity—and
different countries (Defourny & Nyssens, 2008; Ker- explore their influence on the way social ventures
lin, 2006; Peattie & Morley, 2008). perceive themselves and on their choice of activi-
At a deeper level, characteristics of the envi- ties. We do so through an empirical study of 384
ronment are likely to affect not only the possible social enterprises from 19 sub-Saharan African
emergence of social enterprises, but also many of countries. Our results suggest that ethnic group
the characteristics of these ventures. For in- identity and acute poverty influence both self-per-
stance, scholars have highlighted the importance ception and activity choices, the country’s colonial
for social enterprises of the effectiveness of gov- history influences only self-perception, and infor-
ernment actions and quality of infrastructures mality has no significant influence on social
(Partzsch & Ziegler, 2011; Santos, 2012), of for- entrepreneurship.
mal and informal institutions (Rivera-Santos, Our contributions are threefold. First, we under-
Rufín, & Kolk, 2012), of cultural preferences for score how environmental characteristics affect the
individual or collective action (Montgomery, Da- self-perception as, and the actual activities of, so-
cin, & Dacin, 2012), and of the extent to which cial enterprises. In so doing, we take a first step in
compassion will be transformed into social entre- responding to calls for a better understanding of the
preneurial initiatives in different institutional relationship between social enterprises and their
environments (Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vo- environment (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Mair & Martí,
gus, 2012). A better understanding of how the 2006). Second, our findings show that there is a
environment affects different dimensions of so- conceptual and empirical difference between self-
cial enterprises, therefore, seems essential. perception and the activities of social enterprises,
74 The Academy of Management Perspectives February
suggesting that caution is needed when equating just academic concerns. To clarify these bound-
self-identification as a social enterprise and an ac- aries, researchers have used several different ap-
tual social mission on the ground. This study thus proaches, including the development of theory-
contributes to the debate around the definition of driven definitions, the identification of several
social entrepreneurship by emphasizing the need schools of thought in the literature to explain
to consider both self-perceptions and activities to variations across definitions, empirical and con-
define a social entrepreneurial venture. Third, our ceptual typologies, and exploration of the differ-
exploratory analysis of sub-Saharan African social ent dimensions of social entrepreneurship.
enterprises not only helps expand our knowledge Responding to calls for a grounding in the
of such organizations in these settings, but also broader management literature as a way to go be-
highlights the insights that African data can bring yond practice-driven definitions that may reflect
to the social entrepreneurship literature, thus re- specific cases (Mair & Martí, 2006), some authors
sponding to calls for an incorporation of African have developed conceptual frameworks to under-
insights into the academic debate in management stand social entrepreneurship and social enter-
(Zoogah, 2008; Zoogah & Nkomo, 2013). prises in light of existing theories. Santos (2012), in
The paper is organized as follows: We start with particular, contended that there is a conceptually
a discussion of the social entrepreneurship litera- distinct domain for social entrepreneurship. He ar-
ture and insights offered on boundaries and char- gued that there are specific situations in which
acteristics. This is followed by a presentation of the social entrepreneurial activity can be expected to
specificities of the African environment, consider- emerge and that social entrepreneurship scholars
ing the socioeconomic and historico-political con- can therefore define social enterprises as being
textual dimensions. Building on these foundations, created to respond to a particular type of situa-
the subsequent section links the specific character- tion. Highlighting the trade-off that exists be-
istics of the sub-Saharan African context with self- tween value creation and value capture in the
perceptions and activities of social entrepreneurial combination of social and commercial goals, he
ventures, and discusses the key findings of our contended that social enterprises can be expected
empirical study of social enterprises in 19 African to emerge in contexts of simultaneous market and
countries that allow us to disentangle these rela- government failures, concluding that “social en-
tionships (the full details of the study are included trepreneurship is the pursuit of sustainable solu-
in the appendix). The final section discusses the tions to neglected problems with positive exter-
implications of our research for the social entrepre- nalities” (Santos, 2012, p. 335). Similarly, Miller
neurship literature and the management field more and colleagues (2012) highlighted the importance
broadly. of compassion and pro-social motivations to un-
derstand social ventures, arguing that three
mechanisms (integrative thinking, pro-social
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND THEIR
cost– benefit analysis, and commitment to allevi-
CHARACTERISTICS
ating others’ suffering) can explain the transfor-
Beyond the agreement that a social enterprise mation of compassion into social entrepreneur-
combines profitability with social/environmental ship and identify the institutional conditions in
objectives (Doherty et al., 2014)—which, some au- which this transformation is most likely to occur.
thors argue, is a tautology rather than a definition Interestingly, both perspectives highlight the im-
(Cho, 2006; Parkinson & Howorth, 2008)—there is portance of interactions between social enter-
little consensus on boundaries and characteristics prises and their broader economic and institu-
of social enterprises. Similar ambiguity exists in tional environments.
relation to social entrepreneurship, and as a result, Other authors have argued that the definitional
definitions abound, leading authors to character- differences that can be seen in the literature
ize it as an essentially contested concept (Choi & may not reflect the social enterprises themselves,
Majumdar, 2014) and the field as a whole as but, rather, the scholarly approaches taken to
pre-paradigmatic (Lehner & Kansikas, 2013). In- analyze them. Bacq and Janssen (2011), for in-
terestingly, these debates are also important in stance, identified three main schools of thought
practitioners’ discussions of social enterprises in the literature: the social innovation school,
and entrepreneurship (Financial Times, 2013), with a strong focus on the entrepreneur; the so-
suggesting that these definitional issues are not cial enterprise school, in which the entrepreneur
takes a secondary role, superseded by the role of Overall, the debate over the conceptual defini-
nonprofit organizations or states; and the EMES tion of social entrepreneurship is ongoing. Perhaps
(Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe) reflecting the essentially contested nature of the
school, which emphasizes collective action and concept and the relative youth of social entrepre-
is more prevalent among European scholars. Here neurship as an academic field (Choi & Majumdar,
again, these authors highlight the importance of 2014; Lehner & Kansikas, 2013), empirical studies
the environment in which social enterprises tend to take a more inclusive approach. Many au-
evolve. thors let social entrepreneurs self-identify (Mair et
Arguing that one-size-fits-all definitions may not al., 2012; Meyskens et al., 2010; Santos, 2012) and
accurately reflect the complexity of social enter- thus rely on the entrepreneurs’ perception of them-
prises and entrepreneurship, other authors have selves and their ventures, while others analyze
approached these definitional issues through the their activities on the ground instead. There are
development of typologies based on the different reasons to believe that self-perception and the so-
definitions that exist in the literature. Dacin, Dacin, cial mission represented by the actual activities of
and Matear (2010), for instance, identified 37 the venture can vary across contexts, at the very
different definitions and explored what may be least because of different national legal frameworks
unique about the concept of social entrepreneur- for social entrepreneurship (Defourny & Nyssens,
ship. The authors concluded that social entrepre- 2008; Kerlin, 2006; Mair & Martí, 2006; Peattie &
neurship cannot be considered as distinct from the Morley, 2008). In this context, it is surprising to see
broader concept of entrepreneurship, but that the the limited attention paid to the impact of the en-
specific context in which social entrepreneurs and vironment on social entrepreneurship (Bacq & Jans-
sen, 2011), despite its implicit presence in defini-
their ventures operate provides interesting avenues
tions and debates throughout the literature, as
for research. By contrast, Zahra and colleagues
noted above. In this paper, our goal is to contribute
(2009) focused on the distinctive aspects of social
to this debate by specifically examining the influ-
entrepreneurship, drawing on 20 different social
ence of the environment on self-perception and the
entrepreneurship definitions from academic and
choice of activities, rather than by developing alter-
practitioner literature. They argued that social en-
native definitions. To do so, we explore the char-
trepreneurs can be seen as individuals pursuing a
acteristics of social enterprises in a little studied
total wealth that combines economic and social
yet highly distinctive environment: sub-Saharan
wealth, with the authors defining social entrepre-
Africa. In the next section, we discuss the charac-
neurship as encompassing “the activities and pro- teristics of this environment.
cesses undertaken to discover, define, and exploit
opportunities in order to enhance social wealth by
creating new ventures or managing existing organ- THE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN ENVIRONMENT(S)
izations in an innovative manner” (p. 522). Within While the African continent is now regularly pre-
this broad definition, the authors identified three sented as the next frontier for business (Economist,
different types of entrepreneurs: “social brico- 2013), it is still very rarely studied in the manage-
leurs,” “social constructionists,” and “social engi- ment literature, leading to calls for more empirical
neers,” which they connect to three different intel- research on Africa (Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2013;
lectual traditions related to Hayek, Kirzner, and Kolk & Van Tulder, 2010; Zoogah & Nkomo, 2013).
Schumpeter, respectively. In a review of 80 business and management jour-
Using an empirical rather than a literature re- nals from 1950 through 2011, Zoogah and Nkomo
view– based approach, Mair and colleagues (2012) (2013) found only 216 articles focused on Africa
also developed a typology of social entrepreneurial and expressed regret that these studies do not show
ventures. They identified four types of social entre- “the unique attributes of Africa that can be shared”
preneurial ventures based on the four possible (p. 19) across contexts. In areas of management that
forms of capital that can be leveraged by the entre- emphasize social issues, such as corporate respon-
preneur: social, economic, human, and political. sibility, sustainable development, and social entre-
The importance of the environment in which social preneurship, only a few studies use substantive
enterprises are active is therefore also recognized in multi-country African data that go beyond single-
this approach. Different typologies highlight differ- country cases and single-indicator set-ups (Egri &
ent dimensions, however. Ralston, 2008; Kolk & Van Tulder, 2010). In the area
of business and poverty, Bruton (2010, p. 6) argued and social challenges are often compounded by
that “research in business in institutional settings conflicts, such as those in northern Mali, Soma-
where poverty is dominant remains very limited,” a lia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the
theme echoed by Kolk, Rivera-Santos, and Rufín Congo (Kolk & Lenfant, in press), as well as by
(2014), who recommended widening the empirical high economic inequality, with seven countries
contexts of base-of-the-pyramid research to better ranked among the 10 most unequal countries in
encompass Africa. the world (Vision of Humanity, 2012; World Bank,
The African continent is characterized by serious 2014), and by poor political governance and gov-
social issues, which can become opportunities for ernment failures (Bräutigam & Knack, 2004) further
business creation, combined with a lack of re- exacerbating poverty. Multidimensional under-
sources and poor governance, which are likely to standings of poverty (World Bank, 2000) incorpo-
present particular challenges for social entrepre- rate not just economic components but also wider
neurs and enterprises. While these issues can be aspects of well-being, including health and educa-
found in both developed and developing countries, tion. The Education Index ranks 21 sub-Saharan
recent research suggests important differences in African countries among the bottom 30 countries
the prominence of particular social and environ- (UNDP, 2009). Similarly, among the 30 countries
mental issues within the public spheres of the with the shortest life expectancy, 29 are sub-Saha-
Global North and South (Barkemeyer, Figge, & Holt, ran African countries (Das & Samarasekera, 2012).
2013). The prevalence of social and environmental From an economic perspective, starting and
issues in sub-Saharan Africa, therefore, resonates growing businesses in sub-Saharan Africa is typi-
with Santos’s (2012) description of the conditions cally more difficult than in other parts of the world,
in which social entrepreneurship can be expected
linked to poor infrastructure, relative cost, and bu-
to emerge, and reinforces the need to examine the
reaucracy. The World Bank’s ease of doing business
unique attributes of the African context.
ranking places 23 sub-Saharan African countries
Sometimes seen as a unit, sub-Saharan Africa
among the 30 worst (World Bank, 2012). Challeng-
comprises 50 countries, although the inclusion/
ing business conditions alongside weak institu-
exclusion of some countries or areas, such as
tional structures lead to high levels of informality
Sudan and the Indian Ocean islands, and the
(De Soto, 2000; Godfrey, 2011), with important im-
existence of internationally unrecognized seces-
plications for management scholars (McGahan,
sions, such as Somaliland and Puntland, open
2012). For example, in this issue Zoogah, Peng, and
this seemingly simple count to debate. Sub-Saha-
ran African countries share commonalities, but Woldu (2015) discuss the influence of informal in-
they are also very different along substantial di- stitutions and the importance of possessing infor-
mensions. In this section, we review socioeco- mal resources and capabilities in the context of
nomic and historico-political dimensions of sub- organizational effectiveness in Africa.
Saharan Africa, emphasizing not only the Estimates of the extent of the informal economy
commonalities but also the variations across across the African continent are elusive, and cov-
countries. erage remains patchy. Current figures from the In-
ternational Labor Organization (ILO) of the percent-
age of people employed in the informal economy
Socioeconomic Contextual Dimensions cover only 10 sub-Saharan countries, and range
Despite relatively high gross domestic product from 33% (South Africa) to 70% (Zambia) (ILO,
(GDP) growth rates, at 4.12% and 5.02% in 2011 2012). The ILO further reports that “cross-country
and 2010, respectively (Trading Economics, 2013), data suggests that informal employment is paired
sub-Saharan Africa is still characterized by severe with low income per capita and high poverty rates.
socioeconomic problems. Of the 187 countries . . . People in extreme poverty may have no other
ranked by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) option than informal employment” (ILO, 2012,
for GDP per capita in purchasing power parity p. 3). This link may explain the prevalence of both
terms, 26 sub-Saharan African countries are ranked poverty and informality in Africa.
in the bottom 30 (International Monetary Fund, Of course, alongside this somber picture is the
2013), with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, story of Africa rising (Economist, 2011). Some sub-
Zimbabwe, Burundi, Liberia, and Eritrea ranked as Saharan African countries exhibit high GDP growth
the five poorest countries in the world. Economic rates despite global economic problems. In 2011,
for example, Ghana grew by 14.4% and Liberia and ery, colonization, and postcolonial relationships
Zimbabwe by 9.4% (World Bank, 2013), placing have had important implications for sub-Saharan
these countries among the 10 fastest growing econ- African countries (Hearn, 2007; Herbst, 2000).
omies in the world. Differences also exist within Studies have repeatedly shown the link between
countries. Lagos in Nigeria, for instance, is the third current levels of economic development and the
fastest growing city in the world, with population geographic prevalence of slave raids, as well as the
growth of almost 50% in the first decade of the 21st impact of these raids on present-day cultural pat-
century and concurrent rapid economic growth terns (Nunn & Wantchekon, 2011; Rodney, 1981;
(Kotkin & Cox, 2013), although World Bank data Whatley & Gillezeau, 2011). The colonial period
from 2010 indicates 82% of the population still live itself was relatively short in the overall history of
on less than $2 per day. While high economic the continent, but there is evidence that this period
growth rates can sometimes be explained by raw left important traces (Herbst, 2000), with colonial
material exports, in particular oil, rather than by institutions persisting after independence (Acemo-
balanced economic growth, business analysts tend glu et al., 2000). For instance, national boundaries
to consider at least some African countries and were decided by the colonizers, leaving many eth-
cities as challenging but rewarding places to invest nic groups spread across several countries (Mich-
(Economist, 2013). alopoulos & Papaioannou, 2012), like the Maasai
Overall, this coexistence of opportunities and between Tanzania and Kenya (Coast, 2002). Con-
challenges is likely to have important implications currently, other groups were left to coexist in the
for enterprises emerging to address them. In partic- same country despite their differences, such as in
ular, our discussions suggest two key socioeconomic Nigeria where the heavily centralized Yoruba king-
dimensions that, while not exclusive to sub-Saharan doms coexist with Igbo communities characterized
Africa, seem most relevant for the continent: poverty by institutions without a real central power figure,
and informality. and with Hausa Islamic urban centers (Njoku, 2006;
Ostien, 2007). Recent work by Michalopoulos and
Papaioannou (2015) further suggests that differ-
Historico-Political Contextual Dimensions
ences in these kinds of precolonial ethnic institu-
The historico-political context of sub-Saharan tions have also had significant implications for
African countries also tends to be more complex later economic performance.
than in many parts of the world, even though sub- Beyond national boundaries, different colonial
stantial variations exist across countries. A stream powers brought different approaches to coloniza-
of research has emerged surrounding institutional tion and, as a consequence, different forms of
theory in the context of emerging economies in formal institutions, often with lasting implica-
particular (Julian & Ofori-Dankwa, 2013; Peng, Sun, tions (Herbst, 2000). Acemoglu and co-authors
Pinkham, & Chen, 2009; Rivera-Santos et al., 2012), (2000) suggested that former British colonies in
emphasizing the weakness of formal institutions the developing world, for example, tend to be
and the resulting importance of understanding the more prosperous, have stronger property rights,
interaction between formal and informal institu- and exhibit more developed financial markets
tions (Zoogah et al., 2015). The Institutional Differ- relative to non-British ex-colonies. Sometimes,
ence Hypothesis (IDH) discussed by Julian and patterns of economic dependence also emerged
Ofori-Dankwa (2013) highlights the importance of after political independence. The influence of
contextual differences between developed and de- large French businesses and prominent French
veloping countries. While an emerging stream of politicians in many former French African colo-
work has tested this difference between developed nies, for instance, was so strong for several de-
and developing countries, there is little examina- cades that the term Françafrique was coined to
tion of institutional differences across developing reflect some French-speaking African countries’
countries within a region, suggesting that an exten- political and economic dependence on France
sion of IDH is needed as a way to respond to the call (Verschave, 2003). This interference in African
by Doh, Lawton, and Rajwani (2012) to consider the institutions by former colonizers, still denounced
non-market environment of businesses in differing today as ongoing by prominent African leaders
institutional contexts. such as Thabo Mbeki (Baldé & Dayen, 2012),
Among the specificities of the African continent, is not restricted to political actors and large busi-
there is broad agreement in the literature that slav- nesses. Some authors have argued that African
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are es- THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUB-SAHARAN

sentially playing the role of agents of North- AFRICAN ENVIRONMENT ON SOCIAL
ern institutions in their own countries due to the ENTREPRENEURSHIP
lack of financial autonomy of these NGOs
The sub-Saharan African context seems to ex-
(Hearn, 2007).
hibit particularly interesting characteristics for so-
Beyond issues of poor governance often associ- cial entrepreneurship researchers. Social and eco-
ated with post-independence dynamics (Bräutigam nomic challenges abound, creating needs that can
& Knack, 2004) and the resulting patterns of cor- become opportunities for ventures that have at least
ruption, with 14 sub-Saharan African countries some social goals. These ventures can range across
among the 30 most corrupt countries in the world a spectrum from for-profit commercial business
(Transparency International, 2012), sub-Saharan models exploiting niche markets to more socially
African countries are characterized by complex driven ventures responding to the prevalence of
institutional layers that seem to be specific to the acute needs associated with extreme poverty, in-
continent, at least to some extent (Zoogah et stitutional voids, vulnerable environmental re-
al., 2015). sources, and marginalized communities. An ex-
For example, tribal leaders and ethnic dynamics, ploration of the relationship between the
in particular, still play an important role in many specificities of the sub-Saharan African environ-
countries, even though it is important to emphasize ment and social entrepreneurship is thus likely
that differences exist across and within countries, to provide novel insights.
and that recent evolutions seem to point to a In this section, we build on the two literature
strengthening of nation-states through improved streams (social entrepreneurship and environmen-
governance across the continent (Bräutigam & tal influences) and discuss the expectations con-
Knack, 2004; Herbst, 2000). Nevertheless, the Afro- cerning the influence of the sub-Saharan African
barometer surveys suggest that tribal leaders still environment on social entrepreneurship. We con-
yield an important influence throughout the conti- sider the four contextual dimensions that are par-
nent (Robinson, 2009), and that this influence may ticularly pertinent to Africa as discussed above
actually be increasing, at least in some countries. (acute poverty, informality, colonial history, and
These patterns have important implications for ethnic group identity) in relation to important di-
management. Nyambegera (2002, p. 1078) noted mensions of social entrepreneurship and social en-
that, in Africa, “the[ir] ethnic group is a key source terprise characteristics highlighted in the literature
of sociological attachment and serves as an impor- and identified in earlier discussions (the venture’s
tant referent of self-identification.” Organizational self-perception as a social enterprise and its activ-
scholars further suggest that African management ities on the ground). The specifications of the em-
practices are influenced by the concept of ubuntu pirical study and exploratory hypotheses (includ-
(Mangaliso, 2001; West, 2014), a philosophical ing details on sample, data collection, variables,
thought system of human interdependence, reci- results, and limitations) can be found in the appen-
procity, and suppression of self-interest. Commu- dix. Below we summarize the key theoretical and
nal group and tribal identity is also demonstrated empirical insights.
in the Kenyan practice of harambee, whereby
financial resources are pooled to undertake com-
munal projects or help friends and family deal Poverty
with crises or a specific need for funding (Ka- While poverty is a worldwide phenomenon, it is
moche, 2000). particularly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, as ex-
Thus, two factors emerge within the complex plained above. A prevalence of visible poverty,
interplay of historico-political characteristics that stemming from a combination of high absolute lev-
are particularly pertinent to the African context: els of poverty and high inequality, is likely to affect
ethnic group identity and the influence of coloni- both a venture’s self-perception as a social enter-
zation. Hence, with the socioeconomic dimensions prise and its actual activities. As the literature sug-
(which lead to poverty and informality), we have gests, social entrepreneurship emerges when needs
the four contextual dimensions that are particularly are not fulfilled by the government or the private
pertinent to Africa: acute poverty, informality, co- sector, and when fulfilling these needs can lead to
lonial history, and ethnic group identity. strong positive externalities (Santos, 2012). Both
dimensions characterize environments of acute in the formal economy and typically emphasizes a
poverty, while the eradication of poverty has very social mission alongside profitability (Akula,
important positive externalities for the rest of the 2008). Similarly, the implications of the prevalence
economy (World Bank, 2000). Therefore, we can of informality in a venture’s environment are not so
expect higher levels of poverty to affect actual ac- easy to assess given the link between informality
tivities by leading to more developed social mis- and poverty, which is well established by develop-
sions on the ground. These social missions are ment economists at the macro and micro levels (De
likely to incorporate a more specific targeting of the Soto, 2000; Gulyani & Talukdar, 2010; Günther &
poor and, more generally, of marginalized commu- Launov, 2012). Overall, based on current insights,
nities in the venture’s business model (Seelos & it thus seems difficult to conceptualize the direc-
Mair, 2005), as both their needs and the environ- tion of the relationship between the prevalence of
ments in which they live are significantly different informality in sub-Saharan African countries and
from those of more mainstream customers (Rivera- social entrepreneurship.
Santos et al., 2012; Subrahmanyan & Gomez-
Arias, 2008).
Colonial History
Social missions in such an environment are also
likely to engage the poor in a more inclusive man- In contrast, we can expect a country’s colonial
ner, due to the difficulty of fully understanding history to influence social entrepreneurship in
their needs from the outside (Pless, 2012; Simanis sub-Saharan Africa as much as it influences other
& Hart, 2008). Beyond the social mission on the aspects of the economy. While colonization oc-
ground, an environment characterized by high lev- cupied a relatively short time in African coun-
els of poverty should also affect the venture’s self- tries’ history, the impact of the ex-colonizing
perception as a social enterprise, as it is likely to power is often still felt across a range of dimen-
increase the perception of the enterprise’s members sions including current levels of economic devel-
that they are solving social problems with the ven- opment (Acemoglu et al., 2000), institutions
ture. In particular, high levels of visible poverty are (Herbst, 2000), and cultural patterns (Nunn &
likely to increase the probability of compassion Wantchekon, 2011; Rodney, 1981; Whatley &
being transformed into social entrepreneurial ven- Gillezeau, 2011). As indicated above, scholars
tures (Miller et al., 2012), resulting in a stronger have noted that African countries formerly colo-
perception of the importance of the social mission nized by the British tend to be more prosperous
by members of the venture. Overall, we can there- and have more developed formal institutions
fore expect that high levels of poverty will lead to a than African countries formerly colonized by the
stronger self-perception as a social enterprise and French, the Belgians, the Germans, or the Portu-
to a choice of activities that emphasize the ven- guese (Acemoglu et al., 2000), suggesting a stron-
ture’s social mission. ger overall emphasis on, and trust in, economic
institutions. This different emphasis seems likely
to have implications for social entrepreneurship
Informality
and, in particular, for how social entrepreneur-
Like poverty, informality is a worldwide phe- ship is perceived. A stronger emphasis on, and
nomenon (Godfrey, 2011; ILO, 2012), but it is also trust in, economic institutions may lead entrepre-
particularly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa due to neurs to view their activities more often as for-
typically weaker or less efficient formal govern- profit than as social, reflecting a broader belief in
ments, as mentioned earlier. Although informality the role of business to solve problems and a more
is an important dimension of the sub-Saharan Af- positive experience with economic institutions.
rican environment, its impact on social entrepre- Although the belief in for-profit business is likely
neurship is not straightforward. Both formal and to be higher in countries colonized by the British
informal businesses can emphasize social missions (Acemoglu et al., 2000) and should therefore affect
as much as they can emphasize purely for-profit a venture’s self-perception as a social enterprise,
missions. A local money lender, for instance, may there is no reason to believe that it should affect the
be embedded in the informal economy and target actual activities of the social venture, as these will
the poor in its business model but still maximize its relate to the needs of the people targeted by the
profits (Collins, Morduch, Rutherford, & Ruthven, venture, as discussed above, rather than by the
2009), while a microfinance institution has its roots belief in for-profit business. We should note that
this reasoning applies to the effect of British colo- thereby provide specifically African insights into
nization in Africa, and it does not suggest a similar our understanding of social entrepreneurship.
relationship for other former British colonies, such
as the United States, India, or New Zealand, as it is
AN EMPIRICAL EXPLORATION OF THE
based on studies of the effect of colonization on
INFLUENCE OF THE SUB-SAHARAN
economic development in Africa. Overall, we can
AFRICAN ENVIRONMENT
thus expect an African country’s colonial history to
influence the venture’s self-perception as a social We carried out an empirical study to explore the
enterprise but not its actual activities, suggesting a hypothesized influence of the environment on so-
disconnection between self-perception and social cial entrepreneurship in 19 sub-Saharan African
mission in this situation. countries: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, the Demo-
cratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Mad-
agascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Ethnic Group Identity
Rwanda, the Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland,
The sub-Saharan African environment is also Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.1 Given
characterized by a relatively stronger influence of the dearth of information about social enterprises
ethnic groups than other parts of the world (Herbst, in these countries, and Africa more generally, in-
2000; Michalopoulos & Papaioannou, 2015). Ethnic cluding a lack of databases about such enterprises
group identity adds a parallel institutional frame- in most if not all the countries considered, we
work to national institutions, which may be recog- undertook an extensive company search and data
nized by the state although it is at odds with the collection. We collected data through a multi-lan-
state (Posner, 2005). Strong ethnic identities in sub- guage survey of social entrepreneurial ventures,
Saharan Africa are likely to influence social entre- which we complemented with additional second-
preneurship as they influence other parts of the ary data from various sources, including the Afro-
economy. In particular, the typically sub-Saharan barometer and the United Nations Development
African ubuntu approach, grounded in a view of Program. This resulted in sufficient information on
the world in which human interdependence and 384 social enterprises. The ventures’ survey re-
reciprocity are emphasized over individualism sponses were used to test the effect of the four
(Mangaliso, 2001; West, 2014), may have an impact predominantly African contextual dimensions dis-
on social ventures in regions of Africa in which the cussed above—poverty, informality, colonization
ethnic or tribal identities are strong. history, and ethnic identity— on the self-percep-
Regarding self-perception, we can expect social tion of the venture as a social enterprise and on its
ventures in these regions to associate with a more choice of activities reflecting its social mission on
social than a for-profit-oriented approach, reflect- the ground. We tested the predicted relationships
ing the less individualistic approach of traditional with a binary logistic regression, reflecting the na-
sub-Saharan Africa’s worldviews. Regarding social ture of the variables under study.
mission, we can also expect social ventures to Overall, our exploratory results suggest that
choose activities that emphasize the inclusion of higher poverty levels and strong ethnic group iden-
communities in decision making, as this is more tities result in a higher probability that the venture
aligned with the traditional ubuntu and group- will view itself as a social enterprise and that it will
based approach to decision making than with top- choose activities that support its social mission. In
down decision structures (Mangaliso, 2001). It is contrast, colonization by the British rather than
important to note that, although ethnic institutions other nations significantly reduces the probability
are typically informal (Herbst, 2000; Rivera-Santos that a venture will view itself as a social enterprise,
et al., 2012), informality exists both inside and but has no impact on the actual social mission of
outside of ethnic groups (De Soto, 2000; Godfrey, the venture on the ground. Informality has no sig-
2011), explaining why we expect a specific effect of nificant effect on either definitional dimension of
ethnic group identity on social entrepreneurship social entrepreneurship. The results of our explor-
from informality. atory empirical study, therefore, suggest that con-
Overall, this reasoning suggests that we can ex-
pect the four contextual dimensions to have an
influence on both self-perception as a social enter- 1
Details about the study’s methods and data can be
prise and the venture’s choice of activities, and found in the appendix.
textual dimensions that are especially prevalent in 2011; Mair & Martí, 2006). Incorporating the envi-
the sub-Saharan African environment influence so- ronment in social entrepreneurship research can
cial entrepreneurship. These findings highlight the help us better understand why different types of
insights that African data can provide to our under- social enterprises seem to exist around the world
standing of the importance of better incorporating and, in the process, maybe help settle ongoing de-
contextual dimensions in social entrepreneurship bates about what social entrepreneurship is (Choi &
research. They also suggest a need to incorporate Majumdar, 2014; Lehner & Kansikas, 2013). We
both self-perception and the choice of activities take a first step in this direction, as our findings
made by social ventures on the ground to develop a suggest that African social enterprises may not only
complete definition of social entrepreneurship, as be different from the implicit view of social enter-
both dimensions are empirically distinct. prises prevalent in the literature, but may also vary
significantly across African contexts. More re-
search contrasting social entrepreneurship models
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
in different parts of the world is likely to provide
The goal of this paper was to contribute to the important insights.
debate around social entrepreneurship by high- Second, our reasoning and our results also high-
lighting the importance of incorporating contextual light the differences that may exist between a ven-
influences, thus responding to calls for a better ture’s self-perception as a social enterprise and its
understanding of the relationship between social activities on the ground. This study suggests that
enterprises and their environments (Bacq & Jans- these dimensions are not only conceptually differ-
sen, 2011; Mair & Martí, 2006) and helping to clar- ent, but that they are also empirically different con-
ify definitional issues in the field. We did so by structs with different determinants, at least in sub-
exploring the influence of contextual dimensions Saharan African contexts. Recognizing that social
that are particularly prominent in sub-Saharan Af- entrepreneurs may not self-identify as social entre-
rica, thereby underscoring the insights that can preneurs in some contexts, despite their having all
come from using African data to inform broader the characteristics of social entrepreneurs in the
academic discussions. We developed predictions literature, has important implications for data col-
regarding the impact of poverty, informality, colo- lection strategies, as it has become relatively com-
nization history, and ethnic identity on the ven- mon for researchers to rely on self-perception to
ture’s self-perception as a social enterprise and on identify social entrepreneurs (Lyon et al., 2010;
its choices of activities reflecting its social mission. Mair et al., 2012; Meyskens et al., 2010). Our data
Using a unique dataset of 384 social enterprises on social enterprises that have the main character-
from 19 sub-Saharan African countries, we con- istic recognized in the literature (i.e., the combina-
ducted exploratory tests of the predicted relation- tion of profit and social goals) shows that a large
ships (detailed more expansively in the appendix proportion of these social enterprises do not see
to this paper). Both our reasoning and our results themselves as such, and would not have been in-
suggest that ethnic group identity and high poverty cluded in a sample of purely self-identifying social
levels affect both self-perception and the choice of entrepreneurs. An exploration of what may lead to
activities to reflect a social mission. In contrast, this disconnection between self-perception and so-
colonial history influences self-perception as a social mission in the actual activities of the venture
cial enterprise but has no effect on the choice of across different environments is thus also likely to
activities on the ground. Informality has no signif- provide important insights. We believe that this
icant effect on either dimension. exploration is particularly important, as it has im-
We believe that this study, albeit exploratory in plications for the very definition of social entrepre-
nature, has several implications for social entrepreneurship. Although our goal is not to provide a new
neurship research and opens interesting avenues definition of the phenomenon, our reasoning and
for future studies. First, we underscore the impor- our findings suggest that scholars need to incorpo-
tance of contextual dimensions not only for the rate both self-perception (Lyon et al., 2010; Mair et
self-perception of social enterprises but also for al., 2012; Meyskens et al., 2010) and the choice of
their actual activities on the ground. In so doing, activities on the ground (Doherty et al., 2014; San-
we take a first step in responding to calls for a better tos, 2012) as two distinct dimensions of the defini-
understanding of the relationship between social tion of social entrepreneurship instead of focusing
enterprises and their environment (Bacq & Janssen, on one or the other.
Third, our exploratory analysis of sub-Saharan ses at the country or even community level can
African social enterprises not only helps to expand provide additional, and complementary, insights to
our knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa but also high- our sub-Saharan Africa–wide study.
lights the insights that African data can bring to the This study of the influence of predominantly Af-
social entrepreneurship literature, especially for rican contextual characteristics on social entrepre-
phenomena that are particularly prevalent in the neurship thus opens up several avenues for future
African context, such as poverty or informality research while illustrating the insights that African
(Bruton, 2010; Bruton, Ireland, & Ketchen, 2012). data can provide to management studies. Through
Perhaps reflecting the challenges associated with this exploratory research, we contend that African
data collection in Africa (Kolk & Lenfant, in press), data, although difficult to collect, may help relax
very few studies use multi-country African survey implicit contextual assumptions in our under-
data in the broader management literature. Our ap- standing of management, and we hope that this
proach may be insightful for other scholars pursu- study will encourage researchers to better integrate
ing empirical research in such nontraditional con- African insights into management theories.
texts. We adapted the data collection strategies to a
certain extent, to reflect the characteristics of such
environments, as recommended by several scholars REFERENCES
(Kriauciunas, Parmigiani, & Rivera-Santos, 2011) Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2000). The
(see the appendix for a discussion of details and colonial origins of comparative development: An
reflections on limitations). This empirical study, empirical investigation. Cambridge, MA: National
therefore, helps reinforce the argument that impor- Bureau of Economic Research.
tant insights can be gathered from African data and Akula, V. (2008). Business basics at the base of the pyr-
generates research that contributes to defining amid. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 53–57.
African contexts and identities (Zoogah, 2008; Alkire, S., Conconi, A., & Roche, J. M. (2012). Multidi-
Zoogah & Nkomo, 2013). Our exploratory results, mensional Poverty Index 2012: Brief methodological
for instance, underscore the importance of ethnic note and results. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford,
identification and traditional worldviews for social Department of International Development, Oxford
enterprises. Even though ethnic identification Poverty and Human Development Initiative.
may be more prevalent in Africa than in other Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social
parts of the world, and even though worldviews entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues
such as ubuntu (Mangaliso, 2001; West, 2014) based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entre-
may be specifically African, they can help inform preneurship and Regional Development, 23(5– 6),
future studies on the impact of cultural or ethnic 373– 403.
identification on management practices around Baldé, A., & Dayen, C. (2012). Thabo Mbeki: “The rela-
the world, and thus enrich our understanding of tionship between Africa and its ex-colonizers is ille-
the impact of institutional differences on man- gal!” Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.afrik-
agement (Peng et al., 2009). news.com/article19444.html
Beyond the insights that African data can pro- Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., & Holt, D. (2013). Sustainabil-
vide to management studies in general, this re- ity-related media coverage and socioeconomic de-
search also illustrates the need to better understand velopment: A regional and North–South perspective.
differences across developing country contexts, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Pol-
an extension of Julian and Ofori-Dankwa’s (2013) icy, 31(4), 716 –740.
Institutional Difference Hypothesis. This particular Bräutigam, D. A., & Knack, S. (2004). Foreign aid, insti-
study focuses on contextual dimensions that are tutions, and governance in sub-Saharan Africa. Eco-
prevalent across sub-Saharan Africa, but exploring nomic Development and Cultural Change, 52(2),
country-specific or even community-specific di- 255–285.
mensions is also likely to provide important in- Bruton, G. D. (2010). Business and the world’s poorest
sights. Ethnic identification, for instance, can be billion: The need for an expanded examination by
expected to have different implications for busi- management scholars. Academy of Management Per-
ness depending on whether the ethnic institutions spectives, 24(3), 6 –10.
are acephalous (decentralized) or monarchical Bruton, G. D., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2012).
(centralized) (Cheater, 2003; Rivera-Santos et al., Toward a research agenda on the informal economy.
2012). This suggests that more fine-grained analy- Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 1–11.
Cheater, A. P. (2003). Social anthropology. New York: Financial Times. (2013, May 6). Value creation, a sus-
Routledge/Taylor & Francis. tainable firm or venture philanthropy? Financial
Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepre- Times, p. 9.
neurship: A critical appraisal. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, Godfrey, P. C. (2011). Toward a theory of the informal
& K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. economy. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1),
34 –56). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 231–277.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship Gulyani, S., & Talukdar, D. (2010). Inside informality:
as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new The links between poverty, microenterprises, and
avenue for systematic future research. Journal of living conditions in Nairobi’s slums. World Develop-
Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376. ment, 38(12), 1710 –1726.
Coast, E. (2002). Maasai socioeconomic conditions: A Günther, I., & Launov, A. (2012). Informal employment in
cross-border comparison. Human Ecology, 30(1), developing countries: Opportunity or last resort?
79 –105. Journal of Development Economics, 97(1), 88 –98.
Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S., & Ruthven, O. Hearn, J. (2007). African NGOs: The new compradors?
(2009). Portfolios of the poor: How the world’s poor Development and Change, 38(6), 1095–1110.
live on $2 a day. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Compara-
tive lessons in authority and control. Princeton, NJ:
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Princeton University Press.
entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. ILO. (2012). Statistical update on employment in the
informal economy. Geneva, Switzerland: Interna-
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social
tional Labor Organization.
entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory
and how we move forward from here. Academy of International Monetary Fund. (2013). World economic
Management Perspectives, 24(3), 36 –56. outlook database. Retrieved from http://www.imf.
org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.
Das, P., & Samarasekera, U. (2012). The story of GBD
aspx
2010: A “super-human” effort. Lancet, 380(9859),
2067–2070. Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial
resource availability and corporate social responsi-
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in
bility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The
Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social En-
Institutional Difference Hypothesis. Strategic Man-
terprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.
agement Journal, 34(11), 1314 –1330.
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capital-
ism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Kamoche, K. N. (2000). Sociological paradigms and hu-
New York: Basic Books. man resources: An African context. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing
nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspec- Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States
tives in a changing world. Academy of Management and Europe: Understanding and learning from the
Perspectives, 26(3), 22–39. differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Vol-
untary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246 –
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enter- 262.
prises as hybrid organizations: A review and re-
search agenda. International Journal of Management Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (in press). Partnerships for peace
Reviews, 16(4), 417– 436. and development in fragile states: Identifying miss-
ing links. Academy of Management Perspectives.
Economist. (2011, December 3). The hopeful continent:
Africa rising. Retrieved from http://www.economist. Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufín, C. (2014). Review-
com/node/21541015 ing a decade of research on the “base/bottom of the
pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business and Society,
Economist. (2013, April 6). Investing in Africa: The hottest
53(3), 338 –377.
frontier. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/
news/finance-and-economics/21575769-strategies- Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business,
putting-money-work-fast-growing-continent-hottest corporate social responsibility, and sustainable de-
velopment. International Business Review, 19(2),
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2008). Corporate responsi-
bility: A review of international management re- 119 –125.
search from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Kotkin, J., & Cox, W. (2013, April 8). The world’s fastest-
Management, 14(4), 319 –339. growing megacities. Forbes. Available at http://
www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/08/the- shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics,

worlds-fastest-growing-megacities/ 111(3), 375–388.
Kriauciunas, A., Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. Njoku, R. C. (2006). African cultural values: Igbo political
(2011). Leaving our comfort zone: Integrating estab- leadership in colonial Nigeria, 1900 –1966. London,
lished practices with unique adaptations to conduct UK: Routledge.
survey-based strategy research in non-traditional Nunn, N., & Wantchekon, L. (2011). The slave trade and
contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 994 – the origins of mistrust in Africa. American Economic
1010. Review, 101(7), 3221–3252.
Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social enterprise and social inno- Nyambegera, S. M. (2002). Ethnicity and human resource
vation: Strategies for the next ten years. London: management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: The rel-
Cabinet Office of the Third Sector. evance of the managing diversity discourse. Interna-
Lehner, O. M., & Kansikas, J. (2013). Pre-paradigmatic tional Journal of Human Resource Management,
status of social entrepreneurship research: A system- 13(7), 1077–1090.
atic literature review. Journal of Social Entrepre- Ostien, P. (2007). Sharia implementation in northern
neurship, 4(2), 198 –219. Nigeria 1999 –2006: The Sharia penal and criminal
Lyon, F., Teasdale, S., & Baldock, R. (2010). Approaches procedure codes. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books.
to measuring the scale of the social enterprise sector Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. (2008). The language of
in the UK (Working Paper). Birmingham, UK: Uni- social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Re-
versity of Birmingham. gional Development, 20(3), 285–309.
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as
society: A typology of social entrepreneuring mod- change agents: A case study on power and authority
els. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373. in the water sector. International Environmental
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship re- Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 63–
search: A source of explanation, prediction, and de- 83.
light. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36 – 44. Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Eight paradoxes of the
Mangaliso, M. P. (2001). Building competitive advantage social enterprise research agenda. Social Enterprise
from ubuntu: Management lessons from South Af- Journal, 4(2), 91–107.
rica. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 23– Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009).
33. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strat-
egy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives,
McGahan, A. M. (2012). Challenges of the informal econ-
23(3), 63– 81.
omy for the field of management. Academy of Man-
agement Perspectives, 26(3), 12–21. Pless, N. M. (2012). Social entrepreneurship in theory
and practice—An introduction. Journal of Business
Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L.,
Ethics, 111(3), 317–320.
& Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a
resource-based perspective: An exploratory study as- Posner, D. N. (2005). Institutions and ethnic politics in
sessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661– 680. Rivera-Santos, M., Rufín, C., & Kolk, A. (2012). Bridging
Michalopoulos, S., & Papaioannou, E. (2012). National the institutional divide: Partnerships in subsistence
institutions and African development: Evidence markets. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1721–
from partitioned ethnicities. Cambridge, MA: Na- 1727.
tional Bureau of Economic Research. Robinson, A. L. (2009). National versus ethnic identity in
Michalopoulos, S., & Papaioannou, E. (2015). On the Africa: State, group, and individual level correlates
ethnic origins of African development: Traditional of national identification (Working Paper No. 112).
chiefs and precolonial political centralization. Acad- Afrobarometer.
emy of Management Perspectives, this issue. Rodney, W. (1981). How Europe underdeveloped Africa.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, Washington, DC: Howard University Press.
T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepre-
head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–
neurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 351.
616 – 640. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship:
Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Creating new business models to serve the poor.
Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246.
Simanis, E., & Hart, S. L. (2008). The base of the pyramid World Bank. (2014). GINI index. Washington, DC: Au-
protocol: Toward next generation BoP strategy (ver- thor. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/
sion 2.0). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for indicator/SI.POV.GINI/
Sustainable Global Enterprise. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman,
Stigand, C. H. (1915). A grammar of dialectic changes in J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Mo-
the Kiswahili language. Cambridge, UK: University tives, search processes and ethical challenges. Jour-
Press. nal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519 –532.
Subrahmanyan, S., & Gomez-Arias, J. T. (2008). Inte- Zoogah, D. B. (2008). African business research: A review
grated approach to understanding consumer behav- of studies published in the Journal of African Busi-
ior at bottom of pyramid. Journal of Consumer Mar- ness and a framework for enhancing future studies.
keting, 25(7), 402– 412. Journal of African Business, 9(1), 219 –255.
Trading Economics. (2013). DP growth in sub-Saharan Afri- Zoogah, D. B., & Nkomo, S. (2013). Management research
can. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ in Africa: Past, present and future possibilities. In T.
sub-saharan-africa/gdp-growth-annual-percent- Lituchy, B. Punnett, & B. Puplampu (Eds.), Manage-
wb-data.html ment in Africa: Macro and micro perspectives (pp.
9 –31). New York: Routledge.
Transparency International. (2012). Corruption percep-
tions index 2012. Berlin: Author. Retrieved from Zoogah, D. B., Peng, M. W., & Woldu, H. (2015). Institu-
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results tions, resources, and organizational effectiveness in
Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, this
UNDP. (2009). Human development report. New York: issue.
United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP. (2010). Human poverty index. New York: United
Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/understanding/
indices/hpi/
Diane Holt ([email protected]) is a senior lecturer in
Verschave, F.-X. (2003). Françafrique: Le plus long scan- management at Essex Business School at the University
dale de la République. Paris: Stock. of Essex, UK. Her research interests focus on business
Vision of Humanity. (2012). Global peace index. New models associated with sustainable development and
York: Institute for Economics and Peace. Retrieved poverty alleviation, especially within sub-Saharan Af-
from http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/ rica, as well as issues associated with sustainability top-
2010/GINI ics more broadly.
West, A. (2014). Ubuntu and business ethics: Problems, Ans Kolk ([email protected]) is a full professor at the Uni-
perspectives and prospects. Journal of Business Eth- versity of Amsterdam Business School in the Nether-
ics, 121(1), 47– 61. lands. Her research focuses on international business in
relation to societal topics, particularly poverty and de-
Whatley, W. C., & Gillezeau, R. (2011). The fundamental
velopment; partnerships; voluntary standard-setting, dis-
impact of the slave trade on African economies. In P.
closure, and accountability; and climate change and
Rhode, J. Rosenbloom, & D. Weiman (Eds.), Eco-
energy.
nomic evolution and revolution in historical time
(pp. 86 –110). Stanford, CA: Stanford University David Littlewood ([email protected]) is a lec-
Press. turer at the Henley Business School at the University of
World Bank. (2000). World development report 2000/ Reading, UK. His research interests include corporate
2001: Attacking poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer- social responsibility, sustainability, corporate reputation
management, and social entrepreneurship and innova-
sity Press.
tion, geographically focused on the developing world
World Bank. (2010). Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day and particularly sub-Saharan Africa.
(% of population). Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI. Miguel Rivera-Santos ([email protected]) is an asso-
POV.2DAY ciate professor of strategy and international business at
Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. His re-
World Bank. (2012). Doing business economy rankings. search examines the implications, for organizations and
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// communities, of bridging the gap between different insti-
www.doingbusiness.org/rankings tutional contexts, especially in the context of subsistence
World Bank. (2013). GDP growth (annual %) data. Wash- markets.
ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
APPENDIX ing activity; non-profit-maximizing approaches to busi-

In this appendix, we provide more detail on the em- ness; participatory decision-making and governance; in-
pirical study conducted to test the relationships pre- novation in addressing a social need; and profits or
dicted in the paper. Our reasoning suggested that we surpluses reinvested in the business or for social pur-
could expect four contextual dimensions to have an in- poses. We looked for evidence of one, some, or all of
fluence on social entrepreneurship, and thereby provide these traits in publicly available information (in this
specifically African insights into our understanding of case, the Internet) about the organizations. The specific
social entrepreneurship. This leads to four exploratory strategy we adopted in online data searching involved
hypotheses on the effect of sub-Saharan African contexts keyword searches for particular countries or sectors (e.g.,
on social entrepreneurship: “green business South Africa”), and we used online da-
H1: Higher levels of poverty will increase the probabil- tabases and alternative business directories such as re-
ity of a venture’s self-perception as a social enter- gional organic associations or membership information
prise and an emphasis on its social mission in its for social enterprise networks such as the African Social
activities, ceteris paribus. Entrepreneurs Network (ASEN). Finally, we accessed
available resources and data from national governments
H2: Higher levels of informality should not directly
and international institutions.
influence the probability of a venture’s self-per-
ception as a social enterprise and an emphasis on Once a potential social enterprise from one of the 19
its social mission in its activities, ceteris paribus. sub-Saharan countries was identified, a record was made
of its contact details (e.g., e-mail accounts, telephone
H3: Having a British colonial history will decrease the numbers, or postal addresses) and areas of activity. In
probability of a venture’s self-perception as a so- total, we found information for more than 3,900 potential
cial enterprise and an emphasis on its social mis- social enterprises, detailed in full in the enterprise direc-
sion in its activities, ceteris paribus.
tory hosted on the Trickle Out Africa Web site. Social
H4: Higher levels of ethnic group identification will networks and press releases were also used to facilitate
increase the probability of a venture’s self-per- dissemination about the project aims, and included links
ception as a social enterprise and an emphasis to the self-registration process for the online directory.
on its social mission in its activities, ceteris pa- The overall approach adopted in identifying potential
ribus. social enterprises reflects the dearth of information about
The next sections present the sample, data collection, these kinds of enterprises in Africa, and the fact that
variables and measures, the empirical tests and results, there are few if any databases of such enterprises for most
and discussion of the limitations. if not all the countries considered. Social enterprises also
exist in a myriad of country- and context-specific legal
forms, which would problematize any attempt to ap-
Sample Selection and Data Collection proach all organizations with a particular legal status
To test the exploratory hypotheses developed in the (e.g., nonprofit/not-for-profit), even if up-to-date infor-
paper, we built a sample of social enterprises active in mation on these types of organizations existed, was ac-
Southern and Eastern Africa. The data for this study were cessible, and included contact details.
collected as part of the Trickle Out Africa research proj- We then contacted the enterprises in our dataset to
ect, a research project examining social enterprises and verify their details in the free enterprise directory, with a
environmental enterprises (hereafter labeled as social en- request to also participate in the research. Organizations
terprises) in Eastern and Southern Africa and their po- were contacted principally through e-mail with a link to
tential role in sustainable development and poverty alle- the registration/verification process for the directory
viation. This is an ongoing project founded and managed with an embedded link to an online questionnaire, but
by Holt and Littlewood, initiated in 2011. In the first also in some instances were initially contacted by tele-
stage of this project, relevant enterprises, support agen- phone. A project overview and introductory document
cies, NGOs, and other nonprofit entities were identified informed participants about the nature of the research,
through an exhaustive Internet search undertaken by the explained their rights in participation, and outlined
research team. From this initial directory of examples an the benefits of participation, including entry into a prize
online survey was conducted with social enterprises drawing and more detail on their inclusion in the Trickle
across the 19 countries in the Southern African Develop- Out Directory of social enterprises hosted on the project
ment Community (SADC) and the East African Commu- Web site. A number of additional filters were applied
nity (EAC). As a framework guiding this search, we iden- within the registration/verification process, including
tified several social enterprise characteristics, drawing that enterprises had to be operating in at least one of 19
on definitions and understandings in the antecedent lit- countries comprising the member states of the SADC and
erature and among practitioner organizations. These EAC, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, the Democratic Repub-
included the presence of a social, environmental, or lic of the Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi,
broader ethical mission; income generation through trad- Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, the Sey-
chelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, TABLE 1

Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In the initial registration partic- An Overview of Respondents
ipants were also asked to verify that they engaged in Distribution by country Distribution by category
some form of trading activity and whether they had a
social and/or environmental mission, thereby reflecting Distribution by age
Angola 3 3 years or less 62
the general agreement in the literature that social enter-
Botswana 10 4–10 years 159
prises are characterized by a combination of economic Burundi 1 10 years or more 106
and social goals. Enterprises that did not meet these DRC 4 Distribution by self-perception
Kenya 104 For-profit enterprise 168
criteria could not complete the questionnaire. The unit of
Lesotho 9 Social enterprise 139
analysis in this study is therefore the social enterprise Madagascar 10 Distribution by size
rather than its founder or leader, and the questionnaire Malawi 18 Small (2–50) 94
Mauritius 4 Medium (51–500) 123
was completed by top managers or owners to ensure a
Mozambique 7 Large (over 500) 18
broad and comprehensive knowledge of their venture’s Namibia 5 Distribution by activity
activities and organization. Rwanda 9 Sales-focused activity 204
Seychelles 1 Knowledge transfer–focused activity 180
The themes addressed in the survey were relatively South Africa 113
broad, reflecting our aim of addressing some of the Swaziland 3
gaps in knowledge about these kinds of enterprises in Tanzania 23
Uganda 23
Africa. They included, among others, questions on Zambia 13
funding regimes, business models and structures, ven- Zimbabwe 15
ture start-up, customers, decision making, and profit Worldwide 9
distribution. The questionnaire was piloted using a
Note: Different total numbers in each category reflect respon-
sample of respondents. The questions were mostly cat-
dents in multiple categories and missing data for some variables.
egorical or scale measures, with some free text sections
including a section where enterprises described their
business and market to give us a more nuanced view of Empirical Strategy
their operations. English, French, Portuguese, Kiswa-
hili, and Afrikaans versions of the questionnaire were The exploratory hypotheses suggest that an African
created to encourage participation; these are all official country’s poverty levels, informality, colonial history,
national languages in at least two of the 19 countries and strength of ethnic identities are likely to influence its
examined, and are major languages spoken across East- social ventures’ self-perception as social enterprises and
ern and Southern Africa. In total, we collected 400 their choice of activities. We measure these different
responses; this number was reduced to 384 after we concepts through variables constructed from question-
removed questionnaires that did not allow enough in- naire items and from external sources, thereby reducing
formation to classify the nature of the enterprise or potential issues related to single-method bias. Table 3
did not include the name of the organization or busi- describes each variable in detail.
ness (summarized in Table 1). We constructed three dependent dichotomous vari-
In addition to the data collected through the survey, ables to capture self-perception as a social enterprise and
each top manager or owner responding to the question- the social mission, based on questionnaire data collected
through the survey: self-perception as a social enterprise
naire verified the name of the organization and the con-
and choice of activities. One variable captures self-per-
tact details, and provided a free text description for the
ception as a social enterprise, but we included two di-
publicly available directory. This text was examined for
mensions for the choice of activities: the specific target-
each enterprise to determine the precise nature of their
ing of the poor and the choice to include the community
activity. Data provided on self-perception as a nonprofit,
in decision making, thereby incorporating both the busi-
cooperative, social enterprise, and/or environmental ness model and the organizational processes in the mea-
(green) enterprise, and on funding regimes, alongside the sure of social mission. Through these three dependent
free text, was used to code the type of enterprises. Data variables, we therefore capture not only the self-percep-
were confirmed, where possible, through the Web ad- tion of being a social enterprise but also the social mis-
dress details and secondary data available from the orig- sion of the enterprise, two typical proxies for the defini-
inal online scanning exercise, including Web sites, news- tion of social entrepreneurship in the literature (Doherty
paper reports, and blog posts. et al., 2014; Lyon et al., 2010; Mair et al., 2012; Meyskens
Complementing the data collected through the survey, et al., 2010; Santos, 2012). Because our reasoning sug-
we gathered country-wide economic and institutional gests that we should expect different determinants of
data from a variety of external sources. These sources self-perception and of social mission, as seen through the
included the Afrobarometer, the World Bank, UNECA, actual activities of the venture in the sub-Saharan Afri-
Transparency International, and the United Nations De- can context, it is important to disentangle these two
velopment Program (summarized in Table 2). dimensions into three different constructs.
TABLE 2
An Overview of National Environments
Ease of doing
business World Bank income Colonial power
Country HDI rank rank status GDP/capita Corruption rank (1914) Independence
Angola Low 172 Upper middle 5,485 very high Portugal 1975
Botswana Medium 59 Upper middle 7,191 low UK 1966
Burundi Low 159 Low income 251 very high Germany 1962
DRC Low 181 Low income 272 very high Belgium 1960
Kenya Low 121 Low income 862 very high UK 1963
Lesotho Low 136 Lower middle 1,193 low/med. UK 1966
Madagascar Low 142 Low income 447 med./high France 1960
Malawi Low 157 Low income 268 low/med. UK 1964
Mauritius High 19 Upper middle 8,124 low France 1968
Mozambique Low 146 Low income 579 med./high Portugal 1975
Namibia Medium 87 Upper middle 5,668 very high Germany 1990
Rwanda Low 52 Low income 620 very high Germany 1962
Seychelles High 74 Upper middle 11,758 low/med. UK 1976
South Africa Medium 39 Upper middle 7,508 low/med. UK 1910
Swaziland Medium 123 Lower middle 3,044 low/med. UK 1968
Tanzania Low 134 Low income 609 med./high Germany 1961
Uganda Low 120 Low income 547 med./high Germany 1962
Zambia Low 94 Lower middle 1469 low/med. UK 1964
Zimbabwe Low 172 Low income 788 very high UK 1980
Note: Sources from the World Bank, United Nations, Ease of Doing Business Reports, and Transparency International.
We constructed four independent variables to capture we used data from the Afrobarometer surveys to measure
the contextual dimensions in sub-Saharan Africa through the strength of ethnic group identities in a given country
secondary sources. The measure for the level of poverty (Robinson, 2009).
was imported from the multidimensional Human Pov- We used items from our survey to control for the size
erty Index (HPI) calculations of the United Nations De- of the venture, the age of the venture, and the venture
velopment Program (UNDP, 2010). The UNDP replaced activity, which we coded as a dichotomous variable re-
the HPI in 2010 with a new measure of poverty, the flecting the venture’s focus on selling a product or ser-
Multidimensional Poverty Index (Alkire, Conconi, & vice versus transferring knowledge, training, or consult-
Roche, 2012). The new index, however, is available for ing, as these represent two very different types of social
only a subset of African countries, leading us to opt for business models.
the older HPI as our measure of poverty. Given the binomial nature of the dependent variables,
Measuring informality is a particularly arduous task, we opted for a binary logistic regression, using the PROC
due to the inherently hidden nature of the concept being LOGISTIC procedure in SAS 9.3, to test our exploratory
measured (Godfrey, 2011). Existing measures of infor- hypotheses. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics
mality through employment (e.g., ILO, 2012) could not be and correlations for our variables. From the correlation
used due to a lack of data for many African countries, so table, it is interesting to note that, although our three
we opted for a novel approach. We built a scale using dependent variables are correlated, the correlation levels
nine items from various Afrobarometer surveys that are (0.53***, 0.30***, and 0.19 respectively) suggest the ex-
all related to the respondent’s opinion around the avoid- istence of three different constructs. These results high-
ance of taxes, aiming to capture a country’s general feel- light the need for researchers to be careful when using
ing about taxation and, as a consequence, about the for- self-identification as a proxy for social entrepreneurship,
mal economy. Given a high Cronbach’s alpha (0.78) for as significant differences seem to exist between percep-
the scale, we could extract the main underlying factor, tion and reality in this case.
which we used as a measure of informality in our
models.
The nationality of the country’s ex-colonizer was Results
coded as a dichotomous variable, corresponding to
whether the region was under British rule on one hand, The results of the models are presented in Table 5.
or under German, Belgian, Portuguese, or French rule on Model 1 predicts the probability of the venture’s self-
the other, in 1914. While the latter countries varied in perception as a social enterprise. The fit indices suggest
their colonial approaches, the literature suggests that the that the model fits the data well, and the model supports
British Empire, in particular through its focus on indirect the predictions of our exploratory hypotheses. A coun-
rule, stands apart from the others (Herbst, 2000), thereby try’s higher poverty level significantly increases the
justifying the creation of a dichotomous variable. Finally, probability that social ventures will view themselves as
TABLE 3
Variables and Measures
Variable Type Construction
Self-perception as a social enterprise Dichotomous Survey item: “We are a social enterprise that is part funded by the monies
we generate from our goods and services, or from donor funds.” (0 ⫽
not a social enterprise/1 ⫽ social enterprise)
Specific targeting of the poor Dichotomous Survey item: “Describe your customers.” (Responses coded as 0 ⫽ no
specific targeting of the poor and disenfranchised/1 ⫽ specific targeting
of the poor and disenfranchised)
Inclusion of the community in important Dichotomous Survey item: “Who makes the most important business decisions or those
decisions for the future for this organisation?” (Responses coded 0 ⫽ internal/1 ⫽
inclusion of community and stakeholders)
Human Poverty Index Continuous Multidimensional index by the United Nations Development Program
British colonization Dichotomous Coding of colonial situation in 1914 (0 ⫽ German, Belgian, Portuguese, or
French rule / 1 ⫽ British rule)
Ethnic identity Continuous Afrobarometer survey item: “Let us suppose that you had to choose
between being a [Ghanaian] and being a [R’s Ethnic Group]. Which of
the following best expresses your feelings?”
Informality Continuous Factor extracted from the following Afrobarometer survey items
(Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ 0.78):
● “In your opinion, how often, in this country: Do people avoid paying
the taxes that they owe the government?”
●“Here is a list of actions that people sometimes take as citizens. For
each of these, please tell me whether you, personally, have done any of
these things during the past year. If not, would you do this if you had
the chance: Refused to pay a tax or fee to government?”
● “I am now going to ask you about a range of different actions that
some people take. For each of the following, please tell me whether
you think the action is not wrong at all, wrong but understandable, or
wrong and punishable: Not paying the taxes they owe on their
income?”
● “For each of the following statements, please tell me whether you
disagree or agree: The police always have the right to make people obey
the law.”
● “For each of the following statements, please tell me whether you
disagree or agree: The tax authorities always have the right to make
people pay taxes.”
● “Regardless of whether you are able to pay them, are you required to
pay each of the following, or haven’t you been able to find out about
this: License fees to local government, for example, for a bicycle, cart,
business or market stall?”
this: Property rates or taxes?”
this: If you have paid employment, are you required to pay an income
tax, that is, a tax deducted from your wages by your employer?”
this: If you are self-employed, are you required to pay a tax on the
earnings from your business or job?”
Size of the enterprise Scale Survey item asking for the number of people working in the organization,
coded into three categories (1 ⫽ low/3 ⫽ high)
Age of the enterprise Scale Survey item asking for the age of the organization, coded into three
categories (1 ⫽ low/3 ⫽ high)
Venture’s sales- vs. knowledge transfer- Dichotomous Survey item asking about the activities of the organization, coded into a
focused activity dichotomous variable (0 ⫽ activities focused on sale of product or
service/1 ⫽ activities focused on knowledge transfer, training, and
consulting)
social enterprises (0.10, p ⬍ .10), informality does not A country’s higher poverty level significantly increases
have a significant impact (⫺0.09, n.s.), British coloniza- the probability that social ventures will specifically tar-
tion reduces this probability (⫺2.25, p ⬍ .01), and strong get the poor in their business models (0.08, p ⬍ .05), and
ethnic group identities increase this probability (0.30, strong ethnic group identities also increase this probabil-
p ⬍ .05), when controlled for size, age, and the activity of ity (0.30, p ⬍ .01), when controlled for size, age, and the
the social venture. activity of the social venture, while informality and Brit-
Model 2 predicts the probability that the venture spe- ish colonization show no significant impact (0.24, n.s.,
cifically targets poor or marginalized populations in their and ⫺0.25, n.s., respectively).
business models, our first measure of the choice of activ- Finally, model 3 predicts the probability that the ven-
ities reflecting a social mission. In this case the fit indices ture includes the community in its decision making. The
suggest that the model also fits the data well and that it fit indices suggest that the model fits the data well, and
supports the predictions of our exploratory hypotheses. the model supports the predictions of our exploratory
TABLE 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Table
Variable N Mean Min Max SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Self-perception as a 307 0.45 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

social enterprise
2. Specific targeting 384 0.41 0.00 1.00 0.49 0.53*** 1.00
of the poor
3. Inclusion of the community 239 0.30 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.30*** 0.19 1.00
in important decisions
4. Human Poverty Index 374 28.79 9.50 46.80 4.80 0.19*** 0.20*** 0.14** 1.00
5. British colonization 375 0.82 0.00 1.00 0.38 ⫺0.25*** ⫺0.08 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.21*** 1.00
6. Ethnic identity 355 8.43 3.00 14.00 2.33 0.03 0.14** 0.14** 0.06 0.29*** 1.00
7. Informality 358 0.00 ⫺0.87 2.21 1.00 0.16** 0.23*** 0.11 0.24*** ⫺0.16*** 0.10* 1.00
8. Size of the venture 235 1.68 1.00 3.00 0.61 0.20*** 0.26*** 0.12* 0.08 ⫺0.05 0.01 0.21*** 1.00
9. Age of the venture 327 2.13 1.00 3.00 0.71 ⫺0.03 0.06 ⫺0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 ⫺0.03 0.28*** 1.00
10. Venture’s sales- vs. knowledge 384 0.47 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.13** 0.29*** 0.08 0.05 0.01 ⫺0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 1.00
transfer-focused activity
Significance levels: *** ⫽ ⬍ .01 / ** ⫽ ⬍ .05 / * ⫽ ⬍ .1.
hypotheses. A country’s higher poverty level signifi- Limitations

cantly increases the probability that social ventures will
Of course, this exploratory study, like any academic
include the community in their decision making (0.08,
p ⬍ .10), and strong ethnic group identities also increase endeavor, has limitations. In particular, the approach
this probability (0.20, p ⬍ .01), when controlled for in- adopted in this research reflects its exploratory nature,
formality, size, age, and the activity of the social venture, and, more generally, the difficulty associated with col-
while informality and British colonization show no sig- lecting data on African firms. Constraining factors in-
nificant impact (0.01, n.s., and ⫺0.64, n.s., respectively). cluded the absence of comprehensive, up-to-date, and
Interestingly, our results suggest that informality readily available datasets and the difficulty of visiting
does not significantly affect self-perception or the choice potential social enterprises in 19 countries character-
of activities of the venture, as predicted, although cau- ized by poor infrastructure. As a result, we adapted the
tion is needed when interpreting this result, given the data-collection strategies to a certain extent to reflect
inherently difficult task of measuring informality and our the characteristics of a nontraditional environment, as
novel multi-item operationalization. recommended by several scholars (Kriauciunas et
Among control variables, both the fact that the venture al., 2011).
has an activity that focuses on knowledge transfer and Our approach may be insightful for other scholars
training (as opposed to sales) and the size of the venture pursuing empirical research in such contexts.
have a significant and positive effect on the three dimen- First, we made efforts to disseminate information
sions of social entrepreneurship (albeit with variations in about the research and participation in the survey be-
significance levels). yond online forums and through e-mails, to reach a
TABLE 5
Binomial Logistic Regression Models
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
DV ⴝ Self-perception as a DV ⴝ Business model that specifically DV ⴝ Inclusion of the community
social enterprise targets the poor in decision-making
Intercept ⫺3.83** ⫺6.18*** ⫺4.99***

Level of poverty 0.10* 0.08** 0.08*
Informality ⫺0.09 0.24 0.01
British colonization ⫺2.25*** ⫺0.25 ⫺0.64
Ethnic identity 0.30** 0.20*** 0.20***
Size of the venture 0.88** 1.05*** 0.54
Age of the venture ⫺0.54* ⫺0.10 ⫺0.12
Venture’s sales- vs. knowledge 0.88** 1.40*** 0.29
transfer-focused activity
LR 34.72*** 59.80*** 20.21***
Score 29.43*** 53.37*** 20.67***
Wald chi-square (df) 23.29***(7) 41.75***(7) 16.33** (7)
Significance levels: ***⫽⬍.01 / **⫽⬍.05 / *⫽⬍.1.

broader set of potential respondents. Advertisements due to access to respondents and, more generally, the
were placed in national and regional newspapers, for quality of infrastructure. As a result, it was easier to
instance, and phone calls were made to potential par- collect data in Kenya and South Africa than in unstable
ticipants in Kenya and South Africa, while the project and often post-conflict countries such as Angola, Bu-
was also publicized on radio and through interaction rundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kolk &
with regional academic and practitioner networks. Lenfant, 2015). Similarly, language barriers can pose a
This approach helped to reduce, albeit not completely, challenge when collecting data in sub-Saharan Africa,
the bias toward larger, more formal, urban-based, and and it was not possible to provide a translated version of
internationally connected social enterprises that re- the questionnaire for all languages spoken across the
sults from an Internet-based instrument. Nevertheless, region. Furthermore, certain languages have positive or
the representation of small and micro social enter- negative connotations, adding another layer of com-
prises, such as those often operating in rural areas and plexity. For example, in the eastern part of the Demo-
on the edges of, or fully within, the informal economy, cratic Republic of the Congo, certain versions of
may be limited for some countries. Such enterprises Kiswahili have been associated with the language of
are an important component in the landscape of social slave traders for a long time (Stigand, 1915) and can
entrepreneurship in Africa and require further atten- lead to biased responses even if the researcher speaks
tion in future research. the language. Future research in the area may benefit
Second, collecting data in several African countries from deeper collaborations with local scholars who
inevitably leads to uneven coverage among countries, have a better understanding of these nuances.

205475-AMP Rivera 201502

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

205475-AMP Rivera 201502

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

205475-AMP Rivera 201502

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa

Miguel Rivera-Santos, Diane Holt, David Littlewood, Ans Kolk

To cite this version:

HAL Id: hal-02276715

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

Responding to calls for a better understanding of the relationship between social

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are es- THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUB-SAHARAN

www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/04/08/the- shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics,

APPENDIX ing activity; non-profit-maximizing approaches to busi-

chelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, TABLE 1

1. Self-perception as a 307 0.45 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

Significance levels: * ⫽ ⬍ .01 / ⫽ ⬍ .05 / * ⫽ ⬍ .1.

hypotheses. A country’s higher poverty level signifi- Limitations

Intercept ⫺3.83 ⫺6.18* ⫺4.99***

Significance levels: ⫽⬍.01 / ⫽⬍.05 / ⫽⬍.1.

You might also like